Amended complaint - Ramseys v. Fox News

Discussion in 'JonBenet Ramsey' started by candy, Feb 24, 2004.

  1. candy

    candy Inactive

    Messages:
    324
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
  2. Loading...


  3. Ivy

    Ivy Inactive

    Messages:
    2,199
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What total BS!!!! Nothing in what McKinley said was even remotely inflammatory towards Burke. The Rs are trying to pull another scam, using Burke as their weapon, because he's the only one they have. I hope that someday John, Patsy...and most of all, Lin Wood, pay through the nose for their arrogance and deceitful manipulation of the law.

    IMO
     
  4. BlueCrab

    BlueCrab New Member

    Messages:
    3,053
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Fox News ANSWER will be an interesting read.

    JMO
     
  5. Shylock

    Shylock Former Member

    Messages:
    1,058
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Limp Wood is full of BS. He's trying to make a case that when McKinley said, "The couple and Jonbenet's 9-year-old brother, Burke, were the only known people in the house the night she was killed.", she was "conveying that Boulder detectives suspected Burke Ramsey" (par. 30-31).

    What garbage! McKinley was just stating a FACT.

    Unless Wood knows the name of a FOURTH known person that was in the house that night which he would like to share with us! Come'on tell us Woodie!--Enquiring minds want to know!
     
  6. candy

    candy Inactive

    Messages:
    324
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Fox News has filed a motion to move the case to Colorado.
     
  7. Ivy

    Ivy Inactive

    Messages:
    2,199
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Why would they do that?

    IMO
     
  8. candy

    candy Inactive

    Messages:
    324
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    In one of the motions Fox filed, they correctly stated that Carol didn't libel Burke (unlike the BDI libelers on the internet, who libel him every
    chance they can):

    Plaintiff's further allege that the first statement wrongly accuses Burke of having been a suspect, notwithstanding the fact that the transcript annexed as "Exhibit A" to the Complaint states affirmatively that Burke was not a suspect and was "cleared" ("After all this time, the only action seen in the unsolved case has been in civil court. Millions of dollars have changed hands...Much of it has come from people who called JonBenet's older brother Burke
    WHO HAS BEEN CLEARED a suspect." ) emphasis supplied.
     
  9. Ivy

    Ivy Inactive

    Messages:
    2,199
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So, Candy, WS is indeed the "libel forum" you referred to in your other thread about the Fox case...and I am obviously one of the "BDI libelers" you refer to in your above post. Have you sicced your good buddy Lin Wood on us? Given your vindictive attitude, it wouldn't surprise me one bit.

    Even though Hunter was unable to develop any solid evidence to directly implicate Burke, it doesn't mean Burke was "cleared." Anyway, there's supposedly a new investigation going on now--and none of the Rs have been officially removed out from under the umbrella of suspicion. Maybe you should put that in your pipe and smoke it, instead of trying to stir up trouble for WS.

    IMO
     
  10. Britt

    Britt New Member

    Messages:
    1,911
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Exactly, Ivy. Like the narcissistic parasites they are, John and Patsy are using Burke just like they're using JonBenet and just like they used JonBenet, each for his/her own agenda, before they killed her (IMCPO).
     
  11. sissi

    sissi Former Member

    Messages:
    1,832
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I always thought a forum represented a conversation in print. I can't imagine being held legally liable for a conversation,this isn't a media broadcast.
     
  12. BlueCrab

    BlueCrab New Member

    Messages:
    3,053
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Burke has never been cleared and, IMO, never will be. If Burke was to be cleared it would have happened by now. I think Fox News is ready to expose to the world the fraudulent October 12, 2000 affidavit by Alex Hunter that tries to make Burke look cleared without using the word "cleared".

    The motion to change venue to Colorado isn't surprising. That's where almost all of the witnesses are that Fox News will need to tear down the Ramsey/Wood "umbrella of intimidation" they're trying to hold over free speech, and that's where the alleged defamation occurred.

    JMO
     
  13. Barbara

    Barbara New Member

    Messages:
    741
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    How interesting! At some of the other forums, some of the RST have come out and said that the Ramseys WILL NOT SETTLE this case because they have truth and justice on their side, as opposed to settling for Burke (not wanting to drag him through the court). Suing on their OWN behalf has never happened so the RST was shouting from the rooftops that NOW we'll actually see Lin Wood in action. I responded and IMMEDIATELY got a reply from She Who Will NOt Be Named that if a reasonable settlement was offered, they would take it. This went back and forth for a while.

    Now they drag Burke's name into this mess. How very interesting!

    They are so transparent in their motives. Let's remember that eventually Burke will turn 18 and he will have to sue on his own behalf so their money train will run out. Better to get their last licks in before his 18th birthday I guess.

    BTW, Burke will always be a suspect! Like it or not!
     
  14. candy

    candy Inactive

    Messages:
    324
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Gee BlueCrab,

    Do you think Mike Kane was on crack when he said this?

    http://www.cybersleuths.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=004627

    Michael Kane: The police investigation, contrary to what Mr. Wood said in the little clip you just showed, the police investigation never excluded anybody with the exception of Burke Ramsey from the focus of the case.

    or that ST needed new glasses, because he said this:

    posted 01-18-2004 06:59 PM
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ST on Burke as a "suspect":

    http://crime.about.com/library/weekly/aa051800a.htm

    crimeADM
    Is it your opinion that Burke was asleep when JonBenet was killed?
    SteveThomas
    I certainly do not know anything to lead me to believe that Burke was present or aware that his sister was being
    assaulted/killed

    crimeADM
    Do you agree with the Ramseys' lawsuit against the Star?

    SteveThomas
    I agree that Burke Ramsey did not commit any of the crimes perpetrated in the house that night. i do not feel this kid
    should have been subjected to what he has suffered.
    crimeADM
    So you agree they should have sued?

    crimeADM
    Two questions, neither of them very new: WAS that Burke's voice on the 911 tape, and was there actually evidence
    of sexual molestation?
    SteveThomas
    re: suing on behalf of Burke, I think it was irresponsible of some publications to put this kid in such a situation.
    Remember, this is a boy who will go to high school, date in college, presumably one day marry. he is scarred for life.
    What can repair that?
    SteveThomas
    Re burke on the 911 tape -- the detectives are unanimous on that point, me included. We were not in some sort of
    great conspiracy. Re: evidence of prior vaginal trauma, my answer is too loong the site reminds me. I have to refer
    you to the book.


    Or that major corporations settled suits they could win?
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice