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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Tadpole12 said:
LW twitter
https://twitter.com/LLinWood


JZ twitter:
https://twitter.com/Zigmanfreud/sta...6?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^tweet

"20 yrs after Jonbenet Ramsey was killed here's my story on what I think happened & why @JimClemente should B nervous"
Click to expand...

One of my favorite comments from the article:

What resources, (money, time, publicity, expertise, etc) has Jon Ramsey committed to finding the killer of his daughter?

This strong self defense, without equal exerted energy to find the actual killer is akin to OJ Simpson's promise to find his wife's killer while golfing constantly.
Click to expand...
 
Ugh that article and the comments is just a perfect example of how much misinformation there is in this case. This case has been in the public consciousness for so long that people think they know the facts.

I need to see some proof that BR was "interviewed three times without his parents before he even knew she was dead" because that sounds like baloney. I know he was interviewed at the Whites house (and was more focused on his sandwich) but what about the supposed other 2? As I understand it he was at the Fernies about the same time his parents got there. If someone knows differently please let me know (and source, trust but verify!) :)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Annapurna said:
Ugh that article and the comments is just a perfect example of how much misinformation there is in this case. This case has been in the public consciousness for so long that people think they know the facts.

I need to see some proof that BR was "interviewed three times without his parents before he even knew she was dead" because that sounds like baloney. I know he was interviewed at the Whites house (and was more focused on his sandwich) but what about the supposed other 2? As I understand it he was at the Fernies about the same time his parents got there. If someone knows differently please let me know (and source, trust but verify!) :)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
I've never read about him being interviewed three times before he knew she was dead in any book on the case, so clearly he's mistaken - not surprising given his source is probably LW. He must be referring to Burke's 3 interviews, total.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
DrollForeignFaction said:
I've never read about him being interviewed three times before he knew she was dead in any book on the case, so clearly he's mistaken - not surprising given his source is probably LW. He must be referring to Burke's 3 interviews, total.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Yeah, not the first time LW got facts of the case wrong for any long time followers. BR was interviewed in Atlanta with a lawyer present at least 4 months after the crime occurred.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
LW provides better spin than a laundromat, I'll give him that. This is getting slightly OT but something I noticed during the Dr. Phil interview is that IIRC LW claims that none of the Ramseys had a Hi Tec shoe. This is ridiculous on its face because Burke admits to having them in not so many words to Dr. Phil - he recalls having boots with compasses on the laces.
A) It's been established those are the Hi Tecs, it takes minimal googling to know that.
B) If Burke himself was not aware that once owning boots with compasses on the laces was relevant to the question "Did you own Hi Tec boots" why would he volunteer that info?
And if Burke knows, why doesn't his lawyer?

But then you go back to the interviews (2000, Atlanta?) and Lin Wood was right there in the room when Bruce Levin told him in no uncertain terms that it was established by the grand jury -and Burke - that he had a pair of Hi Tecs. Are we to believe LW forgot this major piece of info that negates one of IDI's favorite talking points? Because he spends quite a bit of time squabbling with Levin about the issue. Hell, he denied it circa 2002/2003 when Charlie Brennen reported on this, dismissing it as a vicious and untrue leak from the BPD - could he really have forgotten so quickly? Come on. LW knows the Hi Tecs are a red herring and he still throws it out whenever he can. Because he knows no one in the media will ever bother to call him out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
DrollForeignFaction said:
LW provides better spin than a laundromat, I'll give him that. This is getting slightly OT but something I noticed during the Dr. Phil interview is that IIRC LW claims that none of the Ramseys had a Hi Tec shoe. This is ridiculous on its face because Burke admits to having them in not so many words to Dr. Phil - he recalls having boots with compasses on the laces.
A) It's been established those are the Hi Tecs, it takes minimal googling to know that.
B) If Burke himself was not aware that once owning boots with compasses on the laces was relevant to the question "Did you own Hi Tec boots" why would he volunteer that info?
And if Burke knows, why doesn't his lawyer?

But then you go back to the interviews (2000, Atlanta?) and Lin Wood was right there in the room when Bruce Levin told him in no uncertain terms that it was established by the grand jury -and Burke - that he had a pair of Hi Tecs. Are we to believe LW forgot this major piece of info that negates one of IDI's favorite talking points? Because he spends quite a bit of time squabbling with Levin about the issue. Hell, he denied it circa 2002/2003 when Charlie Brennen reported on this, dismissing it as a vicious and untrue leak from the BPD - could he really have forgotten so quickly? Come on. LW knows the Hi Tecs are a red herring and he still throws it out whenever he can. Because he knows no one in the media will ever bother to call him out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

DrollForeignFaction,
LW is attempting to distance BR. Its that simple, the more alternative interpretations are published the more often LW can then quote them in the future.

.
 
I'm going to start a page for a lawsuit charging John Ziegler with aggravated assault against English expository prose and separate counts each of reckless serial abuse of the comma, quotation marks, and parentheses. With specials. This man is a menace to society and must be stopped.
 
ChloeR said:
Not sure if this is true or?

http://www.wehaveyourdaughter.net/b...es-a-750-million-dollar-complaint-against-cbs

CBS now apparently
Click to expand...


ChloeR,
Its real, its being reported by lawnewz:http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/exc...against-cbs-for-perpetrating-fraud-on-public/

Also all the participants are filed against, if the case goes to court BR has to demonstrate why he was not involved.

The discounting of the dna found at the crime scene does not look good for BR.

Also means Spitz has two cases cited against him, and Kolar is in LW's cross hairs.


The Case of: JonBenét Ramsey was a fictional crime show based primarily on a preconceived storyline scripted in a self-published and commercially unsuccessful book, Foreign Faction, written by Defendant James Kolar (“Kolar”) and published in 2012,” the 108 page lawsuit reads.
Click to expand...
BBM: LW is going after Kolar ...
 
Many inaccuracies in that document. Its mentioned several times about Mary Lacy clearing the family despite the fact that it has recently come to light that she was aware those DNA samples were likely unreliable. Also it states Burke slept all night even though he just admitted that he snuck downstairs to assemble a toy.

This is gonna be good!
 
One big LOL for me when LW said one and one equals two, so this means the case cannot be RDI.

i.e. arithmetical logic and real world logic are two different things and of course LW knows this, he is just pressing his case.

Most of his assertions cannot be upheld anymore, particularly those relating to the dna. So CBS might think LW is skating on thin ice, and just go to court to see what he puts on the table?

.
 
andreww said:
My guess? Probably not. Although they are probably aware that Wood will never let this go to court either.
Click to expand...
Oh, I think CBS will fight it. I think they knew this was coming and planned to fight it all along. Didn't Fox refuse to settle with the Ramseys some time ago and the case was ultimately dismissed by the court? My memory is hazy. I'll have to do some research unless someone already has the info.
 
andreww said:
My guess? Probably not. Although they are probably aware that Wood will never let this go to court either.
Click to expand...


andreww,
It's usually cheaper to settle out of court. Yet if CBS know its low risk to take on LW, since much of what LW asserts is old, tired assertions, that no longer hold, e.g. the dna.

Also CBS have an non published third part to the documentary, if they win their case, broadcasting that mini-series again in full, would be a goldmine for CBS.

.
 
Note: in that LW interview he is hinting at JR suing CBS too. Probably only if BR's litigation was successful, suggests LW is not all that confident.

.
 
HarmonyE. said:
Oh, I think CBS will fight it. I think they knew this was coming and planned to fight it all along. Didn't Fox refuse to settle with the Ramseys some time ago and the case was ultimately dismissed by the court? My memory is hazy. I'll have to do some research unless someone already has the info.
Click to expand...

In last nights podcast with Wong, cynic and Cherokee- Cherokee mentioned that all of the cases were settled EXCEPT for Fox News. LW then dropped the case against FOX who would not settle. So, you are correct.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I just finished reading his 108 page case against CBS and Critical content. He also names all the team players and has (defendants) in parenthesis after all of them. My hope is that with all the cash flowing into CBS they too will not accept to settle (like FOX) and it will be dropped. We need the media conglomerate of CBS to make a statement here against Woody &Co. I don't know what to think at this point but the fact that THE case of.. is airing in the U.K. now may give a little insight.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
observation said:
In last nights podcast with Wong, cynic and Cherokee- Cherokee mentioned that all of the cases were settled EXCEPT for Fox News. LW then dropped the case against FOX who would not settle. So, you are correct.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Woody didn't drop it; the Court dismissed it:

[FONT=&quot] CONCLUSION The Colorado Supreme Court has noted that “[p]rotecting the important competing interests of free speech and reputation requires a flexible approach anchored in the context of each cause of action.” Burns, supra, 659 P.2d at 1360. This balancing act is especially precarious given the high stakes involved. Compare the obvious primacy the Constitution and the interpreting case law places on free speech with the importance, of indeed Shakespearean proportions, accorded one’s reputation: Good name in man and woman, dear my lord, is the immediate jewel of their souls: Who steals my purse steals trash; ‘tis something, nothing; ‘twas mine, ‘tis his, and has been slave to thousands; but he that filches from me my good name robs me of that which not enriches him, and makes me poor indeed. William Shakespeare, Othello, Act III, scene iii. Factored into this “flexible approach” when considering a motion for summary dismissal is the recognition that the threat 14 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]of protracted litigation in defamation cases could have a chilling effect upon constitutionally protected rights of free speech. See Lockett v. Garrett, 1 P.3d 206, 210 (Colo. 1999). Because of the respect accorded expression in matters of public concern under the First Amendment, in this type of case the existence of a material fact must be established with convincing clarity. Gordon, supra, 99 P.3d at 78. Plaintiffs did not establish any such material fact here. These constitutional protections are not just for broadcast media. Indeed, free speech itself acts as a check on the media. For example, in our current technologicallyadvanced era anyone can get on the internet, become a self-proclaimed journalist or pundit and draw a worldwide audience. Webloggers can in a matter of hours point out key errors in reporting by mainstream media outlets. When people have the means and expertise to generally publish fair and perhaps insightful comments quickly and easily on matters of public concern, such as what a crime scene reveals or does not reveal, law enforcement and the rest of us may benefit. The robust protections guaranteed by the First Amendment thus remain as important and valuable as ever. Plaintiffs may well have filed this case more for vindication than for money, and perhaps vindication is what they deserve. But they have a better chance for meaningful vindication in the court of public opinion through vigorous debate about the background and details of this heinous crime than by suing those whose reporting may arguably include some less than favorable inferences about them. Plaintiffs cannot have the public discourse playing field entirely to themselves. Of course, those who broadcast publicly must accept some responsibilities of basic decency towards others as embodied in our Nation’s defamation laws. 15 [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Fox News, however, did not shirk those responsibilities here. While the December 2002 broadcast appears to plaintiffs not to have been “fair and balanced” towards them, it was not defamatory. The Court therefore GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) and DISMISSES this case with prejudice. DATED: January 6 th, 2005. BY THE COURT:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Phillip S. Figa United States District Judge[/FONT]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 85 more.
Total: 541 (members: 86, guests: 455)

Online statistics

Members online
86
Guests online
455
Total visitors
541
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
608,349
Messages
18,238,088
Members
234,348
Latest member
Allira93
Back
Top