Mary Lacy Conference Transcript

Discussion in 'Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum' started by Jayelles, Sep 12, 2006.

  1. Jayelles

    Jayelles Alert Viewer in Scotland

    Coming here soon. Why_Nut is uploading the files and I am transcribing them.

    Unlike Candy, I'm not feeling precious about this so anyone can copy them.

    Starting later today so watch this space.
     
  2. Tricia

    Tricia Administrator Staff Member

    I LOVE YOU ALERT VIEWER IN SCOTLAND!! AND YOUR LITTLE BUDDY WHY_NUT TOO.

    When we read this it's going to get us mad all over again.
     
  3. Show Me

    Show Me FFJ Senior Member

    Ditto to Alert Viewer and Why Nut!

    Yeah especially the questions Lacy brushed off and didn't answer.
     
  4. Cherokee

    Cherokee FFJ Senior Member

    :jumpie: Thank you, my dear wee wench!

    I've been trying to find a transcript, hoping someone had put it on the net. I'd even thought about asking WN to send ME the files, and I would transcribe them since I wanted to get the whole Lacy press conference out to the public. I didn't know you were already on the job!

    Here's a :hug: for all your efforts.
     
  5. BluesStrat

    BluesStrat BANNED !!!!!

    Does the "Alert Viewer" happen to have a spare bedroom in Scotland? Someone is looking for a new home:

    "I smell old cheese" - "It's just Earl, Honey!"

    :borgsmile
     
  6. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin


    Her forum isn't a platform for attacking someone because they believe the Ramseys aren't guilty. It's a platform for attacking anyone, simply because s/he believes the Ramseys are not innocent players in their daughter's death. Too bad she doesn't get it that Lacy is a public official and as such is a wide open target for criticism, whether jameson likes it or not. Tracey has made himself a public figure. He too is open for criticism. Too bad jameson can't control everyone the way she would like to.
     
  7. The Punisher

    The Punisher Member

    Give me an f***ing break! As if Jammy is some sort of battered, begrieved loner on her OWN forum!
     
  8. Jayelles

    Jayelles Alert Viewer in Scotland

    Of course. candy would be welcome here any time (sweet smile).
     
  9. Jayelles

    Jayelles Alert Viewer in Scotland

    I'm beating Why-Nut at the moment (Peter McGuire was quite hard for me to decipher in places. I think it's accurate, but he mumbled a bit):-

    Mary Lacy Conference Part 1 and Part 2

    Part 1

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6apvrybDzQ

    Mary Lacy: Good morning. I’m going to start by introducing the team. You know their names from the plaques that are in front of them obviously, but this … to my right is Chief Investigator Tom Bennett, who I believe has close to 30 years homicide and other major crime investigation experience. To my left is my first assistant Peter McGuire and to his left, my assistant Bill Nagel. These are the people that I consulted with in making decisions but, I want to make it absolutely clear up front that the decisions were mine, the responsibility is mine and I should be held accountable for all decisions in this case. Having said that, let me start by saying …these have been a very difficult few days for all of us and I’m sure you can imagine that. Last night as I was preparing to leave, I received a telephone call from a gentleman in Longmont and he said (this was a voicemail). He said “You should be tarred and feathered …… and run out of town … and… I want you to call me and tell me that you’re going to resign“.

    You know, that’s pretty harsh and it’s not just one, there were a lot of calls like that. Um, I called him back and he said “Well first of all, I’m surprised that you called me, but… he started with a series of questions, and I’m imagining that his questions are the same questions that are at the top of your minds. So his first question was “Why didn’t you surreptitiously take DNA in Bangkok, before you took this person into …custody?â€

    We Did. We took surreptitious DNA on multiple occasions. Immediately upon locating this person - who went to mailboxes to pick up a package that we sent to him., two different officers took DNA off of the bicycle that he rode back. On a separate occasion, they obtained a cup that he used to drink from and a tissue or wipe that he used to wipe his hands. The bottom line is that after we did that, our expert - and we put a great deal of respect in our expert from the Denver lab - said that the sample in the underwear of the victim was a mixed sample and that we do not want to compare a mixed sample with a mixed sample. We need a pristine sample. That means a buccal swab. A buccal swab can only be taken by consent or by court proceeding or court order. We couldn’t get his consent because he didn’t know he was under investigation and we couldn’t alert him at that time. The um… this gentleman had a number of other questions. um… you know…I’m going to have to rely on the people here to day to help me out to answer the specifics of the dates and times. This investigation took place over a period of approximately 90 days or more. We were successful for …99% of the time keeping it away from media attention even though many people knew about it. It didn’t leak out to the media or to the public and we’re proud of our staff for accomplishing that. Um.. The fact of the matter is that we didn’t have as much control or in fact any control when we’re dealing with a foreign government half way around the world. They were helping us in every way possible and we thank them from the bottom of our heart but they have a different process for media than we do and we couldn’t prevent them from talking to the press. Um and of course at some point it was inevitable that it was going to happen.

    Um.. (turning to colleagues) is there anything else that I need to cover this time? You know the other thing that I’d like to address right up front is that I understand that there are people who are angry because I’ve received the e-mails and the phone calls that they’re not included in this this morning and for some reason they think our office excluded them. Um..and so..and of course the citizens aren’t here and those are the people that we really owe an accounting to and why we’re doing this this morning.. We didn’t exclude anyone. We relied on the media consortium to decide who would be present this morning. We did set the number and.. you know that wasn’t the main part of my reaction. Quite frankly, last week at that press conference I was just a bit …overwhelmed by people basically screaming from all different directions. I didn’t feel like I could answer anybody’s questions in a way that they would want it answered. And, we really wanted today to give you the information, to allow you time to come to us with your thoughtful questions and to give you thoughtful answers and to make sure every one of you got your questions answered as opposed to feeling like you have to compete with somebody else to get your question answered so that’s why we did it. I…, I expect to get calls from the citizens. I have responded to e-mails and calls from citizens. I will continue to do that to the extent possible so that people feel like they understand what’s going on and why we did what we did at any different place in time. You know, every one of you here knows that hindsight is 20/20 umh…and you know that after the game is over… it’s easy to criticise what people have done and what decisions have been made. What I can assure you is that very um…intelligent, educated, experienced people consulted on a daily basis and questioned each other about what the options are, what are the better options and what are the not so good options in this case. What decisions we make and what’s going to happen as a result of the decisions we make. So we didn’t go into any of this without talking and thinking about it. Now, (looking at colleagues) are there any other statements that any of you want to make prior to opening it up to questions?

    Let’s open it up to questions then and I think Carolyn’s gonna help us.

    Woman: Why wasn’t federal charge unlawful flight to avoid prosecution used to extradite him and then get a DNA sample in California?

    Peter McGuire: There was a… what they call a UFAT warrant issued in this case. Uh there was one in San Francisco. That was done through our co-ordination with the uh Office of International Affairs, the Department of Justice. The problem with that is if we would’ve had to bring him back on that we would’ve had to go through the international extradition process.which would’ve required us to get a provisional arrest warrant in Thailand. We’d have then had 60 days . We’d have had to submit independent affidavits, prosecutor statements and many, many formal proceedings in order to get over there that would’ve had to be translated. It would’ve actually greatly slowed down the process. And we were in consultation with the department of justice and the ICE, the Department of Homeland Security and the Embassy in Thailand on the most expeditious process in order to be able to get him back.

    Woman: What was the risk in doing it…. not doing it that way?

    Peter McGuire: Well because in doing it that way, we would’ve ended up with him being in custody over there at a tremendous expense and time consumption. It’s a slow process to go through the international treaties.

    Mary Lacy: It’s also an expensive process because all of the documents have to be translated at the Department of Justice cost which is $80-85 a page. We have to pay for two US Marshals to bring the suspect back.

    [Interrupted by an alarm]


    Mary Lacy: (Oh my God). I suspect we’re going to have to leave. We’ll come back at the earliest time and resume…. We’ll wait just a minute and then we’ll c….



    Part Two

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5OhBJDGYAU

    Mary Lacy : [commentator talking in foreground] …. Expenses …[commentator]…. To bring him back was very substantial. We had put together a rough budget and actually alerted the Commissioners that that was a potential of what could happen. It became inevitable that we had to bring him back by another procedure because the Thai Government designated him as an “undesirable person†and once he’s designated as an “undesirable person†which was based on several different factors including our e-mails and the information we sent over there, they want him out of the country - they expel him within 24-48 hours. So that made our expeditious route something we absolutely had to follow.

    Man: You’ve released all the e-mails, at least all the e-mails that we have seen, and everyone in this room has read those e-mails and clearly you are very familiar with those e-mails. Everything in those e-mails is publicly available and has been on the Internet for years. So you or I or anybody in this room could’ve concocted a story and fantasised exactly like he did. When you brought him to Boulder, Colorado and this was several days - five days you had… you knew who he was. Then he was arrested in Thailand, then you had time… he was brought to California and then here. In that period of time, when you brought him and he stepped off the plane in Boulder, Colorado, what other evidence did you have? Phone records? Credit card records? Witnesses? … Anything that could place him in Boulder, in the State of Colorado anytime around Christmas of 1996. What did you have that said, other than his bizarre statements in these e-mails which any of us could have concocted, what else did you have that placed him here?

    Mary Lacy: Well, let’s start with the fact that as far as we can tell, there is no physical evidence in this case that it…has not been in the public domain. The ability of our office, or any law enforcement to connect this crime to a person based on something they know about it, that no-one knows was gone a long time ago. That’s impossible. So you’re is a good question in that.. You know, we check every time something comes up - “Has this been in the public domain?†. I mean for instance, there were a couple of references which were weren’t sure were in the public domain. One was the fact that JonBenet had received the bracelet on her arm from her mother as a Christmas present. But that’s in the public domain - it’s in the autopsy report.. The other one was the presence of the mucous from the nose under the tape not over it but under it. You could… I mean… a child’s gonna have a runny nose. It’s not gonna take [overtalk - Man: What else did you have?] to come up with that.

    Man: What else did you have?

    Mary Lacy: Well I’m laying the groundwork for that.. Because that was impossible. What we had to rely on was an attempt to try to verify this person’s credibility. And so what we were looking at was approximately four or five hundred pages of e-mails are the other things that he’s told us since there‘s nothing in the crime are the other things he‘s told us - can we verify those? And if you’ve read these, you all know that there’s some pretty bizarre facts that he’s alleged in the e-mails. We’ve been…we were able to verify that in fact these things had occurred - that he wasn’t … fantasising about what he was saying in his e-mails. That when he talked about his mother burning him when he was a child - his mother did burn him when he was a child. Now when we read that, we didn’t think that that was accurate. There… his occupation

    Man: Trying to understand… getting to the point. How is that related to the Ramsey case? Because he was a paedophile in Thailand. Because his mother burned him. What did that have to do with him concocting a story which you or I could have concocted? And what specific other evidence .. You had time to check his credit records, his phone records - everything. You had that time before he stepped off a plane here in Boulder.

    Mary Lacy: We started immediately upon his detention checking background and checking credit card records … uhm… we checked financial records. Frankly, and the first thing that we wanted to do was to determine whether he was in Boulder on December 25th 1996 from May, when we learned of this. And there are a lot of different ways, background checks and databases that you can use to establish that. We were not able to establish he was in Boulder, but as importantly, we were not able to establish that he was not in Boulder. It didn’t help us either way and that remains the information, the best information we have at this time. There’s circumstantial, photographic evidence of his three sons in Atlanta with the in-laws at Christmas time. He’s not in the photos. The wife and he were to a great degree estranged at the time. So the former wife who we find to be very credible and very helpful and very co-operative . She did everything she could to dig up every document, photo she could find and she interviewed w officers for some 10-12 hours was unable to establish and when actually asked, “Can you state he was with you?â€, she had to say “No, I can‘tâ€. “That’s not my best recollection†is what she said, “but I cannot state that“. So in answer to your question, we started immediately as well as calling in the Boulder Police Department who started immediately to help us establish that.

    [Turns to Colleagues] Is there anything that you want to add to that Tom because certainly you were …
     
  10. tylin

    tylin Banned

    Jayelles and Why-Nut.,
    Thank you so much... :rose: :rose:

    From the above press conference:

    Ohh time will tell....
     
  11. Why_Nut

    Why_Nut FFJ Senior Member

    Gracious! Oh, all right, more will be going up shortly.
     
  12. Jayelles

    Jayelles Alert Viewer in Scotland

    Hey - I don't think it's finished yet. I've transcribed what WN has posted at YouTube, but I'm pretty sure there's more to come. There's been nothing about DNA yet.

    Also. I have OCR'd Tracey's e-mails and I'm looking for a way to post them. There are bits which didn't convert to text properly but I'm not doing any corrections. if it's garbled, it's easy enough to refer to the pdf file to see what it's meant to be.

    My problem is that I don't want to upload it as a text file because my name is in the file properties. Any suggestions?
     
  13. tylin

    tylin Banned

    I'm afraid I'm not very computer smart lol...maybe Cherokee can offer a suggestion or two.
     
  14. Jayelles

    Jayelles Alert Viewer in Scotland

    I tried to upload it to Delphi as an html file but it was too big for my space.

    I'll have a think.
     
  15. Jayelles

    Jayelles Alert Viewer in Scotland

    Updated with Part 3

    Part 1

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6apvrybDzQ

    Mary Lacy: Good morning. I’m going to start by introducing the team. You know their names from the plaques that are in front of them obviously, but this … to my right is Chief Investigator Tom Bennett, who I believe has close to 30 years homicide and other major crime investigation experience. To my left is my first assistant Peter McGuire and to his left, my assistant Bill Nagel. These are the people that I consulted with in making decisions but, I want to make it absolutely clear up front that the decisions were mine, the responsibility is mine and I should be held accountable for all decisions in this case. Having said that, let me start by saying …these have been a very difficult few days for all of us and I’m sure you can imagine that. Last night as I was preparing to leave, I received a telephone call from a gentleman in Longmont and he said (this was a voicemail). He said “You should be tarred and feathered …… and run out of town … and… I want you to call me and tell me that you’re going to resign“.

    You know, that’s pretty harsh and it’s not just one, there were a lot of calls like that. Um, I called him back and he said “Well first of all, I’m surprised that you called me, but… he started with a series of questions, and I’m imagining that his questions are the same questions that are at the top of your minds. So his first question was “Why didn’t you surreptitiously take DNA in Bangkok, before you took this person into …custody?â€

    We Did. We took surreptitious DNA on multiple occasions. Immediately upon locating this person - who went to mailboxes to pick up a package that we sent to him., two different officers took DNA off of the bicycle that he rode back. On a separate occasion, they obtained a cup that he used to drink from and a tissue or wipe that he used to wipe his hands. The bottom line is that after we did that, our expert - and we put a great deal of respect in our expert from the Denver lab - said that the sample in the underwear of the victim was a mixed sample and that we do not want to compare a mixed sample with a mixed sample. We need a pristine sample. That means a buccal swab. A buccal swab can only be taken by consent or by court proceeding or court order. We couldn’t get his consent because he didn’t know he was under investigation and we couldn’t alert him at that time. The um… this gentleman had a number of other questions. um… you know…I’m going to have to rely on the people here to day to help me out to answer the specifics of the dates and times. This investigation took place over a period of approximately 90 days or more. We were successful for …99% of the time keeping it away from media attention even though many people knew about it. It didn’t leak out to the media or to the public and we’re proud of our staff for accomplishing that. Um.. The fact of the matter is that we didn’t have as much control or in fact any control when we’re dealing with a foreign government half way around the world. They were helping us in every way possible and we thank them from the bottom of our heart but they have a different process for media than we do and we couldn’t prevent them from talking to the press. Um and of course at some point it was inevitable that it was going to happen.

    Um.. (turning to colleagues) is there anything else that I need to cover this time? You know the other thing that I’d like to address right up front is that I understand that there are people who are angry because I’ve received the e-mails and the phone calls that they’re not included in this this morning and for some reason they think our office excluded them. Um..and so..and of course the citizens aren’t here and those are the people that we really owe an accounting to and why we’re doing this this morning.. We didn’t exclude anyone. We relied on the media consortium to decide who would be present this morning. We did set the number and.. you know that wasn’t the main part of my reaction. Quite frankly, last week at that press conference I was just a bit …overwhelmed by people basically screaming from all different directions. I didn’t feel like I could answer anybody’s questions in a way that they would want it answered. And, we really wanted today to give you the information, to allow you time to come to us with your thoughtful questions and to give you thoughtful answers and to make sure every one of you got your questions answered as opposed to feeling like you have to compete with somebody else to get your question answered so that’s why we did it. I…, I expect to get calls from the citizens. I have responded to e-mails and calls from citizens. I will continue to do that to the extent possible so that people feel like they understand what’s going on and why we did what we did at any different place in time. You know, every one of you here knows that hindsight is 20/20 umh…and you know that after the game is over… it’s easy to criticise what people have done and what decisions have been made. What I can assure you is that very um…intelligent, educated, experienced people consulted on a daily basis and questioned each other about what the options are, what are the better options and what are the not so good options in this case. What decisions we make and what’s going to happen as a result of the decisions we make. So we didn’t go into any of this without talking and thinking about it. Now, (looking at colleagues) are there any other statements that any of you want to make prior to opening it up to questions?

    Let’s open it up to questions then and I think Carolyn’s gonna help us.

    Woman: Why wasn’t federal charge unlawful flight to avoid prosecution used to extradite him and then get a DNA sample in California?

    Peter McGuire: There was a… what they call a UFAT warrant issued in this case. Uh there was one in San Francisco. That was done through our co-ordination with the uh Office of International Affairs, the Department of Justice. The problem with that is if we would’ve had to bring him back on that we would’ve had to go through the international extradition process.which would’ve required us to get a provisional arrest warrant in Thailand. We’d have then had 60 days . We’d have had to submit independent affidavits, prosecutor statements and many, many formal proceedings in order to get over there that would’ve had to be translated. It would’ve actually greatly slowed down the process. And we were in consultation with the department of justice and the ICE, the Department of Homeland Security and the Embassy in Thailand on the most expeditious process in order to be able to get him back.

    Woman: What was the risk in doing it…. not doing it that way?

    Peter McGuire: Well because in doing it that way, we would’ve ended up with him being in custody over there at a tremendous expense and time consumption. It’s a slow process to go through the international treaties.

    Mary Lacy: It’s also an expensive process because all of the documents have to be translated at the Department of Justice cost which is $80-85 a page. We have to pay for two US Marshals to bring the suspect back.

    [Interrupted by an alarm]


    Mary Lacy: (Oh my God). I suspect we’re going to have to leave. We’ll come back at the earliest time and resume…. We’ll wait just a minute and then we’ll c….


    Part 2/B]

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5OhBJDGYAU

    Mary Lacy : [commentator talking in foreground] …. Expenses …[commentator]…. To bring him back was very substantial. We had put together a rough budget and actually alerted the Commissioners that that was a potential of what could happen. It became inevitable that we had to bring him back by another procedure because the Thai Government designated him as an “undesirable person†and once he’s designated as an “undesirable person†which was based on several different factors including our e-mails and the information we sent over there, they want him out of the country - they expel him within 24-48 hours. So that made our expeditious route something we absolutely had to follow.

    Man: You’ve released all the e-mails, at least all the e-mails that we have seen, and everyone in this room has read those e-mails and clearly you are very familiar with those e-mails. Everything in those e-mails is publicly available and has been on the Internet for years. So you or I or anybody in this room could’ve concocted a story and fantasised exactly like he did. When you brought him to Boulder, Colorado and this was several days - five days you had… you knew who he was. Then he was arrested in Thailand, then you had time… he was brought to California and then here. In that period of time, when you brought him and he stepped off the plane in Boulder, Colorado, what other evidence did you have? Phone records? Credit card records? Witnesses? … Anything that could place him in Boulder, in the State of Colorado anytime around Christmas of 1996. What did you have that said, other than his bizarre statements in these e-mails which any of us could have concocted, what else did you have that placed him here?

    Mary Lacy: Well, let’s start with the fact that as far as we can tell, there is no physical evidence in this case that it…has not been in the public domain. The ability of our office, or any law enforcement to connect this crime to a person based on something they know about it, that no-one knows was gone a long time ago. That’s impossible. So you’re is a good question in that.. You know, we check every time something comes up - “Has this been in the public domain?†. I mean for instance, there were a couple of references which were weren’t sure were in the public domain. One was the fact that JonBenet had received the bracelet on her arm from her mother as a Christmas present. But that’s in the public domain - it’s in the autopsy report.. The other one was the presence of the mucous from the nose under the tape not over it but under it. You could… I mean… a child’s gonna have a runny nose. It’s not gonna take [overtalk - Man: What else did you have?] to come up with that.

    Man: What else did you have?

    Mary Lacy: Well I’m laying the groundwork for that.. Because that was impossible. What we had to rely on was an attempt to try to verify this person’s credibility. And so what we were looking at was approximately four or five hundred pages of e-mails are the other things that he’s told us since there‘s nothing in the crime are the other things he‘s told us - can we verify those? And if you’ve read these, you all know that there’s some pretty bizarre facts that he’s alleged in the e-mails. We’ve been…we were able to verify that in fact these things had occurred - that he wasn’t … fantasising about what he was saying in his e-mails. That when he talked about his mother burning him when he was a child - his mother did burn him when he was a child. Now when we read that, we didn’t think that that was accurate. There… his occupation

    Man: Trying to understand… getting to the point. How is that related to the Ramsey case? Because he was a paedophile in Thailand. Because his mother burned him. What did that have to do with him concocting a story which you or I could have concocted? And what specific other evidence .. You had time to check his credit records, his phone records - everything. You had that time before he stepped off a plane here in Boulder.

    Mary Lacy: We started immediately upon his detention checking background and checking credit card records … uhm… we checked financial records. Frankly, and the first thing that we wanted to do was to determine whether he was in Boulder on December 25th 1996 from May, when we learned of this. And there are a lot of different ways, background checks and databases that you can use to establish that. We were not able to establish he was in Boulder, but as importantly, we were not able to establish that he was not in Boulder. It didn’t help us either way and that remains the information, the best information we have at this time. There’s circumstantial, photographic evidence of his three sons in Atlanta with the in-laws at Christmas time. He’s not in the photos. The wife and he were to a great degree estranged at the time. So the former wife who we find to be very credible and very helpful and very co-operative . She did everything she could to dig up every document, photo she could find and she interviewed with officers for some 10-12 hours was unable to establish and when actually asked, “Can you state he was with you?â€, she had to say “No, I can‘tâ€. “That’s not my best recollection†is what she said, “but I cannot state that“. So in answer to your question, we started immediately as well as calling in the Boulder Police Department who started immediately to help us establish that.

    [Turns to Colleagues] Is there anything that you want to add to that Tom because certainly you were …

    Part 3
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hD-E03NQ-v8

    Mary Lacy: …. Part of that time period and what was being done investigative-wise.

    Tom Bennett: Yeah, we reached out to quite a few agencies around the country where this gentleman had resided out(?) previously. We solicited assistance from uh a good number of agencies. A thorough background was done and the closest time-frame we’ve come up with thus far is we know his whereabouts up to December 23rd 1996.

    Man: So bottom line, you had no evidence when he stepped off the plane in Boulder? You had absolutely no evidence other than his bizarre e-mails which you agree that… a person could have concocted. That’s the only thing you had that would place him in this crime scene.. In other words, you had nothing… essentially - other than his statements?

    Mary Lacy: We had probable cause to arrest him based on our having tested other statements within the e-mails and the telephone calls. Which is typically how we test credibility in someone - are they prone to lying about other things in their lives? Because if they’re lying about other things, they’re probably lying about this too. We also had taken advantage of a forensic psychologist who deals with cases of this nature and had met with him and had talked to him extensively and he was helping us to look at the nature of the e-mails and the nature of the telephone calls. It was his opinion that this person was dangerous, that this person was escalating, that the psycopathy (sp) for committing this type of crime was in fact present in this person. Is that proof he did it? No, but you do have an explanation that’s consistent….

    Man: But the bottom line of what you’re saying is that you had his statements but… Tom Bennett’s saying we reached out, we had nothing else. There’s nothing that placed him in Boulder, nothing that placed him in Colorado except his bizarre statements that he was here and he committed the crime - that’s all you had? Nothing else?

    Peter McGuire: No we’re saying that there was external corroboration of other details within his … uh

    Man: No, …. external corroboration of his background and stuff

    Peter McGuire: I know what you’re saying, but what I’m saying is that we had external corroboration . Everything was in the media. We couldn’t…we..we..combed over everything we had to see if there was anything in there that we could possibly look at that couldn’t possibly have been gleaned. But I think you’ve got to take into account that this guy confessed on numerous occasions in great detail. He confessed in e-mails, he confessed in telephone conversations showing a great deal of emotion indicating he was sorry and he regretted what he had done and he didn’t want to put the Ramsey family through any more harm. Uh… taped conversations. He also when contacted by investigator Mark Spray, a statement against his penal interest directly to a police officer, he admitted to every one of those factors and admitted that he was in fact the killer. Now that can be characterised that we didn’t have anything except bizarre e-mails, but this…you gotta remember that this was a bizarre crime and the person who committed this crime acted in a bizarre way and so there is internal corroboration there as well. So in answer to your question, I think that we did have … we did have information to go on.

    Jean ? Court tv News: From what I understand you’re saying, you still don’t truly know where he was December 25th and 26th of 1996, so did you not file formal charges solely on not having a match on the DNA?

    Mary Lacy: here’s what… You’re correct in your statement. Mr Karr said to us at one point, “You will not be able… my wife will not … my ex-wife will not be able to tell you or provide an alibi of where I was through December 23rd through January 4thâ€. In fact when she was questioned, she could not alibi him between December 23rd and January 2nd. So there was a couple of days discrepancy. That’s an odd consistency between their two statements. So can we establish for sure that he was in Atlanta? No, but all of the family members (and most of them were interviewed by police officers) have stated that, to the best of their recollections .. She says… “I wouldn’t have been at my in-laws on Christmas with the.. You know… I wouldn’t go to his parent’s without him - it makes no sense. And there was a new baby in the family, the new baby’s in the picture, the people remember the new baby. So when you say “was it the DNA, the lynchpin? It was based on his story. The DNA could be an artefact. It isn’t necessarily the killer’s. In all…there’s a probability that it’s the killer’s, but it could be something else. But the way he told the story, it had to be his and it’s not. So once that came back as not a match, he is not the killer.

    Man: You talk about hindsight, 20/20 and I’m not sure if it’s better or worse than 20/20 at this point for you… In what sense are you embarrassed… What went wrong?

    Mary Lacy: You know, I’m not embarrassed. I feel bad for a community that questions what we did because, you know, they’ve lost some trust in the system. Uhm… I think that if they had been in my seat and the seats of the four of us up here, making the decisions on a day to day basis, then I think that’s the only way you can understand it. You do your best with what you have at the moment. And it changes from hour to hour. Uhm, so I feel bad for … for my community that voted me into office, that they may have lost some faith in me. Uhm… I hope that’s not the case. I think we did a good job for the community. And certainly protecting the community was one of our primary goals here.

    Peter Alexander, NBC News: There have been a series of harsh statements directed toward you and one from Gary Harris who represents the Karr family even this morning saying you should be disbarred he said. What comments would you share with John Karr were you to direct them to him and the Karr family?

    Mary Lacy: You know, John Karr inserted himself into this uhm, so I don’t have a great deal of sympathy for John Karr. I have sympathy for the family.. Especially the ex-wife who has three children. I wish more than anything, they would not have been subjected to the media attention. But his brother and his father who’s elderly as well. John Karr himself, sincerely believes that he killed JonBenet Ramsey. There’s no question in anybody’s mind about that. So I have very little sympathy for him.

    Carol McKinley, Fox News Channel: Uhm…do you think there’s been any damage done for any possible future arrest now that this guy has fizzled out. What will happen if someone else is arrested later and they can say “Well this guy was wrong, they’re wrong about me ooâ€.

    Mary Lacy: You know, believe it or not, Mr Karr is not the first suspect that we have investigated over the past four years. There have been several. We have made trips to other places to investigate other suspects,. It didn’t come to media attention because it was in this country and we are able to control it and to eliminate people without having to go through this process. We fully intend and in fact we had engaged a contract investigator to help us because of the impending death of Patsy Ramsey and because of the ten year anniversary … those events bring up leads and legitimate as well as non-legitimate uhm illegitimate leads and we fully intend to follow up every legitimate lead including anyone who makes statements that they committed the crime and obviously we do not want it to be in the media! Every time we will try very hard to avoid…
     
  16. Cherokee

    Cherokee FFJ Senior Member

    Thanks for your vote of confidence, Tylin ... :) ... but Jay, Why_Nut and Moab are the REAL computer wizards at FFJ (that I'm aware of). I'm sure there are others.

    I know just enough to be dangerous! :balloon:
     
  17. Jayelles

    Jayelles Alert Viewer in Scotland

    It's just so long. The advantage of the text file is that we can copy and paste from it or search for strings of text.
     
  18. Jayelles

    Jayelles Alert Viewer in Scotland

    I wish Peter McGuire would E-N-U-N-C-I-A-T-E. I'd like someone to check over his bits for me as I have had to put "unintelligible" a couple of times and I don't like leaving it that way. I can practically type in real time with Mary Lacy, but he is awful - back and forth, back and forth.

    I'm on the last few minutes now of Tape 6, I'll get that done this evening.
     
  19. Why_Nut

    Why_Nut FFJ Senior Member

    I just finished turning the rest of the press conference into files, so the rest of them (seven through 12) will be going up through the course of today.
     
  20. Elle

    Elle Member

    Jay,

    Maybe you should have another copy of this as a closed file on FFJ, while the other one in this thread can be used as a search file (?). This would keep it in a slot of its own, like Tricia's petition file etc. Just a suggestion.

    Bravo Jayelles! :rose:
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice