Return to Transcripts main page

Smerconish

Suspect Still At Large Days After Killing CEO In Midtown Manhattan; Background Checks Reveal Red Flags In Candidates' Pasts. Village People Founder Changes Tune; Netflix Docuseries Ignites Pressure To Solve 1996 JonBenet Murder. Aired 9-10a ET

Aired December 07, 2024 - 09:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

VICTOR BLACKWELL, CNN ANCHOR: At 8:00, right here on CNN.

Thank you so much for joining me today. I'll see you back here next Saturday at 8:00 a.m. Eastern. Smerconish is up next.

[09:00:32]

MICHAEL SMERCONISH, CNN ANCHOR: Murder on 54th Street. I'm Michael Smerconish in Philadelphia.

Like many, I've been transfixed by the slaying of a healthcare CEO in midtown Manhattan. The suspect is still at large, may already have fled the city according to the NYPD. Last night investigators found a backpack in Central Park that they believe belonged to the gunman. The FBI now offering up to $50,000 for any information that will lead to the arrest of the person responsible.

This case has impacted many of us during the holidays. Not only was the crime so heinous, so brazen, but in my case, for the last 10 years, I've stayed on the very block where it happened. Anytime that I've been in Manhattan, not at the Hilton, but at the hotel across the street, the same place UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson slept his final night.

For me, there's a sense of disbelief about what happened on a sidewalk that I've traversed hundreds of times. So yesterday I started my SiriusXM radio program with a discussion of the latest developments, which at the time included the surveillance stills from the hostel, the travel on a bus from south of the city, the smudged fingerprint and a recovered cell phone, the news of retrieval of DNA that came later in the day.

And then I shared some of the social media reaction to the murder, the glee with which some celebrated, or at least made a meme from the death of a symbol of the healthcare industry. I read aloud from Dan Diamond's story in the "Washington Post," where he wrote this, "In posts that trended on multiple social media platforms, users mocked Thompson's death by invoking health insurance terms, saying their empathy for his loss had been denied. Other users implied the killing was essentially merited, citing UnitedHealthcare's frequent rejections of customers' requests. Many of the posts were liked by tens of thousands of users, some of whom chimed in with their own stories of struggling to get the corporate giant to cover their health insurance claims."

And then on radio, I said I found that reaction to be despicable. The latest example of a lack of decorum, especially among those who hide behind the cloak of anonymity. That "Washington Post" story included a posting from Toby Chow, a political activist who collected some similar online reaction to Thompson's death. The Toby Chow posting has been viewed more than 10 million times. Chow had recommended to political and industry leaders that they might want to read the comments and think hard about them.

So then on radio, having summarized the latest in terms of the whodunit and the social media reaction that I found so offensive, I went to the telephones and something curious happened. Given a wide open choice of what to say about this tragedy, literally no one called to speculate about the latest in the investigation developments. Or maybe they tried, but they couldn't get through the telephone lines, which had immediately filled with callers wanting to share their own coverage complaints.

The calls were from men. They were from women. As best I can determine, they were racially diverse. They were from all over the country. And just as soon as one call ended, a new caller was there to take their place.

It's important for me to say not a single caller spoke in a way resembling the online vitriol. Each was appropriately sympathetic and saddened by Brian Thompson's death, but they wanted to be heard about how the health insurance industry had impacted their lives. I heard from Nancy in New York, who told me about her difficulties in getting coverage for her MS treatment. Frank, a doctor in Los Angeles, who said that the problem is that no individual can fight the insurance behemoths. I heard from Matt in Maryland, who described his struggle in getting insulin covered for his father.

Thomas (ph), a doctor in Minnesota, who said the problem is that the patient is not the customer, the employer is because of the unique U.S. model where our health care is often tied to our employment. This was good, substantive conversation. The callers were fully engaged. They were appropriate.

Dan Diamond's Washington Post story had more than 5,000 comments appended to it the last that I checked. The top one when I read in said this, Americans pay twice as much for health as the rest of the rich world, but have the worst numbers for infant mortality, maternal mortality, deaths from treatable diseases, medical bankruptcy and life expectancy. And 27 million Americans have no coverage versus zero in all the rest of the developed world. Gee, I wonder why people are angry.

[09:05:06]

When health benefits are denied, a life is threatened and may be taken. No corporate leader seen as responsible for such behavior is safe from lethal retribution. The predictable reaction is as old as Deuteronomy's prescription of an eye for an eye. This too needs to be said.

We don't know why the gunman killed 50-year-old Brian Thompson. The bullet casings with depose and delay could be a ruse. But this heinous crime, indefensible no matter the motivation, has touched a nerve and sparked a necessary conversation. None of which excuses the incivility of some, nor provides any defense for the barbarism which came to West 54th street on Wednesday.

It brings me today's poll question at smerconish.com, will the tasteless reaction of some to the murder of Brian Thompson nevertheless lead to positive change in the health insurance industry?

Joining me now in the underlying case is James Gagliano, a retired FBI Supervisory Special Agent.

Jimmy, nice to see you again. So many clues. His photograph, the cell phone, the bullet casings with markings, the water bottle, maybe with DNA, the tracking movements, the bus ride, now the backpack. What are you hearing from your law enforcement sources about how it all interlocks?

JAMES GAGLIANO, RETIRED FBI SUPERVISORY SPECIAL AGENT: Well, Michael, good to join you. And yes, what's going on right now is the nation and the world has been captivated by this. And I think your opening monologue described this. I mean, this has a potential nexus to terrorism. And why is that?

The definition of terrorism is violence or intimidation in order to coerce a government or in order to infect and change public policy. You know, this has all the stylings of like a 1940s, 1950s Cold War era film noir assassination, even down to the type of pistol that it's now being speculated the gunman used. There's been a lot of conversations and reports that this might have been a very rare pistol. It's a Swiss made VPN, which is a veterinary pistol. And it's designed for this type of use dating back to World War II, an assassination in broad daylight, essentially, it was early in the morning, but on a crowded street in Midtown Manhattan.

You laid it out perfectly. Latent fingerprints, DNA evidence, which we have now, which is probative evidence. The fact that New York City is blanketed, the island of Manhattan, 13 miles by two miles wide, it is blanketed by about 40,000 surveillance cameras. All these things and the information that's being pushed out right now by the NYPD is going to lead to the capture of this man.

SMERCONISH: That photograph from the hostel where he dropped his mask maybe in a flirtatious moment, you can recognize that individual if you know him, like somebody knows who he is. Do you think law enforcement know his identity now?

GAGLIANO: Well, it's possible. And look, law enforcement is letting information out as part of its job of crowdsourcing. So, put the picture out, see if somebody recognizes this individual, put out more information. We believe that he went into the 178th street bus terminal at Port Authority. We do not believe that he exited from there.

Port Authority that has buses that have a connection across the country. So they do not believe he may still be in the tri state area. And to your point, with facial recognition and the technologies we have here in the 21st century, the fact that vanity, vanity, Michael, maybe the undoing of this guy when he pulled down his mask to flirt and smirk at somebody, allows facial recognition technology. They do. Distance between eyes, the bridge of the nose, the mouth. Again, I think with the more information that's being released, they are going to catch this gentleman sooner as opposed to later.

SMERCONISH: I felt obligated in my setup to at least write in a paragraph that said maybe the gun casings are a ruse. I guess unlikely. But your thought on that issue.

GAGLIANO: I mean, absolutely. I mean that's, you know, the classic earmarkings of like a false flag operation where you do something to distract law enforcement, get them to look elsewhere.

Look, you know, there's obviously when you're trying to figure motivations, they're not required for prosecution, they're not required for indictment. But it's nice to know because it helps in the investigation. Law enforcement cannot get locked into one theory of the investigation. They've got to follow all the evidence bereft of fear favor. But man, Michael, to your point, it does look like somebody that was disgruntled, an activist.

And look, he, this person or whatever group, if there were any accomplices tried to do is to change public policy. Guess what? All the healthcare companies now are scrubbing their websites. No more bios and photographs of their CEOs. And you see some health insurance groups relooking at their policies and how they're denying coverages and putting pauses on things.

[09:10:18]

So in a sense, classic terrorist, you know, intent to force public policy change here.

SMERCONISH: James Gagliano, so great to have you back here. Thank you my friend.

GAGLIANO: Thanks for having me join, Michael.

SMERCONISH: I want to know what you think. Go to my website at smerconish.com, answer this week's poll question. Today's poll question, will the tasteless reaction of some to the murder of Brian Thompson nevertheless lead to positive change in the health insurance industry? From the world of X, what do we have?

We still don't know what prompted the assassin. Tasteless? Not when obscenely wealthy oligarchs rule the -- no, it is tasteless, Ann. We can have an adult conversation about the crisis in health insurance for so many people without using it as a -- it's sick without using it as a justification for taking the life of a 50-year-old married father of two. I mean, it's just twisted.

And everybody develops beer muscles like in the social media world. You know, they hide behind the cloak of anonymity and never do and say things that they would do to your face.

What are your thoughts? Hit me up on social media. I will read some responses throughout the course of the program. Keep them coming. Make sure you're voting.

Up ahead, Pete Hegseth will now undergo an FBI background check. So just how deep do investigators dig? We're talking to the lawyer that you'd want on your side if you ever have to go through this process.

And then from the Trump rallies to the football field, the song -- yes, there it is, YMCA back in the spotlight. Why is the song's writer taking some issue with how it's been characterized? He'll be here to talk about it. Make sure you're signing up for my newsletter at smerconish.com for which Scott Stantis just drew this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:16:32]

SMERCONISH: So let's talk about government background checks, a process that's been in place since the Eisenhower era. Donald Trump considered sidelining the traditional FBI vetting process for his nominees, calling it too slow and problematic. Alas, he came around this week, his transition team signed a memorandum of understanding with the Department of Justice, paving the way for FBI background checks on his nominees. Secretary of Defense nominee Pete Hegseth's lawyer confirmed to CNN that his client is starting that process.

So what's the goal of these checks? It's to protect classified information and reveal potential red flags like misconduct, foreign ties, financial vulnerabilities. If you've got red flags, they're going to be found. The process for national security positions is rigorous.

I took a look at the 136 page SF86 form this week. It triggers background investigations once it's filled out. And the SF86, it leaves no stone unturned in one's past. Check out, say, section 18 for relatives, you've got to give information on all the family members that apply, place of birth, citizenship status, current address, just to name a few. So, even family skeletons potentially come into play.

And just by looking at that one page, you might be reconsidering if you even want to go through this process and put your friends and family under the microscope.

Here to help us understand what's at stake, the guy you call to navigate this process, former CIA intelligence officer Andrew Bakaj. He's currently a founding and managing partner at the Compass Rose Legal Group, a law firm that specializes in security clearance, federal employment, and national security law. He's also affiliated with the legal nonprofit Whistleblower Aid, an organization that provides pro bono legal services. Andrew, where are we? Pete Hegseth and those at his level get all the attention. But what's the general state of affairs right now in terms of are the incoming administration members going through the usual process? Is your phone ringing off the hook as it normally would?

ANDREW P. BAKAJ, FORMER CIA OFFICER: I would say that things are moving as normal now. With respect to the senior appointees that the Trump administration is putting in, obviously now they're working with the FBI to have those investigators conduct deep background investigations on the nominees. But when it comes to regular federal employees, government contractors, who I typically represent, I don't see any changes for them.

SMERCONISH: The depth of that form, the SF86, I mean, it's onerous to fill it out. but once it gets delivered, it occurs to me, Andrew, it would require an entire team of individuals to go out into the field, right, and to investigate everything that's been determined or revealed in that form.

BAKAJ: Correct. What typically happens is that you have bits and pieces of the individual's background being investigated by different individuals. So, for example, you'll have a team looking at somebody's financial background to ensure that they don't have any outstanding, significant debts. You'll have individuals initially contacting your points of contact, who you list out on your SF86 to vet and determine who you are as an individual to see whether or not you have any sexual misconduct allegations against you, among other things. But they'll go one step further. They'll develop sources beyond that and talk to people who you didn't list on that form to determine who you really are and what your background is like and what your liabilities are.

SMERCONISH: Must you have been -- must you have been the proverbial choir boy in order to sustain and get through this process? Is there tolerance for a life with some indiscretion baked into the drill?

[09:20:02]

BAKAJ: We are all human beings, and that's part of the analysis. The question is not just whether or not somebody can be blackmailed. The question goes into their judgment, their reliability, their candor. So absolutely everybody may have some blemish in their background or have a family member who may have had their own indiscretions, but at the end of the day, what the investigators are trying to determine is who are you, what type of character you have, are you trustworthy? Because, for example, you can have an individual who may have a financial debt that's rather significant, but they want to know what got them into it.

Is it because of excessive gambling, or is it because of perhaps outstanding health care debts? The reason behind it matters, and that goes into the individual's trustworthiness and judgment.

SMERCONISH: You take a look at the Pete Hegseth case, and he denies much of that which has been written about him. But just assuming arguendo that which has been put in the public domain about him. If it weren't at the Secretary of Defense level, but some lower level individual who fills out the FS86 and has that type of content in it, are they getting through the process?

BAKAJ: I would say that it would be quite challenging for that individual to get through the process given the allegations that have already been brought forward, assuming that they're true. The fact that his mother had written the e-mail to him underscoring and corroborating those allegations is problematic. I would caution a client with that kind of a background to expect any favorable outcome in their case.

SMERCONISH: Andrew Bakaj, thank you for that. I appreciate it very much.

BAKAJ: Absolutely. Thank you for having me on.

SMERCONISH: Via social media, what has come in? By the way, I am on all the social media platforms. I know we rely heavily on Twitter, now known as X. You can find me -- oh, you ready for this? You can find me on Bluesky.

Oh, my God. You can find me on Truth Social. I think I have three followers there. Point is, you can find me wherever you want to find me.

Now back to this, Brian, both of the last two presidents have asserted that the justice system has been politicized. Until that is corrected, how can we trust anything that they do?

Listen, this is the reason why I don't want to see President Biden issue preemptive pardons. Because the perception is this has all been so politicized and that there's no differentiation between politics and the law. And if preemptive pardons are now given to Anthony Fauci, Adam Schiff, Liz Cheney. By the way, I got to believe if I'm Anthony Fauci, I'm like, don't give me a preemptive pardon. I didn't do anything wrong.

Why would you? I don't even want it. People are going to think that something went on here that didn't. But I don't want to see that process continue because I think that it'll just foster this narrative among the public that, it's all political.

Some of it has been political. Don't get me wrong. I want to remind you, go to my website at smerconish.com, answer today's poll question. I can't wait to see how this one turns out. Will the tasteless reaction of some to the murder of Brian Thompson nevertheless lead to positive change in the health insurance industry?

Still to come, will DNA evidence finally be the key to solving the decades old JonBenet Ramsey case that gripped our nation? Have you seen the documentary on Netflix? It's amazing. And John Ramsey will be here with the director in a moment.

And the original YMCA, it got Trump dancing. It hit number one after 45 years. Now the song's writer from the Village People has a message that could change everything. Why he's calling out news outlets and even the President-elect. That's next. Make sure you're signing up for my free daily newsletter at smerconish.com. Steve Breen, oh, come on, come on, look at that. What a brilliant cartoon.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:28:18]

(MUSIC)

SMERCONISH: So that was the original YMCA released in 1978. Bringing back some memories, right? Since then, it's been a staple on playlists and pretty much any kind of celebration you can think of. The popular song was played at several of President-elect Donald Trump's rallies. He put his own twist on it, of course.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(MUSIC)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: Yes, I want to get in on this. Can you put that camera on me? I don't know if he deserves the credit for it. I'm just saying that has always been my move. And I'm not so sure Trump beat me to it.

In fact, Billy Crystal, do you remember in "When Harry Met Sally," the white man's overbite? That's what he's doing there. It's now spread to sports, the move on the soccer pitch to the football field, all over the place.

The YMCA resurgence is here. And the song's writer and lead singer of the Village People, Victor Willis, took notice, writing on Facebook, quote, "YMCA has benefited greatly from use by the president-elect. The song finally made it to number one on the Billboard chart after over 45 years and held on to number one for two weeks due to the president-elect's use. The financial benefits have been great as well as Y.M.C.A. is estimated to gross several million dollars since the president-elect's continued use of the song. Therefore, I'm glad I allowed the president-elect's continued use of Y.M.C.A. And I thank him for choosing to use my song."

Then Willis takes issue with a few other things, including referencing the song as a gay anthem which president-elect Trump has also done.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENT-ELECT OF THE UNITED STATES: Y.M.C.A., the gay national anthem. Did you ever hear that? They call it the gay national anthem.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: Well, come 2025, even the president could get sued for that. Willis, writing on his Facebook, quote, "So to the extent that Y.M.C.A. is considered a gay anthem based on the fact that gays once used certain YMCAs for illicit activity, the assumption that the song alludes to that is completely misguided. Therefore, since I wrote the lyrics and ought to know what the lyrics I wrote are (ph) really about, come January 2025, my wife will start suing each and every news organization that falsely refers to Y.M.C.A., either in their headlines or alluded to it. In the base of that story, that Y.M.C.A. is somehow a gay anthem because such notion is based solely on the song's lyrics alluding to illicit activity for which it does not. However, I don't mind that gays think of the song as their anthem."

SMERCONISH: Wow. A lot to unpack. Let's ask Victor Willis, the writer of Y.M.C.A., the lead singer of the -- oh, come on, come on. You look awesome. You look awesome.

VICTOR WILLIS, LEAD SINGER, VILLAGE PEOPLE: Thank you.

SMERCONISH: All right. I'm loving it already. I lost -- I lost my train of thought, by the way, just looking at you. So, first of all, what's the beef? Like I can today say it's the gay anthem, but you're going to sue me on CNN if I say that in January?

WILLIS: Well, no. I do think the gay community should be aware that the lyrics are not referring to what they believe the lyrics are referring to that would make the song, in their minds, a gay anthem. Such as illicit activity at the Y.

No, I wouldn't be suing you over it. So don't trip.

SMERCONISH: OK. So, you wrote the lyrics. What's the song about?

WILLIS: Well, the song is about my growing up experiences in San Francisco, in the urban area, where I used to go to the Y. We used to play basketball, and we play -- we play sports.

And me and my boys, we used to use the expression, hanging out with the boys. So, we'd hang out at the Y, and we had various basketball teams from the city after school. And we'd go there and swim and go to the gym and et cetera. And that's basically what the song was about. Then I was writing about my experiences at the Y growing up in San Francisco as a youth.

SMERCONISH: So, Victor, this seems like a pure Trump capitalism story. Initially, you had a beef with him using it, and then it sounds like you started to ring the register and you're like, what the hell. Let him do it.

WILLIS: Well, that was not -- the money was really not the reason that I allowed him to do it. The reason that I allowed the president-elect to continue to use Y.M.C.A. is because it seemed that he genuinely liked the song, and there were so many other artists that were stopping him from playing their music.

So, I am -- I called the BMI and I advised them to not to take away his -- to not to terminate his political use license, and that -- to let him do that, let him continue using the song because it was bringing so much joy to the American public each time that he used the song Y.M.C.A. SMERCONISH: So, I don't know if you have what we call return. If you've been able to see what we've been showing while you've been with me, but we've been showing him, you know, doing the dance. Will you talk to me and evaluate the moves that he's got while dancing to the song that you wrote?

WILLIS: Well, the moves are his or as you expressed, they were yours, possibly, you said before. But when we do the show, we spell the letters Y.M.C.A. out. He does what works for him and evidently the people like it. So, it's OK. He gets an A from me.

SMERCONISH: Listen, I love the song. I think the song is a unifier. You know, anytime that I talk about the president-elect, you get people complaining this side, that side.

And if there's something that can bring people together and everybody can get on their feet, then I think it's a good thing. Just don't sue me in 2025 if I call it the gay anthem.

[09:35:02]

OK?

WILLIS: Oh, I don't -- I don't mind people calling it the gay -- a gay anthem. It's just the thing that was -- like I said, that's very important is that the gay community understands that the song was not written to be a gay anthem for them.

If they want to call it a gay anthem, that's OK. I don't mind people calling it a gay anthem. The situation gets into the way that when the media refers to it as a gay anthem, that it kind of throws the thing into a loop, that's the thing that disturbs me.

I mean, you know, you don't -- you don't call just because let's say -- let's say Elton John -- says he's gay, because of his songs. They don't say, well, they are -- they are gay -- it's gay because somebody in the group like some of the members of the group are gay or whatever, I would -- I would admit that at the first, the album that we did was basically about the gay lifestyle. That was the first album, but I didn't write it. But so, then when --

SMERCONISH: Hey, not that there's --

WILLISS: -- I got ready to do the second album -- go ahead. I'm sorry.

SMERCONISH: Not that there's anything -- I say, not that there's anything wrong with it. Let's just end on this note. You look awesome and I'm glad that you came dressed for the show. Thank you for that.

WILLIS: Thank you so much.

SMERCONISH: Still to come, the case has remained unsolved for 28 years. Now, a new Netflix series stirring up questions about DNA evidence and why there's still no convictions. The director of the series and JonBenet Ramsey's father, John Ramsey, join me next. Don't forget to vote on today's poll question at Smerconish.com. com. Will the tasteless reaction of some to the murder of Brian Thompson nevertheless lead to positive change in the health insurance industry?

And while you're there, sign up for the newsletter. It's free. It's worthy. Jack Ohman drew for us this week CNN.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:41:20]

SMERCONISH: There's a new Netflix docuseries and it's terrific. It's reigniting public interest around a murder case still unsolved after nearly three decades.

JonBenet Ramsey was a six-year-old girl killed in her Colorado home in December of 1996. John and Patsy Ramsey woke up the day after Christmas to find their daughter gone. A handwritten ransom note left on the stairs. Later that day, her body discovered in the basement. Her parents were cleared as suspects in 2008. Nobody has ever been charged in connection with the case.

The new documentary is called "Cold Case: Who Killed JonBenet Ramsey." Questions whether new DNA technology could help police solve the kindergarten's mysterious murder. It's also pointing out some alarming missteps in the handling of the crime scene.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Boulder police department made a lot of mistakes early on in this case.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Was there a concern that some crucial evidence might have been lost?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That lack of experience created a lot of problems in the crime scene.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There is evidence of an intruder. I say this over and over and over again.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If this case is ever going to be solved, we might be looking at the best chance right now.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We've been ruling people out for the wrong reasons. Everybody should be back on the table. We have to go deeper.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: Joe Berlinger is the director of this series. He joins me now along with John Ramsey, the father of JonBenet. John Ramsey, we're having this conversation against the backdrop of this New York city execution of a health care CEO. I'm convinced they're going to get this guy. So much evidence, so much technology, DNA evidence and cameras.

If this crime -- it's no consolation. But if this crime had been committed today, you'd have to think it would be resolved quickly.

JOHN RAMSEY, FATHER OF JONBENET RAMSEY: Yes, I was told certainly early on by experienced homicide detectives that this would not have been a difficult case to solve, even back in 1997. The problem was we were dealing with an inexperienced police department who refused help and that's been the case up until recently. So, it's been very frustrating.

SMERCONISH: I'm not going to ask you for a name, John Ramsey, because that might put somebody else in the position that, unfortunately, you and your wife were for so long. But having watched the three-part documentary I'm curious to know, do you think you know who killed your daughter?

RAMSEY: You know, no, I don't. You know, there's been a profile developed by the FBI and I subscribed to it. This was a very evil psychopathic sadistic person. I don't know anybody like that. So, no, I don't.

And, you know, I could give you four or five circumstantial descriptions of people and you'd say, oh, man that sure looks like he could be the killer. But we can't rush to judgment.

What's been interesting to me are these old cold cases that have been solved using familial genealogy research. The suspect is eventually arrested, and charged, has come out of left field. No, nobody -- he was on no one's radar for 40 years, 30 years? Bingo, they find him.

So, I don't know. And I don't want to rush to judgment on people that I think are interesting.

SMERCONISH: Joe Berlinger, I think of a woman named CeCe Moore who has been a guest of mine on this program. She's a genetic detective. Are you optimistic that retesting of the DNA there is DNA in this case that was found at the crime scene might finally resolve it?

[09:45:06]

And what is happening if we know with that DNA?

JOE BERLINGER, DIRECTOR, NETFLIX DOCUSERIES "COLD CASE, WHO KILLED JONBENET RAMSEY: Well, there is DNA evidence that we think should be retested. Whether that leads to the killer or not, who's to say? But as John just mentioned, genetic genealogist, Cece, you know, has been terrific at that. And that technology has led to the solving of the Green River Killer, the Golden State Killer, and Boulder police -- we don't know if they're doing it. And I think they don't owe me, a documentarian, an explanation, but they certainly owe this man, John Ramsey, an explanation as to what they are doing. And it's been very vague.

And this guy was brutalized, Mr. Ramsey and his family, by a police department that didn't really know what it was doing at the time, and made lots of mistakes and fed false stories to the press. And the press ran with it, and implicated Mr. Ramsey and the family for a long time. They owe today, in 2025, an explanation. But there is a DNA sample. Benet's blood was mixed with a foreign unidentified -- by foreign, we mean non-family member. But there's -- there's a piece of DNA that has an unidentified male suspect mixed with the blood of JonBenet -- sorry to be so graphic, but that -- those samples can be separated now with technology and have a much better profile of the unidentified male and we feed that into genetic investigative genealogy and hopefully we have a hit, but we won't know unless they do it.

SMERCONISH: John Ramsey, having watched the three-part Netflix docuseries, which I highly recommend, and by the way, I told Joe I wasn't prepared to get sucked into this, but once I started, I couldn't stop watching it.

I came away with this feeling that it was a pedophile who came out of the pageant community but yet that seems at odds with the detail in the ransom note. The $118,000 -- I don't know how to square the two. It seems so personal against you on one hand. And then on the other hand, I say it was -- it was just some terrible person who got swept into JonBenet's world because of seeing her in pageants. Quick thought from you?

RAMSEY: The profile that I subscribed to, which was developed by the FBI and very competent people said this Jon -- this was not about JonBenet. This was about you. Someone wanted to hurt you deeply. They were either angry at you or jealous -- or jealous of you.

And it was that was a difficult pill to swallow. But I think that is the profile. And you mix that with a, you know, past behavior of -- psychotic behavior and that's who we're looking for.

SMERCONISH: I hope they catch the killer of your daughter. I don't believe that it was you. And I feel sorry for all the years you and your late wife had to endure that cloud of suspicion.

And one last thing. And I admire the fact that you're giving of your time to the documentary to come on this show, to talk about it, and never giving up hope and resolve that they solve this case. Good luck.

RAMSEY: I believe -- I believe it can be solved if we do the things that we're asking.

SMERCONISH: Yes, from your lips, as they say. Joe, thank you. You still have time to vote on today's poll question at Smerconish.com. Go to my Web site and answer this. Will the tasteless reaction of some the murder of Brian Thompson nevertheless lead to positive change in the health insurance industry?

Subscribe to my newsletter when you're there. It's free and its worthy and you'll get editorial cartoons like this with which Rob Rogers drew for us this week.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:53:18] SMERCONISH: OK. There's the voting so far on today's poll question. It's a little depressing of an answer, 30,337 votes cast. Will the tasteless reaction of some to the murder of Brian Thompson nevertheless lead to positive change in the health insurance industry?

And nearly 80 percent are saying, no. I hope it sparks a healthy conversation notwithstanding that much of that social media reaction has just been despicable. Social media reaction to this program, hopefully not despicable. What do we have so far?

If you don't hear the Y.M.C.A. played at a wedding reception, do the bride and groom really have a chance at happiness --

How many times -- put that camera on me? Come on, how many times, right? It was me before it was Trump. That's my only beef is that he's not the -- yes, it's all I know. You know, all I know is that move.

One more social media reaction. What else do we have?

Another example of a biased media combined with faulty police work. I think with recent DNA evidence -- this must be about the Ramsey case. This will finally be solved and the family will have peace.

I sure hope that's the case. This Netflix documentary is so well done. You know, like Netflix has my number and they say, oh, you're going to love this. This is for you. And I'm like, I think, I know everything I need to know about this case. And then I started to watch it and I'm heartbroken for John Ramsey.

I probably, like many others, you know, back in the day said things that I regret and thought things that I shouldn't have thought because of the way that case was presented. But I believe that he and his wife had nothing to do with it. And I'm optimistic that, like CeCe Moore, if you're out there, CeCe, go solve the Ramsey case.

[09:55:01]

Finally, a thank you. Regular viewers know that I dispatch a free daily newsletter every day. It's my passion project. It includes exclusive content and editorial cartoons from prize winning illustrators.

And several months ago, we realized, hey, this content would make for a great coffee table book. Recreating in chronological order the images that came to define the most unpredictable election of any of our lives. That's me with Bob Tursack, the printer.

That was the idea behind what came to be called Smercomics 2024. It features the work of Jack Ohman, Rob Rogers, Steve Breen, and Scott Stantis. These books are all sold out. As a matter of fact, they begin shipment next week.

But last night my wife and I were being honored by a Philadelphia charity called the Children's Crisis Treatment Center, CCTC. They do God's work. And at the event, I was able to present to CCTC a donation representing 100 percent of the profits from sale of the book, $185,251, which I rounded up to 200 grand.

So, I most want to say if you bought one of the books -- and this is copy number one. I haven't even had the chance to look through it. I was handed the book last night. But if you bought one of the books, thank you. Together we've done some good.

I'll see you next week.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)