What do you make of the denial of being paid? This highlights the importance of listening.
Here is an opportunity to exercise what you have learned in Statement Analysis. This is a statement regarding the JonBenet Ramsey murder.
Mary Lacy, Boulder DA, had previously announced an arrest in the JonBenet case, and called a press conference where she sat in the middle of a long table of professionals and spent most of her time congratulating the work that they had all done in bringing John Mark Karr to Boulder.
The problem for the elected official was that John Mark Karr, aka Captain Highpants, had never been in Boulder, though he was a self admitted pedophile. A simple phone call would have saved the money spent on the apprehension and extradition to Boulder, as well as the embarrassment of a long self-congratulatory press conference.
Later, in another attempt to save face from the embarrassment of the John Mark Carr fiasco, Mary Lacy took another bold move: publicly clearing the Ramseys.
It seemed "front and center" took precedence over truth for Mary Lacy.
Unknown DNA is simply that; unknown. It proves nothing, and clears no one.
On this Nancy Grace Show, Grace reported that new DNA evidence cleared the Ramseys of the murder of JonBenet. All it did was show that unknown DNA was found on her article of clothing.
In this exchange, Wendy Murphy responded to the claim made by Mary Lacy (that the Ramseys are "cleared" of the murder) of which Nancy Grace then turns her attention to two private investigators working for the Ramseys.
In this Statement Analysis exercise, use the copy/paste feature and submit your analysis of the investigators, with your conclusion:
Did they receive payment for their work? Any additional sensitivity you would have explored via interview? View the denial and post an answer with explanation on your choice:
a. Yes; they were paid for their work, at some time, by someone and are being deceptive.
b. No. The denial is firm and there is no payment associated with their work for the Ramsesys
c. Unknown: More Information needed in spite of sensitivity indicators.
Although the question is related to remuneration for either investigator, give additional analysis of either investigator's answers if you believe it is warranted.
GRACE: To you, Wendy Murphy. And shortly joining us will be the private investigators that actually worked for the Ramseys on the JonBenet Ramsey case. Wendy Murphy, when you refer to the mountain of evidence suggesting there was not an intruder that killed JonBenet Ramsey, to what are you referring?
MURPHY: Well, first let me say it would take me a long time to go into all of it, Nancy. But you mentioned my book. I have an awful lot of stuff in there, more than one chapter with good, solid, based-in-fact information and evidence about the case that says nothing about an intruder.
Most important evidence -- this child -- and the autopsy confirms this. It`s publicly available. This child had chronic vaginal trauma. Her hymen was nearly gone. Only a tiny piece of it remained. She both acute, meaning fresh, and chronic, meaning old, vaginal injuries. That to me doesn`t sound like some bogeyman showed up on the night in question. She had epithelial erosion in her genital area. Erosion -- Nancy, what does erosion mean? Wearing away over time.
GRACE: Over time.
MURPHY: Over time. Now, unless this man, this mystery man, had ongoing intimate access to the child, it really doesn`t make me feel better about the case at all.
GRACE: And Wendy, what about that long ransom note apparently written, pages and pages of it -- written in the home, on Patsy Ramsey`s notepad with Patsy Ramsey`s pen, and a practice note? Whoever wrote the ransom note was not the least bit concerned of being discovered right there in the home!
MURPHY: That`s exactly right. Now, somebody might say, Well, that doesn`t prove it was a family member. Maybe so, but it sure doesn`t sound like a stranger, either, now, does it?
Now, here`s something I want to say to Mary Lacy. If you`re so confident that you have just pronounced the innocence of the Ramseys, then I hope you`ll be respectful of this child and the public`s right to know the truth and you will tomorrow release for public consumption all of the evidence that you gathered that implicated the Ramseys, that kept them under the umbrella of suspicion for so long.
For example, there were three search warrants conducted for child pornography in the Ramsey home, on their computer, two homes, indeed. There was some material gathered. It is on file with the court. I don`t know what`s there. Please release it to the public so we can see. And how about the tests, if any, that were done on that pineapple?
Can I take a moment here to explain this, Nancy? Probably the most important forensic evidence, far more important than this DNA, this child had undigested pineapple in her belly, which means she ate it within two hours of death. She died sometime after midnight. Parents said they brought her home from a party sound asleep and put her to bed sleeping. But aha, there was a bowl of pineapple on the kitchen table, Patsy`s fingerprints on the bowl. Both parents said, I didn`t give it to her.
Now, mind you, I`m not so sure what`s bad about giving your child pineapple. French fries I understand. Pineapple, I don`t understand. But they were both adamant, I didn`t give it to her. We know that pineapple bowl was seized and tested, don`t we? At least, that`s what one would do if one found undigested pineapple in a dead child`s belly. So Mary Lacy, where are those test results? I think we have a right to know.
GRACE: Joining us now, two very special guests from Colorado Springs, Colorado, Ollie Gray and John San Agustin, both private investigators that worked on the JonBenet Ramsey case. Gentlemen, thank you for being with us.
To you, Ollie. Do you believe this bombshell evidence that we now know about, more DNA evidence pointing to an unknown male found on the longjohns JonBenet was wearing when she went to bed -- do you believe that exonerates the Ramsey family?
OLLIE GRAY, PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR: Nancy, I think that the DNA tells the story. Everybody makes a big thing of the DNA. Then I think we ought to take it and understand it. And in this particular case, it proves the same thing that we`ve known since February of 1997, that the Ramseys were not involved and did not match any DNA testing at that time. Whether that was old archaic and this is new and modern, the results are the same. It lists somebody as a potential killer. And I think all the physical evidence points to an intruder, not the family at home.
GRACE: What about it, John San Augustin?
JOHN SAN AGUSTIN, PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR: Well, you know, in all due respect to your last speaker, I don`t think she ever had the opportunity to truly review all the evidence in this case. We have. And I can tell you that there is plenty of physical evidence that points to intruder. We have a stun gun that was used on this poor little girl`s face and on her back. She was strangled with a garrote. She was sexually assaulted. We know that there`s a piece of this paintbrush that was used in the garrote that was missing. We have foreign footwear impressions inside of the room where she was found.
So how do we explain all this? And the reality is this, Nancy, is that we have good physical evidence. DNA evidence is good physical evidence. And if you read in this -- go ahead, I`m sorry.
Note that he asks a question, without waiting for anyone to answer; this may indicate that he was speaking to himself, not others. Does he need to explain these things?
GRACE: John, you and Ollie were paid by whom?
Direct question; very straight forward:
SAN AGUSTIN: Paid by whom? We weren`t paid by anybody. We`ve been on pro bono for the Ramsey family since 1999.
Note that he repeats the question about being paid; making the question, itself, sensitive.
Note that "anybody" didn't pay them.
Note the additional information, "since 1999" is significant and it is not lost by Nancy Grace.
GRACE: I`m sorry? I couldn`t hear you. Repeat?
SAN AGUSTIN: We have been working pro bono on behalf of the family since 1999.
GRACE: And when did you enter the case?
Here, Nancy Grace caught the additional wording as important and asks about it. This brings truth:
SAN AGUSTIN: Well, we were initially called back in 1996 by Commander Eller. We were brought in to initially look at this case. And then after that, shortly we were brought on by Alex Hunter`s staff to assist Lou Smit in the intruder theory.
We have the sensitivity of dating;
We have the word "initially" indicating that there was, at least, a secondary reason.
We have a "temporal lacuane", or, skipping over of time;
We then have a stated purpose: they were brought in to prove a theory.
GRACE: So at no time...
SAN AGUSTIN: ... where we were asked to review...
GRACE: At no time were you employed by the Ramseys?
SAN AGUSTIN: No, we were. We were working for them pro bono since 1999 under Mr. Wood, Mr. Lin Wood.
GRACE: Oh, I understand. So you were never paid for your work?
She might have specifically mentioned 1996 to 1999.
SAN AGUSTIN: No, ma`am. We were working pro bono on behalf of the Ramsey family, you know? And the reason why Ollie and myself have been committed to this case is because of the physical evidence. You know, we have people out there writing books and giving commentary, but nobody has truly looked at the physical evidence in this case.
To him, people have looked at the evidence, but not "truly", indicating that, in his personal, subjective internal dictionary, there is more than one way to view evidence; that is, to "look" at the evidence