I think Woody screwed up by letting Burke go on Phil’s show for more reasons than anyone realized at the time. Not only did Burke’s “demeanor” cast more suspicion on him than anticipated, but it was his first voluntary public appearance. They even admitted (despite Burke’s claim to doing it to “honor” his sister) that it was to get out in front of what they were expecting from the CBS docuseries which they refused to participate in despite the offer from CBS. But by his going public, that (IMO) solidified his position as a “Limited-Purpose Public Figure,” even if it wasn’t already established by other standards beyond his control.
In his filing, they try to get around this mistake by stating the following:
Burke Ramsey is a private citizen and has never attained the status of public figure for purposes of filing and prosecuting a defamation action to seek redress for false attacks on his reputation. Since the time of his sister’s death until September of this year, Burke Ramsey never voluntarily participated in any media interviews to discuss his sister’s tragic death.
In September of this year, after learning that CBS planned a docuseries on the JonBenet Ramsey case, which might include accusations against him, Burke Ramsey exercised his right of reasonable response and gave an interview to Dr. Phil McGraw.
But here is a discussion about what might qualify someone as a “Limited-Purpose Public Figure” (pay particular attention to that which I have bolded):
The second category of public figures is called "limited-purpose" public figures. These are individuals who "have thrust themselves to the forefront of particular controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved."[/B] Gertz v. Robert Welch Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (U.S. 1974). They are the individuals who deliberately shape debate on particular public issues, especially those who use the media to influence that debate.
This category also includes individuals who have distinguished themselves in a particular field, making them "public figures" regarding only those specific activities. These limited-purpose public figures are not the Kobe Bryants, who are regarded as all-purpose public figures, but rather the journeymen basketball players of the league.
For limited-purpose public figures, the actual malice standard extends only as far as defamatory statements involve matters related to the topics about which they are considered public figures. To return to our basketball example, the actual malice standard would extend to statements involving the player's basketball career; however, it would not extend to the details of his marriage.
As regards figures who become prominent through involvement in a current controversy, the law is unfortunately rather murky. In general, emphasis is placed not on whether the controversy is a subject of public interest, but rather:
- The depth of the person's participation in the controversy.
- The amount of freedom he or she has in choosing to engage in the controversy in the first place (e.g., if they were forced into the public light). See Wolston v. Reader's Digest Association, 443 U.S. 157 (1979).
- Whether he has taken advantage of the media to advocate his cause. See Time, Inc. v. Firestone, 424 U.S. 448 (U.S. 1976)
IMO, Burke made himself a “Limited-Purpose Public Figure” at the direction of Woody by going on Phil McGraw’s show and will therefore be required to prove “malice” on the part of Spitz. He should also have to prove that Spitz was wrong in his assertion that Burke caused the skull fractures, and I don’t know how he can prove that. The burden of proof should be on Burke to show that Spitz was wrong, knew he was wrong at the time he made the statement, and did so with malice toward Burke Ramsey.
https://www.scribd.com/document/326687568/Burke-Ramsey-vs-Werner-Spitz
http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/proving-fault-actual-malice-and-negligence
#StupidestLawyerAlive
