208
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. All right. In that book you talk
3 about a chronology, I think you call it, of
4 cooperation, something along that line, a
5 chronicle of cooperation. Actually the
6 second line, this is on page 393, Mr. Wood,
7 it says police interviewed and questioned,
8 police interviewed and questioned John and
9 Patsy on December 27 and John again on
10 December 28. Did you give any interviews to
11 the police on the 27th? It was the day
12 after you found her body.
13 MR. WOOD: Are you talking about,
14 what do you mean by, a sit down interview?
15 MR. KANE: Well, it says here,
16 police interviewed and questioned John and
17 Patsy.
18 THE WITNESS: Police were there
19 in the home where we were staying, and we
20 were talking with them all the time.
21 Q. (By Mr. Kane) Were you
22 interviewed and questioned on the 27th, to
23 your recollection?
24 A. To my best recollection, yes.

209
1 with, I am not sure if it was at Barbara
2 Furner's house, but you met with Linda Arndt
3 one time and I believe your mother was
4 there? Do you remember that?
5 A. My mother?
6 Q. There was a meeting that was set
7 up between sort of within the first couple
8 of months of the homicide.
9 MR. KANE: I don't know the date.
10 MR. WOOD: January, February of
11 '97?
12 MR. KANE: Yeah. You met with
13 Linda Arndt. And it was you and your mother
14 and I believe Barbara Furner was there.
15 THE WITNESS: Okay.
16 MR. KANE: Remember that?
17 THE WITNESS: I don't remember my
18 mother being there, but I don't remember a
19 lot from those days.
20 Q. (By Mr. Kane) Okay. Why was it
21 at that meeting that one of the ground rules
22 was that you couldn't talk about the case?
23 A. I don't know.
24 Q. Well, that was your ground rule.
25 MR. WOOD: Wait a minute. Help

210
1 us know that. Whose ground rule was it?
2 Linda Arndt? How was it conveyed? Who was
3 it conveyed to?
4 MR. KANE: Well, Linda Arndt was
5 told.
6 MR. WOOD: By whom?
7 MR. KANE: By your lawyer.
8 MR. WOOD: That is different.
9 Come on.
10 MR. KANE: During that meeting,
11 do you recall at one point telling her that,
12 when the subject matter of the case came up,
13 that you couldn't talk about that?
14 MR. WOOD: Do you have a
15 statement? Do you have a recorded statement?
16 Q. (By Mr. Kane) I am asking if
17 you have a recollection of it.
18 THE WITNESS: I have a
19 recollection --
20 MR. WOOD: Excuse me a second,
21 Patsy. Do you have a statement that she
22 made?
23 MR. KANE: Yes, I do.
24 MR. WOOD: Well, let her see it.
25 MR. KANE: No, I don't, I don't

211
1 have, there is no statement made just because
2 there was no statement made. That was the
3 point, there was no discussion --
4 MR. WOOD: Was the discussion
5 that you are talking about recorded?
6 MR. KANE: No.
7 MR. WOOD: No report was entered
8 by Linda Arndt?
9 MR. KANE: There was a report.
10 MR. WOOD: Can we see that?
11 MR. KANE: I don't have it here.
12 It is Linda Arndt's report. It's not your
13 client's report.
14 MR. WOOD: But it's a statement
15 you are trying --
16 MR. KANE: I am asking if it is
17 true or false.
18 MR. WOOD: Let me finish. If
19 you have a report, we can look at it in
20 context. I think that would be fair.
21 MR. KANE: No. Well, I am
22 asking if she recalls it.
23 MR. WOOD: I mean, if you are
24 telling her that her lawyer told Linda Arndt
25 that she didn't want her to discuss a

212
1 certain area of questioning, are you asking
2 her basically did you follow your lawyer's
3 advice?
4 MR. KANE: I am asking if she
5 recalls having a meeting and recalls that
6 that was one of the ground rules?
7 MR. WOOD: Mr. Kane, when did
8 this develop after June of 1998?
9 MR. KANE: Once again, we are
10 back to the question that I asked you
11 earlier.
12 MR. WOOD: It is a new question.
13 Excuse me. It is a new question, based,
14 though, on developments that have occurred or
15 information that has been obtained since June
16 of 1998.
17 MR. KANE: So in other words, if
18 it was something that was available at the
19 time, you are saying you won't answer any
20 question to anything that was available to us
21 since June of 1998?
22 MR. WOOD: Here is the question.
23 Chief Beckner's letter to me of May the
24 10th, since the last interviews you gave to
25 law enforcement in June, a lot of information

213
1 has been developed in the continuing
2 investigation in JonBenet's death. This has
3 resulted in many new questions.
4 MR. KANE: Okay.
5 MR. WOOD: Now, this information
6 had to be known to Linda Arndt and to all
7 of you back in 1997.
8 MR. KANE: Well, I wasn't on the
9 case until June of 1998, so it was news to
10 me.
11 MR. WOOD: Whether you were on
12 the case or not does not dictate whether
13 someone else on the case would know this.
14 MR. KANE: Let's stop arguing.
15 Are you telling her she can't answer any
16 questions about this?
17 MR. WOOD: No.
18 MR. KANE: I don't want to debate
19 it. It's either yes or no.
20 MR. WOOD: It is not always black
21 and white, Michael. Sometimes there is an
22 in between.
23 MR. KANE: That's what I'm
24 saying, I'm asking the question and are you
25 telling her not to answer or are you telling

214
1 her to answer?
2 MR. WOOD: Why don't you give me
3 a minute.
4 THE WITNESS: Why is it
5 important --
6 MR. KANE: There is nothing to
7 debate, there is nothing to debate.
8 MR. WOOD: I am not debating.

Clearly, Patsy didn't know what this line of questioning was about and she was ready to answer - her memory of all that was not clear, but she was willing to try.

Lin Wood, on the other hand, was looking at the larger picture - he was tired of this being an interrogation and not the Q&A and brainstorming session that was planned. You can see this more in the next segment. Pay attention to what K&C - specifically Beckner - asked for when this interview was set up.

215
1 never told we would go into. This is very
2 clear that we are talking about subsequent to
3 June of 1998.
4 MR. KANE: So in other words --
5 MR. WOOD: Don't you agree it is
6 as clear as a bell, Mike?
7 MR. KANE: We have been talking
8 about December 26, 1996 all morning.
9 MR. WOOD: Well, now, wait a
10 minute, that's what I don't want to get into
11 where you're going to start claiming that
12 you're talking about a date certain now
13 you've got the right to do it. I made it
14 very clear when we talked about those dates
15 today that you were asking about forensic
16 tests that you got --
17 MR. KANE: Lin, you made it
18 clear.
19 MR. MORRISSEY: The new
20 information is in the book.
21 MR. KANE: And that's where I am
22 getting that.
23 MR. WOOD: Well, tell us where in
24 the book. That is not the question you
25 asked. You are talking about Linda Arndt.

216
1 MR. KANE: Okay. I am not going
2 to ask that question, Lin, because it's clear
3 you are not going to let her answer it.
4 MR. WOOD: It is not clear.
5 MR. KANE: So let the record
6 reflect you will not let her answer the
7 question.
8 MR. WOOD: No, no, no. We will
9 take a break. Let's take a break and make
10 sure we don't get off track.
11 MR. KANE: I said I'm withdrawing
12 the question.
13 MR. WOOD: We have been doing
14 pretty well today. Let's take a moment and
15 let everybody make sure we gather ourselves
16 and then let's take a five-minute break. I
17 don't want a problem that would disrupt this.
18 MR. KANE: You don't want a
19 problem, then let's get down to the
20 bottom --
21 MR. WOOD: Don't point your
22 finger or we will have a problem with this.
23 MR. KANE: Let's get down to the
24 bottom line of this. We're down here
25 purportedly because Mr. and Mrs. Ramsey want

217
1 to solve the murder of their daughter. To
2 get to that point, there is one prosecuting
3 authority that's got any -- that's got any
4 say in who gets prosecuted and when they get
5 prosecuted, and that's the Boulder Police and
6 the Boulder D.A.
7 Now, unless we get beyond Mr. and
8 Mrs. Ramsey, we are never going to get to
9 the end of this case. And if the purpose,
10 if your purpose in objecting is because you
11 don't want to answer any questions that might
12 reflect badly on them, well, then just simply
13 state it. But if the purpose --
14 MR. WOOD: That is so, pardon my
15 language, asinine, Michael.
16 MR. KANE: Then why are you not
17 letting, why are you throwing up these
18 artificial barriers?
19 MR. WOOD: No, sir.
20 MR. KANE: That is what you are
21 doing.
22 MR. WOOD: When you are finished,
23 then I'll respond. You let me know when you
24 are finished.
25 MR. KANE: You are throwing up an

218
1 artificial barrier to a simple question.
2 MR. WOOD: You are misrepresenting
3 what is happening here. Now, when you are
4 finished, I don't want to interrupt.
5 MR. KANE: The record will
6 reflect it.
7 MR. WOOD: The record will
8 reflect what Chief Beckner asked my clients
9 to do. I just read it verbatim from his
10 July the 13th letter. That's what he made
11 clear to us, that's what we agreed to do,
12 that's what I brought them in here prepared
13 to do.
14 MR. KANE: Okay.
15 MR. WOOD: I didn't, excuse me.
16 I did not bring them in here prepared to go
17 back and answer questions about things that
18 occurred prior to June of 1998 that you all
19 have known about all along and questioned
20 them about in June of 1998 for three days,
21 in April of 1997 for a day, and, fairly, if
22 that's what you wanted to do, then you
23 should have asked me that. I could have
24 discussed it with them. They could have
25 made a decision, which may very well have

219
1 been to come in and do that with you. I
2 don't know. But you didn't ask that.
3 Now, you can't sit in here today
4 and change the scope of what you asked for
5 and turn around, because we say you didn't
6 ask for it and we didn't agree, and then
7 make this accusatory statement that is
8 totally unsupported, and again, pardon my
9 language, it's an asinine statement, that I'm
10 objecting to questions the answers of which
11 might reflect adversely on my client.
12 I am going to try, and I've been
13 doing, to give you all of the leeway I can
14 within the framework of your request, but you
15 don't have the right, Mr. Kane, to come in
16 here and ask unfair questions, and you don't
17 have the right to come in here and ask
18 questions in subject matters that the Chief
19 didn't ask for when he asked for the
20 request. That's unfair, and I am not going
21 to let it happen today, and it doesn't mean
22 one thing in terms of it reflecting adversely
23 or otherwise on my clients. It's simply not
24 what you asked to do. Okay?
25 MR. KANE: I said I withdrew the

220
1 question.
2 MR. WOOD: No, but then you made
3 a speech. And then, well, usually as
4 lawyers go, one good speech deserves another.
5 Let's take two minutes now just so we can
6 try and catch some water and take a break.
7 All right? Because I usually, when we get
8 into a little back and forth, it's better to
9 get calmed down, stay focused and get the
10 information that you came here to do. Let's
11 take five minutes. All right?
12 MR. KANE: It is your office.
13 You do what you want.
14 MR. WOOD: Well, I'm not being
15 unfair about that. Anytime you say the same
16 thing, just look over to me and say let's
17 take five, okay?
18 MR. KANE: That is fine.
19 (WHEREUPON, a brief recess was taken

219
1 been to come in and do that with you. I
2 don't know. But you didn't ask that.
3 Now, you can't sit in here today
4 and change the scope of what you asked for
5 and turn around, because we say you didn't
6 ask for it and we didn't agree, and then
7 make this accusatory statement that is
8 totally unsupported, and again, pardon my
9 language, it's an asinine statement, that I'm
10 objecting to questions the answers of which
11 might reflect adversely on my client.
12 I am going to try, and I've been
13 doing, to give you all of the leeway I can
14 within the framework of your request, but you
15 don't have the right, Mr. Kane, to come in
16 here and ask unfair questions, and you don't
17 have the right to come in here and ask
18 questions in subject matters that the Chief
19 didn't ask for when he asked for the
20 request. That's unfair, and I am not going
21 to let it happen today, and it doesn't mean
22 one thing in terms of it reflecting adversely
23 or otherwise on my clients. It's simply not
24 what you asked to do. Okay?
25 MR. KANE: I said I withdrew the

220
1 question.

It's so obvious. Wood wants it both ways, he wants Kane to declare the Ramseys non-suspects BUT he does NOT want him to ask them any questions that, to quote a famous phrase, "might tend to incriminate them."

The above dialogue is laughable. Kane makes Wood look like a fool.

Another problem I see here is the mindset. The idea that they cannot look anywhere other than the Ramseys until they are completely cleared in the mind of the investigators is, as Lin said, assinine. There are many alternative reasons for some of the incriminating evidence in the case, and some of the evidence, such as the unsourced DNA and behavioral evidence, should have been clear indicators that a strong possibility existed that the parents were not involved. I have seen very little to indicate that the investigators really worked this case in any other direction.

>The above dialogue is laughable. Kane makes Wood look like
>a fool.

Really? I haven't seen anything to indicate that Lin's goal in the interview was to have Kane declare the Ramseys non-suspects. As, you can see, that wasn't going to happen at this stage of the game and Lin knows that. I agree his ultimate goal is to stop the unrelenting assault on them in this regard, but in the scope of these interviews, what I see is Lin and Kane debating the underlying legal issues concerning clarity for the record. It is Kane that is trying to pepper the record, outside the agreed upon format, in order to unfairly say the Ramseys were being uncooperative. Lin knows that, too, and he is not about to allow it.

The real fool in the interviews is Kane. By his reckless disregard for the format of the interviews, he is further damaging the trust that was needed for the investigation. He is asking questions, deliberately, that he knows won't be answered because they are unfair, and then using that as a way to demonstrate that the Ramseys were uncooperative. If the true purpose of the investigation is to find the murderer of Jonbenet, how does this type of behavior further that goal?

It isn't a matter of what they had to hide. It is a matter of what they had to protect. Your assumption is that Lin Wood is standing between the Ramseys and truth. It appears to me that Lin Wood is standing between the Ramseys and the very real possibility of a wrongful prosecution.

I can't see that, sorry. Wood makes a great show of "defending" the Ramseys on each and every question, makes sarcastic remarks, acts intimidating, takes a great deal of time over very minor points -- and then lets them answer after all, because, after all, the questions are not all that unreasonable and not all that hard to answer. Assuming one is innocent, of course.

By turning each and every question into a battle of wits between him and the questioner, Wood makes both himself and his clients look bad.

They answered all questions in 1997 and 1998 - look where it got them?
Now, if the cops were asking the right questions, it might have been useful - - but look at the questions they asked! This group - any forum - could have come up with a better list of questions - - and you know it.

First of all, it took months to get them to agree to be questioned. By that time many of the answers were simply "I don't recall." So the months of delay became a perfect excuse to NOT answer all questions.

And where has it got them? They were never arrested, never even taken to the police station for questioning. There was no indictment. No accusations. Kid glove treatment by the BPD for months. Kid glove treatment by the DA's office forever. The only ones who've given them a really hard time are certain media people -- and some of us nutty folk on the 'net.

>Now, if the cops were asking the right questions, it might
>have been useful - - but look at the questions they asked!
>This group - any forum - could have come up with a better
>list of questions - - and you know it.

As I read the 2000 interviews it looks like the interrogators are trying to determine whether or not the Ramseys and their lawyer are going to participate in good faith. If Patsy had said, "yes it's true we kind of stonewalled there for a while, because that's what our lawyers felt was best -- but at this point we are willing to answer all questions fully in the hope that you guys can get beyond us and on to other suspects," that would have gone a LONG way toward moving the process forward. By preventing her from responding at all, trying to maintain the impression that the Ramseys cooperated fully from the very beginning, Wood makes it clear the questioning will NOT be carried out in good faith and the question in my mind is: WHY? If he really wanted the police to move on to other suspects, all that was necessary was to allow Patsy and John to answer these very simple and straightforward questions, get all that out of the way and then move on. Instead there was just more sarcasm, grandstanding, delay and, yes, suspicion.

The meeting was set up to go over new information and evidence - to share and brainstorm - - not yet another interrogation with the Ramseys as the prime suspects on the hot seat.

After the grand jury, the Ramseys made a clear effort to face their accusers - -t hey met with the Enquirer - they faced Steve Thomas on national TV and in Atlanta they basically told K&C that they were lying about those lab results - to put up or shut up.

In the end, the DA has all the evidence and has not got free access tot he Ramseys if she wants - - and she says the evidence points to an intruder.

How can you ignore that?

The Ramseys went to Atlanta in 2000 - - they fought to be there - Lin didn't especially want them to do that - especially with Kane involved but they insisted.

Read the latest thread - on lawyer talk - - it is clear that K&C wanted to lynch the Ramseys - not just follow the evidence to the truth. I see the wrong questions were asked in Atlanta - an opportunity to go over names and incidents was lost. An opportunity to show the Ramseys photos of other suspects who they may know by sight but not by name was never done.

I don't see the Ramseys stonewalling - I see K&C sandbagging.

Seems to me I saw those exact statements from Patsy and John in transcripts found in the book JonBenét: The Police Files.

Kane had no intention of following the guidelines of Beckner's letter to Wood.

Any questions in reference to Burke's security after JonBenet's murder were solely aimed at showing the Ramseys had no legitimate fear of anyone harming their son--because they knew there was not a killer on the streets of Boulder. Those questions served no other purpose.

Instead of condemning Wood for what you see as obstruction, be glad there are lawyers who will take a stand for their clients. If there weren't lawyers such as Lin Wood, the police would surely intimidate many 'suspects' and 'witness's' into giving incorrect answers during interrogations/interviews.

The difficulty with this so-called interview is that all questions asked of Patsy, and subsequently to John, did not focus on anyone but the two of them. Nothing in the three and a half years prior to this interview supported the BPD theory that the Ramseys did it, yet all questions were pointedly aimed at getting the 'goods' on either one.

Innocent people are sitting on death row right now due to these type of tactics.

Rainsong

I think you've done an excellent job (post #16) capturing the malicious intent of these interrogations --- all the threads that Jams has so kindly published. I agree that this is characteristic of all too many investigations, resulting in at what appears to me to be a 15% error rate of convictions for our best efforts, as shown by B. Scheck et al. I also completely agree with you that Lin is doing an very professional job here of protecting his clients from this maliciousness which was misrepresented to the Ramseys as a fresh look at the case and at new evidence.

I think we'd all prefer that the Pollyanna view of our criminal justice system that we see on TV was true. Unfortunately, and as you pointed out, here in the real world, we need Lin Wood's and "Perry Mason's." I wonder what the error rate would be if there were not such people.

I don't recall that purpose being accomplished in their book - did they name who they thought the intruder was and I missed it?

I see it more like DocG here. I detect no "malicious intent" in the interviews.

They spoke about the profile in their book - they never had a specific suspect they "knew" was guilty.

As for 'malicious intent' in the interviews - I see a 7 man firing squad as opposed to a sincere brainstoring session intending to solve this.

The truth - as supported now by the DA's statements - is that the evidence points to an intruder.

The BPD refused to follow those leads, wasn't seriously considering all the intruder leads when they went to Atlanta.

The truth - as I see it - would have embarassed K&C.

That's 7, not 1.

The truth is that the evidence points to an intruder. Mary Keenan is not the only one who has said this. If the truth points to an intruder today, it has always pointed to an intruder. Where in these interviews do you see the 7 man team looking for this intruder? They aren't. They are still looking at the Ramseys and trying to nail THEM. Obviously, Lin knows this, and he is just sick of it. None of their questions was leading anywhere near an apprehension of the murderer of Jonbenét. The same questions they were asking in these interviews had already been asked a million times. They already had the answers. They were just trying to see if they could trip them up, and the Ramseys wanted them to look just as hard for an intruder as they were looking at them. I don't see anywhere in these interviews that they were even trying to do that.

Clem, do you REALLY think the truth would embarass THIS killer?

I think it SHOULD. I think it WOULD embarass the killer's family, should the killer have family living, more.

I'm not saying JonBenet's killer was a serial killer, but there are many, many 'one-hit wonders' with the same type of thinking as the Ridgeways of the world.

Rainsong