Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 38
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,053

    Hunter and Smit Not Cooperating With Fox News

    From the October 30, 2004 Rocky Mountain News:

    "Two more people involved in investigating the unsolved 1996 murder of JonBenet Ramsey are resisting demands from Fox News Network for documents.

    "The network is defending itself against a libel suit filed by the 6-year-old Boulder beauty queen's family, which is challenging a Fox broadcast that said no evidence existed that an intruder murdered JonBenet.

    "Former Boulder District Attorney Alex Hunter said in Court documents that he has no records related to the case because he no longer is the district attorney.

    "Lou Smit, an investigator for the district attorney's office, said in court documents that he is involved in the ongoing investigation in the case but Fox already has demanded the same records from District Attorney Mary Keenan.

    "Keenan earlier said Fox wants nearly every record in the district attorney's office, but that the investigation is continuing, making the documents confidential."

    JMO


  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Dumpwater, Arkansas..LOL
    Posts
    5,254
    Should we expect any less from these two?
    My posts are to stay at WS, not to be moved to other forums for their members to judge. I know who is moving posts and this is fair warning. If I want my posts moved to other places, I will do it myself.

    The above post is JMO, MOO, MHO, and all other disclaimers. Please leave it here at WS! TIA


  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    226
    I don't Blame Fox for wanting the records. Hunter and Smit should coperate.

    Smit made sure he was heard during the Grand Jury hearing , why should'nt he step up to the plate.

    In deed Hunter is foolish if he does not answer for his bad judgement in the JBR case.


  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    350
    You can't prove a negative.

    So, if Fox can't come up with any intruder evidence, that proves their case - do the Ramseys have to show intruder evidence - and then Fox can dispute it?

    How would this lawsuit work?
    IMO -


  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Amongst the beautiful Washington Islands
    Posts
    2,492
    Quote Originally Posted by TressaRing28
    I don't Blame Fox for wanting the records. Hunter and Smit should coperate.

    Smit made sure he was heard during the Grand Jury hearing , why should'nt he step up to the plate.

    In deed Hunter is foolish (oops) if he does not answer for his bad judgement in the JBR case.
    Is it better for these two to not follow the "rules" either and compromise and investigation?

    Is it more important that Fox news have documents to further their publicity and viewer numbers than finding the "real" killer?


  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    170
    Quote Originally Posted by Fran Bancroft
    Is it better for these two to not follow the "rules" either and compromise and investigation?

    Is it more important that Fox news have documents to further their publicity and viewer numbers than finding the "real" killer?
    I will say it again. Fox made the claim that there was no evidence of an intruder. They used their sources to make that claim. They obviously did not need the confidential files to make that claim so let them back it up with what they had at the time...sources, info, rumors. They didnt need those confidential files to make the claim so why do they need the confidential files to defend their claim in court?


  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,053
    Quote Originally Posted by TLynn
    You can't prove a negative.

    So, if Fox can't come up with any intruder evidence, that proves their case - do the Ramseys have to show intruder evidence - and then Fox can dispute it?

    How would this lawsuit work?

    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


  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Amongst the beautiful Washington Islands
    Posts
    2,492

    Excactly!

    Quote Originally Posted by jasmine
    I will say it again. Fox made the claim that there was no evidence of an intruder. They used their sources to make that claim. They obviously did not need the confidential files to make that claim so let them back it up with what they had at the time...sources, info, rumors. They didnt need those confidential files to make the claim so why do they need the confidential files to defend their claim in court?
    You have hit the nail on the head!

    It is Fox's burden!

    It is ridiculous to think that they can break the law, and then hide behind it in order to get information they have no right to and could not otherwise get in order to pad their pockets and in the process destroy people's reputation that have not been convicted of anything.

    The other party need only prove the harm the Fox claims have done to them and collect $ for the damages.


  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Amongst the beautiful Washington Islands
    Posts
    2,492
    Quote Originally Posted by BlueCrab
    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
    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.


  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,053
    Quote Originally Posted by Fran Bancroft
    I disagree. If the suit is for slander/libel, Fox has the burden to prove the "truth" of their statements.

    Fran,

    The Ramseys are the plaintiffs. They have to prove to the jury by a preponderance of the evidence there was an intruder. If they can't, the verdict will be in favor of the defendant.

    JMO


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Amongst the beautiful Washington Islands
    Posts
    2,492
    Quote Originally Posted by BlueCrab
    Fran,

    The Ramseys are the plaintiffs. They have to prove to the jury by a preponderance of the evidence there was an intruder. If they can't, the verdict will be in favor of the defendant.

    JMO
    I sure hope it goes to a jury. I would be disappointed if they settle this one!


  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    226

    Smile

    Quote Originally Posted by Fran Bancroft
    I sure hope it goes to a jury. I would be disappointed if they settle this one!
    No doubt Fran , I do believe that we all need for the Ramsey to go to court with Fox...

    I know I will not ever get closer until the Killer is found but, it would help if a trial was coming.

    BTW--- I am on the fence. Have a few splinters in my butt,hence I sit on a donut cushion <snickering>


  13. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,053
    Quote Originally Posted by Fran Bancroft
    I sure hope it goes to a jury. I would be disappointed if they settle this one!

    Fran,

    This case has a good chance of going to trial because it isn't all about Burke.

    IMO all of the past defamation cases were pressured into being settled by the court because to go any further would have violated the Colorado Children's Code. The Code protects the identity of children involved in a major crime.

    The details of the past settlements are secret, but I doubt if any money has changed hands as a result of the past settlements. The Ramseys are publicly defending Burke the best way they know how -- with lawsuits. The Ramseys and Lin Wood, IMO, have been aggressive with their Burke lawsuits because they believe the best defense is a good offense (lawsuits).

    The current Ramsey v Fox lawsuit is different because it doesn't directly involve Burke. The court may let it go forward.

    JMO


  14. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    350
    Thanks for the reply, BC.

    Didn't Fox settle a case w/the Ramseys in the past (albeit re: Burke)?
    IMO -


  15. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,478
    If the Ramsey's filed suit isn't the burdon of proof on them to prove beyond any doubt that there was evidence of an intruder?


Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •