Reporting
The JonBenet Ramsey Murder

VOLUME 17, NUMBER 28      JULY 14, 1997

We spoke with Denver news directors six months after a Colorado girl, JonBenet Ramsey, was killed. Hardly a week had gone by without a story about some new aspect of her life or mysterious death. There had been many theories, tips and claims about what happened.
But there had been no arrests.
The pressure to break the big story was greatest on the Denver news organizations, where news executives grappled with many tough decisions on what to report to their viewers.

A big story generated big pressures

Many news organizations, hometown and national, worked hard to report this tragic story.   This intense effort produced many interesting stories --- some of them true and some of them outright wrong.

"The biggest issue in a story like this is to not get caught up in rumor, innuendo and speculation," said Patti Dennis, News Director of KUSA-TV.
She held a staff meeting, about a week after the murder happened, outlining how they were going to cover it.
"We have double-sourced everything. If we aren't comfortable with it, we're not going to report it. Frankly, we haven't reported a lot of things that in the end have turned out not to be true," she said.

News executives directing coverage faced many challenges.  Officials' caution. Tabloid values. Big money of checkbook journalism. Two parents with lawyers and spin masters. The story's geography included Colorado, Michigan, Georgia and more.
"There are a lot of issues in this story that are not issues in other deaths of children, such as the celebrity side of JonBenet and the celebrity-like attention the murder has gotten," added Jack MacKenzie, News Director of KCNC-TV.

It wasn't easy to turn away from dramatic stories that were being circulated.
"When you are in the media, you not only want to get more information, get it right and get it faster, you want to win. What has been difficult is maintaining our composure when all the tabloids --- both TV and newspaper tabloids --- are out there reporting things that you wouldn't necessarily report yourself," MacKenzie said.
"When something shows up in Newsweek, we'll say, 'Newsweek is reporting this ...' You can do that with Newsweek and Time. Do you do it with the New York Post? Do you do it with the Enquirer? Where do you stop?" he asked.

MacKenzie said drawing the line was an issue in newsrooms.
"It is challenging when you are buffeted almost every day with this publication saying this, and another publication saying that. If you can't get it independently confirmed, what do you do? You need to have the most current information,but you don't know who their sources are," he said.

This was a big problem early on in the investigation when information was coming out from so many different people.
"We were breaking our own stories, then we would turn to another channel and see something completely different that was also new," he said.

It was tough not being pressured into reporting what the tabloids were running.
"They're good writers. I don't know if they are good journalists. But they're good writers," he said.

The tabloid rumor du jour was "mom is about to crack."
"How do they know mom is about to crack?" he asked.
"We're reporting on a murder and what is new with the investigation. That's where we must stay, or we will start falling over the edge into speculation, and I don't want to do that," he said.

"Our job is to present what is new," said Dennis at KUSA.
"If we don't have what's new today, we're not reporting it. If somebody else reports it, we're not going to report it just because it is written on the wires," she said.

It wasn't just the tabloid newspapers that were running the most sensational material. The talk radio shows had been alive with attention-getting opinions.
"This has been a story that has created more mystique and intrigue for viewers and journalists trying to cover it. To stay away from speculation, when the radio talk shows here are full of it, was hard," Dennis admitted.
"We'd all listen to the radio driving in to work, but none of it could be substantiated. So, it wasn't a part of our reporting. I finally had to quit listening to the talk shows, because I was getting wrapped up in it. I started thinking, 'Are we missing something here?'" she said.

Even within the newsroom, staffers were divided over what should be put on the air.
"One of our anchors thought we were censoring information. I asked her when was the media ever accused of using restraint? If that's the worst we're accused of, I'm okay with that. We're going to use some restraint here," she stressed.

Graphic details abounded --- how much do your viewers really want or need to know?
Many of the details of JonBenet's death were reported.
At the beginning, there was a discussion of whether or not she was sexually assaulted.
"That's not something you report with most 6-year-olds. But there had been no arrest," said MacKenzie.
"We provided the story with a lot of management. Every day there were discussions about how we would report what we had discovered. We talked about how we would say it so it wasn't offensive, yet so it would add to the pile of information we had reported on the story," he explained.

When a portion of the autopsy results were released, the question of sexual assault surfaced again. Do your viewers want to know about penetration or digital sexual assault?
KCNC went to experts, other pathologists, for interpretation.
"When the first part of the autopsy was released, we took it to other medical examiners and asked them to explain what the report said," said MacKenzie.

Another question: how many times do you repeat the graphic details?
"How many times do you have to say, 'Sources tell us there was semen on her thigh?' Do you say it once? If you say it at 5 p.m., do you have to report it at 10? Then it turns out months later that sources are claiming it was not true. You still don't know who was right," he said.

Police actions spurred media interest

"This is one of those cases where the actions of government entities helped make the story bigger," argued Melissa Klinzing, News Director of KMGH-TV.
"It's heartbreaking to realize that the murder of a child is not that unusual a story. I don't think it would have been on the front page of every tabloid and network show for months. How many children are murdered or lost in our country every day?" she asked.

She felt that it had been very unusual that the authorities shut off so much information and access.
"None of us had ever encountered a story where the public officials slammed the door in the face of the public with such abandon. To me, that has been the most intellectually shocking thing. They treated this family differently than they had ever treated other families. Part of it was wealth. These are wealthy white people. Everything was handled differently, and that's what I think made it a story," she said.

Why had the rules suddenly been re-written?

"Information that normally is open to the public suddenly was not open. That's when the tabloids and the networks got interested," she said.
Klinzing said fundamental things were not available --- beginning with the police report.
"Things that are revealed in just about any criminal case were not available in this one," she said.
"No one expected the family to talk right away. That wasn't unusual. It was the way the police and then other public officials in Boulder started to behave that was unusual," she said.
She pointed to the autopsy report as a good example, and the fight some news organizations waged to get it.
"Of course we don't want the details only known to the detectives. Those aren't ever revealed in a case like this," she added.

KMGH was in court almost from the very beginning to get material unsealed.
She felt that sealing the records has created a titillation.
Klinzing said the people in Boulder were not afraid that a child-killer was out there.

Tabloids had significant impact

Klinzing felt the tabloids kept the pressure on and the story alive.
"The tabloids have unearthed a lot of information. They have probably used some sleazy techniques. But some of the video and still pictures that we all have would not have come out if it hadn't been for their work," she explained.

As far as checkbook journalism, Klinzing believed that the networks had used it, too.
"The tabloids are willing to write direct checks to people. The networks will fly a person to New York for an interview, so what's the difference? If you get driven around New York in a limo and taken out to dinner and a play, they might as well have a check written," she said.
She felt the only people not doing checkbook journalism were the locals.

Klinzing felt the tabloids pressed stonewalling city and police officials.
"When government itself starts to function in a way that I would call marginally legal or illegal by withholding information, some of the tabloids and their techniques may have been the only way to unearth information the public is entitled to know. None of us in the mainstream media like those techniques. But if you are going to have government officials behaving this way, this is what they are going to get. And, that is dangerous for both of our professions," she added.

Parents did a carefully arranged interview four months later

One thing that was surprising to many people was the way the family was treated, and how long it took the police to interview them.
It was, of course, a very sensitive situation. The Ramseys had lost a daughter. But it was a common situation that law enforcement dealt with all the time.
"The family was under no obligation to talk to police. Police can't compel you to talk to them under any circumstances. So, the family was well within its rights not to speak to them," Klinzing pointed out.

But they had not acted like most of the victims' parents that you've covered.
They and their lawyers were reluctant to fully cooperate with the police searching for their daughter's killer.
"That's one of the reasons that people in the community were not afraid of a killer on the loose, because the family behaved strangely from the beginning," Klinzing added.

If police had difficulty interviewing the parents, so did the news media.
The Ramseys talked with CNN on January first. Their formal police interview wasn't until April 30.

When Colorado journalists finally got a chance to ask John and Patsy Ramsey questions, the situation was carefully controlled. Reporters and anchors were picked for the interview.
There were many ground rules:
The reporters couldn't reveal where it was held.
They could not ask about the police interview the day before.
Specific questions about the murder could not be asked.
There could be no pictures of the Ramseys' lawyers.

"The reporters had to agree to it to be part of the interview," said Klinzing.
"They had to drive to Boulder, and then drive around Boulder waiting for the cell phone to ring. When it rang, they told you where to go. It was unbelievable!" she said.

Although news executives didn't like the ground rules for the interview, they felt they had no choice but to comply.
"You go because you have to. We spoke with our anchor about what she should ask. But you have to go. There is no choice," said Klinzing.

The family's media approach was sophisticated and effective, for them.
"They have learned how to control the news media, and we were controlled in that situation. They also know that nobody is going to hit the family over the head, because then they are not going to get another chance for a subsequent interview," she added.

Dennis at KUSA also decided it was better to have something than nothing.
"We had the opportunity to sit down and have some conversation or none. That was the choice. There were some limits. That was our choice. As long as you are up front with the viewers about what the limitations were, nothing is misleading," she said.

They had spoken with CNN while in Atlanta for the burial of their child.
In Denver four months later on May first, some of their themes were similar:
1. They didn't kill their daughter.
2. The father hadn't molested her. "There have been innuendoes that she has been or was sexually molested. I can tell you those were the most hurtful innuendoes to us as a family," he said.
3. They hired lawyers quickly because a friend who was an attorney suggested it. Being parents, they would automatically be in the suspect pool.
4. They would some day be with their little girl in heaven.
5. They were impressed with the good spirit of the many people who had sent them supportive cards and messages.
6. We need to work together to find the killer. There is a $100,000 reward.

Mrs. Ramsey told the reporters, "I am appalled that anyone would think that John or I would be involved in such a hideous and heinous crime. Let me assure you ... I did not kill JonBenet ... I did not have anything to do with it ... I loved that child with the whole of my heart and soul."
When asked if he would recommend the death penalty for the person convicted of killing JonBenet, John Ramsey said "I would absolutely want the most severe penalty brought."

Crime scene photos were stolen and published

Another big issue was the crime scene photos bought by the Globe. The photo lab employees who supposedly sold them to the Globe were charged.

"We reported the story about the stolen pictures. We reported the story about the guys in the photo lab arrested for it, but we never showed the pictures," said Dennis.
"If we showed the pictures, we would have been doing exactly what the Globe was doing. We could tell the story without showing the pictures," she said.

KCNC managers took a similar approach. They covered the story --- but did not show the photos.
"We covered it and got done with it. One thing we have tried to do is not to focus on the sideshow," MacKenzie said.
For example, a woman had written a children's book about a child who looked remarkably like JonBenet. The little girl didn't get along with her parents.
"I don't have any room for her in my news. That is someone who is just trying to exploit, and I don't think it has any news value. There are a lot of books published every day that we don't do stories on, and we're not doing a story on this one," he said.

Does the media really have the right to certain information?

KCNC did stories critical of the way the Boulder police conducted the investigation, and the station participated in motions in the court to have things unsealed.

"But I am not going to complain about Boulder's desire to keep information sealed for some reasonable period of time. If that's what they need to do to do their job, that is their business," said MacKenzie.
"Our job is to report what we know. Their job is to arrest somebody. If by not releasing all the details of the autopsy helps them arrest somebody, who am I to say, 'Give it to me, so I can tell everyone,'" he said.
"These things have not been unilaterally closed. They have all been upheld by various layers in the court system in Boulder County. At this point, I don't feel the public has been cheated. If these things are sealed forever, that's a problem. But at some point cases to get solved. What's most important to most people is that this case gets solved," he stressed.

Some would've argued that the news organizations had a right to that information.
"We do, but we do in the context of the public good. Does the public have a need to know this information, and does that outweigh the police's ability to do their job?" he asks. "In a lot of ways, I don't disagree with keeping some things sealed, if it will help them find the killer, as long as eventually we find out what it is," he added.

Three-quarters of the autopsy was still sealed six months after the death. The search warrant for the house was still sealed.
"These are all things that are still out there. At some point, a judge is going to order these released. Then the story will be the lead again," he said.

KUSA's Dennis could understand the reluctance of law enforcement to release some documents.
"Every police investigation is handled differently. In this case, they believe information they have is germane to their potential arrest, and that giving it to the media would be dangerous, or would hinder that process. I let police do their work the way they do it," said Dennis.
"There certainly have been issues between the D.A.'s office and the police that from an outsider's point of view don't seem normal. But Boulder is a quiet community that hasn't had a great number of homicides to investigate," she said.

"There has been a lot of criticism of the way it has been handled, but there are other experts in the field, such as Henry Lee, who claim there will be an arrest and that this case was handled like others," she said.

Lessons learned

You must stay on the story as long as it takes. Even if your staff gets tired of it, you must stay with it.
"Do not get lulled to sleep," MacKenzie urged. Although the Boulder bureau reporter asked to do other stories, the answer was "no."
"The day you go off and do something else is the day something is going to break on this story. I don't know when that stops for me, maybe in a year we will be at that stage, but right now, we are not," he said.
"If you work the story, you get things almost every day. It's not always the lead story, but there is always stuff. It is easy to lose interest when you shouldn't," he added.
Reporters continued to make calls every day.
"This could go on for years. Whoever works in our Boulder bureau could making calls every day for years," he said.
"I don't think the Boulder police are every going to come out and say they have dropped the JonBenet Ramsey investigation, that they are not going to arrest anyone and they are calling the case closed," he said.

Examine your sources carefully.
"You have to be wary of your sources and how good the information is," MacKenzie warned.
"There are only about 10 or 15 people working this case, but it seems like every other person has a friend who is working it and who wants to tell you something. The key is to have good sources before it begins. It is hard to develop them after a story like this breaks," he said.

Don't expect law enforcement to hand you the story.
"The real diggers and scrapers among the journalists have really emerged," said Klinzing.
She believed that too often the media was used to certain information being released and handed to them in a press release. Then a story like this came along and weaker journalists were left behind.
"You should always be looking for that other information, that other source, that other way to end-run whoever is trying to block your way," she said.

Beware of the spin doctors.
"There are whole industries built around managing the news media and how to give us bits of information so we will go away happy," Klinzing said.
"They manage us very effectively these days. As journalists, it is a big challenge to cover things like this where there are a lot of insidious actions taking place. You must learn new techniques and dig harder. You can't be complacent. It is so easy to be managed that we in the media can become complacent. You must always look for the layer underneath what has been handed to you," she urged.

The Murder Timeline

Here is a brief timeline of the first days of this tragedy.

December 25, 1996
The Ramsey family observed Christmas at home in Boulder. Six-year-old JonBenet received a new silver bicycle.
She apparently went to bed as usual.

December 26, 1996
Before first light the next morning, her mother claimed to have discovered a ransom note near the kitchen that said, "We have your daughter."
The girl's bed was empty.
The mother called 911.
Police looked over the house briefly, and called the FBI.
Eight hours later, the police asked the girl's father, John Ramsey, to check the house see if anything was out of place.
He opened a basement door and screamed. His daughter was dead. He raced upstairs and put her body by the Christmas tree.

December 27, 1996
The autopsy concludes she was strangled and died by asphyxiation.

December 31, 1996
She was buried in Georgia.

January 1 - 20, 1997
In the weeks that followed the murder, it was reported:
There were no signs of forced entry into the home.
The girl's skull had been fractured in an attack before she was strangled.
She had allegedly been sexually assaulted.
A small portion of a practice ransom note was found in the home.

February 20, 1997
RAMSEY CASE #30 - UPDATE (Boulder city news release)
A formal interview with the Ramsey family has not been scheduled and no timeline has been established for scheduling those interviews.

April 23, 1997
RAMSEY UPDATE #41
The Boulder Police Department has been interested in conducting interviews with John and Patricia Ramsey since the murder of their daughter, JonBenet Ramsey. To date, there have been three specific attempts to schedule interviews with the Ramseys.
The first attempt was immediately following the murder intention of talking to police prior to taking the body to Atlanta to be buried ...
The second attempt to obtain an interview was in January ... th e response from the Ramsey attorneys ... was that they would be willing to present John and Patricia Ramsey only under the following conditions:
That the interviews be done together.
That the interviews be conducted at the Ramseys' attorney's office.
That Patricia Ramsey's doctor be present during the interview.
That the attorneys would specify which Boulder Police Department Officers would conduct the interview.
That the interview with Patricia Ramsey would not be more than one hour.
These conditions were totally unacceptable to the Boulder Police Department ...
The Boulder Police continue to request interviews with John and Patricia Ramsey, and their reluctance to provide witness information continues to hinder the Police investigation into the murder of their daughter.

April 30, 1997
RAMSEY NEWS UPDATE #42
Two Boulder police detectives today conducted interviews with John and Patricia Ramsey ...
Conditions of the interviews met the specifications outlined last week by the Boulder Police Department ... John and Patricia Ramsey would be interviewed separately. Patricia Ramsey would be interviewed first. There would be an open-ended time frame for the interviews, with reasonable breaks. The interviews would be tape recorded. The interviews would be conducted by two Boulder police detectives selected in consultation with District Attorney Hunter. Each interviewee would be accompanied by his/her attorney. The location of the interviews would be acceptable to the Boulder Police Department. Neither the Boulder Police Department nor the Boulder County District Attorney's Office will comment further on today's interviews. 

Return to RUNDOWN Database Search

Return to TV RUNDOWN  home page

Copyright 2002, Standish Publishing Company.  This material is for your personal use as a subscriber, and may not be reproduced or transmitted to other parties of any kind.