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

[TeaTime]

IF the case were tried and IF the jury awarded BR any money from Spitz and then Spitz passed away - then BR could collect from Spitz's estate. Of course, he would have to win every appeal before collecting anything and make a claim against he estate.

Spitz is not stupid, I am sure he has joint assets and depending on which state he lives in, his assets may be community property. He may have already distributed his funds or they may be in trust. Who knows?

It will no doubt be a battle of edited film, scripts and the missing 2 hours of the documentary.

BR should sue Dr. Phil for creating the fiasco of JR, Phil's own lawyer and BR in a damage control offensive move. Nothing said BDI more that BR himself on Phil's show.

 

[Tortoise]

I think Spitz might be on shaky ground

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?42511-Media-Links-Only&p=12974032#post12974032

http://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/civil-litigation/defamation-character-free-speech.html

 

[HarmonyE.]

I think Spitz might be on shaky ground

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?42511-Media-Links-Only&p=12974032#post12974032

http://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/civil-litigation/defamation-character-free-speech.html

The first defense here IS that Spitz has a First Amendment right to opine on the potential responsibility of Burke Ramsey, Public Figure. Spitz is simply asking the court to dismiss the case now on this basis. Even if this isn't successful (and it probably won't be), Burke still has an uphill battle as it's his burden to prove his case. TMZ isn't going to explain this though.

 

[observation]

I think Spitz might be on shaky ground

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?42511-Media-Links-Only&p=12974032#post12974032

http://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/civil-litigation/defamation-character-free-speech.html

Thank you for these links. I was only able to open the TMZ article. That media outlet is not the most reputable but it's the only MSM report since the defamation claim has been filed that has been linked. I gave up on my hunt to find any f/u a while back.
It just may be dismissed- he exercised his first amendment right to his opinion. Yes, he's an expert but still has a right to opine on a 20 year old cold case. JMHO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[HarmonyE.]

Thank you for these links. I was only able to open the TMZ article. That media outlet is not the most reputable but it's the only MSM report since the defamation claim has been filed that has been linked. I gave up on my hunt to find any f/u a while back.
It just may be dismissed- he exercised his first amendment right to his opinion. Yes, he's an expert but still has a right to opine on a 20 year old cold case. JMHO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's simply a standard response to a defamation lawsuit. The suit is not likely to be dismissed before discovery even starts.

 

[gregjrichards]

"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.

“The First Amendment protects this speech on a matter of immense public concern,” his legal team wrote.

They continued: “After twenty years, the death of JonBenét Ramsey remains one of our nation's most widely discussed and debated unresolved crimes. The First Amendment gives Dr. Spitz the 'breathing room' to express his point of view about it, just as it grants to every other American citizen with a hypothesis.”

http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/jonbenet-ramsey-murder-investigator-responds-9382918

If this lawsuit is successful would it not set a dangerous precedent that from now on any tv channels like HLN etc can't have expert opinions on murder trials, if they think the suspect did it and they give opinions on how it was done. I don't know how programmes about murder trials could run on channels like ID here in the UK if this was the case.

 

[Tortoise]

"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.

“The First Amendment protects this speech on a matter of immense public concern,” his legal team wrote.

They continued: “After twenty years, the death of JonBenét Ramsey remains one of our nation's most widely discussed and debated unresolved crimes. The First Amendment gives Dr. Spitz the 'breathing room' to express his point of view about it, just as it grants to every other American citizen with a hypothesis.”

http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/jonbenet-ramsey-murder-investigator-responds-9382918

If this lawsuit is successful would it not set a dangerous precedent that from now on any tv channels like HLN etc can't have expert opinions on murder trials, if they think the suspect did it and they give opinions on how it was done. I don't know how programmes about murder trials could run on channels like ID here in the UK if this was the case.

I don't know if Spitz will be successful or not, in getting this dismissed, but, I would think that if it is "a matter of immense public concern" and it is being broadcast to the whole nation, and overseas, and not something that he said to his wife for instance, then he probably has a higher responsibility to ensure he presents his opinion by saying something like it can't be proved, or that the programme devotes equal time to other theories.

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.

 

[Miz Adventure]

I wish it would go to trial so we can hear testimony from both parties. I can't see that happening though.

I think Blue Crab was spot-on in his/her theory regarding the Grand Jury solving the case.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?20436-Why-GJ-Likely-Solved-Case-In-1999

The Grand Jury returned two True Bills against the Ramseys. The wording was quite clear - that the couple assisted another person in the murder of JBR. Assisted could have meant 'covered up the crime'.

Alex Hunter's hands were tied. He could not proceed with the prosecution (of JR and PR) because if it went to court then the couple would have to testify AGAINST THEIR OWN SON who, at 9 years old, was immune from prosecution and by law, could not be named as being the culprit.


It's not going to happen, but I feel that if Werner Spitz could somehow legally lay his hands on the transcripts of the Grand Jury then he would be home free.

 

[Tortoise]

I wish it would go to trial so we can hear testimony from both parties. I can't see that happening though.

I think Blue Crab was spot-on in his/her theory regarding the Grand Jury solving the case.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?20436-Why-GJ-Likely-Solved-Case-In-1999

The Grand Jury returned two True Bills against the Ramseys. The wording was quite clear - that the couple assisted another person in the murder of JBR. Assisted could have meant 'covered up the crime'.

Alex Hunter's hands were tied. He could not proceed with the prosecution (of JR and PR) because if it went to court then the couple would have to testify AGAINST THEIR OWN SON who, at 9 years old, was immune from prosecution and by law, could not be named as being the culprit.


It's not going to happen, but I feel that if Werner Spitz could somehow legally lay his hands on the transcripts of the Grand Jury then he would be home free.

Why do you say they would have had to testify against their own son?

 

[Miz Adventure]

Why do you say they would have had to testify against their own son?

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.

They could not be charged with assisting somebody who committed First Degree Murder without having to state who that person was. And that was not possible.



On or about
December 25 and December 26, 1996, in Boulder County, Colorado, John Bennet Ramsey did unlawfully, knowingly, recklessly, and feloniously render assistance to a person, with intent to hinder, delay and prevent the discovery, detention, apprehension, prosecution, conviction and punishment of such person for the commission of a crime, 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.
As to Count VII, Accessory to a Crime:

 

[Tortoise]

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.

They could not be charged with assisting somebody who committed First Degree Murder without having to state who that person was. And that was not possible.

That doesn't answer my question about what you stated.

They could actually be charged with assisting if there was enough evidence to show they had, even if that person was too young to be criminally culpable, because as parents they would still be culpable for their own acts.

 

[Miz Adventure]

That doesn't answer my question about what you stated.

They could actually be charged with assisting if there was enough evidence to show they had, even if that person was too young to be criminally culpable, because as parents they would still be culpable for their own acts.

How could they have been charged with 'assisting' if they could not tell the jury who exactly they were assisting? They would have had to have named the perpetrator of the crime (the one they assisted) and that would have been against the law.


Nobody can be charged now of course, because the Statute of Limitations has run out.

 

[HarmonyE.]

I don't know if Spitz will be successful or not, in getting this dismissed, but, I would think that if it is "a matter of immense public concern" and it is being broadcast to the whole nation, and overseas, and not something that he said to his wife for instance, then he probably has a higher responsibility to ensure he presents his opinion by saying something like it can't be proved, or that the programme devotes equal time to other theories.

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.

I think it's worth keeping in mind that this is not about the CBS broadcast. This suit involves a radio interview Spitz did I believe prior to the show being run. I have not heard about Burke suing anyone in connection to the CBS show yet.

No Ramsey civil suit has ever gone to trial.This one probably won't either.

The laws in the UK are very different than the United States with regard to defamation litigation. Whether his reputation was damaged or not is secondary to him first proving Spitz lied with actual malice during the radio interview. No one is obligated to be fair and balanced when expressing an opinion about a public figure.

The Court almost certainly needs more information so when the motion is denied and the online tabloids headlines scream that Spitz lost, don't buy it without first getting the full story.

 

[Tortoise]

How could they have been charged with 'assisting' if they could not tell the jury who exactly they were assisting? They would have had to have named the perpetrator of the crime (the one they assisted) and that would have been against the law.


Nobody can be charged now of course, because the Statute of Limitations has run out.

This doesn't answer why you said the parents would have had to testify against their 9 year old son.

Also, I think it's nothing but myth that they wouldn't be able to name the perpetrator if they were charged with being an accessory.

 

[Ambitioned]

Also, I think it's nothing but myth that they wouldn't be able to name the perpetrator if they were charged with being an accessory.

I'm not so sure its a myth though. That Colorado law is pretty clear.

 

[observation]

I think it's worth keeping in mind that this is not about the CBS broadcast. This suit involves a radio interview Spitz did I believe prior to the show being run. I have not heard about Burke suing anyone in connection to the CBS show yet.

No Ramsey civil suit has ever gone to trial.This one probably won't either.

The laws in the UK are very different than the United States with regard to defamation litigation. Whether his reputation was damaged or not is secondary to him first proving Spitz lied with actual malice during the radio interview. No one is obligated to be fair and balanced when expressing an opinion about a public figure.

The Court almost certainly needs more information so when the motion is denied and the online tabloids headlines scream that Spitz lost, don't buy it without first getting the full story.

BBM- exactly! BR's interviews IMHO were damaging to himself. These were before the radio interview and "the case of" aired. No way they can prove Spitz comments damaged or ruined his reputation 2 weeks later. BR is no longer a child and he made the adult decision to talk after 20 years of crickets. I stand behind Spitz and his 1st amendment right to discuss what he thinks happened on the night of 12/25/96.
Also, keep in mind Lacy's exoneration of any R's for that matter [which is consistently referred to in the indictment against Spitz] doesn't hold water and is baseless.
I love that Charlie Brennan BTW.
And, FW, if you and beautiful PW read here- please come forward- it's been just about 20 years, and we the public, would love to hear from you!
Chin up WS. Time will tell.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[observation]

I don't know if Spitz will be successful or not, in getting this dismissed, but, I would think that if it is "a matter of immense public concern" and it is being broadcast to the whole nation, and overseas, and not something that he said to his wife for instance, then he probably has a higher responsibility to ensure he presents his opinion by saying something like it can't be proved, or that the programme devotes equal time to other theories.

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.

BBM How about when Dr. Phil had the extra "disclaimer" show about how BR is innocent and just socially awkward. I'm a little O/T but my guess is the Dr.P producers manipulated, edited, and cut parts or even whole parts of that interview for his own theory. 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.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[observation]

It's simply a standard response to a defamation lawsuit. The suit is not likely to be dismissed before discovery even starts.

Really? I believe A judge can dismiss a case at any time. Not all cases get to the discovery phase. MOO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ambitioned]

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.

Yep. He had 20 years to try and find his sister's killer or thank people for trying to find her killer. Did he? Never.

Actions (or lack thereof) speak louder than words. I think there's a special place in hell for him. Yes I know it's Christmas and it is harsh but this is my opinion. I just cannot imagine standing by and doing nothing if my sister was murdered. I would be posting on here and reddit and every forum imaginable.

 

[Miz Adventure]

Yep. He had 20 years to try and find his sister's killer or thank people for trying to find her killer. Did he? Never.

Actions (or lack thereof) speak louder than words. I think there's a special place in hell for him. Yes I know it's Christmas and it is harsh but this is my opinion. I just cannot imagine standing by and doing nothing if my sister was murdered. I would be posting on here and reddit and every forum imaginable.

Trying to find someone you know doesn't exist would be a complete waste of money.

And hence that is the reason why the JBR Memorial Foundation was dissolved soon after the Grand Jury was disbanded. The R's saw no point in continuing to throw away good money.

Talking of the JBR Memorial Foundation, it was just a sham. The R's promised to pay $15,000 per year into the fund but that never happened. The money people sent for the fund disappeared.

The $100,000 reward was just window dressing. It never existed. The couple were rumoured to be going to put up a £1M reward but backed out - maybe in case the police actually managed to pin the crime on some unsuspecting druggie who fit the profile. I'm guessing here of course.

When questioned about it the R's stated they had no idea where the money went, even though they were the only two Directors of the fund, and only they could withdraw money.