Burke Files 150 Million Dollar Lawsuit Against Werner Sptiz???

[UKGuy]

I'm not convinced Burke even knows he's guilty. As a 9 year old who was then told and saw all sorts of stories about JBR's death, a young impressionable mind can create new memories that are just as real as the true memories.

Tawny,
BBM: Now we are talking. False Memory Syndrome is a recognized condition. Some parents have been jailed on the basis of false memories.

Assuming that BR underwent some form of psychological therapy, its entirely possible that false memories were deliberately planted in his mind, more so if the case is either JDI or PDI, since they would have to cover their backs.

BR has transitioned from being asleep all night to being awake during the 911 call.

It might be that one day he is hypnotized to recover any lost memories, or he might go through life believing what you heard on the Dr Phil Show: I know they think I did it

.

 

[singularity]

"Now Spitz has reportedly filed a motion asking for the court to dismiss the lawsuit, citing his constitutional right to present theories as well as discuss his opinion on the unsolved murder.
.

Mr. Spitz went beyond just "presenting theories" and he knows it. So does everyone who watched the show or listened to those programs.


Tortoise...

I don't know, but my feeling was he was trying to prove that BDI. I could be totally wrong on his rights to opine. I would say, judging by the people who flocked here during and after the airing of the programme, and the voting in the poll on the BDI thread that was set up after the programme, that a lot of people were influenced by it, so it may have damaged his reputation. It didn't seem to be balanced, in fact, there is one instance where I can see that the producers manipulated a piece of video footage for their own theory. That is the programme though, and not Spitz.

Absolutely. It was entertainment pushed as a factual piece that would "reveal her killer" and they did it for ratings and controversy. Now that its over, they want to go back to business as usual. CBS itself was smart and told people in the fine print that it was just a theory like any other but as we know, it went too far.

Next time they accuse someone.... I have a feeling they'll accuse someone with a bit more evidence to back it up.

As far as the content of the show, I wanted to vomit when they acted like they themselves were listening to the enhanced version of the 911 call for the first time and were deciphering it. LIke I said, this show was nothing but entertainment. Had nothing to do with trying to solve the crime. If it did, they would have shown a lot more evidence than they did. I've seen IDI shows inform the audience of more evidence than this show did.

What makes it so bad is this was the series the world was going to focus on. It was the perfect opportunity to show the world how much evidence does point to the family's involvement. Instead it was a miniature cherry picking to finger Burke for controversy and to trend on social media.

It took the case two steps back. Thanks CBS.

Miz....

The trial could not happen. The DA knew the culprit was too young to be named, and this is why he was unable to sign the final Indictment that would have put the Ramseys on the stand.

Had nothing to do with Hunter not signing anything. Patsy herself could have got in his face and confessed and he still wouldn't have moved.

You're giving Hunter a free pass on the corruption. He doesn't deserve a free pass.

Do I feel bad for BR in some ways? Yes, I do, but he is not the victim of this story- it's his 6 year old baby sister, JBR.

If he had nothing to do with her murder(and there aint much evidence showing he did), he is most certainly a surviving victim of that dysfunctional household and by being accused of murdering her, he continues to be a victim.


Tortoise....

Have you found in there the part where it says the parents couldn't be charged?


I'll take the silence as a no. The law doesn't say that.

Those GJ bills and the CO laws in general can be debated every which way but loose. Cherry picking til the cows come home. I wish we could get more conrete info on this issue so this theory can finally be put out to pasture. I'll wager we get it if this case goes to trial. I cant stand LW but agree with him on this issue. I'm actually surprised LW would be so hot to go after anyone accusing Burke as it keeps peoples eye off the ball although I'm sure he'd rather people focus on phantom intruders instead. Any focus on Burke gets people a step closer to where it belongs.

I'd love to be a fly on the wall in John's house when this hoopla started this year. He's probably laughing.

Oh as far as any silence from members go, shouldn't assume silence always means people intentionaly ignore posts. I cant speak for anyone else but there seems to be a glitch where the site sometimes times me out and new posts/threads will no longer come up as new. THis means I have to go backwards through some threads to see unread posts and sometimes it gets tedious and I just stop. I assume this happens to others as well.





Dexter...

I agree with you guys.

But imo.

Would a guilty Burke sue if he knew that he was guilty. Or wouldn't he just stay mum?

So why would Burke sue if he was guilty?

If he was guilty he would've kept his mouth shut. No one but some sleuths on the net were wanting to hear anything from him. He was living a private life and all coming forward would do is put the spotlight on him. I'm glad he did but the response he got from doing it pretty much guarantees we wont be hearing from him again for a very long time and that is unfortunate. There is still more he could've revealed but due to being pegged as the killer since people(including certain media outlets striving for ratings) ran out of musical chair suspects, he wont be saying anything.

Harmony....

Burke said himself on Dr. Phil that there is no evidence directly linking him to the murder,

Yeah and he's right.

so the best Spitz can show is that he is a damned good suspect.

Unfortunately for Spitz that's not all he did.

I wonder why CBS hasn't been sued yet.

GIve it time. The fine print claiming it was just a theory like any other might save them in the long run though. They don't care either way. They already got what they wanted out of it. They've moved on to the next big ratings bonanza.


UK.....

its entirely possible that false memories were deliberately planted in his mind, more so if the case is either JDI or PDI, since they would have to cover their backs.

We're gaslighting Burke now?

 

[kanzz]

Mr. Spitz went beyond just "presenting theories" and he knows it. So does everyone who watched the show or listened to those programs.

Tortoise...

Absolutely. It was entertainment pushed as a factual piece that would "reveal her killer" and they did it for ratings and controversy. Now that its over, they want to go back to business as usual. CBS itself was smart and told people in the fine print that it was just a theory like any other but as we know, it went too far.

Next time they accuse someone.... I have a feeling they'll accuse someone with a bit more evidence to back it up.

As far as the content of the show, I wanted to vomit when they acted like they themselves were listening to the enhanced version of the 911 call for the first time and were deciphering it. LIke I said, this show was nothing but entertainment. Had nothing to do with trying to solve the crime. If it did, they would have shown a lot more evidence than they did. I've seen IDI shows inform the audience of more evidence than this show did.

What makes it so bad is this was the series the world was going to focus on. It was the perfect opportunity to show the world how much evidence does point to the family's involvement. Instead it was a miniature cherry picking to finger Burke for controversy and to trend on social media.

It took the case two steps back. Thanks CBS.

Miz....


Had nothing to do with Hunter not signing anything. Patsy herself could have got in his face and confessed and he still wouldn't have moved.

You're giving Hunter a free pass on the corruption. He doesn't deserve a free pass.


If he had nothing to do with her murder(and there aint much evidence showing he did), he is most certainly a surviving victim of that dysfunctional household and by being accused of murdering her, he continues to be a victim.


Tortoise....

Those GJ bills and the CO laws in general can be debated every which way but loose. Cherry picking til the cows come home. I wish we could get more conrete info on this issue so this theory can finally be put out to pasture. I'll wager we get it if this case goes to trial. I cant stand LW but agree with him on this issue. I'm actually surprised LW would be so hot to go after anyone accusing Burke as it keeps peoples eye off the ball although I'm sure he'd rather people focus on phantom intruders instead. Any focus on Burke gets people a step closer to where it belongs.

I'd love to be a fly on the wall in John's house when this hoopla started this year. He's probably laughing.

Oh as far as any silence from members go, shouldn't assume silence always means people intentionaly ignore posts. I cant speak for anyone else but there seems to be a glitch where the site sometimes times me out and new posts/threads will no longer come up as new. THis means I have to go backwards through some threads to see unread posts and sometimes it gets tedious and I just stop. I assume this happens to others as well.


Dexter...


If he was guilty he would've kept his mouth shut. No one but some sleuths on the net were wanting to hear anything from him. He was living a private life and all coming forward would do is put the spotlight on him. I'm glad he did but the response he got from doing it pretty much guarantees we wont be hearing from him again for a very long time and that is unfortunate. There is still more he could've revealed but due to being pegged as the killer since people(including certain media outlets striving for ratings) ran out of musical chair suspects, he wont be saying anything.

Harmony....


Yeah and he's right.


Unfortunately for Spitz that's not all he did.

GIve it time. The fine print claiming it was just a theory like any other might save them in the long run though. They don't care either way. They already got what they wanted out of it. They've moved on to the next big ratings bonanza.


UK.....

We're gaslighting Burke now?

Just a reminder: This lawsuit is not about the CBS TV show. It's about a radio interview.

And regarding what UKGuy said - you snipped this: "False Memory Syndrome is a recognized condition." ​So, no.. Not gaslighting, imo

 

[Tawny]

We're gaslighting Burke now?

No, the implication would be that his parents were gaslighting him.

 

[HarmonyE.]

Says singularity

If he was guilty he would've kept his mouth shut.

You think Patsy did it. Why didn't she keep her mouth shut then? Why did she participate in the civil suits against various parties who so much as hinted RDI?

 

[kanzz]

No, the implication would be that his parents were gaslighting him.

Good point, Tawny. Gaslighting isn't really done indirectly. It's something that is perpetrated directly on a victim. We aren't talking to BR, we're just discussing him. And BR is not our victim. I don't know why anybody would defend any R.

 

[singularity]

Says singularity

You think Patsy did it. Why didn't she keep her mouth shut then? ?

I know you understand the difference between the 9 year old child who was shielded from day one and continued to be silent for 20 years and the mother who was a high profile suspect number one on a global scale from day one.

Its apples and bowling balls.

 

[TeaTime]

All the CBS documentary did was show that a 10 year old (and for all physical purposes, BR was 10) COULD fracture a 6.5 year old's skull with a Maglight. But, Dr. Phil told us that JR used a flashlight to put BR to bed and BR himself told us he got up by himself after everyone was asleep and at the time when the pineapple eating and head bashing would be happening.

So, for me, he can not be dismissed as the one who struck the deadly blow and is in the group of 3 who are suspects.

 

[HarmonyE.]

I know you understand the difference between the 9 year old child who was shielded from day one and continued to be silent for 20 years and the mother who was a high profile suspect number one on a global scale from day one.

Its apples and bowling balls.

You have a habit of cherry picking comments from multiple posters and then quoting them out of context in one huge post.

So I'll have to reset.

I explained above why I believe Burke would quite happily sue Spitz even though guilty in answer to that direct question by another poster.

1) It's been the MO of the family since the beginning, Patsy included. When threatened with someone poking at the truth they sue them and then settle (for unknown amounts) and then falsely claim they "won" the suit. This also had a chilling effect on others who might have facts about the family but opted to stay quiet rather than be sued. Burke is 30 now so he has to put on his big boy bloomies and file under his own name although he's still being counseled by his parents' attorneys.

2) Also as explained above, Burke doesn't have much to lose by suing as he can't be arrested if the discovery reveals very damning information. And as all of the prior civil litigation has resulted in settlements (likely for the reasons I also explained - reasons that have nothing to do with anyone actually slandering any Ramsey), he is no doubt hoping - expecting? - that Spitz will do a cost analysis and settle out for less than the cost of the defense. Another potential Ramsey windfall with no trial and hence, no downside. He also has the power to suspend or withdraw his suit if he doesn't like the way things are going.

You stated 'If he was guilty he would've kept his mouth shut" with no further explanation. He went on Dr. Phil in an effort to get in front of the CBS show, not, as claimed, to "honor the memory" of his little sister with the funny droopy eye in her coffin. It backfired of course, mostly because he didn't honor her in any way but instead smiled and giggled about the whole sordid matter. And the fact that he did such a lengthy interview (possibly for considerable compensation) will harm his chances to show he isn't a public figure, thereby making his defamation bar that much higher. So he and Daddy and Lin must have been very worried about that CBS show.

So please, without simply resorting to apples and bowling ball analogies, what exactly are you basing your "he would have kept mouth shut if he was guilty" statement on?

 

[DexterMorgan]

You have a habit of cherry picking comments from multiple posters and then quoting them out of context in one huge post.

So I'll have to reset.

I explained above why I believe Burke would quite happily sue Spitz even though guilty in answer to that direct question by another poster.

1) It's been the MO of the family since the beginning, Patsy included. When threatened with someone poking at the truth they sue them and then settle (for unknown amounts) and then falsely claim they "won" the suit. This also had a chilling effect on others who might have facts about the family but opted to stay quiet rather than be sued. Burke is 30 now so he has to put on his big boy bloomies and file under his own name although he's still being counseled by his parents' attorneys.

2) Also as explained above, Burke doesn't have much to lose by suing as he can't be arrested if the discovery reveals very damning information. And as all of the prior civil litigation has resulted in settlements (likely for the reasons I also explained - reasons that have nothing to do with anyone actually slandering any Ramsey), he is no doubt hoping - expecting? - that Spitz will do a cost analysis and settle out for less than the cost of the defense. Another potential Ramsey windfall with no trial and hence, no downside. He also has the power to suspend or withdraw his suit if he doesn't like the way things are going.

You stated 'If he was guilty he would've kept his mouth shut" with no further explanation. He went on Dr. Phil in an effort to get in front of the CBS show, not, as claimed, to "honor the memory" of his little sister with the funny droopy eye in her coffin. It backfired of course, mostly because he didn't honor her in any way but instead smiled and giggled about the whole sordid matter. And the fact that he did such a lengthy interview (possibly for considerable compensation) will harm his chances to show he isn't a public figure, thereby making his defamation bar that much higher. So he and Daddy and Lin must have been very worried about that CBS show.

So please, without simply resorting to apples and bowling ball analogies, what exactly are you basing your "he would have kept mouth shut if he was guilty" statement on?

I agree.

Now suing Spitz is one thing. Especially once Spitz analyze his finances.

But if they continue to sue CBS; Then they should prepare to analyze their own finances. Because CBS has money. Plus they have decades of information on this case and the players involved.

So Burke should just stick with suing Spitz for now.

 

[HarmonyE.]

I agree.

Now suing Spitz is one thing. Especially once Spitz analyze his finances.

But if they continue to sue CBS; Then they should prepare to analyze their own finances. Because CBS has money. Plus they have decades of information on this case and the players involved.

So Burke should just stick with suing Spitz for now.

I think you are exactly right. Suing Spitz is relatively easy. If Spitz settles for any amount of money to avoid the huge defense costs he might need to incur to defend himself, we'll, as usual, hear the crowing about how Burke "won" the case. See! Burke must be totally innocent, just like the DAs said! Suing CBS is another matter, especially as they've been pretty emphatic that they will not settle, and it wouldn't shock me if that never happens.

 

[madeleine]

Of course I am pissed. I felt that all this media madness will end up like this. What really ticks me off abouy this motion is that it sounds like a freaking excuse!!

And if you were only speculating why make such a big fuss about it and RUIN a young mans reputation. He is innocent until proven guilty.

Not having any hopes re a cbs suit either.

The Ramseys always win. End of story.I thought it is because L. Wood is so brilliant. NO. It is because he has no opponents. They are all a bunch of cowards.

 

[madeleine]

Mr. Spitz went beyond just "presenting theories" and he knows it. So does everyone who watched the show or listened to those programs.


Tortoise...

Absolutely. It was entertainment pushed as a factual piece that would "reveal her killer" and they did it for ratings and controversy. Now that its over, they want to go back to business as usual. CBS itself was smart and told people in the fine print that it was just a theory like any other but as we know, it went too far.

Next time they accuse someone.... I have a feeling they'll accuse someone with a bit more evidence to back it up.

As far as the content of the show, I wanted to vomit when they acted like they themselves were listening to the enhanced version of the 911 call for the first time and were deciphering it. LIke I said, this show was nothing but entertainment. Had nothing to do with trying to solve the crime. If it did, they would have shown a lot more evidence than they did. I've seen IDI shows inform the audience of more evidence than this show did.

What makes it so bad is this was the series the world was going to focus on. It was the perfect opportunity to show the world how much evidence does point to the family's involvement. Instead it was a miniature cherry picking to finger Burke for controversy and to trend on social media.

It took the case two steps back. Thanks CBS.

Very well said.

 

[madeleine]

IMO they should have worked on proving RDI. That is something you can prove. Instead they went for which R did it and it was a huge mistake. There is simply not enough evidence to tell who did what. The evidence which shows who did what was probably not collected and the right questions weren' t asked during interviews.

 

[Miz Adventure]

You have a habit of cherry picking comments from multiple posters and then quoting them out of context in one huge post.

So I'll have to reset.

I explained above why I believe Burke would quite happily sue Spitz even though guilty in answer to that direct question by another poster.

1) It's been the MO of the family since the beginning, Patsy included. When threatened with someone poking at the truth they sue them and then settle (for unknown amounts) and then falsely claim they "won" the suit. This also had a chilling effect on others who might have facts about the family but opted to stay quiet rather than be sued. Burke is 30 now so he has to put on his big boy bloomies and file under his own name although he's still being counseled by his parents' attorneys.

2) Also as explained above, Burke doesn't have much to lose by suing as he can't be arrested if the discovery reveals very damning information. And as all of the prior civil litigation has resulted in settlements (likely for the reasons I also explained - reasons that have nothing to do with anyone actually slandering any Ramsey), he is no doubt hoping - expecting? - that Spitz will do a cost analysis and settle out for less than the cost of the defense. Another potential Ramsey windfall with no trial and hence, no downside. He also has the power to suspend or withdraw his suit if he doesn't like the way things are going.

You stated 'If he was guilty he would've kept his mouth shut" with no further explanation. He went on Dr. Phil in an effort to get in front of the CBS show, not, as claimed, to "honor the memory" of his little sister with the funny droopy eye in her coffin. It backfired of course, mostly because he didn't honor her in any way but instead smiled and giggled about the whole sordid matter. And the fact that he did such a lengthy interview (possibly for considerable compensation) will harm his chances to show he isn't a public figure, thereby making his defamation bar that much higher. So he and Daddy and Lin must have been very worried about that CBS show.

So please, without simply resorting to apples and bowling ball analogies, what exactly are you basing your "he would have kept mouth shut if he was guilty" statement on?

An excellent post, HarmonyE.

I think that BR's lawyers have no intention of putting him on the stand. This case will (I am certain) either be thrown out (please!) or settled out of court.

It makes me sick to think that the R's coffers will, once again, be brimming over with money - more than enough to sue the next person who dares to say anything that might resemble the truth about what happened that night.

 

[OliviaG1996]

Of course I am pissed. I felt that all this media madness will end up like this. What really ticks me off abouy this motion is that it sounds like a freaking excuse!!

And if you were only speculating why make such a big fuss about it and RUIN a young mans reputation. He is innocent until proven guilty.

Not having any hopes re a cbs suit either.

The Ramseys always win. End of story.I thought it is because L. Wood is so brilliant. NO. It is because he has no opponents. They are all a bunch of cowards.

No one ruined BR's reputation but BR himself. Same goes for PR and JR.

 

[kanzz]

Of course I am pissed. I felt that all this media madness will end up like this. What really ticks me off abouy this motion is that it sounds like a freaking excuse!!

And if you were only speculating why make such a big fuss about it and RUIN a young mans reputation. He is innocent until proven guilty.

Not having any hopes re a cbs suit either.

The Ramseys always win. End of story.I thought it is because L. Wood is so brilliant. NO. It is because he has no opponents. They are all a bunch of cowards.

IMO they should have worked on proving RDI. That is something you can prove. Instead they went for which R did it and it was a huge mistake. There is simply not enough evidence to tell who did what. The evidence which shows who did what was probably not collected and the right questions weren' t asked during interviews.​

BBM

IMO -this seems to be incongruous.

Basically, they are all innocent until proven guilty. But that wasn't a court of law. Just a TV program with experts wo presented their theory.

And again: This lawsuit is not about the CBS TV program. It's about a radio interview.

Besides, BR ruined his own reputation on the Phil show. Phil, who has the same attorney as BR and JR, let's not forget. Phil, who showed the interview of BR at the Child Advocacy Center in Niwot for all to see. Wow! That sure didn't do BR any favors. Not the video of BR at nearly 10 years old, and not him on Phil, either.

​

 

[madeleine]

No one ruined BR's reputation but BR himself. Same goes for PR and JR.

Yes they exposed themselves and no one forced them to. But that wasn't the point. The point is all the experts bragging about revealing the killer and you'd think such experts judge based on facts and now their excuse is hey we were speculating and playing media games! They called him a KILLER based on...what exactly??

You can't prove which R did it based on the known facts.

 

[OliviaG1996]

Yes they exposed themselves and no one forced them to. But that wasn't the point. The point is all the experts bragging about revealing the killer and you'd think such experts judge based on facts and now their excuse is hey we were speculating and playing media games! They called him a KILLER based on...what exactly??

You can't prove which R did it based on the known facts.

I understand, but I don't think what CBS or Spitz said is any different than what ST and others have said over the years, which is state their firm belief on who killed JBR based on the evidence available to them. Again, there is a lot of evidence not available to us. Hopefully Kolar's book update will shed some more light on this.

 

[Miz Adventure]

Yes they exposed themselves and no one forced them to. But that wasn't the point. The point is all the experts bragging about revealing the killer and you'd think such experts judge based on facts and now their excuse is hey we were speculating and playing media games! They called him a KILLER based on...what exactly??

You can't prove which R did it based on the known facts.

How would it be possible to prove it?

As far as I can see the closest thing to actual proof that PR was involved was that fibres from her red and black jacket (the one she had been wearing to the White's party) were found adhering to the sticky side of the duct tape on JBR's mouth.

When confronted with this information during an interview (I think it was with Steve Thomas), PR tried to pin the crime on her best friend Priscilla White. "She has an identical jacket to mine and we might have got them mixed up at the party".

I think John later said that PW was jealous of Patsy and wanted to look just like her so used to buy the same clothes. (hmmmm)