Peter Boyles Show - Monday, November 9, 1998
"Caplis In For Boyles/Monday"
Posted by Panico on 05:33:26 11/09/98
Caller saying believed Burke did it and parents covering. Dan telling how he knows all the authorities in the case-- and that he has been told by them that, although they can't tell him any more then this, but that Burke did not do this.
Posted by Panico on 05:41:42 11/09/98
While I was booting up, another caller was slamming PD and how they screwed up the case. Dan saying they did indeed the first day, but since then..at and now, the investigation IS on track. I didn't rush because I thot Byron would be here.
DC: OK, Lou Smit---where's the beef? If that's what you believe, tell us why.
Talking about Charlie Brennan's article in RMN and some are saying it points to an intruder, but Dan says it does just the opposite to him.
I haven't seen article--don't know what it is. I'm not up to par, but will do the best I can.
Posted by Panico on 05:58:12 11/09/98
DC will be talking about story from Channel 4 and the evidence against the Ramseys (I didn't see that either, so I'll wing it) and the story from Charlie Brennan. Will have McCrary on to dispute anything leaning toward intruder theory.
DC: Peter hasn't let this case go, and that's to his credit--I think that's one of the reasons it's kept going. Introducing Channel 4 reporter Rog (?) I enjoyed your story last night. What he did was bring together the most credible reports about evidence and Patsy Ramsey. It's critical to see them brought together. What were the key pieces you talked about?
Rog: The duct tape that John said was across JB's mouth--and the sweater material found, and the (I didn't get this) and the 911 tape, and the fact that Burke appears to have been in the background, contrary to them saying he slept thru it all. And the pineapple-- and we know parents have said she was carried to bed sleeping.
DC: And if you didn't commit the crime, why lie? I think this will be one of the most crucial pices of evidence when this case goes to trial. (Burke on the tape) If you're caught lying on that, you don't have to be Clarence Darrow to get that one. One piece of evidence can blow it all apart.
Rog: Any of this stuff be explained point by point, but it all suggests the same sort of people. Then you've got the bogus ransom note, the phrasing, handwriting analysts, some who say it is absolutely Patsy.
DC: Jurors decide cases based on common sense. Common sense tells us that an intruder isn't going to come into the house and take the time to write that note and compliment John on his business.
McCrary will join us after the news.
Posted by Panico on 06:14:35 11/09/98
DC: Aaah--judgment day is coming for the Ramseys. Welcome Greg McCrary. Let me give you recap on Charlie Brennan's story. When Lou's resignation letter came out, I said well find, Lou, maybe you're right, but where's the evidence? So when Charlie says let's see what Lou has. Apparently they believe JB was actually killed in the basement--in the boiler room--that the scream could only be heard by the neighbor if the murder was commited in that room. If you accept the conclusion that it happened in that room---the inference, according to Charlie, would be--couldn't have been the family.
GM: That the intruder would go down to the basement and in that area, and they'd have to have known it was there, it is really high risk for an intruder to go down deeper into the house. What sort of forensic evidence that the homicide in the boilder room? If they're only basing it on the scream--we don't know that the scream is related to the homicide. Keep in mind that we have the note and other things that are just not related to an intruder.
DC: Now the paint brush stick used in garotte was found outside the room. It would have required intruder to carry JB downstairs to that remote area, kill her there, carry her to the next room, then take the time to write that ransom note----
GM: Yeah, what are they going to do after the scream--hang around and wait for response from 911 call?
DC: The heart of this argument with this intruder theory, do you accept that premise? Can you stay a minute and give us an answer to that?
Posted by Panico on 06:28:41 11/09/98
DC: Talking about Brennan's story, on what appears to be cornerstone--at the heart of this theory, is that JB was killed in the basement, and I'm not sure this logic stands up, that a family member committed the crime. Does this stand up?
GM: No, it's a very shaky premise. What proof is there that the homicide occured in that room and that no forensic evidence was left ehre?
DC: Who's more likely to venture down into that trap-- it's the family. One thing we know about the alleged intruder--we know thatt his mythical person values his life. There's been world wide attention to this. Why would an intruder venture down there?
GM: That's right. This is someone who is trying very hard to control this investigation. The more time spent at the crime scene, the more comfortable that person is with the crime scene. The totality is what we have to weigh--and this leans even less to an intruder.
DC: My impression-- why would Lou Smit become so sure Ramseys didn't kill her-- he is just so sure they didn't commit the crime and he's trying to make the facts fit.
GM: That's not uncommon. You have to look at the facts. You can't come in and say this person didn't do it or did do it--you have to look at the facts. When parents kill children (and it's not uncommon) only 1 out of 12 is killed by a stranger. That shakes our belief system to the core. We'd like to think we know murderers when we see them.
Posted by Panico on 06:41:48 11/09/98
Because some have been saying this on this forum, I just sent Dan a fax "I've heard rumors that the GJ is drawing to a close. Do you think that is true? If not, how long do you think they'll be in session" We'll see if he answers it.
DC: Lines are full of callers on Ramsey case.
Caller: On the scream thing--the issue isn't whether or not the parents could hear the scream, it's whether or not the neighbor heard it.
DC: On Brennan's story--well, the Ramseys didn't hear it, but the neighbor did.
Caller: If I found a ransom note saying my kid had been abducted, I would immediately go thru every room in the house---
DC: I have to take issue with that--I would call PD first---but as soon as I've done that, then I'll do the search. I'm sure as heck going to go through that house.
Caller: JR's remark that he was 'relieved' when he found the body--- I could understand that if she'd been missing for months--you know on the crockumentary.
DC: I'm very hesitant to judge anybody in a tragedy, but I've thought about this--
Caller: But he didn't say this at the time--he said it later on CNN--
Posted by Panico on 06:58:01 11/09/98
DC sez he'll take a couple more Ramsey calls, then wants to talk about Iraq.
He's taking some road reports from callers-- it's snowing and roads are icy, treacherous and a nightmare.
Caller: What do you think of the possibility of-- the family at least thinks Burke did it and wrote the note--then realized Burke didn't do it---
DC: I gotta think that through. How would that explain fibers from Patsy's sweater be found inside the duct tape. And part of Patsy's paintbrush used for the garrote-- And that JB was never awake after they got home-- but that she did indeed eat pineapple?
Caller: I don't know--I just think in my heart that the parents didn't do it. I just thought that maybe they thought Burke did it and tried to cover up.
DC: Why do you think that?
Caller: I don't know--I've just felt that since the beginning.
DC: I think that's what's going on with Lou Smit here. After I read Brennan's story saying that was the cornerstone, I thought, Lou--- you're just doing gymnastics to make the facts fit his theory.
Caller: How much of the crock do you think was true?
DC: I think anytime suspects are willing to talk on camers, it is newsworthy. But they were never challeneged. That's why I have such peace on this now-- because I now there's a GJ and I know they'll take it seriously. You know this pineapple--- what if she just happened to get up on her own and go down and eat it? But when you have a child that was likely murdered in that time frame--- parents said that Burke slept through it all too, but now we know he was awake when 911 call was made. You can say "Yeah but" -- but somebody once told me you only get so many "Yeah buts" in a case. Can you put together a case based on facts regarding Ramseys' innocence? If you can make a case for Ramsey's innocence, you'll be a priority call.
Another caller: Some other little things that have come out-- one is the fact that Patsy never changed clothes. It was just a little report that came out-- if there was an intruder and Patsy had never gone to bed, how come Patsy never saw the intruder?
DC: A classic example--no single thing can stand on its own--- we have a public report that Patsy was wearing the same clothes.
Caller: The other thing is that Patsy's mother said that somebody wrote that note and tried to make it look like Patsy's writing.
13. "Byron Repost"
Posted by Chris on 06:51:26 11/09/98
"Dan Caplis - Monday (Boyles Show)"
Posted by Byron on 05:38:49 11/09/98
Hello everyone. Dan Caplis is actually talking case today, and as far as I know it's the first time since he took over while PB's on vacation. I don't think he has any guests on, and he may discuss other things, but while I was waking up and logging on, he had two callers on who were both discussing JBR.
The last caller was Betty, who said, semi-coherently, that she knew it was Burke. Caplis said that he didn't really have connections in the case (and mentioned his friendships in BPD and the DA's office, and the three attorneys he recommended), or at least didn't "milk" them, but that his sources told him that they "couldn't tell him why", but that Burke absolutely didn't commit this crime.
DC is talking about the snow we have out there, so unfortunately I'll have to be out of here in just a couple of minutes to battle the weather.
Posted by Panico on 07:15:46 11/09/98
DC: We'll get to our faxed in a second. Lines are full of Ramsey callers. I think Brennan's story points to an insider. Call if you can make a case for the Ramseys. I try to do that every day.
Caller: I think it's awfully easy to accuse on the airwaves. Where was the duct tape? It's very hard to work with. What was it cut with?
DC: I think it's more than a stretch that his story would mean that an outsider did it and that the Ramseys didn't hear the scream. Isn't it interesting that they couldn't find the duct tape?
Caller: I've always felt that someone knew that house. They had a lot of people in that house. I think the paint stick is far out to blame Patsy. That's just circumstantial.
DC: It isn't just the paint stick.
Caller: And women do go to bed with their make up. And get up and put on the same clothing they had on the night before.
DC: That's good that you're doing that. What you have to do is take ALL of these things and say is it reasonable for all of those things to happen? What would be intriguing about that is what Patsy said or will say to PD?
Caller: I know you say how many 'yeah buts', -- but JB could have gone to refrig by herself and got the pineapple. The one thing is the ransom note.
DC: Who but a family member would.... I'll get to that after the break.
Posted by Panico on 07:29:29 11/09/98
DC: I was happy to see the RMN article--because I've been wondering about where Smit is coming from. But if that's the cornerstone--they don't have that much. Tell me this, who other than an insider would want to make this look like a kidnapping?
Caller: I think it could be someone real close to the family. The note's just too easy. No fingerprints on it. Someone could have walked in and laid it on the table.
DC: For what purpose--to frame them?
DC: It doesn't make any sense that an outsider would do this to frame the Ramseys. If you were trying to frame Rams, wouldn't the easiest way have been to just leave the body? Don't take the time to write the ransom note-- just molest and kill the little girl and leave her outside John's door. If you're trying to frame the Ramseys, you don't go another direction.
Caller: I think the note is just too easy.
DC: If you were trying to frame the Ramseys, wouldn't you say something like "I can't stand this any longer" -- I think the reason you want to stop talking about the note--who but the Ramseys would take the time to write to John that "we respect the company" and "the people who did this do not like you", but what it really says is that the people 'do' like you
Caller: I haven't read the note. How many pages were in it? She (Patsy) couldn't have possibly written the note after the murder--because she couldn't have been logical.
DC: The note to me so plainly suggests panic--that you're a family member -- and that you're trying to cover-- and your'e trying to disguise your handwriting-- and you're coming up with this explanation. Some of the evidence was destroyed, but some wasn't because they ran out of time--like Burke waking up. I think that they ran out of time (from me--you heard me say the same thing a couple of days ago)
DC: We all have the peace of mind now that the GJ is in session and that it's not based on what I say or Peter Boyles says. But I do think that if Peter had not been on this case since day 1, I think it would have gone by the wayside. I think Peter pounding relentlessly on this has kept it going.
Posted by Panico on 07:45:43 11/09/98
Playing tape of housekeeper that Peter had on, talking about the dog.
DC: Asking you to make the strongest case you can FOR the Ramseys. Take each piece of evidence---
Caller: I'd like to outline what I think happened. Nobody is really going to know exactly what happened because most of us don't know about the house. I live in a big house and I know how hard it is to hear from one level to the next. In my house, somebody in the basement could be screaming and I wouldn't hear it. I think it's somebody that knew the Rams and they were planning this kidnap after the party--they knew they were going to a party, so the kidnapper got in either with a key or thru a window, waited several hours, when they got home and went to bed, the little girl got hungry, went down to kitchen (kidnapper had been waiting in basement), saw the little girl and grabbed her after she ate. Somehow, the kidnapping went astray, she's dead, she's tied up--was probably killed in the basement because of the scream, and probably got out by the basement exit.
DC: There's no exit from the basement
Caller: OK, just leave the note, which was already written out, and leave.
DC: What kind of person would go down into the basement? Why not just leave the body and go? If you're trying to hide the body, why hide it in the house? If you're going to take her anywhere, why take her into the basement where you could get trapped?
Caller: Went to the basement to find something to tie her up with.
DC: Somebody took the time and trouble to inflict the head injury and assault her-- why would you go down into the basement?
Caller: To get as far away from the sleeping area as possible?
DC: Why not go out the door?
Caller--you got me. I assumed there was a basement exit.
DC: To get out that way, you'd have to open the window and crawl through .... There's lots of easy ways out, why trap yourself?
Boulder caller: Back to crock-- did Ramseys have something to do with paying for it?
DC: Not that I know of. Obviously they wanted it and cooperated because it was in their best interests. Let's assume-- they spent a million or more already, would you hold that against them?
Caller: Yeah- the wanted poster they put only offered $100,000
DC: If they offered a half mil or a mil, that would make people suspicious too. I can't fault them for spending money to defend themselves if they're innocent. I would do that too, but then I would be down at the PD helping them. But think of the way the 100,000 was offered and that is very incriminating---a very incriminating mistake made by John---I'll explain that after the break
19. "Last segment"
Posted by Panico on 08:12:17 11/09/98
NOTE: This message was edited 08:12:17, 11/09/98
FACT: 3 1/2 hours is a long time to listen and type.
DC: OK I see your point on $100,000, but here's something I consider important-- now look at what JR did, he offered $100,000 reward to the killer himself-- how could you ever offer money to the person who killed your child? And paraphrasing, 'you must have a family member or someone who could use this' --- it's unbelieveable to me that you could offer this to killer and/or family-- it's coldly calculated to throw this case out of whack. No true victim could do this. It's implausible to me. If you really believe there's a murderer on the loose, you're sending out a message that it's OK. It would be so horrifically irresponsible. It just doesn't wash.
Caller: Let's say that hypothetically you're a new lawyer fresh out of college-- and someone says to you, you're going to make your bones on this case? Are you going to prosecute or defend?
DC: Based on what we know now, I could certainly want to prosecute. Based on what we know now, it was certainly an insider that commited the crime. I would want to stay on the justice side.
Another caller: The other caller mentioned that it could be another family member. I understand that not only was Patsy wearing the same clothing, she was also wearing her fur boots.
DC: I've heard the report that she was wearing the boots at the party the night before, but I haven't heard that she was wearing the boots in the morning. I think that's where the add up of these things really look bad for Ramseys
Caller: It's layer after layer.
He's reading my fax. "No, I've heard that it will be in January or February."
Thaaaats all folks.