Episode 66

full
Published on:

13th Aug 2026

Morgan Wright — What the JonBenét Ramsey Crime Scene Actually Says | Part 2

Morgan Wright is the founder and CEO of the National Center for Open and Unsolved Cases, a nonprofit that works cold cases toward resolution rather than commentary. A former detective who went on to teach interview and interrogation, he now trains a team of volunteer case analysts in structured investigative method. This is the second half of his reconstruction of the JonBenét Ramsey homicide.

Part 1 ended with the intruder hypothesis failing on the physical evidence. Part 2 asks the obvious next question: if nobody came in, what does the scene itself tell you? Wright starts with the forensic claims that have carried the case for years and takes them apart one at a time. The touch DNA recovered from JonBenét's clothing produced a partial profile at ten or eleven markers, where a positive CODIS match requires twenty and a partial requires thirteen. At eleven markers, as he puts it, you are no longer identifying a person.

He then turns to the ransom note. It demanded $118,000, almost exactly John Ramsey's employment bonus. Ramsey stated he read it on the spiral staircase at around 5:45 in the morning without turning on a light. Wright ran the astronomy: the sun was still seventeen degrees below the horizon, a full moon delivers at most 0.3 lux outdoors, window glass removes seventy to ninety percent of that, and reading requires roughly fifty lux. The gap is three orders of magnitude. It is not a claim about what happened, only about what could not have.

The reconstruction rests on two physical details. The blunt force trauma resembled the end of a flashlight, and the room where JonBenét was found required reaching a wooden clasp mounted high on the door. And in the autopsy, the urine had dried on top of her clothing rather than beneath her, with more found on the carpet outside the room. That points to a death face down in a hallway, and a body moved afterward. Wright also explains the legal wall the case runs into, and closes on the fourth category of knowledge — the things that are now permanently unknowable, because the scene was never controlled.

Learn more at https://citizensbehindthebadge.org.

Transcript
Speaker:

She was found with dried urine on the

Speaker:

top of her sweats, not on the bottom.

Speaker:

She did not die face up.

Speaker:

She died face down in the hallway

Speaker:

after being hit with a flashlight.

Speaker:

That conclusion comes at the end of a long chain.

Speaker:

It starts with a ransom note that by

Speaker:

Morgan's analysis could not have been read.

Speaker:

All right.

Speaker:

So now we've disproved

Speaker:

there's an intruder in your theory.

Speaker:

I would ask, is there other

Speaker:

ways they could have gotten them?

Speaker:

Maybe they had a key or maybe

Speaker:

they had some other way to get in.

Speaker:

Was that looked into?

Speaker:

Yeah, they looked at the housekeepers.

Speaker:

They looked at the other people who had keys who got in.

Speaker:

But see what they did is they anchored in on because that

Speaker:

was the broken window was the only way to explain how

Speaker:

somebody could have got into the house.

Speaker:

And what they were saying is that they were going to take

Speaker:

Jambane out that same window.

Speaker:

It first of

Speaker:

all, how do you know if there really was an intruder?

Speaker:

How do you know that was their intent?

Speaker:

Why not walk out through a door?

Speaker:

Right.

Speaker:

Because they talked about was the alarm on or off.

Speaker:

So so many of these things, when you stack inference upon

Speaker:

inference upon inference, pretty soon you reach a thing

Speaker:

that the only way the example I give is it's like waiting

Speaker:

to go on vacation till all the traffic lights turn green.

Speaker:

All of those things would have to line up like this for

Speaker:

this story to be to pass the initial hypothesis test.

Speaker:

And from a first principle

Speaker:

standpoint, you have to analyze it.

Speaker:

And so, Craig, to your point, I did.

Speaker:

I looked at I said, OK, let's go down that path.

Speaker:

We're now at a fork in the road.

Speaker:

Was there an intruder or wasn't there an intruder?

Speaker:

There is nothing I could find that substantiates and

Speaker:

supports the evidence of intruder.

Speaker:

And there's some reasons why that get into the flashlight

Speaker:

where Jambane was found, the

Speaker:

position of her body and the autopsy report.

Speaker:

So Morgan, a quick question about

Speaker:

this now in the window and the intruder

Speaker:

issue.

Speaker:

What was the lead investigators position on all that?

Speaker:

Do you know?

Speaker:

I think they got taken down the rabbit hole of the

Speaker:

intruder, but in none of the reports.

Speaker:

Do they show that they went back and recreated this to

Speaker:

show that somebody could have got in through the window,

Speaker:

left the cobweb intact and

Speaker:

not dragged any debris through?

Speaker:

So I think what they did is they they

Speaker:

again, this goes back to assumptions, right?

Speaker:

The assumption is there was there was an intruder.

Speaker:

What they were trying to prove is that somebody in the

Speaker:

house did it as opposed to disproving

Speaker:

the fact that there was no intruder.

Speaker:

Once you do that, I don't have to

Speaker:

prove anything inside the house.

Speaker:

And then it leads into why were John and Patsy Ramsey

Speaker:

indicted both on two counts?

Speaker:

Gotcha.

Speaker:

So that's a nice thing.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Why did Steve Thomas, the lead investigator, resign?

Speaker:

What was his big concern?

Speaker:

And that was that was I want to follow up with it.

Speaker:

It was it was the influence the Ramses were having.

Speaker:

And it's over the case and then stonewalling and the way

Speaker:

he was treated by, as he said, treated by the department.

Speaker:

I

Speaker:

don't want to read into what he

Speaker:

thought or what was in his mind.

Speaker:

I just look at it and I go.

Speaker:

When you tell the story, you

Speaker:

tell it in a way that favors you.

Speaker:

We all do.

Speaker:

Right.

Speaker:

So.

Speaker:

So I just I just leave it at that.

Speaker:

His story, his book was about

Speaker:

something that favored him about what he did.

Speaker:

But I will tell you, if I go back to the beginning,

Speaker:

the biggest defining moment of this

Speaker:

entire case was control of the crime scene.

Speaker:

Period.

Speaker:

Full stop.

Speaker:

Get everybody out of you have a kidnapping.

Speaker:

Everybody out of the house.

Speaker:

We don't know what evidence is in there.

Speaker:

And then this is the way I test people so.

Speaker:

We can get into the house one of two ways.

Speaker:

Either consent or a search warrant.

Speaker:

If if if if I'm truly the victim, whatever I'll sign any

Speaker:

document you need, whatever you need,

Speaker:

you get vans out there, you get everybody.

Speaker:

They allowed them to be in the house.

Speaker:

They allowed them to wander around.

Speaker:

John Ramsey disappeared for about 45 minutes.

Speaker:

And so there are some issues about

Speaker:

control, control of the crime scene.

Speaker:

If you had done that from the beginning, that would have

Speaker:

that would have made this case in the first 48 hours.

Speaker:

Hmm.

Speaker:

What was JonBenét sexually assaulted?

Speaker:

Do we know that?

Speaker:

That's a complicated issue.

Speaker:

Um, I looked at the reports of Dr.

Speaker:

Cyril Wecht and some other people who looked at this.

Speaker:

The question was, was there evidence of sexual assault?

Speaker:

Some people say yes.

Speaker:

Um, the question is, did it occur at that time?

Speaker:

Uh, the autopsy report does show some things about

Speaker:

abrasions and places that wouldn't

Speaker:

expect abrasions to be in a crime victim.

Speaker:

So, um,

Speaker:

one of the things I learned though,

Speaker:

to Craig is I got to stay in my lane.

Speaker:

Um, and so I look at that and

Speaker:

I go, they say, well, was she,

Speaker:

personally, I can't tell you if she was or wasn't.

Speaker:

Um, that's where you have to get back into the history

Speaker:

between her and Burke and the

Speaker:

issues with Burke prior to that.

Speaker:

But that's when I, when I go through this case, I'm very

Speaker:

careful because those can become rabbit

Speaker:

holes and those can become distractions.

Speaker:

My whole purpose was let's talk about the case.

Speaker:

And in really my case is it's,

Speaker:

it's binary intruder, no intruder.

Speaker:

And if it's no intruder, it means somebody inside the

Speaker:

house, regardless of the history JonBenét had with

Speaker:

Burke, regardless of the

Speaker:

history, Burke had with his parents.

Speaker:

Uh, and, but those, those are some of the allegations, if

Speaker:

I'm being legally correct, those are some of the

Speaker:

allegations that were raised.

Speaker:

Craig is that there were Burke may have, uh, engaged in

Speaker:

inappropriate behavior with JonBenét.

Speaker:

I guess what I was getting at is if there was semen found

Speaker:

on her clothes or her body, um, that DNA, uh, would be

Speaker:

seemingly very easy to figure out who it came from.

Speaker:

Uh, I would think with today's

Speaker:

DNA forensic science, uh, abilities.

Speaker:

As long as the contributor is in CODIS, the combined DNA

Speaker:

index system, if they're not in there, then you have a

Speaker:

profile sitting there, but it's interesting.

Speaker:

You brought up because during

Speaker:

the reconstruction, they also, Dr.

Speaker:

Henry Lee has since passed

Speaker:

away, but at the time he was alive.

Speaker:

So they talked about the fact that on JonBenét's

Speaker:

underwear, they found, oh, we found touch DNA.

Speaker:

I thought Dr.

Speaker:

Henry Lee just totally put that argument to bed.

Speaker:

He got a brand new pair of underwear out of a store

Speaker:

inside the sealed wrapper had

Speaker:

never been touched and they tested it.

Speaker:

They found 25 different samples

Speaker:

of touch DNA on the underwear.

Speaker:

And wasn't it true, uh, Morgan, that the, the Ramses were

Speaker:

eventually exonerated in 2008

Speaker:

or some something like that.

Speaker:

And that was the reason because that touch DNA was found

Speaker:

and they said, well, it can't be them.

Speaker:

There isn't a finding of exoneration, but it's

Speaker:

inconsistent with the indictment and it's

Speaker:

inconsistent with the physical evidence.

Speaker:

And that's, um, that was the,

Speaker:

uh, district attorney at the time.

Speaker:

And I just spaced out her name.

Speaker:

Um, but they tried to say, look, we have this, they tried

Speaker:

to get a DNA sample into CODIS, so in CODIS, uh, for

Speaker:

again, for you crime scene geeks out there.

Speaker:

To, to create a positive match in CODIS, you have to have

Speaker:

20 short tandem repeat markers,

Speaker:

20 STRs that's to get a full match.

Speaker:

You have to have a minimum of 13 to get a partial match.

Speaker:

The best they could come up with was about 10 or 11, not

Speaker:

anything that was even remotely.

Speaker:

And the difference between that, between 13 and 12 and

Speaker:

11, it's, it's, it geometrically,

Speaker:

uh, increases the size and scope.

Speaker:

It's not like two plus two equals four.

Speaker:

It's four times four times four times four.

Speaker:

You get a geometric progression, not an arithmetic

Speaker:

progression of the number of

Speaker:

available people who could become the profile.

Speaker:

So when you have a match, we're talking about odds that

Speaker:

are in the billions, you know, one in 25 billion, right?

Speaker:

But when you're at 11, you're talking about, um, you

Speaker:

know, it could be one in three, you know, one in three

Speaker:

people would have the same profile at 11 markers as

Speaker:

opposed to 13, as opposed to, um,

Speaker:

you know, what, what are the odds?

Speaker:

Right?

Speaker:

So, uh, it's the, the, the math

Speaker:

doesn't work in something like that.

Speaker:

And again, this is just me personally saying it was a

Speaker:

short sighted thing because it was

Speaker:

not supported by the physical evidence.

Speaker:

It was not supported by what I'm showing you right now.

Speaker:

And it definitely was not

Speaker:

supported by the crime scene evidence.

Speaker:

Um, so I, I, I can't talk for her about why she did that.

Speaker:

Um, again, when you're elected and you're in a political

Speaker:

position, some decisions are political.

Speaker:

Morgan, let's go back to the ransom note.

Speaker:

I mean, this is frankly, unbelievable.

Speaker:

I mean, you've got a ransom note that Patsy finds on the,

Speaker:

I think on the steps of the stairs and, uh, you've

Speaker:

indicated earlier that it probably took, you know, 45

Speaker:

minutes or more to write a

Speaker:

two and a half page ransom note.

Speaker:

Somebody broke into the house, seemingly sat down, you

Speaker:

know, found some paper, found a pen, wrote a ransom note

Speaker:

that doesn't add up obviously.

Speaker:

Um, and then in the ransom note, and this is, uh, you

Speaker:

know, too much to believe $118,000 was the ransom amount

Speaker:

that they wanted, which happens to match exactly with the

Speaker:

bonus that John Ramsey had received from his employer.

Speaker:

Um, how can that be?

Speaker:

I mean, is there any explanation for that?

Speaker:

How did John Ramsey Patsy Ramsey

Speaker:

explain that part of the equation?

Speaker:

So I got to go back and amend something.

Speaker:

I said 543.

Speaker:

I'm about to show you something. 543

Speaker:

is when they found the ransom note.

Speaker:

I think 602 is when they made the

Speaker:

911 call, but let me share this.

Speaker:

Let me share this screen with you and show you what I did

Speaker:

to analyze just the ransom note itself, right?

Speaker:

Cause what they said was, and

Speaker:

it might be a little bit hard.

Speaker:

So I'm going to, um, click

Speaker:

here and see if, uh, I don't know.

Speaker:

It doesn't show it on here, but so if you look in the,

Speaker:

uh, if you look down along the bottom, down along the

Speaker:

bottom is the light timeline for December 26th.

Speaker:

I went back and again, pulled this is data driven, right?

Speaker:

It doesn't matter what you believe.

Speaker:

It only matters what must be true.

Speaker:

So I went back and I looked and I said, okay, at seven or

Speaker:

at five 45, what was the elevation of the sun?

Speaker:

Because John Ramsey specifically said in his deposition

Speaker:

and his statements, he was in his underwear, he took the

Speaker:

ransom note by the spiral staircase, which is on the west

Speaker:

side of the house, laid it on the floor and read it.

Speaker:

He did not turn any lights on.

Speaker:

He just read it on the floor.

Speaker:

So I said, well, let's test that.

Speaker:

Right.

Speaker:

So at five 45 PM, the sun is

Speaker:

still 17 degrees below the horizon.

Speaker:

I'm 75 AM.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Seven by 45 AM.

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

Five 45 AM.

Speaker:

The sun rises in the East and sets in the West.

Speaker:

Right.

Speaker:

So at that time, the sun rises in the

Speaker:

East, he's on the West side of the house.

Speaker:

The sun is still 17 degrees below the horizon.

Speaker:

Now, why did I do that?

Speaker:

Because the other thing I went

Speaker:

into, I did the lunar light analysis.

Speaker:

In other words, at five 45, the moment John Ramsey claims

Speaker:

to have discovered and read a three page handwritten

Speaker:

note, it was a 97.2 waning gibbous moon.

Speaker:

Basically what that means above the horizon.

Speaker:

That is the best case scenario.

Speaker:

Under ideal conditions, you light

Speaker:

illumination is registered in terms of Lux, L U X.

Speaker:

So even under ideal conditions, a full

Speaker:

moon produces only 0.05 to 0.3 Lux outdoors.

Speaker:

Window glass reduces transmitted light by 70 to 90%.

Speaker:

So the effective moonlight, the effective moonlight

Speaker:

reaching an interior would be approximately 0.005 to 0.03

Speaker:

Lux, which is 1600 to 20,000

Speaker:

times below the minimum of 50 Lux.

Speaker:

You need to be able to read something in ambient light.

Speaker:

So just from a, just from a solar standpoint.

Speaker:

So then I said, okay, let's talk

Speaker:

about where he was reading the note.

Speaker:

He's reading it here.

Speaker:

Here's the house.

Speaker:

It's total darkness.

Speaker:

They have not turned any lights on.

Speaker:

And so if we scroll up just a little bit, we look at the

Speaker:

interior note location and John

Speaker:

Ramsey's position where it was on the home.

Speaker:

So I have the house up here.

Speaker:

What I'm looking at is the light timeline and above.

Speaker:

Is it, do you guys, there we go.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

So it's going to be the very top half of that.

Speaker:

So this is the spiral staircase down here in the top half

Speaker:

of the picture where John in the

Speaker:

yellow, you see where the ransom note was.

Speaker:

But if you look to the right, that's the house where was

Speaker:

the sun, not only angle, but azimuth.

Speaker:

Where was it coming from?

Speaker:

So the sun is coming from the east, 17 degrees below the

Speaker:

horizon at a certain azimuth,

Speaker:

he's on the west side of the house.

Speaker:

So no, you don't even have sunrise yet.

Speaker:

So there's no solar light.

Speaker:

There's not enough lunar light.

Speaker:

So the question is, how can you read a ransom note in

Speaker:

total darkness when, and by his own words and his own

Speaker:

testimony, he did not turn any lights on.

Speaker:

He read it in the ambient light.

Speaker:

Um, based on all the analysis I

Speaker:

could do, that's physically impossible.

Speaker:

So the $118,000, how was that ever explained by anyone to

Speaker:

justify that it wasn't an inside job that it was either

Speaker:

Patsy or John that wrote that ransom note?

Speaker:

So when the FBI looked at this case, and I know, um,

Speaker:

actually I talked to one of the

Speaker:

profilers that worked on the case.

Speaker:

She, she can't talk about it.

Speaker:

Um,

Speaker:

but I just simply said, here's the question I posed.

Speaker:

I don't want to give away,

Speaker:

but I, I gave her the scenario.

Speaker:

Here's my scenario.

Speaker:

If I put this scenario out publicly, which I'm actually

Speaker:

believing it or not, guys, I don't want to say like,

Speaker:

we're bringing, this is the first time I publicly said

Speaker:

this gone through this entire case.

Speaker:

This is the first time.

Speaker:

So if I said, if I had this scenario of the case,

Speaker:

would I be embarrassed when

Speaker:

information came out later and she said, no.

Speaker:

So I didn't ask her what it was, but I said, here's,

Speaker:

here's, here's my view of the case.

Speaker:

Here's my hypothesis.

Speaker:

When the information comes out, because they believe

Speaker:

there will be some additional

Speaker:

information coming out sometime this year.

Speaker:

According to them.

Speaker:

Uh, I said, would I be embarrassed?

Speaker:

And she said, no.

Speaker:

So the reason I laid this all out is to not only show

Speaker:

that, Hey, what are the, what's the

Speaker:

probability that there was an intruder?

Speaker:

Then as we get into a staged crime scene, I analyze, I

Speaker:

just don't take it at face value, right?

Speaker:

Um, I don't look at what you say.

Speaker:

I look at what you do.

Speaker:

Uh, and I use the Edgar Allan Poe method, believe nothing

Speaker:

that you hear and only one half that you

Speaker:

see, you can tell me anything you want.

Speaker:

But I'm going to, so what I did is I laid it out based on

Speaker:

the house design, I have the

Speaker:

floor, I have the architectural plans.

Speaker:

I know every room, every floor I laid it out and I said,

Speaker:

you cannot have enough solar light, nor could you have

Speaker:

enough, um, or lunar light, nor could you have enough

Speaker:

solar light to read that ransom note, not physically

Speaker:

physics, not me physics as you go through glass, it takes

Speaker:

out a big majority of the available light.

Speaker:

It's filtered through any glass that you have in there.

Speaker:

So it's just not possible.

Speaker:

You could read something like that.

Speaker:

And then Craig, back to your point.

Speaker:

Again, I go back to 118,000.

Speaker:

That is an artifact that is

Speaker:

unexplainable and they couldn't explain it away.

Speaker:

And what they, the way they explained it away was we

Speaker:

didn't write the ransom note, how would we know?

Speaker:

Maybe somebody knew what his, um, uh, it was deflection.

Speaker:

Maybe somebody knew what his

Speaker:

bonus was and they put it in there.

Speaker:

So they never fully, uh, implicated Patsy in writing the

Speaker:

note, but they never fully cleared her either.

Speaker:

They just say, um, uh, it was basically indeterminate.

Speaker:

You know, we, we can't determine.

Speaker:

Um, it's like when you have, uh, there's five, there's

Speaker:

five manners of death, natural

Speaker:

suicide, homicide, accident, and undetermined.

Speaker:

So in the case of this note, it was undetermined.

Speaker:

They weren't able to include or exclude

Speaker:

her as being the source of the handwriting.

Speaker:

So Morgan, we talked earlier a little bit about how the

Speaker:

secret service looked at the, uh, the paper, the pen,

Speaker:

what about handwriting analysis?

Speaker:

They did that too.

Speaker:

That was it.

Speaker:

Same.

Speaker:

That's the conclusion they came to.

Speaker:

They could not, they could not rule her in or rule her

Speaker:

out definitively of being the source of the handwriting.

Speaker:

And they did determine based on, well, I guess you

Speaker:

couldn't really determine anything.

Speaker:

I mean, where does it, where does it come from when you

Speaker:

said that the handwriting was,

Speaker:

you know, disguised perhaps?

Speaker:

Oh, that was, that came from the handwriting experts.

Speaker:

They looked at it and based on their knowledge, skills,

Speaker:

and experience it over time, they said that this was the,

Speaker:

the writing was an attempt to disguise.

Speaker:

There's certain, again,

Speaker:

that's, that's outside my wheelhouse.

Speaker:

I just, I can only tell you what they said, but the

Speaker:

experts basically said when they looked at the analysis

Speaker:

is that this is, this has all the indicia and the

Speaker:

artifacts of disguised handwriting, somebody attempting

Speaker:

to disguise the block lettering,

Speaker:

you know, the different things.

Speaker:

So,

Speaker:

you know, one, one other question that I, I, I still am

Speaker:

thinking about earlier in our conversation is you were

Speaker:

talking about how Jambenay's mother was

Speaker:

wearing the same clothes two days in a row.

Speaker:

How does anybody know what

Speaker:

she was wearing the day before?

Speaker:

Pictures from the Christmas party.

Speaker:

So they, they were at a Christmas party.

Speaker:

People took pictures they've got.

Speaker:

Um, that is all well-documented in terms of what she was

Speaker:

wearing the day before when they went to the Christmas

Speaker:

party and returned home that night.

Speaker:

My other question.

Speaker:

So the lead investigator from

Speaker:

the Boulder PD, he resigned.

Speaker:

Did he go to another law enforcement agency?

Speaker:

Did he give up being in law enforcement and how much of

Speaker:

that was just being in an

Speaker:

immense media spotlight on a huge case?

Speaker:

And he was just basically crucified.

Speaker:

I don't know if I can answer the second part.

Speaker:

I think he moved down to

Speaker:

Florida was dealing in real estate.

Speaker:

I believe he's still alive.

Speaker:

I tried to reach out to him, but it's

Speaker:

kind of hard to know which person it is.

Speaker:

And I, the only reason I reached out to

Speaker:

him was just to validate some of the, um,

Speaker:

hypotheses I had, but whether I did or not, it's okay.

Speaker:

Uh, but I think he's down there.

Speaker:

I don't, in his book, he gets into it and I'm trying to

Speaker:

remember some of the stuff he said, but I think part of

Speaker:

it was just, he felt that he was betrayed by the

Speaker:

department, that he was like made to be, like you said,

Speaker:

in a sense, the sacrificial lamb.

Speaker:

And I know he went on shows,

Speaker:

they went on Larry King live.

Speaker:

He debated the Ramses.

Speaker:

There was a lot of back and forth.

Speaker:

And what I go back to is the trap everybody fell into.

Speaker:

They made the assumption there was an intruder.

Speaker:

And so they, they based everything from there about

Speaker:

whether an intruder, nobody ever went back and said,

Speaker:

let's do the work to determine in the first place, if

Speaker:

there was an intruder, because if there's no intruder,

Speaker:

then a suspect is a downstream artifact.

Speaker:

People that were named all of this

Speaker:

other stuff never should have been named.

Speaker:

If you could show that there was never an intruder

Speaker:

because they tried to blame housekeeper, the boyfriend,

Speaker:

the husband of the housekeeper tried to blame

Speaker:

photographers tried to, I mean, they were, you throw

Speaker:

enough mud up against the wall and you see what sticks

Speaker:

and then you start going in that direction because what

Speaker:

it does is you have to spend all

Speaker:

your resources disproving that.

Speaker:

My simple thing was I don't

Speaker:

have to disprove any of that stuff.

Speaker:

I go back to,

Speaker:

we cannot establish from an evidentiary standpoint that

Speaker:

there was an intruder period.

Speaker:

You know, today we have the, the

Speaker:

advantage of, of sophisticated DNA.

Speaker:

We have cameras everywhere.

Speaker:

We have technology, you know, this more than any, anyone,

Speaker:

because this is what you use for your

Speaker:

company to really dig into all this stuff.

Speaker:

We, uh, we did interviews recently on the OJ Simpson

Speaker:

case, the Waco, Texas case, the Unabomber.

Speaker:

One thing that I remember, we're talking about the

Speaker:

Unabomber and the lead FBI

Speaker:

agent was asked, I believe by Craig,

Speaker:

how long would it take to, to

Speaker:

solve the Unabomber case today?

Speaker:

And I think his answer was four hours.

Speaker:

And that was because of the cameras,

Speaker:

the technology and everything else.

Speaker:

You know, we've talked about a lot of these unique cases

Speaker:

and you don't see kind of cases, these, these long drawn

Speaker:

out cases, the serial killer cases today in our, in our

Speaker:

modern era, just because of technology and, and having

Speaker:

said all that your thought about how criminal

Speaker:

investigations have evolved and using this technology

Speaker:

today, do you think the Ramsey case will ever be solved?

Speaker:

Let me make an interesting

Speaker:

observation about the Unabomber case.

Speaker:

Cause, uh, Dr.

Speaker:

Bill Tafoya is a friend of mine, Dr.

Speaker:

Bill Tafoya and Mary Ellen O'Toole, which I know some of

Speaker:

you folks know, were the chief

Speaker:

behavioral scientists for the FBI.

Speaker:

They read, they, what happened was everybody had this

Speaker:

assumption had to be a blue collar guy, they redid the

Speaker:

entire profile and they said, no, it's a Luddite.

Speaker:

It's somebody in their fifties

Speaker:

trained in the hard scientists sciences.

Speaker:

Guess who it was?

Speaker:

What was Ted Kaczynski in his 50 a

Speaker:

Luddite trained in the hard scientists.

Speaker:

So what they did is they did the most important thing is

Speaker:

they went back and revisited the assumptions, what I

Speaker:

talked about the assumption stack that we do on Tuesdays,

Speaker:

what are the assumptions test the, you have to name the

Speaker:

assumptions in order to attest them.

Speaker:

So I would say in the case of like, JonBenét could,

Speaker:

how would this case be solved?

Speaker:

I'd say the first thing is, I don't know, you know what,

Speaker:

I'm going to make a bold statement here, modern

Speaker:

technology wouldn't have been

Speaker:

needed to solve the JonBenét case.

Speaker:

You know why?

Speaker:

Cause it's about preservation of the crime scene.

Speaker:

If you have protected the crime scene properly from the

Speaker:

start, you would have found here in that basement down

Speaker:

there, you would have had the tape in a pristine

Speaker:

condition, the duct tape that was removed.

Speaker:

You would have had fingerprints, hair, fiber.

Speaker:

You would have had at least a lockdown crime scene and a

Speaker:

pool of people that you would have put

Speaker:

your investigative focus on right away.

Speaker:

So I, you know, sometimes what is old again is new.

Speaker:

I go back and I preach first principles.

Speaker:

What's the basic stuff?

Speaker:

First officer on scene has only two

Speaker:

duties and two duties, two duties only.

Speaker:

Preservation of the, uh, of life, protection of life and

Speaker:

preservation of the crime scene.

Speaker:

If we employ that every single time,

Speaker:

many of these problems solve themselves.

Speaker:

True.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

So all the technology that we use today that could be

Speaker:

used to look at this DNA over

Speaker:

again, it's not going to help.

Speaker:

Is that your, and here, let me tell you why.

Speaker:

So let me walk you through just a little bit more of the

Speaker:

crime scene and this'll make sense, right?

Speaker:

So when they found JonBenét's body,

Speaker:

we have to put some things in context.

Speaker:

You have to, one of the things I do

Speaker:

is I say, you have to establish it.

Speaker:

You have to exhaust the timeline.

Speaker:

When I was talking about the Guthrie

Speaker:

case, you have to exhaust the timeline.

Speaker:

You have to really narrow down, narrow down, narrow down.

Speaker:

So in this case where JonBenét was found, she was

Speaker:

found face up in sweats and a white shirt, a sweatshirt,

Speaker:

a garrote around her neck, hands tied.

Speaker:

But when you go look at the autopsy report and look at

Speaker:

the crime scene, there's a

Speaker:

couple of things about that room.

Speaker:

That room requires you to reach up and turn a clasp at

Speaker:

the top so that you could open the door.

Speaker:

JonBenét died from blunt force trauma.

Speaker:

One of the things that the blunt force trauma resembled

Speaker:

was the end of the flat, the end of a flashlight.

Speaker:

Why would a flashlight be in the basement of someplace

Speaker:

that you could flip open a light and then here's the,

Speaker:

here's the hypothesis of putting together.

Speaker:

She was killed with the flashlight.

Speaker:

Why is the flashlight downstairs?

Speaker:

Because an adult doesn't need it, but who needs it?

Speaker:

Somebody who's younger who can't reach the wooden clasp,

Speaker:

but you put a flashlight in their

Speaker:

hand, it becomes an extension of their arm.

Speaker:

Now I've done biomechanical modeling too on Burke to say,

Speaker:

is that, can I prove or disprove

Speaker:

that he could have reached that?

Speaker:

And he could reach that based on his percentile, where he

Speaker:

was and biomechanics, you know, anthropological studies,

Speaker:

what his arm reach would have been using a flashlight, he

Speaker:

would have made able to reach that.

Speaker:

So why was that room important?

Speaker:

Because Burke's birthday was a

Speaker:

couple of days after Christmas.

Speaker:

What was in that room?

Speaker:

Burke's birthday presents.

Speaker:

What did we find on one of the birthday presents?

Speaker:

The wrapping was torn open.

Speaker:

Now, let me ask you,

Speaker:

Dennis, even though you are a seasoned citizen, let's say

Speaker:

that you, and you might've forgotten what you got

Speaker:

somebody for Christmas and you want to say, or their

Speaker:

birthday, gosh, what's in there?

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

I'm going to ask you a simple question.

Speaker:

It's going to sound like I'm being kind of,

Speaker:

I'm not being obnoxious, but just like I did talk about

Speaker:

how do we do the clothing, right?

Speaker:

Explain to me how you would, if you truly forgotten, you

Speaker:

wanted to make sure you remember, explain to me, how

Speaker:

would you open an already wrapped

Speaker:

present to determine what was inside there?

Speaker:

Or why would I write?

Speaker:

Well, now we're going to assume that you forgot you would

Speaker:

need to know what's in there because there's two that

Speaker:

look alike and you need to know which one switch.

Speaker:

So how would you open an already wrapped package?

Speaker:

How would I, I mean, I'd rip it open.

Speaker:

I mean, I would, you know, I guess, I don't know.

Speaker:

What I'm saying is that you need to be, you need to be

Speaker:

able to give it to the person that

Speaker:

you're going to give the gift to.

Speaker:

So you just need to be able to see what's inside the

Speaker:

package so you know, what's what, so

Speaker:

that you can now give it to that person.

Speaker:

Oh, okay.

Speaker:

So you're saying just take a peek carefully.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Carefully.

Speaker:

I say you're not, you're not going to rip it open.

Speaker:

You just want to see what's in there.

Speaker:

So how would you do it?

Speaker:

You've got, you've got, you've got wrapping paper folded,

Speaker:

you've got a ribbon, you've

Speaker:

got tape, how would you do it?

Speaker:

There's a reason I'm asking

Speaker:

carefully.

Speaker:

I guess.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Well, I don't want to disturb it too much.

Speaker:

Right.

Speaker:

Right.

Speaker:

It's so like with the tape, you would cut the tape, you

Speaker:

know, lift it open and then retame it, right?

Speaker:

Yeah, I wouldn't rip it in your scenario.

Speaker:

That wouldn't be the right thing to do.

Speaker:

I'd do it very carefully.

Speaker:

So Patsy Ramsey said she forgot what

Speaker:

she got Burke for his birthday present.

Speaker:

So she went in and she ripped it open.

Speaker:

Oh, okay.

Speaker:

Got.

Speaker:

So we look at human behavior.

Speaker:

We look at adult behavior.

Speaker:

So what's more consistent, an adult doing that or a nine

Speaker:

year old with impulse control doing that.

Speaker:

And so if JonBenét and Burke are in the basement at the

Speaker:

same time, and there's a

Speaker:

confrontation, what was used to kill her?

Speaker:

The same thing that was used to

Speaker:

open the door, which is the flashlight.

Speaker:

Interesting.

Speaker:

So, but here's the other interesting part.

Speaker:

Here's, here's our physics lesson for today.

Speaker:

If I were to, um, if I were to, um, have a surface with

Speaker:

liquid or let's say, I'm trying to

Speaker:

think of a good look, I pour, um,

Speaker:

I, I can't think of a good example.

Speaker:

I'm just going to say, look, when the human body dies and

Speaker:

I've worked death scenes, right?

Speaker:

When the human body dies, not only do you get rigor

Speaker:

mortis and livor mortis, but the human body expels

Speaker:

like urine.

Speaker:

Um, you lose bladder control.

Speaker:

All right.

Speaker:

When that happens,

Speaker:

what does physics tell you and gravity

Speaker:

tell you, which way does the liquid flow?

Speaker:

Does it flow up or does it flow down?

Speaker:

Well, if I remember my, uh,

Speaker:

lessons in that, that would flow down.

Speaker:

Okay.

Speaker:

So if, if you found a body laying face up that it

Speaker:

expired, passed away face up, or

Speaker:

would you expect to find the urine stains?

Speaker:

Well, I guess downwards, right?

Speaker:

That's not a trick question.

Speaker:

I promise you, right?

Speaker:

So in the autopsy and in the crime scene, they found

Speaker:

urine on the carpet in front of the door before you even

Speaker:

got into the wine cellar room.

Speaker:

And when JonBenét was found, she was found with dried

Speaker:

urine on the top of her sweats, not on the bottom.

Speaker:

She did not die face up.

Speaker:

She died face down in the hallway

Speaker:

after being hit with a flashlight.

Speaker:

She passed away there.

Speaker:

The urine went through her, her sweatpants onto the

Speaker:

carpet where it was found in front of there, they, they,

Speaker:

the crime scene that this is all established.

Speaker:

Right.

Speaker:

And so a staged crime scene is she was turned face up,

Speaker:

but in the room, a garrote was put around her neck using

Speaker:

twine and using a paintbrush that came from the paint kit

Speaker:

that was right there next to the

Speaker:

door that belonged to Patsy Ramsey.

Speaker:

Right.

Speaker:

And she was found face up after the urine had dried.

Speaker:

So there was no urine below her in that room.

Speaker:

The urine was all dried on her pants.

Speaker:

Wow.

Speaker:

So now you get into the question of how did that happen?

Speaker:

So this, and then here's the other interesting part in

Speaker:

one of the crime scene videos and crime scene pictures,

Speaker:

you see the flashlight in the kitchen because people were

Speaker:

marked with why did they, because it has that diamond,

Speaker:

you know, etched shape on it.

Speaker:

Like you remember the kale lights and the mag lights,

Speaker:

they've got that to hold on to.

Speaker:

Well, it was dusted with fingerprint powder.

Speaker:

Well, the flashlight disappeared.

Speaker:

It's not been found since the crime scene.

Speaker:

Wow.

Speaker:

There's another interesting twist, isn't there?

Speaker:

I guess as we sort of wind this down here, Morgan, let me

Speaker:

ask you, so do you feel that

Speaker:

this case will ever be solved?

Speaker:

That's a, that's a, let me, let me phrase it.

Speaker:

There's a question of will it

Speaker:

be solved or can it be solved?

Speaker:

Can it be solved?

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

Will it be solved?

Speaker:

That requires political will that requires the new

Speaker:

decision by the district attorney, and that requires

Speaker:

going back and revisiting the case, stripping away all

Speaker:

the assumptions and starting from the ground, which is,

Speaker:

was there an intruder or was there no intruder?

Speaker:

Because if there was no intruder,

Speaker:

then the indictments makes sense.

Speaker:

Think about all the evidence.

Speaker:

Time will tell.

Speaker:

Time will only tell.

Speaker:

Think about all the evidence that had to be presented to

Speaker:

indict two parents on very serious charges.

Speaker:

And by the way, the reason I said you won't be able to

Speaker:

charge anybody in this, if, and

Speaker:

this is a, this is an if, right?

Speaker:

If Burke is found to be the person that killed JonBenét

Speaker:

you know why he can't be charged because he was

Speaker:

nine years old at the time, he was short of his 10th

Speaker:

birthday and you have to be 10 years old in the state of

Speaker:

Colorado to be charged with the crime.

Speaker:

What?

Speaker:

That's interesting.

Speaker:

That's interesting.

Speaker:

How many more twists and turns are there?

Speaker:

This is crazy, Morgan.

Speaker:

I mean, how much time do you have?

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

We, we got to do another one on that.

Speaker:

This one has more, you know, more, uh, uh, issues than we

Speaker:

can cover in just one session.

Speaker:

So I'm, I'm going to say a huge thank you.

Speaker:

This is the most intelligent

Speaker:

presentation I've ever heard of this case.

Speaker:

And you are truly a student of this

Speaker:

and you have the facts and figures.

Speaker:

Like I love what you say.

Speaker:

It's not what you believe.

Speaker:

It's what's true.

Speaker:

It's all that matters.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

And sometimes those two things are different things.

Speaker:

Aren't

Speaker:

they?

Speaker:

These conspiracy theories are all fueled by what people

Speaker:

believe, not by what they can prove.

Speaker:

Absolutely.

Speaker:

And this one is a, uh, this

Speaker:

one is a granddaddy of them all.

Speaker:

The twists, the turns, the questions, uh, particularly

Speaker:

the crime scene, um, contamination.

Speaker:

Wow.

Speaker:

And that's something you can't go back and reconstruct.

Speaker:

So that's permanent.

Speaker:

That's that fourth category of knowledge.

Speaker:

That's permanently unknowable.

Speaker:

You will never able to go back to the crime scene the way

Speaker:

it was at 602 in the morning

Speaker:

when the first officer showed up.

Speaker:

Never, never, never.

Speaker:

Uh, what can I say other than a million?

Speaker:

Thank yous for this.

Speaker:

That's, and thank you for sharing for the first time.

Speaker:

A lot of this stuff on our heroes behind the badge.

Speaker:

Uh, this is what we try to do on this podcast is get you

Speaker:

interesting people like who know what the hell they're

Speaker:

talking about and can give us insights that you'd never

Speaker:

get anywhere else about important

Speaker:

cases like the JonBenét Ramsey case.

Speaker:

So, uh, in closing this segment, I want to remind

Speaker:

everyone that heroes behind the badge is brought to you

Speaker:

by citizens behind the badge.

Speaker:

Citizens behind the badge is the leading organization in

Speaker:

support of the ladies and gentlemen,

Speaker:

the men and women of law enforcement.

Speaker:

You can get involved by going to citizens behind the

Speaker:

badge.org citizens behind the badge.org and find out all

Speaker:

there is to know about how you can get

Speaker:

involved in supporting law enforcement.

Speaker:

Also on citizens behind the badge, when you like and

Speaker:

subscribe and follow, you will always know when we

Speaker:

release a new episode of heroes behind the badge.

Speaker:

Okay.

Speaker:

You'll always get first notification.

Speaker:

So we would appreciate also if you

Speaker:

have any comments, we love your comments.

Speaker:

We read your comments.

Speaker:

We learned from your comments, please.

Speaker:

If you liked anything Morgan had

Speaker:

to say today, give us a comment.

Speaker:

There was plenty of like, by the way.

Speaker:

And if you have questions about what

Speaker:

Morgan had to say, give us that too.

Speaker:

We'd like to hear your questions and your comments.

Speaker:

But once again, Morgan, is there any way that people can

Speaker:

reach out and get in touch with you if they'd like to

Speaker:

know more, is there any website

Speaker:

or anything you would give them?

Speaker:

Why don't you tell us what that is?

Speaker:

Openunsolved.org.

Speaker:

That's the home of the national

Speaker:

center for open and unsolved cases.

Speaker:

We talk about the work that we do.

Speaker:

We actually have over 30 volunteer case analysts where I

Speaker:

train them in the use of AI, everything we're talking

Speaker:

about here, our volunteer case

Speaker:

analysts actually have their own accounts.

Speaker:

I train them how to use it.

Speaker:

Uh, and all of our con the way

Speaker:

to contact us is off of that site.

Speaker:

Openunsolved.org.

Speaker:

Open and solved on openunsolved.org.

Speaker:

Right.

Speaker:

One word.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Just one word openunsolved.org.

Speaker:

Okay.

Speaker:

Excellent.

Speaker:

I recommend it, uh, for more of what you

Speaker:

heard today on Heroes Behind the Badge.

Speaker:

I'm sure there's a lot more there.

Speaker:

And again, a great big thank

Speaker:

you, Morgan, for joining us again.

Speaker:

I hope we cross paths again.

Speaker:

You always, you never disappoint.

Speaker:

You give us and our audience a fabulous show.

Speaker:

So thanks again.

Speaker:

And that'll do it for this

Speaker:

episode of Heroes Behind the Badge.

Speaker:

We'll see you the next time.

Show artwork for Heroes Behind the Badge

About the Podcast

Heroes Behind the Badge
We tell REAL stories about REAL cops.  And we expose the fake news about police and give you the REAL truth.
From the front lines to the final call, Heroes Behind the Badge brings you the untold stories of America's law enforcement community. Led by Craig Floyd, who spent 34 years working alongside police officers across the nation, alongside veteran facilitator Dennis Collins and law enforcement expert Bill Erfurth, this podcast cuts through misconceptions to reveal the true nature of modern policing.

Our dynamic trio brings unique perspectives to each episode: Craig shares deep insights from his decades of experience and relationships within law enforcement, Dennis guides conversations with meticulous research and natural flow, and Bill adds engaging commentary that makes complex law enforcement topics accessible to all listeners.

Each episode features in-depth conversations with law enforcement professionals, sharing their firsthand experiences, challenges, and triumphs. Drawing from extensive research and real-world experience, we explore the realities faced by the over 800,000 officers who serve and protect our communities every day.

From dramatic accounts of crisis response to quiet moments of everyday heroism, our show illuminates the human stories behind the badge. We dive deep into the statistics, policies, and practices that shape modern law enforcement, offering listeners a comprehensive understanding of what it truly means to serve in law enforcement today.

Whether you're a law enforcement professional, a concerned citizen, or someone seeking to understand the complexities of modern policing, Heroes Behind the Badge provides the context, insights, and authentic perspectives you won't find anywhere else. Join us weekly as we honor those who dedicate their lives to keeping our communities safe, one story at a time.

Presented by Citizens Behind the Badge, a nonprofit organization dedicated to supporting and advocating for law enforcement professionals across the United States. Join over 126,000 Americans who have already signed our Declaration of Support for law enforcement at behindbadge.org.