The Ramseys and Lin Wood are More Despicable Than Ever.

Everything is wrong

everything is wrong with this picture, Tricia. As long as the bottom line is $$$$$, Wood will continue to win these lawsuits, because big corporations don't want to pay out the big money it takes to try these cases in court and they don't want to be bothered with little gnats like Wood.

This lawsuit isn't about the Ramseys being libeled. It's about money and public opinion, as have been all the others. This one is more blatant, though. No one is allowed to say there was no intruder in that house that night because it insinuates the Ramseys committed the crime. If FOX lets this go uncontested, Wood will once again go on TV as an advocate for the Ramseys to tell everyone how the Ramseys have been vindicated yet again. What crap.

One can only hope that someone sends Carol McKinley/FOX the most wonderful masterpiece ever written on this forum by Delmar England. One can only hope that FOX reads it, because therein lies the answer to every one of Wood's idiotic charges against McKinley.

You know what really galls me about this? Not one of the charges Wood lists in his lawsuit has basis in real fact. He makes the most ludicrous of claims - the same crap that has been shoved down the public's throat (based on Lou Smit's Powerpoint presentation) for the past 4 years. Wood even includes Smit's stun gun analysis as fact when it's nothing but Smit's opinion, not fact. Yes, jameson, I already know you'll be hauling parts of this post to the dump you call a forum. Doberson discredited himself - nothing you or anyone else says can change that, so don't even try to feed that swill to your little piggies.

I could build a defense case against this lawsuit with no problem at all. This is the absolute biggest travesty of a lawsuit yet. Will FOX pay the creeps off to get rid of them? I hope not.

It all comes down to this - make Wood prove each and every one of those "intruder evidence" items actually came from an intruder. Make him prove when they were left there. Make him produce a damn intruder, since he's claiming there was one. He's the one with the burden of proof - if Carol McKinley can't say there was no intruder, and he wants a ton of money from FOX because he says there was an intruder, make him prove it. He can't - his house is built on sand.

Yeh, I'm really disgusted with the Ramseys. Is nothing sacred to them? Did they have to have their heavy file yet another vindictive lawsuit during the very time they should be on their knees in grief, remembering Christmas time seven years ago? These people are so hollow they echo. I hope FOX goes after this one big time, but I've been disappointed before. Money rules. And Wood knows it. There is a special place in hell for people like...

 

Great posts here

I just can't understand how someone can sue someone else for their opinion.

I hope to God that Fox doesn't fold.

Bring it on lin..

 

Watching You:

"Make him produce a damn intruder, since he's claiming there was one. He's the one with the burden of proof -"

This is the key to the whole shooting match. If Fox News doesn't jump on this with both feet and stomp Wood and Company into the ground, they need to fold their tent and go home and quit pretending they are a reliable news service.

 

malice

Do any of you legal minds know if LW would have to prove that Carole McKinley said those things out of malice towards the Ramseys? I thought since the Rams are public figures, the only way it could be considered libel was if it was done out of malice for them.

 

Interpretation

I think he could have a weak case because I would have interpreted her statement as meaning that there was no evidence to link a SPECIFIC intruder to the murder.

However, in the lawsuit, Wood has cited what he terms to to be the evidence of an intruder and some of that is evidence which anonymous police sources have quashed saying that it has been linked to the family - i.e. palmprint, hi-tec shoeprint and axilliary hair. I wonder if Wood will try to elicit more information about these in depositions.

Personally, I think he may have difficulty in getting permission to have this lawsuit (can't remember the proper name for this).

 

Texan

the lawsuit specifically states the Ramseys are NOT public persons for purposes of this lawsuit. This entire lawsuit is a defense attorney's dream. Here it is. Unbelievable.

(BTW, once again Darnay Hoffman's incredible foolishness in trying to convict Patsy Ramsey in a civil suit once again comes back to haunt this case, as Wood uses Carnes' Decision, based upon the same faulty information that Wood is using in this lawsuit, as basis to sue FOX news. I would say Darnay has caused as much damage to this case as anyone.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
JOHN RAMSEY, PATSY RAMSEY and )
BURKE RAMSEY, a minor, by his )
next friends and natural parents, )JOHN RAMSEY and PATSY RAMSEY, ))
Plaintiffs, ) CIVIL ACTION FILE
)
vs. ) NO. 1 03 CV-3976

)
FOX NEWS NETWORK, L.L.C., d/b/a )
Fox News Channel, )
)
Defendant. )
)
COMPLAINT FOR DEFAMATION
COME NOW John Ramsey, Patsy Ramsey and Burke Ramsey, a
minor, by his next friends and natural parents, John Ramsey and
Patsy Ramsey, and respectfully state their Complaint for
Defamation against Fox News Network, L.L.C., doing business as
Fox News Channel as follows:

THE PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey are married individuals
who currently maintain residences in the State of Georgia and
the State of Michigan.

2. John and Patsy Ramsey are citizens of the State of Michigan
for purposes of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

3. Plaintiff Burke Ramsey, age sixteen (16), is a minor child
as defined by O.C.G.A. § 39-1-1.

4. John and Patsy Ramsey are the natural parents of Burke
Ramsey and pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 9-11-17(c), bring this action
against Defendant on behalf of Burke Ramsey as his next friends.

5. Burke Ramsey resides in the State of Michigan with his
natural parents.

6. Burke Ramsey is a citizen of the State of Michigan for
purposes of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

7. Defendant Fox News Network, LLC, doing business as Fox News Channel (hereinafter ?Fox News?) is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware with its principal place of business being located at 1211 Avenue of the Americas, New York, New York 10036.

8. Fox News is a citizen of the State of Delaware for purposes
of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

9. This Court has original subject matter jurisdiction with
respect to this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 as there
exists complete diversity of citizenship between Plaintiffs and
Defendant and the amount in controversy exceeds Seventy Five
Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00), exclusive of interest and costs.

10. Fox News is subject to the jurisdiction of this Court
pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 9-10-91 (3) with proper venue pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1391.

11. Among other corporate activities, Fox News owns and
operates a twenty-four (24) hour cable news channel known as Fox News Channel.

12. Fox News owns, operates and maintains an Internet website
known as Fox News ONLINE and located at www.foxnews.com.

13. Fox News maintains a broadcast studio and offices in
Atlanta, Georgia from which remote interviews are conducted for
broadcast around the United States.

14. Fox News regularly does or solicits business in the State
of Georgia, engages in a persistent course of business conduct
in the State of Georgia and derives substantial revenue from
broadcasts reaching the State of Georgia.

15. At all times pertinent and relevant to the incidents
described in this Complaint, Carol McKinley (?Ms. McKinley?) was
employed by Fox News as a television reporter and correspondent.

16. At all times pertinent and relevant to the incidents
described in this Complaint, Ms. McKinley was acting within the
scope of her employment relationship with Fox News.

17. The acts and omissions of Ms. McKinley, as an employee of
Fox News, are imputed to Fox News as a matter of law.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

18. On the night of December 25, 1996 or during the early
morning hours of December 26, 1996, while John, Patsy and Burke
Ramsey were sleeping in their former home in Boulder, Colorado,
an unknown assailant brutally murdered the Ramseys? six (6) year old daughter, JonBenét Ramsey.

19. At the time of his sister?s murder, Burke Ramsey was nine
(9) years old.

20. Since the date of her death, the murder of JonBenét Ramsey
has been investigated by law enforcement officials in the State
of Colorado, including members of the City of Boulder Police
Department and the Boulder County District Attorney?s Office.

21. The investigation of the murder of JonBenét Ramsey has
included a grand jury investigation in Boulder County, Colorado,
commencing in September of 1998 and ending in October of 1999
without criminal charges or indictments being brought against
any individual.

22. During the course of the murder investigation, evidence has
been discovered and developed that links an intruder to the
brutal murder of JonBenét Ramsey.

23. As of the date of the filing of this Complaint, the
murderer of JonBenét Ramsey has not been discovered and no
criminal charges have been filed against any individual in
connection with her tragic, untimely and brutal death.

24. John Ramsey did not murder his daughter, JonBenét.

25. Patsy Ramsey did not murder her daughter, JonBenét.

26. Burke Ramsey did not murder his sister, JonBenét
THE FALSE AND DEFAMATORY FOX NEWS BROADCAST

27. On December 27, 2002, in connection with the sixth (6th)
anniversary of the murder of JonBenét Ramsey, Fox News televiseda news segment about the JonBenét Ramsey murder investigation on the Fox News Channel (?the Ramsey segment?).

28.In the Ramsey segment, Ms. McKinley uttered the following
false and defamatory statements of and concerning John, Patsy
and Burke Ramsey:

Detectives say they had good reason to suspect
the Ramseys. The couple and JonBenét?s nine-yearold
brother, Burke, were the only known people in
the house the night she was killed. JonBenét had
been strangled, bludgeoned and sexually
assaulted, most likely from one of her mother?s
paintbrushes. The longest ransom note most
experts have ever seen ? three pages ? was left
behind. Whomever killed her spent a long time in
the family home. Yet, there has never been any
evidence to link an intruder to her brutal
murder.

29. The gist of the statements uttered by Ms. McKinley in the
Ramsey segment is that in all probability, one or more of the
Ramseys murdered JonBenét.

30. The gist of the statements uttered by Ms. McKinley in the
Ramsey segment is false and defamatory.

31. The statement uttered by Ms. McKinley that ?there has never
been any evidence to link an intruder to brutal murder? is a false statement of fact and defamed the Ramseyfamily members known to be in the home the night of her murder, namely, John, Patsy and Burke Ramsey.

32. Substantial evidence gathered by law enforcement officers
in the investigation of JonBenét Ramsey?s death links an
intruder to her brutal murder, including:

? Male DNA found on JonBenét?s panties that is not the DNA
of anyone in the Ramsey family and has not been sourced;

? Male DNA found under JonBenét?s fingernails of both hands
that is not the DNA of anyone in the Ramsey family and
has not been sourced;

? Two pairs of marks on JonBenét?s body which indicate that
a stun gun was used to subject and torture her;

? Evidence of an intruder found in the Ramseys? basement,
including a broken open window with a suitcase and broken
glass under it, and a window-well to this window with
signs of recent disturbance;

? Material from the window-well found in the room where
JonBenét was discovered;

? Male pubic or ancillary hair and numerous fibers found on
JonBenét?s body, clothing and blanket which do not match
anything in the Ramsey home and have not been sourced;

? Unidentified shoe prints in the basement and unidentified
palm prints on the door to the room where JonBenét was
found, which do not match those of anyone in the Ramsey
home and have not been sourced;

? JonBenét?s autopsy findings, which indicate that she was
sexually assaulted, strangled, tortured and then
bludgeoned at or near the point of death ? physical
evidence of the manner and timing of her death which does
not fit the theory of an accidental killing by a parent
or sibling followed by staging;

? The garrote and slipknots used to bind and kill JonBenét
were sophisticated torture and bondage devices which no
one in the Ramsey family had the knowledge to construct;

? Materials used to assault and strangle JonBenét ? the
stun gun, nylon cord and duct tape ? which necessarily
existed but which were never owned by the Ramseys and
were not found in their home;

? A missing portion of the paintbrush handle which was used
to construct the garrote and may have been used to
sexually assault JonBenét;

? A three-page handwritten ransom note which law
enforcement experts have not identified as being authored
by any member of the Ramsey family;

? Missing pages from the pad on which the ransom note was
written;

? The ?butler?s? door found open the morning of the murder,
near which was found an unsourced baseball bat that had
fibers on it consistent with those found in the basement
where JonBenét?s body was found; and

? Complete absence of evidence of motive or history
indicating that John, Patsy or Burke Ramsey were capable
of murdering JonBenét or staging an elaborate cover up of
the crime.

NEGLIGENCE AND ACTUAL MALICE

33. John, Patsy and Burke Ramsey are not public figures for
purposes of filing a defamation action.

34. Fox News and Ms. McKinley negligently broadcast the Ramsey
segment with actual knowledge of the falsity of the statements
made.

35. The evidence linking an intruder to the brutal murder of
JonBenét Ramsey was well known to Fox News and Ms. McKinley
prior to the broadcast of the Ramsey segment as it had been the
subject of print and broadcast media coverage prior to December
27, 2002.

36. Prior to December 27, 2002, Ms. McKinley had actual and
firsthand personal knowledge of the evidence linking an intruder
to the brutal murder of JonBenét Ramsey by virtue of her
discussions with Lou Smit, the veteran homicide detective
formerly and currently employed by the Boulder County District
Attorney’s Office to work on the JonBenét Ramsey murder
investigation.

37. Prior to December 27, 2002, Ms. McKinley personally viewed
Detective Smit’s PowerPoint presentation on the JonBenét Ramsey murder which demonstrated and displayed actual crime scene evidence and police forensic reports linking an intruder to the brutal murder.

38. Evidence linking an intruder to the brutal murder of
JonBenét Ramsey was also a matter of public record and available
for public review prior to December 27, 2002 in civil litigation
captioned Robert Christian Wolf v. John Bennett Ramsey and
Patricia Paugh Ramsey, Civil Action file No. 00-CIV-1187 (JEC)
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia, Atlanta Division.

39. On March 31, 2003 Judge Julie E. Carnes of the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
entered an order granting summary judgment in favor of John and
Patsy Ramsey in the Wolf v. Ramsey civil action, stating in
pertinent part:
Moreover, the weight of the evidence is more
consistent with a theory that an intruder
murdered JonBenét than it is with a theory that
Mrs. Ramsey did so.
ORDER, Wolf v. John Bennett Ramsey and Patricia Paugh Ramsey,
Civil Action file No. 00-CIV-1187 (JEC) at 90.

40. On April 7, 2003, Boulder District Attorney Mary T. Keenan
issued a public statement in which she concurred with Judge
Carnes’ conclusion, stating in pertinent part:
I have carefully reviewed the Order of United
States District Court Judge Julie Carnes in the
civil case of Wolf v. John Ramsey and Patricia
Ramsey. I agree with the Court’s conclusion that
“the weight of the evidence is more consistent
with a theory that an intruder murdered JonBenét
than it is with a theory that Mrs. Ramsey did
so.â€

41. At the time of the broadcast on December 27, 2002, Fox Newsand Ms. McKinley had actual knowledge that the statement that“there has never been any evidence to link an intruder to
brutal murder†was a false statement.

42. Fox News and Ms. McKinley have a multi-year history of
reporting on the JonBenét Ramsey murder in a manner that is
intentionally biased and slanted against the Ramsey family.
DAMAGES

43. As a direct and proximate result of the false and
defamatory statements broadcast by Fox News, the reputations of John, Patsy and Burke Ramsey have suffered permanent injury
throughout the United States and the world with the most
significant damage to their reputations occurring in the state of
Georgia where they resided in December of 2002.

44. As a direct and proximate result of the false and defamatory
statements broadcast by Fox News, millions of members of the
public were led to believe that John Ramsey was criminally
involved in the murder of his daughter as a principal and/or co-conspirator and/or as an accessory.

45. As a direct and proximate result of the false and defamatory
statements broadcast by Fox News, millions of members of the
public were led to believe that Patsy Ramsey was criminally
involved in the murder of her daughter as a principal and/or coconspirator and/or as an accessory.

46. As a direct and proximate result of the false and defamatory
statements broadcast by Fox News, millions of members of the
public were led to believe that Burke Ramsey was criminally
involved in the murder of his sister as a principal and/or coconspirator and/or as an accessory.

47. As a direct and proximate result of the false and
defamatory statements broadcast by Fox News, John, Patsy and
Burke Ramsey have suffered public hatred, contempt and ridicule.

48. As a direct and proximate result of the false and defamatory
statements broadcast by Fox News, John, Patsy and Burke Ramseyhave suffered stress, emotional distress, humiliation, anger and other mental pain and suffering

49.
The conduct of Fox News demonstrates willful misconduct and
that entire want of care that raises a presumption of conscious
indifference to consequences.

50.
John, Patsy and Burke Ramsey are entitled to an award of
punitive damages from Fox News in order to punish and penalize
Fox News and to deter it from repeating such unlawful conduct.

51.
In accordance with the requirements of O.C.G.A. § 51-5-12,
a formal retraction demand was served upon Fox News on January 6, 2003.

52. Despite being presented with overwhelming evidence that the statement that “there has never been any evidence to link an
intruder to brutal murder†was a false statement, Fox News refused to publish the requested formal retraction and
correction. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, John Ramsey, Patsy Ramsey and Burke Ramsey, demand:
(a) Trial by jury;

(b) That judgment be entered against Defendant, Fox News
Network, L.L.C., awarding compensatory damages to each Plaintiff
in an amount not less than Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000.00);

(c) That judgment be entered against Defendant, Fox News
Network, L.L.C., for punitive damages in an amount not less than
Ten Million Dollars ($10,000,000.00) to punish and penalize said
Defendant and deter said Defendant from repeating its unlawful
conduct; and
(
d) That all costs of this action be assessed against
Defendant.
L. LIN WOOD, P.C.
_________________________
L. Lin Wood
The Equitable Building Georgia Bar No. 774588
Suite 2140
100 Peachtree Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30303 ______________________________
(404) 522-1713 Katherine M. Ventulett
Ga. State Bar No. 727027
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

 

Frivolous and Unfounded

This suit should be thrown out. Lin Wood is grasping at straws here. This may be the last dying gasp of the Ramsey's Lawsuit-o-rama.

Carol McKinley is a fair and balanced reporter. Her words, on which this suit is based, were reportage, not libel. She merely did her job, i.e. reported the words and opinions of the detectives on the case.

FOX was doing their job, as usual, to balance the skewered reports of De-LOU-sional Smit and Katie Colonic on NBC.

 

Goodness me,

I think he threw in all sorts of stuff once again trying to prove things that don't exist.

"a stun gun which can not be found",and a window-well to this window with signs of recent disturbance" Huh! When?

..."fibers found on JBR body clothing and blanket which do not match anything in the Ramsey home and have not been sourced" ...Well yeah! Where are the boots Patsy?

And where are all of the other things that CAP took out of the house and we dont' know where they are?

I think Woodsy threw in the whole kitchen sink here so to speak. He is making some false statements just in his brief alone. What a guy!

 

just 'cause

old woody says that they aren't public figures for the purpose of the lawsuit doesn't mean that they will not be considered public figures by any judge considering this suit.

He says all kinds of things in this law suit that are "facts" but are just wishes on his part. Like the stun gun. Like stating John Ramsey didn't kill JBR and also stating Patsy Ramsey didn't kill JBR.
How does he know? He states it as fact but only has their word for it.

 

From today's Longmont paper

DNA submitted in Ramsey case
By Valerie Singleton
The Daily Times-Call
BOULDER — DNA found in the underwear that JonBenet Ramsey was wearing when she was found murdered in her home has been submitted by the Boulder County District Attorney’s Office to the FBI’s national DNA databank.
The latest development has left several people involved in the 7-year-old murder investigation optimistic that the 6-year-old girl’s murderer will be identified.
The submission to the FBI’s Combined DNA Index System is a significant step forward in the investigation, says Ramsey attorney Lin Wood, who confirmed that the sample had passed standards required for submission within the last several months.
Wood says this recent development — coupled with news that the Colorado Bureau of Investigation and the Denver Police Department are lending a helping hand in the
investigation — improves the likelihood that JonBenet’s murder will be solved.
“There was probably no chance that the case could be solved while it was being handled by the Boulder Police Department,â€
Wood said, adding that the department did not try to submit the male DNA sample while it held the reins of the investigation. “The fact that (Boulder County District Attorney) Mary Keenan took over the case with an aim toward conducting a fair and objective investigation alone increases the chances of success.â€
That optimism isn’t universal.
“My honest answer on this is I do not know if it’s solvable,†says Tom Bennett, the lead investigator on the Ramsey case for the DA’s office. “I’m only one guy. I’ve been here six months. I have a lot of stuff I have to look through.â€
That “stuff†includes stacks of tens of thousands of documents that date back as far as Dec. 26, 1996, when the girl’s beaten and strangled body was found in the basement of her Boulder home.
Little JonBenet’s murder once permeated lives.
Pictures of a young, blond debutante haunted families waiting in the checkout aisle of their local grocery store as they glanced at the weekly tabloids. Evening news reports reviewed the latest leads in the investigation with no avail.
Seven years later, media attention has wavered. The public — largely callused by a barrage of what it deemed exploitation — is granted occasional peeks at Star magazine covers featuring the tragic, prepubescent celebrity.
But JonBenet has become a full-time investment for Bennett, who said he works at least 40 hours a week, knocking on doors and interviewing folks who might hold the key that unlocks the answer to the girl’s murder. In addition, retired Colorado Springs homicide investigator Lou Smit works the case part time.
And while Keenan says the investigation is on the right track, she and her office have tendered a “no comment†policy, avoiding the leaks that some believe sullied the early stages of the investigation.
“Our investigator, with 28 years of homicide experience, is working on it full time,†Keenan said. “In terms of our expectations, we are making progress.â€
Ollie Gray, a private investigator hired by the Ramsey’s in 1999, said his side of the investigation is ongoing, and that the district attorney’s office has not been in touch with him since a special meeting in July.
“We did provide them with some things that we thought should be of interest,†Gray said. “I’m hoping that they have looked at those things and either disproved or are still looking (at them).â€
Keenan said Gray and other investigators have been fully cooperative with her office. And while details of the status of the information Gray provided are unavailable, she said the public can rest assured it is now in competent hands.
It’s a 15-foot walk from Keenan’s office to the quarters where Bennett works in the Boulder County Justice Center.
But the daily grind of running the Boulder County District Attorney’s Office doesn’t afford Keenan the opportunity to become fully immersed in the time-consuming Ramsey investigation, she said.
In June, after one investigator aiding in the Ramsey investigation left the case, the office decided that the special demands of the murder investigation necessitated the hiring of a full- time investigator. Bennett applied for the position, which pays $25 an hour, and was initially hired as a contract employee.
Keenan said her office has been frugal in funding the investigation and has managed to stay within its allocated budget. She could not offer specific numbers as to the amount of money that has been filtered into the investigation.
“We’re making due with what we have,†Keenan said. “We have not asked for any extra money outside of our regular budget, so it’s pretty much on a shoe string. I can't give you a dollar amount because we don’t spend money on it; we spend time.â€
Not a moment of that time is wasted, she said.
“He’s very competent, very detailed, very experienced, and I've been impressed by his work here at our office,†Keenan said.
Bennett’s career in law enforcement afforded him many other opportunities to work high-profile murder and sexual assault cases, including that of Richard Collins, who received three life sentences after he raped a woman, then hired teenagers and his prison cellmate to murder her and her attorney.
Bennett was the 1997 recipient of Arvada’s Medal of Valor for his involvement in a hotel shootout with a man wanted in the murder of his girlfriend. And in 2001, he received the Colorado Association of Robbery Investigators’ Lifetime Achievement Award.
Most recently, he has been called upon to assist in the Kobe Bryant sexual assault investigation.
Bennett says the Ramsey endeavor has distinguished itself from the others.
This is the most difficult thing I’ve worked on in my life,†he said. “Nothing compares to it. Nothing. Nothing comes close to it. This is mind-boggling.â€
Tricia Griffith admits that interest in the JonBenet Ramsey murder investigation has wavered.
But to say that it has deteriorated altogether is a gross exaggeration, she says.
Type in “JonBenet Ramsey†on the search engine www.google.com and you will receive at least 27,600 hits — or Web pages — about the young girl. That doesn't take into account alternate spellings, like “Jon Benet Ramsey,†for which there are more than 7,500 matches.
“You would be surprised how many people are interested,†says Griffith, owner of www.forumsforjustice.org, a Web site intent on discussing “true crime cases.’ The primary focus of Griffith’s site, like thousands of others, is the JonBenet Ramsey investigation.
Owners of some sites profess they know who is behind the December murder. Others post graphic pictures in an attempt to demonstrate how JonBenet was killed. Griffith says her site is distinguished by the fact that its many members — ranging from business professionals to housewives — conduct research and have gathered limited facts about the case to promote civilian justice.
“I think we’re very dedicated,†Griffith said. “You’ll find that we have a lot of intelligent posters and we're proactive. We try to poke a stick in the tiger's cage to get it up and moving again.â€
That was precisely Griffith’s motive when she requested from the Boulder District Attorney's Office a copy of the 911 call placed by Patsy Ramsey on the morning of Dec. 26, 1996. Her request was prompted by statements made by Wood, who appeared on numerous TV programs this summer to deny reports that Patsy, John and Burke Ramsey could be heard at the end of the tape.
Wood was responding to reports that in an enhanced 911 tape, Burke could be heard asking his parents questions while Patsy repeatedly said “Help me, Jesus.â€
Griffith believes what she heard refutes Patsy Ramsey’s statement to Boulder police that Burke was sleeping when she called police to report that JonBenet was missing.
Wood, who on Tuesday filed a defamation suit against Fox News, says Griffith’s statements are “absolutely and unequivocally false.†The tape is a genuine representation of Patsy Ramsey’s distress and further proves that none of the Ramsey’s was involved in JonBenet's murder, Wood said.
“I challenge anyone who says to the contrary to publicly release their ‘recording’ and the full report of any so-called ‘expert’ who claims to hear Burke and John on the tape,†Wood said. “I will be more than happy to take the sworn testimony of any such individual as part of the Ramsey v. Fox News litigation and prove that person upon cross-examination to be a fraud.â€
Griffith’s proactive behavior began earlier this year, when she retained ownership of the 2-year-old site. In December 2002, the Boulder Police Department handed the reins of the Ramsey investigation to the District Attorney’s Office. Griffith was immediately dumbfounded by the office’s actions, she said.
In April, Keenan took a controversial stance when she openly defended a federal judge’s ruling supporting the theory that an intruder — not Patsy Ramsey — was responsible for JonBenet’s murder.
“That was appalling,†said Griffith, who believes the intruder theory is false. “There was no need for her to comment on that case.â€
Keenan, who issued a statement calling the ruling a “thoughtful and well-reasoned decision,†would not comment on what specifically provoked her to issue public support for the ruling.
At the seven-year anniversary of JonBenet’s murder , there are no concrete answers as to when or if the young girl’s killer will ever be found.
Wood is confident — particularly in light of recent developments — that identifying the killer is feasible.
“I believe DNA will ultimately be the evidence that brings the murder of JonBenet to justice,†Wood said.
The status of the investigation — vague as it is — is as important as any other investigation being handled by the district attorney's office, Keenan said.
“I just think it’s an extremely serious case and we’re taking it seriously,†she said. “But not because of the presence that the media gave to it; because it involves the very violent death of a young child. And that does have a lot of meaning to me, as all of them do.â€
As the Tricia Griffiths of the world make their pleas, Keenan says Bennett and the other investigators continue to work diligently.
Until then, optimism prevails within most of the inveative community.
“I still feel this case could be solved,†Gray said. “As far as if anything can be solved soon, that’s really an unfair question, based on our limited involvement with the internal workings with the district attorney's office.â€
“I think it is solvable,†Keenan said. “At some point I think it will be solved.â€
Valerie Singleton can be reached at 303-776-2244, Ext. 319, or by e-mail at vsingleton@times-call.com

 

Re:

Spade
Member

Registered: Aug 2003
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 214
From today's Longmont paper

DNA submitted in Ramsey case
By Valerie Singleton
The Daily Times-Call
BOULDER —

Will this BS ever end?

"“My honest answer on this is I do not know if it’s solvable,†says Tom Bennett, the lead investigator on the Ramsey case for the DA’s office. “I’m only one guy. I’ve been here six months. I have a lot of stuff I have to look through.â€

I wondered about Bennett. Now I know.
He is either dumber than a box of rocks or else decided to swim in the money\political cesspool that is and has been synonymous with the "investigation" from the outset.

 

911 Tape

The single most intriguing thing for me about Lin Wood regarding the 911 tape is the fact that in his interview with Larry King, Wood avoided mentioning the Aerospace enhancement. When asked by LK where the BPD had gotten the idea that there were voices at the end of the tape, Wood proceeded to suggest that they had fabricated this. He said this knowing full and well that it was the Aerospace enhancement which gave BPD the idea. Not once did Wood mention Aerospace in that interview. Larry King didn't remind him.

One could be forgiven for wondering if this was an oversight on Wood's part or a deliberate attempt to mislead the public. Anyone who doesn't know about the Aerospace enhancment would indeed think that the BPD had no basis other than malice for suggesting that Burke's voice was on the tape. Larry King demonstrated very poor interviewing skills by letting this go through.

Even if Burke's voice is on the tape, it doesn't prove JonBenet was murdered by the Ramseys. I believe that the Ramseys lack of co-operation was motivated by exceptional arrogance - that is all. John Ramseys comments about being 'insulted' when asked to take a routine polygraph say it all for me. Murder isn't nice and murder investigations aren't nice. We all have a civil duty to co-operate with police investigations - the time to complain and 'be insulted' comes later on - not during those first crucial hours and days of the investigation. JonBenet would have been terrified during the final moments of her life. As parent, I would have done everything within my power to bring her killer to justice - my own status/reputation/ego would not come into it.

The Ramseys may "win" settlements in their lawsuits and their lawyer might successfully silence public reflection on the case, but these lawsuits won't alter public opinion as much as conclusive DNA evidence might. Undateable foot and palm prints won't. Packing peanuts won't. Debatable window disturbances won't. John Ramseys retrospective evidence about an open window certainly won't.

The RST still harp on about "no footprints in the snow", but for many, what is really at the heart of their suspicion of the Ramseys is that early lack of co-operation. It could have had a very different outcome all round.

 

So, Linda Wood

says what Tricia Griffith says about hearing Patsy Ramsey on the 911 tape is “absolutely and unequivocally false�

Duh, Linda Wood, even the braindead rambots at the swamp admit there is a voice at the end of that tape. Their version of it, though, is that it is a "mechanical voice." I also heard the tape, and I personally heard a voice that sounds like Patsy Ramsey's voice at the end of that tape saying, "Help me, Jesus, help me, Jesus, help me, Jesus." If that was a mechanical voice, someone did a damn good job of mimicking Patsy's voice.

I cannot hear John or Burke on the end of that tape, but, then again, what I listened to was not the Aerospace-enhanced tape, it was the unenhanced tape. If I heard Patsy's voice there without enhancement, I have no doubt Steve Thomas told the truth about Burke's and John's voices being on the enhanced tape, as well.

The question I would like Wood to answer is, if he is so damn sure of himself on this issue, why has he chosen not to release the fact that there is an enhanced tape, one done by Aerospace? For him to omit that fact from all his PR appearances is a glaring omission. Anyone who truly wants all the facts to come to light doesn't give a one-sided, self-serving rendition of events.

Wood is being allowed to give his one-sided, very lop-sided version, and if anyone dares question him, he threatens to depose him or her. What has happened to the detectives (aside from Steve Thomas, who was slammed because he wasn't a team player) who originally worked on this case? How can they stand to listen to his BS when they know what the real evidence was from the start.

What about the police who saw the condition of the basement window well and knew there was no disturbance there? Where are they? Where are the detectives who heard first-hand what Patsy and John Ramsey said on that morning - words the Ramseys later denied. When did Lou Smit's bone-headed PowerPoint presentation become the bible on the JonBenet case, and when did Smit become God? LimpWood bases all his cases on Lou Smit's interpretations of the evidence, but many of Smit's interpretations are just plain wrong. Yet, no one will step up to correct those biased interpretations. How long are these people going to sit on their complacent butts and let Wood trample all over the rights of anyone else who has a different opinion?

I suspect the BPD has had their guts full of the JBR case, and who could blame them? They've been villified, called liars, incompetent; some have even suggested one of the cops could have been the killer. Maybe they just don't give a crap any more. Who among them has the support or the money to fight a lawsuit by the litigous Ramseys and their attorney? Cops will just shut their mouths and say to he11 with it. They see the handwriting on the wall. They believe they know who the killer was, and they have seen manipulation in this case that none of us even has a hint about. They know when to back away.

I doubt the FOX case will ever see the inside of a court room. Wood loves to depose people, but he's yet to try a case in court. That's because lawsuits like the ones the Ramseys and Wood instigate are nothing but nuisance lawsuits to huge corporations like FOX. Their bottom line is money. Period. They don't care about who's right and who's wrong. Wood is not a threat to them, and if they wanted to spend the money, they could whip Wood's arrogant a$s all over the courtroom. But, they probably won't, because it costs a lot more money to fight than it does to settle, and it's all about the money. They settle out of court for pennies on the dollar, and Wood gets to gloat once again how FOX has admitted they were wrong when they settled, when that isn't the case at all.

I hate liars. I can't begin to tell you how sickening this is to me. Our justice system isn't about right or wrong, it's about money, greed, and it's also about an apathetic public who knows but no longer cares about the corruption.

As far as Keenan goes, I've seen nothing to convince me she is anything except an Alex Hunter clone, only worse. I don't trust her, and I do NOT believe one thing Linda Wood says.

THIS IS MY PERSONAL OPINION, WHICH IS PROTECTED BY THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, OR WHAT'S LEFT OF IT AFTER LINDA WOOD'S GOTTEN THROUGH WITH IT.

 

The Terrorist Trio

John, Patsy and Lin have formed the only small foreign faction that actually exists in this crime against JonBenet and The United States of America.

All three have also had a family member murdered and gone on to avenge criminal defense - not criminal justice - to honor the deceased Loved Ones.

The members of THIS forum are obviously here for the duration.......Let Lucky #7 Roll.

RR

 

Hmmm, I guess we can all take our toys and go home - this case is solved.

I also heard Patsy Ramsey at the end of the tape. Lin likely gave NBC an edited version of the tape. Of course NBC could have asked Mary Keenan to give them a copy so as not to break the chain of evidence, so to speak...but then that would look as if they didn't trust the slimely snake. Unbelieveable.