Burden of Proof<P> Will Prosecutors Answer Patsy Ramsey's Challenge?<P> Aired August 31, 2000 - 12:30 p.m. ET <P> THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL<BR> FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.<P> ROGER COSSACK, CO-HOST: Today on BURDEN OF PROOF, Patsy Ramsey<BR> issues a challenge to prosecutors to put her on trial and get it over with.<P> (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)<P> PATSY RAMSEY, MOTHER OF JONBENET RAMSEY: One or two mornings<BR> talking with them I don't think's going to make them do an abrupt about face. I<BR> think the only thing that is going to make them completely change their mind is<BR> to hand over the killer.<P> (END VIDEO CLIP)<P> (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)<P> LIN WOOD, RAMSEY FAMILY ATTORNEY: Mr. Kane, are you now ready to<BR> state that you are prepared to file criminal charges against John and Patsy<BR> Ramsey? It's time for you to answer that question. And you owe that answer to<BR> the American public and to this family.<P> (END VIDEO CLIP)<P> (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)<P> MICHAEL KANE, RAMSEY CASE PROSECUTOR: Mr. Wood, neither I nor<BR> Chief Beckner are going to be directed by you or by your client or by anybody<BR> else as to when it would be appropriate to file criminal charges. When we reach<BR> the point, as every prosecutor in the country recognizes, when we reach the<BR> point where there is an individual against whom we can prove a case beyond a<BR> reasonable doubt, we will file the charges.<P> (END VIDEO CLIP)<P> ANNOUNCER: This is BURDEN OF PROOF with Greta Van Susteren and<BR> Roger Cossack.<P> COSSACK: Hello, and welcome to BURDEN OF PROOF. Patsy Ramsey has<BR> issued a challenge to Boulder prosecutors. She told "USA Today" if they think<BR> she killed JonBenet -- quote -- "Let's have a trial and get it over with."<P> GRETA VAN SUSTEREN, CO-HOST: The legal sparring has continued since<BR> the interviews with Patsy and John Ramsey ended on Tuesday afternoon. The<BR> feud was escalated yesterday when Ramsey attorney Lin Wood released<BR> videotapes of the interviews to BURDEN OF PROOF and other media.<P> (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)<P> KANE: Mr. Wood, you're an obstructionist.<P> WOOD: Let me finish, Mike. I'm not an obstructionist.<P> KANE: You go out there and you tell these press people that they cooperated,<BR> and I will go out and tell them what really happened in here.<P> WOOD: Well, Mr. Kane, what's happening here is you're going -- looking to<BR> storm out for no reason.<P> KANE: No, no, I'm not going to storm out because I can't ask a question...<P> WOOD: Mike, take five minutes. Take five minutes and just be reasonable<BR> enough to listen to...<P> KANE: Look, I don't need this. It's a game.<P> (END VIDEO CLIP)<P> COSSACK: And joining us today from Atlanta is "USA Today" reporter Kevin<BR> Johnson. His interview with Patsy Ramsey is on the front page of today's<BR> edition. And in Boston, we're joined by criminal defense attorney Henry Owens.<P> VAN SUSTEREN: Here in Washington, we're joined by David Stillman (ph),<BR> former federal prosecutor Marty Rogers, and criminal defense attorney Kenny<BR> Robinson. And in our back row, Cara Jordan, Nicole Asserta (ph) and Brook<BR> Glowsby (ph).<P> Let me go first to you, Kevin. You interviewed Patsy and John Ramsey. Can you<BR> tell me sort of the tone? I know that Patsy has sort of issued a challenge to sort<BR> of get on with it: either a trial or no trial. But when you spoke to them, what was<BR> their tone?<P> KEVIN JOHNSON, "USA TODAY": I think the tone was more frustration than<BR> anything. I think that they felt that the interviews that they participated in had not<BR> accomplished at least what they came into the room looking to do. And that was<BR> to redirect the investigation away from them.<P> VAN SUSTEREN: You know, Kevin, in terms of an interrogation by a<BR> prosecutor, an interview, depending on which side you are what you call it,<BR> there's a big difference between prosecutors coming to discredit you and<BR> prosecutors coming to look for in fact. Did they think that the prosecutors were<BR> there to look for information rather than to discredit them or the other way<BR> around?<P> JOHNSON: Well, from what they told me, their feeling was that the prosecutors<BR> came there with new information that they wanted to ask the Ramseys about.<BR> Patsy Ramsey and John Ramsey indicated to me that what was clear from the<BR> start of the interrogations -- although I wasn't in the room -- that they were<BR> interested in going over some old ground. They called it old lines of inquiry that<BR> they felt like they had been -- that had been asked and answered a long time ago.<P> COSSACK: Kevin, why do you think Patsy Ramsey and the Ramseys spoke with<BR> you at all? I mean, what do you think they were attempting to accomplish?<P> JOHNSON: Well, I think it's -- I think it's part of an extension of their interviews<BR> with prosecutors. Their interest is in trying to redirect the investigation away<BR> from them. And as much as they can say to try to do that, whether it's in a<BR> conference room with prosecutors or with reporters, I think that is probably<BR> what they want to do.<P> COSSACK: But, Kevin, it's one thing to try and redirect it by speaking with<BR> prosecutors, it's another thing to speak with a reporter who has as much access<BR> to the public as you do. It would seem to me that in speaking with you, the<BR> redirection is from what the public thinks about the Ramseys.<P> JOHNSON: Right, right. And they pulled no punches about that. They felt like<BR> they were -- that they would be criticized for talking with the press indicating<BR> that they probably would be criticized for trying to continue what Mr. Kane<BR> called a publicity stunt earlier in the conference room. So, no doubt, I think that<BR> that's on the table, and we realize that going in and talking to them.<P> VAN SUSTEREN: Marty, last night on "LARRY KING LIVE," Larry was<BR> questioning Michael Kane and Lin Wood, Lin Wood being the lawyer for the<BR> Ramseys and Michael Kane being the special prosecutor. Both of the lawyers<BR> said last night on "LARRY KING" that they will seek release of the transcripts of<BR> what they Ramseys said during this videotape. We've only seen so far video of<BR> the lawyers fighting. What do you make of the release of the transcripts if indeed<BR> that happens?<P> MARTY ROGERS, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: The release of the<BR> transcripts that they just did this week?<P> VAN SUSTEREN: That's right.<P> ROGERS: You know, I don't see why that's problematic at all. I thought that<BR> they were trying to seek the release of grand jury, secret confidential grand jury<BR> information.<P> VAN SUSTEREN: And they're also seeking as well.<P> ROGERS: Well, of course, that's a more difficult thing because the court has to<BR> rule on that. The way that this thing was set up in Atlanta earlier this week, I<BR> think that all they have to do is just release it. I mean, Lin Wood released part of<BR> it.<P> VAN SUSTEREN: Is it wise, Kenny, do you think, if -- I mean, if by any chance<BR> that the rules so permit the release of the grand jury transcript, who wins, who<BR> loses? What's the point?<P> KENNETH ROBINSON, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, first, I<BR> don't think they're going to release the grand jury transcripts. I've never heard of<BR> them doing that in any case and I doubt that they're going to do that. I think<BR> what's happening is the Ramseys have a feeling, and my prediction here is that<BR> the mother in particular is worried that there's going to be charges coming in the<BR> near future and she's doing a media blitz to try to sack the Denver boys.<P> VAN SUSTEREN: Kenny, you always say -- you and I always debate this<BR> particular issue. I mean...<P> ROBINSON: It's clearly public relations.<P> VAN SUSTEREN: Whatever happened to the presumption of innocence?<P> ROBINSON: Well, let's give her the presumption of innocence.<P> VAN SUSTEREN: OK.<P> ROBINSON: What she's doing here right now is clearly publicity to try to put the<BR> offensive team -- which is the prosecutor -- on the defensive. Why would you<BR> release the content of the video? Why would those prosecutors in the first place<BR> even let them have the video...<P> VAN SUSTEREN: All right, let me tell you. He answered both those questions.<P> ROBINSON: ... so they can put these attacks on the media. They shouldn't be<BR> doing that.<P> VAN SUSTEREN: First of all, the Ramseys didn't release the video; their lawyer<BR> did it. That's the first thing.<P> ROBINSON: Oh, yes, come on, OK, OK.<P> VAN SUSTEREN: The second thing...<P> ROBINSON: I'm not releasing this, you are.<P> VAN SUSTEREN: Secondly, what the Ramseys say is that the reason they<BR> wanted to do this questioning is because they want to encourage the Boulder<BR> police to look at other pieces of information, other evidence. That's what they<BR> say is their point.<P> ROBINSON: Then why don't they answer the forensic questions? Because they<BR> don't know the answers, that's why. They're only answering what they can<BR> answer. It's a set up. They're going to be charged. One of them is going to be<BR> charged. And they're trying to get the public's sentiment behind them. Why<BR> would I ask to be charged if I'm guilty. I must be innocent. That's where it's<BR> going.<P> VAN SUSTEREN: Henry Owens, do you want to get in on this debate?<P> ROBINSON: His smirk says he disagrees. HENRY OWENS, CRIMINAL<BR> DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Yes, you have to understand the Boulder, Colorado<BR> police, they've been involved in this case for four years. They've made a<BR> presentment to a grand jury and evidently, there wasn't enough evidence for that<BR> grand jury to return an indictment. So the bottom line: the Boulder Police do not<BR> have a strong case against the Ramseys. And I agree with the Ramseys. Four<BR> years has gone by. They have been labeled the prime suspect, the mother<BR> accused of killing her daughter. It's time for you to either present your evidence<BR> if you have a case against me and bring one forward. Four years of investigation.<BR> Enough is enough.<P> VAN SUSTEREN: All right, we have to take a break. Kevin Johnson of "USA<BR> Today," thank you for joining us today from Atlanta.<P> Up next, why are the lawyers fighting over fiber evidence? Stay with us.<P> (BEGIN LEGAL BRIEF)<P> On this day in 1888, London serial killer "Jack the Ripper" claimed prostitute<BR> Mary Ann Nichols as his first victim. In the following months, there were four<BR> other victims, but no suspect was ever found. In 1892, the file of "Jack the<BR> Ripper" was closed.<P> (END LEGAL BRIEF)<P> (COMMERCIAL BREAK)<P> COSSACK: Good news for our Internet-savvy viewers. You can now watch<BR> BURDEN OF PROOF live on the World Wide Web. Just log on to<BR> cnn.com/burden. We now provide a live video feed Monday through Friday at<BR> 12:30 p.m. Eastern time. And if you miss that live show, the program is available<BR> on the site at any time via video-on-demand. You can also interact with our show<BR> and even join our chat room.<P> (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)<P> WOOD: Mr. Kane, we're both trying to do our jobs under very unusual and<BR> difficult circumstances.<P> KANE: Right. So my job is not to stand in the way of the truth.<P> WOOD: Well, if you are implying that my job is to obstruct the truth, I take that<BR> as a professional insult and you will not be staying in this office. You didn't come<BR> here to insult me, please, sir.<P> (END VIDEO CLIP)<P> VAN SUSTEREN: During the course of the two-days of testimony, the lawyers<BR> for the Ramseys and the prosecuting attorney got into a fight over lots of things,<BR> including forensic test results.<P> Marty, during the questioning of the Ramseys, Michael Kane, the special<BR> prosecutor, sought to ask Patsy Ramsey about fiber evidence and Lin Wood<BR> objected saying that he wanted to know what the test results were before he had<BR> his client answer. Why?<P> ROGERS: Because if you're Lin Wood, you want to know what that forensic<BR> evidence is before you let your clients be questioned about it.<P> COSSACK: Kenny Robinson, why do we answer that?<P> ROBINSON: Well, what competent prosecutor would agree with that game? It's<BR> just nonsense. Lin Wood is good looking and smooth as silk. I mean, he's doing<BR> a good trick there but it's not going to work. They're going to charge her. And<BR> you better be that good in court.<P> VAN SUSTEREN: But Kenny, don't you remember the day -- I remember the old<BR> days when you used to be a defense attorney before you started coming on<BR> BURDEN OF PROOF, becoming a prosecutor.<P> ROGERS: Well, I changed my opinion when I lost 49, 50 cases in a row. I don't<BR> know.<P> VAN SUSTEREN: But you know, as I recall in the old days, Kenny, when you<BR> and I used to practice almost together, we always feared the prosecutors would<BR> ask trick questions and that they wouldn't disclose exactly why they were asking<BR> something. And there's always the risk that a prosecutor is setting a trap and an<BR> unfair trap. So why not put all the cards on the table. Why don't the prosecutors<BR> say, "Look, this is the fiber evidence test results. Now let me ask you the<BR> question."<P> ROBINSON: Because the prosecutor has the ball and the serve. It's a game.<P> COSSACK: And why even be talking to the prosecutor? Why expect the<BR> prosecutor suddenly not to be a prosecutor?<P> ROBINSON: You've got this calm lake out there except for you writing a book,<BR> which you shouldn't have done while you're trying to figure out who killed your<BR> daughter, who didn't. All of a sudden, you start raising all this turmoil,<BR> videotaping, releasing videotapes, challenging the prosecutor, but refusing to<BR> answer any questions in this truthful search for the truth that deal with forensic<BR> because you don't know the answer. It leads to -- I hate to say it leads to their<BR> guilt.<P> VAN SUSTEREN: I think what Lin Wood would say is that they would answer<BR> the question truthfully but don't hide the test results from us. Let's find out what<BR> (UNINTELLIGIBLE) is.<P> But let me get Henry in since Henry seems to be the only one who agrees with<BR> me. Henry, do you think that the prosecution has an obligation, not a legal<BR> obligation, but a moral obligation under this sort of setting to reveal the fiber test<BR> results before asking the Ramseys a question or not?<P> OWENS: Well, I think it's very unfair. They agreed to this setup, this interview,<BR> the questions, lawyers are going to be present, videotape, et cetera. Why would<BR> you then, if you're a defense counsel, permit your client to answer a hypothetical<BR> question without having the benefit of what the results of this test were.<P> COSSACK: Henry, why would you permit your client to talk to the prosecutor in<BR> the first place?<P> OWENS: Well, No. 1, I would never have my clients talk to a prosecutor.<P> COSSACK: So why are you so shocked that if you're going to be -- you know,<BR> if Lin Wood has so little control over his client -- I mean, I'm not sure how they<BR> got to this position but that the prosecutor is going to come in and say, "Hey,<BR> listen. You know what? We let you talk about fiber results. We think you're as<BR> guilty as can be and we're not going to tell you what those fiber results are. But<BR> that's OK. Come in and talk to us anyway," and they did.<P> OWENS: Because I think as a public relations standpoint, the attorney for the<BR> Ramseys wanted to say, "We are cooperating in this investigation. We want to<BR> find out who the true killers were. But wait a minute, we're not going to answer<BR> any hypothetical questions." So they gave them a little and they took away a little.<P> (CROSSTALK)<P> ROBINSON: Yes, but Bill Clinton cooperated until they asked about Monica. I<BR> mean, it's a silly -- it's a silly point. Any experienced lawyer, you knew what<BR> those ground rules of this interview that the prosecutor is not going to show you<BR> his trump card. He's going to try to trap you. That is the history of prosecutions.<BR> And when did morality get into prosecution? It's not there. Who are we kidding?<P> VAN SUSTEREN: I'm not saying necessarily morality is but there are different --<BR> I mean, this is a bizarre case. I mean, this is not -- this interview was not<BR> conducted under oath. It wasn't conducted before a grand jury. It wasn't<BR> conducted on a witness stand. It's this bizarre thing that we've gotten to. We've<BR> had a grand jury sit, apparently return no indictment. At least we have no<BR> information about it. It has gotten to a very bizarre posture to the point where...<P> Marty, what do you think about the lawyers? They were duking it out last night<BR> on "LARRY KING." They're releasing videotapes of one trying to get up and<BR> leave.<P> ROGERS: Well, I don't know that that advances the cause, but I thought about<BR> this on the ride over here about why I believe the Ramseys should not be<BR> charged, why I don't believe they did it. And the driver and I concluded that he<BR> agreed with me, that if I were going to kill my child, I would not leave my child<BR> in the house. I would have that child out in the woods somewhere so it looks like<BR> they were at least kidnapped from the house.<P> VAN SUSTEREN: But wait a second, Marty. There is no sort of blueprint of<BR> how you kill your child or don't kill your child. There's no particular blueprint.<P> ROGERS: Oh, I agree with you. No blueprint.<P> VAN SUSTEREN: The real issue here, and I think what everyone loses sight of<BR> because we've gotten so much publicity, is I think that what happens is that<BR> people have lost the presumption of innocence and the fact that we convict<BR> people based on evidence.<P> (CROSSTALK)<P> ROGERS: No, I don't think that's exactly true.<P> ROBINSON: That's not true.<P> ROGERS: I think whenever a child is killed, God forbid, people look to the<BR> parents because they believe they're the only ones who would motive.<P> VAN SUSTEREN: And they should. And...<P> ROGERS: And they should.<P> VAN SUSTEREN: And they should. But the difference is, is that we also look at<BR> evidence -- we have people coming on this show saying, "Well, I think Patsy<BR> wants publicity and that's why she's doing it." I mean, we have a lot of these<BR> sort of pop psychology rather than looking at what lawyers traditionally look at<BR> as evidence.<P> COSSACK: But, Greta, you've done enough -- I mean, it's what Kenny's saying.<BR> You've done enough of this stuff. You know when you're representing your<BR> client and you know that that client's the one that the cops are looking at that you<BR> do other things besides legal things to protect your client against an indictment.<BR> And what Kenny is saying and perhaps I agree is they're zeroing in. Those police<BR> are zeroing in. What do you think...<P> VAN SUSTEREN: Now what's the question...<P> COSSACK: The question is...<P> VAN SUSTEREN: ... or the point?<P> COSSACK: The point is that's exactly why they let her go on TV. That's exactly<BR> why this thing turns into what it is...<P> VAN SUSTEREN: Who did?<P> COSSACK: Why Lin let them go on TV.<P> VAN SUSTEREN: Lin Wood has said from the very beginning that he advised<BR> them not to go on TV and not to...<P> ROBINSON: Yes, but that's just lawyer talk to look good.<P> COSSACK: Yes, that's just lawyer's talk. ROBINSON: He's looking good to talk,<BR> but when it came time, he could do like the lawyer did for O.J. the first time.<BR> When O.J. went in to talk, he got out of the case. Lin Wood didn't get out of the<BR> case.<P> COSSACK: Yes, there's another presumption of innocence.<P> VAN SUSTEREN: I don't know if that's why he got out of the case.<P> ROBINSON: That's why -- he's down in Florida. I think that killer is in Florida.<P> COSSACK: All right, I think it's time for a break. Up next, the investigation of<BR> JonBenet Ramsey's murder. Where does it go from here? Stay with us.<P> (BEGIN Q&A)<P> Q: A South Carolina prison guard could face criminal charges for allegedly<BR> having sex with which inmate? <P> A. Susan Smith, who was convicted of killing her two young sons in 1994.<P> (END Q&A)<P>

COSSACK: The Boulder County district attorney says he will examine the option<BR> of opening a new grand jury investigation of the JonBenet Ramsey case<BR> according to the "Daily Camera." Alex Hunter said before making any decisions,<BR> he would need to discuss the case with detectives and view all the tapes of this<BR> week's interview with John and Patsy Ramsey.<P> Well, Henry, we don't know if they're going to open up a new grand jury or not<BR> but I would like to make this suggestion to you. That this has now become<BR> somewhat of a brother love's traveling circus side show, that the lawyers go on<BR> television and play the tape and they yell at each other. What does it say about<BR> prosecutors and defense lawyers? I mean, I just don't think that this makes the<BR> law profession look very good.<P> OWENS: It may not but I think the bottom line, law enforcement officials do not<BR> have a strong case, and that's the bottom line. They agreed with defense counsel<BR> interview trying to find additional information, but the bottom line, they don't<BR> have a case. That's why the first grand jury didn't indict. And until the indictment<BR> is brought back, we're going to have a media circus surrounding this.<P> VAN SUSTEREN: And let's not forget -- Roger, while you're worried about how<BR> the law profession looks, let's not forget, it is the two of us who actually showed<BR> it if we're worried about who looks what way as to the lawyers fighting.<P> COSSACK: Well, we showed something that they released to us with the idea<BR> that we do show to the public. We didn't make it.<P> VAN SUSTEREN: No, no, one forced -- nobody forced us to show it.<P> OWENS: What I'm saying, this is what the public wants to see.<P> COSSACK: They released it to us with the intention of us disseminating it to the<BR> public. If they didn't make the tape, we would have never had anything to show.<P> VAN SUSTEREN: We didn't have to show -- we showed it because it's<BR> interesting to see the dynamics of what's going on in an important murder case.<BR> But the fact is we didn't have to show it so we're up to our eyeballs in it as well.<P> COSSACK: That's the business we're in.<P> VAN SUSTEREN: Anyway, let me go to Marty on the issue of a possible grand<BR> jury. Can you just like create another grand jury? I mean, how does this work? I<BR> mean, in the state of Colorado, you have one grand jury. Apparently, we have no<BR> result or we don't know the result. What do you do from there?<P> ROGERS: Well, I got to tell you, you know I don't really know much about how<BR> Colorado grand juries are set up but generally, of course, you can resume -- you<BR> can put into place another grand jury to look at the evidence when the grand jury<BR> has not -- no true bill.<P> I mean, if the grand jury had said, "We don't want," you know, "We vote that<BR> there should be no indictment," versus, you know, "We're just going to let this<BR> fade."<P> VAN SUSTEREN: If a grand jury has voted no true bill in an ordinary situation<BR> even under federal law, can you just keep empaneling grand juries? Is there any<BR> sort of stop?<P> ROGERS: Well, there is internally. The Department of Justice has a rule about<BR> going to another grand jury when one grand jury has already said, "This is a<BR> terrible case. We're not going to indict." You just have to get certain permissions<BR> to go forward again and present it to another grand jury. But you can't go<BR> forward to present it to another grand jury.<P> ROBINSON: Well, you know there's no statute of limitations on murder, Greta.<BR> If they get any new evidence, they have a duty to present it to a grand jury, I<BR> would think, to solve this tragedy. And so...<P> VAN SUSTEREN: But in terms of new evidence...<P> ROBINSON: Who knows what they have if they're playing cat and mouse.<P> VAN SUSTEREN: There's new evidence...<P> (CROSSTALK)<P> ROGERS: But they (UNINTELLIGIBLE) forensic. VAN SUSTEREN: When you<BR> talk about new evidence, does it have to be new evidence or can it be that you<BR> have new information that sheds credibility issues about the charges? Is that new<BR> evidence?<P> ROBINSON: And I think that that was -- the purpose is what do these parents<BR> say when they're on the video camera? Is it inconsistent with something that<BR> they know it'll be inconsistent, it'll persuade the grand jury that they're not<BR> credible now? Who knows? I mean, they had tricks up their sleeve and that's the<BR> danger of putting your person in that position to talk. You never let anybody<BR> know what your defense is until you put on your defense. Why do you show<BR> your hand?<P> COSSACK: Henry, the notion -- and I think I'm perhaps more critical of the<BR> prosecutor of going in there, allowing this thing to be videotaped and then having<BR> it -- and then perhaps even participating where it was videotaped and now it's<BR> released. I think that could be the kind of thing that hurts the prosecutor's case.<P> OWENS: I think it does, most definitely. And we had a situation -- this case<BR> where the testimony was not even taken under oath. These are just statements<BR> being made.<P> VAN SUSTEREN: But Henry, wait a second, I actually disagree with both of you<BR> on this. I mean, anytime the prosecutor can get a subject or target on videotape,<BR> you win or lose regardless of whether it's under oath because if it's inconsistent,<BR> it's still inconsistent even if you haven't taken the oath.<P> OWENS: That may be true, Greta...<P> VAN SUSTEREN: And to that extent, any prosecutor doesn't take every<BR> opportunity to talk to a suspect is out of his mind.<P> OWENS: Yes, that is true. But in this case, I don't think they obtained any<BR> incriminating statements.<P> VAN SUSTEREN: Well, we don't know. We haven't seen the video. Hopefully,<BR> we'll get to see that videotaped too if Roger hasn't scared them away from<BR> releasing them after insulting...<P> COSSACK: I doubt if I scared these two away from releasing tapes. I think<BR> they're probably in the process of making a few more right now.<P> ROBINSON: A good rule of thumb is you never tape record anybody because<BR> almost always, you say something on a tape you regret even if you're the person<BR> taping somebody else. It's a dangerous thing to do. Your nonverbals and the<BR> words you express, you almost always say, "God, I can't believe I said that."<P> VAN SUSTEREN: And, of course, it doesn't matter whether you're innocent or<BR> guilty.<P> ROBINSON: That's right.<P> VAN SUSTEREN: It hurts either way.<P> ROBINSON: It's perception. Perception can get you in a lot of trouble.<P> VAN SUSTEREN: Anyway, well...<P> COSSACK: Anyway, Greta, we'll agree to disagree on this one, OK?<P> VAN SUSTEREN: Yes. And this case will go on for a long time until hopefully<BR> someday they will solve the murder of this horrible tragedy. That's all the time<BR> we have today. Thanks to our guests and thank you for watching.<BR>

Why not release the GJ transcripts?<P>The Ramseys will agree.<P>What does the BPD want to hide??<P>I do wish the GJ witnesses would come forward on their own to tell us what really went on.

>Why not release the GJ transcripts? <BR>>The Ramseys will agree. <BR>>What does the BPD want to hide?? <P>What they've been hiding all these years ... their failure to search for the real killer of JonBenét.<P>If the GJ transcripts lend support to The Ramseys being innocent, we may <b>never</b> see the transcripts.<P><BR>