Cherokee
Well-Known Member
This is cooperation from parents who wanted justice for their murdered daughter? Oh yeah. I forgot. They said they weren't angry at whomever killed "that child." They only got angry when they were asked to cooperate with the investigation.
http://abcnews.go.com/onair/GoodMorningAmerica/gma000411Jonbenet_trans2.html
NEW YORK, April 11 - What follows is a transcript of Thomas' interview with ABCNEWS' Elizabeth Vargas.
ABCNEWS' Elizabeth Vargas: In the Ramseys' own book, which came out a couple of weeks ago, they have a chapter in there called "A Chronicle of Cooperation", where they say, 'We talked to the police the 26th, the 27th, the 28th. We gave them long interviews, we gave them handwriting samples, DNA samples, pubic hair samples. We gave them everything they wanted.'
Steven Thomas: Their assertion now that they cooperated fully with this investigation, I find absurd. We had to wait four months before we could interview these people surrounding-and ask questions face to face surrounding the death of their daughter.
Vargas: What do they mean then when they say, 'We talked to police on the 26th, and on the 27th, and on the 28th?'
Thomas: On the 26th they certainly did talk to us during the kidnapping phase of this thing. On the night of the 27th, there was this limited brief exchange, which I guess they're characterizing as an interview, when in fact the detectives were there to arrange an interview.
Vargas: (VO) as for that physical evidence, what they call non-testimonial evidence, by Colorado law, the police can easily demand samples of handwriting, blood, DNA.
Thomas: They had no choice but to cooperate with the non-testimonial evidence, because in a snap we could have gotten that through a simple affidavit. But what we couldn't make them do was answer questions. Yeah, they gave us blood, gave us handwriting, gave us hair, but when the case was red hot, when we needed the parents the most in those early critical days, we had to wait four months to be able to ask them the most elementary of questions.
Vargas: You say in the book as well that when the Ramseys did agree to sit down and talk to you, there were several conditions attached. What were they?
Thomas: We did have these conditions that were just not acceptable. Which detective would do the interviewing, who would be in the room, a doctor, the attorneys, the forum and time that the questioning would continue, and Patsy's I think was not to exceed an hour. And the FBI, said 'This is absurd. You cannot interview people under these conditions.' So, again, when they say, 'We offered to come in', it was with this incredible set of parameters that were just not acceptable to a police department.
Vargas: (VO) The Ramsey legal team wanted a deal. They asked for materials rarely given to suspects in a crime & including John and Patsy's prior statements, copies of the autopsy report and the ransom note, and police reports. Thomas says the Ramseys made it clear that if, and only if, they got what they wanted would the Ramseys sit down for a formal interview.
Vargas: But if you really wanted the information, what's wrong with agreeing to some of those conditions? Does that compromise you in some way? Does that give them too much of an advantage?
Thomas: Well, I'll tell you, advantage, what do you mean advantage? When the DA's Office was shoveling by the wheelbarrow full, our case file to Team Ramsey. Yeah, you talk about an advantage. somebody that the police wanted to question, I think I would be hard pressed to say, "Hey, detective, I'll answer your questions, but let me take a look at your case file there, before I answer". Believe me, a poor kid killed in the projects, a blue-collar working stiff, you know, a guy who's a carpenter or a welder out there, are not afforded these concessions that kept being made to the Ramseys, that's not what I would characterize as their chronicle of cooperation.
Vargas: (VO) The district attorney made a deal. The police were forced to turn over the documents.
Thomas: The Ramsey experts got to come into the police department and review evidence. They got to look at the ligature and the garrote. They came in and did studies of the ransom note. We were handing over photographs of evidence, including sensitive ransom note information. And at one point I told the police department, I told my supervisor. I said, 'I am not going to participate in this.' I said, 'I want my refusal duly noted.'
Vargas: (VO) We contacted several experts in general police and investigative procedures-they say these concessions made to the Ramseys were highly unusual. Finally, on April 30th, 1997, Steve Thomas sat down in a conference room at the district attorney's office. With Patsy were her attorney and the Ramsey's own private investigator. Thomas claims the entire interview was undermined. He says the police would now question intelligent, well-coached suspects who could study for their interviews as if preparing for a high school test.
(Thanks to Peggy Lakin, author of "Journey Beyond Reason" for bringing this interview to the public's attention once again.)
IMO
http://abcnews.go.com/onair/GoodMorningAmerica/gma000411Jonbenet_trans2.html
NEW YORK, April 11 - What follows is a transcript of Thomas' interview with ABCNEWS' Elizabeth Vargas.
ABCNEWS' Elizabeth Vargas: In the Ramseys' own book, which came out a couple of weeks ago, they have a chapter in there called "A Chronicle of Cooperation", where they say, 'We talked to the police the 26th, the 27th, the 28th. We gave them long interviews, we gave them handwriting samples, DNA samples, pubic hair samples. We gave them everything they wanted.'
Steven Thomas: Their assertion now that they cooperated fully with this investigation, I find absurd. We had to wait four months before we could interview these people surrounding-and ask questions face to face surrounding the death of their daughter.
Vargas: What do they mean then when they say, 'We talked to police on the 26th, and on the 27th, and on the 28th?'
Thomas: On the 26th they certainly did talk to us during the kidnapping phase of this thing. On the night of the 27th, there was this limited brief exchange, which I guess they're characterizing as an interview, when in fact the detectives were there to arrange an interview.
Vargas: (VO) as for that physical evidence, what they call non-testimonial evidence, by Colorado law, the police can easily demand samples of handwriting, blood, DNA.
Thomas: They had no choice but to cooperate with the non-testimonial evidence, because in a snap we could have gotten that through a simple affidavit. But what we couldn't make them do was answer questions. Yeah, they gave us blood, gave us handwriting, gave us hair, but when the case was red hot, when we needed the parents the most in those early critical days, we had to wait four months to be able to ask them the most elementary of questions.
Vargas: You say in the book as well that when the Ramseys did agree to sit down and talk to you, there were several conditions attached. What were they?
Thomas: We did have these conditions that were just not acceptable. Which detective would do the interviewing, who would be in the room, a doctor, the attorneys, the forum and time that the questioning would continue, and Patsy's I think was not to exceed an hour. And the FBI, said 'This is absurd. You cannot interview people under these conditions.' So, again, when they say, 'We offered to come in', it was with this incredible set of parameters that were just not acceptable to a police department.
Vargas: (VO) The Ramsey legal team wanted a deal. They asked for materials rarely given to suspects in a crime & including John and Patsy's prior statements, copies of the autopsy report and the ransom note, and police reports. Thomas says the Ramseys made it clear that if, and only if, they got what they wanted would the Ramseys sit down for a formal interview.
Vargas: But if you really wanted the information, what's wrong with agreeing to some of those conditions? Does that compromise you in some way? Does that give them too much of an advantage?
Thomas: Well, I'll tell you, advantage, what do you mean advantage? When the DA's Office was shoveling by the wheelbarrow full, our case file to Team Ramsey. Yeah, you talk about an advantage. somebody that the police wanted to question, I think I would be hard pressed to say, "Hey, detective, I'll answer your questions, but let me take a look at your case file there, before I answer". Believe me, a poor kid killed in the projects, a blue-collar working stiff, you know, a guy who's a carpenter or a welder out there, are not afforded these concessions that kept being made to the Ramseys, that's not what I would characterize as their chronicle of cooperation.
Vargas: (VO) The district attorney made a deal. The police were forced to turn over the documents.
Thomas: The Ramsey experts got to come into the police department and review evidence. They got to look at the ligature and the garrote. They came in and did studies of the ransom note. We were handing over photographs of evidence, including sensitive ransom note information. And at one point I told the police department, I told my supervisor. I said, 'I am not going to participate in this.' I said, 'I want my refusal duly noted.'
Vargas: (VO) We contacted several experts in general police and investigative procedures-they say these concessions made to the Ramseys were highly unusual. Finally, on April 30th, 1997, Steve Thomas sat down in a conference room at the district attorney's office. With Patsy were her attorney and the Ramsey's own private investigator. Thomas claims the entire interview was undermined. He says the police would now question intelligent, well-coached suspects who could study for their interviews as if preparing for a high school test.
(Thanks to Peggy Lakin, author of "Journey Beyond Reason" for bringing this interview to the public's attention once again.)
IMO