Lin Wood. The saga continues

All day yesterday I couldn't quit thinking about Wood's email to me. Especially the last paragraph. It stunned me to the core. I couldn't help myself. I had to write him one more time. I sent my email to Mr. Wood to both his email accounts he has on the internet.
llwood@linwoodlaw.com
and
LLWood47@aol.com

Here is my email. Notice I say "This will be my last email to you"


Dear Mr. Wood,

This will be my last email to you.

You wrote:

“If you have any credible information about this case, please contact the District Attorney's office. I prefer not to receive any more e-mails from people who apparently have so much free time on their hands that they become obsessed playing amateur detective. Personally, I think people who immerse themselves in this case on the Internet are disturbed individuals who must not have much of a life and are to be pitied.â€

Mr. Wood I have been a busy career woman all my adult life. I have a wonderful child and husband. I have traveled all over the world. Met all kinds of people. Mostly wonderful people who are now friends. Along the way I have met cruel and uncaring people. I have met criminals who eyes are soulless and empty.

Mr. Wood I have to tell you, in all my full and wonderful life, I have never met anyone who is as cruel as you. What you wrote to me speaks volumes about who you are.

Mr. Wood you can insult me all you want. I wouldn't think twice about it. I can take it. But to wildly insult millions of people, including people whose only lifeline is the Internet, goes beyond anything I have ever witnessed.

Mr. Wood the only one who needs pity is you. Dear God what your life must have been like to make you so cold. I am sorry you are so empty. How tragic. You are missing out on so much by being dark and cruel.

I pity you Mr. Wood. Like I have never pitied anyone before.

Tricia Griffith
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Here is the reply I received this morning from LLwood47@aol.com

Original Message -----
From: LLWood47@aol.com
To: t****
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2003 4:32 AM
Subject: Re: Stunned


In a message dated 4/17/2003 4:38:55 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
tgr************writes:
This will be my last email to you.

Thank you.

L. Lin Wood
L. LIN WOOD, P.C.
Suite 2140
The Equitable Building
100 Peachtree Street, NW
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Phone: 404.522.1713
Fax: 404.522.1716
E-mail: llwood@linwoodlaw.com
Internet: www.linwoodlaw.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Did you get that? He copied my "this will be my last email to you" and then in bold replied; "Thank You".

End of story right? Nope...I came home to this email a few minutes ago. Please note it is from his linwoodlaw.com email.

Original Message -----
From: L. Lin Wood
To: T
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2003 9:44 AM
Subject: Re: Stunned


4-17-03

Dear Ms. Griffith:

I truly did not mean to insult you personally by stating my general feelings about so-called "Ramsey Internet Junkies." As you correctly point out, I do not know you and have no basis to attack you or belittle you. To the extent you feel that my prior e-mail did so, please accept my sincere apology.

It is likewise true that you do not know the Ramseys or me. And I would ask the same courtesy from you that you ask of me -- that you refrain from attacking or insulting the Ramseys and me.

I have no objection to individuals debating and discussing the Ramsey case on the Internet or elsewhere. I cherish the freedom of speech granted by the First Amendment. But I do not believe that freedom of speech affords an unrestricted right to falsely accuse people of murder, particularly when they have never been charged with any crime whatsoever. Due process of law and the presumption of innocence are also rights afforded to the citizens of this country and are at least equal in importance to freedom of speech. Should you ever find yourself in a position where your liberty is threatened, I am confident you will insist to the fullest on due process of law and the presumption of innocence being afforded to you -- and I venture to say that you will hire the best lawyer possible to defend and protect your rights.

I am a professional seeking to fulfill my duties to my clients to protect and enforce their legal rights. I am convinced of their innocence and I am familiar with the evidence in the case. If I felt otherwise, I would immediately withdraw from representation. I have four beautiful children and I would never represent anyone whom I even remotely thought was capable of harming a child, much less guilty of brutally murdering a child.

While you may disagree with my view of the evidence in this case and my efforts to represent my clients to the best of my ability, I trust you do not disagree with my right to do so. Lawyers are a necessary evil in our system of justice -- and often only the lawyer can stand in the way to protect private citizens from government corruption and incompetence and a media looking to profit from sensationalism.

Best regards,

Lin Wood
~````````````````````````````````````````````````````````

What the????

Since I gave Wood my word that the email would be my last I won't send him my response. I'll do it on the forum. Later however.

Don't you think it's odd that from one email address he is rude and condescending and the other he is incredibly polite and professional?

He responds to my message in two different tones from two different email addresses...Hmmmm

Why did he respond twice to the same message in such different manners?

Anyway. Back later.

 

I know both replies were sent hours apart.

The most likely thing is what you are saying. He had time to think. Perhaps he checks his AOL account from home. The Mr. Wood arrives at work and sees the same email in his Linwood.com email and re-thinks what he said.

Or...perhaps someone is answering his AOL email. However I can't believe he would let someone else write what was sent to me. If this is the case that person is a loose cannon.

Actually I am glad I recieved this from Wood. At least he realized how out of line the whole thing was.

I will respect Mr. Woods wishes and not attack him or the Ramseys on a personal level. That doesn't mean I won't strongly attack any situation, comment or action taken by the Ramseys and Wood in this case if I find it to be outrages like I have so many times in the past.

Ok no more Lin Wood/Horse jokes.

Of course I will continue to discuss, dissect, suggest, and at times forcefully with indignation post theories and thoughts on the case.

Ok no more Lizard jokes for me.

Wood wrote:
"While you may disagree with my view of the evidence in this case and my efforts to represent my clients to the best of my ability, I trust you do not disagree with my right to do so."

Absolutely I do not disagree. If I was innocent of a crime you bet I would want the best lawyer in the world. I couldn't afford the best that money could buy but I would do what I could to find a great lawyer.

As we all know sometimes the guilty walk free because of a great high priced lawyer and the innocent are convicted because a great lawyer was not afforded to them.

But we are not talking about me. We are talking about the Ramsey's and Mr. Woods attempts to get us to believe the unbelievable. Therein lies the problem. No one is buying what the Ramsey's and Keenan are selling.

I have more to post on this subject but I have to run now. Wonder what's in my email box

 

Mr. Wood wrote:

I have no objection to individuals debating and discussing the Ramsey case on the Internet or elsewhere. I cherish the freedom of speech granted by the First Amendment. But I do not believe that freedom of speech affords an unrestricted right to falsely accuse people of murder, particularly when they have never been charged with any crime whatsoever. Due process of law and the presumption of innocence are also rights afforded to the citizens of this country and are at least equal in importance to freedom of speech.

Now read this carefully my friends and let it sink in.

“Due process of law and the presumption of innocence are also rights afforded to the citizens of this country and are at least equal in importance to freedom of speech.â€

Freedom of speech. Our very First Amendment right.

I believe the First Amendment does not allow us to stand up in a theater and scream fire unless we know or think there is one. It does not allow us, without cause, to announce to the world that someone is guilty of a crime.

The First Amendment does not mean a free-for-all on a person’s reputation.

However I disagree with Mr. Wood’s comment that due process and presumption of innocence are equal in importance to freedom of speech.

Don’t get me wrong. I think one of the worst things in the world be if our country threw people in prison without due process. How God-awful would it be if we were not presumed innocent until proven guilty? Thank God our country does not do this.

Freedom of speech is the basis, the foundation, of freedom. If we are not allowed to express our opinions, especially about public figures, then all the other freedoms become weak. All of our other constitutionally protected rights are flimsy. Besides there are laws in place to protect people from out and out flagrant lies and accusations.

Imagine if we were not allowed to speak out against Nixon. He was never convicted. Yet most of the country knew and expressed the fact that he was lying. If we didn’t’ have that freedom of speech then public officials wouldn’t worry about being held accountable for their actions. If we have to wait before expressing an opinion until someone is found guilty in a court of law then our country would be weak.

Accountability through public perception can be a powerful tool.

Still freedom of speech does not give us the right to accuse someone publicly of murder or any crime….unless…we are given reasons to discuss the scenario.

Like with Nixon. We had some evidence. It’s not like a group of Democrats held a press conference and said Nixon was a liar out of the blue. You can’t do that. That is like yelling fire in a crowded theater.

You can only yell fire in a crowded theater if you see smoke. If you think you see smoke. Then you are given a reason to state your opinion. It’s what is being shown to you, what you see, that you base your reason for yelling FIRE.


Now what about private citizens? What about a child close to a murder scene? Is it right to allow discussion of private citizens, of children, who are suspected of crime but not convicted? Well now it gets murky.

Let’s take Richard Jewel. Someone that Mr. Wood represented. Mr. Wood came on board after Jewel was cleared if I remember correctly. Everyone was certain (including me) that Jewel was the bomber. “He was odd†we were told. He lived with his mother. He fit an F.B.I. profile. He was crucified by the press and by us. Yet when it was all said and done he was found not to be the bomber.

I believe Jewel should have received big time compensation. Yes there was “smoke†in his case but it wasn’t like anyone saw it. In Jewel’s case the “smoke†or evidence was based on a profile. That’s it. Nothing concrete. The profile was weak. No psychical evidence. No Smoke. What happened is we let people tell us there SHOULD BE smoke with Jewel, there SHOULD BE EVIDENCE with Jewel because he fits a description on a piece of paper. That was the mistake. Seeing Smoke (evidence, behavior) and having someone ( media, experts) tell us there SHOULD BE smoke are two different things. That’s why Jewel was able to get settlements in cases. Lin Wood was there all the way.

Although I believe Jewel lost one. Correct me if I am wrong but Jewel was declared a public figure therefore the threshold of liable and slander is much higher.

I don’t believe Mr. Wood has actually taken any of the Jewel claims to trail. Last I heard the Atlanta Constitution suit was still going on when Jewel was deemed a public figure.

If I am wrong someone please correct me.

When Jewel chose to go on one of the morning news programs to talk about what he saw then he himself made the decision to become a public figure.

Which leads me to the Ramseys.

In my constitutionally protected opinion we have every right to discuss and yes even come out and state we believe the Ramsey’s are guilty. Guilty of what exactly..well that’s what most of us are debating.

The Ramsey’s chose to go on CNN before they even sat down and talked with the police for an official interview,

To some people that is a wisp of smoke. A behavior. But there is so much more.

All the talk shows. The interviews. Their book. The documentaries. Their statements. There is so much smoke there for many of us we can see our way through it.

Many of us took the time to check up on what the Ramsey’s wanted us to believe as true. We put together timelines when we read their book.. Talked to experts when their documentary came out. Many have formed the opinion, based on the Ramsey’s own actions, that we can yell fire. Even though in the eyes of the law they are innocent. Just like Nixon. Just like O.J. In the eyes of the law O.J. is innocent and will never have to worry about a criminal trial for the murders again.

The Ramsey’s are the ones who started this fire not us. Since they have pointed fingers at people, accused others of lying, changed their story and BROUGHT US INTO THIS CRIME WITH THEIR PUBLIC APPEARANCES then I have a right to say:

“I believe, at the very least, one or both of the Ramsey’s have guilty knowledge of the murderâ€.

Then I have a right to state my case to the best of my ability. Unless it can be shown that I am lying with malice and I know it then I have every right to stand up and point a finger at the Ramsey’s.

What about Burke? You know I have a tough time with that. I know there are those who think Burke was involved. That is not my belief but I understand how people have come to that conclusion.

Based on my belief that Burke is innocent I would hope to God this poor kid is not publicly accused, raked over the Internet coals, and so on. However since John and Patsy brought us into their lives I think it’s hard to stop the speculation. Is it legal? Is it legal to discuss Burke and point fingers? I don’t know. I just don’t. Like I said I hope it doesn’t happen. Since Hunter publicly stated that Burke was not a suspect that gave Wood the ammo to go to court to stop the tabs.

Burke is a gray area.

So that is my long winded post about freedom of speech. It is the most important of our rights. In my opinion that is.

 

Mr. Wood clears up the email confusion.

Here you go.

4-17-03

Dear Tricia:

I have received e-mails today indicating that you have some doubts about the authenticity of my e-mail messages to you today. Let me try to clear up the confusion. Both e-mails were sent by me.

I receive a large number of voice mail messages and e-mail messages daily. I try my best, time permitting, to respond to messages that are credible and polite.

>From home this morning, I quickly reviewed your e-mail message and endeavored to send a prompt and polite response in recognition of your polite gesture in stating that you were sending your last e-mail to me, which I understood as conveying that you did not mean to use e-mail as a constant method to argue with me or harass me for my representation of the Ramsey family.

Later in day at my office, I took the time to substantively respond to the comments contained in your e-mail. I expressed my sincere apology to you for my previous remarks to the extent that they could be interpreted as a personal attack on you. I try to avoid doing to others what so many have done to my clients. Upon further review of and reflection upon my e-mail remarks made in response to your first e-mail to me, I thought an apology was in order.

I want to reiterate to you that I do not object to a vigorous debate of the Ramsey case on the Internet or in other forums lending themselves to fair discussion. But a forum for debating facts and evidence and issues should not be abused and converted into a forum for accusing people of being guilty of heinous crimes -- especially when after 6+ years, the evidence does not justify the filing of any charges against them and the District Attorney has the courage to publicly state that the weight of the evidence indicates an intruder is responsible for the crime.

I hope that this clears up any confusion created by my e-mails. While my time is limited, I am willing to try to answer any legitimate question posed to me in a credible and polite manner.

Best regards,

L. Lin Wood

 

Mr. Wood stated:
"I want to reiterate to you that I do not object to a vigorous debate of the Ramsey case on the Internet or in other forums lending themselves to fair discussion. But a forum for debating facts and evidence and issues should not be abused and converted into a forum for accusing people of being guilty of heinous crimes -- especially when after 6+ years, the evidence does not justify the filing of any charges against them and the District Attorney has the courage to publicly state that the weight of the evidence indicates an intruder is responsible for the crime. "

"
I would like to reiterate what Keenan said exactly:

"I agree with the Court's conclusion that "the weight of the evidence is more consistent with a theory that an intruder murdered JonBenet than it is with a theory that Mrs. Ramsey did so."

"Although issued in the context of a civil case, the Court's ruling is a thoughtful and well reasoned decision based on the evidence that was presented by the parties in that case. It should be read in its entirety."

BASED ON THE EVIDENCE THAT WAS PRESENTED BY THE PARTIES IN THE CASE.

Big difference here. Not based on GJ evidence or the BPD police files. No based on the evidence presented that was from the PowerPoint presentation and went unchallenged.

From Mr. Wood's email:

"But a forum for debating facts and evidence and issues should not be abused and converted into a forum for accusing people of being guilty of heinous crimes"

There is a federal statute called 230. I would suggest anyone who has a problem with a forum and it's members exercising their right to free speech should become familiar with this statue. 230 would extend to owners of forums as well.
Just FYI.

There was a case in Utah a while back. A teenager posted a web site. It was really vile. The teenager accused his high school teachers of all kinds of awful things. Things that I can't imagine were true. The school ordered him to take it down.

Funny thing happened. The ACLU jumped to this kids defense. Won the case I believe based on his right to express his opinions of his teachers. I was quite shocked to say the least.

Just FYI.

 

Voyager thank you for your concern but I have no intention of writing Mr. Wood again. Unless I have a legitimate question then I will ask politely. Like he suggested. However I don't see me writing Mr. Wood again. I recognize what is going on.

Voyager you are sweet and a wonderful advocate of JBR.

Thank you.

 

BobC you wrote:
Guys--listen up. I think we're being a bit ridiculous here. We can discuss this case until hell freezes over and can link to any site we want to. The Big Dogs have competent legal representation so if an article is published,feel free to discuss it.

The big dogs have competent legal representation. You mean like The Globe, Enquirer, NY Post, St Martins? All the people who have settled with Wood? Yeah that's good representation.

Did Lin Wood directly threaten us? Of course not. Here is what he said:
"I want to reiterate to you that I do not object to a vigorous debate of the Ramsey case on the Internet or in other forums lending themselves to fair discussion. But a forum for debating facts and evidence and issues should not be abused and converted into a forum for accusing people of being guilty of heinous crimes -- especially when after 6+ years, the evidence does not justify the filing of any charges against them and the District Attorney has the courage to publicly state that the weight of the evidence indicates an intruder is responsible for the crime."

So according to Mr. Wood we have every right as a discussion forum to debate the evidence but not accuse the Ramsey's of anything. Now refresh my memory. What does Lin Wood do to people who accuse the Ramseys?

This was not a threat. I know that. It was a suggestion is how I took it. A suggestion of what we should not be doing according to Lin Wood. I appreciate the fact that Mr. Wood took the time to point this out to us. I really do. I hope he appreciates the fact that I took the time to point out federal statute 230.

BobC also wrote:I don't think anybody should be e-mailing Lin Wood because he hasn't threatened us directly --yeah he's annoying and making money off a murdered little girl but this world is filled with people like that. He can sniff around here all he wants--it's a free country--but we should take the high road.

When I e-mailed Mr. Wood I never was under the impression he had threatened us. He threatened Ryan Ross. I was speaking out to Mr. Wood's tactics of threatening people who write articles like Mr. Ross'. I guess the high road would have been for me to shut up, turn my back and forget about it. After all it didn't happen to me right? Sorry BobC. I disagree. To me the high road is not being afraid to speak out. The high road is sticking up for someone you don't even know when you see them treated unfairly. JMHO.

Finally you said:
It's out of our hands--it never was in our hands. It's time to let go of it, IMO. Try not to take it all so personally. Would anyone here seriously want to trade places with Patsy Ramsey? I doubt it. What is awesome on the other hand, is how many little kids have been saved by the Amber Alert this year. Finally the media is paying attention to us "case junkies" and finally kidnapped/missing kids are getting the media attention they deserve. That is progress!!!

It's time to let it go because there isn't an easy fix? Because it appears there is nothing we can do? I say that is the exact time to hang on and try harder. Just ask Martha Moxley's mom. Talk about a dead end situation. But look how it turned out. Until there is a resolution I feel I can't give up. You know why? Because everyone else has turned their back on JonBenet Ramsey. Don't get me wrong. I am not fooling myself to think that I can make a difference or that I can accomplish something because this case has nothing to do with me. I am a nobody. Really. Who the hell am I to have anything to do with this whole situation. However just because it's an incredible uphill battle doesn't mean I will throw in the towel like everyone else in her life. Like RR said the internet is all JBR has left to defend her. Even if I just post about this and nothing else then at least I am not turning my back on this situation.

What about the message Wood is sending? If a client is rich enough and a small town broke enough a civil defense attorney can yank the LE chain and get what he wants. I guess I should just ignore it because it's over. Oh well. Move on. Don't be ridicules.

Bob I do agree with you on the Amber Alert. Thank God it's working so well. But what exactly do you want me to do? Jump on the Amber Alert bandwagon? I am there already. Amber Alert is a great successes. But the Amber Alert was an uphill battle too. Which is strange because for God's sake who wouldn't want the Amber Alert. I bet some of the organizers of that campaign felt like throwing in the towel too.

I guess when I see an injustice it's hard for me to forget about it. However I usually don't get involved and that to me is why we have so much injustice. Everyone shrugs their shoulders and walks away. That is what you want me to do with the JBR case. Bob the day I can "let go of it" before there is some sort of resolution is the day not only do I close down this forum but it's the day I won't be able to look at myself in the mirror.

Tricia

 

How right you are LurkerXIV but for some reason congress has stronger laws protecting the internet. Especially IP's and internet providers. This extends to forum owners I understand.

Besides this is a discussion forum. We are discussing the Ramsey behavior, interviews, pictures, all the things the Ramsey's themselves have made public.

I don't think anyone would really try and take down a little internet discussion group. Can you imagine the people who would come to the rescue of the internet group? It would be like the US Armed Forces invading Burley Idaho.