John Ray's press conference, 5/17:
_________________________________________
At 15:12:
Reporter: Did you listen to the full tape?
John Ray: Yes.
Reporter: Is that what you have had all of these years? That same exact twenty-two forty-seconds.
John Ray: I can’t say I still am under a restriction not to talk about what I have on the tape, because the court hasn’t changed that…
Reporter: Does that sound consistent with what you have?
John Ray: Same question with a different….I understand your question…
Reporter: (scoffs, scattered laughter, unintelligible)
John Ray: I can only say that I heard the police tapes, I’m talking about the police tapes. The tape, we all know, was supposed to have been 23 minutes long…it was actually slightly less than 23 minutes long, but it was not 21 minutes long.
_________________________________________
When I clock the full tape on youtube, it seems like 22+ minutes to me, but John Ray was ready for the question and attorneys choose their words carefully, so his mentioning "21" means something. What's clear, though, is that John Ray again can't and won't say that the recording that he received under court order matches the tape played last Friday.
My estimation of John Ray has grown over the years. He's an advocate for his client and wants to keep the case front and center, however he can get that done. That's what attorneys do, particularly the good ones. I'm not sold on Hackett, but I think even Ray suspects Hackett might be just a small part of a large equation. At any rate, I don't think he's being coy when, regarding the question of whether the publicly released 911 call is the same as his copy, he says "I can't talk about that", thus implying that there's something rotten in Denmark. He'd easily have been able to say "Yeah, sure it's the same, of course" if he wanted to; he doesn't say it because there
is something rotten in Denmark.
What can it possibly mean that at this late date, when the Suffolk police department is seemingly trying to take affirmative steps to rehabilitate their reputation, that they would still perpetrate a lie to the public? That they'd say "here, listen to the full tape", but then it's not actually the full tape? All of the explanations for it are grim, unfortunately. Let's take the most benign example I can come up with, here's that scenario, not that I necessarily subscribe to it. Warning, Imaginary Scenario Begins Here - Joe Brewer (who, btw, scenario or not, I don't think killed anyone), is the main reason the call has never been released. He says a few things (or even one thing) during the call that he'd be embarrassed having friends and relatives hear, and refuses to OK the release to the public (in this scenario, he has that right of refusal, no idea if that's law or not). The call not being released all this time, it had nothing to do with any investigation continuing (in this made-up scenario). In addition, he doesn't like the way his 911 call sounds, so refuses to have that released too. Still, John Ray wins the right to hear the full tape, and does. What's released to the public, though, is with Brewer's curse words, or whatever, removed. Ray has agreed to keep mum about this change, or is reminded by police that by agreement he can't discuss it, and life goes on (again, all that merely speculative scenario).
So, in that very basic scenario (and all other scenarios are progressively darker), why can't the police just say, "look, we had to excise a bit of personal information, but otherwise the tape is complete"? The reason they can't do it is because the public won't buy that due to their current distrust of the department - the police want to rehabilitate their image, not further tarnish it. In this most simple of scenarios, it's still a major law enforcement fail - you can't lie your way to a position of trust. In the interview on Jay Oliver's show that I posted upthread, John Ray goes out of his way to suggest that he believes Commissioner Harrison is above-board and honest, Ray blames the old guard for even current police missteps (like the police presentation, with snippets and explanations, that Ray objected to). I heard Frank Mackay talking to someone at his new station (WABC, Frank's going there as a news director), and Frank pointed out that DA Ray Tierney didn't even attend the police presser.
Edited: to fix start-time of passage.
