Internight - Monday, November 30, 1998

The following was copied from the Boulder News Forum:

muni - 06:41am Dec 1, 1998 MST (#9 of 10)
Murphy believes an intruder killed JonBenet.

Snippets from InterNight:

Months ago Alex Hunter said he hopes the GJ will be a mirror for a real jury.

Michael Kane is laying out the evidence step by step and very simply. He's not starting with a motive, with a preconceived idea, he's just saying this is what happened and this is what we know.

Schiller believes they are going all the way NOW… He thinks an indictment is forthcoming and a trial is next.

Abrams - If the role of the GJ is to get an indictment then the Ramseys will not be called to appear in front of the GJ. Instead, portions of the video tape will be presented because it can be cut and edited in such a way as to show them as guilty if they wish or innocent if they wish.

Bob Grant: Clearly, in an investigative case like this, everybody presumes the investigation is going one way, let's indict the Ramseys - Let's charge the Ramseys. Here's the important point ppl seem to miss. Those two folks were in the house and if they did not commit this murder, whoever is charged is certainly going to say they did. So this investigation must exculpate the Ramseys IF someone else is to be charged.

Abrams agrees - That's what this GJ is about. It IS about the Ramseys and did one or both of them kill JonBenet.

Schiller: Look, you have a hi-tech boot-print that was found just feet from JonBenet's body … They've been unable to identify it … I don't know how many ppl they've checked it with. They have evidence that says potentially 'somebody else was there'. How a defense uses it or how a jury looks upon it is very very important.

John Gibson: Should the ghost of Sam Shepard haunt this case?

YES … Cynthia says that is why Schiller's argument that Lou Smit should be invited is an important one … And I hope he is even if these prosecutors believe the R's committed this murder or are covering up this murder, Lou Smit should still be called because he disagrees with that and these members of the GJ should find out WHY he disagrees with that and learn about that before they make a charging decision. It's all the messed up cases that teach us that lesson over and over and over.

Gibson reads the portion of John Ramseys letter where Mr. Ramsey is telling the killer they have hir DNA. Schiller - Well there was DNA found under JonBenet's fingernails but here's a child that played with lots of different ppl and did lots of different things.

There was DNA found in her underwear I believe, a mixed stain. The primary part of that stain is hers - I don't know who the other part is - Maybe another child's - Maybe they exchanged clothes - Only the police have the answer to that and we shouldn't speculate. I mean really, if Mr. Ramsey knows something we don't, he shouldn't be teasing us in the letter even THOUGH I think there is some information there, that doesn't necessarily mean it's information that is going to find the killer.

Gibson asking Abrams about the info.

Abrams: John Ramsey probably knows less than Larry Schiller knows about the evidence and I only say that because I think Larry Schiller knows a lot about the information in this case. {Schiller grinning real big} I think he is referring to the FACT that there is DNA in this case they haven't been able to link to anyone YET. They don't know who's DNA it is.

Schiller: That doesn't mean the DNA belongs to the killer and that's where the public is being misled by the letter.

Abrams: Look, if there was an intruder in the house, and if an intruder committed this crime, in all likelihood the DNA found which they cannot match to anyone, probably belongs to the person who perpetrated this crime.

Schiller: No, no I disagree completely. If you have DNA coming from under her fingernails, if you have DNA coming from her pants that she exchanged with other children, you may have DNA coming from hair that was left, {DNA can be pulled off the roots of hair} but these are very intricate tests. Maybe that is what he is referring to {in his letter}.

Abrams: Wait, I don't understand how my comment was wrong?

Schiller: Because you have no evidence that this child's fingernails was in touch with the perpetrator of this crime - You have no evidence at all that the perpetrator was involved with her panties.

Abrams: If there is a way to demonstrate that there was an intruder in that house, I think that the fact there was DNA under her fingernails becomes very important.

Webmaster: This transcript appears to be incomplete.