Fox Defense

I have written a defense analysis of the Ramsey\Wood suit against
Carol McKinley and Fox News. I wrote it on May 20, 2003.
It was received by Mary Keenan on May 23, 2003.

Wood's lawsuit against Fox News depends entirely upon "Lou Smit
said." If there is any doubt, duly note that even the charge of
malice depends upon "Lou Smit said."

"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." (From the Complaint)

So, the crime that McKinley and Fox News is charged with is not
regarding Smit as infallible, therefore, daring to disagree.
Notice how this runs in parallel with John and Patsy Ramsey
making many public appearances soliciting opinions as to their
guilt or innocence, then suing or threatening to sue anyone and
everyone who doesn't come up with the opinion they prefer.

I find it more than a bit presumptuous to claim that Carol
Mckinley damaged the reputation of the Ramseys when it is the
ever-changing stories out of their own mouths that has placed and
kept them under the "umbrella of suspicion" more than anything
else.

Since Wood's suit depending solely on "Smit said" has been
refuted many times over not only by myself, but by others as
well, rather than repeat here, I incorporate by reference all my
online analysis and the letters to DA Keenan.

Not only is Wood's suit without any factual foundation, meaning
without ANY evidence of an intruder, it is also fatally flawed
in legal and logical argument.

According to Wood, McKinley's damaging and slanderous statement
was:

"28.
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." (ibid)

From this Wood deduces:

"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." (ibid)


Aside from the fact, there is no evidence of an intruder, his
case is technically dead by violation of THE RULES OF CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE.

Suppose there is a robbery in a department store with robber
unknown, are all who had ability and opportunity charged with the
crime? Could the police legally go in and arrest all who were in
the store? If it were reported in a newspaper that some person
or persons in the department store committed the robbery, is this
accusing all? Would all those in the department store have
grounds for a slander suit?

Based on the rationale of the Wood's suit against Fox News, they
would. I have a few questions for Mr. Wood to make the point:

Q. If three persons are the only ones in a house with ability and
opportunity when a crime has been committed, by what legal
criteria do you accuse and charge all of the three when the crime
may have been committed by only one, or two?

Q. If the BPD had concluded that some person or persons in the
Ramsey house killed JonBenet, would it have been legal for them
to arrest, charge and bring all three to trial?

Q. Do you not have to legally have specific evidence linking one
or more persons to the crime before any legal action can be
taken?

Q. Do you charge all three simply on the basis of guilt by
proximity and association?

Q. If so, what is your directive statute (federal or state) or
court precedent for this?

Some questions on a minor point:

Q. When Ms. McKinley states no intruder evidence, does this
statement in itself exclude the possibility of an intruder?

Q. Is it possible for an intruder to enter and leave a residence
and leave no detectable evidence?

Q. If it can be done, how does Ms. McKinley's statement
constitute an absolute accusation of the Ramseys?

Q. Doesn't your Complaint say that Ms. McKinley said there is no
evidence of an intruder?

Q. Does it say that Ms. McKinley said it is impossible for there
to be an intruder?

Some questions on a major point:

Q. Even accepting the premise of no intruder, is it not possible
that not all of the Ramsey household participated in the crime
scene?

Q. Even if we disregard the idea of intruder leaving no
detectable evidence, does not Ms. McKinley's statement imply at
least one, but not necessarily all?

Q. How then, Mr. Wood, do you allege all three Ramseys as defamed
when this is neither expressed nor implied in Ms. McKinley's
statement?

Q. Whom exactly did Ms. Mckinley accuse?

Q. Did she accuse all three?

Q. Did she accuse any specific one?

Q. Did she accuse any specific two?

Q. If you cannot identify any person accused, upon what do you
presume to establish a Complainant?

Q. If you can do this, can not Law Enforcement by the same
rationale arrest and try all in the Ramsey house on that fateful
evening?

Another major point:

Q. Is Carol McKinley the only one who has stated there is no
evidence of an intruder?

Q. Have any of the law enforcement bodies involved in the
investigation every issued the statement: "There is evidence of
an intruder, therefore, the Ramseys are declared innocent?"

Q. If not, why then have you not sued these law enforcement
bodies for having evidence of intruder, yet not clearing your
clients? To wit, this statement from Mary Keenan:

"Keenan declined to comment for this story, but when the lawsuit
was dismissed, she said she agreed with the judge's conclusion
and that her office is following new leads that support the
intruder theory. However, she said she was not influenced by the
judge's decision, which was only based on partial evidence, and
would not exclude the Ramseys from investigation." (DailyCamera,
May 25, 2003)"

Q. Do you agree, Mr. Wood there can be NO evidence of something
that is not true, that is, there can't be evidence of an intruder
AND evidence of Ramsey guilt?

Q. One logically excludes the other, does it not?

Q. So, when Mary Keenan says she "would not exclude the Ramseys
from investigation", isn't this clearly and logically implying
they have no evidence of an intruder?

Q. Since Carol McKinley's statement if nothing more than a
confirmation of Keenan's statement, why a suit again McKinley and
Fox News and not against Keenan and the Boulder DA's Office?

As for ALL the "evidence via the unknown:, one question:

Q. How would you in court go about entering this unknown as
exculpatory evidence?

Q. Would you specifically cite the RULE OR RULES OF CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE by which you present "evidence via the unknown?"

I've been an unofficial "law dawg" for several decades involving
all sorts of legal matters including libel and slander. I have
probably done more legal research that half the lawyers in the
state. I'll be damned if I can recall any factual OR legal basis
for the suit again Carol McKinley and Fox News.

Would you mind clearing up this matter by answering a few more
questions?

Q. In reference to the list of items under "FACTUAL BACKGROUND",
by what criteria did you separate fact from fiction to arrive at
the conclusion that all the items in the list are facts?

Q. Is it anything more than "Lou Smit said" with ill informed
agreement by Judge Carnes? If so, what?

Q. Can you provide any actual physical evidence in the crime
scene that can be explained ONLY by intruder cause? If so, what?
Why?

Q. Given the specific content of Ms. McKinleys statement which
identifies no particular party and is nothing more than an
agreement with the de facto official law enforcement stance,
under what statute or code did you file the Complaint?

I can find nothing under 42 U.S.C., SECTION 1983, or anywhere
else that even remotely supports such a suit under such
conditions. Would you mind providing some specific legal
references?

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

Q. Do these experts have names?

Q. To what experts are you referring?

Q Have all the experts failed to name a Ramsey as author?

Q. Have any of the experts come up with the name of the author
outside of the Ramsey household?

Q. Mr. Wood, would you say that whatever was in the note had to
be in the mind of the note writer?

Q. The demand amount of $118,000 had to be in the mind of the
writer didn't it?

Q. If you were to ask ten million persons to name a ransom
amount, how many do you think would come up with the
figure,$118,000?

Q. Several might come up with $50,000, $100,000, or even in the
millions, but what of $118,000?

Q. What do you estimate the odds to be against this number
turning up by random selection for a ransom note amount?

Q. This means the number had significance in the mind of the note
writer does it not?

Q. Do you believe that the correlation between the ransom note
amount and the $118,000 amount of John's bonus is purely
coincidence?

For nearly four years, I have issued an invitation to anyone who
believes there is evidence of an intruder to meet me online and
answer some questions about the alleged evidence of an alleged
intruder. In spite of all the claims and hoopla about alleged
evidence of an alleged intruder, including the recent lawsuit
against Fox News, not a single person has accepted my invitation.

I presume there is something missing from my invitation. Maybe,
it's money. Maybe that's all the intruder theorists really
understand. Therefore, I will yield to their implicit request. I
will pay $100,000 just to see a single item of evidence of an
intruder. I'll give the item back. I just want to see it.

This, of course, raises the question as to what is or is not
evidence. This question is easily answered by a specific example.
One of the items Mr. Wood lists as evidence of an intruder is:

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

Again, this is from Smit. One of the reasons Smit called the
marks evidence of a stun gun is what he "saw" between the marks:

Smit: "The stun gun that we came up with is this one and it’s the
Air Taser stun gun. When the stun gun is energized you see a
light blue mark and if you look closely at the blow-up you'll see
a light blue mark extending from one of the marks to the other on
the back of JonBenét." (From Documentary}

As "evidence", Mr. Smit says the stun gun left a blue mark on
JonBenet's skin. For this claim to qualify as evidence and take
the $100,000, all someone, Mr. Wood, or anyone else, has to do is
get a stun gun, any stun gun, and create blue marks on the skin
with it.

Any takers? I didn't think so. A wise decision. It can't be done.

The "blue mark evidence" is typical of the "quality" of Smit's
"evidence of an intruder." That has been shown in detail by
earlier analysis and won't be repeated here. For the record, none
of this analysis has even been challenged, let alone refuted.

Given the fact that information pointing out the flaws in Smit's
alleged evidence of an alleged intruder is readily available
online and via Mary Keenan, to call Smit's illusions and
confusion "Factual Background" is not only ludicrous, it shows a
total disregard for truth. To present this nonsense as "fact" in
a lawsuit accusing Carol McKinley of slander is irresponsible and
abominable. Mr. Wood is right: Damages should be paid, but like
everything else in the suit, he has it backwards. It is Carol
McKinley and Fox News who are entitled to damages for the time
and money consuming intrusion of a frivolous suit.

EasyWriter

 

These are excellent questions EasyWriter, and I wish you could get the chance to personally put them before Lin Wood.


I find it more than a bit presumptuous to claim that Carol
Mckinley damaged the reputation of the Ramseys when it is the
ever-changing stories out of their own mouths that has placed and
kept them under the "umbrella of suspicion" more than anything
else.

I agree with this. The Ramseys have brought suspicion upon themselves
with their inconsistent statements.

Q. So, when Mary Keenan says she "would not exclude the Ramseys
from investigation", isn't this clearly and logically implying
they have no evidence of an intruder?

I would say it was!

Q. Since Carol McKinley's statement if nothing more than a
confirmation of Keenan's statement, why a suit again McKinley and
Fox News and not against Keenan and the Boulder DA's Office?

Why indeed?

Q. If you were to ask ten million persons to name a ransom
amount, how many do you think would come up with the
figure,$118,000?

none! The figure was already in Patsy Ramsey's head. Her husband's bonus.

For nearly four years, I have issued an invitation to anyone who
believes there is evidence of an intruder to meet me online and
answer some questions about the alleged evidence of an alleged
intruder. In spite of all the claims and hoopla about alleged
evidence of an alleged intruder, including the recent lawsuit
against Fox News, not a single person has accepted my invitation.

This I cannot understand (?) Just wish there was someone available in the media to bring this about.

Given the fact that information pointing out the flaws in Smit's
alleged evidence of an alleged intruder is readily available
online and via Mary Keenan, to call Smit's illusions and
confusion "Factual Background" is not only ludicrous, it shows a
total disregard for truth. To present this nonsense as "fact" in
a lawsuit accusing Carol McKinley of slander is irresponsible and
abominable. Mr. Wood is right: Damages should be paid, but like
everything else in the suit, he has it backwards. It is Carol
McKinley and Fox News who are entitled to damages for the time
and money consuming intrusion of a frivolous suit.

Not being an American, I don’t understand the American law system. Isn’t there anyone in a high position who can see through this peacock of a lawyer and put an end to all these Ramsey lawsuits? This seems to be the way they make their living. I don’t think John Ramsey will ever be a CEO again.

I feel if this case had been in Great Britain, or here in Canada, the Ramseys would have been arrested on the spot - right after JonBenét’s body was found.

 

What is never noted, but is absolutely CRUCIAL, is that almost nobody has STOOD UP to Wood. Media outlets like FOX News see the whole scenario in terms of dollars and cents--is it cheaper to pay this shakedown artist off, or is it worth beating him down, legally? It is as simple as that. This whole Wood deal is a great example of how sick our legal system has become.

We have three people in a LOCKED HOUSE with a dead little girl and a staged crine scene. The parents have been on TV more than the Wizard of Oz, and they AREN'T PUBLIC FIGURES? They can discuss the case, but nobody else can? I think it's ********.

This is having a chilling effect on Free Speech and things will only get worse. Who's next? Michael Jackson? Scott Peterson? When you talk Ramseys, you are not talking about a quiet, dignified couple trying to retain their privacy, while a lynch mob press convicts them on the shoddiest of circumstantial evidence.

FOX better stand up to this guy and for once, maybe the almighty dollar should take a backseat to morality. If they don't stand up, then soon it will not be possible to discuss anyone at any time.

 

Well said Bob! I can't add a single word to what you've posted here. Lin Wood has dollar signs in his eyes. $ $

 

BobC,

I whole heartedly agree with everything you said. Someone has to stand up to Woody. Now would be a good time. Every time they dont' and just pay rather than go to trial he "wins" more money for his clients. yeechuchess!

In todays paper is the article about sending that "new" and "improved" sample of DNA off to the lab for testing. It concludes by saying that it was sent off last month. Huh! Last month? I thought it just happened. There is an inference that the BPD may have had this sample all along but did nothing about it. Now Keenan's new dog has this "new" proof.

Could anything be more convoluted that this case is getting to be? And of course the timing of this is questionable...right at Christmas time 7 years later! Whata mess!

Suppose the "new" and "improved" DNA comes back zero for matches or zero for anything. Then what will Woody do?

 

Good questions for LW, Easy Writer! I'd love to see him on the stand....

Zoomama, see my post on the underwear thread of the latest news article regarding this "new" DNA evidence. Whenever it actually was sent to the FBI, it was immediately run through CODIS and NO MATCH came up. None, zero, zip, zilch. Wood acknowledges this in that article, but holds out hope that a match will occur when the BACKLOG of DNA samples are loaded into CODIS. Furthermore, an expert interviewed for the article makes it clear there can be no match of this DNA evidence unless the donor had already been ordered to submit a sample for CODIS logging and had already been convicted of a felony. I also posted a news history of this DNA evidence since the autopsy in 1996 that clearly reveals that Wood's claims that the BDA never had access to it until Keenan took over the case and that the BPD "hid" it in the case files is patently false. Hunter discussed this evidence with Dr. Lee alone no less than 7 times over the years.

This entire "new DNA" spin is just more overdramatic hype manufactured by Wood to get his name and face in the public eye again.

 

That is exactlly what it is and nothing else. ALL the evidence says no intruder. If the DNA does not belong to the Ramseys, you can bet it has nothing to do with the death of JonBenet. You may rest assured that any claptrap to the contrary put out by Wood or any of the RST is just another lie.

 

Dejanu,

Does Lin Wood think priority will be given to this DNA sample because he appeared on CNN? There's only a two year old backup waiting in the DNA bank!! Or is this a ploy to keep the Ramsey accusers at bay? I am tired of seeing Lin Wood on Larry King Live, CNN and 48 hours. It appears to be very one sided for the last few years. Is Lin Wood a friend of Ted Turner's by any chance?

 

Elle, I wish I DID have a crystal ball to answer your question. But knowing LW's ego, I'm sure he thinks that if he keeps this spin in the constant media, it WILL get priority attention. Perhaps we all need to polish up on our suffering fools skills.....

 

brilliant...........incredibly brilliant, Easy Writer

thanks for this thread.......your posts...

you are truly brilliant........

here is what i say..........
to agree with BobC.

NO ONE has stood up to Linn Woodsy...........

i think that this forum should.

i have posted several ideas........

an ad in the Boulder paper......

however, maybe we should decide
to be even Bolder..........

to find a news station..........
or a radio station that
would let us........
debate Linn Wood.........

or somehow.......We, our forum, MUST get
the TRUTH out there.

who should we contact.........
who would let us have a national forum to
tell THE TRUTH.

maybe a magazine.........

let's but our "collective" brains
together.......and DO THIS.

enough of this nonsense............7 years is long enough.

i saw maybe we publish Easy Writer's questions
in the Boulder paper........in a national paper.

let's get people thinking.........and then
we wont be the only ones who KNOW that
Linn/Ramsey's are lying.

what do you ya'll think?

it is time for this show.......this "pageant" to be OVER!

purrfectly serious,
purr

 

Re: brilliant...........incredibly brilliant, Easy Writer

 

Elle

Elle,

What is your source for a "2 year' backup for DNA to be entered into CODIS?

 

Purr,

I personally think that no one would pay any attention in Boulder. The locals there can't stand the Ramseys and the trouble they've brought to their city.

I don't blame EasyWriter for feeling the way he does. He has tried umpteen times.

There's only one person who makes me think of a "Bulldozer" and that's Jann Scott. I have only read a few of his columns, but he seems to be the one who shouts it all out and doesn't give a damn what Lin Wood or the Ramseys think about him. I haven't seen any of his TV because I'm in Canada, but you truly need someone like him who doesn't do things in a refined way. Meanwhile, we can hold on to our dignity here at the forums we frequent, and give our strong support. At least we are still trying!

I must admit Purr, with the way things have been going lately, I wonder if Tom Bennet is one of the "Keenan" gang (?) and is just
going through the motions rather than really getting his teeth into the JonBenét case and forming his own opinions. I read that he is also helping with the Koby Grant investigation.

For the life of me I cannot understand why Tom Bennet doesn't throw out the "intruder theory" completely, seeing the "broken window being found open story" was believed by Lou Smit when he heard it from John Ramsey, and the intruder theory was born. This should have been classified as "hearsay"...no one witnessed it, therefore why do we have people believing it?

 

Codis

Sabrina,

On CNN Lin Wood stated they were two years behind with this DNA bank. Can you imagine this latest DNA entry of JonBenét's being squeezed in (?). I'm sure others heard him say this and can confirm it for me (?).

 

I heard it too, Elle. I taped the short Today show segment with Ann Curry and heard him mention specifically "two years" backup for testing this stuff.

 

hi elle

yep jannscott would be a good one to
feed lots of info to.

he knows we speak the truth.

also, i hope you dont think i was against
what easy rider said..........i
agree totally with what he said.

well, i will not give up trying to get the word out.

i firmly believe there will be a "break" in this case
and jonbenet will get the justice she deserves.

and also, YES RC is THE man of the year.
wow, the Ramsey's could learn a think or two
from him.

RC, i am so proud you belong here.........and
that you are such a fine man.......with great integrity!!!!

applause to RC,
purr

 

48 Hours

allowed the skank to go on their program and trash Don Foster. She's nobody special, so why wouldn't they let another side be told? Perhaps it is that program who needs to be reminded that they have allowed one-sided crap to be publicized, and now it's time to allow at least equal time to Easy Writer to challenge Wood's self-serving trash.

 

I don't remember thinking that way, Purr, Sorry!(?). Whatever did I say? I'm very proud to tell you that Delmar England ( EasyWriter) is a regular correspondent of mine, and a valued friend. I feel so frustrated that no one will have him on any show to hear what he has to say. To prove he knows what he's talking about when it comes to the analysis of the ransom note and the garrote etc. etc. So ... I didn't think you were against anything he said. Trust me!

You certainly sound very enthusiastic to do something, Purr. I'll happily join in anything you want to do, as long as it's not catching a plane to Boulder or Atlanta. Mind you, if I was a lot younger, I think I would have been very tempted to visit Larry King and ask him to have Delmar England on his show to talk about the JonBenét case.

 

Thanks for the confirmation, Thor. Sabrina will appreciate it. Thanks to you for telling me to watch this show. You're always on top of news like this. Much appreciated.

 

I personally think Mr. Wood misspoke if he implied it takes 2 years for every sample to get entered into CODIS.

Or do you think he meant it took 2 years for JonBenet's? Like they had the 10 markers but were so backlogged it did not get entered for 2 years? I don't believe that.

OR maybe he meant it took 2 years because there were not 10 markers, and it took them 2 years to refine the testing to identify those markers?

He had said not too long ago that the DNA was close to being certified. They were developing the number of markers needed to enter it.

I know he also accused the BPD of sitting on DNA and not testing it because it might point to an intruder. I don't believe that spin either.

Oh, what webs are woven around this DNA.....


What I understand is actually backlogged is the testing of covicted felons from many years ago and old crime scene evidence that occurred before DNA testing was around-- AND the retesting of samples which were originally done from the old RFLP to the latest refined technologies.

No 2 year backlog entering NEW samples into the database.
This is a simple data entry procedure.

I'll find out for sure next week, but I can ASSURE you David Westerfield's DNA got into that CODIS databank pronto and it did not take 2 years!!