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