Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 12 of 20
  1. #1
    BobC is offline Poster of the EON - Fabulous Inimitable Transcript and Book Reviewer
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    4,435

    Default Michael Kane and Chuck Greene

    MK and Chuck Greene are on Dan Abrams show right now. MNSBC. Kanecalls Keenan's letter extraordinary and said it was done to send a message to the Ramseys that they've taken the investigation away from the BPD and are looking elsewhere. Chuck Greene says the evidence still points at Ramseys

  2. #2
    BobC is offline Poster of the EON - Fabulous Inimitable Transcript and Book Reviewer
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    4,435

    Default

    Kane explained that DNA testing was in its infancy in 1996, 1997 and that when Wood whines about improper testing, basically the testing wasn't available at the time.

  3. #3
    BobC is offline Poster of the EON - Fabulous Inimitable Transcript and Book Reviewer
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    4,435

    Default

    Abrams said that Lin's big play is the prisoner who, of course, knows who killed Jonbenet and who, of course, wants lotz o' money to reveal his information. Can anyone say circle jerk?

    Chuck Greene, thank God, said that the cops found the same DNA in undies from the same package that never left the package (this isn't exactly true either--nobody understands DNA, I'm convinced of that). So at least Chuck is fighting back. More so than Kane did. Kane was ambivalent about everything and wasn't half as outspoken as he was a few months ago.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    4,411

    Cool God Bless Chuck Greene!

    I think he is much more knowledgeable about the case at this juncture. Kane has been out of the loop for two years now, and has gotten on with his life and his career back here in PA.

    Greene has always had excellent inside sources. I bet he knows what new stuff they have on the Ramseys.

  5. #5
    BobC is offline Poster of the EON - Fabulous Inimitable Transcript and Book Reviewer
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    4,435

    Default

    Who needs new stuff? All the old stuff pointed at the Ramseys. I didn't mean to make Kane sound like a kiss -***, he was more like amiable, not really caring one way or the other. He said he hadn't spoken to Keenan since 1999. I believe it.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Eastern North Carolina
    Posts
    2,322

    Default

    I was told by "reliable sources" that the FBI, who had no use for Hunter or his happy crew, liked Kane. I was also told that by the time Kane left Boulder he "needed to go back east to get a sanity check."

    I agree with Lurker, Kane probably hasn't given much thought to Boulder LA LA Land in some time. I'm actually suprised he appeared on the Abrams show.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Hornetsville, NY
    Posts
    8,871

    Default I think Kane is

    happy to be out of that twilight zone called Boulder, CO, and probably prefers not to be associated with those morons. He knows the inmates are running the asylum and no one can change the convoluted mindset of Boulderdom. It's like trying to fight your way out of quicksand - the more you struggle to overcome it, the deeper it sucks you in. If you happen to get out, you will never go near it again and you will look upon it with disdain. That's where Kane is, IMO.
    Keep me away from the wisdom which does not cry,
    the philosophy which does not laugh,
    and the greatness which does not bow before children.

    ---Kahlil Gibran---

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    The "Beehive State" It's true. Look it up
    Posts
    5,176

    Default

    Here is the transcript.

    ABRAMS: Coming up, might the cloud of suspicion over John and Patsy Ramsey soon be lifted? We’ll tell you about what could be a major development into the investigation of their daughter’s murder.
    Plus, “Your Rebuttal” to yesterday’s show. But first, the latest news.
    (NEWSBREAK)
    (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
    UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Let me assure you that I did not kill JonBenet. I did not have anything to do with it. I loved that child with my-whole of my heart and soul.
    (END VIDEO CLIP)
    ABRAMS: Six years after the murder of little JonBenet Ramsey, the Boulder D.A.’s office is taking a new look at the case, without the police department. Does this mean they’re now looking away from John and Patsy Ramsey?
    Plus, should the teenage gunman accused in the serial sniper attacks be tried as an adult? Right now, victims’ families are trying to convince a judge he should and for the first time, evidence against the suspects made public.
    And in my “Closing Argument”, the Saudis busted again, this time sponsoring anti-Israel ads here in the U.S. Why does it seem they can never come clean?
    ANNOUNCER: You’re watching America’s news channel, MSNBC. From the courtroom to the battlefield, the program about justice: THE ABRAMS REPORT.
    ABRAMS: In tonight’s “Justice Roundtable”...
    (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
    PATSY RAMSEY, JONBENET’S MOTHER: Investigators have assured us that this is a case, which can be solved. Now, you may be eluding the authorities for a time, but God knows who you are, and we will find you.
    (END VIDEO CLIP)
    ABRAMS: Haven’t seen that tape in a while. After six years, the murder of 6-year-old child beauty queen JonBenet Ramsey remains unsolved. More than 125 possible suspects, more than 1,000 pieces of evidence, no arrests. Now a new look at the case from a relatively new D.A. in Boulder, Colorado.
    District Attorney Mary Keenan announced she’s broadening the investigation and taking it out of the hands of local police. In a letter to Ramsey attorney Lin Wood, Keenan laid out some of her reasoning for taking a new look, including, quote-”My belief that this case can benefit from additional investigation by fresh eyes, my belief that the Boulder Police Department has done an exhaustive and thorough investigation of the Ramseys as potential suspects.”
    So, if the Boulder P.D. has thoroughly investigated the Ramseys, and they are now out, does that mean the D.A. will be focusing on other possible suspects?
    Joining our “Justice Roundtable”, former Ramsey grand jury special prosecutor Michael Kane, and well known Colorado journalist and NBC analyst Chuck Green. Gentlemen, thanks for joining us, appreciate it.
    All right Chuck...
    (CROSSTALK)
    ABRAMS: ... what do you make of that language? As you know, Lin Wood, the attorney for the Ramseys, who was going to be with us tonight, had an emergency, couldn’t make it, says that that language from that letter specifically talking about fresh eyes, that the Boulder police have already done an exhaustive and thorough investigation of the Ramseys as potential suspects tells him that they are looking now away from John and Patsy Ramsey.
    CHUCK GREEN, COLORADO JOURNALIST: Well they are considering some leads that they have received over the past six years that they feel are worth pursuing a little bit more, and a couple of new leads, frankly. But they still have not in any regard, the district attorney or the police department, said that Patsy and John Ramsey are no longer under that famous umbrella of suspicion. They have not been removed from that nor, have they named anybody who has been placed under that umbrella, and so, at least on the record, for the public record, John and Patsy Ramsey are still under the umbrella and no one else is standing there.
    ABRAMS: How about behind the scenes, though? I mean behind the scenes the Ramseys’ attorney’s position is that what they’re really doing is looking elsewhere.
    GREEN: And they are looking elsewhere. That doesn’t mean that they have blinders on and they’re not continuing to review evidence that might incriminate the Ramseys, but they are looking elsewhere. Interestingly enough, very little information now is coming out of the district attorney’s office, and of course, six years ago a lot of information was coming out of the district attorney’s office, probably way too much.
    And most of the information now is coming from the Ramsey camp, their attorney and they themselves. And so, that’s where the so-called leaks are coming from now, although they’re not leaks, they’re above-board and straightforward. And the biggest one has come out recently was leaked to the “Globe” newspaper, and that is that there is a person who was incarcerated in a penitentiary in California, and supposedly a fellow inmate confessed to him that he killed JonBenet.
    Now, they haven’t released any identification on those people yet. It’s not even certain that that inmate has identified his source. It is clear that he wants all the reward money he can possibly get...
    ABRAMS: Yes.
    GREEN: ... if, in fact, his tip comes true.
    ABRAMS: Let me bring in-Mike, what do you make of, (A), the fact that the police have been, you know, effectively booted from this part of the investigation. What does that tell you? And do you believe that the D.A.’s office would now be effectively saying the police department have looked at John and Patsy Ramsey, maybe they were biased, it’s time for to us look at other possible suspects.
    MICHAEL KANE, FMR. GRAND JURY PROSECUTOR: Well, I don’t think there’s any question that that’s what’s going on, that there’s-the district attorney, who’s been in office for a little over two years, is going to focus away from John and Patsy Ramsey. I think that’s exactly what you said, and I don’t think that as a district attorney you put out a letter-you send a letter to someone who is still under suspicion, basically saying to them that we’re going to look elsewhere.
    Now, at the same time, I think Chuck’s correct. I don’t think that letter means to exonerate anybody. But I think it’s a clear message when you send a letter that’s going to be made public, that that’s what you intend to do.
    ABRAMS: But that’s a big deal, I mean isn’t it? I mean we’ve all been following this case for so many years, and Mike, no one more than you. I mean you lived this case for a number of years. I mean if you’re telling me that you actually think the D.A.’s office is now saying we really need to look more at the leads that look away from John and Patsy Ramsey, that’s a big deal.
    KANE: Well, you know, I don’t know, in any investigation, obviously, you want to look at everything, and certainly the police department, when they had the investigation, didn’t put anybody in the crosshairs. There was a lot of people that were looked at in the case. But I think it is significant for a prosecutor to send a letter where you spell out what your investigative strategy is, to someone who is still potentially a suspect, and that is what I found to be pretty extraordinary.
    ABRAMS: Do you think it’s a...
    GREEN: Michael, Michael, this is Chuck. Let me ask, what kind of leverage could the prosecutor might be looking for in sending that letter to the attorney? Does anything come to your mind at all?
    KANE: I don’t think that there is-and I’m only speculating here.
    I have not talked to Mary Keenan since I left Boulder in November 1999. But, she was a prosecutor in the office before that, and had been there for many years, was part of this investigation early on. And I don’t know that there’s any kind of leverage that she’s seeking. I took it more that there was a message she wanted to send.
    ABRAMS: Well, and Mike, if she is sending that message, is that a bad thing? I mean look, you know this case as well as anyone. You were the one who was there in front of the grand jury. You obviously can’t talk about the details of what was testified to, but if what you’re saying is accurate, I mean if it ends up being true, that Mary Keenan is trying to send a message that says we’re looking away from John and Patsy Ramsey, looking at these other suspects, does that anger you, frustrate you?
    KANE: Well no, it doesn’t anger me at all. I mean she’s the elected official and she’s the chief law enforcement officer in Boulder, and she has the prerogative to do whatever that she wants to with the case. I’m just saying objectively it seems to me that there’s no reason to issue that kind of a statement and make a public statement that you’re taking a case from the police department that has the primary jurisdiction over a case unless you want to make a point.
    ABRAMS: Let me just play a quick sound-piece sound from John and Patsy Ramsey. This is them being interviewed in their deposition, talking about the case. Let’s listen.
    (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
    P. RAMSEY: I did not kill my daughter. I did not write the ransom note, and I don’t know who did either of those things. And I’m not afraid to answer any questions from either you or from them or from the police department or from anyone else for that matter.
    JOHN RAMSEY, JONBENET’S FATHER: I know my wife. I would stake my life on the fact that she did not murder her child. She did not fake all of this nonsense, and she did not write this bizarre note.
    (END VIDEO CLIP)
    ABRAMS: Chuck, you had for a long time-I’m not going to say you were convinced that the Ramseys were responsible, but had written some things which were critical of those who defended the Ramseys, sort of blanket defense of the Ramseys. Has your mind changed at all over the years as you’ve seen more of the evidence come in?
    GREEN: No, my mind hasn’t changed much at all, and that’s primarily because what I said during all of those years was that the evidence that was publicly known seemed to point more toward John and Patsy Ramsey than to anyone else. And I think that situation hasn’t changed. Now, there may be some evidence that we’re not aware of, but if there is, I think that Lin Wood would probably make sure that we were aware of it.
    ABRAMS: All right.
    GREEN: He does not seem to be protecting the evidence in the case any more.
    ABRAMS: We are going to take a break. Lin Wood says that there was a piece of DNA evidence in JonBenet’s underwear that has not been properly compared to other DNA samples. We’re going to talk about how big a deal-he says that’s going to break the case. We’ll talk about that in a minute.
    (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
    ABRAMS: More on the new developments in the JonBenet Ramsey case. The question we’ve been asking, is the focus being taken off of her parents? More with our “Justice Roundtable” up next.
    Plus, the teenage sniper suspect in court. The question, is he too young to face death?
    (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
    (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
    LIN WOOD, RAMSEY ATTORNEY: We’re never going to solve this murder unless we get this case out of the hands of the Boulder Police Department and into the hands of experienced and competent and fair homicide investigators.
    ABRAMS: And...
    (END VIDEO CLIP)
    ABRAMS: Well the case is now out of the hands of the Boulder Police Department and in the hands of the Boulder D.A.’s office. Back again with Michael Kane, a former prosecutor on the Ramsey case and Chuck Green, a well known Colorado journalist, formerly with “The Denver Post”, NBC News analyst.
    Mike, let me start with you. We were talking before the break about this piece of evidence that the Ramsey’s attorney says is the key here. An unidentified piece of DNA found in JonBenet’s underwear, which he says simply wasn’t properly tested, and if the authorities really wanted to solve this case, they would have properly tested that DNA evidence.
    KANE: Well, I don’t think there’s any question that the authorities, and certainly when I was the prosecutor on the case, I included myself in that group, wanted nothing more than to solve this case, wherever that led. DNA back in 1996 was an emerging science. And if you look at the way that the Internet has developed, DNA has-would-it pales in comparison by the leaps and bounds that have happened in DNA, and at the time that testing was being done in 1996, in 1997 and ’98, when a new team came in to look at this case, there was additional testing and it was using state of the art.
    In fact, I’ll tell you this, Dan, we didn’t even have a facility in the United States that could do the type of work that needed to be done on it. We sent it out of the country to be done, and I think that what Mr. Wood is talking about is a database of DNA profiles that was in the developmental stage, wasn’t off the ground at the time that-certainly the time that this case was in the grand jury. And so, I’ve been out of the case for two and a half years. I don’t know what’s been done since then. But certainly, that technology was just emerging.
    ABRAMS: Mike, I know you’ve got to run. Bottom line, do you think they’re going to be able to crack this case?
    KANE: Oh I always hold out hope. I think that every case is static -
    or, is not static, it has to be looked at in a timeframe. And every time you do, there’s something you’re going to find that...

    ABRAMS: Yes.
    KANE: ... you didn’t see before.
    ABRAMS: All right, Mike Kane, thanks very much. Chuck Green, I want you to stand by because I want to ask you this question about Lou Smit...
    (CROSSTALK)
    ABRAMS: ... the investigator who’s now effectively working with the Ramsey team to-because he believes-he was working with the DA’s office-he believes in the Ramseys’ innocence, and the D.A. in her letter to Lin Wood, the Ramseys’ attorney, says we will work cooperatively with Lou Smit. Let me just let you listen to a quick sound bite from Lou Smit talking about what he thinks happened. I’m going to ask you whether you think this is significant.
    (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
    LOU SMIT, HOMICIDE INVESTIGATOR: The brutality of the killing show me that this man is a sadistic pedophile and that he did take JonBenet from her bed by stun-gunning her. I believe he brought her down to the farthest, deepest part of that basement and did very brutal things to her.
    (END VIDEO CLIP)
    ABRAMS: Chuck, how important that the D.A.s are going to work with Lou Smit now?
    GREEN: Well, certainly if what Mary Keenan says is followed up on, then the Ramseys now are inside the investigation. They have their own hired investigator, essentially, on the D.A.’s staff, it sounds to me like. So, this will pretty much, if nothing else, take away any excuses that they have or any doubts that they have, any challenges that they might make to the integrity of the investigation. But let me go back, if I can, for a moment to the DNA.
    ABRAMS: I’ve got 15 seconds, yes.
    GREEN: Well, that DNA that showed up inside her underwear also showed up inside the-on the underwear of a similar-or an identical, actual set of underwear that the Ramseys that hadn’t been unpackaged yet. And so, the theory is that that was placed there, had got there during the manufacturing process and those pants came from Singapore, I believe.
    ABRAMS: Chuck Green, thanks very much for coming back. Good to see you again. Didn’t think we’d still be...
    GREEN: Good to see you again.
    ABRAMS: ... talking about this case this long later.
    GREEN: Good to see you.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Western OR
    Posts
    971

    Default Very interesting

    The more I read on, the more I'm starting to think along these lines:

    So, this will pretty much, if nothing else, take away any excuses that they have or any doubts that they have, any challenges that they might make to the integrity of the investigation.

    Interesting bit about the DNA in the unpackaged panties. Wonder if we'll get the full story on that?

    Ayeka
    The universe is full of magical things, patiently waiting for our wits to grow sharper.
    -- Eden Phillpotts

  10. #10
    BobC is offline Poster of the EON - Fabulous Inimitable Transcript and Book Reviewer
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    4,435

    Default

    Ayeka that story already came out but Chuck Greene got it slightly wrong. The cops did not find the "same" DNA in the package--they just found other trace, unidentified DNA in the other panties in the package. Saying it's the same as what was in JBR's panties is not accurate.

    Can I make an anaology? Think of DNA as a piece of paper with a very specific set of thousands of letters on it. These letters are your genetic blueprint. In every cell in your body you have a sheet of paper with those excat letters in that exact order.

    So you have billions of these "papers" in your body.

    Now say your blood is at a crime scene. All investigators need is one of these papers from one cell to read and they know it's your blood. No two people have the same set of letters.

    However because that blood might come in contact with say a stray old hair follicle that was lying on the floor--somebody elses' piece of paper with their genetic blueprint on it gets mixed in. This is called contamination.

    Now if this stray piece of DNA is really old and exposed to the elements, or say washed in a drier, the piece of paper gets damaged and you can only read, say six or seven letters out of thousands. This is what they have in JBR's underwear. While other cells were fresh and they could easily read them, there was some stray stuff on the undies.

    The "paper" found in the package only had a few letters readable and those were not the exact letters readable in JBR's undies,. But keep in mind that doesn't mean a thing--there are thousands of genetic markers on a DNA strand and the stuff in the package still COULD be an exact match but there's not enough there to say.

    The important thing here is that contamination is present. Trace DNA is there in the package. So is it a big stretch to say the DNA in the panties didn't get their in the same way? Of course it's not a stretch. All it's take is one sneeze, one cough, or just on skin cell that fell into the package.

    So why couldn't this DNA be read? Because it was DAMAGED. It was WEATHERED. If JBR's attacker was the donor, why is it damaged? All it takes is one complete cell (sometimes not even that if the DNA strand somehow remains undamaged). If there was a struggle JBR should have had some skin cells or blood under her fingernails. There was none--at least not any that's unidentified.

    So Lin Wood harps on this piece of "paper" with just a couple of letters out of thousands readable. Just his comments on "caucasion DNA" makes me understand that he is completely ignorant on the science of DNA, but he shoots his mouth off like he's Henry Lee. He acts all outraged that the DNA wasn't "tested properly" without mentioning that the proper testing techniques didn't exist when dubass Smit was on the case.

    Same old sleazy manipulation of the the truth by the Ramsey camp.

  11. #11
    BobC is offline Poster of the EON - Fabulous Inimitable Transcript and Book Reviewer
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    4,435

    Default Does anybody even read this stuff?

    Sooo to make a long story short:

    say the cops found a sheet of paper in JBR's panties with the following letters on in it:

    DD
    BB
    XX
    EE
    FF

    And then they find another piece of paper in the package that has this on it:

    DD
    SS
    XX
    ZZ
    uu
    JJ
    HH

    Is the DNA a match? Nobody can say. There should be THOUSANDS of these groups of letters on that paper, but due to deterioration, there are only a handful. They may or may not match each other.

    The important thing is that you've got deteriorated DNA strands both in JBR's undies AND in the package. So the chances that this is contamination is very high

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Eastern North Carolina
    Posts
    2,322

    Default

    GREAT explanation, BobC. I expect Lin Wood's hope is to baffle people like me who have never really gotten into DNA. Thanks for your very enlightening post!



Similar Threads

  1. I just love Chuck Green - JonBenet case full of myths, short on facts
    By Moab in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: February 4, 2007, 12:42 pm, Sun Feb 4 12:42:34 UTC 2007
  2. Chuck Green - Ramsey case full of Myths
    By Jayelles in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: December 30, 2006, 12:23 pm, Sat Dec 30 12:23:15 UTC 2006
  3. Children abandoned at Chuck E. Cheese
    By "J_R" in forum Missing Children and AMBER Alerts -Archive
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: September 7, 2006, 6:22 am, Thu Sep 7 6:22:32 UTC 2006
  4. What Kane said
    By Zan in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: January 10, 2002, 12:10 pm, Thu Jan 10 12:10:10 UTC 2002

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •