Fox News Fights Back

Discussion in 'Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum' started by Ginja, May 3, 2004.

  1. Ginja

    Ginja Member

    Fox Reply Brief

    Oh gosh, guys, if the ladies from FfJ weren't causing enough problems for Woody and his clients, the latter are also stuck with dealing with Fox News. Looks like Woody got plenty of problems dealing with REAL lawyers who have no problem telling him he's wrong or misinformed, etc.

    Currently, the matter before the court is a request for change of venue, from Georgia to Colorado. Fox's reply memorandum (linked above) is informative and puts Woody in his place.

    Fox points out that just because plaintiff's think they have friends in their former domicile of GA who may testify on their behalf (as to damages), it is a "limited perspective" and doesn't take into account that Fox's witnesses are critical non-party witnesses (Boulder law enforcement). They go on to state that no witnesses, "except for plaintiffs' friends and counsel" would find it convenient to try the case in GA. Further, "plaintiffs' further attempt to counter Fox's comprehensive list of material liability witnesses with a bloated list of of alleged damage witnesses is unpersuasive...As such, Fox's list of liability witnesses should be given substantially more weight than plaintiffs' string of damage witnesses."

    I enjoyed reading how Fox put it to Wood. For example, "...plaintiffs incorrectly contend that Fox has presented a "laundry list" of witnesses offering "cumulative" and "irrelevant" testimony. (Sound familiar?) "Far from being a laundry list, Fox has offered a targeted list of only those individuals material to this action."

    "In contrast, plaintiffs presented numerous individuals -- offering redundant and limited testimony -- in an obvious attempt to inflate their list of necessary GA witnesses."

    Fox continues its lambasting of the Ramseys:

    "Plaintiffs have ignored, mischaractized or casually dismissed several factors of paramount importance to an interest of of justice analysis. First, plaintiff's try to discount the significance of the pertinent documents located in CO."

    And..."plaintiffs' counsel has once again factually inserted himself into this case by declaring that he has visited plaintiffs former home and that it has undergone "significant changes". Even if some changes were made, plaintiffs do not allege that the general layout or points of egress or ingress of the home has changed... ."

    "Finally, plainitffs' have completely mischaracterized the First Amendment implications in this matter." (Here, the Ramseys/Wood mischaracterize the case of Calder v Jones as referring to change in venue. Fox notes, "Even a cursory reading (of Calder) reveals they refer to personal jurisdiction."

    Here's the one I like best:

    "Faced with overwhelming evidence supporting transfer, plaintiffs resort to a baseless suggestion that they cannot get a fair trial in CO...However, plaintiffs assertion, based purely on conjecture, should be rejected."

    Oh bummer, I have to stop for now...time to pick up my Belle from the vet hospital. Will catch up with you all latah!
  2. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    Well, it is as I thought it might be. Wood may have bitten off more than he can handle with FOX. Furthermore, with his silly arguments, he's only irritating FOX more, resulting, hopefully, in a full-steam ahead defense against this ambulance-chasing braggard.

    Thanks, Ginja. This part didn't come out in jameson's version. Big surprise there. Not.
  3. Deja Nu

    Deja Nu Banned

    Thanks for posting this, Ginj. Yeah, Fox's lawyers are making mincemeat out of Mr. Horseshit. Like I said in an earlier post, his Waterloo has just arrived. I hope like hell this one goes to trial, AND in CO. THEN we'll see how not accomplished LW is. Go get 'em, Fox!!!!
  4. Voyager

    Voyager Active Member

    Good News!

    Sounds like another road trip to CO may be in order....I would be interested in going to Boulder to see this case play out in court....anyone else?

  5. Ginja

    Ginja Member

    Pro hac vice

    If the case goes to Colorado, I doubt Wood is licensed there; so he'd need to move for pro hac vice admission in order to represent the Ramseys. I'm not familiar enough with Colorado statutes, although I do know that in order to file pro hac vice, Wood would have to go through another law firm in the area who agrees to vouch for Wood and act as co-counsel on the case. It also means that Wood would have to 'share' expenses with co-counsel who in turn would charge Wood for their time and office space, etc. And if an award was made, Wood would have to share his 1/3 with that firm.

    Of course, he could work this all out with co-counsel, that is, if he has any friends licensed in Colorado. Unfortunately for him, Krebs' attorney there is still on the lam.

    Likewise, I understand the Ramseys still owe Haddon's firm mucho bucks, so I don't see Haddon, et al charging out of the gate to assist.

    Up to now, everyone the Ramseys have sued have gone along with doing it in the Georgia courts. But as Fox's brief points out, it's employees and witnesses all reside in the Boulder area and even plaintiffs no longer live in Georgia, so there's no reason for this case to be tried in Georgia!

    I love it! Wood is being taken out of his good ol' southern home court and from the looks of it, this "Fox" is biting him in the a-s-s all the way to a Colorado courtroom!
  6. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    Apparently, the arrogant Wood just thought FOX was going to lay down and play dead like everyone else has done. He might actually have to work for his money this time, and if it goes to court, he's toast. :gavel:
  7. Deja Nu

    Deja Nu Banned

    Yep, looks like all roads are leading back to Colorado. Like I said, sometimes the righteous have to be dragged back to the scene of their crime kicking and screaming in order to be "faithful." Voyager, if I can, I will most definitely meet you there to witness this one-it MAY be the culmination of longstanding efforts to bring this case to final justice.

    Wood will undoubtedly find some smarmy sleazeball akin to LH to co-counsel should Fox prevail. And if he loses, which my money is on, he may have to forfeit a race horse or two. in, sly like a....
  8. Ginja

    Ginja Member

    BORI misinterpretations and misinformation

    It never ceases to amaze me how Swampsters can read the same material and come away with a completely different outlook! One such poster has gone to great lengths to make her points. In order to counter her points, I post here, knowing it'll get picked up and torn to shreds at the Swamp. Of course, we all know who's on the right track here!

    Right off the bat, we see the 'exaggeration' is simply Margoo's complete misunderstanding of the facts! There could be no libel alleged if there was no homicide! And in order to determine whether libel exists, one has to delve into the investigation and evidence of the homicide.

    Margoo goes on to state emphatically that Carol did know there was evidence, and to support her claims, she prints out numerous counts from the Ramseys amended complaint. But it makes no difference how many times Margoo says it, the fact remains, she relies on misinformation and unproven allegations. McKinley's statement relies on the police evidence – which is the only evidence upon which one could make any factual statements.

    How does anyone (other than a Ramsey, Wood, Smit or Swampster) take McKinley's statement that there's no evidence of an intruder and turn it into an allegation against Burke? The gist?? When dealing with legal facts, there's no "gisting"! No where does McKinley state or allege outright that Burke was involved in the murder. Such statement does not exist. McKinley stated there was no evidence to support an intruder; that's her statement, pure and simple. The Ramseys can't arbitrarily bring a lawsuit alleging libel based on their opinion of the "gist" of McKinley's statement!

    How can a non-statement be considered false and defamatory? The Ramseys can't sue McKinley/Fox for making false and defamatory statements, so instead, they sue on the basis of what THEY think the gist of her statements allege.

    This is interesting. Now we see why Wood was so intent on getting Hunter's affidavit. But guess what? Hunter wasn't part of the BPD detectives team, ergo his affidavit has no bearing. Detectives DID have good reason to suspect Burke...every person in the home that night gave good reason to be suspected! Investigations always start from the inside and work outward. Family members are always suspected, and as the investigation moves on with the evidence, hopefully each family member is cleared. But to go after the cops for doing their job is outrageous. Especially considering the litigiousness of the Ramseys, this is nothing more than another one of their frivolous suits.
  9. Ginja

    Ginja Member

    More idiocy

    The DNA evidence is random and irrelevant to the crime. National experts, including Dr. Henry Lee, have stated emphatically that this is not a DNA case. The DNA deposits are not consistent with the crimes committed that night; iow, there would have been more of the deposit, as well as other forensic evidence linking the DNA to the perp and the crime. There is no other evidence on the body or the crime scene that links to this DNA material; as such, even if the depositor were identified, he/she could not be linked to the crime based solely on the DNA deposit.

    This is not factual police evidence. There is no evidence of stun gun use – there is no stun gun. The fact that the Ramseys possessed a videotape of security measures which included the use of a stun gun, regardless of the fact that it's in Spanish, is circumstantially culpable against the Ramseys! Further, there is too much expert evidence/testimony that the marks on JonBenet's body were caused by stun marks. The very fact that Lou Smit pointed to a vein declaring this was a mark left by the stun gun goes to show how irresponsible and unreliable the stun gun theory is (as well as the person making the allegation!)

    The window was broken by John months earlier. The suitcase showed no indication that anyone used it as a ladder or step to get out of the window. The 'recent disturbance' may have been left behind by Fleet and John or responding officers! Most significant was what was NOT disturbed, and that's a spider web that was attached to the grate and wall of the window where, if the grate had been opened, the spider web would have been destroyed. Officers saw the intact spider web and consulted with experts to see if there was any possibility the web could have been respun after being destroyed. The response was that the spider was in hibernation.
  10. Deja Nu

    Deja Nu Banned

    I Get So Crazy Over This!

    Even considering a possible sourcing viability of this DNA evidence, which it is not and never has been, but for argument's sake let's say it is, two non-Ramsey samples of DNA not only do not constitute "substantial" evidence but cannot, as Ginj said, be directly linked to the commission of any of the crimes perpetrated on JonBenet that night. DNA material under her fingernails could easily have come from some innocent source and many days prior to her death, as Patsy Ramsey herself testified that JonBenet had not been bathed for at least 24 hours prior to her death. An innocent donor of any non-Ramsey DNA in JB's underpants could have been deposited if JB, which was her custom, exchanged underwear with someone earlier that day, or someone who wiped her that day, as was her custom. Again, Patsy Ramsey has clearly testified to police that she had no idea where that underwear came from until much later, years later, she recants that original testimony by saying it was a pair of the packaged Bloomies she'd supposedly bought in NY for an older child relative. Patsy Ramsey herself provides more than ample opportunity to impeach this DNA! Clearly, Dr. Lee was correct in stating this is not a DNA case. None of the "substantial" DNA evidence not sourced to a Ramsey has ever been identified or supports any intruder theory to exhonerate them.

    However, there is incredible fiber evidence found on astounding locations on the body, directly sourced to John and Patsy Ramsey, all of which could only have been deposited during the commission of several crimes against JB. Yet...this proof of culpability has been swept under the CO rug by everyone for years when it should have been sufficient to convene another grand jury for the purpose of indictments. Thanks, Mary Keenan, for the stellar job you've done on this case.

    Even Lou Smit himself, who originated this theory, tested it via poor little piglets and incorrectly insisted that a post mortem vein was not a vein but "proof" of an alleged blue arc caused by a stun gun (stun guns, especially the Air Taser model Lou insisted was used to subdue JB do not leave blue arc marks on human skin!), backed off this theory. The blue arc that travels between the two contact points on a stun gun is an electrical charge. Go stick your finger in a light socket, then pull it out. If you're conscious, look at your finger. Did the electrical charge leave a blue mark or are you scorched, burned and blistered in varying shades of black and red? Hello, I'm earth. Have we met? Do we the jury of Ramsey peers really need stun gun experts to explain this to us in technical terms?

    What this chit is doing still floating around as "evidence indicating that a stun gun was used to subject and torture [JB]" is beyond logic. Furthermore, the Ramseys' refusal to exhume the body at THE exact crucial time needed to substantiate Lou's stun gun theory on the basis of letting a dead child lie causes far more suspicion of their own culpability than any stun gun theory has ever exhonerated them.

    This is truly the piece de resistance in the intruder theory. Not only, as Ginj points out, did John Ramsey admit to police and FW that he himself broke that window months earlier, but there is NO WAY that the scuff mark on the wall and the suitcase even with its contents, have or ever could be fixed in their placements in any point in time, much less placed in THOSE locations BY a homicidal intruder ON THAT VERY NIGHT! What is to say that John Ramsey himself didn't leave that scuff mark on the wall then or disturb the storage position of the suitcase underneath it when he squeezed his flabby torso through that little window? Furthermore, John Ramsey's own deposition testimony claims that the Ramsey home was running amok with many children the very afternoon of the day JonBenet was murdered. What's to say these kids didn't crawl in and out of that window using that suitcase that afternoon, scuff the wall with a little black shoe doing so, leave Hi-Tec footprints in the mold (which Burke Ramsey admits owning and could have been wearing that day while playing with his buds, although, of course, his parents deny this fact) yada yada. Once again, all the Ramseys provide more than enough reasonable doubt to their own defense by way of their very own testimony, to say nothing of impeaching one another.

    Utterly amazing that this crap has continued to support an intruder theory for 7 years. If this could be done, why hasn't Lou Smit done it by now? Never mind the spider web debate of experts. The defense explanation to that is even more laughable. But of course, spiders don't celebrate Christmas which is PROOF that that particular spider spent the early morning hours of Dec. 26th hard at work re-spinning its web. Maybe it was a Jewish spider, or an atheist...Please!

    Furthermore, Smit's antics in climbing in and out of that little window himself to "prove" his intruder theory doesn't constitute proof that anyone DID ingress/egress that window, and even IF someone did, there's no way to prove someone did so ON THAT NIGHT AND WITH THE INTENT TO COMMIT MURDER. Lou's contortions were utterly unnecessary to "prove" anything; John Ramsey had already told police in the home that day that he had ingressed that window months earlier, satisfying any proof necessary that it could be done. How stupid is Smit? John's acknowledgement, and Smit's validation of it, prove that John Ramsey himself could be the illusive secret Santa intruder who squeezed through that window that night for a promised clandestine meeting with JB, to create the appearance of an intruder, sexually assaulted JonBenet and then strangled her, bashed her in the head, and skulked around for hours writing a phoney ransom note. Come on! Was this intruder theory created in the Pixar labs? Where's Nemo? Maybe he's our culprit! Does he have an alibi?

    The ONLY value Smit's window-crawling provides to this case is as a defense credibility witness to back up John Ramsey's own statement of using that window. What kind of investigator is Smit when he's backing up a possible suspect's story? From a legal perspective, this would render Smit disqualified from ANY further investigation of this case because no doubt he will be put on the stand by defense counsel in any criminal prosecution of John Ramsey to provide testimonial support for John's credibility on this issue. Once again, thanks to Mary Keenan, we have case officials playing dual roles in this case which is thoroughly outside the boundaries of professional law enforcement conduct and criminal trial law rules!

    God, this support for an intruder theory is so laughable in knowledgeable circles it's the best proof that Lou Smit doesn't know what the hell he's talking about! If this is the best defense the Ramseys have to keep their asses out of prison, no wonder they're controlling the universe not to get caught. Enough!
    Last edited: May 4, 2004
  11. Jayelles

    Jayelles Alert Viewer in Scotland


    My own thoughts about Fox's defence have been on the interpretation of the phrase "never been any evidence to link an intruder". I wondered if they would focus on the fact that the evidence hasn't been linked to a SPECIFIC intruder/that the evidence hasn't led to the arrest of an intruder because they haven't been able to link it to anyone in particular.

    I think if this goes to court it will be an interesting case and I will personally make every effort to attend it if it goes ahead. It would be a bonus for me if it happens in Colorado because I'd get to combine it with a visit to Boulder. I'd really like to see the Flatirons actually! Plus, I have a dinner date on promise if I ever visit Boulder ;-)
  12. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    Fantastic posts on this thread. Interpretation of the "never been any evidence to link an intruder" statement depends on whether one accepts Smit's propaganda as "evidence" or if one has enough savvy to look deeper. To me, there is no "proven" evidence to link an intruder to the crime. IOW, everything, and I do mean EVERYTHING, that the RST is using as "evidence" of an intruder is nothing more than Lou Smit's opinion. There is absolutely no "evidence" that the degraded DNA was left by an intruder that night. There is absolutely no evidence that a packing peanut was tracked in by an intruder. There is absolutely no evidence anyone came through that window that night and plenty of evidence to suggest no one did come through the window. There are experts who will say Patsy Ramsey wrote the ransom note. There are experts who will say she didn't.

    Everything the RST calls evidence, isn't. It's smoke and mirrors and can easily be scientifically and reasonably debunked, and has been several times right on the forums. The smartest thing FOX lawyers could ever do is to obtain a copy of EasyWriter's letters sent to Mary Keenan, debunking every last one of Smit's opinions. OPINIONS ARE NOT EVIDENCE. SPIN IS NOT EVIDENCE. Wood has been smoking everyone in the past. FOX, don't let him smoke you.
  13. Voyager

    Voyager Active Member


    Good Post...

    Can you or anyone else here tell me what our source was in learning about the fiber evidence? I remember having discussed it a number of times in the past, but not where our information on it came from...

    Yes, it would be an incredible piece of evidence, in my mind, to find fiber from the jacket Patsy was wearing that night and again early the next morning, on the back of the tape which was used on JonBenet's mouth and ripped of and left in the basement.....Also the fiber's reportedly found entwined in JonBenet's hair which was entwined in the garrot....

    A huge bit of evidence if it truly exhists....again our source for this fiber evidence?

  14. Jayelles

    Jayelles Alert Viewer in Scotland


    Fox is owned by Rupert Murdoch, who is one of the richest men in the world. He owns the Sun newspaper in the UK and they are ALWAYS being sued LOL Generally, they go to court too. I think that here in the UK, we don't have a tendency to settle out of court. Loser pays all here.

    I also think Fox may have some notion that they are onto the scoop of a lifetime too. I personally think they are preparing to fight.

    Question - can the Ramseys (as pursuers) still settle? Or is it only Fox who can offer a settlement.
  15. Spade

    Spade Member


    The fiber information came from the "Atlanta 2000" interviews. Here is Bruce Levin questioning Patsy about the fibers in the paint tray:

    21 Q. We have found, and I want you to
    22 help us, maybe you can offer an explanation
    23 for this. We have found fibers in the paint
    24 tray that appear to come off of the coat in
    25 the photograph we showed you.
    1 A. In the paint tray?
    2 Q. Yes.

    A few minutes later, Levin says this to LinWad:

    7 MR. LEVIN: I can state to you,
    8 Mr. Wood, that, given the current state of
    9 the scientific examination of fibers, that,
    10 based on the state of the art technology,
    11 that I believe, based on testing, that fibers
    12 from your client's coat are in the paint
    13 tray.

    AND a few minutes later:

    3 MR. LEVIN: I think that is
    4 probably fair. Based on the state of the
    5 art scientific testing, we believe the fibers
    6 from her jacket were found in the paint
    7 tray, were found tied into the ligature found
    8 on JonBenet's neck, were found on the blanket
    9 that she is wrapped in, were found on the
    10 duct tape that is found on the mouth, and
    11 the question is, can she explain to us how
    12 those fibers appeared in those places that
    13 are associated with her daughter's death.
  16. Spade

    Spade Member

    John's fibers

    8 MR. LEVIN: I understand your
    9 position.
    10 In addition to those questions,
    11 there are some others that I would like you
    12 to think about whether or not we can have
    13 Mrs. Ramsey perhaps in the future answer. I
    14 understand you are advising her not to today,
    15 and those are there are black fibers that,
    16 according to our testing that was conducted,
    17 that match one of the two shirts that was
    18 provided to us by the Ramseys, black shirt.
    19 Those are located in the
    20 underpants of JonBenet Ramsey, were found in
    21 her crotch area, and I believe those are two
    22 other areas that we have intended to ask
    23 Mrs. Ramsey about if she could help us in
    24 explaining their presence in those locations.
  17. Niner

    Niner Active Member

    ME TOO!! :talk:
    I'll start saving my money!! Do they let the people in the audience (court) bring in laptops? I'll borrow the one from work and take notes - I'm good at taking meeting minutes! Anything to help!! :bowdown:
  18. Jayelles

    Jayelles Alert Viewer in Scotland

    Fox Trial

    If there is a trial, I am planning to go. I'll go regardless of where it is because the travel is six and half a dozen to me really (I can't get a direct flight either way!). I'd be hoping for Colorado as it would give me an opportunity to do some sightseeing in Boulder and to meet up with an Internet friend.
  19. Ginja

    Ginja Member


    Check this article out (if you can -- don't know if you need a subscription): Jurisdictional issue (BTW...the judge in question, who's pictured, is the judge who threw Barry Scheck out on his :behind: in the cop-killing case.) Anyhoooooo...

    This is a case we brought in the RI courts...the plaintiff is a RI company; the defendant is out of PA. Judge Lisi ruled we can't use the web as a basis for jurisdiction to sue in RI.

    I caught my attorney at the copier this morning making copies of this article and asked what was going on. I asked, since plaintiff is a RI company, and of course the website could be accessed by anyone in RI, why couldn't we have jurisdiction to sue here? His response was the the court will rule on the side of defendant...that is, defendant's personal jurisdiction rules over plaintiff's.


    The reason I found this interesting was as it relates to Fox's request for change of venue to Colorado. I would think, based on the RI decision, (and this is federal court so the rules are the same) that Fox, as defendant, would be favored as to jurisdiction. Likewise, Fox as a media network that can be viewed nationally/internationally, (as the web), would also benefit from the decision as it relates to where the broadcast was seen and where it was sourced.

    To make a long story short, mpo is that Fox's motion for change of venue would be granted for the reasons it sets forth in its memorandum (I supplied the link to the memo in the beginning of this thread.)
  20. Deja Nu

    Deja Nu Banned

    Ginj, your argument is sound. The world wide web does not and cannot establish personal jurisdiction and therefore can't be a viable argument to establish it. It is not a tangible entity and therefore not recognized as a legal factor in determining personal jurisdictional issues.

    Fox has made some extremely persuasive points in its Memorandum for change of venue to CO and since CO is the location where the acts occurred giving rise to the allegations in the Complaint, that venue bears considerable weight in the analysis. IF Defendants' personal jurisdiction/venue outweighs Plaintiffs' (and, according to the Complaint, Plaintiffs' then venue was GA but is no longer), then there are at least two major reasons for change of venue. The third would have to be, in my mind, that running for office, much less successful attainment of that office, would constitute a major conflict of interest for the Ramseys if this suit were moved to MI venue. I don't think the good folks of Charlevoix, much less the GOP in Michigan, want an elected official embroiled in this kind of suit (this will be THE trial on the murder charges against the Ramseys if it succeeds such as DH said he would accomplish in Wolf but failed to do). I wouldn't think the Ramseys and Lin Wood would want to drag this trial to Michigan either or the Rams will be looking for yet another home state and line of work when it's through (unless of course charges will then be filed; then they'll be doing the perp walk all the way back to CO anyway. So why not just cut to the chase, Rams?)

    This motion stands an excellent chance of succeeding IMO.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice