Hunter and Smit Not Cooperating With Fox News

Discussion in 'JonBenet Ramsey' started by BlueCrab, Oct 30, 2004.

  1. BlueCrab

    BlueCrab New Member

    Messages:
    3,053
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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
     
  2. Loading...


  3. tezi

    tezi Member of Websleuths since 2000.

    Messages:
    5,359
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Should we expect any less from these two?
     
  4. TressaRing28

    TressaRing28 Former Member

    Messages:
    226
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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. :loser:
     
  5. TLynn

    TLynn New Member

    Messages:
    350
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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?
     
  6. Fran Bancroft

    Fran Bancroft Former Member

    Messages:
    2,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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?
     
  7. jasmine

    jasmine Former Member

    Messages:
    170
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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?
     
  8. BlueCrab

    BlueCrab New Member

    Messages:
    3,053
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0

    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
     
  9. Fran Bancroft

    Fran Bancroft Former Member

    Messages:
    2,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  10. Fran Bancroft

    Fran Bancroft Former Member

    Messages:
    2,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  11. BlueCrab

    BlueCrab New Member

    Messages:
    3,053
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0

    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
     
  12. Fran Bancroft

    Fran Bancroft Former Member

    Messages:
    2,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I sure hope it goes to a jury. I would be disappointed if they settle this one!
     
  13. TressaRing28

    TressaRing28 Former Member

    Messages:
    226
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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>
     
  14. BlueCrab

    BlueCrab New Member

    Messages:
    3,053
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0

    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
     
  15. TLynn

    TLynn New Member

    Messages:
    350
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Thanks for the reply, BC.

    Didn't Fox settle a case w/the Ramseys in the past (albeit re: Burke)?
     
  16. Seeker

    Seeker Former Member

    Messages:
    3,475
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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?
     
  17. tezi

    tezi Member of Websleuths since 2000.

    Messages:
    5,359
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    38
    That is what I thought. And since there is no evidence of an intruder, well......
     
  18. BlueCrab

    BlueCrab New Member

    Messages:
    3,053
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0

    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
     
  19. Seeker

    Seeker Former Member

    Messages:
    3,475
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I know that Blue. It was sarcasm....they still shoulder the burdon of proof.
     
  20. Show Me

    Show Me New Member

    Messages:
    3,868
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    And that is great news!!!

    'It's up to you now, John'....hehehehehe gooooooooooooo FOX!
     
  21. Charley

    Charley Inactive

    Messages:
    5
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Must be running dry to come up with this lawsuit!
     

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