Burke Files 150 Million Dollar Lawsuit Against Werner Sptiz???

[observation]

http://www.westword.com/news/jonben...mseys-lawyer-rips-cbs-call-to-dismiss-8876611

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.
[...]
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."

Not sure if this was shared yet. More at the link. Interesting that at the hearing the judge stated he wanted to listen to the radio interview but did not have a copy, only a transcript. If LW indeed provided one, why would he delay the dismissal for a copy of the radio interview.
I'm not a lawyer but IMHO- a copy of the radio interview is a copy of the interview. That does not make logical sense.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Tadpole12]

LW twitter


[video=twitter;843791251573014529]https://twitter.com/DenverWestword/status/843791251573014529[/video]

 

[Userid]

Woods reasoning is so bunk, it's utterly ridiculous.

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."

Seriously? They simply offered an opinion as to who they believed committed the crime, based on their investigation. Every single person who watched the show knew it was simply an opinion, and not "fact."

On another note, perhaps this is a dumb question, but wouldn't it be a bad thing if CBS gets the case tossed? I mean, it would be good in the sense that, LW and co. couldn't strong arm an outlet from never uttering even the least negative thing about an R; but it would also be bad in the sense that, depositions (i.e. BR's) wouldn't be an option if the case is dismissed.

 

[Gigitmdy]

Oh, that is a very good point. Wood may actually want the lawsuit tossed! Which would explain the not so great performance in Detroit. That way, it looks like they are willing to fight anyone getting too close to uncomfortable facts, but they wouldn't have to wage the expensive lawsuit against an entity with a lot of $$$ and good attorneys.




Seriously? They simply offered an opinion as to who they believed committed the crime, based on their investigation. Every single person who watched the show knew it was simply an opinion, and not "fact."

On another note, perhaps this is a dumb question, but wouldn't it be a bad thing if CBS gets the case tossed? I mean, it would be good in the sense that, LW and co. couldn't strong arm an outlet from never uttering even the least negative thing about an R; but it would also be bad in the sense that, depositions (i.e. BR's) wouldn't be an option if the case is dismissed.[/QUOTE]

 

[BBB167893]

LW twitter


[video=twitter;843791251573014529]https://twitter.com/DenverWestword/status/843791251573014529[/video]

I'm blocked from LW's Twitter. Can't THINK why!

 

[BBB167893]

Woods reasoning is so bunk, it's utterly ridiculous.

SO is the fact that he's still allowed to practice law.

 

[Tadpole12]

http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/...-dr-werner-spitz-case-heard-in-michigan-court

re: review hearing

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

By Nick Monacelli - Reporter , Dave Bartkowiak Jr.
Posted: 7:26 AM, March 22,

"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."

 

[Tadpole12]

in the interim WS testifies in the retrial of Jason Sadowski wrt bilateral bruises on the neck
and coined sized bruises possibly caused by fingertips.

"Spitz testified during direct testimony that the victims’ physical injuries showed no evidence of being repeatedly strangled to the point of unconsciousness because neither victim had bilateral bruises on the neck or petechiae on the surface of the eye.
“Petechiae are a phenomenon that give the appearance of pinpoint hemorrhages around the eye’s surface. They occur when the pressure in the veins, not the arteries, is increased and tiny little blood vessels may rupture,” Spitz said. “Usually in strangulation cases, the veins are obstructed, therefore people equate petechia with strangulation but it is really a blood related phenomenon, not a breathing phenomenon it occurs because of the compression of veins, not the airway.”





http://www.miningjournal.net/news/front-page-news/2017/03/forensic-expert-gives-testimony/

 

[Tadpole12]

Third Judicial Circuit of Michigan - Odyssey Web Access

https://cmspublic.3rdcc.org/default.aspx

Non-Criminal Case Records
Werner Spitz

Ramsey, Burke H , et al. v Spitz, Werner U.
Case No. 16-012792-CZ

STATUS CONFERENCE SCHEDULING ORDER


Track #1

Witness Exchange Filing 03/30/2017
Discovery Cutoff 05/18/2017
Case Evaluation Month 07/2017
Settlement Conference
(Case Evaluation date Plus 42 days) 42 Days

 

[Annapurna]

I'm hoping that we get a videotaped deposition (that gets mysteriously leaked...).

If justice can happen in this case they need someone who could interview BR well, and ask the right questions that you only can know if you study the case. Here's hoping Kolar or someone consults. Ideally a psychologist as well... maybe cbs will help fund. It could help their case as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Tadpole12]

Mich court
https://cmspublic.3rdcc.org/default.aspx

16-012792-CZ

Ramsey, Burke H , et al. v Spitz, Werner U. 10/23/2017 Case Evaluation - General Civil 12/05/2017 Settlement Conference (9:00 AM) (Judicial Officer Groner, David A.)

 

[Razz]

Mich court
https://cmspublic.3rdcc.org/default.aspx

16-012792-CZ

Ramsey, Burke H , et al. v Spitz, Werner U. 10/23/2017 Case Evaluation - General Civil 12/05/2017 Settlement Conference (9:00 AM) (Judicial Officer Groner, David A.)

Looked this up but I'd rather have someone explain this to me. Does this mean it's going to be settled?

Sent from my SM-J700T using Tapatalk

 

[meade]

He's too busy tweeting his own fake news (i.e. Obama wiretap).

Is this considered acceptable posting?

 

[Userid]

^ As far as I know, simple jokes are allowed; didn't use profanity, didn't call anyone names, etc.

Simple word of advice: don't take it so seriously.

 

[Ambitioned]

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

More like YOU are nonsensical and outrageous Lin.

 

[BBB167893]

More like YOU are nonsensical and outrageous Lin.

Is it just me, or does Lin make Yosemite Sam look downright composed in comparison?

 

[Ambitioned]

LOL! I just pictured Lin saying, "“Ya doggone idgit galoot!! You’ll blow the case to smithereenies!”

 

[BBB167893]

LOL! I just pictured Lin saying, "“Ya doggone idgit galoot!! You’ll blow the case to smithereenies!”

His case is blown already.

 

[MzOpinion8d]

Looked this up but I'd rather have someone explain this to me. Does this mean it's going to be settled?

Sent from my SM-J700T using Tapatalk

I *think* it's scheduled so that there's a date on the docket in the event a settlement is on the table, but if one isn't, they just remove it from the docket.

 

[Razz]

I *think* it's scheduled so that there's a date on the docket in the event a settlement is on the table, but if one isn't, they just remove it from the docket.

Thank you. That seems a tad presumptuous of the court, however.

Sent from my SM-J700T using Tapatalk