Peter Boyles Show - Tuesday, October 19, 1999

"Partial Boyles Transcript 10/19"
Posted by Panico on Oct-19-99 at 03:29 PM (EDT)

Am I the only one that hasn't been able to get in for the past 4 hours? Anyhow, this is long, and am afraid to post it in parts in case I can't get back in again.

This is where I came in:

PB: .... Star front page ‘JonBenet Killed By Brother Burke’

Chuck Green: Well, that’s certainly I think a greater likelihood, a possibility, but of course that wouldn’t include anybody locally here, I don’t believe. Anybody here who has been on this case knows that Burke was not involved, or believes that Burke was not involved, he was never implicated in it, and has actually vigorously defended him from people who suggest that he was involved in the crime, so if that’s the case, then it would not involve anybody locally that I’m aware of, it would just be against one or two of the tabs, the national super market tabloids

PB: Larry?

Poz: It’s fine with me–gee I think there has to be limits, you know every amendment has limits–it’s just this promiscuous naming of people as criminals when there’s no evidence to support it, it’s disgusting

CG: As I recall, the tabloid that did that and I’m not sure which one

PB: It was the Star

CG: As I recall, they ran an correction and an apology a week or two later

PB: It was the Star and the writer, I think, was none other than Richard Gooding

CG: I believe so but I’m not certain–I’ve got it somewhere in my files

Poz: Let me turn the tables on you two, how do you guys feel about the right of people to sue when

Poz: newspapers—sue successfully for being branded a murderer? Should citizens have a right to do that?

CG: Anybody has the right to sue anybody for anything just as it is–I’ve got no problem with that. They’d better be prepared in the libel area, the defamation actions, to understand what they’re getting into though

Poz: What do you think they’re getting into?

CG: They’re getting into discovery. Like Peter and others have said, the first thing you do is start calling Linda Arndt, you start calling Steve Thomas, and all sorts of people

Poz: Lemme tell ya, a defense case based on Linda Arndt is going to fail guys. If Linda Arndt is the best thing the press can call, they’re in trouble

CG: I understand that, I’ve been much more critical of her publicly than anybody has been, but you’ve got people who were at the scene of the crime who are investigators, police officers and

PB: And Fleet and Priscilla White

CG: And several of Ramsey’s friends–I mean you could call all sorts of people. You can call their relatives, you can call – I don’t know why they would want to keep the case alive like that, but then if they do, that’s their choice.

Poz: But in the abstract, what’s a human being to do when the press gangs up on them? How are they ever going to survive. It wouldn’t matter who your attorneys are, it wouldn’t matter your guilt or innocence–you don’t own a newspaper. At the average citizen, not even the average citizen, any citizen cannot combat you guys, you’re too strong.

CG: Let’s back off a little bit there Larry–I, and a far as I know, every network in this country and most large TV networks around the world have had a standing offer in to the Ramseys since–in my case–the 3rd or 4th day of this case to tell their story, come use my space, use our space–NBC Today Show, GMA, –and all they do is refuse to comment and complain that their side of the story hasn’t been told

PB: What about the fact that they went on CNN on December 31 or January 1, 5 days literally after the death of their daughter and made themselves public figures by announcing all kinds of strange things–and even you would have to admit that CNN interview was strange—and then they went out and hired their first PR team and started to spin the story

Poz: You know Peter, every time you do something it’ journalism, every time somebody else does something, it’s spin. I don’t agree with your characterization.

PB: Well Chuck, what was it if it wasn’t spin?

CG: Anytime somebody gives their side of a story, I guess by definition that’s spin– I don’t like the word spin in this context, but let’s look at the Ramseys. Any time they have requested an interview, any time they’ve requested space, they’ve gotten it. Look at what the Rocky Mountain News did in the special edition they put out–the Ramseys got more fair treatment in that issue of the RMN than any other suspect or people involved in a crime in the history of this country.

Poz: Oh Chuck, no look, if you guys run 1 story or 2 stories or 5 stories PB is on 4 hours a day 5 days a week –that’s 20 hours of coverage a week and he must have done 300 or 200 weeks on these people. Chuck, if you’ve written one column on the Ramseys, you have written a hundred columns.

CG: I’ve written 80 columns on the Ramseys and most of those columns have been critical of the investigation. Not each and every column has been critical of the Rameys–and so for you to say that I’ve written 80 columns and they don’t have a chance–most of the columns I’ve written have been critical of the investigation, not the Ramseys


PB: Michael Tracy names me–already Dan Caplis said ‘I’ll represent you for free’ Hoffman says ‘I’ll represent you for free’ and I’ve talked to some people off the air and they said ‘we’d love to get involved in this’ -----Chuck, the Poz and I are putting together our defense team off the air, we’ll just trade lawyers...

Poz: Peter, I’d like to see you represented by Darnay Hoffman—(laughing) – I’d like Chuck to be represented by Ann Sultan – (all laughing)

CG: That’s your dream team

Poz: Yeah, I’m going to pick your dream team, I’m going to sell tickets and do it as a fund raiser. We can retire the national debt

PB: Hey Chuck, they also said Jeralyn Merritt would represent you (they’re cracking up) Who else did you put on that list Posner?

Poz: I don’t know, there’s so many people I want to pick for you two—I want you guys to have..

PB: Nothing but the finest–nothing but the best (laughing)

Poz: Seriously, let’s just back off from our personalities for a second and study the problem. If the media decides to fo after a human being in our country, there is no hope that person’s reputation will survive

PB: Sure there is

Poz: No

PB: Give you an example – Linn Woods who is this attorney hired by the Ramseys– he represented Richard Jewell. My understanding of the story is the FBI gave Richard Jewell up to the networks. Chuck, do you understand it that way?

CG: Well, that’s what I’ve heard but.....

PB: That’s what we’re led to believe and CNN and NBC ran with the story that Richard Jewell was the Olympic Park bomber. Well apparently now the FBI is chasing another guy who they say is the Olympic Park bomber, but the leaks were given out that it was Richard Jewell. Woods sues on behalf of Jewell. Now Larry, what do you do with that? I mean he won–he got ½ million $$

Poz: You know, you can get money, but you can’t get back your reputation. As Ed Donovan said after he was acquitted, where do I go—you don’t get it back. And remember, in Jewell’s case, the extraordinary happened, the FBI was so out of line, that they eventually said ‘we were wrong’ Let’s say that the FBI just says nothing, which is the customary stance of a police agency–we’re saying nothing, the case is still open— You go through the rest of your life with people assuming guilt

CG: I guess what you’re saying is that this media should never publish anything negative about anyone until it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt

Poz: Chuck, I don’t want to hold you up to that standard–I believe in the 1st amendment–I’m just asking you to recognize the strength, the power of the media for real people

CG: I think we do and I think we restrain ourselves much more than you would possibly imagine. Because any of us, all of us could become a supermarket tabloid overnight if we so chose. We do not choose to do that kind of journalism–we try to do as responsible job as we possibly can, given the various limitations. I don’t think that you or other critics of the media have any clue as to the voluntary restraints we place upon ourselves every day.

BREAK (Tried last break to get on forum and couldn’t–here we go trying again)

PB: (Recapping Charlie Brennan’s story) Charlie speaks with none other than Michael Tracey who says I should be sued by the Ramseys for what I said on Channel 9 on that show that Chuck Green was on. But the consensus of opinion thus far by other lawyers is that this is simply a threat– not to be carried out–but numbers of people have said they would welcome a lawsuit for the reasons that Chuck Green has talked about, and other people have talked about today. Larry, you’ve been very critical of the press throughout all of this

Poz: I’ve been very frightened of the press–I see what they can do to any of us. We don’t have a chance. You know, we say freedom of the press is great if you own the press

PB: Well, can’t I say the same about lawyers and society–look what they’ve done to us–Chuck?

CG: Well, of course lawyers can sue anybody over anything and ruin our reputation with the mere filing of a complaint

PB: I’m going through it right now

CG: Yeah, so – anything can be abused, any power or influence can be abused. The media abuses its power from time to time–so do lawyers. And there are checks and balances. Nothing can ever be set straight whether you are the subject of a lawsuit or the subject of a news story. So I wouldn’t be quit so cavalier Larry, if I were you.

Poz: I don’t want to be cavalier, because I cherish the freedom of the press. And I think that, in general, we have a more honest nation because of your watch dog activities. But, it’s frightening when you turn those battleship guns on an individual. It’s hard for the individual to survive. You know, one of the things we say Chuck, is the arrest and press release from the prosecution is on page 1, and the acquittal and dismissal is on page 58. And that’s just a factor of the news–what is news and what is not news

CG: I think it’s a distortion also. I mean, is there anybody that doesn’t know that OJ wasn’t acquitted? Doesn’t know that John DeLaurion wasn’t acquitted—

PB: But OJ –but you guys both know that following OJ’s criminal trial, know that he went on and had that moment when he said ‘now I’m hiring fill-in-the-blank lawyers, and I’m going after all of you’ and less than a month later Fred Goldman files his civil suit, and of course, OJ does nothing. And could it conceivable be Chuck, and again, I’m asking you this question, if the Ramseys were to sue the Globe, that the Globe would turn it into the civil trial of OJ Simpson, although it would be the civil trial of John and Patsy Ramsey.

CG: They probably would. First of all, I’m a little puzzled why the Ramseys would want to spend their resources on this other than their stated goal of finding the killer of JonBenet–because this would be an extraordinarily expensive endeavor on their part and I think that money could be better spent, but that’s their choice, you know, they can spend their money any way they want. Larry, let me ask you, let me point out, there was a piece in on the Denver papers over the weekend, I think it was in the .... page of the RMN Sunday–that said that the further away you get from CO, the more guilty people believe the Ramseys to be. That is an indication to me that the local press has not been as abusive, in your terms, as some of the national press, and in fact, as Jay Leno has.

Poz: You know, I’m not sure I accept that.

CG: It was just stated and I don’t know what the basis was

Poz: None of us are scientists on this. My sense is that wherever I go in the country, people ask about the case, and people seem disgusted by the case OTOH, and wish it would go away. You know, we have to give credence to this notion, if you spend 3 years, and all the prosecutors and all the money you have, and you don’t have the facts, that seems to me to tell us that you may be going in the wrong direction, folks. We should give credence to that. Where is an investigation of the investigation?

CG: That’s what I have called for, as you know, publicly. I’ve called for that on several occasions, as recently as last Sunday.

Poz: You know, across the country, there are police mis-conduct cases in the news. We’ve got a guy on death row in Illinois who’s been taken off death row because the police framed him. We’ve got in LA now–they’ve busted a ring of cops involved in illegal activities and framing people and we’ve had exposure of the problem of snitches–you know what I’ve been talking about Chuck and Peter, snitches will say anything to get out of jail, and prosecutors will use them without caring if it’s true

CG: Well, you’re preaching to the choir to some extent in my cause, because I think I’m the only person has consistently beat the drum that the investigation needs to be investigated, and that the citizens of Boulder and people of this state need to know what happened in Boulder in terms of the investigation itself, and I have suggested strongly that that’s where the Gov really has a constructive role to play, rather than trying to solve the crime–he needs to get involved in exposing what happened in the city of Boulder.

Poz:–not just in Boulder–why didn’t we get more coverage when we found out that the FBI crime lab was falsifying results in cases? That the FBI was falsifying evidence that really wasn’t there. Isn’t that...

CG: It is a national story, in fact, in contradiction to what you said earlier, that was front page news for quite awhile. And the only reason you and I know about it is because it was heavily publicized.

PB: Got break here–last comments–Chuck, do you think Bill Owens will produce or appoint a special prosecutor?

CG: I don’t think he will and I hope he does not. I think it would be a squandering of scarce resources.

PB: Larry?

Poz: I agree totally.–8 prosecutors have told us there is no case, I don’t need another 8.

CG: You know, the people he has looking over the shoulders of the prosecutors have less experience in homicide and GJs than the people that they’re going to be passing judgement on.

PB: Real quick, Chuck, will the Ramseys sue a media outlet or an individual?

CG: I think the only reasonable possibility is that if they sue on Burke’s behalf in a very limited capacity.

PB: Same question Larry

Poz: If they did that to my child, I’d certainly consider suing them

BREAK (Still can’t get in)

PB: The guest is Don Regge, who has been our spiritual father in all the parody songs in the Ramseys,

DR: Just trying to keep up with you buddy–hovering somewhere between JT Colfax and Evan from Heaven–lies Media Whore Productions

PB: and Dr. Bob, right?

DR: Yeah–if they sue you, they’re gonna sue me, and it’s all your fault, that’s my story and I’m stickin’ to it. However, Darnay Hoffman, by saying that the statute of limitations is 1 year on this,

PB: You’re clean

DR: Oh man, yeah, I think ‘take this badge and shove it’ was August of 98, so I’m in the clear. Play at will

PB: (both laughing) Have you ever been sued before? Martino, who has been sued more – I mean, if all the lawsuits that been stuck to him were sticking out of him, the guy would look like a porcupine.

Tom Martin: I’ve been sued–how many–dozens?

DR: Well, my unfaithful ex-wife, notwithstanding (PB cracking up) I’ve got 2 lawyers in the family who are

PB: Let is go Don

DR: Yeah, really. My 2 lawyers in the family, my dad and big brother both were very concerned about some of the lyrics, but I said ‘what the heck–let’s see if he comes after my 1989 Mazda’ which is all I own, so and it’s got 127,000 miles on it.

PB: If you want to keep the beer cold, you put it next to that woman’s heart

DR: Hey, let it go (all laughing)

PB: Let it go? You’re not bitter–she could go to the Middle East and teach them how to fight dirty

DR: Stop–All the songs are up on the web and I get occasional emails from people and they say ‘gee why don’t you write one from their perspective’ and I think I did with the Ballad of John and Patsy–which was in the voice of John saying ‘My God they’re going to prosecute me’ – and really, I don’t think we were trying to show guilt, (PB laughing, saying ‘no’) as much as make fun of ...

PB: What are you doing–trying to defend yourself here?

Tom: Yeah, that’s what it sounds like–this guy’s backing out already

PB: Yeah, I was going to call you today about a new song too–I don’t know brother.

DR: Well, I was going to do one if she got indicted, but now what do you do? ‘Take the money and run’ I mean they got away. It’s over.

PB: I know–I know

DR: And it’s sad. Well, maybe that’s it. I mean Lee Hill says do ‘The ends by the doors’ and it’s kinda sad really

PB: I saw Dr. Lee up there for a couple of days

Tom: BTW, it’s important to note Peter, that I’ve never lost

PB: Is that a challenge—

DR: Well, Peter, if you get another idea, let’s irritate the heck out of them and go to court

PB: All right, I’ll call ya pal.

Thhhhaaaattts all folks