Burke Ramsey Files 750 Million Dollar Lawsuit Against CBS

[BBB167893]

It almost made me sick how smug LW was on Dr. Phil talking about how he threatened to sue the city of Boulder to pressure Mary Lacy to take the case away from the police. Or, as I suspect now that we know just how screwed up her priorities were in while in office, to give her an excuse. Has anyone ever even done this before? The prime suspects' lawyer gets the District Attorney (who happens to 'particularly like' both of them) to wrest the case away from the investigators??

I've never even HEARD of anything like that.

 

[DrollForeignFaction]

http://www.dailyreportonline.com/id...Out-CBS-for-Fake-News?slreturn=20170009014043

A Georgia-based law news website has an LW-slanted piece about the lawsuit up. I have to say that it's always apparent when LW has contacted some website and given them his spiel and they never bother to research anything because the articles always end up like this. A few of the parts that I thought were most interesting/annoying:

[FONT=&amp]James Kolar, now chief marshal in Telluride, Colorado, advanced a theory that Burke Ramsey had killed his sister. Wood says the theory was long ago publicly discredited by three different prosecutors who investigated JonBenet's murder, by Boulder police officers who investigated the case, by a federal judge in Atlanta, by the Colorado grand jury that investigated JonBenet's death, and by DNA evidence uncovered by the Boulder DA in 2008 that Wood said pointed to an unidentified intruder and exonerated members of the Ramsey family of any culpability in the girl's death.[/FONT]

[FONT=&amp]
[/FONT]What three different prosecutors have discredited BDI? AH actually is on the record (per Thomas, who found it silly) saying that perhaps Burke was involved though he did sign off on LW's affidavit saying Burke wasn't considered a suspect (after some tailoring of the original document and weasel words). Mary Lacy would never sign off on a BDI scenario because she, being an ignoramus, thought Santa did it. Garnett has never made a statement either way.
If he wants to cite BPD officers who investigated the case and did not think BDI, he must be conceding JDI or PDI because that's what they thought.
Carnes didn't see any evidence that LW didn't want her to see, her opinion is irrelevant.
The grand jury? Many people suspect that they decided some version of BDI, as presented in the documentary he's suing! And anyone who doesn't interpret it as a BDI decision see the jury obviously came to a JDI and/or PDI solution so...? What's his point?
And Mary Lacy's exoneration letter has recently been exposed as a farce based only on her misunderstanding of DNA, her belief in phantom butt prints, and her overwhelming desire to save her friends, the Ramseys, who she saw as tied to the tracks with a train barreling towards them. It means nothing.

[FONT=&amp]Wood also sued Court TV and corporate owner AOL Time Warner after Court TV conducted mock trials of possible suspects in JonBenet's death, including Burke Ramsey, and asked its audience to vote on whether the defendants in those trials were guilty. Court TV, he said, "had no legitimate basis to put Burke Ramsey on trial on TV; he was never even considered a suspect."[/FONT]

[FONT=&amp]
What? I remember Geraldo had a "mock trial" of the Ramseys but a) I don't believe he was on Court TV and b) I don't recall ever reading Burke was "tried." Maybe LW should produce those tapes, I'd love to see them!

[/FONT]

[FONT=&amp]Wood also successfully defended the Ramseys against libel claims brought against them by Robert Christian Wolf, a Boulder freelance journalist, after the Ramseys wrote in their own book that Wolf had at one time been investigated as a possible suspect in JonBenet's death. In 2003, then-U.S. District Judge Julie Carnes, now a judge on the U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, dismissed the libel claim, but not before she meticulously reviewed the evidence in the murder case and concluded, in a 93-page dismissal order, that there was "abundant evidence" to believe that an unknown intruder had entered the Ramsey home and killed JonBenet.[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Since then, Wood said no other tabloid or mainstream media outlet has identified Burke Ramsey as a suspect in his little sister's slaying—until CBS aired "The Case of: JonBenét Ramsey."[/FONT]

[FONT=&amp]
First, the issue was not that the Ramseys identified him as someone who had "once been investigated," they presented him as someone who was an active suspect which was not true.
And again, Carnes' decision is a "meticulously reviewed" piece of crap based on misinformation from Lou Smit and Woody with no actual police evidence - it's irrelevant. It certainly does not disprove BDI, much less JDI or PDI.

Wood claims that Kolar's self-published book mirrors many of the discredited allegations contained in the tabloid articles that led to the defamation lawsuits on Burke Ramsey's behalf.

I want to see a list of the "discredited allegations" from tabloids that Kolar included. His info came from the case files which Woody would have no access to anyway. If he wants to argue that Kolar's making things up out of tabloid articles he'd better effing prove it. My particular interest wrt this case has been the tabloids and when their info was corroborated vs not. As far as I have seen, the things Kolar has written about that the tabs also mentioned have been verifiable - all based on Burke's early interviews, things we've recently seen video of. I have seen multiple tabloid stories about Burke behaving strangely from 1998 - 2000 that do not reflect anything Kolar mentioned. I have seen many things in Kolar's book about Burke's strange behavior that came from witnesses that were never ever reproduced in tabloids. LW is blatantly lying when he sources Kolar's information to tabloids.

[/FONT]

 

[Miz Adventure]

If this does go forward, which I pray it does, I can't wait to see this man/child testify - smirking, laughing, smiling, etc. Keep in mind, he did his DP interview because the public still has so much interest in this "case". Never once did I hear how outraged he was in trying to find the killer of his little sister.

I think LW has no intention of BR getting to the stand. LW would not want to take the chance of BR presenting an unfavourable demeanour to the jury. He has seen and heard for himself what the public's reaction has been like to Burke's interview on Dr. Phil.

 

[andreww]

I think LW has no intention of BR getting to the stand. LW would not want to take the chance of BR presenting an unfavourable demeanour to the jury. He has seen and heard for himself what the public's reaction has been like to Burke's interview on Dr. Phil.

I agree. Currently Wood uses the Carnes decision as his soapbox, I doubt he'd risk all of that being revealed as bs at this point. He got lucky once, I doubt it'll happen again.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[otg]

A little perspective on previous lawsuits brought by Lin Wood on behalf of the Ramseys might be in order because I think some aren’t clear on exactly what happened in the past -- not surprising since Woody is the only one with “oral diarrhea.”

Until the recent spate of lawsuits, there had been six lawsuits filed on behalf of Burke. Five of them were settled “out of court,” meaning only that the defendants chose to settle on some undisclosed monetary sum rather than suffer the cost of litigation and risk of possibly losing a larger amount. This is the equivalent of a traffic citation where the charged transgressor has the option of pleading guilty, not guilty, or no contest. A pleading of no contest means the person is not admitting guilt, but simply chooses not to pursue a trial.

The one lawsuit that was not settled was against Fox News Network. Their intent was to take it to court if need be, and threatened (IIRC) to subpoena many of the files the Ramseys would rather not have made public (police files, medical records, etc.). FNN lawyers did what all defendants do as a first defensive move: they filed for dismissal of the lawsuit based on the fact that it lacked merit. They won that filing in a ruling from federal judge Phillip Figa. The following is a report on that ruling by RCFP (the same group that helped Charlie Brennan in his suit to have the GJ true bills released):

http://www.rcfp.org/browse-media-la...efamation-case-dismissed#sthash.Mu7dm0EY.dpuf

The following is the important part of the court ruling which may have implications on us as forum posters, as well as on the current lawsuits against Spitz and CBS:

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 technologically-advanced 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. 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.
​

Notice that this lawsuit was dismissed “with prejudice.” More on that here:
http://legaldictionary.net/dismissed-with-prejudice/


The court order can be read in full here:
https://casetext.com/case/ramsey-v-fox-news-network

 

[SS 396 SS]

I don't believe BR or LW have any intention of this suit ever going to court..and I don't think they even hold out much hope of getting a settlement. I think they filed this suit because in their mind (the collective mind of team Ramsey, that is), they had to file it... because that's what they think an innocent person (or innocent family, as the case may be) would do.

I recall one lawsuit, can't remember which one it was, that LW filed for libel, and when the respondent wouldn't back down, LW ended up dropping the suit and claiming they'd "reached a settlement", but whomever he was suing stated they never paid him so much as a penny. I have a feeling the same thing will happen here. LW will come out after a couple months and announced they've reached an settlement out of court.

Your most likely right. If Burke or John had to testify, they would have to be very careful. If asked questions similar to those asked to them during the indictment, they would have to give similar answers. Don't think they want to chance that. CBS could use this to try and have that information released.
Maybe their just doing a little fishin in the dark hopin somethin good comes out of it for them. Sounds like somethin their lawyer might do.
Your probably right, their just tryin to save face.

 

[HarmonyE.]

Your most likely right. If Burke or John had to testify, they would have to be very careful. If asked questions similar to those asked to them during the indictment, they would have to give similar answers. Don't think they want to chance that. CBS could use this to try and have that information released.
Maybe their just doing a little fishin in the dark hopin somethin good comes out of it for them. Sounds like somethin their lawyer might do.
Your probably right, their just tryin to save face.

Depositions are testimony under oath, just not in a courtroom with a judge present. In order to keep the case alive, Burke will have to give testimony oath, probably sooner rather than later.

 

[DrollForeignFaction]

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.

Respectfully snipped. Well isn't THAT the truth! Unfortunately a rigorous public debate of the facts is the thing the Ramseys have been running from for 20 years. They can never confront their critics and dispute the facts, they just deny the facts exist and spew misinformation.

Thanks for this post, otg. I wonder if you or anyone else knows anything about what happened with the Thomas lawsuit? I haven't had much time to look into it but I was reading an old Westword article about all the lawsuits the Ramseys have generated and noticed some parallels to the new suits.

"Steve Thomas has accused Patsy Ramsey of the murder of her daughter, and he's accused John Ramsey of criminally covering up that crime," says Wood. "He has to be held accountable for publishing those types of statements for profit."

Thomas, too, is represented by a heavy hitter: Daniel Petrocelli of Los Angeles. Petrocelli won a $33.5 million verdict for the families of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman after making mincemeat of O.J. Simpson on the witness stand.

To win their lawsuit, the Ramseys have to prove that Thomas's allegations are false. If they are found to be public figures (they contend they are not), they also have to prove that Thomas knew these allegations were false and recklessly chose to promulgate them anyway.

With truth as the core issue of the trial, Thomas, who described in his book his overwhelming sadness and frustration at being prevented from fully pursuing the investigation, can finally do what he has wanted to do from the beginning: pursue all avenues, conduct discovery and get full depositions -- under oath -- from both the Ramseys.

Wood expresses skepticism, however, that the search for truth is Thomas's primary motivation, and he speculates that Thomas and Petrocelli will in fact rely on legalisms and delaying tactics. But truth is the lure for his clients, he says, and they are anxious to make their innocence known.

How laughable that camera hogs JR and PR would claim they were not public figures! They quote Darnay Hoffman on the Wolf suit and he didn't even bother denying that Wolf was a public figure even though CW never went on CNN or Dr. Phil to publicize himself.

So they were "anxious" to prove their innocence, but not anxious enough to refuse the settlement and confront ST in court. As has been pointed out before, the settlement did nothing besides a little publicity. ST never had to retract anything, his book is still in print accusing Patsy of murder, and we don't even know for how much (or how little) the Ramseys sold out their chance at publicly revealing "the truth". St. Martin's Press is relatively small (and hence has a smaller insurance policy than CBS I presume) and the Ramseys have consistently complained of their poverty (guess LW wasn't sharing any of his Jaguars), so it can't have been much. Here's another article where LW crows about how poor Thomas is:

Wood said the settlement with Thomas "totally vindicates" the Ramseys. However, he noted that Thomas "doesn't have a whole lot of money."
He added, "The dollar amount is irrelevant tothe Ramseys. They sued this case as a matter of principle." Like most settlements, the defendants made no admissions. But, Wood insisted, "The result speaks for itself. How many people settle a libel case?"
http://m.topix.com/forum/news/jonbenet-ramsey/T2PDO9L9T1AN2A1DK

So it's not about the money and all about getting someone with admittedly shallow pockets to settle instead of pursue an expensive trial. I fail to see how this proves their innocence - surely confronting their accuser in court and defeating the guy who got OJ would be "total vindication." "Truth is the lure" according to the earlier article but I see no truths revealed here.

Question: I haven't finished reading the link so maybe this is addressed, but I know that poster Candy has some sort of pathological hatred towards ST (and FW) and seems to be saying ST is at fault for settling. The article does state that both St. Martin's Press and ST settled, but if SMP decided to settle would he realistically have any choice to proceed? They had the money, not him. I doubt Petrocelli came cheap. And he was not the party asking for money, so if he won the case could he have forced the Ramseys to pay his legal fees or not? What were ST's options?

Another thing from the Westword article:

Wolf's suit was filed a year ago in Atlanta, and the Ramseys' motion for dismissal was rejected in February by Judge Julie Carnes. Experts say that simply expressing a view that a particular person might be a killer would generally be protected as opinion. But Hoffman says he successfully argued in court that John Ramsey had done more than that: He implied his opinion was based on facts that he did not go on to disclose, which made his comment actionable. Hoffman expects to begin deposing witnesses in June.

So it seems the difference between JR's comment in his book and the CBS doc is that CBS actually laid out their reasoning and evidence before stating their opinion.

I don't know much about law so if anyone has comments on how the Wolf and Thomas cases might relate to the new lawsuits and possibilities of settlement, I'd be very grateful.

Link for Westword, which does the best reporting by far on this case:
http://www.westword.com/news/the-truth-hurts-5066852


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Charlize]

I think there is a good chance he agreed to the interview in the first place, with eye to future profiteering.


Everything has always seemed to be about the money somehow. IMHO.

 

[cubbeegirl]

I think there is a good chance he agreed to the interview in the first place, with eye to future profiteering.


Everything has always seemed to be about the money somehow. IMHO.

Ditto

 

[HarmonyE.]

Respectfully snipped. Well isn't THAT the truth! Unfortunately a rigorous public debate of the facts is the thing the Ramseys have been running from for 20 years. They can never confront their critics and dispute the facts, they just deny the facts exist and spew misinformation.

Thanks for this post, otg. I wonder if you or anyone else knows anything about what happened with the Thomas lawsuit? I haven't had much time to look into it but I was reading an old Westword article about all the lawsuits the Ramseys have generated and noticed some parallels to the new suits.

How laughable that camera hogs JR and PR would claim they were not public figures! They quote Darnay Hoffman on the Wolf suit and he didn't even bother denying that Wolf was a public figure even though CW never went on CNN or Dr. Phil to publicize himself.

So they were "anxious" to prove their innocence, but not anxious enough to refuse the settlement and confront ST in court. As has been pointed out before, the settlement did nothing besides a little publicity. ST never had to retract anything, his book is still in print accusing Patsy of murder, and we don't even know for how much (or how little) the Ramseys sold out their chance at publicly revealing "the truth". St. Martin's Press is relatively small (and hence has a smaller insurance policy than CBS I presume) and the Ramseys have consistently complained of their poverty (guess LW wasn't sharing any of his Jaguars), so it can't have been much. Here's another article where LW crows about how poor Thomas is:

So it's not about the money and all about getting someone with admittedly shallow pockets to settle instead of pursue an expensive trial. I fail to see how this proves their innocence - surely confronting their accuser in court and defeating the guy who got OJ would be "total vindication." "Truth is the lure" according to the earlier article but I see no truths revealed here.

Question: I haven't finished reading the link so maybe this is addressed, but I know that poster Candy has some sort of pathological hatred towards ST (and FW) and seems to be saying ST is at fault for settling. The article does state that both St. Martin's Press and ST settled, but if SMP decided to settle would he realistically have any choice to proceed? They had the money, not him. I doubt Petrocelli came cheap. And he was not the party asking for money, so if he won the case could he have forced the Ramseys to pay his legal fees or not? What were ST's options?

Another thing from the Westword article:Wolf's suit was filed a year ago in Atlanta, and the Ramseys' motion for dismissal was rejected in February by Judge Julie Carnes. Experts say that simply expressing a view that a particular person might be a killer would generally be protected as opinion. But Hoffman says he successfully argued in court that John Ramsey had done more than that: He implied his opinion was based on facts that he did not go on to disclose, which made his comment actionable. Hoffman expects to begin deposing witnesses in June.

So it seems the difference between JR's comment in his book and the CBS doc is that CBS actually laid out their reasoning and evidence before stating their opinion.

I don't know much about law so if anyone has comments on how the Wolf and Thomas cases might relate to the new lawsuits and possibilities of settlement, I'd be very grateful.

Link for Westword, which does the best reporting by far on this case:
http://www.westword.com/news/the-truth-hurts-5066852


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I find that article confusing and meandering.

Without getting into a lot of boring details, suffice to say that while an insurance company may defend an insured for an entire lawsuit, the policy may not cover all allegations alleged in a Complaint. A classic example is a Count for punitive damages. The company will defend the lawsuit, but may advise the policy holder that any award under that Count will have to be paid out of the insured's own pocket because punitive damages aren't covered under the policy. Just a illustrative example. I don't not know this to be the case in any lawsuit so far involving the Ramseys, but just because an insured has enough monetary insurance doesn't necessary mean it will be fully indemnified for all allegations.

Also, to Woody's question "How many people settle a libel case?" used to assert that only guilty parties pay, WRONG. Most cases settle, and they settle because they are very expensive to defend. And if you are relying on a defense from an insurance carrier they call the shots and can settle whatever they want to settle. So if it is going to cost 200k to defend a case through trial and there's an opportunity to settle for 50k, that's a deal most insurance carriers - and uninsured people with shallow pockets - are going to take, regardless of their innocence. Lin Wood knows this perfectly well, but again he's a lying snake who uses these settlements to "prove" the Ramseys' innocence when they do nothing of the sort.

I don't know much beyond the basic facts of the Wolf case and don't understand why it was dismissed, but if that was his lead counsel questioning John and Patsy in the 2000 depos on youtube, he sounded very much out of his depth. Lin Wood is a cagey bully and I can imagine him eating this guy up and spitting him out.

To answer your final question, the answer really is "nothing". These cases have nothing to do with the CBS case. They proved nothing. They created no case law, no precedent, and the fact that one was settled and the Wolf case was dismissed will not impact the allegations in the new lawsuits. Could CBS do a cost benefit analysis and opt to settle out? Absolutely. Could they go the opposite route and push this toward dismissal, and failing that, trial? Absolutely. They are in the driver's seat until this case is sent out to a jury. Lin Wood has no power to force a settlement and no power to prevent a dismissal if CBS presents a solid, well-reasoned, well-cited First Amendment argument to the Court. In the interim, Wood is posing and posturing, something he does very well.

 

[BBB167893]

I don't know much beyond the basic facts of the Wolf case and don't understand why it was dismissed, but if that was his lead counsel questioning John and Patsy in the 2000 depos on youtube, he sounded very much out of his depth.

You're not kidding. A chimp could have done a better job than Hoffman, RIP.

 

[DrollForeignFaction]

Thank you, HarmonyE!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[andreww]

Respectfully snipped. Well isn't THAT the truth! Unfortunately a rigorous public debate of the facts is the thing the Ramseys have been running from for 20 years. They can never confront their critics and dispute the facts, they just deny the facts exist and spew misinformation.

Thanks for this post, otg. I wonder if you or anyone else knows anything about what happened with the Thomas lawsuit? I haven't had much time to look into it but I was reading an old Westword article about all the lawsuits the Ramseys have generated and noticed some parallels to the new suits.

How laughable that camera hogs JR and PR would claim they were not public figures! They quote Darnay Hoffman on the Wolf suit and he didn't even bother denying that Wolf was a public figure even though CW never went on CNN or Dr. Phil to publicize himself.

So they were "anxious" to prove their innocence, but not anxious enough to refuse the settlement and confront ST in court. As has been pointed out before, the settlement did nothing besides a little publicity. ST never had to retract anything, his book is still in print accusing Patsy of murder, and we don't even know for how much (or how little) the Ramseys sold out their chance at publicly revealing "the truth". St. Martin's Press is relatively small (and hence has a smaller insurance policy than CBS I presume) and the Ramseys have consistently complained of their poverty (guess LW wasn't sharing any of his Jaguars), so it can't have been much. Here's another article where LW crows about how poor Thomas is:

So it's not about the money and all about getting someone with admittedly shallow pockets to settle instead of pursue an expensive trial. I fail to see how this proves their innocence - surely confronting their accuser in court and defeating the guy who got OJ would be "total vindication." "Truth is the lure" according to the earlier article but I see no truths revealed here.

Question: I haven't finished reading the link so maybe this is addressed, but I know that poster Candy has some sort of pathological hatred towards ST (and FW) and seems to be saying ST is at fault for settling. The article does state that both St. Martin's Press and ST settled, but if SMP decided to settle would he realistically have any choice to proceed? They had the money, not him. I doubt Petrocelli came cheap. And he was not the party asking for money, so if he won the case could he have forced the Ramseys to pay his legal fees or not? What were ST's options?

Another thing from the Westword article:

So it seems the difference between JR's comment in his book and the CBS doc is that CBS actually laid out their reasoning and evidence before stating their opinion.

I don't know much about law so if anyone has comments on how the Wolf and Thomas cases might relate to the new lawsuits and possibilities of settlement, I'd be very grateful.

Link for Westword, which does the best reporting by far on this case:
http://www.westword.com/news/the-truth-hurts-5066852


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Interesting, I had no idea that Dan Petrocelli represented Thomas. I always felt that he would be the perfect guy to depose the Ramsey's.

 

[Miz Adventure]

A little perspective on previous lawsuits brought by Lin Wood on behalf of the Ramseys might be in order because I think some aren’t clear on exactly what happened in the past -- not surprising since Woody is the only one with “oral diarrhea.”

Until the recent spate of lawsuits, there had been six lawsuits filed on behalf of Burke. Five of them were settled “out of court,” meaning only that the defendants chose to settle on some undisclosed monetary sum rather than suffer the cost of litigation and risk of possibly losing a larger amount. This is the equivalent of a traffic citation where the charged transgressor has the option of pleading guilty, not guilty, or no contest. A pleading of no contest means the person is not admitting guilt, but simply chooses not to pursue a trial.

The one lawsuit that was not settled was against Fox News Network. Their intent was to take it to court if need be, and threatened (IIRC) to subpoena many of the files the Ramseys would rather not have made public (police files, medical records, etc.). FNN lawyers did what all defendants do as a first defensive move: they filed for dismissal of the lawsuit based on the fact that it lacked merit. They won that filing in a ruling from federal judge Phillip Figa. The following is a report on that ruling by RCFP (the same group that helped Charlie Brennan in his suit to have the GJ true bills released):

http://www.rcfp.org/browse-media-la...efamation-case-dismissed#sthash.Mu7dm0EY.dpuf

The following is the important part of the court ruling which may have implications on us as forum posters, as well as on the current lawsuits against Spitz and CBS:

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 technologically-advanced 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. 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.
​

Notice that this lawsuit was dismissed “with prejudice.” More on that here:
http://legaldictionary.net/dismissed-with-prejudice/


The court order can be read in full here:
https://casetext.com/case/ramsey-v-fox-news-network

An excellent post, as always, otg. Thanks for all that info.

Just one tiny thing - I watch Judge Judy and I've often heard her telling people that if they have pled 'No contest' in court it's the same as admitting their guilt.

 

[otg]

An excellent post, as always, otg. Thanks for all that info.

Just one tiny thing - I watch Judge Judy and I've often heard her telling people that if they have pled 'No contest' in court it's the same as admitting their guilt.

It is the same in some ways -- in other ways, not. Maybe that wasn’t a very good comparison, but it was the best I could come up with at the time. If you want to know more about nolo contendere (no contest pleas), just search “guilty versus no contest” to learn the differences. The main difference between the two though is that there is no admission of guilt in a no contest plea, and therefore the person isn’t held civilly responsible because of it. My comparison to the Ramsey out of court settlements was in reference to that part of it. When a civil case is settled out of court, the defendant is not admitting fault or guilt -- simply saying the case does not merit their time or money to pursue. You’ve surely seen these kinds of settlements for large amounts announced on the news where some large corporation has settled with a plaintiff for “an undisclosed amount” (part of the agreement is nearly always that the amount not be made public), but they say the settlement should not be construed as an admission of fault or guilt.

BTW, since you brought up Judge Judy, have you ever heard what she thinks about this case? She was on Larry King Live in February of 1999. Here is the conversation:

KING: Does the JonBenet Ramsey matter baffle you?
SHEINDLIN: No.
KING: Does not baffle you that we, apparently, have an unsolved murder? Over two years?
SHEINDLIN: There are a lot of unsolved murders over a two-year period. I don't know if -- I really don't know enough, you know, as a judge you're supposed to not...
KING: But you know about child abuse, and this was an -- ultimately, an abused child.
SHEINDLIN: I know about child abuse, and I know about parents protecting their children, and I know about what mothers will do in order to protect their children. I think that if the story is ever told about the death of that child, I think -- and this is just sheer fantasy on my part, which I am absolutely not going to share with you, Larry -- that I think that the country will be very -- might be very surprised. I certainly never got the sense that this was a -- based upon what I've read -- I've read most of the stuff that's come out -- that this was an intruder, a strange intruder. Whatever I think you're going to find, you're going to find something within that household, and it may be different from the parents.
KING: Is the beauty pageant thing a bother to you as a mother?
SHEINDLIN: Yes, and I even talk about that in the book, beauty pageants for young children, I don't believe in them. I think that they're destructive. I think that it says to young girls who are in beauty pageants, You're only worth is related to the way you look, and how much appeal you have to women and men. That's -- that is your worth, and it says to the little girls who are not in beauty pageants, You are worth less, not "worthless" but "worth less" because you don't have that physical acumen.
​

Keep in mind this was long before Kolar’s book and even before UKGuy fell off the fence on the BDI side :giggle:. Here is how the tabs reported it back then (along with a few other gems from that period of time):

http://web.archive.org/web/20060812183700/http://www.joshua-7.com/jonbenet/03_16_99.htm

 

[buggiegirl]

Thanks for this. There are a lot of ads and a little too much background on the guest, but anyone who thinks Lin Wood has a good case against CBS should listen to this. "If I'm CBS, I'm not shaking in my boots.".... "Some of these depositions could become new material for a new special."

Yes, this makes sense to me. I'm sure CBS expected to be sued, and I'd just LOVE it if LW was just playing right into their plans to get more info released. Being a huge network, CBS just wants money and ratings, they really don't care about solving the crime, but a huge lawsuit that results in scandalous or new information, and possibly another JBR special based on it is the best way to get money and ratings.

 

[kanzz]

It is the same in some ways -- in other ways, not. Maybe that wasn’t a very good comparison, but it was the best I could come up with at the time. If you want to know more about nolo contendere (no contest pleas), just search “guilty versus no contest” to learn the differences. The main difference between the two though is that there is no admission of guilt in a no contest plea, and therefore the person isn’t held civilly responsible because of it. My comparison to the Ramsey out of court settlements was in reference to that part of it. When a civil case is settled out of court, the defendant is not admitting fault or guilt -- simply saying the case does not merit their time or money to pursue. You’ve surely seen these kinds of settlements for large amounts announced on the news where some large corporation has settled with a plaintiff for “an undisclosed amount” (part of the agreement is nearly always that the amount not be made public), but they say the settlement should not be construed as an admission of fault or guilt.

BTW, since you brought up Judge Judy, have you ever heard what she thinks about this case? She was on Larry King Live in February of 1999. Here is the conversation:

KING: Does the JonBenet Ramsey matter baffle you?
SHEINDLIN: No.
KING: Does not baffle you that we, apparently, have an unsolved murder? Over two years?
SHEINDLIN: There are a lot of unsolved murders over a two-year period. I don't know if -- I really don't know enough, you know, as a judge you're supposed to not...
KING: But you know about child abuse, and this was an -- ultimately, an abused child.
SHEINDLIN: I know about child abuse, and I know about parents protecting their children, and I know about what mothers will do in order to protect their children. I think that if the story is ever told about the death of that child, I think -- and this is just sheer fantasy on my part, which I am absolutely not going to share with you, Larry -- that I think that the country will be very -- might be very surprised. I certainly never got the sense that this was a -- based upon what I've read -- I've read most of the stuff that's come out -- that this was an intruder, a strange intruder. Whatever I think you're going to find, you're going to find something within that household, and it may be different from the parents.
KING: Is the beauty pageant thing a bother to you as a mother?
SHEINDLIN: Yes, and I even talk about that in the book, beauty pageants for young children, I don't believe in them. I think that they're destructive. I think that it says to young girls who are in beauty pageants, You're only worth is related to the way you look, and how much appeal you have to women and men. That's -- that is your worth, and it says to the little girls who are not in beauty pageants, You are worth less, not "worthless" but "worth less" because you don't have that physical acumen.
​

Keep in mind this was long before Kolar’s book and even before UKGuy fell off the fence on the BDI side :giggle:. Here is how the tabs reported it back then (along with a few other gems from that period of time):

http://web.archive.org/web/20060812183700/http://www.joshua-7.com/jonbenet/03_16_99.htm

Great post. I didn't know about Judy Sheindlin's perspective before. Not that I think she is the be-all end-all in opinions all of the time, but I do think she is very sharp. Her opinion here seems right on the money, both about the JB case and about child beauty pageants. Thanks for sharing this, otg!

 

[Miz Adventure]

Yes, thanks so much for that, otg.

I have to say that watching JJ is my passion, like a drug. I think I've only disagreed with her verdict twice in all the thousands of shows that I've watched over the years.

I like the way she can instantly sum somebody up. That's a gift. I wish all judges were just like her.

Anyway.....regarding JBR....I am not certain what JJ meant by this:

"Whatever I think you're going to find, you're going to find something within that household, and it may be different from the parents"

 

[Charlize]

Yes, thanks so much for that, otg.

I have to say that watching JJ is my passion, like a drug. I think I've only disagreed with her verdict twice in all the thousands of shows that I've watched over the years.

I like the way she can instantly sum somebody up. That's a gift. I wish all judges were just like her.

Anyway.....regarding JBR....I am not certain what JJ meant by this:

"Whatever I think you're going to find, you're going to find something within that household, and it may be different from the parents"

it means more if you read it in context:

KING: But you know about child abuse, and this was an -- ultimately, an abused child.
SHEINDLIN: I know about child abuse, and I know about parents protecting their children, and I know about what mothers will do in order to protect their children. I think that if the story is ever told about the death of that child, I think -- and this is just sheer fantasy on my part, which I am absolutely not going to share with you, Larry -- that I think that the country will be very -- might be very surprised. I certainly never got the sense that this was a -- based upon what I've read -- I've read most of the stuff that's come out -- that this was an intruder, a strange intruder. Whatever I think you're going to find, you're going to find something within that household, and it may be different from the parents.


JJ is basically saying, there was no intruder and parents are lying.

that's what she means by "different to the parents (story)". She missed off a word.