Hunter and Smit Not Cooperating With Fox News

Seeker said:

I know that Blue. It was sarcasm....they still shoulder the burdon of proof.

Click to expand...

Seeker,

Sorry, I didn't mean to sound condescending. Your comment just gave me a chance to help explain a little about the civil court system for all posters and lurkers who aren't up to speed in that area. It's confusing to some.

JMO

Fox is a media source.

IF IF IF you strung all of the words together to make a neat little necklace of all the words used in the media, books, TV, radio, newspapers, Enquirer mags etc, it would pretty much look and smell like NO INTRUDER access for ENTRY into the house. Forgedabout, note,rope,tape er whutever.

Edited to add: It would have been better to have left the remainder of the rope, tape and whatevers in plain sight. R's could have said, "I/we never saw this stuff before, gasp gasp, slapping cheek in horror".

Seems like Fox could use other media sources for its source. I do think that the R's should have to prove by some evidentiary material that FOX was incorrect, I don't think that will happen. You win some you lose some, it is the R's turn to lose.

Besides the R's are already standing in a mucky, hole so deep that they can only pretend to reach for a dangling helpie rope to pull them out. imop.




.

great_tezi said:

Should we expect any less from these two?

Click to expand...

LOL..no kidding. What did they expect from these two?

BlueCrab said:

TLynn,

Good question. Here's the way I see it:

The Ramseys are the plaintiffs, so they have the burden to prove with a preponderance (at least 51% so to speak) of the evidence that Fox News slandered the Ramseys when Carol McKinley said in a TV broadcast there was no evidence of an intruder. Therefore, the Ramseys have to enter evidence that tends to prove there was an intruder.

Fox News is the defendant, so they have to prove with a preponderance of the evidence that Fox did not slander the Ramseys. The TRUTH is usually a total defense when defending against a defamation lawsuit. Therefore, Fox has to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Carol McKinley was likely telling the truth. So Fox must successfully rebut whatever the Ramseys enter into evidence that tends to prove there was an intruder. Fox can also enter evidence of its own, including exculpatory evidence if it has any.

JMO

Click to expand...

BlueCrab, good explanation.

To summarize, Fox is shining a bright light on the dark thingies that keep walking around in the shadows. There is no forced entry, Ramseys by inviting their friends over to compromise the crime scene, destroyed any evidence of an OUTSIDE intruder, then we have the comment by John Ramsey that it was an INSIDE job, NO scream was heard by the Ramseys, and the neighbor who renighed sp? on hearing a scream 'that night' and chalked it up to a feeling of a sort, a ransom note left in the house on the Ramseys paper supply (most kidnappers pre prepare their ransom notes it is a known MO for kidnappers) the outdoor light that was always on at night was turned off ''that night' - turn it off from inside the house (you would think the kidnapper would want the light off BEFORE he came to the house - silly me).

Hey I am only guessing, it is allowed, IMOP.

Will be interesting to see how this all plays out in court. I suspect that is why we are having the DNA rear its head NOW, and the little girl who went to the same dance school as JonBenet, ceremonial every once in a while throw up a smoke screen.

I hope that Fox prevails.



Wish they would get the narc undercover man for the Waterford Police Department on one of their interview programs! You all remember him don't you, he was the one who said John Ramsey Jr. tried to hire him to have a deadly boat accident with JonBenet in the boat, hmmm. Think the detectives are looking in the wrong neighborhood for their smoke screens, they might actually find a fire in MI. MOO

I am just an olde lady in a rocking chair, just rocking and thinking. Maybe Smit needs a rocking chair.




,



,

It's too bad that the morons in the BPD can't be sued for sinister subterfuge and/or stupidity, for the male dna on Jon Benet's panties matches the male dna found under her fingernails, and that dna does not match any member of the Ramsey family.

Frankly, I hope Fox News pays tens of millions.

Im with you Wudge!!! I think Fox needs to prove their stance without the benefit of any files. They didnt need the files to make their statement so why do they need them to defend their statement. Yes, tens of millions would not be enough.

I do think that Hunter is not a good name for Alex to have, he was not an experienced hunter.





.

Camper said:

I do think that Hunter is not a good name for Alex to have, he was not an experienced hunter.

Click to expand...

I disagree. When it came to hunting down publicity for himself, Alex was the best. :dance:

Fran Bancroft said:

I disagree. If the suit is for slander/libel, Fox has the burden to prove the "truth" of their statements. The Ramsey's get to prove the damage, although, in slander/libel, there is an "implied" damage that the law recognizes. So, the Ramsey's get to show what is "beyond" the "implied" damages.

Even so, I do think, the Ramsey's can successfully demonstrate an intruder.

Click to expand...

if fox claimed there's no evidence of an intruder, they can either already prove it or they had no business making the statement.

if they couldn't prove it, they should not have said it.

the fact is there is evidence of a possible intruder, but it may not be 100% conclusive. the question is not whether it exists, it is how certain it is.

iow, what chance of an intruder does the evidence yield... as i get more and more evidence (assuming recent reports are true), i'm more and more inclined to believe that percent is much closer to 100% than 1%. much closer.

imho, fox did libel the ramseys by blindly repeating an admitted misinformation campaign by the bpd...

aligning oneself with admitted liars can be quite expensive.

just ask fox. -lol-

Camper said:

I do think that Hunter is not a good name for Alex to have, he was not an experienced hunter.
.

Click to expand...

hunter did his job. it was thomas who had no experience and even less sense.
if hunter went to trial with the ramseys, AGAINST THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE GRAND JURY, he would've wasted tax payer money and whoever they charged would've been been pronounced not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

it is nuts to think an attorney can show up in court and say, "our experts say that patsy likely didn't write this ransom note, therefore, you must convinct!"

the jury would laugh such a dolt out of the courtroom - and rightfully so.

can someone please call bpd and tell them to start turning over their evidence so *real* investigators can have a shot at solving this case?

jasmine said:

Im with you Wudge!!! I think Fox needs to prove their stance without the benefit of any files. They didnt need the files to make their statement so why do they need them to defend their statement. Yes, tens of millions would not be enough.

Click to expand...

this is just a ploy for fox to 1. throw a hail mary and cover up their libel (and it *IS* libel as there is very much evidence that can reasonably be concluded as sourcing from an intruder) or 2. make the best of a bad situation and get access to files they can then use to generate ratings down the road by reporting on what they learned.

fox should've spent time reporting the *truth* - that bpd knowingly entered into a campaign of misinformation, distortion and outright lies in their attempt to railroad the only people they could finger - the ramseys.

if you sit down with dogs, you will eventually get fleas.

My Take said:

can someone please call bpd and tell them to start turning over their evidence so *real* investigators can have a shot at solving this case?

Click to expand...

LOL! I thought there WAS a "real" investigation going on!

You RST folks will never be happy will ya!
For the past 2-years Tom Bennett was the Ramsey case saviour and now that he has spoken out about the DNA possibly not belonging to the killer, he's being labeled "BORG" over on the propaganda forum. ROFL! :razz:

As Jackie Gleason used to say, "How Sweeeeeet it is!!!!!" :woohoo:

My Take said:

can someone please call bpd and tell them to start turning over their evidence so *real* investigators can have a shot at solving this case?

Click to expand...

Who are the *real* investigators in this case at this time?

Nehemiah said:

Who are the *real* investigators in this case at this time?

Click to expand...

Ever heard the song by Qween "Another One Bites The Dust"? :croc:

This Ramsey case just swallows up *real* investigators, don't it... :dance:


and another one gone, another one gone...another one bites the dust...

I think the Fox thing will come down to an argument on semantics.

" no evidence to link an intruder to the murder" - could be interpreted as "no evidence to link a *particular* intruder to the murder" (I'm paraphrasing here - wording may not be exactly correct).

It's not the same as saying "there is no evidence that it was an intruder who killed JonBenet".

I've thought all along that this wwas a weak case and that it might just be one lawsuit too many for the ramseys. Fox saying this week that they won't settle wasn't a surprise to me. Rupert Murdoch's organisations have been sued so many times in the Uk and they never settle.

Jayelles said:

I've thought all along that this wwas a weak case and that it might just be one lawsuit too many for the ramseys. Fox saying this week that they won't settle wasn't a surprise to me. Rupert Murdoch's organisations have been sued so many times in the Uk and they never settle.

Click to expand...

Lin may not get a new car after all.

Fox News claims edge in JonBenet libel suit
Family of JonBenet Ramsey suing Fox for alleged false statements

DENVER - Attorneys for Fox News declared partial victory Monday in a libel suit launched by the parents of JonBenet Ramsey, just days before the eighth anniversary of the murder of the child beauty queen.

advertisement
While there have been a number of civil suits connected to the case no one has ever been charged in the murder of the girl whose body was discovered on the morning of Dec. 26, 1996, in the family’s home in Boulder, Colorado.

A federal judge Monday ruled that Colorado law, with its cap on damages and higher standard of proof, will apply in a libel lawsuit against Fox News brought by the girl’s parents.

The story of the grisly murder of the 6-year-old who starred in beauty contests and her wealthy parents once gripped America and was a constant focus of talk radio and cable TV.

“This is a significant victory for Fox News,” the company’s attorney Dori Ann Hanswirth told reporters after a hearing in Denver on whether the suit should be dismissed. U.S. District Judge Phillip Figa will rule later on a motion to dismiss the suit by the network, which is ultimately owned by News Corp. Inc.

Colorado law would set a cap on damages of $1 million for each plaintiff and also require that the higher standard of ”actual malice” rather than negligence be proven, she said. Hanswirth said the network would not settle the case. The Ramseys had wanted the laws of Georgia, where the family lived at the time of the broadcast, to apply because it would have been more favorable to them.

John and Patsy Ramsey and their son Burke sued Fox last year for libel for a December 2002 report on the sixth anniversary of JonBenet’s murder in Boulder, Colorado.

The Ramseys, who now live in Michigan, said the report libeled them because reporter Carol McKinley said the parents and JonBenet’s brother Burke were the only ones in the home the night of the murder, and that “there has never been any evidence to link an intruder to her brutal murder.”

Fox counters that other information in the same TV report noted that Burke had been cleared, and that a new district attorney was going to bring “fresh eyes” to the investigation and that the probe was moving away from the Ramseys and toward “new leads and potential suspects.” A news report must be looked at in its entirety, it says.

The Ramseys were a constant target and at one point even the police said they were under “an umbrella of suspicion.”

The Ramseys’ attorney, Lin Wood, said the TV report was at least ambiguous, meaning that a jury — and not a judge in a pre-trial hearing — should decide if the report was libelous.

John Ramsey, who was in the courtroom, said later that Christmastime remains painful for the family. “It brings back emotions that are off the radar screen,” he said.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6739468/

Ramsey defamation suit heard
Article Published: Tuesday, December 21, 2004

The family’s lawyer says Fox News suggested that “someone in the house” was linked to the child beauty queen’s death.

John Ramsey, left, father of JonBenet Ramsey, was in federal court in Denver on Monday to push his defamation lawsuit against Fox News Network. Also shown are his lawyers, Lin Wood and Katherine Ventulett.

John Ramsey, father of slain child beauty queen JonBenet Ramsey, was in Denver federal court Monday trying, as he put it, to get his good name back.

That was the explanation Ramsey gave outside the courtroom when asked why he would pursue a defamation lawsuit against Fox News Network after all that he and wife Patsy Ramsey have been through.

"Two things were taken from us that day," Ramsey said. "One was our child. The other was our honor. We can't get our child back."

One of Ramsey's lawyers, Lin Wood, argued that a December 2002 segment by Fox News reporter Carol McKinley defamed the Ramsey couple and their son Burke by implying they may have been involved in the 1996 slaying of JonBenet

"They go on to say that after six years, there has never been any evidence linking an intruder to the murder," Wood said. "I'm watching that broadcast and I'm thinking, 'You know what? It had to be someone in the house."'

A lawyer for Fox News, arguing that the case should be dismissed, said the totality of the two-minute broadcast clearly did not impugn the Ramseys.

While John and Patsy had been suspects, the segment, a sixth-anniversary recap, said it was a new day for the case, said attorney Dori Ann Hanswirth, who represents Fox News.

And saying that there is no evidence linking an intruder to the murder isn't the same as saying an intruder is not responsible for it, Hanswirth said.

"It is not considered libel per se, and the case ought to be dismissed," Hanswirth argued.

After hearing the arguments, U.S. District Judge Phillip Figa said he would issue a ruling in the coming days.

The Ramseys, who live in Michigan, are seeking damages.

After the hearing, John Ramsey said he was doing some part-time consulting work and that son Burke, a "whiz" with a computer, was looking at colleges.

Ramsey said the family's "biggest hope" is that authorities will bring the killer to justice. He expressed confidence in Boulder District Attorney Mary Keenan's pursuit of the case.

"I was most encouraged when Mary took the case over," Ramsey said. "We could take some rest knowing the case is in good hands."

http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~56~2610092,00.html