< PREVIOUS ] [ 1999 Index ] [ Ed Quillen HOME ] [ SEARCH ] [ NEXT >
Many people sound outraged that after nearly three years and more than $2 million, no one has been charged in the Dec. 26, 1996, murder of six-year-old JonBenet Ramsey in Boulder.
But they're missing the point. The investigation was never really devoted to solving a murder. Most of the energy went to keeping the public in the dark and toward discovering and punishing anyone who interfered.
Almost from the first day, the Ministry of Propaganda
Ministry in the People's Republic of Boulder worked toward
these vital goals. We were told that it was an
incident,
rather than a murder,
and cautioned
not to speculate about the case, since that could
compromise the investigation.
Just how a bunch of people chatting in a living room, in a cafe or on the Internet could affect the investigation was never quite explained -- and, sad to say, millions of us refused to perform our civic duty. We continued to speculate.
Why the pronouncement against speculation? Perhaps
Boulder wanted to maintain a certain reputation, and that
the more people talked about the Ramsey case, the worse for
Boulder's reputation. If that was the plan, it didn't
work. All Jay Leno has to do is say Boulder police
and the audience starts rolling in the aisles.
Then there were some crime-scene photos, purchased by a supermarket tabloid through a private investigator who got them from a lab technician.
Boulder Police may have trouble with murder investigations, but they jumped right on this. Both the technician and the private investigator got three-day jail sentences, and the PI was ordered to write a letter of apology to John and Patsy Ramsey.
Presumably his crime was against the People of the State of Colorado, not against the Ramseys -- so why did the apology go there?
And of course, at first there were official statements that this was a very serious matter that could interfere with the murder investigation, followed later by statements that the investigation was proceeding on all cylinders.
So did the publication of these photos matter or not? If so, why hasn't anyone blamed the Globe for the grand jury's failure to issue an indictment? If not, why all the fuss in the first place?
Obviously, because the Ramsey investigation was about
controlling information, not about solving a murder. Or,
as Boulder Police spokesman Kevin McNeill put it, they were
trying as best we can to deal with any unauthorized
release of information.
Thus another investigation when some photos of the interior of the Ramsey home were published.
And an extensive fight in court to seal records that are normally public under Colorado law, like search-warrant affidavits and the autopsy results.
Nor should we forget the investigation after a computer
in the investigators' sealed war room
was allegedly
compromised.
Then there's the investigation to find out how a writer for Vanity Fair magazine got a copy of the ransom note, whose publication could of course impede or compromise the murder investigation.
Sometimes these investigations hit the wrong target. Sgt. Larry Mason was removed from the Ramsey case because he was suspected of leaking information to the media. He was later cleared, then filed a claim against the city and got $10,000.
All these actions illustrate how zealously the Boulder authorities pursued their real goal -- not solving the murder of a little girl, but controlling the information that the public received about the case.
Why all the media and public interest in the case? The week between Christmas and New Year's Day is usually a slow time, so anything remotely resembling news will get more attention than it usually would.
Normally, I suspect, the Ramsey story would have faded, except for Boulder's insistence on keeping a lid on it. The harder you try to hide stuff from energetic reporters, the more interest in finding out what you're trying to hide. Pretty soon, the mere fact that some information has become public outweighs whatever intrinsic news value the information held.
Thus the continuing media circus. And maybe we'll soon
learn which unauthorized release of information
was
the one that interfered with the investigation
to
the extent that no one has been charged in the murder.
After all, that's the sort of investigation -- finding out who released information about a matter of public Internet to the public -- that the Boulder authorities appear to specialize in.
< PREVIOUS ] [ 1999 Index ] [ Ed Quillen HOME ] [ SEARCH ] [ NEXT >