KOA - Saturday, March 6, 1999
This was copied "as is" from Panico's postings
Posted by Panico on Mar-06-99 at 12:02 PM (EST)
He's spent the past hour going over the same circumstantial evidence that I reported he gave on Peter Boyles show yesterday. He seems even more decisive today than yesterday. He said cases are usually decided on common sense---and that equally innocent explanations are needed from the defense on all of this circumstantial evidence. He said Mike Tyson was convicted on circumstantial evidence, but that there is much more of it in this case against Patsy.
I'm sure there'll be calls on it and more comments from Dan---I'll be back after the news---
3 . "More"
Posted by Panico on Mar-06-99 at 12:23 PM (EST)
He's saying the autopsy doesn't indicate any abrasions on her mouth from duct tape--although John repeatedly said he pulled the duct tape from her mouth. Then he said that indicates to him that it was part of the staging. ( I take that to mean that if it was placed on her mouth after death---it wouldn't leave any abrasions??? Is that the way that works?)
Caller David: You make a number of compelling points against Patsy--and the one thing I don't get is the motive. What would be behind doing this to a child?
DC: A prosecutor doesn't have to prove motive when the evidence is compelling like this. Humans do inexplicable things. If there's enough evedence that she committed the crime, she would be prosecuted. It's speculation--it's based on public information. I'm not privvy to the inside information---there may be information that makes it more powerful or less powerful. But I think if it goes to jury, it will be a non-premeditated crime--that there was something that triggered a moment of rage in Patsy--without any intent to killer her--that's speculation. I haven't talked to anybody that thinks Patsy premediated --- The defense has a lot to work with in this case. Like no one ever saw Patsy strike this girl---and she hit her hard enough to kill her? But look at these 35 points I've laid out--and we don't have to explain how and why it happened.
Caller Billy: I want to hear somebody explain --the media had this homicide--a lot of air time--and in hearing that run down---I guess there were 3 different law enforcement agencies messing with this---- one of them reported there was semen involved--it would be kinda hard for her mother to deposit that---
DC: You're right---but that turned out to be a false report. But good point to bring up the sexually assault. I think there's agreement there was a sexual assault at the time of murder due to staging. I think that's how the prosecution will lay it out. Those facts belong to them. I don't think anybody in GJ process has talked to anybody about this since the GJ started.
5 . "More"
Posted by Panico on Mar-06-99 at 12:32 PM (EST)
LAST EDITED ON Mar-06-99 AT 12:35 PM (EST)
Caller Chuck Green (yeah): I listened to the caller about pre-meditation----I missed some of it but I think I can fill in the blanks. I think your theory is very solid. I think it is most likely an unintentional murder---but the blow to the head was not the cause of death. I'd like for you to talk about if death was pre-meditated if caused by strangulation.
DC: His commentary is so valuable because he has an objective, unfiltered view of this. It hink Chuck's view is a vital one. Is there's to be a conviction--what is the charge to be.
CG Even tho the initial assault was not pre-meditated, the girl was rendered unconscious, and then you take a second step, which seems to me is pre-meditated-- -- could you address that?
DC: Do you have a few minutes?
CG: I'm on a cell phone--I may hit a bad spot
6 . "More"
Posted by Panico on Mar-06-99 at 12:44 PM (EST)
DC: Chuck had to leave to go do an MSNBC shot.
DC: What if in reality the person who strangled her thought she was already dead as result of the blow----how would they know if they weren't there? No useable as a defense. Somebody really went over her neck, so a jury could easily conclude that the person knew she was still alive. That defense wouldn't work and I think that's a fair observation. Thanks to Chuck Green.
Caller Paula: I'm very in admiration of the logical case you're putting out---I heard a caller on PB;s show some months ago and she'd heard it from someone who had inside info----and it's the story about John abusing JB and Patsy caught him and went to hit him, he dodged and she hit JB.
DC: That theory did float around--it's my impression that that theory is not actively being pursued. It's my impression that John Ramsey will not be indicted for the murder of this girl. I believe at the moment that Patsy is the heated object of this investigation.
Caller: John looks like somebody who would do that
DC: That's not fair--there's nothing about John that looks sinister or eveil
Caller: Im sorry--I didn't mean that---when they were interviewed by the press is the only time I was able to observe them. I thought he looked defensive.
DC: I think there's the danger--once you've drawn an impression--of seeing what you want to see. Im certainly not basing my conclusion that Patsy was likely involved in this crime on anything I saw in on camera--it's based on the circumstantial evidence.
Another caller: You proposed the theory of the crime that I have always believed, that this was a step towards Patsy's desire for fame and you seem to back off from this today and I want to know why---and also if you believe Patsy went to McGuckins to purchase tape and rope, what do you think she was going to do with it?
DC: Yesterday on PB's show, what I did was say let's take this evidence and see where it leads us without any pre-conceived notions. Wait a minute----if she bought the tape and rope 2 weeks before the crime, how can it be said it wasn't pre-meditated?
9 . "Hey China Baby"
Posted by Panico on Mar-06-99 at 12:59 PM (EST)
I knew that one---bite me big time---my question is would the tape leave mark if placed there AFTER death?
DC: We're having some good callers who want to get into the tougher details. You said I'm not hitting the same theory as I did yesterday. We keep hearing that no one theory fits all the evidence. It does appear to be the case here. Does the evidence lead you to one theory, no matter how preposterous? When I took that approach, it led me to a theory that I'm not saying is provable, but it intrigues me and has from the beginning. That's what Im saying. I'm not saying this is the way the crime came down. Here's the theory: that you have a woman PR who is desperate for her daughter to be famous and for her to reflect in that glory--and who has gone to bizzare lengths to accomplish this including throwing her in full make up on a stage with hip swing---and that is abuse----and then you find that child dead in the mother's house with substantial evidence that the mother is involved, then you have the receipt of tape and rope being bought by mother--who she that she never had any reason to buy those items. If you take the evidence as a whole, it's not inconceivable that it was a planned fake kidnapping---not that it can be proved.
Caller: That's one of the things I thought from the beginning. On CNN Patsy had on a black suit with the crown pin from Miss America. From that point on, I said, this woman is more interested in herself---I mean it seemed like a bizzare piece of jewelry to wear when you daughter has just been murdered. I think if the prosecutor tries to raise some rage theory---I think there's evidence that Patsy wanted to be famous.
DC: I think it's unproveable
DC: I just dont believe for a moment that she would have sacrificed the life of this child for fame. We've seen cases where people staged fake crimes against themselves to get money, publicity, etc. and then something went horribly wrong. I'm not saying that's what happened here. I'm just saying this woman wanted to be famous through her daughter. There appears to be substantial evidence that Patsy purchased the tape and rope. My impression right now that Patsy is involved in the crime is not based on that kind of evidence, but the circumstantial evidence I spent an hour presenting to you.
12 . "More"
Posted by Panico on Mar-06-99 at 01:14 PM (EST)
Geez--watching MSNBC during KOA newsbreak--and there is Chuck saying McCrary's idea of 4 detectives being there at one time would be for simoltaneous (sp?) interviews and that would be appropriate at this time---Chuck doesn't think it would take 4 men to work or check on DNA. And there's our fellow poster Darnay Hoffman saying he would tend to agree with Chuck, saying 2 detectives are interviewing people simoltaneously--so that there's one as a witness.
CG: I think it's an appropriate time to be going over all of this--I believe that something will be happening in the next 6 to 8 weeks--a true bill--an indictment--- I'm confident that most points in the Schiller book is fairly reliable. What we have to do is pull together all of the information, put it together, as you do with circumstantial evidence and see where it takes you. Where it takes me is that the evidence points directly to Patsy. I sincerely hope Patsy is not involved and I hope Johnis not involved. We've had excellent callers offering their insights and I know there are people on the internet who do that as well -----( how kewel)
No matter what John's suspicions have been, there is not proof here that Patsy communicated this to John--so how can you convict John as an accessory---I mean if he suspects it, is it enough to convict him as an accessory?
Caller: How could he be in the house and not know what's going on?
DC: I don't claim to know the inside info in this case, but there are many people involved in this case that believe John suffered so terribly as a result of the death of his other daughter, that he could have had anything to do with the death of his other daughter.
Caller: If he wakes up and here's his daughter with a cord around her neck---what would he think?
DC: My belief is that suspecting that is not enough.
DC: It is my belief that at this point in time---the circumstantial evidence is vedry strong.
(I'm so confused---MSNBC going in one ear---KOA going in the other.
Break on both stations---
13 . "More" Posted by Panico on Mar-06-99 at 01:31 PM (EST)
OOOOhhhh---just love Chuck Green on MSNBC right now---telling that it's been obvious that R's have accused Fleet White---and they've also said that it was someone who had been waiting in the house for some time----and since R's were at the White's house for dinner-----Chuck says "You can't have it both ways"-----(Good boy Chuck) (Some of the people on this show are so un-informed that it's sickening.) (You done good too Darnay) When someone hosts an hour long show---they should be informed! Disgusting!
CG: This discussion of the Ramsey case reminds me of when we used to discuss the OJ case---the idea is to figure the darn thing out. That's why I spent an hour laying out the evidence--and I believe that it points straight to Patsy---not that that's where I want it to point. I have no bias against these people. I hope it's not them---because I don't want the knowledge that her own parents were involved in this death to have been the last awareness JonBenet had in her short little life. I know in my heart, I have no bias.
Caller JIM: IF I had a child that had been found dead in a basement---the first people that would have been hauled in would have been me and my wife. Why didn't that happen here?
DC: Don't blame the police for that. I know that happened in the first few hours. Towards the end of the day the police began to suspect Ramseys and at that point it wasn't feasible to interview them because they were grieveing. Within 24 hours it was the Ramseys who prevented the interviewing. No question--the first 24 hours they got preferential treatment.
Caller coming up after the break asking why pageants damage children
14 . "More"
Posted by Panico on Mar-06-99 at 01:40 PM (EST)
Caller: All that is seen is JonBenet and the pageants. They don't show the other little girls. Was JonBenet special?
DC: JonBenet is the only little girl found murdered in her home. I didn't go to these pageants, but it is my understanding that JonBenet is the only little girl that showed up in Las Vegas showgirl outfits and displaying a hip thrust. According to Brennan and Schiller's book, JonBenet's attire and the hip thrust was not the norm.
Caller: I just didn't know how that set up.
DC: Even if it was the norm, my point would still hold, because then you would have a child who is used and abused by her own parents in her own home.
Another caller: Im about halfway thru the book which makes me more obsessed with it..
DC: I am hearing nothing but very good things from all corners about Mike Kane.
Caller: I wonder if they sedated Burke
DC: From what I hear, there was no evidence of that--it appears he was awake.
They're doing a 20 minute break now---will be back at noon for a half hour---but this person's arms are just giving out. Can't do no mo!