DAN ABRAMS (MSNBC) Transcript - July 9, 2008

Transcript of The Verdict with Dan Abrams on MSNBC - July 9, 2008

(transcribed by a source who wishes to remain anonymous)

Dan Abrams: JonBenet was found dead in her family’s Colorado home. The district attorney in Boulder Colorado, Mary Lacy, sent a letter to John Ramsey today saying quote, “New scientific evidence convinces us that it is appropriate, given the circumstances of this case, to state that we do not consider your immediate family to be under any suspicion in the commission of this crime. I wish we could have done so before Mrs. Ramsey died.”

Wow! John Ramsey responded today.

Video clip of John Ramsey: We’re certainly grateful for an acknowledgement that we are innocent, that this was an intruder. Which, of course. we have always maintained. Uh, there will certainly be naysayers out there because of stake positions and reputations were bet. And I think that’s been the hardest part in my mind to realize, that my once good reputation just isn’t ever going to be the same.

Abrams: KUSA reporter Paula Woodward broke this story and conducted that interview. She joins us now. Paula, thanks for taking the time. Tell us more about how they found this new evidence and why now.

Woodward: Well the Boulder DA have speculated last November or December when this new technology, the Touch technology came out, that perhaps they should check the leggings. Because the child was undressed and then redressed. And so they sent it away to the Bode Lab. They found DNA on the waist band where the perpetrator would have unclothed her and then pulled the clothing back up. And that new DNA matched what was in her underwear.

Abrams: DNA in her underwear is DNA we’ve long known about, that’s been the subject of great debate over the years. Now they find this additional DNA on these leggings that matches that DNA. Right?

Woodward: That’s correct. It was skin cell DNA that was found on the waistband of the leggings and the other was fluid swab DNA. That was in 1997, and that was finally admitted in CODIS, a national data base in 2002.

Abrams: Now Paula, stay with us if you will. I want to bring in Michael Kane the special prosecutor who led the Grand Jury investigation after the murder, and DNA expert Larry Koblinsky, and on the phone is Patsy Ramsey’s sister, Pam Paugh. Pam let me start with you. What was your reaction to the news?

Paugh: Well it was a long time in coming. I’m so glad now that the word knows that we knew all along that Patsy, John, nor Burke had anything to do with the murder of our beautiful JonBenet.

Abrams: What do you think about the fact that it is 12 years after the fact? Are you angry, frustrated?

Paugh: Well there is frustration in waiting this long amount of time. To do anything correctly, we must let the professionals, such as the person who developed this new technology, come up with some ways to solve these really hard cases. That’s what’s happened here is that we have been really patient. But we always knew the truth would come out and it’s appearing to do just that.

Abrams: Before Patsy died, did she feel confident that this was going to come out eventually? That there would be some piece of definitive evidence which would say, ‘It simply wasn’t us. ‘
Paugh: I think she was probably hoping for that all along, not her sake or for John’s, but for the children. For Melinda, for John, for John Andrew. Uh, but I can tell you this, emphatically this, that my sister went to meet her maker, with the full and undiluted knowledge that she nor her husband, nor her son had anything to do with the demise of JonBenet.

Abrams: All right, here is more of what John Ramsey said today after find out the news after receiving this letter from the district attorney office, saying that he and his immediately family - not under any suspicion in connection with this case anymore.

Video clip of John Ramsey: One of the strategies that were employed by the police was to make us look guilty so we would have intense media pressure on us. And so information leaked anonymously that wasn’t true that implicated us that cause people to suspect us.

Abrams: Mike Kane, you were not there in the early stages of the case. You were brought in later. But is it fair to say, looking back on this now, that with the new DNA evidence , etc…that on the whole the authorities were unfair to the Ramsey’s.

Kane: No, I wouldn’t say that at all. I wouldn’t say that at all, Dan First of all, I think that I guess you have to look at this evidence in the light that it is. It’s a conclusion of this prosecutor that it exonerates somebody, but there is going to be an election next November and the next prosecutor is free to say that it doesn’t. I am not trying to devalue the fact that it’s a significant piece of evidence. Standing alone it doesn’t exonerate anybody and I think that the district attorney sending this letter really doesn’t accomplish very much. I know she’s felt and made it clear, for a long time, publicly, that they, no one in the family was under suspicion. I am not saying that they should or they shouldn’t be. I’m simply saying, that at the time that this investigation started given all the facts, that the police department knew, and all the circumstances and given they way some of the family members were reacting to the investigation, I don’t think anybody was at fault for following the path that they followed.

Abrams: Let me read you some more of Mary Lacy’s letter to John Ramsey today: “ I am aware that there will be those who will choose to differ with our conclusions. But DNA is very often the most reliable forensic evidence we can hope to find. I am very comfortable that our conclusion that this evidence has vindicated your family is based firmly on all of the evidence.” Are you one of the people who will differ with their conclusion?

Kane: I don’t differ with it or agree with it. All I am say is, for example, if the police go into a house of a burglary and find a fingerprint that they haven’t match to anybody inside the house, until you find out who’s that is, find out how it got there, you can’t reach a logical conclusion. That’s all I am saying here. I am not saying it is insignificant, that the same DNA is found on this other item of clothing. But the point is, the other item of clothing is being worn at the same time and so contamination from how the body was handled, contamination from how it was processed, all those things have to be discounted before you can say definitively someone was not involved.

Abrams: Okay, let me get an objective assessment here from our DNA expert. All right Larry, let’s take a step back here. Um, they do this new testing, it’s sensitive, new, newer, newish, sensitive testing which shows that the same DNA is found on the legging she was wearing, that was found in her underwear, both of them male DNA, not John Ramsey’s, not anyone in his family. And the DA now, let me read you from this letter, and I want you to tell me if it’s fair based upon your DNA assessment, “To the extent we may have contributed in any way to the public perception that you might have been involved in this crime, I am deeply sorry. We intend in the future to treat you as the victims of this crime, with sympathy due you because of the horrific loss you suffered.” Is that a fair conclusion based upon the DNA evidence?

Kobilinsky: I think it is. I think we have to step back and look at the evidence without any preconceived notions as to who was involved and see what the evidence says. There is some evidence that there was an intruder. There were some footprints, for example, found in that cellar right below the window. Here we have DNA evidence that is a very powerful tool for the prosecution. But it’s also a very powerful too for the defense. You can’t have it both ways.

Abrams: If you were advising the DA, and they said to you “Look, here’s what we got! It’s unbelievable! I mean this case has been going on for 12 years. Look at what we found!” And if they said to you, “Sir, should we write a letter to John Ramsey, telling him, ‘You are cleared, you are vindicated.’” What would you say?


Kobilinsky: It’s a bold step, but at this point, I would say yes, they did the right thing. This has been going on for 12 years. We actually have some definitive evidence that there is a male that we don’t know who that person is. They have done all the elimination samples and they can’t determine whose DNA that is.

Abrams: Paula Woodward, let me bring you back into this. The key piece of evidence that always haunted the Ramsey’s and haunted the investigators is the ransom note that the Ramsey’s found the home. I want to read you part of it. The ransom notes says, “We are a group of individual that represent a small foreign faction. We respect your business but not the country that it serves. At this time we have your daughter in our possession.” I still am convinced that this ransom note was staged, by someone. This idea that they are a ‘small foreign faction,’ they’re stating that they are small and insignificant, and they’re claiming that they had JonBenet in their possession when they didn’t. Do you still believe that someone who wrote that ransom note knew John Ramsey, was someone familiar with the home or someone, etc…?

Woodward: I just don’t have any idea. I ask him about the $118,000, which was the ransom demand to date. And he said that it could be someone who had access to his house. The house was under construction, JonBenet had been in the Boulder parade and she was Miss Christmas, and they had tours of their house, about 6 or 7 tours of their house. We actually counted the windows and doors of the house. There were 140 ways to get in about 99 of those doors and window could unlock. So it’s conceivable that someone could have gotten in ahead of time. I don’t know.

Abrams: But Mike Kane, that remains, I think, the most important piece of evidence in this the case. There was a practice note, that someone took the time to start writing, then stopped writing and started again. Then they write what I view as this non-sense about a small foreign faction, etc… Do you think it still fair to conclude that someone who wrote this note is a ruse?

Kane: Oh, I think that there is no question that someone who wrote it didn’t intend to collect a $118,000 ransom. The other thing that strikes me is, your other guest talking about he would advise the DA… There’s so much urban legend out there about what the facts of this case are. An example is what he just said about there being a footprint being at the base of a window. There is no footprint at the base of a window! There’s so many things that have been put out and speculated about in the public domain. And all I am saying is, those people who have researched all the evidence in this case have reached a certain conclusion in the DA’s office, now. Other people who have been accessed to all the evidence in this case are not so convinced. That’s not to say that there is a particular person that you could name. Given all the evidence that’s still out there, that hasn’t been explained I would not say any body has been exonerated in this case.

Abrams:Pam Paugh, does that surprise you that someone like Mike Kane still have their doubts.

Paugh: No. Because I believe it was Mr. Kane who took drastic steps to try to keep some truth in the form of Lou Smit’s findings. A serious investigator with a long history of solving homicides. Mr. Kane I believe and his cohorts tried to keep Mr. Smit quiet. And I don’t think that in any court in the land, that doesn’t serve justice at all, for JonBenet or anyone else that is murdered in this country.

Abrams: Mike answer the over view question, which is effectively you were responsible for preventing the truth from coming out.

Kane:That is ludicrous! If you talk to anybody that was part of the investigation or part of the Grand Jury or talk to Lou Smit. himself, he’ll tell you that I am the one that ran that investigation and I am the one that made the agreement for him to testify. To say that I tried to block his testimony… First of all, no one has the right to come before the Grand Jury. The Grand Jury hears whoever they want to hear. And anybody involved in this case would say the very fact that my finger was on the trigger, and if I wanted to pull the trigger at the end of the case the Grand Jury would have pulled it. The fact that there was nothing pulled I thinks speaks about the team that looked at this case, that looked at all the facts and reached the conclusion that there was not evidence to indict anybody.That’s the bottom line in this case. To suggest somehow that we hid facts from the public or we tried to suppress facts, it is ludicrous, and if I wasn’t a public figure, I’d make her prove it.

Paugh: I believe that I do recall clearly a letter under the penmanship of your name, that clearly said, “Lou Smit, you are hereby declined and asked not to come or pursue any further actions” with the Grand Jury.

Abrams: Real quick response, Mike.

Kane: You should read that letter again and see who made that decision.

Paugh: I have., Sir.

Kane: And see who made the decision. It was not me. Then ask Mr. Smit who was the one who let him in.

Abrams: I don’t have the letter here, so I don’t know the answer to the question.

Paugh: Moot point.

Abrams: Larry, is case going to be solved now?

Kobilinsky: Maybe never. We just don’t know who that DNA belongs to. It may take years. We may never solve the case.

Abrams: This is a major development when a DA’s office steps forward and says, “We are clearing you , you are no longer under any sort of suspicion in the case.” That is a big, big development no matter how you cut it.

Mike Kane, Paula Woodward, Larry Kobilinsky, Pam Paugh, thanks very much.

 

Well, Thanks to Whoever you are! This was one helluva match with Kane vs Pam, so this is priceless!

 

Here's Pam Paugh, getting pwned by Mike Kane! Take that!

:booty::fishslap::bigstick::monty:

 

Yeah! It's about time he put that Tracey crap to rest!

 

Yeah, thanks for the transcript!

I watched that last night, and it was awesome. Pam Paugh spewed the same ignorant RST lies.

The problem with these ignorant shills is they have no idea how an actual, routine investigation works. NOBODY PROFESSIONAL investigating a murder case is telling their detectives to GO OUT AND TELL EVERYONE THE EVIDENCE YOU PICK AND CHOOSE, VIA THE MEDIA. That's so stupid to imagine. ONLY IN THIS CASE does something so preposterous...BECOME REALITY, VIA LOU SMIT AND ALEX HUNTER!!

So accusing KANE/ANY PROFESSIONAL WORKING THE CASE of trying to STOP SMIT from RUINING THE INVESTIGATION as severely as he possibly could BY WORKING HIS PERSONAL THEORY AGAINST THE BPD INVESTIGATION, HANDING OUT COPIES OF THE EVIDENCE LIKE PARTY FAVORS, is so dumb, a person saying such a thing would appear to be TOTALLY IGNORANT.

In fact, in spite of their "happy new DNA cell", all I'm hearing is the same DISINFORMATION spread by the RST shills, and...NO INTRUDER, NO "MATCH"...NADA.

Has ANYONE come out and said this "new DNA" IS A FULL SET OF MARKERS AND IS NOT PARTIAL?

Or is Lacy, A LA SMIT-STYLE, picking and choosing what she wants seen by the public, PROPAGANDA again?

Gosh, do they REALLY think everyone is as dumb as the RST and just believes whatever these corrupt egomaniacs say, no questions asked? I think they've been hanging around the RST too long.

 

Yes.