Go back to previous page
Forum URL: http://www.webbsleuths.com/cgi-bin/dcf/dcboard.cgi
Forum Name: old depo and interview threads
Topic ID: 65
#0, Patsy in Atlanta 5 - scope of interview
Posted by jameson on Nov-04-03 at 11:37 PM
The scope of the interview had been clearly defined before that day - Kane clearly didn't get the message or he was simply ready to defy it to maintain his chosen course. This clip shows the battle lines being drawn - - vey clearly. The battle lines have been drawn.

95
13 Q. And I can't recall if you've
14 ever, and forgive me if you have answered
15 this before, but did she have a bath that
16 day, Christmas Day?
17 MR. WOOD: You have asked that
18 before, several times.
19 Q. (By Mr. Kane) What was the
20 answer? Can you refresh my memory?
21 MR. WOOD: You know that I'm sure
22 better than I do.
23 MR. KANE: Oh, come on, Lin, I
24 was just asking a question so that I can
25 follow up on the thing. If you are going

96
1 to start getting into you asked that one
2 time, I just don't have a recollection of
3 it.
4 MR. WOOD: Sure I am. Calm
5 down.
6 Q. (By Mr. Kane) Did she have a
7 bath that day?
8 MR. WOOD: Excuse me one second,
9 Patsy. Calm down, Michael. I am not trying
10 to create a problem for you.
11 MR. KANE: You certainly are.
12 MR. WOOD: No, I am not.
13 MR. KANE: You certainly are.
14 MR. WOOD: Let me finish. I am
15 not going to interrupt you. Please don't
16 interrupt me.
17 The fact that you know it has
18 been asked --
19 MR. KANE: I don't know that it
20 has been asked.
21 MR. WOOD: Are you going to let
22 me finish?
23 MR. KANE: No, because I did not
24 say that --
25 MR. WOOD: Then let's take a

97
1 break, and when you can let me speak without
2 being interrupted, we'll start again.
3 MR. KANE: You mischaracterized
4 what I said. I said I don't remember if it
5 has been asked. Forgive me if it was.
6 MR. WOOD: Let me go back and
7 let's look at it.
8 It is not clear. Why don't we
9 take a break and look and see if it has
10 been asked.
11 MR. KANE: We don't need to take
12 a break. It is just a simple question.
13 MR. WOOD: Listen. All of the
14 questions should be simple.
15 MR. KANE: It is a very simple
16 question. Did she have a bath that day?
17 MR. WOOD: Right. But please
18 remember that I have to make sure that we
19 abide by what you requested.
20 MR. KANE: Well.
21 MR. WOOD: I really am going to
22 take a break.
23 MR. KANE: Go ahead. Make your
24 speech.
25 MR. WOOD: I am not making a

98
1 speech.
2 MR. KANE: That is exactly what
3 you are doing, Lin.
4 MR. WOOD: I am not making a
5 speech. Chief Beckner asked us to come down
6 here, you all to come out here to ask new
7 questions about developments that have
8 occurred since June of 1998 and information
9 that has been obtained since June of 1998.
10 And I am confident that the
11 question about JonBenet taking a bath or a
12 shower has been asked before, and I would
13 simply say let's don't start, even when it
14 seems like it is not important at the
15 moment, let's don't start going down the road
16 of asking questions that have been asked
17 before because that is specifically what you
18 and Chief Beckner told me you weren't going
19 to do.
20 And so I will be glad at a break
21 to look that up and see if we can find the
22 answer for you. And then we can come back,
23 give her a chance to look and see what she
24 said before, put that in the context of your
25 question and she will answer the question if

99
1 it is a new one.
2 MR. KANE: Okay, so in other
3 words what you are doing is, and just to
4 make this clear, you're directing your client
5 not to answer that until she's had a chance
6 to go back and look to see whether she's
7 asked and answered that before.
8 MR. WOOD: No. It's really more
9 of a chance for you and I to look and see
10 if she's answered it.
11 MR. KANE: You are directing her
12 not to answer the question?
13 MR. WOOD: I am asking you to --
14 MR. KANE: No. Are you directing
15 her not to answer the question?
16 MR. WOOD: I am asking you to,
17 in the spirit of why you all wanted to come
18 here and we agreed for you to come here
19 about new questions on information developed
20 or obtained since June of 1998, I am asking
21 you, on what appears even to you to be a
22 situation where it probably was asked in June
23 or, if not, April of '97, to let's take a
24 time at a break. You're well prepared here.
25 You've looked at this.

100
1 MR. KANE: All right.
2 MR. WOOD: If she has been asked
3 that, then you will have your answer. And
4 if she hasn't been asked that, then she will
5 give you that answer today; although, I don't
6 know why you wouldn't have asked her that
7 before.
8 MR. KANE: So you are directing
9 her not to answer that question?
10 MR. WOOD: I am asking you to
11 defer it.
12 MR. KANE: Yes or no, are you
13 directing her not to answer the question?
14 MR. WOOD: I am asking you to
15 defer it, Michael. That's all.
16 MR. KANE: Let me, let me just
17 say something. We are down here to solve a
18 murder. Are you telling me that you are
19 going to tell her not to answer that
20 question, whether it has anything to do with
21 this murder, you are directing her not to
22 answer that question?
23 MR. WOOD: I have not direct --
24 MR. KANE: Because of some,
25 because of some rule that has been

101
1 established for this?
2 MR. WOOD: Are you through?
3 MR. KANE: Yeah.
4 MR. WOOD: I understand that you
5 are investigating a murder. Do you
6 understand that I understand that?
7 MR. KANE: I hope you do.
8 MR. WOOD: I understand it, Mr.
9 Kane. Now listen to me.
10 I was asked, and my clients
11 agreed to answer new questions about
12 information that has been obtained since June
13 of 1998 after three full days of interviews
14 which had been followed by April of 1997 in
15 almost a full day of an interview by Patsy
16 Ramsey, new questions about new information
17 since June of 1998 or developments that have
18 come up since June of 1998.
19 That was the request made by
20 Chief Beckner. That was what we agreed to
21 do because that is what we were asked to do.
22 Now, if you want to change the
23 format, then let's consider that after we
24 finish this format. But I didn't ask Patsy
25 Ramsey or John Ramsey to go back and study

102
1 what they had said before to try to memorize
2 it or refresh their recollections, period,
3 because it was represented to me that you
4 weren't going to do that.
5 So if you do it, I am not really
6 directing her not to answer it. I am
7 directing you that you are outside of the
8 scope of your request and, therefore, your
9 question is not fair and appropriate. It is
10 as simple as that. I am not trying to be
11 difficult.
12 MR. KANE: If that is your
13 definition of what is fair, then that is
14 fine. All right. You've made your record.
15 I withdraw that question.
16 MR. WOOD: I think it is very
17 fair. I made my statement. It is not
18 meant to be a record, necessarily.


#1, How in the world could Patsy concentrate
Posted by Maikai on Nov-05-03 at 01:52 AM
In response to message #0
with Wood and Kane quibbling back and forth? So what if they asked if she was bathed that day, and it was asked before? Something might trigger Patsy's memory about that day that she didn't recall before, if she wasn't interrupted by the chitchat between LW and Kane. I would have told them both to shut up, and let Kane continue.

#2, RE: How in the world could Patsy concent
Posted by Margoo on Nov-05-03 at 02:27 AM
In response to message #1
Nope, not me. This is page 95-102 of the transcript and no one has gotten past the questions that were asked in 1997 and 1998. The purpose of this meeting was not to rehash the same questions asked before (looking for an inconsistency that would in fact be a REASONABLE probability after so much time had elapsed). Lin is doing a good job of protecting the Ramseys from that innocent possibility occurring and TOO MUCH being made of it if it had occurred. He is also trying desperately to get these guys on track and focused with the agreed upon agenda. It just isn't happening. I'd be furious if I went into that room thinking that I'd finally be able to start brainstorming together and wind up being asked the same questions I was asked - repeatedly - before. As their attorney, Lin is interrupting A LOT, but he has good reason to IMO.

#3, RE: How in the world could Patsy concent
Posted by one_eyed Jack on Nov-05-03 at 08:32 AM
In response to message #2
Kane has no regard for the agreed upon format of the meeting. He is trying to bully and Lin isn't going to allow it. The whole point was to try and bring a spirit of cooperation and move away from the accusation. Even though a spirit of cooperation was agreed upon, Kane is obviously more concerned with accusation and more than willing to pepper the record with what could easily appear as non-cooperation by the Ramseys.

#4, Kane
Posted by jameson on Nov-05-03 at 09:21 AM
In response to message #3
Kane&Company handled this wrong.

If they had gone in there and sat with the Ramseys and Ollie and shared just a bit, they would have gotten all kinds of information - - and once the Ramseys felt safe - - imagine all the off-the-cuff remarks they would have shared.

THAT might have been helpful - - jogged memories.

This way - the way it happened... it didn't get anything accomplished.


#5, RE: Kane
Posted by Margoo on Nov-05-03 at 03:25 PM
In response to message #4
You are right, Jameson. Off-the-cuff remarks in a relaxed setting might have even served Kane's agenda better. They might have managed to get a "gem" to use against the Ramseys had they not put everyone on the defensive right off the bat. Even better, they might have managed a "gem" to use in pursuing the killer.

#6, Off the cuff remarks?
Posted by Maikai on Nov-05-03 at 10:08 PM
In response to message #5
I doubt it---it's obvious Lin Wood analyzed every single word out of Kane's mouth. I found this excerpt annoying. Not one word from Patsy in the whole exchange---by the time they were done, she probably forgot what was asked to begin with. Kane said he may have asked this before, and it was leading into other questions. So what if he asked it one time or ten times? I think the bath question and when the panties may have been put on should be explored thoroughly. If you've ever been admitted into a training hospital, every other hour you have someone asking the same questions--part of the reason is in case something was missed.

#7, RE: Off the cuff remarks?
Posted by Slapfish on Nov-06-03 at 09:18 PM
In response to message #6
I disagree Maikai. It was obvious that this "interview" was nothing more than an extension of their previous interrogations. The Ramseys were sick to death of answering the same questions over and over again that were obviously meant to back them into a corner or to trip them up or force some kind of confession.

They finally agreed to an interview thinking the BPD would play fair only to find out they once again had an agenda. They lured them into the interview under false pretenses. They had no intention ever of playing by the rules they agreed to.

The bath issue was merely meant to create a legitimate source for the DNA evidence and to discredit the intruder theory. Even if it had jogged Patsy's memory, what possible importance to the murder would it be?

The panty issue was also a means of discrediting the DNA evidence. What other possible relevance could there be to the panty issue? Even if they thought the killer put the panties on her, what does that tell them? They are looking for a killer that knows the days of the week?

The questions about Burkes shoes was meant to discredit the Hi-Tec footprint. All of the questions they asked her were designed to discredit intruder information. To find out how much she knew, to find out how much information Lou Smit had shared with them and to attempt to trip her. There was NOTHING new in any of these questions. Just the same old tired CRAP.

If I'd been Patsy I would not have sat quietly. I would have told him to ask me new questions or I was leaving because I had better things to do that sit around in a room full of morons. While they are obsessed with panties and pineapple, a vicious, violent predator is walking the streets.


#8, Well, I disagree, too......
Posted by Maikai on Nov-06-03 at 10:13 PM
In response to message #7
Patsy and John won't be eliminated in the mindset of the police, because they were in the house---that's seems to be SOP for the cops. There has been limited face to face contact in all these years between the Ramseys and the police, for reasons we're well aware of. It looks to me like they were following up on all the unanswered questions---perhaps trying to verify previous answers where Patsy couldn't remember the events. It's obvious Kane and Wood don't like each other---two lawyers---two egos. With the bickering back and forth, the questions got lost...the train of thought. I blame them both equally......it could have gone smoother.

#9, sitting through it
Posted by jameson on Nov-06-03 at 11:07 PM
In response to message #8
Lin didn't think they should sit with K&C at all - - the Ramseys wanted to do it and the Ramseys will do what they want regardless of what the lawyers say.

So Lin went in with them to protect their rights and maintain order - but he clearly didn't trust K&C to live up to what they said they intended to do.

He was right.


#10, RE: sitting through it
Posted by Rainsong on Nov-06-03 at 11:31 PM
In response to message #9
Point of fact: no one's memory improves in a span of five years. If neither of the parents remembered baths, panties, etc., five years down the road, any new answers are irrelevant.

Christmas day is busy, even if the woman of the house isn't fixing dinner. There are still last minute chores to do, gifts to wrap, phone calls to make, visits, and so on. One of our family traditions we initiated when the kids were quite small. They were allowed to open one gift on Christmas eve, new pajams, usually something a bit more festive than what would normally be purchased throughout the year. As a result, both kids were given baths after dinner on Christmas eve so they would be clean for their new PJs. Christmas day we generally allowed them to skip baths since this freed both my husband and I for other duties.

However, if someone asked me in 1993 whether or not our kids got baths on Christmas day 1998, I'd have to say, I don't know. I also wouldn't know if they had on fresh underwear.

We all brush our teeth every morning but to state that we actually remember brushing them on such-and-such a date five years ago, the honest answer would be--I don't remember.

Rainsong


#11, RE: sitting through it
Posted by Dave on Nov-07-03 at 01:23 AM
In response to message #10
I completely agree with those who support what Lin did here. He insisted that they not even begin to go down the road of asking questions that have already been answered.

Now some may wonder what difference it makes.

Practical: Generally speaking, the answer given in 1997 or 1998 should be more accurate. If Patsy already answered it, then it should be a better answer --- unless she lied because she's a murderer. Lin is taking the position that earlier answers are better; Kane is taking the position that maybe she won't remember her earlier lie.

Legal: Did anyone notice that Kane challenged Lin as to whether or not he (Lin) was directing his client not to answer the question? The legal issue may have been: Lin is arguing "asked and answered," therefore this question is harassment; Kane was arguing that this is not "asked and answered" therefore not harassment --- instead it was "not answered upon advice of counsel." The latter is incriminating.

This is not mere bickering.


#12, Different line of questioning
Posted by Maikai on Nov-07-03 at 02:16 AM
In response to message #11
The first question sounded like it was going to go down another path--possibly one that hadn't been covered specifically previously. What's becoming apparent is questions were being raised in most of these excerpts to explain possibly significant evidence and how it got where it was.

It appears hopeless that both sides woud have ever come together and been able to sit down and discuss the evidence without suspicions being raised on both sides, and the postions were fixed, and the relationship beyond repair. Since it's out of the hands of the police now, it doesn't matter. The lines were drawn from day two. It was hopeless--both sides lawyered up and dug in and there was no trust.


#13, RE: Different line of questioning
Posted by Margoo on Nov-07-03 at 05:25 AM
In response to message #12
Maikai, I'm not sure if I'm missing your point or not, but it would seem to me that a question asked and answered days following the incident, then again 14 months later, and again another 14 months later would bear little fruit when being asked another 24 months later. I agree the questions revolved around significant elements of the crime scene, but its the unreasonable expectation that the memory of the victims will have improved. So, taking that conclusion into consideration, what exactly was the purpose of re-asking those same questions again and again? More significantly, why focus the entire interview on questions - asked and answered more than once - when the agreed upon purpose of the meeting was to SHARE/exchange information learned over the 3.5 years?

Dave, you have raised an excellent point. I noticed what appeared to be 'legal' posturing as well. All I can say is I am glad, for the Ramseys sake, that Lin was there to keep these jackals at bay.


#14, Oh yeah
Posted by jameson on Nov-07-03 at 10:30 AM
In response to message #13
Kane asked his questions over and over again until Lin did tell him to knock it off and move on.

Why did Kane do that?

I understand he did that because one thing that really galled the BPD was the fact that the Ramseys had answered every question put to them before - in person or in writing it doesn't matter - they answered them.

He very much wanted to be able to leave this meeting and say the Ramseys had been uncooperative - that they had refused to answer questions - - even if it was one he had asked a dozen times before, if he could get themto refuse to answer, he would have been very,very happy.

You see, Kane NEVER expected this transcript to get out - - but I am glad we have it - - it will show the truth.

I know I am getting flamed for posting it a bit at a time but I have my reasons - - one is so that each section can be commented on- - another is that I have decided I will not post the name of any suspect whose name has yet to be public. As you can see, they aren't discussing other suspects so I haven't had to edit much.


#15, Uncooperative
Posted by Dave on Nov-07-03 at 02:50 PM
In response to message #14
LAST EDITED ON Nov-07-03 AT 02:56 PM (EST)
 
Jams posted: "He very much wanted to be able to leave this meeting and say the Ramseys had been uncooperative...."

I think that this is exactly right and that this would probably have been used, because it sounds so incriminating to many people, to obtain more funding to persecute the Ramseys even further. Lin was merely stepping in to nip the current line of questioning "in the bud" while also avoiding Kane's trying to trap him and Patsy into getting a lack of cooperation into the record.


#16, Were Kane and company asking
Posted by Maikai on Nov-08-03 at 02:04 AM
In response to message #15
all the questions....or did Patsy and company get to also ask questions, or discuss the leads they had?

#17, RE: Were Kane and company asking
Posted by jameson on Nov-08-03 at 04:20 PM
In response to message #16
You are seeing the full transcript - - you can see the real end at the end of John's interview - - Kane left - they finished with John then they were out of there.

We all saw the press conferences during those 2 days... at the end of the first day the Ramseys had hope - by the end of the second day they felt betrayed and angry.