Websleuths
Go Back   Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community > Featured Case Discussion > JonBenet Ramsey

Notices

JonBenet Ramsey What really happened to 6 year old JonBenet? Someone is getting away with murder. All information posted on this site is gained through published documentation on this case. It is strictly opinion only.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-30-2004, 03:50 PM
BlueCrab BlueCrab is offline
Registered User
 
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
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 10-31-2004, 12:40 PM
tezi's Avatar
tezi tezi is offline
Best Behavior is Overrated!!!!
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Apparently, I took a left at Crazytown
Posts: 5,120
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
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 10-31-2004, 01:33 PM
TressaRing28 TressaRing28 is offline
Banned
 
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.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 10-31-2004, 02:12 PM
TLynn TLynn is offline
Registered User
 
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 -
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 10-31-2004, 07:11 PM
Fran Bancroft Fran Bancroft is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Amongst the beautiful Washington Islands
Posts: 2,572
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?
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 10-31-2004, 07:25 PM
jasmine jasmine is offline
Banned
 
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?
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 10-31-2004, 07:28 PM
BlueCrab BlueCrab is offline
Registered User
 
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
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 10-31-2004, 07:32 PM
Fran Bancroft Fran Bancroft is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Amongst the beautiful Washington Islands
Posts: 2,572
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.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 10-31-2004, 07:34 PM
Fran Bancroft Fran Bancroft is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Amongst the beautiful Washington Islands
Posts: 2,572
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.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 10-31-2004, 07:55 PM
BlueCrab BlueCrab is offline
Registered User
 
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
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 10-31-2004, 07:58 PM
Fran Bancroft Fran Bancroft is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Amongst the beautiful Washington Islands
Posts: 2,572
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!
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 11-01-2004, 08:10 AM
TressaRing28 TressaRing28 is offline
Banned
 
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>
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 11-01-2004, 11:55 AM
BlueCrab BlueCrab is offline
Registered User
 
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
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 11-02-2004, 12:50 PM
TLynn TLynn is offline
Registered User
 
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 -
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 11-02-2004, 01:24 PM
Seeker Seeker is offline
Former Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 3,519
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?
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 11-02-2004, 01:59 PM
tezi's Avatar
tezi tezi is offline
Best Behavior is Overrated!!!!
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Apparently, I took a left at Crazytown
Posts: 5,120
Talking

Quote:
Originally Posted by Seeker
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?
That is what I thought. And since there is no evidence of an intruder, well......
__________________
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
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 11-02-2004, 04:41 PM
BlueCrab BlueCrab is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 3,053
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seeker
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?

Seeker,

This is a civil lawsuit, not a criminal case. The Ramseys are the plaintiffs, so they must prove with a preponderance of the evidence there was an intruder. A "preponderance of the evidence" is used in civil lawsuits and simply means 51% or more, so to speak.

Another way of putting it is: "It was more likely there was an intruder than it was likely there was not an intruder", or if the jury decides the other way: "It was more likely there was not an intruder than it was likely there was an intruder". The burden of proof in civil cases is less than criminal cases because the verdict involves only money.

In criminal cases the state prosecutor must prove "beyond reasonable doubt" the defendant committed the crime he is being charged with. The burden of proof in criminal cases is higher than civil lawsuits because the verdict can cause the defendant to lose his freedom.

Ramsey v Fox News is a civil case and involves money. The plaintiff or the defendant need only tip the scales a little bit in his favor and he wins.

JMO
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 11-02-2004, 05:05 PM
Seeker Seeker is offline
Former Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 3,519
I know that Blue. It was sarcasm....they still shoulder the burdon of proof.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 11-02-2004, 06:06 PM
Show Me Show Me is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Mid-West
Posts: 3,837
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seeker
I know that Blue. It was sarcasm....they still shoulder the burdon of proof.
And that is great news!!!

'It's up to you now, John'....hehehehehe gooooooooooooo FOX!
__________________
-
My opinion and nothing but my opinion.

Tor:Con Index link below. Will show you the probability of a tornado happening in your area.
http://www.weather.com/news/tornado-torcon-index

FEMA's link for Emergency Supplies list below or what you need to survive for three days in case help is not immediately available to you.
http://www.ready.gov/document/family-supply-list

You can also purchase a weather radio which will inform you of severe weather even if your electricity goes out. Runs on batteries of course.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 11-07-2004, 07:08 PM
Charley Charley is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: canada
Posts: 5
Cash Flow...

Must be running dry to come up with this lawsuit!
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 11-07-2004, 07:57 PM
BlueCrab BlueCrab is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 3,053
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seeker
I know that Blue. It was sarcasm....they still shoulder the burdon of proof.

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
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 12-02-2004, 10:42 AM
Camper's Avatar
Camper Camper is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 9,325
Wellllllllll

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.




.
__________________
Opinions expressed by me, are mine, based on life experience, and known facts of any given case.





"""I am just a pixel in the universal plan."""
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 12-18-2004, 08:29 PM
luvbeaches luvbeaches is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,014
Quote:
Originally Posted by great_tezi
Should we expect any less from these two?
LOL..no kidding. What did they expect from these two?
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 12-18-2004, 10:35 PM
Camper's Avatar
Camper Camper is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 9,325
Hmmm

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




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.




,



,
__________________
Opinions expressed by me, are mine, based on life experience, and known facts of any given case.





"""I am just a pixel in the universal plan."""
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 12-19-2004, 09:59 AM
Wudge Wudge is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 6,480
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.
__________________
It's not what a man knows that makes him a fool, it's what he does know that ain't so. .... Josh Billings
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


© Copyright Websleuths 1999-2012 New To Site? Need Help?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:37 PM.

Advertisements

Pre-Order Imperfect Justice: Prosecuting Casey Anthony today!