CHAPTER 12
INTERVIEWS, FORMAL INTERVIEWS AND INTERROGATIONS AND WHY THEY MATTER
Labeled as an interview when it was an interrogation. The two words were used interchangeably by Boulder Police and the Boulder County District Attorney.
THE RUMORS, SPECULATION AND OPINIONS from those who knew and didn’t know what had happened emerged like lightning strikes in a fierce Rocky Mountain storm. So much was developing suddenly, from so many different directions, and with it misinformation deliberately leaked to the media.
MONDAY, DECEMBER 30, 1996:
According to their own records, police had interviewed Patsy and John multiple times since the murder. Yet that Monday, four days after JonBenét’s body had been found, the Rocky Mountain News and the Daily Camera published inaccurate stories based on false information provided by a Boulder Police Department spokeswoman.
… Police, however, have not interviewed JonBenét’s parents, John and Patricia Ramsey. They’re still grief-stricken. They’re not in any condition to be interviewed, Police Department Spokeswoman Leslie Aaholm said.
(Rocky Mountain News, December 30, 1996.)
They have been in no condition to be interviewed up to this point, she [Boulder Police Department Spokeswoman Leslie Aaholm] said.
(Daily Camera, December 30, 1996.)
It was the beginning of a pattern through which most media outlets accepted the word of Boulder Police Department officials without verifying information with the Ramseys or their attorneys. Verifying and double-checking information at that time in the investigation was a difficult thing to do, several reporters who covered the case said. John Ramsey’s attorney, Bryan Morgan, “wasn’t talking because it was an active investigation,” according to one reporter. The Ramseys were also surrounded and protected by their friends. Patsy later recalled, “We hadn’t even thought about talking publicly. We were just trying to survive each minute.”
With regard to the Ramseys’ interactions with the Boulder Police Department, it is important to differentiate between what exactly a police interview involves and how it differs from a formal interview or an interrogation conducted by police. All of these terms—interview, formal interview and interrogation—were used frequently with regard to the Ramsey murder investigation, further contributing to the confusion surrounding the case.
“An interview is a non-accusatory question and answer session with a suspect, victims or witness. The goal of an interview is to gather information.”1 The Ramseys were interviewed several times in the first few days of the investigation by Boulder Police Department investigators.
An “interview” is also a way to gather any information, including behavior, that can be analyzed during and after the interview. According to widely used police protocol, the BPD did “interview” the Ramseys, multiple times, during the first few days of the investigation.
“A formal interview means the investigator’s demeanor is nonaccusatory and non-judgmental, the interview is conducted in a controlled environment, and the primary interview questions are prepared ahead of time.”2 The “formal interview” reference was used by the Boulder Police Chief in his first news conference in January 1997, when he stated that the family had not been “formally interviewed.” But the word used by BPD Spokeswoman Leslie Aaholm on December 30 had been “interviewed.” There was a lot of disagreement going on within the Boulder Police Department related to this investigation and how they wanted to present it, but deliberate leaking to the media seemed the winner.
“The purpose of an interrogation is to elicit the truth from a person whom the investigator believes has lied during an interview.”3 The Ramseys were separately “interrogated” by Boulder Police Department officials multiple times beginning in April 1997.
If reporters had been able to check police records, they would have found the following:
• Thursday, December 26, Morning: The officers and two detectives on the scene interviewed Patsy and John periodically and observed them constantly while they were in the Ramsey home. Their interviews were not tape-recorded that morning, because the only tape recorder the detectives had was attached to the home phone in anticipation of the expected ransom call. Officer French, Sergeant Reichenbach, Detective Patterson, Detective Arndt and Commander-Sergeant Whitson all confirmed in their police reports that they spoke with and observed the Ramseys while in the home that day.
• Thursday, December 26, Mid-Morning: Detective Patterson also interviewed Burke Ramsey, the Ramseys’ nine-year-old son, at a friend’s home, where he had been taken. Burke’s words were recorded. Most major police departments have a child expert on stand-by in case a child needs to be interviewed. The Boulder Police Department, however, did not. Whether such an interview is conducted by a child expert or not, the child usually needs to be interviewed as soon as possible because of memory issues. Burke’s interview that day was conducted by BPD Detective Fred Patterson without his parents’ permission. Yet Detective Patterson’s interview and written report listed someone unrelated to the Ramsey family as Burke’s grandmother, which was not true. It is not known if Detective Patterson had specifically directed this person to pretend she was Burke’s grandmother when she was not or why this was done.
Parental permission is usually obtained in order to help build trust and rapport with the family. It would have caused a problem for the Boulder Police Department, however, if Patsy and John had said no, as was their right, because it would have affected BPD’s information gathering.
As part of that interview, Detective Patterson asked Burke about discipline in his family. The boy’s response was recorded in another officer’s report:
“John and Patsy Ramsey disciplined each of their children by talking to them … Burke said there had been no family arguments prior to, nor on, December 25.” (Detective Linda Arndt—Date of Report 1-8-1997.)
• Thursday, December 26, Early Afternoon: After JonBenét’s body was found, the Boulder Police Department continued to observe and write reports on the family. The hours immediately following the discovery of JonBenét’s body represented the most critical time for the police to gather further information, interview, or interrogate, since the Ramseys hadn’t yet “lawyered-up” and were willing to talk. John recalls, “At that point, we didn’t know what else to do but leave our home and go stay with our friends. We were given no direction by police other than that our home was a crime scene and no one could go back inside.”
• Thursday, December 26, Afternoon and Overnight and Friday, December 27 All Day: The observations of the family’s behavior had never stopped. Police guarded the Ramseys and wrote reports on their behavior and comments. They also spoke with friends of the Ramseys while observing the family.
• Friday, December 27, Afternoon: John asked if BPD Supervisor Larry Mason would come and talk with him. Sergeant Mason and Detective Arndt arrived and interviewed John. Patsy, according to her doctor, was too medicated to participate. The two officers remained on site for approximately forty minutes. Other Boulder Police Department officers stationed in shifts at the home continued observing the family and writing reports.
• Saturday, December 28, All Day: Officers stationed in the home observed the family members and wrote reports. That afternoon, two detectives interviewed and got basic information from John, Patsy, John Andrew, Melinda and Burke as they collected DNA from them at the Boulder Sheriff’s Department. Everything that a member of the Ramsey family said and did was written in police reports and recorded. Each session lasted about fifteen minutes. The Ramseys agreed to extensive interviews at their friends’ home, but their doctor felt Patsy was too ill to go to the Boulder Police Department for a sustained interview/interrogation. Boulder Police Commander Eller refused to interview the Ramseys at the home where they were staying. This was another move with which many experts disagreed. “Interview them anywhere you have a chance to,” Detective Lou Smit has said. “Get as much information as soon as you can.”
• Saturday, December 28, Early Evening: Melinda and John Andrew were interviewed for approximately two hours each that Saturday after DNA testing at the Boulder Sheriff’s Department, and their interviews were recorded.
• Saturday, December 28, Early Evening: Detective Arndt conducted short interviews with and took handwriting samples from John, Patsy and Burke at the home where they were staying with friends.
• Sunday, December 29, Morning: Police remained with the Ramseys constantly until the family left for Atlanta following a memorial service. During this time, officers continued to observe behavior, gather information and write reports related to the Ramseys without the family’s attorneys present.
Despite the many times the Ramseys were indeed interviewed by the Boulder Police Department in the first days of the investigation, on Monday, December 30, BPD Spokeswoman Leslie Aaholm stated for the media: “Police have not interviewed JonBenét’s parents, John and Patricia Ramsey.” This was simply not true.
Chief Koby talked about BPD “interviews” of the Ramseys on January 10, 1997, during his first recorded meeting about the case, which was held with selected members of the media.
“Police have not formally interviewed JonBenét’s parents,” he said, “but did talk with them immediately after the crime.”
A “formal interview” is a one-on-one single interview in a police-controlled environment, which can easily evolve into an “interrogation” when the police are or become suspicious of the individual being questioned. By the time Boulder Police Department officers decided it was time to sit down separately with the Ramseys under controlled circumstances, the Ramsey attorneys had come on board and at that point said “not yet.”
Based on standard criteria with regard to interviews as well as formal interviews and interrogations of someone the police suspect has committed a crime, the following list notes accurate and inaccurate information that was released to the public by the Boulder Police Department during the Ramsey murder investigation.
• During the first two weeks after the murder of JonBenét and continuing for several months, the Boulder Police Department stated that “Police have not interviewed the Ramseys.” This was false.
• Sixteen days after JonBenét’s body was found, when Boulder Police Chief Tom Koby stated in a news conference that “Police have not formally interviewed JonBenét’s parents,” this was in fact true. The BPD had failed to conduct necessary formal interviews or interrogations of the Ramsey family early that Thursday afternoon on December 26. Instead, the police told the family to leave their home because it was now a crime scene.
• April 30, 1997: The Boulder Police Department announced that “formal interviews” had been scheduled with the Ramseys. This was false. What had been scheduled were “interrogations.” Well before this date, Patsy and John Ramsey had been considered suspects in their daughter’s murder. On April 18, 1997, Boulder District Attorney Alex Hunter had announced that the Ramseys were “the focus of the investigation.” Indeed, investigators had been focused on Patsy and John Ramsey as suspects from the very first day of the investigation. The Ramseys did submit to interrogations by Boulder Police detectives on April 30, 1997.
• On June 23, 1998, approximately 18 months after their daughter was murdered, Patsy and John Ramsey were subjected to what turned into three days of interrogations by the Boulder District Attorney’s Office. There seems to be no argument that these were indeed “interrogations.”
Why does the terminology matter? Because it’s accurate. The parents weren’t being interviewed, they were being interrogated. They were suspects and had been since their daughter’s body was found.
When the Ramsey defense attorneys first met with John and Patsy about reasonable cooperation with the police, they encountered naiveté from the couple. Both declared in those first few days that they were ready to talk with the police, get involved full-time and do what was asked of them. The Ramseys said that included whatever the police wanted them to do. They didn’t know why this might cause them serious problems down the line. “We were innocent,” each of them said. John added that the police were welcome to talk with them all they wanted, although he and Patsy had begun to wonder why Boulder Police Department officials hadn’t done more of what they’d said they needed to do after JonBenét was found.
The Ramseys’ attorneys, however, wouldn’t cooperate with what they considered was intimidation and suspicion on the part of BPD detectives. The Saturday after JonBenét’s body was found, John’s business attorney, Mike Bynum, told the Boulder DA’s Office, “No more questioning without an attorney present.” Soon after that, John and Patsy finally became convinced that Boulder Police Department officials suspected that one of them had killed their daughter, and were considering no other suspects.
This is lost time in finding the real killer.
The Ramsey homicide was a worldwide breaking news story. Reporters and their editors and the owners of the media outlets that employed them all understood this was a story of immense public interest because it involved everything from beauty, wealth, and child pageant video tapes to a ransom note and a mysterious murder. This story also had the potential of generating considerable amounts of inaccurate information. There was fierce competition among reporters and their media outlets to be first to provide the public with new information about the Ramsey case, and this often led reporters to ignore their responsibility to also be right. In many cases, reporters failed to ensure the accuracy of the information they were reporting due to the immense pressure they faced to be first.
The Ramseys would realize the intense and full-blown interest in their daughter’s murder at her memorial service in Boulder and at her funeral in Atlanta.
“There were numerous photographers and cameramen at the church,” John would recall, “and later they had to be forced to leave the cemetery grounds, relenting to camp out off the property, but within camera view of the burial site. I walked through our friends and family at the cemetery, unable to realize the enormity that JonBenét was gone. Mixed in was the fact that every move I made I felt was being recorded. Instead of mourning our daughter fully, quietly and completely, we were trying to bury our daughter and they were trying to make money off her death.”
“It was a vague haze,” Patsy later said. “I was on medication so I could function. I remember the cemetery and the blur of color and noise coming from the media outside the cemetery grounds.”
And while Patsy and John Ramsey attended their daughter’s funeral that Tuesday, December 31, a Boulder Police spokeswoman put out more false information to the media. BPD Public Information Officer Leslie Aaholm told the Rocky Mountain News that blood, hair and handwriting samples had been collected from John and from JonBenét’s siblings, “but not from her mother.”
“I assume it’s because she is still extremely grief-stricken and not in any condition to be interviewed,” Aaholm said.
(Rocky Mountain News, December 31, 1996.)
On Wednesday, January 1, the Daily Camera in Boulder repeated this inaccurate information about Patsy that had been provided by the Boulder Police Department.
Police collected blood, hair and handwriting samples from John Ramsey and his children. No samples were collected from Patsy Ramsey.
(Daily Camera, January 1, 1997.)
Aaholm did not correctly report that the entire family, including Patsy, had given DNA, handwriting samples and short interviews on Saturday, December 28. On January 2, Boulder Police finally issued a news release saying they “concurred” that Patsy had given blood, hair and handwriting samples the Saturday before. But that was two days after the first of two erroneous newspaper articles had been published based on the false information that an official spokesperson for the police department had provided. In the age of the Internet, those false stories weren’t going to end up at the bottom of anyone’s bird cage. They had already been reprinted and discussed and they also became topics on cable and radio talk shows. In two short days, they had become facts in the minds of readers, viewers and listeners, and why shouldn’t they? The information had come from an official source with the Boulder Police Department.
When recently contacted about these errors and where she had gotten this particular information regarding Patsy Ramsey, Aaholm said, “I don’t remember. It was too long ago.” She then added, “I am not interested in participating.”
Public opinion, which included the opinions of outside law enforcement officers who would later become involved in the Ramsey murder investigation, was being cemented against the Ramseys. Even though John and Patsy had cooperated with authorities, the false messages that the Boulder Police Department continued to present to the public countered this fact and were instead perceived, and eventually believed, to be true.
Also around January 1, 1997, reports in the media attributed to “unnamed sources” began. Most mainstream news organizations require off-the-record information to be confirmed by two or more sources, usually one from each side of an issue. These widely accepted rules were rarely followed in the Ramsey case. The following statement, which was only partially true, provides just one example of how leaks from one side of the story were used to portray the Ramseys poorly: “Authorities also found evidence that the killer may have sexually assaulted the little girl, the source said.” (Rocky Mountain News, January 1, 1997.)
Blogs and radio talk shows went into a frenzy at the reporting of this news. The first prevailing opinion: John Ramsey had killed his daughter because he had been molesting her.
“Sources” continued to bet that both John and Patsy Ramsey were either involved or knew who was.
The Ramsey murder story had gone national on major evening newscasts within the first week after JonBenét’s death. From the start, speculation ran rampant: “Experts say the ‘ransom demand is too low and too specific.’” (NBC Nightly News, December 31, 1996.)
One newspaper headline called for restraint:
DON’T RUSH TO JUDGEMENT, EXPERTS WARN
(Daily Camera, January 1, 1997)
But it was too late.