Justice Watch Discussion Board "Beckner Names Patsy "Primary Witness"-USA Today, 8/25" [ Main ] [ Post New Thread ] [ Help ] [ Search ] Table of Contents ................................................................... Beckner Names Patsy "Primary Witness"-USA Today, 8/25, Dunvegan, 10:41:33, 8/25/2000 Tuesday's Headline, Nandee, 10:49:24, 8/25/2000, (#1) Wow!, Starling, 10:54:57, 8/25/2000, (#2) Very interesting, Starling., Holly, 11:18:23, 8/25/2000, (#3) Wood sucks as a lawyer, Ribaldone, 11:24:18, 8/25/2000, (#4) Holly (My opinion), Starling, 12:04:14, 8/25/2000, (#6) I would LOVE to know, Cassandra, 11:54:57, 8/25/2000, (#5) Oh, no Cassie, starry, 12:19:24, 8/25/2000, (#7) wood, Legalbeagle, 14:05:03, 8/25/2000, (#9) another view, fly, 13:59:13, 8/25/2000, (#8) MSNBC, Florida, 14:22:36, 8/25/2000, (#10) ................................................................... "Beckner Names Patsy "Primary Witness"-USA Today, 8/25" Posted by Dunvegan on 10:41:33 8/25/2000 http://www.usatoday.com/usatonline/20000825/2584916s.htm Friday, August 25, 2000 Page 4A Ramseys Hope Questioning Ends Suspicion Couple to Talk to Investigators Despite Counsel By Kevin Johnson USA TODAY John and Patsy Ramsey are about to disregard their attorney's best advice. On Monday, for the first time in two years, these long-time prisoners of national suspicion are expected to be questioned by Colorado authorities still investigating the slaying of their 6-year-old daughter, JonBenet. The meeting or interrogation -- depending on who's describing it -- is scheduled to take place in Atlanta, where the Ramseys moved shortly after the murder in Boulder. But the couple's attorney says location might be the Ramseys' only advantage. ''I strongly recommended that they not participate,'' Lin Wood says. ''They are putting themselves at great risk for agreeing to do this. It is like walking into the unknown.'' The risk, Wood says, is exposing his clients to ''overzealous authorities'' who have been fixated on the parents as suspects from the very beginning. Then why do it at all? Wood says his clients believe there is ''no other way for this police department in Boulder to get past John and Patsy as suspects.'' ''They are cooperating with authorities, hoping this process now will work -- that the police will try to go and find out who really did it.'' In nearly four years since the young beauty queen was found dead in the basement of the family home, the search for the killer hasn't really changed much. The case has consumed thousands of investigative hours, outlasted a local grand jury and claimed the careers of local law enforcement officials -- all while riveting the attention of a nation. For all of that, authorities still regard the parents as ''under an umbrella of suspicion.'' Boulder Police Chief Mark Beckner, who will lead the seven-member investigative team in Atlanta, says there is no reason to expect ''dramatic changes'' in the case after they are questioned. Police proposed the interviews as a way to move the investigation forward, and the Ramseys agreed. Beckner, however, would not discuss the nature of his ''new'' questions nor has the team provided the Ramseys with any advance information about the inquiry. ''I wouldn't necessarily describe these interviews as something that could make or break the case,'' he says. For the Ramseys, that might not be the case at all, legal analysts say. No matter how confident the parents may be of their innocence, analysts say there is little or no advantage in keeping this appointment with investigators. ''For them to agree to this is either the peak of arrogance or it's just absolute ignorance,'' says University of Notre Dame law professor Jimmy Gurule, a former federal prosecutor. ''It lacks a modicum of common sense and good judgment. I don't know how to describe it in any other way, except to say this is a very dangerous strategy.'' Aside from the possibility of being confronted with the unknown, it is likely that investigators will test the Ramseys' answers against prior statements made more than two years ago. ''At the very least, police are going to leave that interview with inconsistencies in their stories,'' Gurule says. ''It's going to be almost impossible for them to remember what they said months and months ago,'' Gurule says. ''And if there is a trial, those inconsistencies will come back to haunt them.'' Houston attorney Edward Mallett, president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, says it would be almost impossible to completely prepare clients for this type of session. ''After all of this time has passed (two years since the Ramseys' last police interview), you have to assume investigators are holding something back,'' Mallett says. ''You have to expect that they will have to confront hard evidence or information that they may have known nothing about. ''In a state of surprise, even an honest answer or explanation may sound dishonest or deceptive.'' The Ramseys will have Wood in the room while they are being interviewed. However, criminal law is not the primary specialty of the Atlanta attorney, who also represents former Olympic Park bombing suspect Richard Jewell in his continuing libel actions against news organizations. On criminal matters, Wood says he is getting advice from fellow Atlanta lawyer Steve Sadow, whose office is ''just three or four blocks away'' from Wood's suite in the downtown Equitable Building. Wood says the Ramseys have agreed to every condition proposed by Colorado authorities during the planning of the session, including the demand that Patsy Ramsey be questioned first. Beckner says there would be no interviews if the Ramseys did not agree to that condition. ''We have a specific strategy,'' Beckner says. ''She is the primary witness of the two. She would have more knowledge than John in some areas. We're going to go where the evidence takes us.'' Wood says the structure of the interview clearly establishes the session as a ''full-blown interrogation'' and is further evidence of investigators' continuing fixation on the parents as suspects. The attorney says his clients are willing to face whatever awaits them, partly out of desperation to redirect the probe and to help salvage the remains of their reputations. In that effort, the couple released favorable results of lie detector tests in which they maintained their innocence. They also have urged Boulder police to review the assault of a 14-year-old girl, whose attack -- nine months after JonBenet was killed -- has other common threads to the Ramsey slaying. Beckner says that case is not related in any way to the Ramsey case, but he is continuing a review. Wood says the case could be significant if the Ramseys are eventually charged. For now, though, Wood says his clients should ''receive some recognition for fully cooperating with authorities,'' especially in a situation with so much risk involved. ''Nobody really knows what these people have gone through,'' Wood says. ''They have already paid an enormous price.'' Once a successful businessman, John Ramsey is now unemployed. Patsy Ramsey also is unemployed, and the couple say they have run through almost all of their life-savings -- millions of dollars -- to pay attorneys' fees and other related expenses. They have put their Atlanta home on the market and now live in a local apartment. ''At some point, every case has to come to end,'' Wood says. ''Law enforcement will either clear them or determine that their efforts will finally be exhausted. Until then, they remain under a cloud of suspicion. ''If you are John Ramsey how do you find work or support your family under those conditions? It is not a pretty picture.'' [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 1. "Tuesday's Headline" Posted by Nandee on 10:49:24 8/25/2000 ... Police Pounce on Poor Pitiful Patsy on Prozac. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 2. "Wow!" Posted by Starling on 10:54:57 8/25/2000 Wow! I've never heard Beckner be so direct. "We have a specific strategy," Beckner says. "She is the primary witness of the two. She would have more knowledge than John in some areas. We're going to go where the evidence takes us." Something to chew on folks. Does this mean, that if she is the primary witness - does that make John the primary target? And Jimmy Gurule's comments: "For them to agree to this is either the peak of arrogance or it's just absolute ignorance." "It lacks a modicum of common sense and good judgment. I don't know how to describe it in any other way, except to say this is a very dangerous strategy." "At the very least, police are going to leave that interview with inconsistencies in their stories." "It's going to be almost impossible for them to remember what they said months and months ago. And if there is a trial, those inconsistencies will come back to haunt them." Great article, Dunvegan! Starling [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 3. "Very interesting, Starling." Posted by Holly on 11:18:23 8/25/2000 Sometimes police will say they are seeking so and so just as a witness, when they really mean SUSPECT. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 4. "Wood sucks as a lawyer" Posted by Ribaldone on 11:24:18 8/25/2000 "It is not a pretty picture." You can say that again! Nothng about the Ramseys is pretty. The stupidity of Lin Wood's strategy amazes me. If his clients were truly innocent, the police AND FBI wouldn't still be targeting them after four years. Sorry, but if they wanted to frame them, they would have already done so. And then they would have arrested them and held a trial. As it is, it's clear the Ramseys have been calling the shots and the reason this "interview" is such a big deal is because Ramsey's have always resisted police interviews (including this one). Instead of constantly reminding the public that his clients are thought by all law enforcement agencies to be the chief suspects, he should have just said, "We have no idea what they want to talk about because my clients have already told them all they know. But regardless of what the questions are, they are anxious to help. They are willing to do whatever it takes." PERIOD. Of course that would be a huge lie, but so what. When don't defense attorneys lie. And it would only work if your clients were actually innocent. If they are guilty (as the Ramseys are), he should advise them to shut the hell up and stay off the media interview circuit. Wood is an idiot to constantly remind the public that virtually everyone in law enforcement believes his clients are guilty. It just makes the public think . . . well if ALL those law enforcement people are so convinced they are guilty, they must have good reasons for thinking so. He's so concerned about making the Ramseys look persecuted and putupon that he's actually making them look guiltier, if that's possible. Sounds likes Beckner's getting a little fed up with the s#it. Go buddy! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 6. "Holly (My opinion)" Posted by Starling on 12:04:14 8/25/2000 I see your point, but then again it would be suggestive that Beckner is cunning, and in a round-about way, lying. So, I'm going to take him at face value on his words because I can't think of any other time he's spoken an untrue, concerning this case. Prooven liars are John and Patsy Ramsey. The proof is in all their public statements. It would have been just as easy, for Beckner to call John Ramsey the primary witness. Remember Arndt's interviews? She didn't say it - but I am one of many who are under the distinct impression she believes the true perp, is John. Then there is Steve Thomas, who leans towards Patsy as the true perp. When Thomas went head-on with the Ramsey's on LKL he pushed John Ramsey's buttons better than anyone I've ever seen. After ascerting in public interviews, that he took melatonin and slept soundly, went to bed after Patsy and the kids, when Thomas told him 'I give you a pass, unless you want to tell me otherwise,' John Ramsey said "I was there." Early on when Owens came into this case he told us that the evidence he saw indicated there was more than one person involved. He addressed the issue of who was willing to come to Colorado and who was not. At a much later date, he finally said - they want to talk to Patsy because John does all the talking. If you re-read the LKL transcript of the Ramsey/Thomas debate - Owens point is well made. John doing all the talking. Patsy being the one so medicated early on. John the major decision maker. John going through millions to keep theirselves out of jail. John hiring attorney's for his entire family - not Patsy's. His best friend turning away from him, at a time when you would need all the friends you could get. There are just so many things that lead me to believe that John is the primary target, and whatever Patsy has done - is secondary, thus allowing for her new label "primary witness." [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 5. "I would LOVE to know" Posted by Cassandra on 11:54:57 8/25/2000 what the Denver/Boulder defense lawyers think of Wood and this latest venture of the "Umbrella People". If they are charged, to whom will they turn? I don't think the former lawyers are likely to handle them. I don't remember hearing Wood speak so vehemently about this being a mistake, I thought he was all for the publicity tour on CBN, LK, etc. What's up with him now? Rethinking his handling of them? Cassie [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 7. "Oh, no Cassie" Posted by starry on 12:19:24 8/25/2000 >What's up with him now? Rethinking >hishandling of them? >Cassie > Wood's just looking for the black glove to turn up. lol [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 9. "wood" Posted by Legalbeagle on 14:05:03 8/25/2000 is covering his behind. He knows they throw folks under the bus at an alarming rate, and wouldn't hesitate to do the same to him. Scenario: They go to the interview; they talk to the cops, they get arrested. Unless Wood vehemently and publicly advises against this interview, he could be in line for a ramseysuit--legal malpractice. I can hear it now.."And so, Mr. Wood, is it not true that at the time you were dispensing legal advice to the ramseys relative to their interview with Colorado law enforcement, that you had never practiced criminal law???" [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 8. "another view" Posted by fly on 13:59:13 8/25/2000 I'm not excited about Beckner's comment. My guess is that it is about as likely that he is referring to PR having more knowledge of JBR's activities, routines, where things normally are in the house, and other innocuous (but perhaps important) issues, rather than necessarily having greater knowledge of, or participation in, the crime. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 10. "MSNBC" Posted by Florida on 14:22:36 8/25/2000 Dan A. just had a shot on TV talking about the interviews. I thought it was very balanced - Chuck Green on now - says no real "big" new evidence but there is a little bit of new evidence - test results, etc.- thinks they are going to ask sensitive questions - discuss discrepancies in testimony, their TV interviews and book - things like that. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] ARCHIVE REMOVE