25 CHIEF BECKNER: In interpreting

241
1 that, you are interpreting it differently.
2 Over prior evidence, prior evidence can be at
3 any time.
4 MR. WOOD: But prior evidence
5 based on new information and additional
6 forensic information.
7 CHIEF BECKNER: Sure.
8 MR. WOOD: You can't leave that
9 out.
10 CHIEF BECKNER: No, I know. But
11 you develop new information on old evidence
12 oftentimes as we continue the investigation.
13 MR. WOOD: And we got into the
14 question about Linda Arndt on a meeting with
15 her in February of '97, and I asked about
16 whether that was based on new information or
17 additional forensic testing, which wouldn't
18 apply, and it seemed to me that Mitch
19 Morrissey was getting ready to show us
20 something in the book and then you all
21 didn't want to go there.

Seems to me that K&C didn't want to share, brainstorm - - a shame as it COULD have been useful.

22 CHIEF BECKNER: Without debating
23 that particular issue, I just want to make
24 clear that --
25 MR. WOOD: Let me tell you

242
1 something, I know exactly what we came here
2 to do, there's no doubt in my mind, it was
3 documented by our letters. My clients are
4 willing to do it. Patsy Ramsey is willing
5 to complete any areas within what you ask
6 and we agreed to do.
7 MR. KANE: Okay. No. All I am
8 saying --
9 MR. WOOD: And if you're really
10 telling me now that you've got a number of
11 other areas for Patsy, different as I
12 understood what you told me in the hall,
13 Chief, and maybe I misunderstood, I thought I
14 did understood. But I'll --
15 CHIEF BECKNER: I said they
16 didn't have any additional questions, and
17 without the explanation it goes beyond that.
18 MR. WOOD: Well, do you have any
19 areas for Patsy Ramsey other than the
20 security of Burke when he returned to school
21 or what we've already made I think a clear
22 record on about the fibers?
23 MR. KANE: Yes, absolutely.
24 MR. WOOD: Well, why don't we get
25 her back in here and finish.

Beckner and Kane are clearly on different pages.
243
1 MR. KANE: Fine, as long as
2 you're not going to object, but if are you
3 going to object and say, if the question
4 could have been asked in June of '98 but it
5 wasn't and the information that would have
6 prompted that question was available in June
7 of '98, but the question wasn't asked, if
8 that's going to be your objection, then, no,
9 I don't, but if that's the way you are
10 interpreting what is agreed to --
11 MR. WOOD: Why don't you, Mr.
12 Kane, why don't you just state in plain
13 English what you want to do. I thought it
14 was clear as a bell from Chief Beckner's
15 letters that you wanted to ask these new
16 questions based on new information or
17 information developed since June of 1998.
18 MR. LEVIN: Mr. Wood, let me,
19 I'll make this --
20 MR. WOOD: That is what the
21 letter says.
22 MR. LEVIN: -- I will make this
23 as clear as possible.
24 MR. WOOD: That would help.

Yes, someone needs to explain - Beckner seems to be confused and Kane is being a jerk.

25 MR. LEVIN: What we want to do

244
1 is we would like to ask some questions of
2 John Ramsey. The reason why we choose to
3 ask additional or not additional questions of
4 Patsy is not going to be productive to go
5 back and forth.

Kane, Levin and the absent Morrissey were all on the same page, from what I understand. Too bad this interview hadto include them - I think it would have been far moreproductive if Smit, Hofstrom and Demuth had been there instead.

6 MR. WOOD: It is going to
7 determine whether we can legitimately move
8 forward with John. If you are going to walk
9 out, in effect, of Patsy's interview, what's
10 the difference? I am going to take the same
11 position with John.
12 MR. LEVIN: For whatever
13 reason --
14 MR. WOOD: I am going to make
15 you live up to what you said you came here
16 to do.
17 MR. KANE: We keep debating.
18 Okay. You're not even interpreting --
19 MR. WOOD: Why don't you leave
20 for a minute and let the lawyers work this
21 out, John.
22 (Mr. Ramsey leaves the deposition
23 room).

Lin is right - they would have been walking out on the opportunity to interview Patsy - a very stupid move. But when I see the amount of time that was spent asking real questions that might have helped solve this crime - - - it was a stupid interview all around anyway.