Posts tagged interest
JonBenet Ramsey’s murder front burner
Oct 24th
One of the most notorious unsolved murders in Boulder, not to mention U.S. history, has recently been moved to the front burner, at least for the time being.
On Dec.26, 1996, six-year-old JonBenet Ramsey was found murdered in an obscure basement room in her family home in the University Hill neighborhood. She had been sexually assaulted, then strangled with a garrote.
Due to the fact that JonBenet was a child beauty-pageant star, the case captured the world’s interest and spawned nearly unprecedented media coverage for several years, never going completely away.
The case began as a suspected kidnapping due to an oddly written ransom note, which demanded $118,000 for her safe return. Late in the day, John Ramsey discovered her body and brought it upstairs to a roomful of shocked police officers and Ramsey family friends.
In the course of the investigation, District Attorney Alex Hunter empaneled a grand jury in 1999 to consider the case. The grand jury handed down indictments of JonBenet’s parents—John and Patsy Ramsey—but the indictments were never reported until the Daily Camera published a story earlier this year quoting members of the grand jury saying it had indicted the couple for child abuse resulting in death.
Hunter was quoted as saying he had declined to prosecute the Ramseys at that time because he didn’t believe he could prove the case “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Daily Camera reporter Charlie Brennan and a group known as the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press filed a lawsuit in Boulder District Court in September, claiming:
“The plaintiffs believe… that the indictment is a criminal justice record that reflects official action by the grand jury, and accordingly that it is subject to mandatory disclosure upon request.” Brennan and the RCFP also argue that the indictment should be made public in the interest of government transparency.
The Boulder DA’s office said unsealing the indictment would be “breach of promise” to the jury, citing the importance of maintaining the integrity of grand jury secrecy.
But last week, Weld County Judge Robert Lowenbach, the judge hearing the lawsuit by Brennan and RCFP, ruled that current Boulder District Attorney Stan Garnett must show why the indictment must remain secret.
Not surprisingly, John Ramsey opposes the move unless the entire Grand Jury records are released.
Whatever the grand jury transcripts might show, in 2008, then District Attorney Mary Lacy declared that new DNA technology proved the Ramseys innocent of any wrongdoing.
The genetic material matches came from a drop of blood found on JonBenet’s underwear early in the investigation. The authorities determined then that the blood was not from a member of the Ramsey family but could not say whether it came from the killer.
In 2006, Lacy’s office announced the arrest of John Karr , after several months of investigation. But Karr’s DNA did not match, and less than two weeks later Lacy announced that he was no longer a suspect.
Hal Haddon and Bryan Morgan, attorneys who represent John Ramsey said in a letter to the Camera: “Public release of the allegations of an un-prosecuted indictment only serves to further defame (John Ramsey) and his late wife Patricia. Mr. Ramsey will have no access to whatever evidence the prosecutors presented to the grand jury and will have no ability to disprove those allegations in a court of law. Nor will the public have any ability to evaluate the propriety of the indictment unless the entire grand jury record is unsealed and opened to public view.”
From the beginning, investigators believed someone in the household was responsible, citing the lack of evidence of a break in, the complex layout of the house, the amount of time it took to write the two, 400 +/-word ransom-demand letters and similarities to Patsy’s hand writing. But a key detective, Lt. John Eller, who was the ranking investigator, would not press the Ramseys to be interrogated separately; insisting that the parents were victims, not suspects.
Under pressure, Patsy finally provided writing samples but a forensic handwriting expert ruled that, while very similar, the writing in the sample did not rise to the legal standard required to determine it was hers.
On Wednesday, the judge ordered the grand jury record to be released.
BC1 Editor Ron Baird covered the JonBenet Ramsey investigation for the Colorado Daily, when it was a real newspaper.
[includeme src=”http://c1n.tv/boulder/media/bouldersponsors.html” frameborder=”0″ width=”670″ height=”300″]
Boulder police: Officer’s Shameful Mapleton Neighborhood Pet Elk Shooting – Executive Summary
Mar 27th
FULL REPORT SEE HERE:
Some names have been redacted to protect department members’ personnel privacy rights. Investigative
reports on personnel matters are typically not made public. The decision to release this report
was made in the interest of transparency (to the degree possible) and due to the already public
nature of the incident, the degree of public concern expressed over the incident, and the fact that both officers are no longer with the departmentOn January 1, 2013, at approximately 2255 hours, Officer Sam Carter shot and killed an elk with
police issued shotgun on the corner of 9th and Mapleton while on duty. Officer Carter had
made prior arrangements with off duty Officer Brent Curnow to assist him in loading the elk in
Curnow’s truck for later processing. Officer Carter made no attempt to report that he had
discharged his shotgun or that he had killed the elk. (Officers sometimes have to euthanize
injured animals to prevent further suffering.) Officer Carter did not notify a supervisor, dispatch,
or file any reports about the incident.
On the morning of January 2nd, the department began to receive media inquiries about the killing
of the elk. The department had no knowledge of any officer involvement in the killing at that
time. The department continued to follow-up on reports that an elk had been killed by a Boulder
officer and learned on the evening of January 2nd that Sam Carter had killed the elk. The
department then began a preliminary internal investigation to determine the circumstances and
why Carter did not report the shooting to anyone. As information was developed, it became
obvious that there were serious questions around the circumstances of the shooting and the
actions of the officers involved.
On January 3rd, a formal Internal Affairs Investigation (IA) was initiated against Officers Carter
and Curnow (see attached complaints officially filed January 4th). Both officers were placed on
administrative leave pending the outcome of the investigation. At about the same time, a
criminal investigation was initiated by the Colorado Division of Parks and Wildlife (CPW).
While information was shared with CPW, the investigations remained separate and distinct. The
goal of the department’s IA investigation was to determine whether Officers Carter and Curnow
had violated any department rules and/or policies. The criminal investigation was left to CPW
and eventually forwarded to the Boulder County District Attorney’s Office. We did not conduct
a personnel investigation into the actions of Deputy Jeff George. That responsibility fell to his
employer, the Boulder County Sheriff’s Office.
On January 18th Officers Carter and Curnow were arrested and charged with multiple offenses
related to the elk shooting. On the same date, both officers were placed on leave without pay and
given appointments to report to the police department for their formal IA interviews on January BOULDER POLICE DEPARTMENT
Report 2/37
21st. Rather than appear for their interviews as scheduled, their attorney Marc Colin appeared
and announced that both officers would resign effective January 22nd. Boulder Police continued to investigate to determine the facts and whether other employees were potentially involved. The department did not find any other violations of rules or policies by any other employees. Some employees had overheard statements by Carter and or Curnow about
wanting to get the elk, or shoot the elk. However, the context in which these statements were
made did not lead those employees to believe either officer would illegally or without
justification shoot the elk. Both officers were hunters, as were other members of the department,
and would often talk about hunting, so this type of conversation did not seem alarming. Often,
job related joking occurs at briefings to start the day, so it is not unusual to hear officers make
statements in jest. As one officer put it, Carter was always making brash statements in briefing
but never did any of the things he joked about. No one took him literally when he said he
wanted to kill the elk. Officer Curnow also reportedly teased a Sergeant about putting the elk
down as he knew that Sergeant was an animal lover.
The elk in question had been around Boulder for many months and was admired by many
officers. Some officers even took pictures of the elk due to its size and beauty. After the
shooting, the officers who worked with Carter and Curnow were shocked, disappointed, and
angry that they would do such a thing.
All of the information gathered during the investigation was provided to supervisors and the
department’s 12 member IA Review Panel, (six community members and six department
members). All reviewers were unanimous in recommending the allegations against Carter and
Curnow be sustained. Chief of Police Mark Beckner agreed with these recommendations and
entered a sustained finding in the personnel files of both Carter and Curnow.
None of the reviewers or panel members believed any disciplinary action was appropriate for any
other officer. The Chief of Police also asked specifically for feedback from supervisors and the
IA Review Panel in regards to some decision making on the part of two other officers. One
involved a post on a Facebook page about the elk and the other involved being more timely in
letting the department know of Carter’s involvement. The consensus feedback was that both
situations were best handled as learning experiences to be addressed through documented
counseling with supervisors. The Chief accepted this recommendation.