Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
December 16, 2017, 03:39:01 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: JonBent and Burke Ramsey  (Read 11671 times)
Las Vegas
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 6785


In God We Trust !


« Reply #100 on: December 29, 2016, 08:49:00 AM »

Chutzpah. 

Hope he hasn't already run out of $$ from the Jewell party!   Lips sealed Lips sealed Lips sealed
Report to moderator   Logged

Las Vegas
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 6785


In God We Trust !


« Reply #101 on: January 01, 2017, 05:59:18 PM »

Lol

Lawyer in JonBenet Ramsey Libel Case Calls Out CBS for FAKE NEWS

The Atlanta libel attorney representing the surviving brother of slain beauty pageant princess JonBenet Ramsey in a $750 million defamation suit against CBS says the network's retrospective on JonBenet's still-unsolved slaying has earned it a new reputation—as a generator of fake news.

"CBS put its entire brand and reputation out there saying they were conducting a new reinvestigation from scratch with seven world-renowned experts," said Atlanta attorney Lin Wood, who on Wednesday filed suit on behalf of JonBenet's surviving older brother, Burke Ramsey, against the network, a Hollywood production company, and seven self-styled experts who revisited the case for CBS. But Wood contends the four-hour retrospective, broadcast last September in advance of the 20th anniversary of JonBenet's death, was, instead, "a shame and a fraud on the viewer" and that the investigators were "acting" in accordance with a script based on a self-published book by a former police officer who once worked for the Boulder, Colorado, district attorney years after JonBenet was killed.

James Kolar, now chief marshal in Telluride, Colorado, advanced a theory that Burke Ramsey had killed his sister. Wood says the theory was long ago publicly discredited by three different prosecutors who investigated JonBenet's murder, by Boulder police officers who investigated the case, by a federal judge in Atlanta, by the Colorado grand jury that investigated JonBenet's death, and by DNA evidence uncovered by the Boulder DA in 2008 that Wood said pointed to an unidentified intruder and exonerated members of the Ramsey family of any culpability in the girl's death.


L. Wood

"It was a fake, phony story," Wood said of the CBS production, which starred Kolar as one of the "world-renowned investigators" who reopened the case. "There was no investigation. It was never done."

Wood has reason to know. He has represented the Ramsey family since 1999 when John and Patsy Ramsey hired him to represent their son—who was nine when JonBenet was killed—against allegations in the national tabloids that he had murdered his little sister.

In those cases, Wood sued The Star and its corporate parent, American Media Inc.; the Globe and its parent companies, Globe International Inc. and Globe Communications Corp.; and the New York Post for libel after the publications ran stories claiming Burke Ramsey had killed his sister. Wood also sued Court TV and corporate owner AOL Time Warner after Court TV conducted mock trials of possible suspects in JonBenet's death, including Burke Ramsey, and asked its audience to vote on whether the defendants in those trials were guilty. Court TV, he said, "had no legitimate basis to put Burke Ramsey on trial on TV; he was never even considered a suspect."

Wood said all of the suits settled confidentially. "Collectively, the media entities that accused Burke Ramsey in 1998 and 1999 paid a significant price for doing so," he said.

Wood also successfully defended the Ramseys against libel claims brought against them by Robert Christian Wolf, a Boulder freelance journalist, after the Ramseys wrote in their own book that Wolf had at one time been investigated as a possible suspect in JonBenet's death. In 2003, then-U.S. District Judge Julie Carnes, now a judge on the U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, dismissed the libel claim, but not before she meticulously reviewed the evidence in the murder case and concluded, in a 93-page dismissal order, that there was "abundant evidence" to believe that an unknown intruder had entered the Ramsey home and killed JonBenet.

Since then, Wood said no other tabloid or mainstream media outlet has identified Burke Ramsey as a suspect in his little sister's slaying—until CBS aired "The Case of: JonBenét Ramsey."

Wood said CBS' experts ignored evidence that did not comport with their theory that Burke Ramsey was the killer as well as statements by those closest to the case that repeatedly exonerated him.

On Wednesday, a CBS spokesman said the network would have no comment on the litigation. The Daily Report has called and emailed Kolar for comment but has not yet received a reply. Wood claims that Kolar's self-published book mirrors many of the discredited allegations contained in the tabloid articles that led to the defamation lawsuits on Burke Ramsey's behalf.

(daily report online)
Report to moderator   Logged

Las Vegas
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 6785


In God We Trust !


« Reply #102 on: January 04, 2017, 02:40:25 PM »

Netflix Buys Rights: ‘Casting JonBenet’

(Variety) Netflix has acquired worldwide rights to Kitty Green’s documentary “Casting JonBenet,” which will have its world premiere later this month in the U.S. Documentary Competition at the Sundance Film Festival.

Netflix noted that the Sundance premiere will be the first time a non-fiction work from the company will compete at the festival. The film will launch on Netflix and in limited theatrical release in the spring of 2017.

“Casting JonBenet” is an exploration of the still-unsolved death of six-year-old American beauty queen JonBenet Ramsey in 1996 in Colorado. Over 15 months, the filmmakers traveled to the Ramseys’ Colorado hometown to elicit responses and reflections from the local community. The film examines how this crime and its resulting mythologies have shaped the attitudes and behavior of successive generations of parents and children.

(Variety)
Report to moderator   Logged

Las Vegas
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 6785


In God We Trust !


« Reply #103 on: January 04, 2017, 02:47:09 PM »



Forensic Nightmare: The Perils of Touch DNA

By Michelle Malkin

(Town Hall) Have you heard of "touch DNA?"

This mundane, yet menacing phenomenon exposes the double-edged sword of forensic science. With just an innocent handshake, an indirect transfer of epithelial cells, you could find yourself suspected of heinous crimes, charged with rape or convicted of murder.

This year, I'll be using my syndicated column and new investigative show on CRTV.com to shed light on the use and abuse of touch DNA in the criminal justice system. Detection methods involving tinier and tinier DNA samples have advanced rapidly during the last three decades.

But the mere presence of DNA does not prove a crime happened. It does not tell you how or when the material got to its discovered location. Contrary to Hollywood crime show oversimplifications, DNA is not a synonym for "guilty."

You may be familiar with a few high-profile cases where touch DNA led investigators astray. Trace amounts of DNA on a knife and bra clasp in 2007 were key to American student Amanda Knox's prosecution and conviction on charges of murdering her roommate in Italy. But when American forensic expert Dr. Greg Hampikian and others exposed contamination, interpretation and replicability/reliability problems with the DNA evidence, the Italian Supreme Court threw out the convictions eight years after the killing.

At the annual American Academy of Forensic Sciences conference last February, experts spotlighted the case of a homeless man charged with murdering a Silicon Valley mogul at his mansion -- despite the accused being hospitalized, nearly comatose and under 24/7 medical supervision the night the crime occurred in 2012. As Scientific American reported, the defendant's DNA had been transferred inadvertently by paramedics who had touched and treated him three hours before arriving at the businessman's home. The EMTs used the same oxygen monitor on both men's fingers, unknowingly transferring skin cell DNA from the homeless man to the multimillionaire he had never met.

The case provided a definitive example of "a DNA transfer implicating an innocent person," the journal noted, and illustrated "a growing opinion that the criminal justice system's reliance on DNA evidence, often treated as infallible, actually carries significant risks."

Secondary transfer and contamination problems with touch DNA were most famously revealed by the "Phantom of Heilbronn," a case involving skin cell DNA from a "mystery" female serial killer and thief in Germany -- which police years later acknowledged most likely belonged to a lab or factory worker who had handled cotton swabs used by investigators across Europe.

Touch DNA is also central to the murder case of Colorado toddler JonBenet Ramsey. Thanks to joint reporting by Denver's 9News and the Boulder Daily Camera, current Boulder County district attorney Stan Garnett announced three weeks ago that he is reopening the DNA portion of the investigation initially conducted by his predecessor, Mary Lacy. In 2008, she concluded in a letter exonerating the Ramsey family that an unknown male's DNA on JonBenet's underwear must belong to the killer because no innocent explanation existed for its presence.

A growing body of peer-reviewed scientific literature says otherwise. Unfortunately, many state crime labs and police departments haven't caught up.

More: http://townhall.com/columnists/michellemalkin/2017/01/04/forensic-nightmare-the-perils-of-touch-dna-n2266884
Report to moderator   Logged

Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 52244

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #104 on: January 04, 2017, 03:16:08 PM »



Forensic Nightmare: The Perils of Touch DNA

By Michelle Malkin

(Town Hall) Have you heard of "touch DNA?"

This mundane, yet menacing phenomenon exposes the double-edged sword of forensic science. With just an innocent handshake, an indirect transfer of epithelial cells, you could find yourself suspected of heinous crimes, charged with rape or convicted of murder.

This year, I'll be using my syndicated column and new investigative show on CRTV.com to shed light on the use and abuse of touch DNA in the criminal justice system. Detection methods involving tinier and tinier DNA samples have advanced rapidly during the last three decades.

But the mere presence of DNA does not prove a crime happened. It does not tell you how or when the material got to its discovered location. Contrary to Hollywood crime show oversimplifications, DNA is not a synonym for "guilty."

You may be familiar with a few high-profile cases where touch DNA led investigators astray. Trace amounts of DNA on a knife and bra clasp in 2007 were key to American student Amanda Knox's prosecution and conviction on charges of murdering her roommate in Italy. But when American forensic expert Dr. Greg Hampikian and others exposed contamination, interpretation and replicability/reliability problems with the DNA evidence, the Italian Supreme Court threw out the convictions eight years after the killing.

At the annual American Academy of Forensic Sciences conference last February, experts spotlighted the case of a homeless man charged with murdering a Silicon Valley mogul at his mansion -- despite the accused being hospitalized, nearly comatose and under 24/7 medical supervision the night the crime occurred in 2012. As Scientific American reported, the defendant's DNA had been transferred inadvertently by paramedics who had touched and treated him three hours before arriving at the businessman's home. The EMTs used the same oxygen monitor on both men's fingers, unknowingly transferring skin cell DNA from the homeless man to the multimillionaire he had never met.

The case provided a definitive example of "a DNA transfer implicating an innocent person," the journal noted, and illustrated "a growing opinion that the criminal justice system's reliance on DNA evidence, often treated as infallible, actually carries significant risks."

Secondary transfer and contamination problems with touch DNA were most famously revealed by the "Phantom of Heilbronn," a case involving skin cell DNA from a "mystery" female serial killer and thief in Germany -- which police years later acknowledged most likely belonged to a lab or factory worker who had handled cotton swabs used by investigators across Europe.

Touch DNA is also central to the murder case of Colorado toddler JonBenet Ramsey. Thanks to joint reporting by Denver's 9News and the Boulder Daily Camera, current Boulder County district attorney Stan Garnett announced three weeks ago that he is reopening the DNA portion of the investigation initially conducted by his predecessor, Mary Lacy. In 2008, she concluded in a letter exonerating the Ramsey family that an unknown male's DNA on JonBenet's underwear must belong to the killer because no innocent explanation existed for its presence.

A growing body of peer-reviewed scientific literature says otherwise. Unfortunately, many state crime labs and police departments haven't caught up.

More: http://townhall.com/columnists/michellemalkin/2017/01/04/forensic-nightmare-the-perils-of-touch-dna-n2266884


Good article.  What they did to the homeless guy is pretty scary. 

The "touch DNA" in the Ramsey case does nothing to dispel the evidence showing someone inside the home killed that girl. 
Report to moderator   Logged
Las Vegas
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 6785


In God We Trust !


« Reply #105 on: January 04, 2017, 04:31:54 PM »

Good article.  What they did to the homeless guy is pretty scary.

Very scary, I agree.  With circumstances, timeline, or anything at all being just slightly different... he could have been driven into the ground.  Even if the pieces were ever to be picked-up: who knows how long he'd be down.  Or if he'd have survived to see such a day.

Quote
The "touch DNA" in the Ramsey case does nothing to dispel the evidence showing someone inside the home killed that girl.  

I'll tell ya.

And Mary Lacy's idea that someone walked up the path to enter an unlocked front door, says (to me) that she knows the window-entry idea can't hold up.  Because, according to The Denver Post, crime-scene photos "clearly" show that a path existed on "dry" pavement which would've allowed someone to make it to the area of the basement windows without leaving prints.
Report to moderator   Logged

Las Vegas
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 6785


In God We Trust !


« Reply #106 on: March 11, 2017, 04:43:47 PM »

CBS seeks dismissal of $750M defamation suit brought by Burke Ramsey

Charlie Brennan - BDC - 10 March 2017

(Boulder Daily Camera ) Boulder, CO. - A lawyer for defendants in a $750 million defamation lawsuit filed by Burke Ramsey, the brother of murder victim JonBenet Ramsey, filed a response Thursday asking that his action be dismissed outright.

Burke Ramsey on Dec. 28 sued CBS for its production “The Case of: JonBenet Ramsey,” a four-hour “docu-series,” as the network described it, that was produced for CBS by Los Angeles-based Critical Content.

The series offered a theory that JonBenet, discovered murdered in the basement of her family’s home in Boulder the afternoon of Dec. 26, 1996, might have been killed by Burke, who was then 9.

“Plaintiff’s rambling, 108-page, 726-paragraph complaint comes down to this: he alleges that Defendants accused him of kill(ing) his sister, JonBenet Ramsey,” the new motion states.

“That statement was never made in the series. To the contrary, the only even arguably similar observation contained in the entire series is one made by investigator James Kolar” that Burke Ramsey, out of anger, “may have struck” JonBenet with a flashlight, the filing states.

And the first page of the filing features a screen grab of a disclaimer that appeared at the conclusion of each segments of the series. It stated, in part, “The opinions and conclusions of the investigators who appear on this program about how it may have occurred represent just some of a number of possible scenarios.

“John Ramsey and Burke Ramsey have denied any involvement in the crime, including in recent televised interviews. We encourage viewers to reach their own conclusions.”

The girl’s parents have consistently denied any family member’s involvement in the slaying, which Thursday’s motion calls “one of the most famous unsolved crimes in American history.”

Burke Ramsey spoke in September for the first time publicly about the case in a multi-part interview on the “Dr. Phil” show, insisting that he had no role in his 6-year-old sister’s death.

Burke Ramsey, now 30 and a resident of Charlevoix, Mich., had targeted in his suit the CBS Corporation and Critical Content, along with show participants Kolar, Jim Clemente, Laura Richards, James Fitzgerald, Stanley Burke, Henry Lee and Werner Spitz.

The suit is filed in the Circuit Court for Wayne County, Mich.

(Boulder Daily Camera)

 

Report to moderator   Logged

Las Vegas
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 6785


In God We Trust !


« Reply #107 on: March 20, 2017, 02:16:00 PM »

JonBenét Ramsey Murder Claim Suit: Burke's Lawyer Rips CBS's Call to Dismiss

By Michael Roberts, for Westword
March 20, 2017

(Westword) CBS has formally asked a court to dismiss a lawsuit filed on behalf of Burke Ramsey over a 2016 docuseries in which a team of analysts concluded that he'd murdered his sister, JonBenét Ramsey, in their Boulder home on Christmas Day 1996. In response, Ramsey family attorney Lin Wood summarily rejects the arguments made by CBS and Dr. Werner Spitz, a participant in the docuseries being sued separately for comments he made last September during a WWJ-AM/CBS Detroit interview publicizing the program.

"CBS and the other docuseries’ defendants have recently moved to dismiss Burke’s complaint on essentially the same basis that Dr. Spitz did previously, contending that their accusation against Burke is protected opinion when taken in context," notes the Atlanta-based Wood, corresponding via e-mail. "In both instances, the defense asserts, as it must, that no reasonable mind could have taken the accusation to be one of fact rather than a mere subjective opinion or hypothesis."

Wood feels otherwise.

"CBS — one of the most well-known news outlets in the world — put up seven 'experts' in a four-hour 'documentary' and marketed their 'true-crime' series as giving one 'complete theory' that 'solved' the case, all the while representing the series as a documentary," he maintains.

Specifically, Spitz and the other panelists on the program, titled The Case of: JonBenét Ramsey, concluded that Burke killed his sister with a blow to the head. The following image from the docuseries captures a reenactment; Spitz is seen at left.



In Wood's view, "It is difficult to understand how, in that context, the accusation against Burke could have been intended and received as anything but a factual accusation. And that is clearly what the viewer expected — a truthful and factual 'documentary' providing insight into this case."

Instead, as the lawsuit alleges, "CBS and the others consciously portrayed false, skewed and misrepresentative facts and recreations throughout the broadcast that stole from the viewers their ability to evaluate the murder of JonBenét Ramsey and CBS’s accusation against Burke," Wood allows. "For this reason, and the issue of objective fact or subjective opinion aside, I do not believe the First Amendment protects statements that are based on a false disclosed basis or an undisclosed and incomplete basis."

Wood also provides an update on the Spitz suit, which was filed in Michigan.

"We had a hearing...in Detroit on the defense’s motion to dismiss the case," he notes. "Interestingly, despite the defense having provided to the court a DVD of CBS’ documentary and stating it was 'central' to their opinion defense, Dr. Spitz never provided to the court a copy of his WWJ radio interview wherein he made the statements complained of in the lawsuit. When the court requested a copy at the hearing, it appeared to my team that his lawyers were reluctant to provide it to the court."

Nonetheless, Wood goes on, "that radio broadcast will be provided to the court and to me....  So we will know more about the context in which Dr. Spitz uttered his accusations against this young man in short order."

Meanwhile, Wood stresses, he's determined to press forward with both court actions — and he's confident the dismissal calls won't prevail.

"As paradoxical as it may seem in light of the many exonerations of Burke by several public officials, Burke will continue his quest to prove his innocence in a court of law," he writes. "We do not expect the court to deny him that opportunity by ruling that these accusations are protected speech." (Westword)
Report to moderator   Logged

Las Vegas
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 6785


In God We Trust !


« Reply #108 on: March 27, 2017, 02:46:52 PM »

A bit more detail, a little more info.

JonBenet Ramsey's brother sues Dr. Werner Spitz; case to be heard in Michigan court

Defamation lawsuit filed over what Spitz said in CBS documentary

DETROIT(WDIV) - JonBenet Ramsey's brother, Burke Ramsey, is suing Dr. Werner Spitz for what he said in a CBS documentary about who killed the 6-year-old girl back in 1996.

Burke Ramsey's defamation lawsuit against the esteemed pathologist seeks $150 million. The case goes before a judge in Wayne County on Wednesday. The judge will have to decide if this will go to trial.

"It's nonsensical. It's outrageous. It will not stand," said L. Linn Wood, attorney for Burke Ramsey.


Burke Ramsey

During part of the documentary, Spitz accuses Burke Ramsey of JonBenet's murder, saying, "You cannot come to a different conclusion. It's the boy who did it. Whether he was jealous or mentally unfit or something ... I don't know the why."

Burke Ramsey's attorney said Spitz is unqualified to make such claims.

"He never examined the child. He's never spoken to the forensic pathologist. He's never been to the crime scene. He's never firsthand examined a single piece of actual evidence. And yet he goes out and says, 'Oh it was the flashlight in the hands of the son in the kitchen. It's like he's playing the game of Clue," said Wood.

Burke Ramsey was 9 years old at the time of JonBenet's murder. He's about 30 now. While police never identified a murder weapon, Spitz claimed the weight and shape of a flashlight found on the Ramsey family's kitchen counter was consistent with the skull injury which killed the young beauty queen.

The day after the documentary first aired, Burke Ramsey's attorney demanded a retraction. Spitz refused.

The lawsuit claims Spitz's theory has deeply harmed Burke Ramsey.

"I have no fear of Burke Ramsey clearing his name against the false accusations of Werner Spitz in a court of law," said Wood.

Burke Ramsey also field a lawsuit against CBS for $750 million. CBS said they stand by what was said and the broadcast. The media company will defend it in a court of law if necessary.

In court documents, Spitz's attorneys said he should be covered by the First Amendment regardless of what he said.

(WDIV)
Report to moderator   Logged

Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 52244

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #109 on: March 27, 2017, 02:52:02 PM »

This could get interesting. . . .
Report to moderator   Logged
LurkerNoMore
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 16305

Tossing sand in your Va-Jay-Jay


« Reply #110 on: March 28, 2017, 08:02:20 AM »

This could get interesting. . . .

I think the true killer has already died.
Report to moderator   Logged
Las Vegas
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 6785


In God We Trust !


« Reply #111 on: March 28, 2017, 08:24:56 AM »

I think the true killer has already died.

Do you believe that person caused the head injury?
Report to moderator   Logged

Las Vegas
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 6785


In God We Trust !


« Reply #112 on: March 28, 2017, 04:47:59 PM »

This could get interesting. . . .

Fair source of info including many photos: https://shakedowntitle.com/cases/jonbenet/
Report to moderator   Logged

Las Vegas
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 6785


In God We Trust !


« Reply #113 on: October 10, 2017, 11:31:53 PM »

John Ramsey Looks To Score

(Denver Post) The father of JonBenet Ramsey has filed a lawsuit against CBS and the people involved with a two-part special about Ramsey’s murder on the 20-year anniversary of her death.

Court records show that John Ramsey filed a lawsuit in the state of Michigan’s 3rd Circuit Court against CBS Corporation and Critical Content LLC, which produced a “docu-series” called “The Case Of: JonBenet Ramsey.”

The suit also names Stanley Burke, Jim Clemente, James Fitzgerald, James Kolar, Henry Lee, Laura Richards and Werner Spitz, all of whom were featured on the program.

Burke Ramsey has filed his own defemation lawsuit against CBS, Criticsl Content, and Burke, Clememte, Fitzgerald, Kolar, Lee, Richards and Spitz.  A ruling on a defense motion to dismiss is pending.

(Denver Post)
Report to moderator   Logged

Las Vegas
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 6785


In God We Trust !


« Reply #114 on: October 17, 2017, 10:59:10 AM »

QnA - Lin Wood, Re: John Ramsey and CBS, Westword

Westword: Why did John Ramsey file suit even though a previous complaint had already been made by Burke Ramsey?

Lin Wood: The lawsuits previously filed on behalf of Burke Ramsey sought redress for the false and defamatory accusations made against him by defendants. Those lawsuits did not address the false and defamatory attacks made against John and the damages he has suffered as a result of the CBS documentary.

What are the central claims in the John Ramsey lawsuit?

The CBS documentary directly accuses John of a criminal coverup of the crime CBS asserts was committed by Burke. Elements of the claimed coverup include John lying to law enforcement, staging the crime scene and contributing to the death of JonBenét by being involved in her strangulation with a garrote.

Why was this move taken so many months after the original filing of the Burke Ramsey lawsuit?

There is no significance to be attached to the timing of the filing beyond the desire on John’s part that his son’s lawsuit be filed first. John’s complaint was filed well within the one-year limitation period applicable to defamation cases in Michigan.

Do the claims in the John Ramsey suit differ from those put forward in the Burke Ramsey lawsuit, and if so, how?

The claims made by John are consistent with, arise from and are clearly related to the accusations made by the CBS documentary against Burke — that Burke killed his sister, John knew that Burke had done so and John voluntarily engaged in a coverup of his son’s crime with Burke’s knowledge.

What are the damages incurred by John Ramsey that are claimed in his lawsuit?

The accusations against John constitute libel per se and therefore, the law presumes damages to his reputation. The monetary amount to be awarded for the damage to John’s reputation will be determined by the enlightened conscience of fair and impartial jurors. John’s complaint also seeks an award of punitive damages to punish CBS for its egregious wrongdoing and deter it from repeating such misconduct in the future against other individuals. Any determination of a punitive award will require a review by the juror of CBS’s revenues and net profits in recent years.

We are waiting for rulings from the trial court in both the Spitz lawsuit and the CBS lawsuit on defendants’ motions to dismiss. The motions have been fully briefed, and oral argument has taken place. I believe those motions will be denied based on clear legal precedent applicable to the facts of the cases, and when the motions are denied, full factual discovery in the case will commence as part of preparing the cases for trial.

Are these lawsuits intended as something of a warning shot against other news and entertainment organizations that may be thinking about producing similar programming in the future?

No — these lawsuits are primarily intended to recover monetary damages for the defamation committed by defendants. However, it is certainly my hope for the family that news and entertainment organizations will recognize that Burke and John will not allow publication of these false and defamatory accusations to occur without aggressively pursuing legal remedies. If a media organization carefully examines the facts, I do not think any sensible or credible news or entertainment organization will repeat these false and defamatory accusations against Burke and John in the future. Efforts by the media to profit from publishing false and sensational accusations against the Ramsey family should have ended many years ago.

(Westword, Scribd)
Report to moderator   Logged

Las Vegas
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 6785


In God We Trust !


« Reply #115 on: November 17, 2017, 03:24:11 PM »

This was written by a guest on ShakeDownTitle.  Not trying to back it up in any way, atm, but see it as a good read for this thread.

Quote

Quote
The battered justice system had creaked and shuddered, but it had worked!  We had not been indicted! People would have to finally see the jury’s decision as our vindication.”

– John Ramsey, Death of Innocence, 2000

That wasn’t the jury’s decision.  More importantly, John Ramsey knew that wasn’t their decision when he and Patsy co-wrote their book the following year.  That’s fraud.  Rather than saying we weren’t formally indicted by the DA, which is factually true, he chose to manipulate the narrative and instead say the jury – a group of their peers – vindicated them.  They did not.

One would think, now that the grand jury indictments are public knowledge after Judge Robert Lowenbach unsealed them in 2013, that John would be a little humbler with his responses regarding the jury’s vote.

When asked by CNN in September 2016 how he felt about being labeled an accessory to Murder via the indictments, his response:

Quote
“Really?  I didn’t know that. I don’t even know what that means, frankly.”

– John Ramsey

Frankly, nobody’s buying it anymore.


More: https://shakedowntitle.com/2017/10/19/how-john-ramsey-continues-to-perpetrate-a-fraud-upon-the-public/
Report to moderator   Logged

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Theme created by Egad Community. Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!