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

[HarmonyE.]

It makes me sick to think that the R's coffers will, once again, be brimming over with money - more than enough to sue the next person who dares to say anything that might resemble the truth about what happened that night.

More than the money even, I think the Ramseys have used the threat of civil lawsuits as a way to keep others quiet for fear that they'd be next if they told what they knew about the family, collectively or individually. People are afraid to speak out, even if it's the absolute truth, because defending these things is expensive and intrusive. And less anyone think the eventual death of John Ramsey will allow them to speak out, Burke is now making sure everyone knows he'll carry on the tradition.

These people are despicable.

 

[questfortrue]

More than the money even, I think the Ramseys have used the threat of civil lawsuits as a way to keep others quiet for fear that they'd be next if they told what they knew about the family, collectively or individually. People are afraid to speak out, even if it's the absolute truth, because defending these things is expensive and intrusive. And less anyone think the eventual death of John Ramsey will allow them to speak out, Burke is now making sure everyone knows he'll carry on the tradition.

These people are despicable.

All true.

Not all states have anti-SLAPP laws. SLAPP lawsuits are titled such as they are Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, iow, to shut down public opinion. AFAIK Michigan does not have anti-SLAPP laws, but California does. Were LW and BR to move against CBS after the Spitz lawsuit, here is what the anti-SLAPP legislation can accomplish (from http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/anti-slapp-law-california):

You can use California's anti-SLAPP statute to counter a SLAPP suit filed against you. The statute allows you to file a special motion to strike a complaint filed against you based on an "act in furtherance of [your] right of petition or free speech under the United States or California Constitution in connection with a public issue." Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16. If a court rules in your favor, it will dismiss the plaintiff's case early in the litigation and award you attorneys' fees and court costs.

 

[Miz Adventure]

Burke is now making sure everyone knows he'll carry on the tradition.

These people are despicable.

It'll be Burke's lawyers - and his father - who are pulling the strings.

Burke has now become the family's 'cash cow'

 

[kanzz]

More than the money even, I think the Ramseys have used the threat of civil lawsuits as a way to keep others quiet for fear that they'd be next if they told what they knew about the family, collectively or individually. People are afraid to speak out, even if it's the absolute truth, because defending these things is expensive and intrusive. And less anyone think the eventual death of John Ramsey will allow them to speak out, Burke is now making sure everyone knows he'll carry on the tradition.

These people are despicable.

BBM

Here's an example. I don't buy this guy's theory, but I saved this link because he says he was harassed by Wood:

Writing ‘the Burke did it’ theory (trials and tribulations)

 

[Miz Adventure]

OMG.

Do you know who this person is. It seems he had a website.

The Websleuths website referred to in the article - would that be this one or was there another?

 

[HarmonyE.]

BBM

Here's an example. I don't buy this guy's theory, but I saved this link because he says he was harassed by Wood:

Writing ‘the Burke did it’ theory (trials and tribulations)

Interesting, although a fit fanciful. The writer is an author who seems to have quite a bit of an imagination and enjoys creating complex conspiracy theories. I can see Lin Wood sending a warning email just like that though, and he's spot on regarding the reason behind all the lawsuits.

 

[kanzz]

OMG.

Do you know who this person is. It seems he had a website.

The Websleuths website referred to in the article - would that be this one or was there another?

No, I have no idea who this person is. But - I'm sure he actually means "webbsleuths", that place set up by Susan Bennet who hides behind the moniker "jameson", aka Smit's #1 fan and R's #1 apologist. She is our nemesis.

 

[Ambitioned]

Speaking of Woody, more saber rattling!!

http://www.westword.com/news/jonbenet-family-attorney-cbs-lawsuit-coming-soon-expert-liable-8570045

. But his attorney is shrugging off a dismissal motion from an expert on the program who's already been sued and says the CBS complaint is likely to be filed before year's end.

Yeah, I'll believe it when I see it.

According to this Spitz really didn't name BR did he? "It's the boy who did it [i.e., killed JonBenét]....."

He could argue it could be Nathan or DS.

BR became a limited purpose public figure when he appeared on Dr. Phil. He has no case, IMO.

 

[HarmonyE.]

According to this Spitz really didn't name BR did he? "It's the boy who did it [i.e., killed JonBenét]....."

He could argue it could be Nathan or DS.

I don't think I'd go that route. Maybe if the said "a boy", but "the boy" can really only be Burke in this context.

 

[madeleine]

Just wanted to come back and explain what I was really trying to say yesterday. Look at what Charlie Brennan did. His action was a real step towards justice. He managed to make the GJ files public. That was huge.
Now take a look at what the cbs team did and what the RESULT is. Nothing concrete towards REAL justice or finding out the truth.
There is a huge difference between the two events.
Thats all.

 

[HarmonyE.]

Just wanted to come back and explain what I was really trying to say yesterday. Look at what Charlie Brennan did. His action was a real step towards justice. He managed to make the GJ files public. That was huge.
Now take a look at what the cbs team did and what the RESULT is. Nothing concrete towards REAL justice or finding out the truth.
There is a huge difference between the two events.
Thats all.

I don't think the CBS show was very well done. It was poorly edited and the smashing of the head with the blonde hair was beyond cringe-inducing.

But a lousy show does not necessarily make it any more slanderous than a well-done one, and they did make some excellent points, particularly about the BS trace dna. And I agree with the ultimate conclusion that the most likely scenario, if not the only reasonable one, is that the children had an encounter downstairs on Christmas night which led to JBR acquiring a very large crack in her skull at the hands of her brother. The more I learn about Burke, the more I think he did the whole murder, but they didn't go that far, at least not in the broadcasted portions.

I think they were still trying to play it a little safe in some respects relative to potential defamation litigation. But once that lawsuit is filed against CBS, there is no need for them to dance around anything and all of the information someone like Kolar and any other witness called for a deposition has now may come out, with no fear of repercussions to them. Quite a bit of information can come forth during civil proceedings that isn't attainable in any other way once the criminal case is dead.

Anyone who followed the West Memphis 3 case knows what happened when Terry Hobbs, a stepfather of one of the victims sued Natalie Maines and the Dixie Chicks for allegedly claiming he was the actual murderer. The defense attorneys utterly destroyed him during deposition. And not just with their questions; they did their homework and found all kinds of witnesses and information and threw facts and curveballs at him that he simply couldn't cope with. If you didn't think he was guilty before watching the whole thing, odds are you were convinced of it by the end of it. The case was dismissed as Hobbs was deemed a limited public figure by the court, and not long thereafter, the tide began to turn for the three convicted, ultimately culminating with their release on Alford pleas. The State was going to have to re-try them and they knew they didn't have a prayer with such a good - and far more viable -suspect now exposed bare.

All cases and situations are different and I'm not equating Burke's situation with that of Terry Hobbs'. However, good defamation defense attorneys can obtain quite a bit of very valuable information during the course of defending their clients. Spitz probably isn't going to have a defense team like the Dixie Chicks'. But CBS will.

 

[Userid]

I don't think the CBS show was very well done. It was poorly edited and the smashing of the head with the blonde hair was beyond cringe-inducing.

But a lousy show does not necessarily make it any more slanderous than a well-done one, and they did make some excellent points, particularly about the BS trace dna. And I agree with the ultimate conclusion that the most likely scenario, if not the only reasonable one, is that the children had an encounter downstairs on Christmas night which led to JBR acquiring a very large crack in her skull at the hands of her brother. The more I learn about Burke, the more I think he did the whole murder, but they didn't go that far, at least not in the broadcasted portions.

I think they were still trying to play it a little safe in some respects relative to potential defamation litigation. But once that lawsuit is filed against CBS, there is no need for them to dance around anything and all of the information someone like Kolar and any other witness called for a deposition has now may come out, with no fear of repercussions to them. Quite a bit of information can come forth during civil proceedings that isn't attainable in any other way once the criminal case is dead.

Anyone who followed the West Memphis 3 case knows what happened when Terry Hobbs, a stepfather of one of the victims sued Natalie Maines and the Dixie Chicks for allegedly claiming he was the actual murderer. The defense attorneys utterly destroyed him during deposition. And not just with their questions; they did their homework and found all kinds of witnesses and information and threw facts and curveballs at him that he simply couldn't cope with. If you didn't think he was guilty before watching the whole thing, odds are you were convinced of it by the end of it. The case was dismissed as Hobbs was deemed a limited public figure by the court, and not long thereafter, the tide began to turn for the three convicted, ultimately culminating with their release on Alford pleas. The State was going to have to re-try them and they knew they didn't have a prayer with such a good - and far more viable -suspect now exposed bare.

All cases and situations are different and I'm not equating Burke's situation with that of Terry Hobbs'. However, good defamation defense attorneys can obtain quite a bit of very valuable information during the course of defending their clients. Spitz probably isn't going to have a defense team like the Dixie Chicks'. But CBS will.

To the first bolded: yup, exactly. This is what I am hoping happens to BR and why I'm hoping that they don't settle. BR will be put under a microscope, and it's safe to say he will be asked about a wide range of issues that night, which in essence will put his parents under that same microscope.

To the second bolded: well, not really. TH dropped his lawsuit against Natalie Maines; that's how the case was closed. And this case had absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the Alford Pleas that the WM3 themselves introduced to the State. Two very separate cases that had no bearing whatsoever on the other.

 

[HarmonyE.]

To the first bolded: yup, exactly. This is what I am hoping happens to BR and why I'm hoping that they don't settle. BR will be put under a microscope, and it's safe to say he will be asked about a wide range of issues that night, which in essence will put his parents under that same microscope.

To the second bolded: well, not really. TH dropped his lawsuit against Natalie Maines; that's how the case was closed. And this case had absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the Alford Pleas that the WM3 themselves introduced to the State. Two very separate cases that had no bearing whatsoever on the other.

To the first, no, the court dismissed the case as Hobbs was a limited public figure. Link and relevant quotes follow:

In Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46, 56 (1988), the Supreme Court held that "public figures and public officials may not recover for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress" without showing that the false statement of fact was made with actual malice, as set forth in New York Times. Hobbs does not address this claim specifically in his response. Because Hobbs cannot establish actual malice, summary judgment is appropriate as to his outrage claim. For the reasons set forth herein, there are no issues of material fact in dispute as to Hobbs's claims against the defendants and summary judgment is appropriate on those claims.Accordingly, defendants' motions for summary judgment (Doc. Nos. 38 and 41) are granted; plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment (Doc. No. 26) is denied as moot; and plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment (Doc. No. 31) is denied. Plaintiff Terry Hobbs's complaint is dismissed with prejudice and an appropriate judgment will be entered.https://casetext.com/case/hobbs-v-pasdar

As for your second point, I cannot personally prove it of course, but Hobbs did so much damage to himself, once the State was forced to start the process that was almost certainly going to lead to new trials (the new judge later confirmed he was going to grant new trials) it made the decision for them not to re-try that much easier. There was no doubt that the WM3 now had the ammo to point to a far more viable suspect. A small piece of Hobbs' hair was entwined in one of the knots of the victims, and while this could have been secondary transfer as he lived with one of them, his own testimony heavily bolstered the case against him. While this was probably not the only reason the state agreed to compromise and release them, it was almost certainly a big part of it. The defense attorneys would have had little trouble proving reasonable doubt with regard to the Three with a much better suspect out there.

 

[Userid]

Fair enough, I stand corrected on the first point, but not on the second (which I still stand by). I was under the assumption however, that he could have continued to fight it if he wanted, but I could be wrong.

I know about that case well -- the hair could belong to 1% of the population, which is in the hundreds. It also could be secondary transfer as you say. Regardless, this case had absolutely zero bearing on the Alford pleas. What was going to get the 3 (well, at least two) of them new trials was the jury foreman's misconduct of introducing the JM confession in the deliberations for JB and DE illegally. And again, it was the defense that asked for the Alford pleas...the state was going to go to trial (reluctantly) until the offer was presented to them by the defense. If the state initiated the deal then maybe you'd have to a leg to stand on in assuming that the Maines case had some sort of influence, but the fact it was the defense that initiated the plea alone proves it didn't.

 

[HarmonyE.]

Fair enough, I stand corrected on the first point, but not on the second (which I still stand by). I was under the assumption however, that he could have continued to fight it if he wanted, but I could be wrong.

I know about that case well -- the hair could belong to 1% of the population, which is in the hundreds. It also could be secondary transfer as you say. Regardless, this case had absolutely zero bearing on the Alford pleas. What was going to get the 3 (well, at least two) of them new trials was the jury foreman's misconduct of introducing the JM confession in the deliberations for JB and DE illegally. And again, it was the defense that asked for the Alford pleas...the state was going to go to trial (reluctantly) until the offer was presented to them by the defense. If the state initiated the deal then maybe you'd have to a leg to stand on in assuming that the Maines case had some sort of influence, but the fact it was the defense that initiated the plea alone proves it didn't.

Yes, the two cases were entirely different from a legal standpoint. But we can't ignore that what the defamation trial exposed would have been enormously helpful to the Three in any potential retrial. And sure, there were other weaknesses in the State's potential case, including possible/probable jury miscounduct that had to be considered. But I can't stress enough - if there's another, better suspect out there, the likelihood of a new jury finding reasonable doubt is very, very high. The State surely knew this when they were considering whether to compromise with the Alford pleas. And so I respectfully disagree that the information gathered during the defamation suit had no bearing whatsover on the State's decision making regarding future criminal re-trials. I think it had to have been a pretty big part of the discussion.

 

[Userid]

^ I'd have to wonder then why it wasn't the State that initiated it, and why, if the TH/Maines depositions would have been so useful, that the Defense would elect to have their clients guilty for the remainder of their lives anyway -- but yes, agree to disagree, respectfully. I really don't think the case was discussed at all when the Defense approached the State, and it only would have been useful for the Defense if there actually was a re-trial, which obviously there never was. Even then, the defense wouldn't be responsible for proving who actually committed the murder; they'd simply have to prove reasonable doubt (based on the lack of evidence) that their clients didn't -- there's a difference.

Anyway, back on topic...

 

[buggiegirl]

Have you found in there the part where it says the parents couldn't be charged?

I've always found that idea laughably impossible. If you couldn't charge someone involved in a crime because a child under 10 was also involved and can't be named, then people would have their kids along with them stealing stuff left and right and Oops, can't do anything about it because little Timmy was only 9 when he helped me lift this tv. I'm sure the intent of the law is that Burke was 9 years old and could not form intent to commit a crime, therefore he cannot be charged with a crime. Not that every one in the entire legal system is forbidden from saying his name in connection with a crime.

 

[kanzz]

I've always found that idea laughably impossible. If you couldn't charge someone involved in a crime because a child under 10 was also involved and can't be named, then people would have their kids along with them stealing stuff left and right and Oops, can't do anything about it because little Timmy was only 9 when he helped me lift this tv. I'm sure the intent of the law is that Burke was 9 years old and could not form intent to commit a crime, therefore he cannot be charged with a crime. Not that every one in the entire legal system is forbidden from saying his name in connection with a crime.

Thank you! :highfive:

 

[AB1]

Spitz's lawyers should call Fleet White.

In his letter requesting full disclosure of the GJ , the Whites refer to themselves as prosecution witnesses.

 

[Tortoise]

Spitz's lawyers should call Fleet White.

In his letter requesting full disclosure of the GJ , the Whites refer to themselves as prosecution witnesses.

In whose prosecution do they refer to themselves as witnesses?