http://www.cybersleuths.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=004627
Watching you
Member
Member # 249
posted 07-18-2003 10:45 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
‘The Abrams Report’ for July 17
Read the complete transcript to Thursday’s show Guests: Michael Kane, Larry Pozner, Wendy Murphy, Lawrence Schiller, Lin Wood
DAN ABRAMS, HOST: New evidence, a new court decision, and a new D.A. on the case. Could it all prove that an intruder killed JonBenet Ramsey, that John and Patsy Ramsey have been improperly living under an umbrella of suspicion for almost seven years? The prosecutor who presented the case to a grand jury joins us for an exclusive interview. That’s next. First, the headlines.
(NEWS BREAK)
ANNOUNCER: Now THE ABRAMS REPORT. Here’s Dan Abrams.
ABRAMS: Hi everyone. Just say the name JonBenet Ramsey and most Americans know the details. Six- year-old former beauty queen apparently killed in her Boulder, Colorado home. Her parents forever under that umbrella of suspicion. And now, six and a half years later, there are new developments in the case that are raising new questions.
One of them, could John and Patsy Ramsey soon be cleared as possible suspects? Were they unfairly targeted? Tonight, the hour on all of the new developments and what you hear may change your impression of this case.
Now, a judge has issued an opinion about the case and the recently released 911 call. Patsy Ramsey calling the authorities after she said she discovered her daughter’s body.
(BEGIN AUDIOTAPE)
911 OPERATOR: OK, what’s your name? Are you...
PATSY RAMSEY, JONBENET’S MOTHER: Patsy Ramsey. I’m the mother. Oh my God. Please.
(END AUDIOTAPE)
ABRAMS: We’re going to play more of that tape later in the show. Plus, a new district attorney in Boulder is now saying that they are actively looking for an intruder. Let’s start with a federal court opinion that has somehow evaded the radar. A 93-page finding that basically says that John and Patsy Ramsey probably did not kill JonBenet.
Federal Court Judge Julie Carnes wrote that-quote-”The weight of the evidence is more consistent with a theory that an intruder murdered JonBenet than it is with a theory that Mrs. Ramsey did so.”
Wow. Now keep in mind, this was a civil case brought by Robert Christian Wolf against the Ramseys. Wolf was mentioned in the Ramseys’ book, “The Death of Innocence” as someone the police should have been investigated further. So when he sued, he didn’t have the prosecution’s evidence, only the evidence available to the public.
But still, the ruling prompted the Boulder County District Attorney, Mary Keenan, who’s in charge of the Ramsey investigation, to issue a press release saying she agreed with the court’s conclusion. The Ramseys’ attorney, Lin Wood, says he believes the authorities are finally making progress.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LIN WOOD, RAMSEYS’ ATTORNEY: We have finally reached the point, after
six years of wasting time that we finally reached the point where we have a
legitimate objective investigation now under way into the murder of
JonBenet Ramsey.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ABRAMS: Now I should say that Lin Wood had committed to coming on the program to discuss the case, but yesterday backed out after discussing it with his clients. But we have the prosecutor who worked the case. So, the question-does this mean the Ramseys will soon be cleared?
How important is this ruling? How about the D.A.’s statement? The 911 tape? The possible new evidence? We’re going to talk about all of this information for the hour. Before we get to our all- star panel, let me ask former Ramsey special prosecutor Michael Kane what to make of this judge’s opinion. Mr. Kane presented the case to a Boulder grand jury where no indictment was handed up. Mr. Kane, thanks very much for coming on the program.
MICHAEL KANE, FMR. RAMSEY SPECIAL PROSECUTOR: Hi, Dan.
ABRAMS: All right. So, what do we make of this? I mean a federal judge ruling that she believe it’s more likely than not that an intruder committed this crime.
KANE: Well I think as you said at the top of the show, the federal court was making a ruling based on the civil case and the civil case presented the evidence that had been gathered in discovery in that case. And given what was agreed to by both parties in the presentation of facts to the court, I think that the court made the right decision. I guess the bigger question then is were the facts presented to the court in the context of the civil case consistent with the facts that were developed in the police case, and I don’t think you can draw that correlation, because there was no access that the parties had been given to information that had been contained in the police files.
ABRAMS: So it sounds like you’re saying there’s more evidence out there that led the authorities to target John and Patsy Ramsey that did not come out in this particular case?
KANE: Well, no. I take exception to the use of the term target John and Patsy Ramsey.
ABRAMS: Oh come on, of course they did. I mean I’m not saying...
(CROSSTALK)
ABRAMS: ... that improperly or properly, but there’s no question that
” let’s even say a couple of months that the Ramseys would say from day one, but let’s even say a little bit into the investigation, there’s no question that John and Patsy Ramsey became the focus of this investigation.
KANE: Well I think that there’s-maybe we’re playing semantics here, but if there’s a suggestion that someone was targeted to the exclusion of anybody else, that’s what I take exception to. The police investigation, contrary to what Mr. Wood said in the little clip you just showed, the police investigation never excluded anybody with the exception of Burke Ramsey from the focus of the case. And so I don’t think that you can say that the police investigation was just solely looking at the- at Mr. and Mrs. Ramsey.
ABRAMS: So is there more evidence out there? I mean is there more evidence we don’t know about?
KANE: Absolutely. You’re talking about an investigation that was conducted by police officers who have powers to get witnesses to speak that civil litigants don’t, in spite of the fact that they have subpoena power. But more importantly, the resources that were available to the police and the prosecutors, particularly with the grand jury and the compulsory power that the grand jury had, I mean, we didn’t sit out there-I was involved in the case for about 18 months and worked on it full time.
I don’t think that any of the litigants in the civil case worked this case full time for the period of time that I did, and I got into the case 18 months after it happened, and the police had been working full time during that period. So clearly, there’s a lot more information out there that’s never been made public and certainly wasn’t made part of the civil case.
ABRAMS: And do you want to say whether that information implicates the Ramseys?
KANE: No, I’m not going to say that at all.
ABRAMS: All right.
KANE: I’m just simply saying that given what the court had...
ABRAMS: Right.
KANE: ... before-but a lot of what the court had-I mean frankly, it would be contradicted by what’s in the district attorney’s own file.
ABRAMS: Oh really? All right. Well, let me introduce the rest of the guests. The great author and investigative journalist Lawrence Schiller who wrote the book “Perfect Murder, Perfect Town” about the Ramsey investigation joins us, Denver criminal defense attorney Larry Pozner. Pozner has followed the case closely for years. And former prosecutor and law professor Wendy Murphy, who has been suspicious of the Ramseys for about as longer-long as Pozner has been defending them.
All right, so, all friends of mine joining us on the program. Larry, you’re hearing what Michael Kane is saying. He seems to be suggesting that you know this is an interesting case based on the evidence in front of it. This judge made the right decision, but there’s a lot more out there that this judge did not have.
LARRY POZNER, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: What the judge had is so overwhelming. You know, it’s just absurd to think that the judge missed the boat. There’s so many facts that point to intruder that America wasn’t told about. The knots are clearly the knots of an experienced person that’s into bondage. That’s not the Ramsey family.
The sexual assault doesn’t fit and it took place right around the time of the murder. The use of the garrote, the open windows, the open doors. Remember how the police said, gees, everything was locked up. It wasn’t locked up. We were lied to for month after month. As the court points out, the FBI told the Boulder police to do this kind of conduct, flush out a Ramsey confession. That was never going to happen. This is a low point in Colorado law enforcement history, and it’s time...
(CROSSTALK)
POZNER: ... at least now can we please look for the murderer.
ABRAMS: Well and that’s what I want to ask Wendy Murphy. Wendy, again, you know I don’t think this court ruling is nothing. I think that this is significant. Let me read you another portion of that court ruling, Letter E here. “In short, the plaintiffs’ evidence that the defendants killed their daughter and covered up their crime is based on little more than the fact that defendants were present in the house during the murder.”
WENDY MURPHY, FMR. PROSECUTOR: Yes, but look you’ve got to focus on what Michael said, Dan. She was ruling on the evidence in front of her, and she got a boatload of evidence from Lin Wood and from the Ramseys, much of which I would characterize as red herrings that really don’t establish their innocence by any stretch. And when you have a judge looking at a pile of evidence and that’s all she has, you can’t help but draw those kinds of conclusions. The context of her case was such that she knows almost nothing about...
ABRAMS: All right...
MURPHY: ... police investigation...
(CROSSTALK)
MURPHY: ... and you cannot draw inferences about...
ABRAMS: I’ll tell you who knows about this case. Apart from the
people involved in it, it’s Larry Schiller because he had all sorts of
access to information in this case when he wrote the book. Larry, what do
you make of this court opinion? This is a federal court writing a 93-page
opinion, I think going beyond just saying, well, in this particular matter
” I mean, this judge is saying, look, what I have seen here indicates to me that it’s likely an intruder was involved.
LAWRENCE SCHILLER, “PERFECT MURDER, PERFECT TOWN”: Well I think you have to start from day one to really look at this in proper perspective. You know from the very beginning, and I’m not trying to point too much of a finger at the Ramseys’ initial attorneys, not Mr. Wood. You know the perception of how they treated the Ramseys were as if they were guilty. They certainly had a right to exercise all of their constitutional rights at the beginning. But it was the manner in which they executed and exercised those constitutional rights.
So from the very beginning, the police had what I call a knee-jerk reaction to the fact that oh, these people are hiding something. And the police officers in Boulder, Colorado, at that time we must remember were very young, hard working guys, some of them from the narcotics areas, some from other areas, but none of them were seasoned detectives. None of them were seasoned homicide detectives. Either-even Mr. John Eller, who had come from Florida...
ABRAMS: Yes.
SCHILLER: ... who was running the case was not a seasoned homicide detective. So they had this initial knee-jerk reaction. And then finally as time progressed, they started to leak material to support that knee-jerk reaction, that some of it was leaked to “Vanity Fair”...
ABRAMS: Yes.
SCHILLER: ... and the public then took on a perception that these people were guilty combined with the way...
(CROSSTALK)
SCHILLER: ... their own attorneys were handling...
ABRAMS: Did this...
SCHILLER: Now...
ABRAMS: ... opinion make a lot of sense to you, Larry? I’m almost out of time in this segment. Did this opinion make a...
SCHILLER: Well...
ABRAMS: ... lot of sense to you?
SCHILLER: It doesn’t make a lot of sense and I’ll get to why. Because, as it was said at the head of the show, there’s a lot of evidence against the Ramseys and there’s a lot of evidence to an intruder theory. And I can tell you later exactly how I feel, but I don’t think the judge was handling a criminal case. She was handling a civil case.
ABRAMS: All right. Larry, stand by because we’re going to go through that evidence because I’m going to ask you specifically what you’re talking about.
But coming up, the 911 call that Patsy Ramsey made on that Christmas morning when she discovered JonBenet’s body.
(BEGIN AUDIOTAPE)
P. RAMSEY: Police...
(CROSSTALK)
911 OPERATOR: What’s going on there ma’am?
P. RAMSEY: We have a kidnapping. Hurry please.
911 OPERATOR: Explain to me what’s going on, OK.
P. RAMSEY: There-we have a-there’s a note left and our daughter’s gone.
(END AUDIOTAPE)
ABRAMS: And the new district attorney has weighed in. Does she believe the Ramseys didn’t do it? That’s coming up.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ABRAMS: Coming up, a new D.A. in Boulder, Colorado seems to believe an intruder likely killed JonBenet. That’s coming up in an hour look at the latest developments in this case.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
WOOD: The days of the criminal investigation of John and Patsy Ramsey, those days are over. Mary Keenan is not investigating them. She has indicated publicly that they have been thoroughly and exhaustively investigated as potential suspects by the Boulder Police Department, and she is now moving this case in the direction of following the evidence. That’s what done wrong by the Boulder Police Department. They didn’t do it. She is going to do it and it gives a chance to this family to find out who killed their daughter.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ABRAMS: Now, well that’s the Ramsey attorney’s opinion. D.A. Mary Keenan issued a press release supporting a judge’s decision that an intruder likely killed JonBenet.
Quote-”I have carefully reviewed the order of the United States District Court Judge Julie Carnes in the civil case of Wolf v. John Ramsey and Patricia Ramsey. I agree with the court’s conclusion that the weight of the evidence is more consistent with a theory that an intruder murdered JonBenet than it is with a theory that Mrs. Ramsey did so.”
Michael Kane, a former prosecutor on this case, it sure sounds like the D.A. now is not just looking at other possible suspects, but really does seem to be looking away from John and Patsy Ramsey.
KANE: Well I don’t think there’s any question that that’s what Mary Keenan is doing. I guess the question is, has she tacitly exonerated them? I took her statements to come pretty close to doing that.
ABRAMS: I agree with you. Yes. Wendy Murphy, I mean it sounds to me like the D.A.-why would a D.A. make a comment like that?
MURPHY: That is the most outrageous and ridiculous and absurd...
ABRAMS: Why?
MURPHY: ... thing I have ever heard a prosecutor say.
ABRAMS: Why?
MURPHY: Because she was commenting on a judge’s ruling in a civil case.
ABRAMS: But she is saying..
.
(CROSSTALK)
ABRAMS: ... I know the evidence...
(CROSSTALK)
ABRAMS: ... and this judge is right.
(CROSSTALK)
MURPHY: Look, that’s like her saying, which Michael Kane, I think, responsibly was not willing to do, it’s like her saying I know every bit of evidence that was provided to the grand jury and it just doesn’t point at all at the Ramseys. And you know what’s interesting? Two of the pieces of information that the Ramseys say point to an intruder theory, which the judge also relied on to suggest that there was an intruder involved, the infamous palm print that supposedly belonged to no one and the so-called footprint from the high tech shoe or whatever you call this tech (ph) sneaker...
ABRAMS: Yes.
MURPHY: ... and unbeknownst to the judge, in fact, the palm print has been identified as belonging to Melinda, the older daughter, John’s older daughter, and the tech (ph) shoe print has been identified-both of these seem to have been reported in the Rocky Mountain News-the shoe print belongs to a shoe that Burke Ramsey had. Now look, the judge did not...
ABRAMS: But it wasn’t definitively Wendy-the shoe was not definitively linked to Burke Ramsey...
MURPHY: Look, Burke Ramsey...
ABRAMS: They were saying it’s possible.
MURPHY: ... had a pair like that. And what I’m saying is...
(CROSSTALK)
MURPHY: ... that the judge who wrote this decision said oh, the mysterious footprint, oh the mysterious palm print, that’s part of why I think an intruder theory...
(CROSSTALK)
MURPHY: ... works. And you know what? A D.A. who knows the truth is acting irresponsibly when she doesn’t even clear up those misconceptions.
ABRAMS: All right. Let me lay out for you, then, if you’re going to
go over-let’s go to Letter “A” here. This is what the judge relied on -
” claiming that the window showed signs of forced entry, there was debris from outside the window found inside the home, seeming to indicate that someone had come from outside, evidence of stun gun injuries to JonBenet should be inconsistent with the parents, a foreign shoe print at the murder scene, as Wendy talks about, a foreign palm print on the door to the murder scene.
DNA on the body did not match anyone in the Ramsey family, meaning
there was both DNA under the fingernails and in the underwear, a binding
device used on JonBenet suggested sophisticated a knowledge of bondage
techniques and materials used in making garrote and tape used not found in
the Ramsey home. Larry Schiller, that’s what the judge based-who wanted
” was that Michael Kane trying to jump in? Go ahead.
KANE: Yes (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Yes, could I comment on that?
ABRAMS: Yes.
KANE: First of all, the thing I was going to say is if Mary Keenan has reached this conclusion, she clearly has not reviewed her own file because I don’t want to get into a lot of specifics about this because of ethical reasons, but there are clearly in the police file answers to a lot of the things that the court said had never been established. I mean, I can give you-I don’t know where this came from that these were sophisticated knots. I don’t know that anybody had the opportunity to untie those knots who was an expert in knots, but the police department had somebody who fit that category and that was not the opinion of that person. These were very simple knots.
The thing about the stun gun that everybody keeps coming back to. There was one person who was qualified who actually looked at that little girl’s body on the autopsy table and that was Dr. Meyer, who’s a forensic pathologist. He looked at those very marks and said that they were abrasions. It is a quantum leap-you can take a stun gun and put it up against somebody’s body...
(CROSSTALK)
KANE: ... and it’s going to leave a burn. It does leave an abrasion. So all these other opinions that have come out that said that this was a stun gun, there is absolutely no way they would ever get into evidence because there is no evidence that these were burns.
(CROSSTALK)
KANE: And you could go...
ABRAMS: But, Larry Pozner...
(CROSSTALK)
ABRAMS: ... there were other experts like Mr. Doberson and others and Lou Smit who have said they absolutely believe that there was a stun gun used.
KANE: But they’re basing that based on photographs of marks on her body. When the uncontradicted evidence of Dr. Meyer is that these were not burns.
ABRAMS: Go ahead, Larry.
POZNER: We’re living in “Alice in Wonderland”. What does it take? So far tonight we’ve said that a federal judge wrote a 94-page opinion that’s stupid. I don’t know many stupid federal judges.
MURPHY: I didn’t hear anyone say that, Larry.
POZNER: And then we heard a prosecutor who has spent her entire career as a career prosecutor clear somebody wrongly because she’s foolish. Folks, let’s look at it. They hired four handwriting experts for the prosecution, two handwriting for the defense. None of them are willing to say that it is likely Patsy Ramsey...
(CROSSTALK)
POZNER: The United States Secret Service...
(CROSSTALK)
POZNER: The United States Secret Service says...
(CROSSTALK)
POZNER: ... this is clearly not Patsy Ramsey.
(CROSSTALK)
KANE: ... said about handwriting.
POZNER: Where’s the male DNA...
MURPHY: Let Michael answer this...
(CROSSTALK)
POZNER: ... in her underwear?
ABRAMS: Michael...
(CROSSTALK)
ABRAMS: Wait. Michael, 10 seconds, Michael Kane.
(CROSSTALK)
ABRAMS: Hold on. Michael Kane, 10 seconds.
KANE: This is what the court’s opinion said. It said-in its opinion, it said defendants argue that the opinions of plaintiffs’ experts should not be-talking about handwriting experts...
ABRAMS: Yes.
KANE: ... should not be admitted because the field of forensic document examination is not sufficiently reliable. In their (UNINTELLIGIBLE) support of...
ABRAMS: Yes.
KANE: ... defendants argue that the science does not meet reliability standards (UNINTELLIGIBLE). So, by their very own motion...
ABRAMS: Yes, but that’s...
KANE: ... they’re saying that handwriting is garbage...
ABRAMS: ... kind of a cop out.
(CROSSTALK)
ABRAMS: Yes. OK...
(CROSSTALK)
KANE: ... that’s garbage.
ABRAMS: Yes. Well but look...
(CROSSTALK)
ABRAMS: I don’t-look, handwriting expert-handwriting is not a science, but it is still useful.
You know what? Let me take a quick break here. We’re going to come back, a lot of developments. We’ re going to go through the evidence. Larry Schiller said before there’s evidence for, there’s evidence against.
Larry is going to lay it out for us.
And later the 911 tape just released, the call Patsy Ramsey made to police the morning she found JonBenet Ramsey dead in their home. You are going to hear it tonight. We’re coming back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ABRAMS: Coming up, the recently released 911 tape. We’re going to play it in its entirety; a frantic Patsy Ramsey calls police when she finds JonBenet’s body.
(BEGIN AUDIOTAPE)
911 OPERATOR: Do you know how long she’s been gone?
P. RAMSEY: No I don’t. Please. We just got up and she’s not here.
Oh my God. Please.
911 OPERATOR: OK...
P. RAMSEY: Please send somebody.
911 OPERATOR: I am honey.
P. RAMSEY: Please.
911 OPERATOR: Take a deep breath for me, OK...
P. RAMSEY: Hurry, hurry, hurry...
911 OPERATOR: Patsy? Patsy? Patsy? Patsy?
(END AUDIOTAPE)
ABRAMS: That’s coming up.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ABRAMS: Coming up, the recently released 911 tape, Patsy Ramsey calling police after she found her daughter’s body. We’ll play the entire tape and try to figure out what it means. Plus, crime scene photos and an upclose look at the evidence. But first the headlines.
(NEWS BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
WOOD: This tape exposes it. It’s the smoking gun that shows that the Boulder Police Department, in fact, lied about this family.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ABRAMS: Early in the morning of December 26, 1996, Patsy Ramsey called 911 to report her daughter JonBenet missing. Some investigators later said that call could be a key to solving the 6-year-old’s murder. The reason? Some in the police department said there was another conversation recorded after Patsy Ramsey thought she hung up the phone.
(BEGIN AUDIOTAPE)
P. RAMSEY: Police...
911 OPERATOR: What’s going on?
P. RAMSEY: Seven fifty-five fifteenth street.
911 OPERATOR: What’s going on there ma’am?
P. RAMSEY: We have a kidnapping. Hurry. Please.
911 OPERATOR: Explain to me what’s going on, OK?
P. RAMSEY: There-we have a-there’s a note left and our daughter’s gone.
911 OPERATOR: A note was left and your daughter is gone?
P. RAMSEY: Yes.
911 OPERATOR: How old is your daughter?
P. RAMSEY: She’s six years old. She’s blonde, six years old.
911 OPERATOR: How long ago was this?
P. RAMSEY: I don’t know. I just found the note, and my daughter’s gone.
911 OPERATOR: Does it say her took her?
P. RAMSEY: What?
911 OPERATOR: Does it say who took her?
P. RAMSEY: No. I don’t know. There’s a-There’s a ransom note here.
911 OPERATOR: It’s a ransom note?
P. RAMSEY: It says SBTC. Victory. Please.
911 OPERATOR: OK, what’s your name? Are you...
P. RAMSEY: Patsy Ramsey, I’m the mother. Oh my God. Please.
911 OPERATOR: OK, I’m sending an officer over, OK.
P. RAMSEY: Please.
911 OPERATOR: Do you know how long she’s been gone?
P. RAMSEY: No I don’t. Please. We just got up and she’s not here.
Oh my God. Please.
911 OPERATOR: OK, calm...
P. RAMSEY: Please send somebody.
911 OPERATOR: I am honey.
P. RAMSEY: Please.
911 OPERATOR: Take a deep breath for me, OK.
P. RAMSEY: Please. Hurry, hurry, hurry...
911 OPERATOR: Patsy? Patsy? Patsy? Patsy?
(END AUDIOTAPE)
ABRAMS: Now, police said this conversation, which they described as barely audible, after she hangs up the phone proves that the Ramseys lied, that John and Patsy Ramsey were heard talking with their son Burke, even though Burke, they claimed, was asleep at the time of the call. Now independent experts including some from NBC have tested the tape and found no evidence of that conversation.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
WOOD: The FBI tested it, the Secret Service tested it. It was all a lie. And it was part of a theory, a plan to publicly disseminate information about this family in an effort to assassinate their character, to convince the public that they were guilty, when, in fact, they had no evidence to back it up.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ABRAMS: All right. But there are still questions about the tape. Larry Schiller, you have the original report that led police to believe that there may have been another conversation. Tell us about it and what you make of Lin Wood’s comment there.
SCHILLER: Well, Mr. Wood, you know, who I respect as an attorney and represents his clients well is being at this point guilty of the same thing he’s laying at the feet of everybody else. He is editing the facts so that the public perceives something a certain way. In fact, the Boulder Police Department did take either the original tape, I believe, or a first generation tape and did send it to the FBI and there was no results.
They did send it to the Secret Service and there were no results, only to discover that really there was more advance technology in a company in El Segundo, California that was in the aerospace business and dealt with these type of sound problems and they took the tape to El Segundo, California and there that company analyzed the tape and came up with what they believe was dialogue that continued a short time later after the phone was supposedly hung up.
Now, based upon the El Segundo Aerospace Industry’s report, the police then took another look at the situation and compared it to the statements that Patsy and John Ramsey...
ABRAMS: Yes.
SCHILLER: ... had made. Many, many statements...
(CROSSTALK)
SCHILLER: ... let me just continue. Number one, they said Burke was asleep. But also Patsy Ramsey on that tape is reciting the end of the letter, saying victory with the signoff...
ABRAMS: Yes.
SCHILLER: ... yet in her police statement, she very clearly said that she had only read the first part of the letter, had never even finished it...
ABRAMS: Yes, but that’s the sort of thing...
(CROSSTALK)
ABRAMS: ... when you’re...
(CROSSTALK)
ABRAMS: ... when you’re calling 911...
(CROSSTALK)
ABRAMS: ... I could see someone forgetting that. I mean...
SCHILLER: Let’s go with a step-I understand that. But it’s the total amount of their inconsistent statements that led the police to be very suspicious of them. Look, you have the pineapple that’s found on the table that’s in...
ABRAMS: Yes.
SCHILLER: ... JonBenet’s intestines and very clearly you know that pineapple had to be taken from the kitchen. The police found it in a bowl. The Ramseys said you know they took their children upstairs, they went directly to sleep, they were asleep...
(CROSSTALK)
SCHILLER: ... they carried her upstairs asleep. There’s a whole series of...
ABRAMS: We’ll get to that, Larry, in the next block. But Larry Pozner...
SCHILLER: Let me just say...
(CROSSTALK)
SCHILLER: ... let me say one other thing.
ABRAMS: Quickly.
SCHILLER: The tapes that NBC saw and the tapes that other people recently saw are not first generation or original tapes. They’re third and fourth generation tapes and that’s where the difference is.
ABRAMS: Larry Pozner, let’s even assume that (UNINTELLIGIBLE) that’s true, that they’re not first generation, they’re second, they’re third, they’re fourth. You know, it still seems to me-look, I’m not an expert in tape recording, et cetera, but you know Lin Wood is basically giving - I don’t know if Lin Wood or whoever has given up this tape to allow people to test it, say do all the testing you want on it and they haven’t found this conversation.
POZNER: Nobody has found any evidence, any fact that makes it likely a Ramsey family member was involved in this. And every time the people who don’t like the Ramseys find a fact that points to an intruder, they say that fact doesn’t count. How can so many facts accumulate at a crime scene that point to an intruder and be disallowed like the windows and the points of entry, like the paintbrush that has some pieces of it upstairs, like fabric, fiber in the bed and downstairs that seem to indicate, clearly, that this kidnapping began in her bedroom.
MURPHY: You know...
ABRAMS: Hang on. Let him finish.
(CROSSTALK)
ABRAMS: Let him finish.
POZNER: Every time these people see something they don’t like, they say king’s X, I don’t have to consider it. Remember this that (UNINTELLIGIBLE) was an extremely experienced prosecutor was extremely experienced in Boulder. When he started saying I think it may be an intruder, they got him off the case, the Boulder police pressured.
Lou Smit had no axe to grind with anyone, a great homicide detective. They bring him up from the Springs and when he starts saying this looks like an intruder, they say, Lou, we don’t listen to you anymore. Steve Ainsworth, one of the great detectives in Colorado on the Boulder Sheriff’s Department said...
ABRAMS: Yes.
(CROSSTALK)
POZNER: ... this is looking like an intruder, people said...
MURPHY: You know, come on...
POZNER: ... Ainsworth you don’t work on the case anymore.
ABRAMS: Wendy...
(CROSSTALK)
ABRAMS: Wendy...
(CROSSTALK)
ABRAMS: Wendy, let me...
(CROSSTALK)
ABRAMS: ... I was particularly persuaded by in the judge’s opinion. This brown paper sack apparently found in a guest bedroom. Letter-full screen “D”-found in the guest bedroom, contained rope inside, fibers from the sack apparently found in JonBenet’s bed and the bag used to transport her body to the coroner. That to me is pretty strong evidence of someone else in that house coming in with this sack to commit this crime.
(CROSSTALK)
MURPHY: Look, you have to completely contrive a story to make that into something and I don’t...
ABRAMS: Really?
MURPHY: ... even believe this evidence. Look, remember that what you’re talking about is evidence that came directly from the Ramseys in their advocates. You have no idea what weight to give it. But I’ll tell you something about fiber...
ABRAMS: Well then you’re basically saying this judge...
MURPHY: ... let me tell you something about fiber...
ABRAMS: ... is a moron. I mean...
MURPHY: No, no, I did not say that. I said she judged based on what was before her and she didn’t get both sides.
(CROSSTALK)
MURPHY: Can I say something about fibers? Just let me finish.
ABRAMS: Go ahead.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK.
MURPHY: The fiber story-everyone is talking about fibers. Don’t forget for a minute that nobody really disputes Patsy Ramsey’s sweater fibers were on the tape that showed up on...
ABRAMS: Well we don’t know if they were fibers. They were fibers consistent...
MURPHY: Fibers consistent with her sweater...
ABRAMS: ... with Patsy Ramsey’s jacket.
MURPHY: ... just happened to show up on the tape that was on the child’s mouth that was wet. Fibers...
(CROSSTALK)
MURPHY: ... wrapped inside the garrote.
ABRAMS: Larry Schiller...
MURPHY: ... fibers wrapped inside the garrote...
ABRAMS: Hang on...
MURPHY: Dan, I want to have a chance to...
ABRAMS: Wendy, I know, I’m sorry...
MURPHY: ... respond to the 911...
ABRAMS: I can’t just let each-I can’t let you make a number of comments without getting people to discuss it.
MURPHY: I want to talk about the tape...
ABRAMS: I know. I want to talk about the evidence...
(CROSSTALK)
ABRAMS: Let’s talk about the tape. Larry Schiller broke that story in his book. He reported that four fibers found on the duct tape covering JonBenet’s mouth were consistent...
(CROSSTALK)
ABRAMS: ... with Patsy Ramsey’s jacket. Larry...
(CROSSTALK)
ABRAMS: Yes.
SCHILLER: Yes-but I also said in the book that this could very easily have been a transfer because the tape was taken off and put down and there are a lot of areas and a lot of places where transfers took place.
MURPHY: Larry, what about the fibers...
SCHILLER: Look, what you really have here...
MURPHY: ... wrapped inside the garrote?
(CROSSTALK)
MURPHY: They were the same fibers wrapped inside the rope.
(CROSSTALK)
MURPHY: What’s your explanation for that?
SCHILLER: Hold one second. What you have here is an immense amount of exculpatory evidence that the police held back from the public consumption and they had a right to do that. And in essence, the public...
ABRAMS: Let him finish. Let him finish.
SCHILLER: ... you know convicted these people. Yes, convicted these people. Now, when Lou Smit came in, OK, he really dug up a lot of this evidence and he showed the police, and so did Dr. Henry Lee, the criminologist, that this evidence should have been given weight. The police really had an age difference. There was a big age difference between the officers like Steve Thomas and Lou Smit. And you know, you could not mix, you know, oil and water and eventually Lou Smit went. And it’s sad to say and I’m happy to see that he’s back because he may lead you eventually right back to the Ramseys...
ABRAMS: All right...
SCHILLER: ... Lou Smit is probably one of the best detectives on this case.
ABRAMS: And I have to tell you, Lou Smit made his case to me, and I have to tell you, you know, the guy makes a persuasive case. Michael Kane, let me just give you the final 30 seconds in this segment and then we’re going to come back.
KANE: Well I don’t know where this information about the sack and fibers from the sack that were found-I mean, I can tell you, that’s news to me. Number two, it wasn’t just a guest bedroom, it was John Andrew’s bedroom.
(CROSSTALK)
KANE: It had a lot of his stuff in there, and he was a backpacker, and the fact that there was a sack-it was a rucksack is what it was, with a rope in it. I don’t know if that’s necessarily inconsistent with that. As far as the tape goes, I don’t know where that tape came from. It was probably released by Mr. Wood. And I don’t know that there’s any guarantee that that tape was the complete tape that...
(CROSSTALK)
KANE: ... is in the hands of the police department.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Right.
KANE: So...
ABRAMS: I don’t know. I mean whatever you say. I can’t imagine...
KANE: Well I’ve listened to the original...
ABRAMS: ... I can’t imagine Lin Wood would doctor the tape...
KANE: Well I’ve listened to the original tape.
(CROSSTALK)
MURPHY: Dan...
(CROSSTALK)
MURPHY: Dan, can I just say one quick thing about the tape?
ABRAMS: You know what?
(CROSSTALK)
ABRAMS: Let me wrap this...
SCHILLER: What did Michael Kane say about the original tape?
(CROSSTALK)
KANE: I said I’ve listened...
(CROSSTALK)
KANE: ... I’ve listened to the original tape and I have talked to the experts that have also looked at that tape and to suggest that there’s nothing on that tape at the end, there is clearly something on that tape.
MURPHY: And Dan...
(CROSSTALK)
MURPHY: ... you didn’t even play the full tape...
KANE: You can differ about what it is, but...
(CROSSTALK)
MURPHY: ... Dan. You didn’t even play the full tape. It has been reported that Patsy-the reporter- the 911 operator says Patsy, Patsy, Patsy five times and after that...
(CROSSTALK)
MURPHY: ... Patsy says help me Jesus...
ABRAMS: Take a break. When we...
MURPHY: ... that’s where...
ABRAMS: ... when we come back, Larry Schiller is going to tell us the evidence that he says is for and against, but you’ve got the D.A. in Boulder saying that basically she thinks that an intruder was responsible. She didn’t say it, but it’s clear that’s what she thinks. (UNINTELLIGIBLE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ABRAMS: A judge rules that it’s likely an intruder killed JonBenet Ramsey. The D.A. in Boulder, Colorado seems to agree. But what is the evidence? We’re going to go through some of it. Coming up.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ABRAMS: We’re talking about the JonBenet Ramsey case, and some new developments, a federal judge ruling that she believes an intruder likely killed JonBenet. The D.A. in Boulder seeming to agree with that. We’re talking specifically about a 911 tape that you can hear a distraught Patsy Ramsey calling the police to report what she said was the discovery of her daughter. And we’ve been talking about whether there’s anything on that tape after Patsy Ramsey thinks she has hung up. The police have made a big deal about this implying that things that she said afterwards prove that she’s lying.
The attorney for the Ramseys has said there’s nothing on that tape. We’ve had it tested. It’s been tested by many people. Lin Wood, the attorney for John and Patsy Ramsey has been watching the program and has been good enough to call us to talk about this issue. Lin, you’ve been listening to our conversation. Take it away.
WOOD: Thanks, Dan. I want to make clear to your viewers that the tape that I provided to NBC was, in fact, authenticated as being identical to the tape that was tested by the Boulder Police Department. And that authentication came directly from Mary Keenan who provided the tape to me, and I provided NBC with the tape that Mary Keenan provided to me, the entire tape. It wasn’t a third or fourth- generation tape. It was a first-generation off of the 911 original call, the same type tape that was tested by the Boulder Police Department and there is no conversation on there.
And when Michael Kane admits that there’s-quote-unquote - “something there”, that’s a word game. There’s something there after the phone hangs up. There’s about five or six seconds of noise. There’s no conversation there. It’s not Burke. It’s not John. It’s not Patsy. And that’s the lie that the Boulder Police Department told about this tape.
And it is, as I represented, the smoking gun that demonstrates objectively that the Boulder Police Department leaked false information about this family in an effort to smear their name to try to convince the public that they were guilty. And I think Michael Kane will tell you, on the air right now, that he never heard Burke Ramsey’s voice on that tape. You didn’t hear it, did you Michael?
ABRAMS: I’m going to give you the opportunity, if you want to, to respond Michael. Do you want to respond?
KANE: No, I really-I’m not going to say...
ABRAMS: All right.
KANE: ... I’m not going to say what I believe. I don’t know objectively who is on the end of that tape. But I can tell you, I listened to that tape, and there are people’s voices after Patsy Ramsey says “hurry, hurry, hurry.”
WOOD: Well, Michael, why don’t you tell us exactly...
(CROSSTALK)
WOOD: ... whose voice you heard on that tape, because the FBI didn’t hear it, the Secret Service didn’t hear it, and two independent experts hired by NBC didn’t hear it. And why don’t you just tell the public the truth? You know...
(CROSSTALK)
WOOD: ... stop playing games and tell us the truth. Whose voices do you claim you heard on that tape?
KANE: If you want to get together, we’ll-I will listen to the tape out in Boulder with you.
..
(CROSSTALK)
KANE: ... and you can draw your own conclusions about who...
(CROSSTALK)
WOOD: Here’s the problem...
ABRAMS: Hang on. Let me ask Larry Schiller...
(CROSSTALK)
ABRAMS: Lin, hang on one second. Larry Schiller...
(CROSSTALK)
WOOD: If you don’t mind, Dan because...
ABRAMS: I just want to ask Larry Schiller why he said it was third or fourth generation, Lin, because...
(CROSSTALK)
SCHILLER: I don’t even know if Mary Keenan gave him a digital tape or an analog tape and that has a lot to do with it...
ABRAMS: You said third or fourth generation.
SCHILLER: I don’t know where Mary Keenan (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Well, let me just tell you that certainly what you’re broadcasting right now is not first or second generation, right?
ABRAMS: Yes.
SCHILLER: So you couldn’t expect your audience to listen to it...
ABRAMS: Right. But the experts who tested it...
SCHILLER: ... right and the tape that NBC broadcast on the “Today” show, all right, does not clearly say that it is a first generation tape or even the original.
MURPHY: Dan...
WOOD: I’m telling you that right now, Larry, it was given to me by Mary Keenan and she has publicly stated when she released it that it was identical to the 911 tape and..
.
SCHILLER: The word identical is not..
.
WOOD: ... identical to the tape that was tested by the Boulder Police Department.
SCHILLER: Identical is-yes, identical is not generation.
WOOD: It was first generation...
SCHILLER: You don’t know whether it’s analog or digital.
WOOD: No, no...
(CROSSTALK)
WOOD: ... you’re not informed here Larry. You’ve been out of the loop for a long time.
SCHILLER: OK...
WOOD: I went out in December...
(CROSSTALK)
WOOD: ... and listened to the tape at the Boulder Police Department’s office. It was a first- generation...
(CROSSTALK)
WOOD: ... cassette tape. It is identical to what was given to me by Mary Keenan.
MURPHY: Dan, can I ask Lin a question, please?
(CROSSTALK)
ABRAMS: All right. Wait. Let’s just slow down here, slow down. Go ahead. Wendy..
.
MURPHY: I just want to ask...
ABRAMS: I’m going to right now tell you that you know I want to give everyone when it comes to Lin and Michael the opportunity to answer and not answer. Go ahead Wendy.
MURPHY: I just want to ask Lin a question because I’ve seen a transcription of this tape and the tape that you keep playing and the tape that NBC is playing has at the very end the words Patsy, Patsy, Patsy, Patsy four times.
(CROSSTALK)
MURPHY: I read a transcript that had Patsy said five times by the operator followed by Patsy saying “help me Jesus” and it is at that point that the people who listened with the high tech equipment could, in fact...
ABRAMS: All right.
MURPHY: ... hear some talk in the background.
(CROSSTALK)
MURPHY: Why do we have...
(CROSSTALK)
MURPHY: ... a missing...
ABRAMS: Lin, one minute to respond. Give Lin a minute.
WOOD: I’ll be glad to. Wendy, the problem you have is that you read the transcript published by Steve Thomas, the former detective in his book and that transcript is absolutely inaccurate. The operator only says Patsy four times and it’s followed by about five or six seconds of noise, probably keyboard typing that somehow this aerospace corporation allegedly came up with the conversation between Ramsey family members...
SCHILLER: Is the transcript...
WOOD: ... and no one else can find it...
SCHILLER: ... in my book accurate, Lin?
WOOD: ... because it doesn’t exist.
MURPHY: Well, Michael could certainly clarify that...
SCHILLER: Lin, Lin...
ABRAMS: All right. We’ve got to take a break here.
SCHILLER: Lin, is the transcript...
ABRAMS: Wait, Larry. We’ll ask him about your book in a minute.
(CROSSTALK)
ABRAMS: Hang on. Let me take a quick break here. Lin Wood, please stand by. We’ve only got a couple of minutes left in this next block and you know, we’d love to have you stay. Take a quick break. Back in a minute.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ABRAMS: Unfortunately, I’m just about out of time. Larry Pozner, I’m going to ask everyone this question. Will, do you think, the Ramseys be officially cleared and will an intruder ultimately be discovered?
POZNER: Ramseys have been cleared, but they’ll never be cleared in the minds of public opinion, and the intruder will only surface if we find a pedophile whose DNA matches the DNA...
ABRAMS: Larry Schiller.
SCHILLER: Look, I think the Ramseys will be guilty by public perception, but that’s not science and science, a breakthrough or a confession is the only thing that’s going to clear the Ramseys.
ABRAMS: You don’t think the D.A. will do it?
SCHILLER: No, I don’t think...
ABRAMS: All right.
SCHILLER: ... the D.A. or anybody can do it. I think science and a confession will clear the Ramseys, nothing short of that.
ABRAMS: Wendy Murphy.
MURPHY: You know, I don’t think they’ll ever be put to trial, unfortunately, but let’s remember this is a couple who 20 minutes after their child was found dead in their home booked a flight to Atlanta, stopped cooperating, hired criminal defense attorneys and a P.R. team.
(CROSSTALK)
MURPHY: That’s why they are under the umbrella of suspicion, and deservedly so.
ABRAMS: Michael Kane.
KANE: I always believe the truth comes out in the end, Larry, and I think it will in this case.
ABRAMS: And what does that mean?
KANE: That means what it means. The truth will come out, wherever it falls.
ABRAMS: Lin Wood still joins us on the telephone. Go ahead.
WOOD: Well if people believe the fiction of Wendy Murphy, then they may not believe the Ramseys are innocent, but I believe the public gets it, Dan. The district court judge, a federal judge, a former prosecutor and the present district attorney who now heads up the investigation has spoken loud and clear, an intruder killed this child. The Ramseys have, in fact, been exonerated and it’s time for the public to recognize that after six and a half years, and I think the public gets it.
ABRAMS: I’ve got like 30 seconds. Michael, do you want to say anything in response to that?
KANE: Well I think that’s already addressed and I think given...
(CROSSTALK)
KANE: ... the court had, the court made the right decision, but I don’t think...
(CROSSTALK)
KANE: ... that’s what’s contained in the police department file.
WOOD: And Mary Keenan has all the evidence in front of her and she agrees with the judge. That’s the key. Mary Keenan...
(CROSSTALK)
ABRAMS: Larry Schiller...
(CROSSTALK)
ABRAMS: ... go ahead. Ten seconds Larry.
SCHILLER: You know, Dan, anybody who’s seen the autopsy pictures on how this young girl was strangled, the horrific way, will say to themselves no parent could ever do it...
MURPHY: And that would be a foolish thing to think.
(CROSSTALK)
MURPHY: That would be so foolish.
(CROSSTALK)
POZNER: And this notion that they didn’t cooperate is false..
.
MURPHY: Oh please.
POZNER: They signed 100 releases...
MURPHY: Please...
POZNER: ... for the police...
(CROSSTALK)
ABRAMS: This case continues...
(CROSSTALK)
ABRAMS: ... despite-you see it-there’s a judge’s ruling.
There’s a D.A. and this case does not end. Anyway, thanks for joining us. We’re out of time. Thanks Lin Wood for calling in. Thanks to all our guests. Appreciate it.
“SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY”...
END
--------------------
Mame, morgan, and mary99 conveniently omitted the fact that Nancy Krebs accused John Ramsey of sexually abusing her and also that she claimed someone other than FW Jr. killed JBR.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 1438 | Registered: Oct 1999 | IP: Logged