Do libel cases tell us anything about JonBenet's murder?

[questfortrue]

Paralegal Voice
Attorney L. Lin Wood on Representing the Ramseys and Other High-Profile Individuals
June 27, 2014

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:sF9PcTyGb7gJ:legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/paralegal-voice/2014/06/attorney-l-lin-wood-representing-ramseys-high-profile-individuals/+&cd=23&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca

Lin Wood: .... Richard Jewell, when I undertook to represent him in a few short days after the Centennial Olympic Park bombing in July of 1996, Richard Jewell changed my professional career. Obviously since that time I have probably spent about 50% of my practice in the area of First Amendment law and defamation cases. Richard was not only a great client; he was a great friend. He passed away too early; I miss him everyday.

My passion, though, for the practice of law has not really been to take on First Amendment cases or medical malpractice cases, or business litigation cases; it’s really a passion that deals with representing, in the main, individuals who are viewed as the underdog. Represented and had the privilege of representing some very wealthy people. I’ve represented some large corporation but my passion is always driven by the Richard Jewells of the world. The people who find themselves pitted against powerful and wealthy opponents, who really need someone to fight for them because they are, in effect, fighting for their lives.

First Amendment law is really a fight about reputation. At the end of the day when we live this earth, and we don’t necessarily all know for sure what’s going to happen to us, except we know that we live behind our reputation. We spend a lifetime building it and unfortunately in the media environment that we live in today, a lifetime of work to build a reputation can be destroyed worldwide in literally a matter of seconds. That’s what happened to Richard Jewell in 1996 when the international media descended on him in Atlanta when he was obviously being pursued by the FBI.

I’ve had obviously clients since Richard that have found themselves in very similar situations. We can talk about First Amendment as a matter of freedom of speech, freedom of the press. I like to talk about First Amendment law as being an area where one protects his or her reputation.

........

Lin Wood: ...Not too very long after I undertook the representation of Richard, I was contacted by Patsy Ramsey and asked to consider representing John and Patsy in connection with certain defamatory publications about their Burke, who was 9 years of age when he lost his life’s best friend JonBenet Ramsey when she was 6. I did agree to represent Burke and to meet John and Patsy and to spend time with them quickly led me to believe in them so I undertook for over 10 years a variety of matters for them both involving defamation and involving the investigation into JonBenet’s murder in Boulder, Colorado. Take a lot of credit, and don’t mind saying it, in having that investigation moved away from Boulder Police into the hands of the district attorneys office. That ultimately led to the district attorney public exonerating John and Patsy and Burke from any involvement in JonBenet’s murder.

.........

Lin Wood: Rule of thumb, kind of defamation 101, if you’re representing someone like a Richard Jewell or John and Patsy Ramsey, one of your goals you’ve got to do what needs to be done to make sure that these innocent people are never arrested, never charged. Richard Jewell: never arrested, never charged. John and Patsy Ramsey: never arrested, never charged. Because once that arrest occurs, you just simply will never be able to sustain a viable, successful libel case. If there’s enough information out there to make the arrest, even if proven innocent, there is no relief from a libel litigation standpoint.

.........

Lin Wood: Yes, what happened to John and Patsy Ramsey will affect generations to come of their family members. It will never be forgotten; it will never be erased. The damage can never be completely undone. Same true with Richard Jewell.

Just a bit more to augment our knowledge about LW. From the same article.

Is it more difficult now to restore or fight for your reputation then back in 1996? The answer to that would be yes. ’96 was kind of the beginnings of the internet era. Some of the articles that we sued on for Richard, particularly on CNN, were internet articles. But the internet was not the dominant player in our everyday life that is now. Now you’ve got not only mainline newspapers that are on the internet but you’ve got just a world of individuals who blog, who post on forums where there’s anonymity allowed. It’s hard to track those individuals down and even when you successfully can identify them it’s very difficult to successfully sue them. Most of them don’t have any assets to compensate you with.

 

[Meara]

Dr Hodges has written 2 books stating he believes both Patsy and John were implicit in JB's murder. No lawsuits there either.

Excellent point. A Mother Gone Bad was published in June 1998, the Grand Jury finished its work in 1999, and Hodges' second book, Who Will Speak For JonBenet? came out in July 2000. If they learned that that GJ had issued the indictments, it would explain why they didn't sue after the second book. But after the first one? hoh:

 

[THE BUNK]

To me the suits mean they were not going to stand by and let people lie about them. If they are guilty the easiest thing to do is ignore it rather than have more digging going on in court cases.

To quote a phrase:

"The best defense. Is a good offense"

 

[reedus23]

The 3 things I take most from the various lawsuits are:

1. If they were responsible for JonBenet's murder they would not have filed any lawsuits. For a guilty person, the sooner and quieter the case went away, the better. It would be illogical and frankly stupid to bring such lawsuits if they were responsible..

2. Of the lawsuits filed by the Ramsey's, they seem most concerned with protecting the name and reputation of their son. Can't say I blame them there.

3. There are some really bizarre people out there IMO.

 

[gramcracker]

I think there was intense guilt re their children: that they didn't better protect JB from her brother, and that there was suspicion and doubt hanging over his head. they didn't see the lawsuits as illogical and stupid after they learned that the initiator of the event could not be prosecuted because of age and after they sufficiently muddied the waters re the identity of the finalizer

hubris is a powerful motivator

 

[reedus23]

Of course they didn't see them as illogical and stupid. They were trying to defend the name and reputation of a little kid that was being attacked by the media. As for the rest, my apologies, but I am not following.

 

[Detective Pinkie]

The 3 things I take most from the various lawsuits are:

1. If they were responsible for JonBenet's murder they would not have filed any lawsuits. For a guilty person, the sooner and quieter the case went away, the better. It would be illogical and frankly stupid to bring such lawsuits if they were responsible..

Because people never sue in the hopes that it will be settled out of court.

It would be just as silly not to sue and leave uncontested statements floating around that people will remember. Now people remember that there was a law suit and since it was settled out of court then the R's must be innocent.
It worked on you, didn't it?

MOO.

 

[reedus23]

Because people never sue in the hopes that it will be settled out of court.

It would be just as silly not to sue and leave uncontested statements floating around that people will remember. Now people remember that there was a law suit and since it was settled out of court then the R's must be innocent.
It worked on you, didn't it?

MOO.

That logic just doesn't work for me. And it may just be me. I freely admit that. But so I understand, the thought is, R's kill their daughter. The investigation seemingly stalls. Years later, instead of letting it fade away, the "master plan" is "Hey, let's file a lawsuit and then settle. People will automatically think we're innocent." Makes no sense to me. If you're guilty, the thing you fear most is arrest and the needle. If you want to avoid those things, you shut the heck up, especially after the passage of time. You don't bring the spotlight right back onto you. And if that was the "master plan", their lawyers should be fired. Immediately.

And for the record, out of court settlements alone don't indicate innocence to me any more than they indicate guilt. The argument can be made either way. So no, it didn't work on me.

MOO.

 

[bettybaby00]

Because people never sue in the hopes that it will be settled out of court.

It would be just as silly not to sue and leave uncontested statements floating around that people will remember. Now people remember that there was a law suit and since it was settled out of court then the R's must be innocent.
It worked on you, didn't it?

MOO.

It did work IMO, b/c if the Rs were so concerned with the truth, meaning disputing the false claims made against them, the Rs wouldn't have wanted to settle. They would have wanted to prove how wrong all those claims were. The Rs sued mostly on Burke's behalf, (which I'm not sure, but this could have also played a role in how things played out?) and they mostly sued media outlets. Steve Thomas didn't settle, his publisher did. Why didn't they sue ST directly? cause, hey he didn't have any money right? If they had sued Thomas directly, they would have had to testify. Can't plead the 5th in a libel case. The Carnes decision went their way b/c LW successfully made sure only the Rs version of events were presented during the trial.


The only time they sued on their "own behalf," was against Fox for saying "there was no evidence of an intruder." The judgement? The judge threw it out of court.

 

[reedus23]

It did work IMO, b/c if the Rs were so concerned with the truth, meaning disputing the false claims made against them, the Rs wouldn't have wanted to settle. They would have wanted to prove how wrong all those claims were. The Rs sued mostly on Burke's behalf, (which I'm not sure, but this could have also played a role in how things played out?) and they mostly sued media outlets. Steve Thomas didn't settle, his publisher did. Why didn't they sue ST directly? cause, hey he didn't have any money right? If they had sued Thomas directly, they would have had to testify. Can't plead the 5th in a libel case. The Carnes decision went their way b/c LW successfully made sure only the Rs version of events were presented during the trial.


The only time they sued on their "own behalf," was against Fox for saying "there was no evidence of an intruder." The judgement? The judge threw it out of court.

And a good argument on how settling out of court can be viewed just as easily as a sign of guilt as opposed to a sign of innocence as stated in the post you quoted. That's why I say simply settling cases out of court is not evidence that supports either side of the argument.

Another interesting aspect you bring up is asserting 5th amendment rights in a civil case. Where I am, actually you can assert your 5th amendment rights in a civil case. I suspect that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to win your lawsuit if you're not willing to waive those rights, but you still can do it. Which raises the next question for me...why didn't they assert their rights in the claims filed against them? Certainly seems to me, that if they were guilty, they wouldn't have, and no lawyer would have allowed them to, answer any questions in those lawsuits. Having said all of that, I haven't looked up the federal rules or other state rules with regard to asserting 5th amendment rights in a civil setting. I am fairly certain that those rules DO vary widely from jurisdiction to jurisdiction so the rules where I am may have ZERO bearing on what the rules are governing this case.

 

[questfortrue]

And a good argument on how settling out of court can be viewed just as easily as a sign of guilt as opposed to a sign of innocence as stated in the post you quoted. That's why I say simply settling cases out of court is not evidence that supports either side of the argument.

Another interesting aspect you bring up is asserting 5th amendment rights in a civil case. Where I am, actually you can assert your 5th amendment rights in a civil case. I suspect that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to win your lawsuit if you're not willing to waive those rights, but you still can do it. Which raises the next question for me...why didn't they assert their rights in the claims filed against them? Certainly seems to me, that if they were guilty, they wouldn't have, and no lawyer would have allowed them to, answer any questions in those lawsuits. Having said all of that, I haven't looked up the federal rules or other state rules with regard to asserting 5th amendment rights in a civil setting. I am fairly certain that those rules DO vary widely from jurisdiction to jurisdiction so the rules where I am may have ZERO bearing on what the rules are governing this case.

Thanks, Reedus, I enjoy reading perspectives in the law. (It tells me a lot about the world I live in.) Like many, I thought the 5h amendment was reserved for defendants, not plaintiffs.

A little background on the Rs lawsuits. These lawsuits were played a little differently than many. Even JR slips at one point in an interview in regard to suing, “well, we needed the money.” Once their libel attorney LW had his document from the DA’s office that there had been no evidence developed to conclude BR had involvement in JB’s death, LW proceeded to take on publishers and tabloids over this. In the case of the publishers, and according to author W. Davis, LW would find out the amount of liability insurance a publisher had and sue for that amount. It was then easier for the publisher to settle out of court, since their liability insurance covered it. We don’t really know what any of these lawsuits were settled for dollar-wise. But there would truly have been a risk, imo, if the Rs had tried to assert 5th Amendment rights. Here is a little blurb about this tactic:

Criminal Justice Section Newsletter, - author Craig Denney:

In a recent decision by the Nevada Supreme Court, the court found that abuse of the Fifth Amendment privilege can result in summary judgment. In Francis v. Wynn Las Vegas, LLC, a party in a civil lawsuit involving a significant debt owed to a casino, repeatedly asserted the Fifth Amendment in his deposition testimony. There was a pending criminal investigation by the local district attorney during the civil litigation. The plaintiff (debtor) opted to invoke his constitutional right against self-incrimination on practically every single question posed by opposing counsel at the deposition (including innocuous questions like “what is your father’s name?”). The district court found this abusive tactic improper and granted summary judgment for the casino on all claims and counterclaims. The judge criticized the defendant’s conduct as “the most ridiculous exercise of the 5th Amendment I think I’ve ever seen.” On appeal, the Supreme Court agreed with the district court and found defendant’s assertion of the privilege was “overbroad” and affirmed the summary judgment.

moo

 

[reedus23]

There are many things that I find disturbing with this case, having only relatively recently trying to study up on it. The civil suits, whether filed by the Ramsey's or others, is just one of those things. I am sure there were many motives for filing them. Money was surely one of them and unfortunately I suppose is oftentimes more important to the lawyers than the parties. Protecting names and reputations surely played a role for some. Getting in the spot light was probably a factor for some. I will say, in my experience, finding out what policy limits are is not at all unusual. That is typically one of the first thing a lawyer is interested in. Many reasons for doing this, but in my experience, one of the main reasons is because the lawyer has no interest in seeking more than that because that means having to collect from the defendant personally. Most lawyers have no interest in doing so. It means garnishing accounts, executing on property, potentially bankrupting companies/individuals and otherwise going through a lot of hoops for little return. Of course, some lawyers won't hesitate to do so, but most won't. So I understand why the Ramsey's lawyer would make such an inquiry.

As for the risk of asserting the 5th amendment in the cases they brought, I agree wholeheartedly. That is why I said technically I suppose they could have asserted it, but they would not be able to make their case then. Many jurisdictions will not allow you to use the assertion as both a sword and a shield. The result would/could be summary judgment as you point out. My main point was that in the jurisdictions I am aware of, a party CAN assert their 5th amendment rights in a civil case. It is not simply reserved for criminal settings. It may result in a summary judgment if it is that person's lawsuit or it might result in not being able to provide a defense in a lawsuit brought against that person, but they can assert it.