Lawyers for Fox News

[FULTON]

The Fox News reporter who made that statement, Carol McKinley, has a history of covering the Ramseys, i.e. she got them to agree to an interview after they moved to Atlanta and said she was going to ask them tough questions. It turned out to be a "Love in." I don't know why, but IMO McKinley wimped out.

Also, I believe there is plenty of evidence to indicate that an intruder murdered JBR, so in that case, the statement she made is incorrect. The Ramseys and their attorney (who never loses a case, the defendants always wisely settle) believe it to have been slander.

All in IMO, of course.

How do we know which side intiated the settelments??? What evidence can be cited as to be ONLY from an intruder and not from somone inside the house???

 

[LovelyPigeon]

There is nothing fradulent about the affadavit that Hunter signed regarding Burke's innocence.

I do not know who actually wrote the document that Hunter signed but even if Lin Wood wrote it that would not make it fradulent. Hunter signed it and was happy to do so as it reflects his personal position and the Boulder District Attorney's Office position on Burke Ramsey.

In addition, Hunter has stated publically that Burke is not a suspect and never was.

LE went through the motions of considering Burke a suspect because he was inside the house that night, including taking handwriting exemplars from him and perusing historical samples of Burke's handwriting. Burke was asked for hair, blood, and DNA samples also, and gave them.

Accusing Burke of being responsible for his sister's death, sexual assault, and/or writing the note is something I find odious and irresponsible.

 

[BlueCrab]

There is nothing fradulent about the affadavit that Hunter signed regarding Burke's innocence.

I do not know who actually wrote the document that Hunter signed but even if Lin Wood wrote it that would not make it fradulent. Hunter signed it and was happy to do so as it reflects his personal position and the Boulder District Attorney's Office position on Burke Ramsey.

In addition, Hunter has stated publically that Burke is not a suspect and never was.

LE went through the motions of considering Burke a suspect because he was inside the house that night, including taking handwriting exemplars from him and perusing historical samples of Burke's handwriting. Burke was asked for hair, blood, and DNA samples also, and gave them.

Accusing Burke of being responsible for his sister's death, sexual assault, and/or writing the note is something I find odious and irresponsible.

If Burke has been cleared, then why doesn't someone of authority just say so? ANSWER: They can't.

JMO

 

[TLynn]

There has never been a "suspect" in this case. The Ramseys are the only ones who have been identified as "under the umbrella of suspicion." Clever wording - but never suspects.

How can you clear someone who has never been a suspect?

 

[candy]

#34 -38 from the Amended complaint:

34. The statement uttered by Ms. McKinley that "detectives say they had good reason to suspect the Ramseys" is a false statement of fact and defamed Burke Ramsey.

35. Boulder Police Detectives and the District Attorney's Detectives have never said that Burke Ramsey was a suspect in the investigation of the murder of JonBenet Ramsey.

36. Boulder Police Detectives and the District Attorney's Detectives have never considered Burke Ramsey to be a suspect in the investigation of the murder of JonBenet Ramsey.

37. No incriminating evidence or good reason has ever existed linking Burke Ramsey to the murder of his sister or causing Boulder Police Detectives and the District Attorney's Detectives to consider him to be a suspect in the investigation of her murder.

38. Burke Ramsey has never been a suspect in the investigation of the murder of his sister as conclusively established by the October 12, 2000 sworn affidavit of former Boulder District Attorney Alexander M. Hunter, the original of said affidavit being attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and by reference made a part hereof.

 

[LovelyPigeon]

BC, it's been said, repeatedly, by several authorities.

Your choice has been to ignore that Burke is not, has not been, and has never warranted being a suspect. You make that your choice to further your personal pursuit of Burke as a killer.

A wise man said There are none so blind as those who will not see.

 

[BlueCrab]

#34 -38 from the Amended complaint:

34. The statement uttered by Ms. McKinley that "detectives say they had good reason to suspect the Ramseys" is a false statement of fact and defamed Burke Ramsey.

35. Boulder Police Detectives and the District Attorney's Detectives have never said that Burke Ramsey was a suspect in the investigation of the murder of JonBenet Ramsey.

36. Boulder Police Detectives and the District Attorney's Detectives have never considered Burke Ramsey to be a suspect in the investigation of the murder of JonBenet Ramsey.

37. No incriminating evidence or good reason has ever existed linking Burke Ramsey to the murder of his sister or causing Boulder Police Detectives and the District Attorney's Detectives to consider him to be a suspect in the investigation of her murder.

38. Burke Ramsey has never been a suspect in the investigation of the murder of his sister as conclusively established by the October 12, 2000 sworn affidavit of former Boulder District Attorney Alexander M. Hunter, the original of said affidavit being attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and by reference made a part hereof.

The Ramseys are trying to squeeze Burke into this complaint as an afterthought, because without Burke the case would have been dismissed almost immediately. But IMO Burke won't fit. On motion by Fox News the amendment to add Burke will likely be disallowed because of irrelevancy. There won't be any settlement in this case. It'll eventually be tossed.

JMO

 

[candy]

I'm going to post the Burke segments new to the Amended complaint in addition to the ones I already posted. The Ramseys inserted Burke a lot in the Amended complaint. There are other things new, Exhibit A is a legal transcript of the Fox News broadcast in question, etc.

39. Prior to the broadcast of the December 27, Ramsey segment, knowlegeable officials of the City of Boulder Police Department and the Boulder County District Attorney's office had publicly stated that Burke Ramsey was not a suspect in connection with his sister's murder and was not being looked at as a possible suspect.

45. Defendant knowingly published the false and defamatory statements contained in the December 27 Ramsey segment about Burke Ramsey being a suspect without corroboration and without any reliable, trustworthy or credible sources for said statements.

46. The fact that Boulder Police Detectives and the District Attorney's Detectives had never considered Burke Ramsey to be a suspect in connection with the investigation of the murder of JonBenet Ramsey was well known to Fox News and Ms. McKinley prior to the broadcast of the Ramsey segment as it had been the subject of substantial
print and broadcast media coverage prior to December 27, 2002.

53. At the time of the broadcast on December 27, 2002, Fox News and Ms. McKinley had actual knowledge that the statements that detectives had good reason to suspect Burke Ramsey and that there has never been any evidence to link an intruder to (JonBenet's) brutal murder were false statements.

57. As a direct and proximate result of the false and defamatory statements broadcast by Fox News, millions of members of the public were led to believe that Burke Ramsey was considered by detectives to be a suspect in the investigation of the murder of his sister.

66. Despite the overwhelming evidence that the statement that the statements that detectives had good reason to suspect Burke Ramsey and that there has never been any evidence to link an intruder to (JonBenet's) brutal murder were false statements, Fox News refused to publish the requested formal retraction and correction.

 

[Shylock]

Your choice has been to ignore that Burke is not, has not been, and has never warranted being a suspect.

No, OUR choice has been to point out the HYPOCRISY of those who continue to say Burke is not a suspect. Only a hypocrite could claim that the Boulder authorities were so incompetent that they wrongly built a case against the Ramseys, but yet these same authorities were competent enough to clear Burke.

Sorry, you CAN'T have your cake and eat it too! Burke is one of the three prime suspects in this case and he always will be.

 

[Shylock]

53. At the time of the broadcast on December 27, 2002, Fox News and Ms. McKinley had actual knowledge that the statements that detectives had good reason to suspect Burke Ramsey and that there has never been any evidence to link an intruder to (JonBenet's) brutal murder were false statements.

Candy,
I'm missing something. Did Carol McKinley mention Burke's name in that broadcast? I thought all she said was there has never been any real evidence of an intruder.

 

[LovelyPigeon]

Shylock, Burke is obviously thought by you to be a killer regardless of statements by law enforcement representatives to the contrary.

There is no LE agency that agrees with you. None. Burke is not a suspect, and has never been a suspect because nothing but nothing warranted his being a suspect.

Are you asking candy if the entire suit is based on one statement by Carol McKinley?

 

[Shylock]

There is no LE agency that agrees with you. None. Burke is not a suspect, and has never been a suspect because nothing but nothing warranted his being a suspect.

Dead wrong, LovelyPigeon. EVERY competent law enforcement agency in the country agrees with me. Ask ANY competent homicide investigator and you will be told in no uncertain terms that the only thing required to commit a murder is OPPORTUNITY and ABILITY.

FACT--Burke was in the house during the murder--OPPORTUNITY

FACT--Burke could swing an object and crack another child's skull--ABILITY

FACT--Burke could have tied the cord around both the paint stick and his sister's neck--ABILITY

Those are hard FACTS, Lovelypigeon. Any person who disputes ANY of the three either doesn't know what they are talking about, or they just want to play silly little mind games with themself.

 

[DocWatson]

My dear Watson, you really must run faster and catch up with this case. It's elementary that the affidavit Lin Wood is trotting out again is the fraudulent one written by Lin Wood himself but signed by Alex Hunter on October 12, 2000. It's the same affidavit I was referring to in my post above (post #18).

Burke Ramsey has never been cleared by anyone of authority in the killing of JonBenet and he never will be cleared -- not by Hunter, or Keenan, or Beckner, or a judge, nor anyone else. They can't afford to lie under oath.

JMO

If you'll look at the time of your post #18, you'll realize I was writing my reply at the same time you were writing yours. I am well aware of your groundless objections to the October 12, 2000 affidavit. As Candy has just posted, there are several clear statements in the complaint about Burke's status as suspect. If these are left uncontested in the response to the complaint, they are presumed to be factually correct in the eyes of the law. Given that the Fox News account itself alluded to Burke's not having been a suspect and having been "cleared" my guess is these won't be contested! In short, you're wrong, case closed, game over.

 

[candy]

Fox News is adding another lawyer, Slade Metcalf from New York to it's legal team. The Fox side has five lawyers working on this case as of now.

 

[popcorn]

The affidavit produced by Alex Hunter became null and void when Burke changed his story and confessed he actually was awake.

 

[BloodshotEye]

Wouldn't it be within Fox News' rights, as a news reporting/analysis entity, to suggest that perhaps person A, B or C SHOULD be considered as a suspect? Shouldn't they be able to "wonder out loud", and ask, "Have police considered person A, as being possibly involved?".

Additionally, wouldn't Fox News be able to report on theories assembled by others, and not be responsible for the accuracy of the theory? After all, that's what Court TV often does - speculate. If Fox included those sacrosanct words such as, "potential theory or suspect", "possible", "one of many theories", would/should they be held accountable for what the Ramsey's believe to be damaged reputation?

This is a rather curious situation resulting from reporting various aspects about a case.

 

[LovelyPigeon]

popcorn, Burke didn't change his story. He told police that he was pretending to be asleep when his parents looked into his room, and again when a police officer looked into his room.

DA Hunter was aware of Burke's statements to police long before he signed an affidavit to Burke's innocence.

 

[BlueCrab]

The affidavit produced by Alex Hunter became null and void when Burke changed his story and confessed he actually was awake.

popcorn,

Would you mind providing us with more detail about your comment? What makes the affidavit null and void? Thanks.

JMO

 

[BlueCrab]

DA Hunter was aware of Burke's statements to police long before he signed an affidavit to Burke's innocence.

Hunter did not sign an affidavit "to Burke's innocence". He signed an affidavit that Burke is a "witness" and not a "suspect". Of course NO ONE was an official suspect in the Ramsey case, so the affidavit was moot. The affidavit was a trick to make Burke appear to be cleared, but without using the word "cleared". The affidavit wasn't even written by Hunter. It was written by Lin Wood and simply signed by Hunter after some back and forth editing of the tricky wording.

If the D.A. or anyone else of authority in Boulder want to clear Burke all they have to do is say so, just like they did for John Andrew and Melinda. But please don't hold your breath waiting for them to say Burke has been cleared. IMO they can't without going on record with a lie because Burke can't be cleared -- he killed JonBenet.

Just my opinion.

 

[popcorn]

http://www.acandyrose.com/04032001enquirer.htm

http://thewebsafe.tripod.com/10122000hunterafidavittowood.htm

Th affidavit from 2000 was produced under false pretenses. Alex Hunter had information from the Ramseys stating Burke was asleep. It wasn't until 2001 they admitted this was incorrect. Hunter used all the information as a foundation to make that document. Weither the Ramseys knowingly or unknowingly knew Burke was awake, the truthfullness of every statement made by the parents comes up for review. It doesn't even matter if Butke testified to GJ he was awake. In a nutshell, the witnesses who's information was relied on for the affidavit have changed their story. That renders Hunter's decision null and void. In the same token, as the open case investigation progresses to include new documents, interviews, and lab evidence the affidavit is open to rebuttal.

IMO