Return to Transcripts main page
Nancy Grace
Grand Jury Indictment in JonBenet Ramsey Case Released; Facelift Murder Doctor`s Mistress on the Stand
Aired October 25, 2013 - 20:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
NANCY GRACE, HOST: Breaking news tonight in the case of 6-year-old beauty queen JonBenet Ramsey, found strangled, beaten to death, apparently the victim of a brutal sex assault, all in the basement of her Boulder, Colorado, home. A decade later, still no justice for JonBenet.
Bombshell tonight. In the last hours, we get proof. A Colorado grand jury votes to indict JonBenet Ramsey`s parents, John and Patsy Ramsey.
And tonight, live to Utah. A 911 call from doctor/lawyer Martin MacNeill, his 6-year-old girl goes in to find Mommy, just out of a full facelift, face up in the family bathtub, dead. A red-hot affair with a younger woman emerges after Daddy actually brings the new girlfriend home as the live-in nanny to their eight children.
Just hours after Mommy pronounced dead, Dr. MacNeill already cleaning out Mommy`s closet, even getting rid of his own wedding band, sporting a brand-new ring instead.
Day eight of Martin MacNeill facelift trial, little Ada, then 6 years old, finds her mother dead. She heads to the stand to describe the day her father, Martin MacNeill, sends her into the home to make that gruesome discovery. Tonight, Ada in her own words.
Good evening. I`m Nancy Grace. I want to thank you for being with us. Bombshell tonight. Remember the case of 6-year-old beauty queen JonBenet Ramsey, found strangled, beaten to death, apparently the victim of a brutal sex assault, right there in the basement of her own home? Ten years later, no justice for JonBenet.
Bombshell tonight. In the last hours, we get proof. A Colorado grand jury votes to indict JonBenet`s parents, John and Patsy Ramsey.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PATSY RAMSEY, JONBENET`S MOTHER: In every case, the parents are always suspected initially.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The child beauty queen was found dead in the basement of her family`s Boulder home.
911 OPERATOR: Do you know how long she`s been gone?
PATSY RAMSEY: No, I don`t! Please, we just got up and she`s not here! Oh, my God! Please!
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: A Colorado judge now agreeing to unseal a grand jury indictment. The grand jury had voted to indict JonBenet`s parents, John and Patsy Ramsey, on charges of child abuse resulting in death.
PATSY RAMSEY: There is a killer on the loose. If I were a resident of Boulder, I would tell my friends to keep...
JOHN RAMSEY, JONBENET`S FATHER: It`s OK.
PATSY RAMSEY: ... keep your babies close to you! There`s someone out there!
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GRACE: Today, proof that a Colorado grand jury chose to indict John and Patsy Ramsey. The other bombshell, the elected district attorney at that time chose not to go forward with the prosecution of John and Patsy Ramsey, this after the grand jury decides to charge them. Now, later, another district attorney exonerates John and Patsy Ramsey.
Straight out to Anna Cabrera, CNN correspondent. Anna, this is stunning! Tell me what happened.
ANNA CABRERA, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Nancy, this is a grand jury indictment from 1999, some 14 years ago, that we`re just now learning. This jury, grand jury, had voted to indict John and Patsy Ramsey. So again, they`ve been exonerated in this case, but we never knew that the grand jury had initially wanted to indict these two parents, the parents of JonBenet Ramsey.
Now, the grand jury in these couple of documents that were released basically said they wanted to indict the parents on charges of child abuse resulting in death, as well as being an accessory to the crime. So the grand jury didn`t necessarily say that the parents committed the murder, but they perhaps in some way may have helped the child`s killer finish the crime, and then impeding in the investigation, Nancy.
GRACE: With me on the scene, Anna Cabrera. To Jean Casarez, CNN (sic) correspondent, also out in the field. Jean, exactly what do the documents say? Let`s lay it out.
JEAN CASAREZ, HLN LEGAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, it`s fascinating because they`re saying that John and Patsy Ramsey unreasonably, knowingly, recklessly, feloniously allowed JonBenet to be placed in a position where she should -- could be the victim of child abuse that then could result in her death. And secondly, in another charge, that then they assisted a person so that they would not be investigated, found, prosecuted or convicted or even sentenced in the first-degree murder of JonBenet or child abuse resulting in death.
GRACE: Joining me right now is a very special guest. It is Dr. Henry Lee. As you all know, he is a renowned forensic science professor. And he worked on the case. He has reviewed the autopsy, even consulted with the district attorney`s office.
Dr. Henry Lee, it`s so wonderful to talk to you again. What do you make...
HENRY LEE, FORENSIC PATHOLOGIST: Same (ph) thing (ph), Nancy.
GRACE: ... of the fact that a grand jury had planned -- actually, returned indictments on John and Patsy Ramsey, the elected district attorney decided not to go forward with that prosecution?
LEE: Well, I agree with the grand jury`s finding, but also, I agree with their, you know, state attorney`s decision because scientific evidence cannot prove this actually it`s a murder case.
GRACE: What do you mean by that, Dr. Henry Lee?
LEE: Well, it`s an untimely death, and what caused the death, of course, the medical examiner already found out. But the manner of the death, whether or not that`s a homicide or accidental death, it`s possible, but physical evidence alone -- I did met with the district attorney and the investigator from Boulder, Colorado, many times. We have many meetings. The consensus decision is we just don`t have enough evidence go for a trial.
GRACE: Well, let me ask you think, Dr. Henry lee. What would have led a grand jury to indict them?
LEE: The indictment (INAUDIBLE) I did not look at what the release, whatever I heard just now your correspondents says, it`s something (INAUDIBLE) know about this death and maybe have knowledge about it, did not say they are the murderer. That`s two different -- different story. One say you know about this case. The other say you actually murder your child. That`s a more serious charge. We have to have enough evidence.
GRACE: We are taking your calls. Out to Steph in California. Hi, Steph. What`s your question?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes, I was just wondering -- I was kind of wondering, is it possible that maybe mom and dad of JonBenet possibly could have murdered JonBenet over money?
GRACE: What do you mean over money?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Like, because she was, like, the little queen, you know? And she was doing all these pageants and little beauty -- little, I guess, little tyke or (INAUDIBLE) pageants. I`m wondering maybe, you know, jealousy, probably, you know (INAUDIBLE) so popular...
GRACE: Jealousy? OK, now, let me try to identify your question. You`re saying, first, did they murder her for money? I don`t -- there was not -- my understanding, there was no life insurance policy on her. So why would they murder her for money? And jealousy. They were the ones putting her in the beauty contests. So what do you mean, murder over jealousy?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Like, you know, so -- you know, like, you know, so popular, you know? She was winning all these -- (INAUDIBLE) maybe winning all these trophies? You know, that`s what I was thinking because...
GRACE: So are you suggesting that the mother killed her because she was jealous of her popularity?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Probably.
GRACE: OK, let me address that. Let me address that. If the mother had been jealous of her popularity due to the beauty pageants, I would guess that the mother would probably just quit putting her in the beauty pageants. Patsy Ramsey was the one putting her in the pageants. It was her idea. She decided to do it, not John Ramsey. It was Patsy Ramsey that would take her to all of these beauty pageants and orchestrate the whole thing.
So I would think money would not have been a motive, and jealousy over her popularity would not have been a motive.
To Pat Saunders, clinical psychologist. You know, when parents do kill their children, there doesn`t really have to be a motive. It could be anger. It could be frustration. It could be you`ve been up all night. It could be anything. It doesn`t really make sense. There`s really never a good motive for murder.
PATRICIA SAUNDERS, CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGIST: I know. You`re right. It could be bed wetting, and JonBenet was a bed wetter. But you just put a new angle on it for me, and that`s the political one, that the DA, the first DA found that the evidence did not rise of the level of beyond a reasonable doubt.
Now, I know this community. I`ve spent time there. It`s a very small, upscale, wealthy, tight community. So it`s very possible that there was some political and -- I hate to say it, but perverse activities going on orchestrated by the parents and some other people because we know there were no signs of break-in. There were no footprints. JonBenet knew her assailant.
GRACE: Everyone, we are taking your calls. In a bombshell, in the last hours, just released documents that prove a Colorado grand jury was set to indict John and Patsy Ramsey.
To you, Steve Helling, writer with "People" magazine. The indictments are not for the murder of JonBenet Ramsey. Explain in layman`s terms.
STEVE HELLING, "PEOPLE": Sure. Absolutely. They didn`t say that John and Patsy Ramsey murdered JonBenet. What they said was that perhaps they put JonBenet in a situation or in a position where she could be abused. And through that, they should have known better, and she ended up dying because of that. It`s not even saying that they were the ones who did the abuse.
So whatever that situation is, we don`t know because everything else has been -- you know, has been locked up. We only got four pages` worth of documents. We didn`t get everything...
GRACE: Yes. And that right there, Steve Helling, the whole reason behind that is that the judge that decided to release these documents -- they were released because of a FOIA, Freedom of Information Act, request, all right -- said that under the law, under the law, a grand jury action cannot be kept secret, all right?
So although we don`t get the thousands and thousands and thousands of pages of testimony, of documents, of exhibits, we get anything that isn`t an act, an official act of the grand jury. These pages were signed by the jury foreperson. That`s why we got them. We still don`t know what came before the grand jury, what evidence, what testimony they heard. We have no idea.
This is what it says, that John and Patsy Ramsey allowed their child, JonBenet, to be unreasonably placed in a situation that posed a threat of injury to JonBenet`s life or health which resulted in the death of JonBenet, and that they rendered assistance to a person, knowing the person being assisted had committed and was suspected of the crime of murder in the first degree, and child abuse resulting in death.
All right, that basically says that the grand jury believes John and Patsy knew who committed the murder, but they were covering for them. And let me just put it out there. I do not think their son, Burke, had anything to do with his sister`s death. That`s what everybody is going to assume.
You know, very quickly, Patricia Saunders, the likelihood of sibling homicide, sibling-cide, as it`s -- it`s a slang term for it -- it`s extremely low. And when you look at Burke as a child, and when you look at JonBenet, JonBenet could probably have twisted his arm, not the other way around. So I`ve never believed that Burke had anything to do with that. That is a wild theory that some people proposed. I don`t believe it.
So the Ramseys covering up for somebody that murdered their child? That doesn`t make sense to me.
SAUNDERS: Well, I don`t doubt that it would be Burke, for all the reasons you said. Well, it doesn`t make logical sense, but it may make emotional or a sexual perverse sense in terms of a high-powered pedophile in the community. You never know what goes on inside of people`s homes and heads, Nancy. It`s ugly. It`s unthinkable for us. But it is a possibility.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PATSY RAMSEY: we have never been deemed suspects. We`ve been said to be under the umbrella of suspicion, whatever that means.
Well, it`s kind of no-man`s-land, you know?
JOHN RAMSEY: We lost our daughter. That`s the worst possible thing that could have happened to us. Anything that has happened in the aftermath pales by comparison.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The 6-year-old beauty contestant was found dead in the basement of her upscale Boulder home the day after Christmas.
JOHN RAMSEY: I just -- I -- I picked her up and I just screamed, the kind of scream you scream in a dream.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: A killer never capture. Now more information has surfaced.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: ... that a grand jury had voted for an indictment of the little girl`s parents, John and Patsy Ramsey. The charged anticipated, felony child abuse resulting in death.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We think it was a pedophile. We think it was a male.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Authorities even officially exonerated the family.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: If so, a cloud of suspicion remained.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So all that remains is the mystery. Who killed a 6-year-old girl in her own home on a snowy Christmas night?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GRACE: In the last hours, a bombshell in the JonBenet case. We learned that a grand jury set to indict John and Patsy Ramsey, the indictments formally handed down, but the elected district attorney decided not to go forward with the charges.
Unleash the lawyers. Joining me, Loni Coombs, former LA County prosecutor, Randy Kessler, defense attorney, Atlanta, Trent Copeland, defense attorney, LA.
Out to you, Kessler. How often have you heard of the grand jury handing down a true bill, and then the elected district attorney not going forward with that?
RANDY KESSLER, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: It doesn`t happen often. And a lot of times, we don`t hear about it because we don`t know what the grand jury decided. We`re all outraged that this little girl was killed, but we shouldn`t let that outrage and our desire for punishment outweigh the prosecutor`s decision. He could not convince a jury beyond a reasonable amount of guilt, he did the right thing.
GRACE: Randy, Randy, Randy, I just...
KESSLER: That`s what you`re supposed to do.
GRACE: ... very simply asked you, have you ever heard of that happening in your years of practice? Have you ever heard of that happening? That`s a yes/no.
KESSLER: But we wouldn`t hear about it, Nancy. A lot of times, what happens is...
GRACE: So I`m going to take...
KESSLER: ... we don`t know.
GRACE: ... that as a no?
KESSLER: That`s fine. That`s fine. It`s a no.
GRACE: All right. Well, can you tell me a case you`ve heard of?
KESSLER: No.
GRACE: All right. OK. That took -- you know, I`m just a J.D. I`m not a D.D.S. I don`t know how to pull a tooth, all right? So let`s just hone in. Let`s get the car back in the middle of the road again.
Out to you, Loni Coombs. What do you make of it?
LONI COOMBS, FORMER LA COUNTY PROSECUTOR: You know, Nancy, I was a prosecutor in LA County for 18 years, and I can tell you I never heard of one person in my office going to the grand jury, getting an indictment, and then pulling back and not following through and prosecuting the charges. So for me, it`s an unusual, rare, and honestly, the only time I`ve ever heard of this happening.
GRACE: Trent?
TRENT COPELAND, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Yes. I`m having a hard time understanding it. Look -- and I know Loni and Loni`s a fantastic prosecutor. I`ve known her when she practiced here in Los Angeles County. But the truth is, look, it happens when good prosecutors reach the decision that the grand jury got it wrong. And look...
GRACE: OK, I asked you, have you ever heard of it happening? Can you name a case where it happened?
COPELAND: I`ve never...
GRACE: That`s my question.
COPELAND: I`ve never heard of -- I`ve never heard of it happening.
GRACE: OK. Great. All right...
COPELAND: And it`s very, very rare.
GRACE: That`s the question. To Anna Cabrera, joining me there in Boulder. Anna, what do you make of it? Why did the grand jury hand down indictments against John and Patsy Ramsey and the elected DA decided to ignore the indictments?
CABRERA: Nancy, here in this state, the grand jury indictment means that the grand jury found probable cause to indict John and Patsy Ramsey on these specific charges. But ultimately, the DA has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they are responsible for the child`s death. And ultimately, then DA Alex Hunter did not believe he could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this is what had happened. And so he basically said there was not sufficient evidence.
And Nancy, I think it`s important to note that DNA evidence several years later, that wasn`t even available for the grand jury to take a look at the time because of the technology advancements that eventually happened -- that eventually exonerated the family in this case.
GRACE: You know what? You`re right. Let`s talk about the DNA evidence that was found on the scene. What was it, and where was it, Anna?
CABRERA: It was found on JonBenet`s clothing, several pieces of her clothing. Now, investigators at the time of the crime had that DNA evidence, but technology didn`t allow them to touch it. It didn`t prove any -- anything conclusive until 2006-ish. And basically, in 2008 is when the family received a letter from then district attorney Mary Lacey (ph) saying that DNA evidence pointed to an unidentified unrelated male as the suspect.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
GRACE: Welcome back, everyone. In the last hours, bombshell. JonBenet Ramsey`s parents were set to be indicted by a Colorado grand jury. The district attorney decided not to go forward.
To Dr. Henry Lee, who worked on the case. Dr. Henry Lee, that testing in `98 showed there was DNA evidence in JonBenet`s underwear. Many speculated where it came from. In fact, many speculated it may have even come from the factory where the underwear was made.
What do you make of that DNA in her underwear?
LEE: Well, the DNA was found in the underwear. However, wasn`t from a semen stain. So just a biological stain have male DNA. doesn`t mean that`s definitely from sexual assault, a semen ejaculation from male. Could be any trace transfer because in 1998, STRs (ph) (INAUDIBLE) the repeat DNA with the so-called trace DNA or touch DNA. Now become more sensitive technique, which would find some result. They found some result on the panty, but doesn`t necessarily it`s a male ejaculate. In addition, the panty is size 10 to 14. As Nancy, you`ll recall, JonBenet, only 7 years old.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
GRACE: Welcome back everyone. On the stand right now, Gypsy Willis, the mistress of Dr. Martin MacNeill, accused in the murder of his wife Michele.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And you`ve told people previously that your relationship evolved.
GYPSY WILLIS, MACNEILL`S MISTRESS: I did.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Were the two of you communicating in any other way besides on line?
WILLIS: By my cell phone. His -- I remember text messaging. I remember getting calls from his work number, possibly on his cell phone, as well. It`s been very long time.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I understand.
WILLIS: Sorry.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: When did the two of you first meet in person?
WILLIS: In person, it was just before Thanksgiving of 2005.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And how do you remember that?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I had sold my house previously, moved to an apartment that September, I think.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So all of these things are kind of happening at the same time, and that helps you...
WILLIS: Yes, same kind of thing. Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK.
WILLIS: So shortly after moving in the apartment, North Salt Lake Bountiful (ph) area.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK. Did the relationship become sexual?
WILLIS: It did.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And when was that?
WILLIS: I think that was in January of 2006.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And how often the two of you having sexual relations?
WILLIS: We would see each other about a couple times a month. There were months when we didn`t see each other. It was a very casual thing. It`s just whenever we had time and it could be arranged.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK.
WILLIS: And it was...
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Go ahead.
WILLIS: I think we probably had sex half the time. I mean, sometimes it was just lunch.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did the relationship become more serious in the spring of 2007?
WILLIS: I don`t believe so. I had gotten into a nursing program. Well -- it -- I had gotten into a nursing program in 2006, and I had to jump in without a lot of financial preparation. So I was -- I was kind of couch surfing, staying with friends at that time.
And then in the spring of 2007, Martin mentioned that he had a property that he had a lease on and that I was welcome to go there, if I wanted to. But I was in the middle of a nursing program. It was very, very intensive. So we communicated more in just being closer to him. We had more visits, but I -- I would not say that it changed, other than that.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So in March of 2007, you move into a duplex in Lehigh (ph).
WILLIS: That`s correct.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You`re closer to the defendant.
WILLIS: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And who`s paying for this duplex?
WILLIS: Martin already had a contract on that property.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So he`s paying for the housing there.
WILLIS: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And did he give you a debit card to use for personal expenses?
WILLIS: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And you could use that as you needed to.
WILLIS: Correct.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And you were in a nursing program at this time?
WILLIS: I was.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Who was paying for that?
WILLIS: I had financial aid for that.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did he help assist on that?
WILLIS: I -- I think he helped a little. It was an open-ended loan until I was done with school, basically.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK. But...
WILLIS: But he was not the prime person paying for it.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But he was assisting you with paying for your schooling.
WILLIS: He was assisting me with what I needed until I was out of school.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And when you were living in Lehigh, are the two of you having sex more?
WILLIS: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Prior to March, were you dating only him?
WILLIS: No.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Around March, were you only dating him?
WILLIS: I was still seeing other people. I was very busy, and so the fact I was seeing him a little more, I didn`t see as many other people.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GRACE: So she is sleeping with MacNeill and seeing other people. Not judging!
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And what happened when you went to the Mayo Clinic?
WILLIS: He was being tested for -- for some conditions related to his health.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did you stop in Las Vegas on your way?
WILLIS: We did.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And where did you stop?
WILLIS: We stopped in Las Vegas, and he had me wait at a restaurant while he went to visit his daughter, Alexis. And then I got together with friends after and stayed the night there, and then we continued on the next day.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So you stayed the night with friends?
WILLIS: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did he tell you where he stayed?
WILLIS: He said he stayed with Alexis.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did he tell you why?
WILLIS: He said that -- that she had found some things in the car and she was very upset, and he was just going to go spend the night with her.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK. "Things" are a broad term. What kinds of things?
WILLIS: Clothes, makeup, maybe, something like that.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Is it fair to say that previously you said she saw luggage?
WILLIS: Luggage.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And is it fair to say that you also said that the defendant had told you that Michele had called and was concerned?
WILLIS: He told me that she had called and just asked him where he was, and he kind of said, What is this about, and that Alexis was very upset, and so he went to stay with her.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And as a result of that, you stayed with friends and he stayed with Alexis.
WILLIS: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So in march, you`re texting and calling more. You move to Lehigh that he`s providing you housing for. He gives you a credit card. He`s helping with schooling. This sounds like a commitment.
WILLIS: Yes, he`s helping.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you remember e-mailing a potential suitor in March of 2007?
WILLIS: Vaguely. Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: May I approaches the witness, your honor?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You may.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And may I be free to approach as needed?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Please.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I`m going to show you what`s been marked as state`s exhibit 39. Please look at that.
WILLIS: Thank you. OK.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You recognize that?
WILLIS: I do.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What is it?
WILLIS: It is a letter that I wrote in response to a guy that was asking me on a date.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK. And in that letter, you said, "A very good and best friend of mine has recently become much more than that."
WILLIS: That`s correct.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What was the date of this e-mail?
WILLIS: March 6th.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Of what year?
WILLIS: Of -- I`m sorry, of 2007.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So on March 6th, 2007, you e-mailed another suitor and said, "A good and best friend has become much more than that," and because of that, it would be inappropriate for the two of you to meet.
WILLIS: Correct.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK. I`m going to show you what`s been marked state`s exhibit 40. Will you look at that?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GRACE: On the stand, the long-awaited testimony of Gypsy Willis. The lover of Dr. Martin MacNeill, his wife found dead in the bathtub, describing her sex relationship with MacNeill during his marriage. You`re not missing a bit of testimony. We`ll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
GRACE: Welcome back, everyone. On the stand in a Utah courtroom, the mistress of Dr. Martin MacNeill, accused in the murder of his wife, Michele.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
WILLIS: That was a cell number.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK. There`s a 7 -- (DELETED)
WILLIS: I believe that was the work number.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: While you`re marking those, I think I`d just like to rule on 39 and 40. Sustained as to, I think, the hearsay, but I think she testified that the relationship hadn`t changed at all in the spring. There are prior inconsistent statements. Extrinsic evidence of them is admissible. So long as she is given an opportunity to examine and explain or deny the statement, the adverse party is given an opportunity to see the documents and examine, as well, I`ll receive them.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: May I approach the bench, please?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You may.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Ms. Willis, I`m going to show you what`s been marked as state`s exhibits 41 and 42. And before doing this, I believe we have a stipulation as to phone records. So I move to offer them.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Any objection?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No objection.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: State`s exhibits 41 and 42 are received.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I`m just going to explain these briefly to you, OK? This is the defendant`s...
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GRACE: OK, what they`re about to do right now is just show all of her phone calls to Martin MacNeill.
To Tanya Peters very quickly. Do you think these calls are going to include calls and texts around the time of the death? Oh -- OK. Hold on.
That`s down to Jim Kirkwood, KTKK. I imagine that these calls and texts are going to be around the time of Michele`s death.
JIM KIRKWOOD, KTKK: That`s the thing. Around that time, all through that period to the funeral, there were unbelievable numbers of texts, Nancy. These two were very close, even though she`s tried to minimize that.
GRACE: And I want to try Tanya Peters again, trial lawyer, joining me at the courthouse. Everybody, we`re live in Provo. Tanya, these phone calls and texts that they`ve got records of can show really when the relationship starts because you don`t call a friend 20 times a day, all right? And then we can see the frequency mount around the time of death.
TANYA PETERS, TRIAL ATTORNEY: That`s exactly right, Nancy. And what`s going to happen is the prosecution is going to introduce evidence of those calls, those phone records, which are going to show an increasing amount of contact over time, culminating around the time of Michele`s death.
GRACE: And Tanya Peters, I mean, you see Gypsy Willis on the stand. I mean, what does she have that`s so great? And this is -- this is for real. I don`t get it. He`s got a -- a literal beauty queen at home. What`s he doing with her? I guess it`s true, you always cheat down.
PETERS: You know, I don`t know about that. But what I can tell you - - you know, we don`t know what was going through Dr. MacNeill`s mind at the time. You know, personal relationships are just that. They`re very personal. And so, you know, who knows what he was thinking.
But I`m going to be very interested to see how she`s going to testify as to what happened after Dr. MacNeill -- after Michele passed away. What happened then? That`s what we all want to know.
GRACE: With me, Tanya Peters. Also with me, Trent Copeland. As she`s staring at those phone records -- it`s taking her a long time to take them in -- do you think that maybe, just for the first time she meets the jury, she could have worn a shirt that covered up her breasts? I`m just putting it out there.
COPELAND: It`s just -- it`s hard to imagine, Nancy, that she did not try to put on business attire. And look, you know, I think you`re right...
GRACE: I mean, do I need to see cleavage?
COPELAND: Yes. Look, you know, her name is Gypsy, after all. And so it`s not surprising that she`s, you know, dressing the way she is. But look, the reality is, look, she wants to be comfortable in the courtroom. Maybe this is how she perceives that she`s comfortable.
GRACE: OK. All right. Everyone, we`re going to take you right back into Gypsy`s testimony.
But first, "CNN Heroes."
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
GRACE: Welcome back, everyone. On the stand, Gypsy Willis, the mistress of Dr. Martin MacNeill, charged in the murder of his wife. Right now, the mistress is being asked about the day of Michele`s death.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
WILLIS: Approximately.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There`s a lot of texts.
WILLIS: There`s a lot of texts.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: April 1st, six texts between the two of you?
WILLIS: I`m sorry, you said April 1st?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.
WILLIS: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: April 2nd, 10 texts?
WILLIS: Two, three -- approximately.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: April 3rd, around 24 texts?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GRACE: All you legal eagles are right. They`re leading her straight to the number of texts and phone calls the day Michele died.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WILLIS: April 4th?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Correct.
WILLIS: (INAUDIBLE) started another page. Just a moment. Sorry, just trying to get a general idea. Oh, OK, approximately.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Approximately 17. And two of these texts came after 10:45 PM, correct?
WILLIS: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And on the morning of April 5th, there were 16 text messages between the two of you between midnight and 10:00 AM on April 5th?
WILLIS: OK.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Is that what it looks like?
WILLIS: Do you want me to count them?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It look like a lot of texts between that time period?
WILLIS: Yes, I -- looks like a good handful or two.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK. I want to go to April 11th of 2007.
WILLIS: OK.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Approximately 30 texts.
WILLIS: OK, are you multiplying by two each one of these entries?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No, total between the two of you.
WILLIS: OK, well, I see -- one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven, twelve, thirteen, fourteen, fifteen.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: May I approach?
WILLIS: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK, so you see 15 texts there. April 12th, how many do you see there?
WILLIS: You`re going to make me count all these. Two, three...
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GRACE: Right now, you see Gypsy Willis, MacNeill`s lover, going through phone and text records. They are leading her up to the day of Michele`s murder, April 11. We`ll be right back with more of the mistress on the stand.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And did you attend that funeral?
WILLIS: I did.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you remember what time that funeral went on from?
WILLIS: I -- I think it was in the neighborhood of, like, 10:00 or 11:00, noon. I don`t remember. It seemed like it was in the later morning.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK. And you sent him four texts between 9:00 AM and 12:30 PM on April 14th.
WILLIS: I`m sorry. This is an important day. I`m trying to get my information correct. I see two incoming texts in the hour of 9:00 and then two incoming texts in the hour of 12:00.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What times on the 12th?
WILLIS: 12:13, 12:21.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK. And those were from your phone?
WILLIS: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The 71 number. OK. And is it fair to say that during the months of March and April that the two of you would communicate by voice on the developmental center phone, and if it was from his cell phone, then it would be by text only.
WILLIS: I -- probably, yes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And why would that be the case?
WILLIS: Why would that be the case...
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Why would he not call you from his cell phone?
WILLIS: You know, this was -- this was a very informal, discreet thing. We were not interested in other people knowing.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK.
WILLIS: I think he was trying to keep it quiet. I respected that.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But on April 14th, the day of Michele`s funeral...
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GRACE: There you see them laying the trap for Gypsy Willis to lead her up to the day Michele is killed.
Let`s stop and remember American hero Army sergeant Andrew Nicol (ph), just 23, Kensington, New Hampshire, Bronze Star, Purple Heart, Meritorious Service Medal, loved motocross, parents Roland (ph) and Patricia (ph), one brother, two sisters. Andrew Nicol, American hero.
Everyone, I`ll see you Monday night 8:00 o`clock sharp Eastern. And until then, good night, friend.
END
