IE 11 is not supported. For an optimal experience visit our site on another browser.

'Tucker' for August 18

Read the transcript to the Friday show

Guests: Wendy Murphy, Susan Filan, Pat Brown, Flavia Colgan, Alan Stock, Pam Paugh

JOE SCARBOROUGH, HOST:  Thanks.  And welcome to the show.

I‘m Joe Scarborough in Pensacola, filling in for my friend Tucker Carlson.  As you know, Tucker is hard at work training for his “Dancing with the Stars” debut.

Let‘s go right to our top story, and it‘s a story that everybody has been talking about for days, the latest shocking developments in the murder of JonBenet Ramsey.  Now, there‘s word out today that JonBenet‘s mother Patsy had agreed to meet with the suspected killer of her daughter, but Patsy died of cancer before that meeting could take place.  Then there are the latest details in the hundreds of disturbing e-mails that John Mark Karr apparently sent to a Colorado professor. 

Here with more, NBC News‘s Michelle Hofland in Boulder, Colorado. 

Michelle, what‘s the latest out there? 

MICHELLE HOFLAND, NBC NEWS CORRESPONDENT:  We have a lot of new information. 

First, as you were saying, that Patsy Ramsey apparently had agreed to meet with John Mark Karr, according to his—the family attorney.  What they said is that Patsy Ramsey had agreed to meet with him if it would further the investigation into the death of her daughter, but it never took place because she died of cancer before that could happen. 

Also, the family attorney, Lin Wood, now says that Karr believed that he was corresponding with Patsy Ramsey either by e-mail or by letters, but that actually, the police were getting those e-mails and Patsy Ramsey never saw those e-mails.  However, we have no idea what was included in the e-mails that Karr reportedly sent to Patsy Ramsey. 

However, we do know now what—some of the e-mails that he has sent to a University of Colorado professor.  In this article today by “The Rocky Mountain News,” they received some of the e-mails that were sent to the journalism professor here.  Some of them say that he was likening himself to Peter Pan, and also to Michael Jackson because of Michael Jackson‘s affinity for young boys. 

Now, listen to this one where he talks about Michael Jackson.  He says, “I will tell you that I can understand Michael Jackson and feel sympathy as he suffers as he has.”  Karr adds that he himself is “trapped in a world that does not understand.”

And in other e-mails, Karr reportedly wrote about his love for little girls and for JonBenet Ramsey.  In one of them, he asked the University of Colorado journalism professor to come here to Boulder and visit JonBenet‘s former house and read aloud on Christmas eve an e-mail, an ode that he called “JonBenet, My Love.” 

Listen to what it says in part. 

“JonBenet my love, my life.  I love you and shall forever love you.  I pray that you can hear my voice calling to you from my darkness—this darkness that now separates us.”

Joe, in another e-mail, Karr said that federal investigators in four states were investigating him on charges of child molestation and child murder, but the feds say that‘s not true.  But they say that Karr has piqued their interest, now they want to talk to him—Joe. 

SCARBOROUGH:  All right.  Thank you so much, Michelle.  Greatly appreciate that report.  A disturbing report. 

You know, the more we learn about John Karr, the more everybody is asking the same question, did he really kill JonBenet Ramsey?  Or was it a so-called confession, was it nothing but a sick bid for attention? 

Here to talk about that and debate it, two people on opposite sides of the issue, MSNBC legal analyst Susan Filan, and former sex crimes prosecutor Wendy Murphy. 

Wendy, let‘s begin with you. 

Do you believe this creep killed JonBenet Ramsey? 

WENDY MURPHY, FMR. PROSECUTOR:  No.  And, you know, I don‘t mean to laugh about it, but in order to believe this—and I think “kook” is the right word—guy killed JonBenet, you not only have to accept this utterly preposterous confession—let‘s remember, his ex-wife, who doesn‘t like him and probably has no interest in defending him, says he was in Alabama on the night in question—you also have to reject a boatload of evidence that implicates the Ramseys. 

Remember, on the night she died, you know, they, the morning after that, when the body was discovered, hired criminal defense attorneys, the most high-powered criminal defense attorneys in Colorado.  They took a private jet to Atlanta, they fled the area. 

FILAN:  So what?

MURPHY:  They refused to cooperate in the investigation.

FILAN:  So what?

MURPHY:  And to this day, they have not agreed to take an FBI-directed polygraph.  That is not how people mourn the morning they find their daughter strangled to death in the basement. 

FILAN:  That‘s not evidence, Wendy, and you know it.


MURPHY:  Oh, you think that‘s the way people mourn their dead child?

SCARBOROUGH:  Hold on a second.

Susan, there‘s so many contradictions here.  We can talk about his ex-wife saying he was in Alabama at the time that JonBenet Ramsey was found dead, you of course also have all the other contradictions, we—you know them all, just like I do.  So why do you think this guy could have killed JonBenet? 

SUSAN FILAN, MSNBC LEGAL ANALYST:  Let‘s talk about what they do have.  They have e-mails back and forth from this guy, who injects himself in as a suspect.  This goes on for about four years, this gets turned over to law enforcement. 

Law enforcement‘s interest is piqued in him.  He allegedly confesses to details of this murder that nobody but the killer would know. 

We also know that there‘s physical evidence from that scene that we now have to try to link him to, DNA, handwriting, hair, fiber, the tape, the murder weapon.  We also know that the sexual assault was of a nature that left wood splinters in her vaginal area.  That has to be corroborated against what he‘s saying. 

There isn‘t enough now to rule him in, but there certainly isn‘t enough to rule him out.  But the Ramseys have been cleared. There is no longer the belief in law enforcement that the intruder theory is the theory that prevails.

MURPHY:  Excuse me?  Hello?  Did you hear the...


FILAN:  Did you listen to the federal district judge that cleared...

SCARBOROUGH:  Hold on a second.

Wendy, stop.  Wendy, let her finish—let Susan finish and then we‘ll go to you.

Go ahead, Susan.

FILAN:  Law enforcement has shift its focus from this case over the last 10 years, a federal judge has essentially cleared the Ramseys.  This district attorney is not...

MURPHY:  Wrong again.

FILAN:  ... looking any longer toward the inside theory.  They‘re looking toward the intruder theory. 

MURPHY:  Wrong for the third time. 

FILAN:  And they seem to have—hey, Wendy, let me finish. 

MURPHY:  Come on, Susan.

FILAN:  They seem to have pretty good evidence now that in that they‘ve gotten this arrest warrant, it‘s been served internationally, they‘re bringing him back.  Charges haven‘t been filed yet, but that‘s where they are in this investigation. 

They‘re not looking at the Ramseys.  That‘s yesterday‘s news. 

SCARBOROUGH:  All right.

Wendy Murphy—Wendy Murphy, you obviously are very skeptical and you believe that the Ramseys killed their own daughter. 

What evidence do you have? 

MURPHY:  Among other things, the child had old and new vaginal injuries, which means whoever did this to this child had ongoing intimate access to the child.  So it wasn‘t a stranger boogey man, despite the Ramseys‘ very expensive P.R. effort to persuade us otherwise. 

And, by the way, guess who was involved in that P.R. effort?  Oops, Michael Tracey, the journalist who claims to have uncovered the confession with information that only the real killer could know, the man who‘s done crockumentary (ph) after crockumentary (ph) purporting to prove that the Ramseys are innocent and some boogey man after another has actually killed the child.  And he‘s been proved wrong time and time again. 

Let me tell you something.  Yesterday, at the presser, the D.A. said in response to the question, “Does this clear John Ramsey?” said—and I quote—“John Ramsey is presumed innocent.  John Karr is presumed innocent.”  I don‘t think that sounds like she cleared John Ramsey.  It sounds like she put those two Johns in the same boat, which she may think they know each other, which I do, too. 

FILAN:  Wendy, as a former prosecutor, since when...

SCARBOROUGH:  Wait.  Wait.  Hold on a second. 

Stop.  Stop.  Stop.  Susan, you‘ve got to stop for a second. 

You don‘t have any evidence that John Ramsey knows John Karr, do you? 

MURPHY:  That‘s not true.  First of all, they lived in Atlanta at the same time early on in JonBenet‘s life, and, more importantly, when John Karr was asked the question, “Do you know the Ramseys?” he said no comment.  When the Ramseys were asked when they know John Karr, they said, “Absolutely not.”


SCARBOROUGH:  Well, Wendy, I lived in Atlanta the same time Hank Aaron broke Babe Ruth‘s record, but I didn‘t know Hank Aaron. 

MURPHY:  I didn‘t say they were—I didn‘t say they were next-door neighbors.  I said it‘s an interesting, isn‘t it? 

SCARBOROUGH:  Susan Filan, you know, it‘s so interesting, this information has come out over the past several days about this guy and his obsession with JonBenet Ramsey, and yet there are a lot of people—in fact, most of the people that I talk to are like Wendy.  They are still very skeptical, and the attention for some reason is still focused on the Ramseys. 

Why is that? 

FILAN:  Because people got into a pigeon hole 10 years ago, made up their minds, stopped looking at the evidence, and just basically quit when they he should have kept going.  That‘s just close-mindedness.  And Wendy knows as a good prosecutor you never close your mind.  You always keep your mind open.

SCARBOROUGH:  But Susan, let me ask you this question.

FILAN:  Sure.

SCARBOROUGH:  Hold on a second, Susan. 

How likely is it that somebody was able to break into this expensive home, undetected, take JonBenet out of her room, undetected, take her down stairs, undetected, tie her up in this elaborate—this elaborate way that they did, undetected, after sexually assaulting her, undetected, then sit back and write—practice writing this long ransom note, undetected, and then write the long ransom note again, undetected, and then leave the house, undetected? 

FILAN:  There are many, many theories abouabout how this intruder could have gotten in.  Some say that there were certain doors that were open.  There was a broken window in the basement. 

The house isn‘t that complicated the way—I‘ve talked to people that have actually been in that house.  It‘s not so impossible to get down to that wine cellar.

If he was a classic pedophile, trust me, he would have been able to get that little girl to go with him like a charm.  There would have been no struggle, there would have been no verbal interchange.  They would have gone down into the basement, it would have been a game...

SCARBOROUGH:  So, Susan...

FILAN:  Yes?

SCARBOROUGH:  ... you are convinced tonight that John and Patsy Ramsey are innocent?

FILAN:  I have never been of the opinion that it was an inside job.  I have always been of the opinion that it was an intruder theory.

But I don‘t‘ have evidence that inculpates the Ramseys.  And here‘s the big thing to be Joe—and I don‘t know why people aren‘t talking about this.  There is DNA under this little girl‘s fingernails, there‘s DNA in her underwear.  You‘ve got to know that they took samples from the Ramseys and it didn‘t match, otherwise we‘d be linking them to this.

What we‘ve got to do now.

MURPHY:  Come on.  Can I respond?

FILAN:  No, no, no, no, no.

MURPHY:  Can I respond to some of this?

FILAN:  What we‘ve got to do now is take the DNA from Karr and see if we get a link.

SCARBOROUGH:  And we‘ve got to go.  But Wendy, I‘ll give you the last 15 seconds.  Go ahead, Wendy.  Fifteen seconds—go.

MURPHY:  Look it, everybody agrees, and even the Ramseys have agreed, that the scene was staged.  In other words, her head was fractured after she was already dead.  Somebody put a lot of energy into making this look like a stranger broke in and killed the child.

And guess what?  If it really was a stranger, they wouldn‘t have to stage it to look like a stranger committed the crime. 

FILAN:  But it doesn‘t answer the DNA, Wendy.

MURPHY:  That‘s a compelling argument.  No, there was no DNA of any value in...

SCARBOROUGH:  OK.  Well, I‘ll tell you what, we‘re going to have to leave it there.

Thank you both for being with us.  Greatly appreciate it.

And we will see if there‘s DNA of value in her undergarments and also around the scene. 

Now, still to come, just when you think it couldn‘t get any stranger, the man who says he killed JonBenet Ramsey compares himself to Michael Jackson?  A top profiler tells us what could be going on in that bizarre head of his. 

And in other news, who is the bigger nuclear threat, North Korea or Iran? 

We‘re going to have that debate when we return. 



JOHN MARK KARR, SUSPECT:  I was with JonBenet when she died. 



UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  He has a right to be presumed innocent.  The justice system has to be allowed to take its course. 



MARY LACY, BOULDER COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY:  Let us do our job thoroughly and carefully. 



UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:  If he is the one, then god will tell us.  And if he isn‘t, then we‘ll find and we‘ll keep looking until we find them. 


SCARBOROUGH:  We‘ve received word today that officials at San Quentin State Prison in California have searched the cell of Richard Allen Davis, the man convicted in the killing of Polly Klaas, in connection with the JonBenet Ramsey murder investigation.  John Mark Karr is reported to have corresponded with Davis.

With me now to talk about that and more, criminal profiler Pat Brown from Washington.

Pat, what do you make of Karr corresponding with Polly Klaas‘s killer? 

What does it tell you as a profiler? 

PAT BROWN, CRIMINAL PROFILER:  He really gets around, doesn‘t he? 


BROWN:  I mean, he‘s kind of like a—he‘s a star stalker.  And anybody who is a star in his mind, whether it be this man who killed Polly Klaas, or whether it‘s JonBenet, or whether—now he‘s kind of equating himself with Michael Jackson.  He wants to be on that level.  He wants those connections with those people who have succeed in life, who are special people. 

He doesn‘t think he‘s a very special person, and that‘s he what he‘s seeking by having that connection.  It is a stalker mentality much more than it is a serial killer mentality. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Well, so, do you think he did it? 

BROWN:  I‘ve seen absolutely nothing yet that convinces me at all.  I‘m not saying he couldn‘t have done it, but not one thing that has come forth impresses me. 

We have no—absolutely no evidence he was ever in Boulder.  And if he fantasized about JonBenet, if he was going to be the one who actually killed her, he should have fantasized about her before the murder, not afterwards. 

So where was he to fantasize?  Was he hanging around the Ramseys?  Not that we know of.  Was he anywhere in connection with JonBenet?  Not that we know. 

So why wouldn‘t he fantasize about a child that was in his own area?  After all, he‘s working with children.  Why not fantasize about them?  Why pick a child who at that point was not a known child? 

So he wouldn‘t have been star stalking her at that point.  She would have been just an unknown child like anybody else he knew.  It makes no sense at all. 

SCARBOROUGH:  So what do these bizarre e-mails that he‘s been sending back and forth to this Colorado professor tell you about his bizarre state of mind? 

BROWN:  Well, clearly, he has a pedophile type of thinking.  We know that. 

He thinks he‘s Peter Pan, just like he equates himself with Michael Jackson.—I like little children.  I‘m a little child myself.  I‘ve never grown.  I understand children.  And therefore, you shouldn‘t be so upset when I want to have little sexual play with children, because that‘s what little children.  It‘s not a terrible thing, it‘s not a mean thing, and it‘s not a sadistic thing.

So that‘s what he‘s trying to get across. 

Now, why he‘s particularly talking with Tracey is interesting.  Well, he‘s picked out JonBenet as his little girl of his dreams, so anybody who is connected with JonBenet he‘s willing to talk to. 

Now, Tracey is coming out of the Ramsey camp.  He‘s looking for a suspect.  And what concerns me the most is, how do we know that when Tracey says, oh, he said some things that were—that only the killer could know, how would Tracey know that unless Tracey knew that himself? 

That means not only the killer knew that.  Did Tracey feed information to Karr that then he just came back and said?  That‘s my concern, do we have track of every single e-mail Tracey ever sent to Karr? 

SCARBOROUGH:  And so you think in the end, this is just a desperate, pathetic man who may be confessing to go a murder that he didn‘t commit?  This is obviously—if in fact that‘s the case, this is something that I would take that—take it you‘ve seen before, and other law enforcement officers have been dealing with for years. 

BROWN:  Oh, absolutely.  Lots of people confess to things they don‘t do. 

One reason is we have no felony charges that we ever put on these people.  Why don‘t we take somebody who screws up an investigation like this, obstructs an investigation, and nail them with two or three years in prison?  We don‘t do that. 

So what is going to happen to Karr?  If he is not guilty of this crime, if he is not connected by physical evidence, the only thing that will happen to Karr is he will get a book deal.  That‘s what will happen to Karr.  And he will get everything he wanted out of this. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Well, he‘ll also get out of a Bangkok prison term...

BROWN:  That too.

SCARBOROUGH:  ... that I‘m sure would have been a lot nastier than any prison term than he would have to be dealing with in the United States. 

BROWN:  Exactly.

SCARBOROUGH:  So, as a profiler, where do you look right now 10 years after this murder?  Do you go back to the family or do you look elsewhere? 

BROWN:  Well, first, I do what the police should be doing in Boulder, which will be taking the physical evidence and making sure Karr does not match, because he could be the weird anomaly, and we aren‘t going to hose (ph) that down, have tunnel vision and exclude him, when we should take a look. 

If he is excluded, then I‘m with Wendy all the way.  I mean, most of the evidence pointed to the Ramseys.  They have not been excluded, so it still stays an open case with the Ramseys as one set of suspects and the unknown as another possible. 

SCARBOROUGH:  All right.  Thank you so much, Pat Brown.  It sounds like we may be no closer to solving this case than we we‘ve been in the past 10 years. 

BROWN:  Well, we‘ll find out really soon, yes.

SCARBOROUGH:  Really soon.  All right.  Thanks so much, Pat. 

BROWN:  My pleasure, Joe.

SCARBOROUGH:  And still to come, racial and religious profiling at airports?  The House Homeland Security chairman thinks it‘s a great idea.  Could he be right?  We‘ll debate it. 

And pot, meet kettle.  Bill O‘Reilly takes some potshots over JonBenet coverage, but wait until you see what he did on his own show. 

That‘s in “Beat the Press” when we return. 


SCARBOROUGH:  Hey, it‘s time now for “Beat the Press”.

First up, FOX News channel‘s Bill O‘Reilly.  Last night, the king of cable news did a segment devoted to how other news cable outlets were over-reporting the JonBenet Ramsey story.  O‘Reilly also blasted reporters for being unfair to the Ramsey family.

This is what Bill had to say Thursday night. 


BILL O‘REILLY, HOST, “THE O‘REILLY FACTOR”:  We did one program—one segment last night on JonBenet, and I know other shows did 60 minutes on nothing. 


SCARBOROUGH:  But this was Bill the night before. 

O‘REILLY:  A startling arrest in the JonBenet Ramsey murder case.  We‘ll have Greta on that coming up. 

Is the killer of JonBenet Ramsey finally in custody? 

When we come back, how should religious Americans fight the war on terror? 

Or should they at all.  And then, JonBenet Ramsey, coming up. 

In a moment, an arrest in the JonBenet Ramsey murder case, 10 years after it happened. 


SCARBOROUGH:  OK.  Ok.  We get the point. 

You‘re only going to be doing one segment on JonBenet Ramsey, but what of a hell of a segment it‘s going to be.  So great, that you tease it unmercifully all night, which may be why you‘re the undisputed king of cable news ratings, because you know what sells.  But in this case, we‘re just going to call it having your cake and eating it, too. 

Next up, CNN.

Sure, everybody makes mistakes, but this one really bad.  Take a look at the banner they ran during the Boulder district attorney‘s press conference yesterday afternoon. 

Yes, there is a presumption of guilt.  You know what?  I may not have done a great job in all my law school exams, but the last time I checked, in America it‘s still a presumption of innocence. 

And finally, the newspaper of record, “The New York Times” has embarrassed itself again, this time this morning on both its news and editorial pages.  The issue involved a federal judge who‘s long been considered irrelevant in her judicial circuit because of her left wing politics. 

Well, yesterday, her decision to strike down the president‘s wiretapping program was treated as a devastating blow to the Bush administration, despite the fact that no serious legal commentator has suggested her ruling will ever be upheld, because it won‘t.  The reasoning was dread full, especially on the ACLU standing to even bring the case.  And her language was inflammatory, even for a retired judge who‘s radically out of the judicial mainstream in 2006. 

Now, despite that fact, “The New York Times” embarrassed itself by praising her “careful, thoroughly grounded opinion.” 

You know, I‘m always troubled when “The Times” starts reading more like a blog than the most important publication in the world, especially when I agree with some of the things that this judge was trying to say.  But these days, don‘t expect “The Times” to ever admit their blunder. 

Coming up next, how would you like to help us “Beat the Press”?  Give us a call tell us what you‘ve seen. 

The number is 877-BTP-5876.  That‘s 1-877-287-5876.

And, by the way, I‘ve just got to say, I would have never ruled like that judge ever ruled.  I‘m just talking about separations of power, as if you really care.

Still to come, the JonBenet Ramsey case is all anybody is talking about, but is it just much ado about nothing? 

We‘re going to be debating that when we return.


SCARBOROUGH:  Still to come, insecurity in the air.  You know it seems like there‘s a new scare on a plane every day.  A lot of people are asking if there‘s anything we can do to make air travel safe.  Plus, who‘s the bigger nuclear threat, Iran or North Korea, we‘ll get to that in just a moment.  But right now, here‘s a look at your headlines. 

MARGARET BRENNAN, CNBC ANCHOR:  I‘m Margaret Brennan with your CNBC “Market Wrap.” Wall Street ends the week and the day in positive territory.  Checking the final numbers, the Dow Jones Industrial Average gained by over 46 points, the S&P 500 up just short of 5, the NASDAQ closing the day over six points.  Big cuts at Ford.  The car company plans to cut production 21 percent in the fourth quarter of this year.  This follows $1.4 billion in losses in the first half.  This means the company will make 168,000 fewer cars and trucks and some plants will close.  BP says oil production from Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, is now over 200,000 barrels of oil a day.  The area was producing double that amount until pipeline maintenance problems knocked it offline.  And United Airlines raises most business fares in the United States, they‘re up $5 one way, $10 round trip.  United‘s top competitors are not yet matching that increase.  That‘s your “Market Wrap.” Now back to Tucker. 

SCARBOROUGH:  It‘s time now for three on three, where we welcome some of the sharpest people we know to discuss three of the most interesting stories.  Let‘s get right to it today.  With us from Burbank, California, is MSNBC contributor, Flavia Colgan and from KXNT AM in Las Vegas we have radio talk show host Alan Stock.  Hey Flavia let‘s start with you.  First up, does this week‘s investigation in the JonBenet Ramsey case clear the parents, John and Patsy?  Flavia let‘s start with you.

FLAVIA COLGAN, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR:  No, I think it‘s far too soon to say that.  I do think that John Ramsey has certainly comported himself in a very classy way, even despite the way the media treated him and so forth, he is saying, you know, let‘s give this guy his day in court and unlike what CNN said as you mentioned, he is presumed innocent.  This morning made me think a little bit more that this guy is a strong suspect, because we found out for the first time that they do have some evidence, that he apparently knows details that were secret, but I think a lot of the information that has come out so far is frankly, very contradictory, it doesn‘t really line up, we can‘t put him in Colorado as of yet.  John Ramsey says he doesn‘t know him, yet we have that writing.  So I don‘t think the Ramseys are cleared until one, we get some DNA or maybe some handwriting samples, and I think that you know, this girl‘s killer is out there.  This guy might not be the one. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Well Flavia you hit it right there.  I mean we have hard evidence here that we can test him on, we have the DNA that was found on JonBenet Ramsey and then we have this handwriting ransom note.  This is going to be pretty easy to figure it out, right?

COLGAN:  Right.  And if we get that, I think it‘s signed, sealed and delivered for the most part.  In a practical term, I think this somewhat clears the Ramseys, in a sense, in that if anything did come up in the future that implicated them, I think that going to trial, I mean you‘re a lawyer, but going to trial, my instinct would be the fact that the Boulder Police has a confession and so forth might introduce some doubt.  But I think we cannot know anything about this guy who might just be obsessed with her and want to inject himself for some psychological reason. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Exactly.  Alan Stock, let me ask you Alan, what do you make of the media‘s response and a lot of America‘s response to this arrest, or are you surprised that so many people are still pointing their fingers at the Ramseys?

ALAN STOCK, TALK SHOW HOST, KXNT RADIO IN LAS VEGAS:  I‘m very surprised that people are actually buying into what this John Karr happens to be saying.  The guy has obviously got some kind of a chemical imbalance, he appears to be somewhat off-balance, and he‘s been saying things that just are not true.  Talking about drugging her, there were no drugs in the system, talking about raping her, there was no vaginal penetration.  Things like that.  The Ramseys for all intents and purposes, have been cleared a long time ago, as far as killing their own daughter.  Now they never were cleared nor were asked the questions about covering up, and there have been a lot of suspicions since then about whether or not they actually were involved in a cover-up. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Well, let‘s go from the Ramsey case to questions about security in the air.  House Homeland Security Chairman Peter King says people of what he called Middle Eastern and south Asian descent should get extra security checks at airports because of their ethnicity and religion.  So is that profiling and Alan is that a bad idea?

STOCK:  It‘s not a bad idea as long as you incorporate other facets.  In Israel, they do ethnic and religious and all kinds of profiling, but they also incorporate other facets of profiling as well.  I was in Israel a few years ago, going through the (INAUDIBLE) airport and let me tell you, they take the suitcases, they go through them with a fine tooth comb.  And I know that other airports here in New York, LA., Chicago, much larger airports, but you know what, they take the time to go through them there, they have to start doing that here, and incorporating some of the things that they‘re doing in Israel to incorporate a greater sense of security in this country. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Flavia I am against the sort of political correctness that your Philadelphia buddy Michael Smerconish is against in this war on terror, but at the same time the idea of having a separate line for people who look alike and people who are of the same faith just seems frightening to me. 

COLGAN:  Right.  Joe, let‘s leave aside for the moment the point that I think that in times of crisis is the exact time that we shouldn‘t be undermining the values that this country stands for, shouldn‘t be undermining the principles of our constitution.  But let‘s put that aside for a moment.  In the interest of national security, I think that this is not a good idea for a number of reasons.  Look, there‘s a reason people like Ray Kelly at the NYPD stopped racial profiling.  It‘s because a lot of experts feel it‘s not effective.  Again, what are we going to do, profile John Abizaid, the head of Centcom who is a Muslim? There are hundreds of thousands of Muslims in the world who are not extremists, there‘s tons that don‘t look like they‘re Arab.  There‘s lots of Arab people of course that are Christians or other religions. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Yeah but the argument though would be Flavia, that all Arabs are not terrorists, but most terrorists that have attacked the United States with these type of plots are Arabs.

COLGAN:  Right, but Joe, again, I think this is problematic for security reasons for two points.  One is that in terms of this war on terror, the people that are on the front lines and that we need the most are the Muslim community to give us information.  If we stigmatize or sort of do a Truman after World War II internment situation, we‘re going to lose any hope of that which I think we desperately need.  Secondly, it will divert attention from the fact—I mean look, these terrorists are very smart.  We stopped having box cutters on, they used liquid bombs.  They‘re obviously going to recruit more shoe bomber type people.  They‘re going to have people dye their hair blonde and change their names or do other—

SCARBOROUGH:  Ok, let me get Alan to respond, we‘re running out of time.  Alan, respond?

STOCK:  Well, you know, we‘ve got to be able to find the people who have been doing these things to us, and you‘re absolutely correct, that all the terrorists so far have been Muslims, they have been Arabs and they have been doing this to us.  We cannot just isolate only Muslims, but we‘ve got to incorporate various other aspects of profiling these people.  We‘ve got to be smart about it.  This is a matter of survival.  We are in World War III, if we don‘t recognize this, we are the ones who will lose the war. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Final question.

COLGAN:  The brief point here Joe is that we need to put technology and we need to put what September 11th is, the White House and the Supreme Court have scanners to detect liquid bombs.  Why don‘t our airports? This is a distraction and we should focus on implementing real strategies that can keep America safe. 

STOCK:  And this is one of them. 

SCARBOROUGH:  And this is one of them? Ok.  Well, we‘ll see.  All right.  Well hey, thanks so much and do we want to move on to international news? Let‘s go on to international news.  There are reports that North Korea could be preparing a test of a nuclear bomb.  Meanwhile of course Iran showing no signs of backing down on its nuke program, despite a U.N.  deadline at the end of the month.  So the question is, who‘s more dangerous, North Korea or Iran?  Flavia we‘ll start with you.

COLGAN:  I think that‘s a very tough call, as we saw today, North Korea in some ways is more dangerous because they‘ve been working on their nuclear program for quite some time and most experts think that they have enough material to do six to seven bombs and certainly a missile could strike into America.  On the other hand, they don‘t have the allies and the money that Iran has to be sort of this centrifugal force if you will of Shia and also of sort of the Muslim world being against America and Israel.  The main point is that both of these countries are enormously threatening and again, the Congressional Budget Office came out today saying if we had a phased withdrawal out of Iraq, we would save $1.26 trillion over 10 years and this is the problem.  These people are saber rattling, because they know darn well, we don‘t have the resource, we are not a serious military threat because of the distraction in Iraq and Americans, Pat Buchanan could probably get elected in a lot of places in the country because we‘re isolationists right now. 

SCARBOROUGH: Alan you‘re smiling, why?

STOCK:  Because you know, she‘s worried about the money and Ronald Reagan put dollar to dollar with the Soviet Union, toe to toe, and we won the cold war against the Soviet Union because we weren‘t worried about the money.  Money is not the issue.  I happen to agree with Flavia that we have to be concerned about both countries and we cannot let money distract us.  We have to be concerned about going after both of them, a preemptive strike against the nuclear sites in Iran, if we can find them and get the intelligence, is the smart thing to do and to be able to go with our allies perhaps against the sites in North Korea is the smartest thing that we can do, otherwise we‘re going to wind up confronting them in a war as well and I think that would be the worst thing that we can do. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Flavia, you know hold on Flavia.  I—you know, my opinion here is clear, I think Iran has been the biggest threat to the United States security since 1979, they‘ve been the epicenter of terrorism since 1979.  North Korea goes away the second China decides to stop funding that regime.  Unfortunately, as Tom Friedman said this morning in his column in the “New York Times,” Iran is awash in money, to buy missiles, to send over to Hezbollah, because of the price of oil, over $70 per gallon.  When is the United States going to get serious and realize that terrorism starts in Tehran, and if we want to stop terrorism, we‘re not going to go to North Korea, we need to figure out a way to choke this Islamic radical regime. 

COLGAN:  Joe, everything you said was essentially flawless.  I agree with every point that you made and that‘s exactly why we needed to be in those talks without preconditions, with them sooner.  And when I bring up the money and the distraction, it‘s not to say let‘s not spend all, I‘m talking about Iran is what we should be focused on far more than Iraq and like I used to talk to you about on this program before we went into Iraq, I was saying that three years ago.  Pat Buchanan and I were agreeing for one of the first times in our lives.  My point is that we need to stop ceding our diplomatic control right now, which we‘re doing in the Middle East, which we‘re doing on North Korea, we‘re not as focused, these talks have been breaking down and we need to ramp up and focus on what really is the greatest security threat to both America and world, and that is Iran and I think that we need to get focused. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Alan, so Flavia‘s saying if we stay in Iraq that we‘re going to be spending $1.26 trillion over the next decade.  Obviously our troops are stretched thin, readiness is at an all time low outside of Iraq, so do we have to get out of Iraq if we want to face these bigger nuclear challenges?

STOCK:  It‘s obvious we have to start turning more of the policing over to the Iraqis themselves, there‘s no question about that, but the question is not again dollars and cents, and it‘s not even our position in Iraq.  It‘s whether or not we have the wherewithal and the desire and the guts to go after the people who are conducting this whole thing, and that right now is Iran and feeding into Syria.  It‘s unfortunate that the president gave the go-ahead to Israel, to take out basically Iran and Syria, and the head of Israel did not see fit to go ahead and do that, and they stopped halfway through Lebanon, an unfortunate mistake on the part of Israel, very unfortunate. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Thank you so much Alan and thank you so much Flavia.

COLGAN:  And to sum up, Joe, we need international and domestic support which again Iraq undermines our credibility. 

SCARBOROUGH: All right Flavia, thank you so much.  You guys keep going out in the parking lot.  Thanks so much.  As more and more doubts cast in John Mark Karr‘s story, many eyes are shifting back towards JonBenet‘s parents, but we‘re going to be talking to Patsy Ramsey‘s sister about that and about the fact that her sister was cleared a long time ago.  That‘s when we come back.



PATSY RAMSEY, JONBENET‘S MOTHER:  Let me assure you, that I did not kill JonBenet, I did not have anything to do with it.  I love that child with my whole of my heart and soul. 


SCARBOROUGH: That‘s of course Patsy Ramsey back in 1997.  Going through hell, she and her family went through and that she went through until her death recently.  Now we reported early in the show that before her death, Patsy Ramsey had agreed to meet with John Mark Karr, it would help the investigation into JonBenet‘s murder.  There‘s also word today from the Ramsey family, Attorney Lin Wood that car attempted to correspond with John and Patsy on several occasions.  So what was the connection if any between the Ramseys and the man who‘s confessed to killing their daughter?  For some help on answering that and other questions, let‘s turn to Patsy Ramsey‘s sister Pam Paugh, she joins me now from Roswell, Georgia.  Pam thanks so much for being with us.  What do you make of this news that‘s coming out today that this creep was trying to talk to your sister and brother-in-law?

PAM PAUGH, PATSY RAMSEY‘S SISTER:  Well I‘ve heard that throughout the day, and I guess if you‘ve got something you want to get off your chest to Patsy and John Ramsey, the best way to do it is to try to contact them, that‘s the only thing I can say.  I have no intimate knowledge that he ever did contact them or that he ever really tried, but if Lin Wood said he did, then he‘s the go-to man. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Do you know if your sister knew anything about this guy at all, other than these attempts to contact her?

PAUGH:  No, I don‘t.  What I do know is that on several occasions, Mary Keenan Lacy and her band of private investigators and DA investigators would get together with Patsy and John and they would have some very intimate detailed discussions about what was going on in the investigation.  And it was probably at that time that they shared much of the intimate knowledge that we‘re all seeking and trying to figure out, you know, today, but unfortunately we don‘t know those things today and we‘ll just have to wait and see. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Pam, we‘ve been talking to people obviously over the past two nights, trying to figure out what this arrest means for the case, that America has been following for 10 years now.  It seems to be that there‘s a split, that half the people believe that this guy is a murderer, and maybe the other half of our experts are still focused on your sister or brother-in-law.  Why do you think that is? Do you think that people just got it in their mind that the family was involved from the very beginning and they just can‘t let it go?

PAUGH:  Well, I think emotions are high right now and so people are going to be taking and choosing sides.  There‘s no question in my mind that there are many out there in America who because they were misled by originally Boulder Police and that mantra was forced upon you folks in the media, that there was almost a public lynching as it were.  Now I think this poor gentleman has come forward, we don‘t know that he is, we don‘t know that he isn‘t our guy.  What we do know is a great confidence level in Mary Keenan.  I doubt that she was just out there saying geez, which country could I go to today and help their government get someone who‘s a nasty guy off the street.  She must have had some intimate reasons to go and get this fellow so that she could look at him more closely. 

We don‘t know what he has said to Ms. Lacy and to the people on her team.  It could be, you know, he might not be in his right mind.  Who in their right mind commits a crime of this nature? So that‘s a piece of logic that gets added to the puzzle.  We don‘t know what they‘ve said, we don‘t know what they have and we‘re all out here speculating.  I wish I had the answers too.  I‘m just as excited to get them as you folks are, but one thing is for certain, we must be patient, and we must take our time and let the legal system either go down the yes road or the no road.  And if this man is not guilty, then we need to get him off the proverbial lynching mob pedestal as well as fast as we can. 

SCARBOROUGH:  And that‘s exactly what John Ramsey is saying today, that we need to be patient and also give him the presumption of innocence that he deserves.  Finally, did John and Patsy always believe that a pedophile like this was a murderer of their daughter?

PAUGH:  Well, they always believed that being a pedophile was one piece of the puzzle.  Some very important statistics of course are floating around out there.  And some pedophiles commit murder, not all murderers are pedophiles, not all pedophiles are murderers.  You know, you can you go through the whole semantics of that.  But it was believed that because of the level of the crime, because of the type of sexuality involved in the crime, and yet there seemed to be I guess some kind of love connection in the crime, that it might very well have been someone who in a fantasmical world thought that he had a relationship with her, a love relationship, and that between an adult man and a child of JonBenet‘s age, we would term as pedophilia. 

SCARBOROUGH:  No doubt about it.  Absolutely sick.  Well thank you so much for being with us, Pam, we greatly appreciate it.

PAUGH:  Thank you.

SCARBOROUGH:  Now after what seems like years of hype, snakes on a plane is finally here.  So is the movie ironically bad as it hopes to be or just plain bad? We‘re going to be talking about it when we come back.


SCARBOROUGH: Well, we‘ve talked about Iran and North Korea.  We‘ve covered JonBenet Ramsey, now it‘s time to really get down to business.  Willie Geist is here with one last roundup of the stories making news today.  Willie?

WILLIE GEIST:  Hello Joe, thanks for all your help this week.  We appreciate and we‘ll certainly keep your resume on file.  We have a quick update on a story we‘ve been following.  Judge Donald Thompson in Oklahoma, you‘ll remember he was arrested because he was using, sorry to use the term, a penis pump during a trial under his robe while testimony was being given.  He‘s received four years in prison for indecent exposure, sending a strong message to judges everywhere that we will not tolerate penis pumps in the courtroom.  That‘s important.

SCARBOROUGH:  That‘s indecent in America these days?

GEIST:  Not by your standards apparently. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Not by talk show hosts standards at least. 

GEIST:  That‘s right, that‘s right.  Joe, let‘s start with snakes on a plane, it‘s the most anticipated bad movie in Hollywood history, it opened across the country today.  In case the title isn‘t explicit enough for you, it‘s an intentionally canny movie about a plane being overrun by deadly snakes.  Samuel L. Jackson stars in the film but thanks to a huge internet buzz, it became a cult classic before anyone ever saw it.  Now Joe, people at home are probably asking themselves, can I bring my snakes on a plane.  That‘s where NBC chief justice correspondent Pete Williams comes in.  It‘s slow, it‘s August, it‘s a Friday afternoon.  He looked into it.  The answer, yes.  You cannot bring it in a carry on.  Some airlines explicitly ban snakes and rodents, understandable, but you can put it in cargo as long as it weighs less than 50 pounds.  So bring your snake on the plane, Joe. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Thank God.  Will do it. 

GEIST:  Joe, we can always count on your fine state of Florida for a story like this one.  This Miami man didn‘t let a little leg injury and a pair of crutches get in the way of his armed robbery the other day.  The surveillance tape shows the man pulling a gun on a store clerk and then hobbling away with the cash.  Believe it or not, the man is somehow still at large.  Joe, I hope you won‘t take this the wrong way, but what seems to be the problem down in Florida and what can the rest of us do to help?

SCARBOROUGH:  Well in a case like this, I think the fact that most cops hang out in doughnut shops, they have a body mass index that‘s about 94 percent fat, as I was explaining to Bill Wolfe a couple days ago, may explain why a guy on crutches can get away with that. 

GEIST:  That‘s a good point, although it seems to be a trend in your great state of Florida, stories like this.  Any way, Joe I know you‘re prone to wearing latex on the weekends that‘s your business, I won‘t pry.  But even you would blush at the site of someone wearing a dress made out of condoms.  A Brazilian designer created the line of condom couture as part of the International AIDS Conference in Toronto.  Each dress made from thousands of condoms.  Now Joe that is a sharp looking dress, there‘s no getting around it, but a word of advice to a woman, don‘t wear that dress on a first date, you know what I mean.  It might send the wrong message if you‘re wearing like a thousand condoms when you show up for the date. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Not good Willie.  I think it‘s just liberals once again using—I think it‘s a Trojan horse trying to make our children promiscuous before their time.

GEIST:  No pun intended.

SCARBOROUGH:  Pun, what do you  mean. 

GEIST:  A Trojan horse.

SCARBOROUGH:  Hey Willie thanks so much.

GEIST:  All right Joe.

SCARBOROUGH:  Oh, I had no idea, my gosh.  That‘s our show for tonight, thanks so much for watching.  Up next, more serious news, “HARDBALL” with Chris Matthews starts right now.



Copy: Content and programming copyright 2006 NBC.  ALL RIGHTS  RESERVED. Transcription Copyright 2006 Voxant, Inc.  ALL RIGHTS  RESERVED. No license is granted to the user of this material other than for research. User may not reproduce or redistribute the material except for user‘s personal or internal use and, in such case, only one copy may be printed, nor shall user use any material for commercial purposes or in any fashion that may infringe upon NBC and Voxant, Inc.‘s copyright or other proprietary rights or interests in the material. This is not a legal transcript for purposes of litigation.