Peter Boyles Show - Friday, March 5, 1999

This was copied "as is" from Panico's posting on this transcript

"Kaplis in for Boyles/Friday"
Posted by Panico on Mar-05-99 at 09:18 AM (EST)
LAST EDITED ON Mar-05-99 AT 09:31 AM (EST)

He's talked a little about 'the book' -- says he's read it all, and feels for the most part it is accurate.

DC: My impressions are (not conclusions) that Patsy was involved in this. If they're not guilty, they're sure trying to look like it. I want to go into something----with NO pre-conceived ideas, where does the evidence lead you?

I'm especially thrilled because he said he won't be talking about Monicagate.

1 . "More"
Posted by Panico on Mar-05-99 at 10:02 AM (EST)
I know how to spell Dan Caplis's last name!

DC: Gonna devote most of the 8:00 hour to Ramsey. I want to follow the evidence and see what theory it would support--rather than the other way around.

Caller: My call concerns more with the legal system than with Ramseys. The Ramseys have had it their way.

DC: You're right. We'll hold you over and start with this after the news.

2 . "More"
Posted by Panico on Mar-05-99 at 10:18 AM (EST)

DC: And Bruce is saying--like OJ--they ain't gonna get 'em, right?

Caller: That's the way it looks, in my personal opinion. LIke you said, everything pointed to the Ramseys--there was no reason to let them go.

DC: I think it comes back to Boulder's in-experience with murder. That's the reality. They're responding to this beautiful house with rich people.

DC: I'm convinced of this---jurors use their common sense---and they convict on circumstantial evidence all the time. With that saiid, I think these are some of the common sense errors:

1. The fact that she was reportedly wearing the same clothes as the night before, and she had her makeup on. Looks like we have a lady who was up all night. Is this a woman who normally wears the same clothes more than a day.

2. The lack of fingerprints on the ransom note. If this happens in your house and you see these pieces of paper on the floor--what are you gonna do? You're gonna pick 'em up! But her fingerprints were NOT on the note. Her story is that she steps past them, then turns around and looks at it. I don't buy it---you'd pick up that note and read every word of it. And reportedly when police tried to duplicate what she said she did, they almost fell down. And the only person whose handwriting is still connected with this note.

2. Then look at the language of the note. Who else but a Ramsey would say that kind of thing? Who would say "We respect your business but not the country it serves" What? We've just horribly abused and murdered your little girl---who in the world but a Ramsey is going to write that---"Use your good common sense JohN" I mean who is going to hang around the house and be that nice. You may say that they were trying to set up the Ramseys. If you were trying to set them up---you'd leave the little girl outside the door.

Have 6 more points after the break


4 . "More"
Posted by Panico on Mar-05-99 at 10:28 AM (EST)

DC: Beautiful day here in Colorado, too bad JonBenet isn't here to enjoy it. I'm laying out points that I feel show that Patsy was probably involved in this murder.

3. Patsy has reportedly repeatedly told authorities that JonBenet was immediately put to bed when they got home. But if JonBenet was awake at some point, it shows there was an opportunity for some kind of a flash rage crime. Patsy has said that she was not up--and John saying that too. But the coroner tells about the pineapple in her system. Is that alone enough? No. But if Patsy didn't commit the crime, why did she lie?

5. Patsy is adamant about Burke not being up. But we have this reliable info that he was. Why lie?

6. The note says if you talk to a stray dog I'm going to cut your daughter's head off. So if Patsy wasn't involved in the crime, why didn't she believe the note ? Instead she called 911 and they called all of these people? Why did John have Patsy call? John knew she was hysterical---why didn't he call 911?

The book reports that within 35 minutes of discovery of the body, John is calling his pilot to arrange to fly to Atlanta. I've never lost a child---but from what I know of people who have--you have to drag them away from the child's body.

In my mind it is dishonest why they didn't give interviews --I'll tell you why after the break


8 . "More"
Posted by Panico on Mar-05-99 at 10:38 AM (EST)

While I'm waiting---what an absolutely gorgeous day here in Colorado. Snowed last night--and I'm looking out the window at a winter wonderland. You know the kind--where the snow melt as it hits the streets and sidewalks, but sticks to the grass and to every single branch and limb on the trees.

DC: We're going through piece by piece the evidence that I feel points toward Patsy.

7 (I think) The Ramseys say that the reason they would not submit to interviews was because they threatened to not release the body. That is true. Eller went too far--- but for Ramseys to say that's why they wouldn't interview---no way---if you want the killer caught, you do everything you can do to help them. If you're innocent and afraid that they'll twist some innocent thing---I don't buy it--it's more important to catch the killer. Here's why I believe it was a lie----they allowed Burke to submit to an interview----the only reason, or most likely I think, is because Burke is completely innocent. I think the only reason Patsy refused for so long to be interviewed is because she was involved.

DC: Some final points---who would know the house well enough to navigate that house? Who would know that the dog wouldn't be there? All the tools etc used in the crime came from the house. According to Schiller's book, a receipt from McGuckins Hardware exactly matched the prices of the tape and the rope---it does not itemize---but the exact prices are there. The logical explanation is that somebody in that house commited the crime. I mean they even wiped down the batteries in the flashlight. I gave you 15 to 20 pieces of evidence (Obviously I didn't count right) When we come back I'll give you the exculpatory evidence.


10 . "More"
Posted by Panico on Mar-05-99 at 10:47 AM (EST)

(Lurker---I can't quite imagine Caplis quoting from a tab)

DC: Exculpatory points and this is equally important--may indicate innocence. We have a partial palm print on JB's door. We have sme unidentified threads in JB's panties (and I forgot to mention threads from sweater Patsy wore Christmas night were found on duct tape on JB's mouth) You have a scuff mark under a basement window that was broken. You have a claim by R's attorneys that someone could have come in through that basement window. Pry marks on the door, as I understand it, have been explained as being old. John said he broke the window----there's a very real doubt that an intruder could have gotten in through that small window. The DNA in her panties are a large concern----but it has become common knowledge that JB often asked someone to help her wipe in the bathroom---and it's very possible that 's where the DNA could have come from.

Caller: We've heard so much about her head wound. Head wounds bleed profusely. Why has there been nothing about spattered blood?

DC: Take it from me---that head wound did NOT bleed---she had a very small triangular hole in her skull and an 8 inch fracture, but it did not bleed.

DC: Another quick note---it's an exercise to go through---to take the evidence and follow it to something logical---you do that and I guarantee you'll come up with a theory that you never have before. I'll tell you--after the break.


15 . "Last segment"
Posted by Panico on Mar-05-99 at 11:03 AM (EST)

DC: It's difficult, but important and interesting. Here's my point---as I go thru this short exercise, it's not a matter of telling you the theory it leads to is the way it is--here's how I read it--the concerns are---sure there is a lot of evidence that Patsy was involved in this crime. But there's also evidence that says a third party was involved in this crime. What theory would it lead to? I think it would lead to a theory in which---I think it's well known that Patsy wanted this girl to be famous. She thrived on media attention----she was obsessed with making her daughter famous. At time of this murder, the movie "Ransom" was showing. So if you take this evidence and follow this theory---it may be that Patsy planned this fake kidnapping to make her daughter famous----I'm not saying it's a prosecutable theory---but the steps that she had taken to make her daughter famous. What happened to cause her death was obviously something that went horribly wrong. The rest was a scramble. I'm not saying this is what happened---if you go through the exercise, it's worth thinking about.

Caller: I have a question for you. Are they still investigating Fleet White? (telling about confrontation after funeral)

DC: My information is that Fleet White has been cleared based on handwriting, DNA, etc. Suspicion is that Fleet became angry with John because John was not cooperating with PD and because Fleet did not earlier see the body when he looked in that room---and reportedly he says John saw the body before he turned the light on.

Another caller: When you take a little girl to the bathroom and her pants are pulled down---couldn't the DNA have come from the porcelain on a toilet?

DC: It's sure possible---an important point. And when I went through my list---I didn't even get into the staging---that it was certainly not the way a killer would normally leave the scene. If you think I'm wrong, tell me----

Thhhaatttts all folks---