< PREVIOUS ]   [ 1997 Index ]   [ Ed Quillen HOME ]   [ SEARCH ]   [ NEXT >


Just how were government operations obstructed in Boulder?

Published March 2, 1997 in the Denver Post.
Copyright ©1997 by Ed Quillen. All rights reserved.

When I was managing editor of the local newspaper 17 years ago, its publisher and I were sued for libel. I had written some columns about a county commissioner that I thought were funny. The commissioner claimed that these columns held him up to public contempt, ridicule and humiliation, leading to his recall from office. The publisher and I argued that we were publishing fair comment about the public actions of a public figure.

This baseless lawsuit was dismissed at every level from our district court to the U.S. Supreme Court, but early on, the plaintiff wanted a change of venue, and suggested Boulder.

Hip, trendy, mellow Boulder? Sounded great to me when I was 29, but our attorney cautioned otherwise. Boulder judges are squirrelly, and you don't ever want to try a case in Boulder County if you can avoid it, he said.

The hearings on preliminary motions were moved from Chaffee to Frémont County, and I forget about the balmy reputation of Boulder judges until last week, when I read about the ruling from Boulder County Judge Lael Montgomery.

At issue was the sale of a few pictures of the JonBenet Ramsey autopsy to the Globe tabloid. Two men pled guilty to obstructing government operations. They got fines, community service, some jail time and an order to write letters of apology to the Ramsey family.

Let us assume that the crime was committed as charged. Lawrence S. Smith and Brett A. Sawyer obstructed government operations, and of course they should be punished.

And for some reason, the sentencing judge believes apologies are in order. In that case, shouldn't their apologies go to the party or parties that Smith and Sawyer aggrieved with their crime -- that is, the Boulder Police Department, whose investigation was presumably obstructed? Or the Boulder County coroner? Or the District Attorney?

Just how do the Ramseys fit here? Sawyer and Smith were not found guilty of doing anything to the Ramseys.

It's too bad this case -- for all we know, the only criminal case that will result from a gruesome murder -- was plea-bargained, because I'd like to see proof that slipping copies of a few pictures to the Globe actually obstructed a government operation.

The government operation was a murder investigation. Certain information, information gathered by public agents at public expense, appeared that the police did not want released. Did that impede the investigation, and if so, how?

Consider the possibilities:

A) A suspect, upon seeing that the police are closing in, might flee. But we've been assured by Boulder authorities that no murderer is at large roaming the streets. So that can't be an issue here.

B) The constant release of investigative tidbits leads to a media carnival. That's certainly worth preventing. I fully sympathize with Boulderites who are sick of stand-up shots, boom mikes and herds of backward-stepping videocam operators. I keep hoping I'll see a flown-in blow-dry slip on the ice. But it's a little too late to prevent a media feeding frenzy, so this reason doesn't hold, either.

C) If too much information gets out, the police will run out of polygraph keys. That is, they won't have questions to ask witnesses or suspects to find out whether they really saw what they say they saw, or if they just contrived their tale from what they'd read. That's what they mean about things only the murderer would know.

But keeping a few polygraph keys doesn't require sealing every aspect of the investigation, as Boulder authorities have. They've tried to hide everything from search-warrant affidavits to building-permit files.

Further, the police can be wrong about what will obstruct an investigation. During the investigation of the Tate-LaBianca murders in 1969, the Los Angeles Police withheld the fact that Healter Skelter was written in blood at the crime scenes.

As it turned out, if that information had been released, there were many people who had heard Charlie Manson ranting about Helter Skelter, and they would have quickly pointed the police that way -- if they'd known.

But they didn't because the police didn't release that information, and more people died at the hands of the Manson Family before the police connected the family with the murders. Obstructing that government operation by leaking information would have saved lives.

Or consider last year's arrest of a Unabomber suspect. The full resources of the FBI failed to produce a suspect, but one appeared quickly as soon as the manifesto was in print and some people noticed stylistic similarities to letters they'd received from a reclusive relative.

In short, the mere release of information to the public doesn't necessarily impede an investigation.

A judge in some less enlightened and holistic jurisdiction might have required the Boulder police to demonstrate just how their government operation was obstructed by the pictures in the Globe.

But I've learned one thing. Even if I enjoy lawyer jokes, lawyers are right about many matters -- especially when they're talking about judges in Boulder County.

NOTE FOR BOB OR JOHN OR SUE OR WHOEVER GETS STUCK EDITING THIS: Manson's theory was Helter Skelter after the Beatles song on the White Album. But his acolytes spelled it as Healter Skelter when posting it on walls after their bloodfests. Thus the two spellings above.


< PREVIOUS ]   [ 1997 Index ]   [ Ed Quillen HOME ]   [ SEARCH ]   [ NEXT >