Burke Ramsey Files 750 Million Dollar Lawsuit Against CBS

[HarmonyE.]

I just want to add a couple more things about the discovery process in the case vs. CBS et al.

All of the defendants are going to be deposed. This will give them a chance to explain in more depth why they concluded what they did. This will not be limited to what was broadcast. We know the third planned episode was never aired and we know someone like Kolar has a lot more to say than he has said thus far.

It is certainly possible to prevail in a defamation lawsuit in the US, even when the plaintiff is already a public figure. But this will be far from a cakewalk for Burke. If CBS refuses to engage in settlement talks, he faces an uphill battle on a variety of fronts. He needs to be likable and perceived as a sincere and honest victim of CBS and the others. If he says creepy things about his sister's dead body on the stand, he's not likely to be seen as sympathetic. He can't allow himself to get tripped up on questions that are going to be far more hardball than the ones he couldn't handle on Dr. Phil. Not to mention the fact that CBS can afford to put whatever resources they want into this, while the Ramseys almost certainly cannot.

John is of course far more experienced with deposition testimony, but he may come up against much better armed defense attorneys this time.

There is always the wild card of previously unheard credible witnesses who know more about Burke's behavior as a child coming forth. Or witnesses from his childhood to whom he may have said some damning things.

So can he prevail? Sure. But if CBS doesn't want to pay him anything, the road is long and fraught with a lot of unknowns.

 

[andreww]

Burke doesn't have to prove he's innocent but he does need to prove that CBS intentionally lied with intent to harm him. And further, as a consequence of these lies, he suffered tangible harm to his otherwise good reputation within the community.

We can't overlook the First Amendment here. Or the fact that the defense will be able to show that thousands of online posters, websites, and national publications, including those previously sued, have been naming Burke a viable suspect for many years. So this is not something those who know him personally haven't heard before. But he doesn't even get to this point if he can't get around the First Amendment.

I disagree. Yes, Burke has been mentioned in the past but usually on the cover of trashy tabloids. I think the vast majority of Americans believed he had nothing to do with this. It was Kolar's book that really gave the BDI theory legs, but as noted in the filing sales were less than spectacular so there was not real damage to his reputation. The CBS Special on the other hand brought Kolar's theory to the forefront. Yes Burke's reputation has been damaged by this, I think that is undeniable, so the question is whether there was sufficient evidence to point these experts towards Burke or whether they cherry picked evidence and used Kolar's book as a script.

It is difficult to believe that with all the experts that have been involved in this case, none of them suspected Burke. Then out of the blue on national TV, 5 experts all come to the same conclusion of Burke being the culprit.

 

[andreww]

I wonder if Fleet White backed out at the last minute causing CBS to cut the special to four hours?

 

[kanzz]

I disagree. Yes, Burke has been mentioned in the past but usually on the cover of trashy tabloids. I think the vast majority of Americans believed he had nothing to do with this. It was Kolar's book that really gave the BDI theory legs, but as noted in the filing sales were less than spectacular so there was not real damage to his reputation. The CBS Special on the other hand brought Kolar's theory to the forefront. Yes Burke's reputation has been damaged by this, I think that is undeniable, so the question is whether there was sufficient evidence to point these experts towards Burke or whether they cherry picked evidence and used Kolar's book as a script.

It is difficult to believe that with all the experts that have been involved in this case, none of them suspected Burke. Then out of the blue on national TV, 5 experts all come to the same conclusion of Burke being the culprit.

However - Burke brought himself to the forefront by going on the Phil show prior to the CBS special, thereby making himself a public persona and exposing himself to the critique. It was after this program that many thought he was guilty. He did that to himself.

There's also the issue of the program basically being a tv docu-drama version of Foreign Faction. Isn't that part of what the lawsuit alleges, more-or-less? I remember something being posted (maybe by Sparko96?) a while back about "suffered and permitted". I'd like to understand this better; but if it means what I think it does, I think it could be an advantage to the defense in this case.

OK - legal people, help me.

 

[andreww]

However - Burke brought himself to the forefront by going on the Phil show prior to the CBS special, thereby making himself a public persona and exposing himself to the critique. It was after this program that many thought he was guilty. He did that to himself.

There's also the issue of the program basically being a tv docu-drama version of Foreign Faction. Isn't that part of what the lawsuit alleges, more-or-less? I remember something being posted (maybe by Sparko96?) a while back about "suffered and permitted". I'd like to understand this better; but if it means what I think it does, I think it could be an advantage to the defense in this case.

OK - legal people, help me.

Hey I'm not a lawyer so take whatever I say with a grain of salt. As for the DP interview, Wood does say that it was done as a preemptive measure, So even though it came out first, it was produced after the CBS special was completed. But, he does not mention that Burke did make a public appearance on Barbara Walters Discovery program earlier in the year. So I think he is going out on a limb saying this guy was purposely avoiding celebrity.

 

[SerenitySprings]

I lived in Boulder, CO for a year from 2005 to 2006 years after this crime occurred. Yes, there is a lot of money in that city. It is also a city with very little crime in it. You can walk pretty much anywhere at night in town and not have to worry about being mugged or anything. I have done that. MOO, LE mishandled the whole case from the start. I am one who believes that someone in the house most likely the family commit the crime.

Was JonBenet's death an accident?

It is possible. Again, MOO.

Did the family have problems overall? Unquestionably.

I would like to point out that Boulder is a unique community that spent decades planning the city in order to provide for the wealthy and to keep" the "poor and their influence" out of sight. Even today they are "resettling" homeless people to Denver.

I am working on an essay regarding the history of Boulder to post here on WS in the JBR section. I have not found another thread that delves into why the police and DA were so unprepared for this crime due to their history, but if someone knows that I should post my essay on a specific thread that already exists, please let me know. I plan on posting it no later than Monday, 1.2.17.

 

[SerenitySprings]

But how would an 8 yr old boy create injuries which were like a fall from a 3 story building?

Well, he was 9 and less than a month away from 10. The amount of force it would take to swing a heavy but small item (like, say, a maglight,) is totally within the limitations of what an almost 10-year-old could accomplish. (Not specifically saying BDI, but wanted to keep in mind that it is not outside the realm of possibility that he *could* have caused the head injury.)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[SerenitySprings]

JonBenét Ramsey’s Brother Sues CBS for ‘Extraordinary’ $750 Million Over Docuseries

"What will matter is what is revealed during the discovery process,” [Smolla] tells PEOPLE. “Burke Ramsey has to prove the story [presented by CBS] is false, so the burden of proof is on him to show that he did not murder his sister, and that’s not impossible."

Wouldn't it be something if JR and BR had been sitting on something all this time that proved PDI or someone else close to them? Something that proved BR didn't do it. Of course, one would think they'd wait to file this defamation suit after JR has passed on so as not to give anyone the opportunity to file formal criminal charges against JR for not coming forward sooner with the info, but still. (Please keep in mind that I have no idea what the SOL is in CO or MI or GA or if there even is one.)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[SerenitySprings]

"...he [LW] is going out on a limb saying this guy was purposely avoiding celebrity.

I find it interesting that in the DP piece, BR made a point of saying his motivation for doing the interview was to address the spectacle of the upcoming 20th anniversary and to remind the public that the Ramsey family was still only interested in raising awareness that there was "STILL A KILLER ON THE LOOSE." Yeah, because he can never be legally charged with the murder. The killer has literally gotten away with murder. MOO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Cranberry]

Hey I'm not a lawyer so take whatever I say with a grain of salt. As for the DP interview, Wood does say that it was done as a preemptive measure, So even though it came out first, it was produced after the CBS special was completed. But, he does not mention that Burke did make a public appearance on Barbara Walters Discovery program earlier in the year. So I think he is going out on a limb saying this guy was purposely avoiding celebrity.

IIRC didn't Dr Phil say he had met with Burke for months prior, so was it preemptive? And when Dr. Phil was on The View didn't Dr. Phil say he went after Burke for the interview because Burke was the 'missing link'? i.e. was the CBS special thrown in at the end?

 

[andreww]

I find it interesting that in the DP piece, BR made a point of saying his motivation for doing the interview was to address the spectacle of the upcoming 20th anniversary and to remind the public that the Ramsey family was still only interested in raising awareness that there was "STILL A KILLER ON THE LOOSE." Yeah, because he can never be legally charged with the murder. The killer has literally gotten away with murder. MOO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

The Ramsey's are simply interested in perpetuating the story. If the story stays alive, the media covers it and eventually the Ramsey's will sue them for it.

 

[HarmonyE.]

Hey I'm not a lawyer so take whatever I say with a grain of salt. As for the DP interview, Wood does say that it was done as a preemptive measure, So even though it came out first, it was produced after the CBS special was completed. But, he does not mention that Burke did make a public appearance on Barbara Walters Discovery program earlier in the year. So I think he is going out on a limb saying this guy was purposely avoiding celebrity.

Wood is trying to avoid the Court determining that Burke is a public figure, but I think even he knows he doesn't have much of a shot here. Whatever his reason, Burke voluntarily put himself out there on a three part Dr. Phil show broadcast across the world. . (and he'll surely be asked about compensation for his appearance). Further being a "public figure" in a defamation suit has little to do with whether someone was was avoiding celebrity or not. From wiki 'cause I'm lazy today:

A person can become an "involuntary public figure" as the result of publicity, even though that person did not want or invite the public attention. For example, people accused of high profile crimes may be unable to pursue actions for defamation even after their innocence is established.

At a minimum Burke is an involuntary public figure. His Dr. Phil appearance probably eliminated the "involuntary" part.

A few weeks ago, Wood tweeted that the First Amendment should be changed because it's not fair to public figures. Sure Woody, let's change the US Constitution just so you can make more money suing people.

 

[buggiegirl]

So CBS must have had legal eyes all over the script and had it cleared for publishing?

I am 99.99% sure they would have lawyer approval before airing it. I worked at a tv network a few years ago and we even had to clear names in tv shows and promos with legal before using those, just so they weren't using the real name of an actual high school and stuff like that. Same with product names, for example in the show Crazy Ex Girlfriend, on the soundtrack a demo version of one song mentions "Grey Goose" the vodka, but the version that aired on tv replaced it with "vodka and cranberry juice" because clearly they couldn't or didn't want to get the legal right to use Grey Goose.

IMO if they consult legal on such minor issues, something like this show would have been under crazy scrutiny before airing!!

 

[UKGuy]

Hey I'm not a lawyer so take whatever I say with a grain of salt. As for the DP interview, Wood does say that it was done as a preemptive measure, So even though it came out first, it was produced after the CBS special was completed. But, he does not mention that Burke did make a public appearance on Barbara Walters Discovery program earlier in the year. So I think he is going out on a limb saying this guy was purposely avoiding celebrity.

andreww,
The case is not about BR being a public figure although that might be a CBS defense. BR via LW is saying I am a person of good character with a corresponding reputation.

CBS has defamed both my character, reputation and earning potential by broadcasting prior known untruths collated from Kolar's book.

All LW has to do is demonstrate IDI, from the same prior truths, that were available to CBS and friends.

So at the end of the day its Kolar v.s. Lin Wood.

.

 

[buggiegirl]

I wonder if Fleet White backed out at the last minute causing CBS to cut the special to four hours?

I don't know how this particular show was filmed, but they cut it down to just 2 episodes at the very last minute right? Long after they would have filmed Fleet's interview and edited the final show product. I think the best bet is that they either got cold feet on going full throttle BDI, the lawyers wouldn't approve too much that was in the 3rd episode, or a completely unrelated CBS doesn't think it'll get great ratings after all so chop it down to just 2 episodes and air something else in the slot of the third. To me, the most likely is ratings as wouldn't it have been approved by legal long before air date? Though I guess some people are editing right up until the delivery deadline...

 

[UKGuy]

I am 99.99% sure they would have lawyer approval before airing it. I worked at a tv network a few years ago and we even had to clear names in tv shows and promos with legal before using those, just so they weren't using the real name of an actual high school and stuff like that. Same with product names, for example in the show Crazy Ex Girlfriend, on the soundtrack a demo version of one song mentions "Grey Goose" the vodka, but the version that aired on tv replaced it with "vodka and cranberry juice" because clearly they couldn't or didn't want to get the legal right to use Grey Goose.

IMO if they consult legal on such minor issues, something like this show would have been under crazy scrutiny before airing!!

buggiegirl,

It definitely had legal approval, with the recommendation that part three be dropped and references to it from parts one and two be redacted.

This is likely to be because in his book Kolar does not specifically name BR, in relation to certain events, but I'll bet CBS were going to, incorporating answers from the like of Fleet White, etc.

So in deposition BR is going to have to explain why he never went after Kolar, and now wants to restrict the free speech and comment of sundry bystanders?

ETA: Months before release LW, JR and BR were given a preview of the CBS Special. It was then that LW threatened litigation, particularly over the accusations made in part three.
.

 

[HarmonyE.]

andreww,
The case is not about BR being a public figure although that might be a CBS defense. BR via LW is saying I am a person of good character with a corresponding reputation.

CBS has defamed both my character, reputation and earning potential by broadcasting prior known untruths collated from Kolar's book.

All LW has to do is demonstrate IDI, from the same prior truths, that were available to CBS and friends.

So at the end of the day its Kolar v.s. Lin Wood.

.

It's actually way more complicated than this. And the public figure issue is a huge one because Burke's case may not survive because of his public figure status.

 

[buggiegirl]

Wood is trying to avoid the Court determining that Burke is a public figure, but I think even he knows he doesn't have much of a shot here. Whatever his reason, Burke voluntarily put himself out there on a three part Dr. Phil show broadcast across the world. . (and he'll surely be asked about compensation for his appearance). Further being a "public figure" in a defamation suit has little to do with whether someone was was avoiding celebrity or not. From wiki 'cause I'm lazy today:

A person can become an "involuntary public figure" as the result of publicity, even though that person did not want or invite the public attention. For example, people accused of high profile crimes may be unable to pursue actions for defamation even after their innocence is established.

At a minimum Burke is an involuntary public figure. His Dr. Phil appearance probably eliminated the "involuntary" part.

A few weeks ago, Wood tweeted that the First Amendment should be changed because it's not fair to public figures. Sure Woody, let's change the US Constitution just so you can make more money suing people.

Also, a bit ridiculous but it's not like going on national tv is the only option Burke had to combat the CBS special. If he was so concerned with remaining private he could have had his lawyer put out a statement condemning the special. No need to rake in the big bucks on Dr Phil.

 

[SerenitySprings]

New mission in life: FIND THIRD EPISODE AND WATCH.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[UKGuy]

It's actually way more complicated than this. And the public figure issue is a huge one because Burke's case may not survive because of his public figure status.

HarmonyE,
Whether BR is a public figure or a private citizen, etc, is a technical detail and a defense on CBS part.

What really matters is whether Lin Wood can prove IDI. That's why he is spewing out all the misinformation, citing old Ramsey chestnuts for public consumption.

He needs to show that Kolar's book should really be titled Foreign Fiction, and that its contents were misused by CBS to defame poor old Burke Ramsey.

If LW wins his case, he is hinting at a follow up from JR, this is all legal megaphone diplomacy intended to convey the message: settle out of court for a few million dollars.

.