Mark Geragos on Larry King Live 12/5

Actually, my IQ has been tested. It's a bit above 0, something like 138 - not Einstein by any means but not exactly Swamp-qualified, either, since the average IQ there is about 75, and that's being generous.

 

Collectively, of course. :thumbsup:

 

aahhh.... let me guess Why_Nut... I know this... COURT TV??!! :cheerful:

 

Me too, JC!! worth a repeat! oke:

 

Hi wombat!

I personally don't know... hope someone will post about her "condition" And you're probably On The Money re:

 

Hi Niner! Hey, how come people read this forum to say bad things about the people who post on it?

I just didn't understand why Mark Geragos, of all people, had to use a question about the JonBenet Ramsey killing to hawk the services of another lawyer. I mean, does that answer Larry King's question, which was, are we ever going to know who did it?

Lin Wood wants people to know who to call ...

 

Geragos was on again last night. I was running around the house and didn't actually catch the whole thing but they talked about JonBenet again, and had a caller (from Ohio?) who said that the parents were harassed and why didn't LE catch the real killer. Whatever - we recorded the second showing of the program and I'll watch it later.

I guess Larry King is getting ready for something CNN thinks may happen soon...

 

Here's a partial transcript of LKL last night:

KING: The Jon Benet Ramsey case, Dr. Reichs, I know we've all known about it. Now there's a case where we have a body.

REICHS: Yes that's...

KING: What do you think happened there? It's so many years ago.

REICHS: Gosh that's just not the kind of case an anthropologist would be involved in. We're usually brought in and we work with the body just as Dr. G. works with the body but we work with the body when it's become compromised because of the passage of time or elements, when it's decomposed or mummified or perhaps burned or just bones. So, in that case, you had a fresh body found very quickly after the time of death, so it really had been a case for a pathologist.

KING: All right, Dr. G.?

GARAVAGLIA: Oh, you know, the thing with talking about cases is that for a forensic pathologist we're into detail. We're into detail of everything that's happened to that body and I didn't examine Jon Benet. But I think it was quite clear from the forensic pathologist what had happened.

The problem is who did it and that's, you know, that's really not what the forensic pathologist does. I think the injuries were clear. It was just who did it? Who had access to her?

KING: Dr. Lee...

GARAVAGLIA: I think there's a lot we don't know though about that case that's never really been gotten out.

KING: Dr. Lee, were you brought in on that case?

LEE: Yes, I was brought in the case, into the case by at that time Boulder State Attorney Alex Hunter and the police chief. At their request, I went to Boulder six times and worked with the task force, FBI and numerous other investigators on the case.

It's an interesting case. Unfortunately, again, the crime scene is so important and any time a case is teamwork, like Kathy and her specialty forensic anthropology and Dr. G.'s specialty forensic pathologist, I'm a criminalist. We all have to work together and each of us have a certain expertise area.

KING: All right.

LEE: In that case...

KING: Why has that case -- why has that case gone nowhere apparently?

LEE: Because they did not bring all the experts together the first minute and it was about six hours they searched the crime scene and did not find the body. Of course, you miss the window of opportunities.

KING: Yes. Mary, you would be angry would you not if you were the prosecutor there and came upon the scene?

FULGINITI: Yes. I mean the difference there is the state versus the federal system. In the state system you have prosecutors that actually go to the crime scene whereas in the federal system that doesn't occur.

And here, yes, I mean they didn't really designate this house as a crime scene at first because they thought it was a kidnapping, which makes sense because there was a ransom note that was presented to the police. So, it wasn't until the father actually came upstairs with the corpse unfortunately did they realize, uh-oh, we've got a crime scene.

KING: Might that never be solved, Mark?

GERAGOS: Oh, I think that given this length of time that it's entirely possibly it will never be solved.

KING: You can get away with murder.

GERAGOS: Well, I don't know if you get away in the sense that you and I were talking before the show, certain people on their deathbed are racked with guilt and we've had situations where there's deathbed confessions that spring other people who have been wrongfully convicted. So, I don't know if you ever really get away with it.

KING: Most murders are murders of passion though aren't they?

GERAGOS: I think that that's probably a fair statement.

KING: Alcohol involved?

GERAGOS: I mean you always see alcohol. It's usually somebody you know. I mean that's why you see over Thanksgiving invariably every year you see somebody gets murdered at a family table over some argument that starts.

KING: The rarest murder is someone breaking into your house to rob something right?

FULGINITI: Yes. KING: That's the rare one.

FULGINITI: (INAUDIBLE) because that is the rarest murder. The people that favor gun control obviously argue that that isn't so rare but it is very rare.

KING: We'll take a break, come back and include your phone calls. Don't go away.

**********

WOMBAT: What do you think they were talking about before the show in regard to "deathbed" confessions?

Later on there's a caller who talks about how the Ramseys got shafted, according to the highly reliable CourtTV:

**********

KING: Bellaire, Ohio, hello?

CALLER: Hi, I'll make it very quick. I have a quick comment and then I'd like to be able to complete my thought. I think one of the biggest outrages that's ever happened is what the Boulder Police and society has done to John and Patsy Ramsey, and I wondered what can be done to keep the case alive? Within the last year, there was a documentary on CourtTV channel with a group of detectives, including Lou Smith. And they showed how the intruder got in.

KING: Yes, we had Lou Smith on.

CALLER: But they say it's too costly, there's no money to find who's DNA that is.

KING: Now why is this case not solved?

GERAGOS: You know, it's a tough situation. I agree with the caller wholeheartedly. I've had discussions with Lynn Wood about this. I think what happened...

KING: Lynn Wood, being the...

GERAGOS: Lynn Wood, who's been their civil lawyer and Hal Haddon, I think, was the criminal lawyer.

KING: Smith was the detective who believed they didn't do it.

GERAGOS: Yes. And by all indications, based on the discussions I've had with Lynn, there was no evidence that they did do it, yet they were crucified.

And fact of the matter is when people say why wasn't this solved. Henry brings up one of things, because they didn't bring the experts together initially. But one of the other problems is is when you start to focus in on one person of the exclusion of others, and in this case, the family members.

First, it was the father. Then it's the mother. Then it's the brother, you tend to dissipate your resources.

FULGINITI: You know, but it's my understanding, just for the caller's information, that based on some of the recent news reports that there's been a new investigator assigned to the case. And there has been some openings with regard to additional testing that's going to be done in that case.

 

I was so annoyed that I missed this. It shows here the morning after you guys see it at night time and I got up this morning to watch it. Anyway, we receive CNN on a satellite channel and due to heavy snow we've been having - there was no satellite reception until.... five minutes after the later showing ended!

I would have been interested to see Geragos and Henry Lee on TV. I've only seen still photos of them before.

They seem to say so much - and yet when you analyse what they've said - they've really said very little.

 

WOMBAT: What do you think they were talking about before the show in regard to "deathbed" confessions?

One can only speculate.

I'm annoyed as well, Jayelles. I wish I'd been there!

 

Oh good grief, Gregaros has a discussion with Lin Wood. END OF STORY!

When is Larry King going to show some responsibility and balance the scales when he discusses the JonBenét case. As far as I know, he has never invited anyone on his show to tell the real truth. He should be ashamed of himself. It's always a one sided affair. Larry King is a wimp.

 

Hah!

Old Larry never gets Lou Smit's name right. Keeps on calling him SmitH.

 

Don't let it get to you, Tricia. These "low life" papers have to make a living, and they jump on the band wagon as soon as there is something to grasp on to. We all know, if they don't have enough material to sell their papers, they will make news up, and that's all this is, "MADE UP CRAP!"

 

This is what I mean by them seeming to say so much - yet when you analyse what they did say, it wasn't very much at all:-

He isn't saying there is no evidence they didn't do it - just that according to Lin they didn't.

Off Topic:-

I used to have a colleague - a modern history teacher who used to entertain the staffroom with his cleverly worded school reports. We'd been told to make them positive and that we couldn't criticise pupils any more. He was so clever at playing semantics that he could make capital murder sound like a positve thing. I used to be in knots laughing at the way he could word an entire school report for the very worst pupil and make it sound like they were a prospective head boy/girl.

jameson uses semantics all the time. She combines separate statements and presents them in such a way that many people will take a certain meaning from them. However, when analysed, she isn't actually saying what you think she is saying and if she were later accused of lying, she can quite legitimately claim she never said that - it was just someone's interpretation. More recently, she has started a new technique. She starts to make a statement but allows it to trail off using "....." and follows it up with a comment. The two are actually quite separate. One is the start of a statement (but not the full statement) and the other is usually an opinion based upon what people will assume is the full statement - but she never actually says it and that to me is a big red flag. I trust people who speak clearly and whose words are not constantly open to interpretation. That is how spin doctors work.

 

Jayelles, that's what good lawyers are - people who can use words to make things seem to be what they need you to think to get an outcome.

I think something's up at CNN. Larry and Geragos (and the other lawyer whatsername) have talked about JonBenet twice in one month, and according to everybody it's officially a dead cold case. We can all guess why Larry and Geragos were talking about "deathbed" confessions before the show. Geragos is talking to, and about, Lin Wood. What up??? Strings are being pulled, and/or CNN is getting new "information" about the case, or perhaps about our favorite Miss West Virginia.

About the investigator they mentioned - if he's any good at all, he's already on our team. The only way he wouldn't be is if he's being paid to play solitaire on his desktop.

I've been completely obsessed by this case over the holidays. It's Saturday AM, New Year's Eve, I have to go to the store, guests are coming over, and I'm talking to you good people. I don't know, I just think something's up.

 

You're very observant, Jay, when it comes to analyzing Jameson. Is it any wonder you two are always at loggerheads with each other. I quite believe Jameson knows you can see right through her. I think I see a new Reality show coming up.

 

Wombat,

It seems you have a strong hunch about this. We'll have to sit it out! You could be right!