Justice Watch Support JW "Ramsey Complaint in Thomas Suit" [ Main ] [ Post New Thread ] [ Help ] [ Search ] Table of Contents ................................................................... Ramsey Complaint in Thomas Suit, New York Lawyer, 20:04:30, 3/29/2001 Number 54, Dunvegan, 20:11:48, 3/29/2001, (#1) Factual Statement?, v_p, 20:20:52, 3/29/2001, (#2) and where are they going with this?, vic, 20:34:46, 3/29/2001, (#3) Utterly Ridiculous!, LurkerXIV, 21:21:59, 3/29/2001, (#4) Lurker, v_p, 21:37:32, 3/29/2001, (#5) v_p, Tricia, 21:47:52, 3/29/2001, (#6) Rocky Mountain News (3/30), New York Lawyer, 02:42:12, 3/30/2001, (#7) Outrages, Tricia, 03:58:24, 3/30/2001, (#8) gobbly de gook, pinker, 04:27:21, 3/30/2001, (#9) Haven't had time to read, Watching you, 04:56:08, 3/30/2001, (#10) LLW in chat...., rose, 05:39:01, 3/30/2001, (#11) Wood was in chat, v_p, 05:51:05, 3/30/2001, (#12) Give me a break!, JR, 10:14:11, 3/30/2001, (#37) haha, v_p, Watching you, 06:07:29, 3/30/2001, (#13) It's time....., rose, 06:15:29, 3/30/2001, (#14) Question???, Jaye, 06:31:00, 3/30/2001, (#15) Why so bold now?, Greenleaf, 06:49:20, 3/30/2001, (#16) here lizard, lizard, freebird, 06:57:53, 3/30/2001, (#17) Employment, DuBois, 08:10:19, 3/30/2001, (#25) exhumation?, mary99, 07:12:27, 3/30/2001, (#18) Boulder Daily Camera (3/30), New York Lawyer, 07:23:05, 3/30/2001, (#20) Mary99, Greenleaf, 07:21:48, 3/30/2001, (#19) Well, momo, 07:31:36, 3/30/2001, (#21) Jarndyce and Jarndyce, Dunvegan, 08:08:42, 3/30/2001, (#24) I'm sorry, I still, Watching you, 07:52:32, 3/30/2001, (#22) Boulderites, Bobby, 08:03:58, 3/30/2001, (#23) Well, would you look, Watching you, 08:26:02, 3/30/2001, (#26) Man, they did the work for us!, Cassandra, 08:49:22, 3/30/2001, (#29) If y'all brought your, Watching you, 08:32:16, 3/30/2001, (#27) Some Libel Law, New York Lawyer, 08:48:59, 3/30/2001, (#28) That's right, NYL, janphi, 09:33:06, 3/30/2001, (#32) So, what you're saying, Watching you, 08:52:43, 3/30/2001, (#30) Support Steve thread, Cassandra, 09:30:01, 3/30/2001, (#31) Watching You, New York Lawyer, 09:39:36, 3/30/2001, (#33) The lawsuit states..., LurkerXIV, 10:04:46, 3/30/2001, (#35) New York Lawyer, momo, 10:00:58, 3/30/2001, (#34) Typo's might, janphi, 10:07:44, 3/30/2001, (#36) What a crock of...well...you know..., JR, 10:30:47, 3/30/2001, (#40) Lurker14, Edie Pratt, 10:20:00, 3/30/2001, (#38) Edie, momo, 10:21:39, 3/30/2001, (#39) Lawsuit, Country Girl, 11:20:40, 3/30/2001, (#42) that's right, CG, Edie Pratt, 11:28:38, 3/30/2001, (#43) Wonder Why, JR, 11:12:57, 3/30/2001, (#41) Edie,, LurkerXIV, 11:57:01, 3/30/2001, (#45) well, now that, vic, 11:41:29, 3/30/2001, (#44) Chris Darden's book, Mini, 12:20:11, 3/30/2001, (#47) Vic, JR, 12:13:43, 3/30/2001, (#46) So...., rose, 13:22:49, 3/30/2001, (#49) Don't Forget!, New York Lawyer, 12:43:58, 3/30/2001, (#48) Vigilante, doScubie, 13:27:29, 3/30/2001, (#50) DoScubie, momo, 13:38:03, 3/30/2001, (#51) Good point, Rose......., sds, 13:51:09, 3/30/2001, (#52) also..., Edie Pratt, 13:56:11, 3/30/2001, (#53) WOW, Nedthan Johns, 14:59:51, 3/30/2001, (#58) Ned, momo, 15:09:25, 3/30/2001, (#60) Edie, momo, 14:09:56, 3/30/2001, (#54) I don't know 'bout that, Momo, Edie Pratt, 14:21:57, 3/30/2001, (#55) Edie, momo, 14:48:58, 3/30/2001, (#56) well, you never know, Momo, Edie Pratt, 14:58:57, 3/30/2001, (#57) LOL, Edie, momo, 15:03:56, 3/30/2001, (#59) actually..., Edie Pratt, 15:11:57, 3/30/2001, (#61) Watch Out!, momo, 15:32:58, 3/30/2001, (#66) Momo, Nedthan Johns, 15:18:20, 3/30/2001, (#62) "I can do this, I can do this", Edie Pratt, 15:34:19, 3/30/2001, (#68) Well lookie there Britt, Nedthan Johns, 15:30:42, 3/30/2001, (#64) Nedd, momo, 15:28:22, 3/30/2001, (#63) Momo, Nedthan Johns, 15:31:21, 3/30/2001, (#65) Oh say Momo, Nedthan Johns, 15:33:22, 3/30/2001, (#67) Ned, JR, 17:48:07, 3/30/2001, (#72) No, Nedd, momo, 15:41:04, 3/30/2001, (#69) Boy, I have to tell, Watching you, 16:00:53, 3/30/2001, (#70) A reply to some of Ned's comments, Mini, 17:47:51, 3/30/2001, (#71) Thought it was "Pull-ups", JR, 17:49:13, 3/30/2001, (#73) Just thinkin'...., bootz913, 18:46:52, 3/30/2001, (#78) This takes the cake, eh?, Ginja, 18:16:29, 3/30/2001, (#74) I guess, Gemini, 18:19:58, 3/30/2001, (#75) JR, Mini, 18:27:16, 3/30/2001, (#76) Well Gem,, v_p, 18:40:28, 3/30/2001, (#77) ................................................................... "Ramsey Complaint in Thomas Suit" Posted by New York Lawyer on 20:04:30 3/29/2001 LAWSUIT - Ramsey v Thomas and others IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION JOHN RAMSEY and PATSY RAMSEY, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) STEVE THOMAS, DON DAVIS, ) ST. MARTIN'S ENTERPRISES, INC., ) SMP (1952), INC., doing business as ) CIVIL ACTION FILE ST. MARTIN'S PRESS and ) ST. MARTIN'S PAPERBACKS, ) NO. 1:01-CV-0801 and UNKNOWN OFFICIALS OF THE ) CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO ) POLICE DEPARTMENT, including, ) but not limited to, OFFICER JOHN DOE 1, ) OFFICER JOHN DOE 2, OFFICER ) JOHN DOE 3 and OFFICER JANE DOE, ) ) Defendants. ) COMPLAINT FOR LIBEL, SLANDER, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS AND 42 U.S.C. § 1983 DEPRIVATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS COME NOW Plaintiffs, John Ramsey and Patsy Ramsey, and state their Complaint for Libel, Slander, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Deprivation of Constitutional Rights against Defendants, Steve Thomas, Don Davis, St. Martin's Enterprises, Inc., SMP (1952), Inc., doing business as St. Martin's Press and St. Martin's Paperbacks, and Unknown Officials of the City of Boulder, Colorado Police Department, including, but not limited to, Officer John Doe 1, Officer John Doe 2, Officer John Doe 3 and Officer Jane Doe, as follows: JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT 1. Plaintiffs John Ramsey and Patsy Ramsey (hereinafter collectively "Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey") are individuals who reside in Atlanta, Georgia. 2. Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey are citizens of the State of Georgia for purposes of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. 3. Defendant Steve Thomas (hereinafter "Defendant Thomas") is an individual who resides at 5225 Gladiola Street, Arvada, Colorado. 4. Defendant Thomas is a citizen of the State of Colorado for purposes of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. 5. Defendant Thomas is subject to the jurisdiction of this Court pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 9-10-91 with proper venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391. 6. Defendant Don Davis (hereinafter "Defendant Davis") is an individual who resides at 6350 Modena Lane, Longmont, Colorado. 7. Defendant Davis is a citizen of the State of Colorado for purposes of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. 8. Defendant Davis is subject to the jurisdiction of this Court pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 9-10-91 with proper venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391. 9. Defendant St. Martin's Enterprises, Inc. is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware with its principal place of business being located at 175 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York. 10. Defendant St. Martin's Enterprises, Inc. is a citizen of the State of Delaware for purposes of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. 11. Defendant St. Martin's Enterprises, Inc. is subject to the jurisdiction of this Court pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 9-10-91 with proper venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391. 12. Defendant St. Martin's Enterprises, Inc. can be served with summons and complaint by service upon its registered agent, St. Martin's Press, Inc. Attn: General Counsel, at its registered address, 175 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York 10010. 13. Defendant SMP (1952), Inc. is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York with its principal place of business being located at 175 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York. 14. Defendant SMP (1952), Inc. is a citizen of the State of New York for purposes of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. 15. Defendant SMP (1952), Inc. is subject to the jurisdiction of this Court pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 9-10-91 with proper venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391. 16. Defendant SMP (1952), Inc. can be served with summons and complaint by service upon its registered agent, The Corporation Attn: Legal Department, at its registered address, 175 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York 10010. 17. Among other corporate activities, Defendant St. Martin's Enterprises, Inc. and Defendant SMP (1952), Inc. (hereafter collectively "Defendant St. Martin's Press") own and operate a book publishing company known as St. Martin's Press and St. Martin's Paperbacks. 18. Defendant St. Martin's Press publishes, distributes and sells hardback books and paperback books throughout the nation on a regular basis, including the State of Georgia. 19. Defendant St. Martin's Press regularly does or solicits business in the State of Georgia and engages in a persistent course of business conduct in the State of Georgia, deriving revenue from hardback books and paperback books regularly distributed and sold in the State of Georgia. 20. Defendant Officer John Doe 1, a Boulder, Colorado police officer or official, is a citizen of the State of Colorado for purposes of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. His identity is presently unknown, but it will be uncovered during discovery in this litigation at which time, service of process can be perfected upon him. 21. Defendant Officer John Doe 1, is subject to the jurisdiction of this Court pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 9-10-91 with proper venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391. 22. Defendant Officer John Doe 2, a Boulder, Colorado police officer or official, is a citizen of the State of Colorado for purposes of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. His identity is presently unknown, but it will be uncovered during discovery in this litigation at which time, service of process can be perfected upon him. 23. Defendant Officer John Doe 2 is subject to the jurisdiction of this Court pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 9-10-91 with proper venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391. 24. Defendant Officer John Doe 3, a Boulder, Colorado police officer or official, is a citizen of the State of Colorado for purposes of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. His identity is presently unknown, but it will be uncovered during discovery in this litigation at which time, service of process can be perfected upon him. 25. Defendant Officer John Doe 3 is subject to the jurisdiction of this Court pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 9-10-91 with proper venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391. 26. Defendant Officer Jane Doe, a Boulder, Colorado police officer or official, is a citizen of the State of Colorado for purposes of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Her identity is presently unknown, but it will be uncovered during discovery in this litigation at which time, service of process can be perfected upon her. 27. Defendant Officer Jane Doe is subject to the jurisdiction of this Court pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 9-10-91 with proper venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391. 28. This Court has original subject matter jurisdiction with respect to this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 as there exists complete diversity of citizenship between Plaintiffs and Defendants and the amount in controversy exceeds Seventy Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00), exclusive of interest and costs. FACTUAL STATEMENT 29. On the night of December 25, 1996 or during the early morning hours of December 26, 1996, while Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey were sleeping in their home in Boulder, Colorado, an unknown assailant brutally murdered their six-year-old daughter, JonBenét Ramsey. 30. JonBenét Ramsey died as a result of asphyxiation due to strangulation with a garrote, a killing implement made from rope tied to a wooden handle. 31. Upon autopsy, the garrote rope was found deeply imbedded into and around the throat of JonBenét Ramsey, with evidence that it had been severely tightened around her throat at such time as she was still alive. 32. Upon autopsy, physical findings on the body of JonBenét Ramsey indicated that she had been sexually assaulted shortly before her death and attacked with a stun gun on at least two areas of her body. 33. Immediately before or at the time of her death from strangulation, JonBenét Ramsey suffered a massive blow to her head that crushed almost the entire upper right side of her skull. 34. Only a miniscule amount of blood was found upon autopsy in the skull cavity of JonBenét Ramsey, establishing beyond reasonable dispute that the massive blow to her head was delivered at a time when the garrote had been sufficiently tightened around her neck to the point of cutting off the flow of blood from her heart to her brain. 35. Since the date of her death, law enforcement officials in the State of Colorado, including members of the City of Boulder Police Department and the Boulder County District Attorney's Office, have investigated the murder of JonBenét Ramsey. 36. As of the date of the filing of this Complaint, the murder of JonBenét Ramsey has not been solved and no criminal charges have been filed against any individual in connection with her brutal murder. 37. At the time of the murder of JonBenét Ramsey, Defendant Thomas was employed by the City of Boulder Police Department (hereinafter "the Boulder Police Department") as a police officer working undercover narcotic assignments. 38. On December 28, 1996, Defendant Thomas was assigned to the JonBenét Ramsey murder investigation. 39. The JonBenét Ramsey murder investigation was the first murder case investigated by Defendant Thomas in his law enforcement career. 40. Defendant Thomas worked on the JonBenét Ramsey investigation from December 28, 1996 until June 26, 1998 when he took a leave of absence from the Boulder Police Department due to alleged health problems. 41. Defendant Thomas resigned from the Boulder Police Department on August 6, 1998. 42. Subsequent to Defendant Thomas' resignation, a grand jury was convened in Boulder County, Colorado in September of 1998, assigned the primary tasks of investigating the JonBenét Ramsey murder, hearing and obtaining evidence concerning the murder and determining whether probable cause existed under the evidence to justify filing a criminal indictment or charge against any individual in connection with the murder of JonBenét Ramsey. 43. The grand jury investigation ended in October of 1999 without a criminal indictment or charge being filed against any individual in connection with the murder of JonBenét Ramsey. 44. Prior to resigning from the Boulder Police Department, Defendant Thomas formulated a plan to publish a book about the JonBenét Ramsey murder investigation. 45. Subsequent to his resignation, Defendant Thomas signed a book-publishing contract with Defendant St. Martin's Press to co-author with Defendant Davis a book about the JonBenét Ramsey murder investigation. 46. As part of the financial consideration for the book-publishing contract, Defendant Thomas received an advance payment from Defendant St. Martin's Press estimated to be in the amount of several hundred thousand dollars. 47. Defendant Thomas received the large advance payment from Defendant St. Martin's Press based in part on the fact that in an effort to increase book sales, Defendant Thomas agreed to publish confidential law enforcement information about the JonBenét Ramsey murder investigation that had not previously been disclosed to the public. 48. Defendant Thomas received the large advance payment from Defendant St. Martin's Press based in part on the fact that, in an effort to increase book sales, Defendant Thomas agreed to publish confidential law enforcement information about Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey and their family members. 49. Defendant Thomas received the large advance payment from Defendant St. Martin's Press based in part on the fact that in an effort to increase book sales, Defendant Thomas agreed to state in his book that Plaintiff Patsy Ramsey killed her daughter, JonBenét Ramsey, and wrote a ransom note found in her home on the morning of December 26, 1996, and that Plaintiff John Ramsey engaged in a criminal cover-up of his wife's crime. 50. On April 10, 2000, Defendant Thomas, Defendant Davis and Defendant St. Martin's Press published the hardback book entitled JONBENÉT: INSIDE THE RAMSEY MURDER INVESTIGATION (hereinafter "the hardback book," said book being filed under separate cover as "Exhibit A" to Plaintiffs' Complaint). 51. In December of 2001, Defendant Thomas, Defendant Davis and Defendant St. Martin's Press published the paperback book entitled JONBENÉT: INSIDE THE RAMSEY MURDER INVESTIGATION (hereinafter "the paperback book," said book being filed under separate cover as "Exhibit B" to Plaintiffs' Complaint) and included in it a "new update" in the Epilogue (the hardback book and the paperback book shall hereinafter be collectively described as "the books"). 52. Unknown officials of the Boulder Police Department, including, but not limited to, Defendants, Officer John Doe 1, Officer John Doe 2, Officer John Doe 3 and Officer Jane Doe, actively participated in the publication of the book by providing Defendant Thomas with confidential law enforcement information about the JonBenét Ramsey murder investigation. COUNT ONE - LIBEL 53. Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey hereby incorporate, adopt and re-allege Paragraphs 1 through 28 of the Jurisdictional Statement of this Complaint and Paragraphs 29 through 52 of the Factual Statement of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 54. Prior to the murder of their daughter, Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey were private citizens. 55. Following the murder of their daughter and prior to the publication of the hardback book, Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey granted a number of media interviews and in March of 2000, published their account of events surrounding the death of their daughter in a book entitled THE DEATH OF INNOCENCE: THE UNTOLD STORY OF JONBENÉT'S MURDER AND HOW ITS EXPLOITATION COMPROMISED THE PURSUIT OF TRUTH. 56. Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey's efforts to publicly discuss their daughter's murder and the investigation of her murder were undertaken in part to rebut accusatory media coverage of the murder investigation, including accusations directed against them by Defendant Thomas, and in part to assist in finding the murderer of their daughter. 57. Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey were entitled to publicly respond to the accusatory media coverage of the murder investigation, including the accusations by Defendant Thomas, and to engage in public efforts to assist in finding the murderer of their daughter without by so doing, losing their status as private defamation plaintiffs and valuable legal protections against defamation. 58. The gist of the books published by Defendant Thomas, Defendant Davis and Defendant St. Martin's Press is that Plaintiff Patsy Ramsey killed her daughter, JonBenét Ramsey, and wrote the ransom note found in her home on the morning of December 26, 1996 and that Plaintiff John Ramsey engaged in a criminal cover-up of his wife's crime. 59. Plaintiff Patsy Ramsey did not kill her daughter, JonBenét Ramsey, and did not write the ransom note found in her home on the morning of December 26, 1996. 60. Plaintiff John Ramsey did not engage in a criminal cover-up of any crime in connection with the murder of his daughter. 61. Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey do not know the identity of the murderer of their daughter and do not know the identity of the author of the ransom note found in their home on the morning of December 26, 1996. 62. The gist of the books is false and defamatory and constitutes libel per se in that it charges that Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey are guilty of heinous crimes - the brutal murder of their daughter and a cover-up of the murder. 63. The books also contain numerous false statements that constitute libel per se in that many false statements published therein convey to the average reader that Plaintiff Patsy Ramsey killed her daughter, JonBenét Ramsey, and authored the ransom note found in her home on the morning of December 26, 1996 and that Plaintiff John Ramsey engaged in a criminal cover-up of his wife's crime. 64. The books contain the following libelous statements, among others, falsely conveying that Plaintiff Patsy Ramsey killed her daughter, JonBenét Ramsey, and that Plaintiff John Ramsey engaged in a criminal cover-up of his wife's crime: But there are only two possible answers. One is that an intruder, known or unknown to the family, crept into the house, killed JonBenét in a botched kidnapping attempt while the family slept, then vanished, leaving behind what has been called the War and Peace of ransom notes, and then disappeared. The other scenario is that the little girl was killed by a family member, whom I believe to have been her panicked mother, Patsy Ramsey, and that her father, John Ramsey, opted to protect his wife in the investigation that followed. The district attorney and his top prosecutor, two police chiefs, and a large number of cops, although so at odds on some points that they almost came to blows, all agreed on one thing - that probable cause existed to arrest Patsy Ramsey in connection with the death of her daughter. But due to a totally inept justice system in Boulder, no one was ever put in handcuffs, and the Ramseys were never really in serious jeopardy. What follows is the story of how someone got away with murder. The hardback book at 13-14 (emphasis added, italics in original). 65. The books contain the following libelous statements, among others, falsely conveying that Plaintiff Patsy Ramsey killed her daughter, JonBenét Ramsey, and that Plaintiff John Ramsey engaged in a criminal cover-up of his wife's crime because they were allegedly uncooperative and evasive concerning the investigation into JonBenét's murder: John and Patsy Ramsey broke their silence on New Year's Day with an interview on the Cable News Network instead of talking to us. Arranging an interview with a news organization was a tactic they would use repeatedly in coming years, and in my opinion it was always sheer propaganda, allowing them to spin a public relations story while avoiding the police. Most of the time the reporters involved agreed in advance not to ask them anything about the murder of their daughter. And the reporters, however well informed, knew only a fraction of the real case. Cops wanted to ask tougher, deeper questions - and on the first day of 1997 our topics would have included a long ransom note written in a familiar hand, JonBenét's bed-wetting, a broken paintbrush used to make a garrote, pineapple found in a bowl and in the victim's stomach, and what looked like traces of semen on the victim. The only danger to Patsy and John Ramsey when they put on their dog and pony shows did not come from the interviewers but from themselves. Even a carefully controlled statement still might give us something we could use. The hardback book at 87, the paperback book at 97 (emphasis added). 66. The books contain the following libelous statements, among others, falsely conveying that Plaintiff Patsy Ramsey killed her daughter, JonBenét Ramsey, and that Plaintiff John Ramsey engaged in a criminal cover-up of his wife's crime: Evidence was accumulating to indicate the involvement of a parent, but we could not ignore other leads, and there were dozens of them... It was extremely frustrating to chase the nonsense leads, and we seemed to be constantly heading down roads that led nowhere. Information evaporated before our eyes, suspects were cleared, tips were not what they seemed. The effort spent on such things was chewing up detective hours and not getting us close to the people on whom we should be concentrating. Evidence at hand pointed to the Ramseys. But instead of the focus narrowing, as in normal investigations, this one widened like an inverted funnel. At some point we hoped common sense would take over; we wanted to stop chasing phantoms. There was no shortage of suspects, just a shortage of detectives. One day I asked Trip DeMuth, our primary contact with Alex Hunter's office, why they didn't see what we saw. Everyone we had interviewed had resulted in a dead end, the evidence was piling up, and of all of the handwriting examples, only one person - Patsy Ramsey - came back as the likely author. We saw nothing that pointed to anyone outside the home being involved. Locked house. Dead child. Two parents. Hello? The hardback book at 140, 142, the paperback book at 159, 161-62 (emphasis added). 67. The books contain the following libelous statements, among others, falsely conveying that Plaintiff Patsy Ramsey killed her daughter, JonBenét Ramsey: There was no doubt in my mind that Patsy wrote the note. "I believe she committed the murder," I told Smit and proceeded to lay out what I thought had happened that night. In my hypothesis, an approaching fortieth birthday, the busy holiday season, an exhausting Christmas Day, and an argument with JonBenét had left Patsy frazzled. Her beautiful daughter, whom she frequently dressed almost as a twin, had rebelled against wearing the same outfit as her mother. When they came home, John Ramsey helped Burke put together a Christmas toy. JonBenét, who had not eaten much at the Whites' party, was hungry. Her mother let her have some pineapple, and then the kids were put to bed. John Ramsey read to his little girl. Then he went to bed. Patsy stayed up to prepare for the trip to Michigan the next morning, a trip that she admittedly did not particularly want to make. Later JonBenét awakened after wetting the bed, as indicated by the plastic sheets, the urine stains, the pull-up diaper package hanging half-way out of a cabinet, and the balled-up turtleneck found in the bathroom. I concluded that the little girl had worn the red turtleneck to bed, as her mother originally said, and that it was stripped off when it got wet. As I told Smith, I never believed the child was sexually abused for the gratification of the offender but that the vaginal trauma was some sort of corporal punishment. The dark fibers found in her pubic region could have come from the violent wiping of a wet child. Patsy probably yanked out the diaper package in cleaning up JonBenét. Patsy would not be the first mother to lose control in such a situation. One of the doctors we consulted cited toileting issues as a textbook example of causing parental rage. So, in my hypothesis, there was some sort of explosive encounter in the child's bathroom sometime before one o'clock in the morning, the time suggested by the digestion rate of the pineapple found in the child's stomach. I believed JonBenét was slammed against a hard surface, such as the edge of the tub, inflicting a mortal head wound. She was unconscious, but her heart was still beating. Patsy would not have known that JonBenét was still alive, because the child already appeared to be dead. The massive head trauma would have eventually killed her. It was the critical moment in which she had to either call for help or find an alternative explanation for her daughter's death. It was accidental in the sense that the situation had developed without motive or premeditation. She could have called for help but chose not to. An emergency room doctor probably would have questioned the "accident" and called the police. Still, little would have happened to Patsy in Boulder. But I believe panic overtook her. John and Burke continued to sleep while Patsy moved the body of JonBenét down to the basement and hid her in the little room. As I pictured the scene, her dilemma was that police would assume the obvious if a six-year-old child was found dead in a private home without any satisfactory explanation. Patsy needed a diversion and planned the way she thought a kidnapping should look. She returned upstairs to the kitchen and grabbed her tablet and a felt-tipped pen, flipped to the middle of the tablet, and started a ransom note, drafting one that ended on page 25. For some reason she discarded that one and ripped pages 17-25 from the tablet. Police never found those pages. On page 26, she began the "Mr. & Mrs. I," then also abandoned that false start. At some point she drafted the long ransom note. By doing so, she created the government's best piece of evidence. She then faced the major problem of what to do with the body. Leaving the house carried the risk of John or Burke awakening at the sounds and possibly being seen by a passerby or a neighbor. Leaving the body in the distant, almost inaccessible, basement room was the best option. As I envisioned it, Patsy returned to the basement, a woman caught up in panic, where she could have seen - perhaps by detecting a faint heartbeat or a sound or a slight movement - that although completely unconscious, JonBenét was not dead. Others might argue that Patsy did not know the child was still alive. In my hypothesis, she took the next step, looking for the closest available items in her desperation. Only feet away was her paint tote. She grabbed a paintbrush and broke it to fashion the garrote with some cord. Then she looped the cord around the girl's neck. In my scenario, she choked JonBenét from behind, with a grip on the broken paintbrush handle, pulling the ligature. JonBenét, still unconscious, would never have felt it. There are only four ways to die: suicide, natural, accidental, or homicide. This accident, in my opinion, had just become a murder. Then the staging continued to make it look more like a kidnapping. Patsy tied the girl's wrists in front, not in back, for otherwise the arms would not have been in that overhead position. But with a fifteen-inch length of cord between the wrists and the knot tied loosely over the clothing, there was no way such a binding would have restrained a live child. It was a symbolic act to make it appear the child had been bound. Patsy took considerable time with her daughter, wrapping her carefully in the blanket and leaving her with a favorite pink nightgown. The FBI had told us that a stranger would not have taken such care. As I told Lou, I thought that throughout the coming hours, Patsy worked on her staging, such as placing the ransom note where she would be sure to 'find' it the next morning. She placed the tablet on the countertop right beside the stairs and the pen in the cup. While going through the drawers under the countertop where the tablet had been, she found rolls of tape. She placed a strip from a roll of duct tape across JonBenét's mouth. There was bloody mucus under the tape, and a perfect set of the child's lip prints, which did not indicate a tongue impression or resistance. I theorized that Patsy, trying to cover her tracks, took the remaining cord, tape, and the first ransom note out of the house that night, perhaps dropping them into a nearby storm sewer or among the Christmas debris and wrappings in a neighbor's trash can. She was running out of time. The household was scheduled to wake up early to fly to Michigan, and in her haste, Patsy Ramsey did not change clothes, a vital mistake. With the clock ticking, and hearing her husband moving around upstairs, she stepped over the edge. The way I envisioned it, Patsy screamed, and John Ramsey, coming out of the shower, responded, totally unaware of what had occurred. Burke, awakened by the noise, shortly before six o'clock in the morning, came down to find out what had happened and was sent back to bed as his mother talked to the 911 emergency dispatcher. Patsy Ramsey opened the door to Officer Rick French at about 5:55 A.M. on the morning of December 26, 1996, wearing a red turtleneck sweater and black pants, the same things she had worn to a party the night before. Her hair was done, and her makeup was on. In my opinion, she had never been to bed. The diversion worked for seven hours as the Boulder police thought they were dealing with a kidnapping. John Ramsey, in my hypothetical scenario, probably first grew suspicious while reading the ransom note that morning, which was why he was unusually quiet. He must have seen his wife's writing mannerisms all over it, everything but her signature. But, where was his daughter? He said in his police interview that he went down to the basement when Detective Arndt noticed him missing. I suggested that Ramsey found JonBenét at that time and was faced with the dilemma of his life. During the next few hours, his behavior changed markedly as he desperately considered his few options - submit to the authorities or try to control the situation. He had already lost one child, Beth, and now JonBenét was gone too. Now Patsy was possibly in jeopardy. The stress increased steadily during the morning, for Patsy, in my theory, knew that no kidnapper was going to call by ten o'clock, and after John found the body, he knew that too. So when Detective Linda Arndt told him to search the house, he used the opportunity and made a beeline for the basement. Then, tormented as he might be, he chose to protect his wife. Within a few hours, the first of his many lawyers was in motion, the private investigators a day later. The hardback book at 286-89, the paperback book at 318-22 (emphasis added). 68. Prior to the publication of the statements set forth in paragraph 67 above, Defendant Thomas had actual knowledge that his description of the circumstances surrounding the murder of JonBenét Ramsey was not factually supported or supportable by credible evidence and that it was directly contradicted and refuted by strong and compelling evidence, including physical, forensic and medical evidence. 69. The books contain the following libelous statements, among others, falsely conveying that Plaintiff Patsy Ramsey killed her daughter, JonBenét Ramsey, because she allegedly wrote the ransom note found in her home on the morning of the day her daughter was found murdered: When taken together, the tablet, the Sharpie pen, and the writing formed a powerful base of evidence. And that evidence pointed directly at Patsy Ramsey. The hardback book at 74, the paperback book at 81 (emphasis added). ...[w]e pointed out that none of the expert document examiners, not even those hired by the defense, could eliminate Patsy Ramsey as the author. The CBI examiner explained that of the seventy-three persons whose writing had been investigated, there was only one whose writing showed evidence that suggested authorship and had been in the home the night of the killing and could not be eliminated by no less than six document examiners - Patsy Ramsey. I followed that up with a lengthy description of the findings by linguist Donald Foster, who had concluded that Patsy wrote the ransom note." The hardback book at 306, the paperback book at 344. That made five independent sources that would not rule her out, plus Chet Ubowski at the Colorado Bureau of Investigation, who thought she wrote it but could not say so under oath in a courtroom. And the Speckin Lab was ready to testify that there was only an infinitesimal chance that some random intruder would have handwriting characteristics so remarkable similar to those of a parent sleeping upstairs. Taken together, the six opinions formed a strong body of evidence, but I wanted more - I wanted someone willing to stand in a court of law and decisively declare who wrote the note. I had no idea where to find such a person." The hardback book at 200-01, the paperback book at 224 (emphasis added). I finally heard the magic words while seated in the book-lined office of Don Foster...who just happened to be a hell of a linguistic detective. 'Steve,' said Foster, 'I believe I am going to conclude the ransom note was the work of a single individual: Patsy Ramsey.' The hardback book at 261, the paperback book at 291 (emphasis added). 70. Prior to the publication of the statements set forth in paragraph 69 above, Defendant Thomas had actual knowledge that the credible analysis of Plaintiff Patsy Ramsey's handwriting and the ransom note conducted by the Boulder Police Department did not identify Plaintiff Patsy Ramsey as the author of the ransom note, finding significant differences between her handwriting and the handwriting of the author of the note. 71. Prior to the publication of the statements set forth in paragraph 69 above, Defendant Thomas had actual knowledge that the opinion of Don Foster, the so-called "linguistic detective," had been totally rejected by Boulder law enforcement officials in part based on the fact that on June 18, 1997, Foster had written a letter to Plaintiff Patsy Ramsey stating that after his review of the ransom note, he was "absolutely and unequivocally" convinced that she was innocent and did not write the note. 72. The books contain the following libelous statements, among others, falsely conveying that Plaintiff Patsy Ramsey killed her daughter, JonBenét Ramsey, by fictionalizing Plaintiff Patsy Ramsey's background: From a very young age, Patsy appeared determined to rise above her West Virginia upbringing to succeed, and showed that she appreciated the value of a good appearance. You could almost plot her progression from high school sweetheart to glamorous beauty queen to well-to-do hostess in the pretty front rooms of an expensive home. Her history showed she understood the value of drama and staging. The FBI would tell us that the disposal of the body of JonBenét had the classic elements of a staged crime, complete with a Hollywoodized ransom note. The hardback book at 75, the paperback book at 82 (emphasis added). 73. Prior to the publication of the statements set forth in paragraph 72 above, Defendant Thomas had actual knowledge that there was no evidence that Plaintiff Patsy Ramsey had any experience or understanding of crime scene "staging." 74. The books contain the following libelous statements, among others, falsely conveying that Plaintiff Patsy Ramsey killed her daughter with a blow to her head during a rage or loss of temper over bed-wetting: Nedra was chatty about almost everything else but became evasive when asked about the bed-wetting history of JonBenét...Could there have been a bed-soiling accident that night? Patsy was the only person who could tell us, and she wouldn't. It is not unusual for a parent to lash out in unreasoning anger after becoming extremely frustrated with a child over toileting issues. It is also not unheard of for children to dirty themselves as a defense against sexual abuse and incest, intentionally making themselves unattractive to the offender. We let Nedra's evasiveness go for now but would later become convinced that bed-wetting played a significant role in whatever happened to the child. The hardback book at 91-92, the paperback book at 102 (emphasis added). 75. Prior to the publication of the statements set forth in paragraph 74 above, Defendant Thomas had actual knowledge that there was no physical evidence that JonBenét Ramsey wet her bed prior to her murder on December 25 or 26 and he had actual knowledge that the sheets on her bed were dry and not soiled with urine stains. 76. Prior to the publication of the statements set forth in paragraph 74 above, Defendant Thomas had actual knowledge that there was no credible evidence that JonBenét Ramsey was sexually abused at any time other than the brutal sexual assault inflicted upon her in connection with her murder. 77. Prior to the publication of the statements set forth in paragraph 74 above, Defendant Thomas had actual knowledge that there was no evidence that JonBenét Ramsey was a victim of incest. 78. The books contain the following libelous statements, among others, falsely conveying that credible evidence existed in April of 1997 proving Plaintiff Patsy Ramsey was involved in the death of her daughter, JonBenét Ramsey: The interviews with Patsy and John Ramsey produced no earthshaking revelations... But at the end of the day, I concluded that as investigators, we had reached our goal - we had established probable cause. And when Patsy Ramsey left that room, I believe she could have been in handcuffs and charged with involvement in the death of JonBenét. The hardback book at 164, the paperback book at 184 (emphasis added). 79. The books contain the following libelous statements, among others, falsely conveying that in the police interview of April of 1997, Plaintiff Patsy Ramsey was close to confessing involvement in the death of her daughter, JonBenét Ramsey: The only time her composure broke was when she was asked to describe the discovery of her daughter's body. She dissolved into weeping, and although it was touching, it was also her weakest point of the session and the time for me to press harder, to really exploit the opportunity. But just as I was about to allow an opening by suggesting, "It was an accident, wasn't it? You didn't mean for this to happen, did you?" Pat Burke and Pete Hofstrom ruined the moment, consolingly saying "Let's take a break." Our own DA's chief trial deputy helped destroy what in my opinion was the best opportunity of the day. By the time the interview resumed, Patsy Ramsey had gotten her wind back. I felt she knew she had dodged a bullet. The hardback book at 167-68, the paperback book at 188 (emphasis added). 80. The books contain the following libelous statements, among others, falsely conveying that Plaintiff Patsy Ramsey killed her daughter because Boulder District Attorney Alex Hunter allegedly believed she was the killer: Chief Koby would also tell me later that District Attorney Alex Hunter thought "from day one that Patsy did it"... The hardback book at 176, the paperback book at 197 (emphasis added). 81. The books contain the following libelous statements, among others, falsely conveying that Plaintiff Patsy Ramsey killed her daughter because Boulder Chief of Police Mark Beckner allegedly believed she was the killer: I asked Beckner point-blank if he thought the Ramseys did it, and he took a deep breath. Yes, he said, one or both were involved. The hardback book at 232, the paperback book at 258 (emphasis added). 82. The books contain the following libelous statements, among others, falsely conveying that Plaintiff Patsy Ramsey killed her daughter: Only a few hours later a letter arrived from Patsy Ramsey, written in flowing script, dated almost two weeks before, and delivered to the police department by a Team Ramsey lawyer. The contents would have been startling had we not been so familiar with her empty promises. They were ready to work closely with Beckner "in any way," the letter said, and meet anytime "in the spirit of cooperation to achieve a common goal." But the letter contained the large caveat that they would speak with the "capable professionals" in the district attorney's office. It was bogus. How could they pledge to help a police commander in any way while simultaneously refusing to meet with his detectives? We warned Beckner to be wary. "Don't let Patsy fool you with that letter," Wickman said. Detective Harmer added, "Patsy is in total denial. She's rationalized this in her mind and can probably even visualize an intruder." The hardback book at 243-44, the paperback book at 270-71 (emphasis added; italics in original). 83. The books contain the following libelous statements, among others, falsely conveying that Plaintiff John Ramsey engaged in a criminal cover-up of his wife's crime by allegedly removing evidence from the scene of the murder on the day after the death of his daughter: ...John was overheard to ask someone quietly, "Did you get my golf bag?" When I learned of that statement, it seemed totally out of order. There had been two golf bags in the house, but he had not specified which one he wanted. Neither bag was collected by police. Moreover, it was winter in Colorado, Michigan, and Georgia, not exactly optimal golfing conditions. Why would a man whose daughter had just been murdered be wanting his golf clubs anyway? I wondered what else might have been in the bag that was so important that Ramsey would even think to ask about it. The hardback book at 48, the paperback book at 53 (emphasis added). 84. The books contain the following libelous statements, among others, falsely conveying that Plaintiff John Ramsey engaged in a criminal cover-up of his wife's crime because he allegedly did not ask police officials for information on December 27, the day after his daughter's body was discovered: The session lasted only forty minutes, during which time the detectives learned little. Ramsey asked no questions about the murder, the autopsy, or how JonBenét was killed. I later considered this very peculiar behavior. Parents usually want to provide information as soon as possible to help police find who harmed their child before the trail goes cold. The hardback book at 48, the paperback book at 53. 85. The books contain the following libelous statements, among others, falsely conveying that Plaintiff John Ramsey engaged in a criminal cover-up of his wife's crime because the books falsely state that he lied in his statements to the police: I had always considered that [John] Ramsey might have known something before he entered, and with this new admission of going to the basement earlier, I was sure of it. By the time he went back downstairs with Fleet White, I thought he knew exactly where the body was. The hardback book at 172, the paperback book at 193 (italics in original). 86. In addition to restating verbatim the libelous statements initially published in the hardback copy, the paperback book on its back cover states specifically that it provides the reader with "the information you've been waiting for: Who really killed JonBenét?" 87. Like the hardback book, the paperback book viewed as a whole, as well as specific false and defamatory statements published therein, falsely conveys to the average reader that Plaintiff Patsy Ramsey "really" killed her daughter, JonBenét Ramsey. 88. Defendant Thomas and Defendant Davis jointly authored the books. 89. The acts and omissions of Defendant Thomas and Defendant Davis are imputed to Defendant St. Martin's Press as a matter of law. 90. The state of mind of Defendant Thomas and Defendant Davis with respect to the publication of the false and defamatory statements about Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey, including their knowledge or lack of knowledge regarding the truth or falsity of those statements, is imputed to Defendant St. Martin's Press as a matter of law. 91. The false and defamatory statements about Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey were negligently published by Defendant Thomas, Defendant Davis and Defendant St. Martin's Press and were published with a reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the statements. 92. Defendant Thomas, Defendant Davis and Defendant St. Martin's Press wrote, edited and published libelous statements about Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey with actual knowledge that they had not been arrested or charged with any crime in connection with the death of their daughter, JonBenét Ramsey, and that they would not be arrested, prosecuted or convicted for any crime in connection with her death. 93. Defendant Thomas, Defendant Davis and Defendant St. Martin's Press wrote, edited and published libelous statements about Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey with actual knowledge that no criminal charges had been filed against Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey and no criminal charges would be filed against them in connection with their daughter's death, despite almost three and one-half years of intensive investigation by the Boulder Police Department and the Boulder County District Attorney's Office, aided by four veteran district attorneys and two assistant district attorneys from nearby Colorado counties and an alleged grand jury prosecution specialist from Pennsylvania, in addition to the 13-month investigation by the Boulder County grand jury. 94. Despite his actual knowledge that Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey would not be charged with any crime in connection with their daughter's death, and that they would not be arrested, prosecuted or convicted for any crime in connection with her death, Defendant Thomas, intentionally and with constitutional and common law malice toward Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey, engaged in a public campaign of character assassination designed to convince the public that Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey were criminally responsible for the death of their daughter. 95. As a proximate result of the libelous statements by Defendant Thomas, Defendant Davis and Defendant St. Martin's Press, members of the public were led to believe that Plaintiff Patsy Ramsey killed her daughter. 96. As a proximate result of the libelous statements by Defendant Thomas, Defendant Davis and Defendant St. Martin's Press, members of the public were led to believe that Plaintiff Patsy Ramsey authored the ransom note found in her home on December 26, 1996. 97. As a proximate result of the libelous statements by Defendant Thomas, Defendant Davis and Defendant St. Martin's Press, members of the public were led to believe that Plaintiff John Ramsey engaged in a criminal cover-up of his wife's crime. 98. As a proximate result of the libelous statements by Defendant Thomas, Defendant Davis and Defendant St. Martin's Press, members of the public were led to believe that Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey were individuals who were guilty of criminal involvement in the death of their daughter, JonBenét Ramsey. 99. As a proximate result of the libelous statements by Defendant Thomas, Defendant Davis and Defendant St. Martin's Press, Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey's reputations have been permanently damaged. 100. As a proximate result of the libelous statements by Defendant Thomas, Defendant Davis and Defendant St. Martin's Press, Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey have suffered adverse physical consequences from stress, emotional distress and mental pain and suffering. 101. As a proximate result of the libelous statements by Defendant Thomas, Defendant Davis and Defendant St. Martin's Press, Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey have suffered public hatred, contempt and ridicule. 102. As a proximate result of the libelous statements by Defendant Thomas, Defendant Davis and Defendant St. Martin's Press, Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey have suffered a permanent impairment to their ability to obtain or maintain gainful employment. 103. Defendant Thomas, Defendant Davis and Defendant St. Martin's Press possessed actual knowledge of the falsity of certain of their libelous statements made against Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey and acted with a reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of all of the false and defamatory statements published by them. 104. The conduct of Defendant Thomas, Defendant Davis and Defendant St. Martin's Press demonstrated willful misconduct and that entire want of care that raises a presumption of conscious indifference to consequences. 105. Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey are entitled to an award of punitive damages from Defendant Thomas, Defendant Davis and Defendant St. Martin's Press in order to punish and penalize said Defendants and deter them from repeating their unlawful conduct. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, John Ramsey and Patsy Ramsey, demand: (a) That judgment be entered against Defendants, Steve Thomas, Don Davis, St. Martin's Enterprises, Inc. and SMP (1952), Inc., doing business as St. Martin's Press and St. Martin's Paperbacks, jointly and severally, on Count One of this Complaint for compensatory damages in an amount not less than Ten Million Dollars ($10,000,000.00); (b) That judgment be entered against Defendants, Steve Thomas, Don Davis, St. Martin's Enterprises, Inc. and SMP (1952), Inc., doing business as St. Martin's Press and St. Martin's Paperbacks, jointly and severally, on Count One of this Complaint for punitive damages in an amount not less than Twenty Five Million Dollars ($25,000,000.00) to punish and penalize said Defendants and deter said Defendants from repeating their unlawful conduct; and (c) That all costs of this action be assessed against said Defendants. TRIAL BY JURY DEMANDED ON COUNT ONE. COUNT TWO - SLANDER 106. Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey hereby incorporate, adopt and re-allege Paragraphs 1 through 28 of the Jurisdictional Statement of this Complaint, Paragraphs 29 through 52 of the Factual Statement of this Complaint and Paragraphs 53 through 105 of Count One of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 107. Subsequent to the publication of the hardback book on April 10, 2000, Defendant Thomas has at various times participated in numerous media interviews in which he has verbally stated that Plaintiff Patsy Ramsey killed her daughter, JonBenét Ramsey, and wrote the ransom note and that Plaintiff John Ramsey engaged in a criminal cover-up of his wife's crime. 108. Plaintiff Patsy Ramsey did not kill her daughter, JonBenét Ramsey, and did not write the ransom note found in her home on the morning of December 26, 1996. 109. Plaintiff John Ramsey did not engage in a criminal cover-up of any crime in connection with the murder of his daughter. 110. A false statement made to the media imputing to another a crime punishable by law constitutes slander per se pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 51-5-4 (a). 111. During ABC's April 10, 2000 broadcast of Good Morning America, Defendant Thomas slandered Plaintiff Patsy Ramsey by stating that she killed her daughter: ELIZABETH VARGAS: You think Patsy Ramsey killed her daughter? STEVE THOMAS: I do. 112. During CNN's April 14, 2000 broadcast of Larry King Live, Defendant Thomas slandered Plaintiff Patsy Ramsey by stating that Plaintiff Patsy Ramsey wrote the ransom note and, therefore, killed her daughter: KING: Is it, in your opinion, if she wrote the note, she's the killer? THOMAS: Absent some conspiracy, I don't think that's a tremendous leap to make. 113. In the April 14, 2000 interview on Larry King Live, Defendant Thomas slandered Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey by stating that Plaintiff Patsy Ramsey killed her daughter, JonBenét Ramsey, and that Plaintiff John Ramsey engaged in a criminal cover-up of his wife's crime: THOMAS: [A]nd people always ask, what kind of motivation is this? And I say in law enforcement circles, this is - under this hypothesis that I purport, that this was not an intentional killing, that this was accidental, initially, which, by definition, lacks motive, but then what happened, I think, a panicked mother instead of taking that next step, went left and covered this thing up. I don't think that - this isn't rocket science here... KING: Well, you're saying they - you're saying one of them murdered their kid and the other is covering. THOMAS: Certainly. And I think there's evidence to support that. 114. During CNBC's April 17, 2000 broadcast of Rivera Live, Defendant Thomas slandered Plaintiff Patsy Ramsey by stating that she killed her daughter: DAN ABRAMS: So the theory is that Patsy did it. THOMAS: My theory - I certainly offer a hypothesis in this book - a couple of pages out of a 360-and-some-odd page book... DAN ABRAMS: Well you know, that's what, that's the thing everybody's waiting to hear. THOMAS: Certainly, and I think Patsy Ramsey committed this crime. I make no bones about it. 115. During FOX News' April 17, 2000 broadcast of The Edge, Defendant Thomas slandered Plaintiff Patsy Ramsey by stating that she was involved in the killing of her daughter because she wrote the ransom note: MODERATOR PAULA ZAHN: [Y]ou say the most compelling piece of evidence is the ransom note. You are 100% convinced she wrote that note?... THOMAS: [T]he writer of the note is involved in the killing of the child. And I'm convinced, as are others, that she authored that note. 116. During FOX News' April 24, 2000 broadcast of The O'Reilly Factor, Defendant Thomas slandered Plaintiff Patsy Ramsey by stating that she killed her daughter: BILL O'REILLY: On a scale of 1% to 100%, how convinced are you that Patsy Ramsey is the killer here. THOMAS: I'm convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, having seen all the evidence that I saw. 117. During a May 11, 2000 interview on FOX-TV's Bookmark, Defendant Thomas again slandered Plaintiff Patsy Ramsey by stating that she killed her daughter and wrote the ransom note: FOX BOOKMARK [PATRICK RILEY]: Assuming the readers haven't read the book yet, who killed JonBenét Ramsey? STEVE THOMAS: Well it's my belief that the child's mother, Patsy, was involved in the death of her daughter. I'm not the sole voice or opinion that believes that, [but] I'm the first one from the government's position - this government that failed this case so miserably of which I was a part, that wouldn't even call her a suspect... STEVE THOMAS: In a nutshell...I'm not a conspiracy theorist, [but] absent some great conspiracy, whoever wrote the note killed the child, and I am convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that [Patsy] wrote that note. 118. During CNN's May 31, 2000 broadcast of Larry King Live, Defendant Thomas slandered Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey by stating that Plaintiff Patsy Ramsey killed her daughter, JonBenét Ramsey, and that Plaintiff John Ramsey engaged in a criminal cover-up of his wife's crime: KING: Your theory is? THOMAS: My theory is that Patsy, in a violent confrontation with her daughter . . . KING: Accidentally killed her? THOMAS: No, not - accidental, I hypothesize, in the sense that it lacked motive, not unlike . . . KING: No motive. THOMAS: Accidental in that sense. Excuse me, John, did you have something else? J. RAMSEY: I've got lots else, but go ahead. THOMAS: At that point, instead of making a right turn, she made a left turn and covered this up... J. RAMSEY: I want to hear your theory, Steve. Let me ask you this: Are you prepared to state that Patsy killed JonBenét, that I covered it up, and that you can prove that in a court of law? Are you prepared to say that tonight? THOMAS: I've written a book, and I stand by my book... P. RAMSEY: What can you imagine? I can't imagine. I want to...you look at me and tell me what you think happened. THOMAS: Actually, I will look you right in the eye. I think you're good for this... 119. The slanderous statements uttered by Defendant Thomas were heard by tens of millions of Americans and citizens of other countries viewing the broadcasts of his media interviews. 120. As a proximate result of the slanderous statements by Defendant Thomas, members of the public were led to believe that Plaintiff Patsy Ramsey killed her daughter. 121. As a proximate result of the slanderous statements by Defendant Thomas, members of the public were led to believe that Plaintiff John Ramsey engaged in a criminal cover-up of his wife's crime. 122. As a proximate result of the slanderous statements by Defendant Thomas, members of the public were led to believe that Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey were individuals who were guilty of criminal involvement in the death of their daughter, JonBenét Ramsey. 123. As a proximate result of the slanderous statements by Defendant Thomas, Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey's reputations have been permanently damaged. 124. As a proximate result of the slanderous statements by Defendant Thomas, Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey have suffered adverse physical consequences from stress, emotional distress and mental pain and suffering. 125. As a proximate result of the slanderous statements by Defendant Thomas, Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey have suffered public hatred, contempt and ridicule. 126. As a proximate result of the slanderous statements by Defendants, Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey have suffered a permanent impairment to their ability to obtain or maintain gainful employment. 127. Defendant Thomas possessed actual knowledge of the falsity of certain of his slanderous statements made against Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey and he acted with a reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of all of the false and defamatory statements uttered by him. 128. The conduct of Defendant Thomas demonstrates willful misconduct and that entire want of care that raises a presumption of conscious indifference to consequences. 129. Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey are entitled to an award of punitive damages from Defendant Thomas in order to punish and penalize Defendant Thomas and deter Defendant Thomas from repeating his unlawful conduct. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, John Ramsey and Patsy Ramsey, demand: (a) That judgment be entered against Defendant, Steve Thomas, on Count Two of this Complaint for compensatory damages in an amount not less than Five Million Dollars ($5,000,000.00); (b) That judgment be entered against Defendant, Steve Thomas, on Count Two of this Complaint for punitive damages in an amount not less than Ten Million Dollars ($10,000,000.00) to punish and penalize said Defendant and deter said Defendant from repeating his unlawful conduct; and (c) That all costs of this action be assessed against said Defendant. TRIAL BY JURY DEMANDED ON COUNT TWO COUNT THREE - INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS 130. Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey hereby incorporate, adopt and re-allege Paragraphs 1 through 28 of the Jurisdictional Statement of this Complaint, Paragraphs 29 through 52 of the Factual Statement of this Complaint and Paragraphs 53 through 105 of Count One of this Complaint and Paragraphs 106 through 129 of Count Two of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 131. During the interview on CNN's May 31, 2000 broadcast of Larry King Live, Defendant Thomas stated: J. RAMSEY:...Let me ask you this: Are you prepared to state that Patsy killed JonBenét, that I covered it up, and that you can prove that in a court of law? Are you prepared to say that tonight? THOMAS: I've written a book, and I stand by my book... P. RAMSEY: What can you imagine? I can't imagine. I want to...you look at me and tell me what you think happened. THOMAS: Actually, I will look you right in the eye. I think you're good for this... 132. Defendant Thomas' comment, "I think you're good for this" was directed to Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey. 133. By his remarks directed to Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey, Defendant Thomas intentionally stated that they were guilty of crimes in connection with their daughter's death in that Plaintiff Patsy Ramsey killed her daughter, JonBenét Ramsey, and that Plaintiff John Ramsey engaged in a criminal cover-up of his wife's crime. 134. At the time Defendant Thomas intentionally stated that Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey were guilty of crimes in connection with their daughter's death, Defendant Thomas had actual knowledge that there was no possibility that Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey would ever be arrested, prosecuted or convicted for any crime in connection with their daughter's death, as evidenced by his many public statements to that effect, including, but not limited to, his statements in an interview on CNN's April 18, 2000 broadcast of Burden of Proof: THOMAS...I agree that, at this point, a criminal prosecution and a beyond-a-reasonable-doubt threshold is unattainable... 135. The conduct of Defendant Thomas as a former Boulder police officer involved in the JonBenét Ramsey murder investigation was intended by him to inflict emotional distress on Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey as a form of "vigilante justice" because he knew that they would never be charged with any crime in connection with their daughter's death, due to a lack of evidence. 136. The conduct of Defendant Thomas directed toward Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey was intentional and reckless. 137. The conduct of Defendant Thomas directed toward Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey was extreme and outrageous. 138. The conduct of Defendant Thomas directed toward Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey was willful, malicious and wanton misconduct. 139. The conduct of Defendant Thomas directed toward Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey was of such serious import as to naturally give rise to such intense feelings of humiliation, embarrassment, and extreme outrage as to cause severe emotional distress. 140. The conduct of Defendant Thomas directed toward Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey was so insulting as to naturally humiliate and embarrass them. 141. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Thomas' wrongful conduct, Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey have experienced severe emotional distress. 142. The conduct of Defendant Thomas demonstrated willful misconduct and that entire want of care that raises a presumption of conscious indifference to consequences. 143. Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey are entitled to an award of punitive damages from Defendant Thomas in order to punish and penalize him and deter him from repeating his unlawful conduct. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, John Ramsey and Patsy Ramsey, demand: (a) That judgment be entered against Defendant Steve Thomas on Count Three of this Complaint for compensatory damages in an amount not less than Five Million Dollars ($5,000,000.00); (b) That judgment be entered against Defendant Steve Thomas on Count Three of this Complaint for punitive damages in an amount not less than Ten Million Dollars ($10,000,000.00) to punish and penalize said Defendant and deter said Defendant from repeating his unlawful conduct; and (c) That all costs of this action be assessed against said Defendant. TRIAL BY JURY DEMANDED ON COUNT THREE COUNT FOUR - 42 U.S.C. § 1983 DEPRIVATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS 144. Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey hereby incorporate, adopt and re-allege Paragraphs 1 through 28 of the Jurisdictional Statement of this Complaint, Paragraphs 29 through 52 of the Factual Statement of this Complaint and Paragraphs 53 through 105 of Count One of this Complaint and Paragraphs 106 through 129 of Count Two of this Complaint, Paragraphs 130 through 143 of Count Three of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 145. Defendant Thomas and unknown officials of the Boulder Police Department, including, but not limited to, Defendant Officer John Doe 1, Defendant Officer John Doe 2, Defendant Officer John Doe 3 and Defendant Officer Jane Doe (hereinafter "the unknown Boulder Police co-conspirators"), are sued in their individual capacities. 146. At all times referred to herein, the unknown Boulder Police co-conspirators were employed by the City of Boulder Police Department as police officers or high-ranking police officials. 147. At all times referred to herein, Defendant Thomas and the unknown Boulder Police co-conspirators acted under color of the laws, statutes, ordinances, regulations, policies, customs and usages of the State of Colorado and the City of Boulder. 148. Prior to the publication of the hardback book, Defendant Thomas and the unknown Boulder Police co-conspirators expressly or impliedly entered into an agreement to deny Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey their constitutional rights to privacy, due process of law and equal protection of the laws under the Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution (hereinafter "the Boulder Police conspiracy"). 149. In furtherance of the Boulder Police conspiracy, as admitted by Defendant Thomas in the Author's Note to the books, the unknown Boulder Police co-conspirators were actively involved in the preparation of Defendant Thomas' book: To certain members of the Boulder Police Department, cops who still cannot speak out publicly and who know this story all too well, I appreciate your continued support and the confidences you provided me in the preparation of this book. 150. In furtherance of the Boulder Police conspiracy, prior to resigning from the Boulder Police Department, Defendant Thomas, with the active assistance of the unknown Boulder Police co-conspirators, unlawfully copied, confiscated and obtained documents and materials from confidential law enforcement files of the JonBenét Ramsey murder investigation and unlawfully obtained confidential law enforcement information about the JonBenét Ramsey murder investigation (hereinafter collectively "confidential law enforcement information"). 151. In furtherance of the Boulder Police conspiracy, after he resigned his position as a City of Boulder police officer, Defendant Thomas continued to receive confidential law enforcement information from the unknown Boulder Police co-conspirators. 152. The information upon which Defendant Thomas relies in his book and in his media interviews as the basis for his false accusations that Plaintiff Patsy Ramsey killed her daughter, JonBenét Ramsey, and Plaintiff John Ramsey engaged in a criminal cover-up of her crime, is almost exclusively the product of, or directly derived from, the confidential law enforcement information. 153. Much of the information upon which Defendant Thomas relies in his book and in his media interviews to support his false accusations that Plaintiff Patsy Ramsey killed her daughter, JonBenét Ramsey, and wrote the ransom note found in her home on the morning of December 26, 1996 and that Plaintiff John Ramsey engaged in a criminal cover-up of his wife's crime, is information that could not have been obtained by him or by the unknown Boulder Police co-conspirators except for the exercise of the state police power to investigate crimes under color of state law, including obtaining information through search warrants and consent forms. 154. But for his former position as a Boulder, Colorado Police officer and the efforts of the unknown Boulder Police co-conspirators, Defendant Thomas would not have had access to confidential law enforcement information that was essential to his ability to write and publish the books. 155. The Boulder Police Department obtained personal and private information from Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey under color of state law and Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey had a right to expect that Boulder police officers and officials would not unlawfully disclose confidential law enforcement information to the public and members of the media and that the information would not be utilized by Boulder police officers to write and publish a book about the investigation into their daughter's murder during an ongoing murder investigation. 156. The illegal copying, confiscation, obtaining and misuse of confidential law enforcement information by Defendant Thomas and by the unknown Boulder Police co-conspirators deprived Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey of their constitutional right to privacy under the Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, as it allowed for public disclosure of their private financial information, their private medical information and private facts about their personal lives that were only obtained by Defendant Thomas and the unknown Boulder Police co-conspirators through the exclusive state police power to investigate crimes under color of state law. 157. Defendant Thomas and the unknown Boulder Police co-conspirators conspired to unlawfully copy, confiscate and obtain confidential law enforcement information for the purpose of making that information public and thereby making it available to private litigants for use in civil litigation against Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey. 158. The confidential law enforcement information published by Defendant Thomas, with the active assistance of the unknown Boulder Police co-conspirators, has been used to support essential elements of two civil lawsuits filed against Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey, Linda Hoffman-Pugh v. Patricia Ramsey and John Ramsey, Civil Action File No. 1:01 CV-0630, U.S.D.C. (N.D Ga) and Robert Christian Wolf v. John Bennett Ramsey and Patricia Paugh Ramsey, Civil Action No. 1:00-CV-1187, U.S.D.C. (N.D Ga), which include accusations that Plaintiff Patsy Ramsey killed her daughter JonBenét Ramsey, and wrote the ransom note found in her home on the morning of December 26, 1996, and that Plaintiff John Ramsey engaged in a criminal cover-up of his wife's crime. 159. Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey's ability to defend themselves against these civil lawsuits that seek to put them on trial for the murder of their daughter is prejudiced by the fact that the plaintiffs in those actions have the benefit of the confidential law enforcement information published by Defendant Thomas with the active assistance of the unknown Boulder Police co-conspirators. 160. Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey's ability to defend themselves against these civil lawsuits that seek to put them on trial for the murder of their daughter is prejudiced by the fact that they do not have the ability to obtain relevant confidential law enforcement information about the investigation of their daughter's murder that would be strong and compelling evidence establishing their innocence. 161. The illegal copying, confiscation, obtaining and misuse of confidential law enforcement information by Defendant Thomas and by the unknown Boulder Police co-conspirators deprived Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey of their constitutional rights to due process of law and equal protection of laws under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution as it prejudiced them by subjecting them to civil lawsuits and by denying them the ability to fairly and fully defend themselves in said civil litigation. 162. High-ranking Boulder Police officials believed to be among the unknown Boulder Police co-conspirators, as a matter of custom, policy and practice, have allowed members of the Boulder Police Department, including Defendant Thomas and the unknown Boulder Police co-conspirators, to leak confidential law enforcement information to the media and to allow for personal use of confidential law enforcement information by Boulder Police officers and officials in conjunction with seminars, presentations and various publications. 163. High-ranking Boulder Police officials believed to be among the unknown Boulder Police co-conspirators were fully aware that Defendant Thomas and the unknown Boulder Police co-conspirators intended to utilize confidential law enforcement information in order to publish a book about the JonBenét Ramsey murder investigation while the investigation was still active and no charges had been filed against any individual in connection with the crime. 164. In furtherance of the Boulder Police conspiracy, high-ranking Boulder Police officials, who are members of the unknown Boulder Police co-conspirators, deliberately and consciously took no administrative or legal action in an effort to prevent Defendant Thomas from illegally utilizing confidential law enforcement information in the books. 165. In publishing his libelous book, Defendant Thomas and the unknown Boulder Police co-conspirators acted under color of state law and abused their status as a law enforcement officers by substantially contributing to an unlawful and unconstitutional "trial-by-media in the court of public opinion" of Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey, individuals not charged with any crimes, who have been deprived by Defendant Thomas and the unknown Boulder Police co-conspirators of fundamental constitutional protections in criminal prosecutions, including the priceless right to a presumption of innocence. 166. As a direct and proximate result of the Boulder Police conspiracy to deprive them of their constitutional rights of privacy, due process and equal protection of the laws, Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey have suffered and continue to suffer damage to their reputations, incurred attorneys' fees and expenses in defending civil litigation and have suffered and continue to suffer severe mental anguish and emotional trauma in connection with the deprivation of the their constitutional rights under the Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States and protected by 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 167. The acts and/or omissions of Defendant Thomas and the unknown Boulder Police co-conspirators were committed under color of state or local law. 168. In violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the acts and/or omissions of Defendant Thomas and the unknown Boulder Police co-conspirators under color of state law, deprived Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey of their rights, privileges, and immunities under the laws and Constitution of the United States, including the right of privacy, the right to due process and the right to equal protection of the laws secured by the Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. 169. Defendant Thomas and the unknown Boulder Police co-conspirators acted with deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey. 170. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey are entitled to recover reasonable attorney fees as the result of the violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by Defendant Thomas and the unknown Boulder Police co-conspirators as set forth herein. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, John Ramsey and Patsy Ramsey, demand: (a) That judgment be entered against Defendants, Steve Thomas and Unknown Officials of the Boulder, Colorado Police Department, including, but not limited to, Officer John Doe 1, Officer John Doe 2, Officer John Doe 3 and Officer Jane Doe, on Count Four of this Complaint for compensatory damages in an amount not less than Five Million Dollars ($5,000,000.00); (b) That judgment be entered against Defendants, Steve Thomas and Unknown Officials of the Boulder, Colorado Police Department, including, but not limited to, Officer John Doe 1, Officer John Doe 2, Officer John Doe 3 and Officer Jane Doe, on Count Four of this Complaint for punitive damages in an amount not less than Ten Million Dollars ($10,000,000.00) to punish and penalize said Defendants and deter said Defendants from repeating their unlawful conduct; (c) That judgment be entered against Defendants, Steve Thomas and Unknown Officials of the Boulder, Colorado Police Department, including, but not limited to, Officer John Doe 1, Officer John Doe 2, Officer John Doe 3 and Officer Jane Doe, on Count Four of this Complaint for attorneys' fees and expenses in an amount shown to be reasonable and just by the evidence; and (d) That all costs of this action be assessed against said Defendants. TRIAL BY JURY DEMANDED ON COUNT FOUR. L. LIN WOOD, P.C. L. Lin Wood Ga. State Bar No. 774588 Brandon Hornsby Ga. State Bar No. 367680 Suite 2140 The Equitable Building 100 Peachtree Street, NW Atlanta, Georgia 30303 404/522-1713 Attorneys for Plaintiffs John Ramsey and Patsy Ramsey Of Counsel: Robert W. Higgason LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT W. HIGGASON Texas Bar No. 09590800 The Kirby Mansion 2000 Smith Street Houston, Texas 77002 Phone: 713/751-9990 [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 1. "Number 54" Posted by Dunvegan on 20:11:48 3/29/2001 54. Prior to the murder of their daughter, Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey were private citizens. However, immediately afterwards, by appearing on global television...didn't the Ramseys thereby cause themselves to become "public figures." [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 2. "Factual Statement?" Posted by v_p on 20:20:52 3/29/2001 32. Upon autopsy, physical findings on the body of JonBenét Ramsey indicated that she had been sexually assaulted shortly before her death and attacked with a stun gun on at least two areas of her body. Elsewhere in the complaint the date December 2001 is used. Musta been in a hurry to get this trash out. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 3. "and where are they going with this?" Posted by vic on 20:34:46 3/29/2001 34. Only a miniscule amount of blood was found upon autopsy in the skull cavity of JonBenét Ramsey, establishing beyond reasonable dispute that the massive blow to her head was delivered at a time when the garrote had been sufficiently tightened around her neck to the point of cutting off the flow of blood from her heart to her brain. So the pedophile kidnapper took time for sex games and just bashed her in the head because? They really need to work on their story... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 4. "Utterly Ridiculous!" Posted by LurkerXIV on 21:21:59 3/29/2001 This will be thrown out by any sensible judge. Thomas prefaces most of his remarks in the book with "In my opinion"; "This is my hypothesis"; "This is how I envision it", etc. Therefore, the entire work is an opinion about how a major crime may have taken place. The two suspects he names are public figures, who have also been called "prime suspects" by the Governor of Colorado. There is no basis for a libel suit here. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 5. "Lurker" Posted by v_p on 21:37:32 3/29/2001 I'm sure it's what they're counting on ... praying for, even. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 6. "v_p" Posted by Tricia on 21:47:52 3/29/2001 how right you are. The Ramseys can save face by filing this lawsuit knowing full well it will never go to trial. That is the last thing the Ramseys want is a trial. But on LKL JohnBoy said "Get ready for Team Ramsey" to Steve Thomas. He couldn't back down. So once again the Ramseys have it their way. They can say they tried to sue AND they don't have to go to court because they know it will be thrown out. They are sooooo slippery. Tricias [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 7. "Rocky Mountain News (3/30)" Posted by New York Lawyer on 02:42:12 3/30/2001 Ramseys sue ex-cop for libel, slander His book, television appearances draw fire By Owen S. Good, News Staff Writer BOULDER -- A libel and slander lawsuit filed Thursday by John and Patsy Ramsey says they are victims of an embittered ex-cop bent on "vigilante justice" in the form of a tell-all book. The suit accuses former Boulder police detective Steve Thomas of securing a six-figure book contract with the promise he would say Patsy Ramsey killed her 6-year-old daughter, JonBenet, on Dec., 26, 1996, and that John Ramsey covered up the crime. Thomas did not return two messages left for him Thursday at his residence. The Ramseys are seeking $65 million from Thomas, publisher St. Martin's Press, and several other defendants, including unnamed Boulder police officials who the Ramseys allege supplied Thomas with material for his work. The suit says these officers will be named later.. They allege Thomas libeled them with his book JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation, published in April 2000; slandered them in talk-show appearances promoting it; intentionally inflicted emotional harm with his accusations; and violated their constitutional rights by releasing information from an open investigation. The Ramseys' suit was filed with days to spare before Georgia's one-year statute of limitations on libel claims runs out. Their attorney, Lin Wood, said that is not a sign that his clients are hesitant about the case. He said they asked him to first resolve other libel actions on behalf of their son, Burke. To prove libel, a plaintiff must show the statements are false or made with a reckless disregard for the truth. If the plaintiffs are public figures, as John and Patsy Ramsey are, they must prove the statements were made with actual malice. Thomas' work is especially damaging because of his position in the case, Wood said. When supermarket tabloids or talk show hosts accuse the Ramseys, "I don't think the public puts a lot of stock in it," he said. "But it's another thing when a guy claiming to be the lead investigator on the case makes the accusation." He said that when a grand jury declined to indict either parent in 1999, Thomas pursued "his version of vigilante justice." "He knows they will never be charged, so he'll just write a book convicting them of the crime by bootstrapping his credibility as a former detective," Wood said. Wood said he and the Ramseys are prepared to try the question of whether Patsy Ramsey killed JonBenet to prove their case, and challenged Thomas to back up his book's claim in court. Wood represented security guard Richard Jewell who was accused of bombing the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta and later cleared. He secured settlements with NBC, CNN and the New York Post for reporting that Jewell was the bomber. March 30, 2001 Copyright 2001, Denver Rocky Mountain News. All Rights Reserved [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 8. "Outrages" Posted by Tricia on 03:58:24 3/30/2001 > Wood said he and the Ramseys are >prepared to try the question of >whether Patsy Ramsey killed JonBenet to >prove their case, and challenged Thomas >to back up his book's claim >in court. So rather than cooperating with police to clear their names and find the killer of JonBenet, John and Patsy will go to civil court, try the question of whether Patsy killed Jonbenet to prove their case in the hopes of winning 25 million dollars. Gee if the Boulder police only knew they could have had a fundraiser and got donations of 25 million. Then the Ramseys would have told them everything they knew. My middle aged mid-life crisis ass they are "willing to the try the question". They know this will be thrown out. However I think this is going to backfire on them now because if they were "willing to try the question" for a judgement in a civil suit why not "try the question" and go head to head with the police in a no conditions interview. Get it all out in the open with the police. No lawyers. As long as it takes. Try the question, but only if they can get some money out of it. Not to find the killer of JonBenet. They make me sick Tricia [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 9. "gobbly de gook" Posted by pinker on 04:27:21 3/30/2001 They brought upon their own emotional distress by accidently killing their kid and not being able to accept that fact.....such a horrible thought, hard for any mind to psychologically comprehend, they're still in a state of denial. I hope Steve fights this through, wouldn't that be his choice, even if his lawyers found grounds to dismiss or whatever? He has the goods. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 10. "Haven't had time to read" Posted by Watching you on 04:56:08 3/30/2001 the entire complaint and won't be able to until later, but just want to comment on a couple of things I did see - As someone else has already mentioned - the stun gun. What planet are these people from, anyways? I read that autopsy report from beginning to end, and no where, no how was there a mention of any stun gun being used. The Rams state the autopsy showed stun gun marks. This is a false claim. Second, who are all these "unknown" cops the Rams are going to identify through discovery and thereafter serve with warrants? Sounds like a fishing expedition to me. Thirdly, the Rams claim ST was already planning to write a book before he resigned from BPD. Now, how the fluck would they know that? Are they flucking mind readers? Man, these people are blooming wonders - they make outrageous accusations they can't prove. Well, as a certain moderator said only yesterday, fasten your seatbelts, haha. Then again, let's face it, gang, Steve Thomas is out of his league when he's got the likes of Hir working against him. I'm sure he's on his knees every day crying, Help me Jesus, I'm so scared. Not. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 11. "LLW in chat...." Posted by rose on 05:39:01 3/30/2001 Wood was in chat with Jamison and said that Burke would be filing suit against Court TV. I wonder if Gov. Owens will be sued? He did a lot of damage to the Ramseys when he made his statements and TV appearences. He and Barbara Walters had a head on battle in one ABC interview. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 12. "Wood was in chat" Posted by v_p on 05:51:05 3/30/2001 with hir?? LMAO, okie dokie. Hey,sup with this statement: "When supermarket tabloids or talk show hosts accuse the Ramseys, "I don't think the public puts a lot of stock in it," So give the settlement money back, hmmm? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 37. "Give me a break!" Posted by JR on 10:14:11 3/30/2001 "When supermarket tabloids or talk show hosts accuse the Ramseys, "I don't think the public puts a lot of stock in it," So is this why they gave NE an interview - they didn't think anyone would take stock and catch more of there redacting? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 13. "haha, v_p" Posted by Watching you on 06:07:29 3/30/2001 they sure do keep stepping on their own *icks, don't they? They can't keep their stories straight from one minute to the next. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 14. "It's time....." Posted by rose on 06:15:29 3/30/2001 for someone in Colo. with power to do so to step up to the plate and do something. The new York post and Mary Keenan are at it now. NYP filed suit on March 15 for the DA to turn over all investigative and GJ records Monday. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 15. "Question???" Posted by Jaye on 06:31:00 3/30/2001 So, in order to win their lawsuit against Steve Thomas, are the Ramseys going to have to prove they're innocent???? If so, how?? (LOL) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 16. "Why so bold now?" Posted by Greenleaf on 06:49:20 3/30/2001 Thank you, NYL. The Rams are feeling super confidant now. I wonder why. Or, they really, really need the money. As a JW poster opined a few days ago, perhaps they lost a lot of money in the stock market. On the surface, the lawsuit against Thomas seems incredibly stupid. They'll open themselves up to grueling questions, under oath, the very thing they have gone to great lengths to avoid. Every thing they do is for some self-serving purpose. Giving an interview to the very tabloid they have publicly blasted seemed ludicrous. And, this happening, just days before their Thomas (& others) lawsuit, is more than just curious. It is downright mind-boggling! They were silent for so long and we all wondered what they were up to. Their recent rash of out-there-in-your-face-ranting-and-raving-juvenile-ransom-note-like-idioms-and-senseless-grunts-and-meaningless-phrases, makes me wish that they would go back underground forever. Greenleaf [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 17. "here lizard, lizard" Posted by freebird on 06:57:53 3/30/2001 I don't know bout the rest of you,but these lawsuits leave a bad taste. They have gone above and beyond making a point. They are out to make a profit. . . what a nasty way to fill your checkbook. I see now why LLWood was their attorney of choice. What a foul, foul thing to do, refusing to talk with investigators for years and holding up justice for your own baby. But sweeten the pot with some cash and well you know.... they would like to believe the publics image and dislike of them comes from bad publicity but fact is they are their own worst enemy.They belong on the isle of misfits. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 25. "Employment" Posted by DuBois on 08:10:19 3/30/2001 I wonder how many job applications PR and JR have filled out since ST book came out. I wonder how many didn't hire them because of what ST wrote in their book. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 18. "exhumation?" Posted by mary99 on 07:12:27 3/30/2001 In order to prove (the Ramsey's claim) there is stun gun evidence, couldn't an exhumation be ordered as part of the discovery process? In trying to make a liar out of Thomas, they may have just handed over a great investigative tool to the Thomas defense. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 20. "Boulder Daily Camera (3/30)" Posted by New York Lawyer on 07:23:05 3/30/2001 Ramseys sue ex-detective, officers By Christopher Anderson Camera Staff Writer John and Patsy Ramsey filed an $80 million libel and defamation lawsuit Thursday against former Boulder police Detective Steve Thomas and unidentified officers at the Boulder Police Department. The 51-page complaint filed in Atlanta U.S. District Court alleges that Thomas falsely accused the couple of killing their daughter, JonBenét, in a book he co-authored and in television interviews promoting the book, titled "JonBenét: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation." The Ramseys' attorney, Lin Wood, said the civil suit will provide Thomas with an opportunity to depose the Ramseys and compel disclosure of other facts in a civil case "that will directly address whether they were involved in the death of their daughter." "These people are not afraid of facing their accuser in a courtroom," Wood said of the Ramseys. "Let's put the jury in the box and determine who's right and who's wrong, who's telling the truth and who's lying." It is the first civil lawsuit filed on behalf of John and Patsy Ramsey. They have settled several others that were filed on behalf of their now 14-year-old son, Burke Ramsey. The suit claims that current, unidentified members of the Police Department - listed in the suit as officers John and Jane Doe - conspired to leak information to Thomas for his book. The suit also claims that the Ramseys were the victims of intentional infliction of emotional distress and were deprived of their constitutional rights of privacy, due process and equal protection because Thomas used confidential police files in his book. Also named in the suit are St. Martin's Press, the publisher of Thomas' hardback and paperback books, and co-author Don Davis, who essentially served as the wordsmith for the work. Neither Thomas nor officials at St. Martin's returned repeated calls for comment. Davis declined comment. City attorney Joe DeRaismes said that unless the Ramseys are able to identify the officers they accuse of leaking confidential investigative material to Thomas, the city is not likely to get involved. "At the moment, we will not be doing anything about it," he said. "Obviously, we will be watching it to see what happens." JonBenét, 6, was found beaten and strangled in the basement of her family's home on Dec. 26, 1996. Her parents, John and Patsy Ramsey, have remained under the Boulder Police Department's "umbrella of suspicion." A grand jury investigated the case, but disbanded in October 1999 without issuing an indictment. Wood said the Ramseys were entitled to a restoration of their reputation following the grand jury. But the lawyer said Thomas' book, published about six months later, attempted to put them on "trial by media in the court of public opinion" and was a "form of vigilante justice" that should not be tolerated. The lawsuit also claims that Thomas' book caused the Ramseys damage because it is part of the foundation for two civil lawsuits pending against the couple. Boulder journalist Chris Wolf and Linda Hoffman-Pugh, the Ramseys' former Boulder housekeeper, filed lawsuits against the couple. Those lawsuits claim that the Ramseys' own book, "The Death of Innocence," falsely portrayed Wolf and Hoffman-Pugh as suspects in JonBenét's death. The Ramseys have been "forced for over four years to constantly prove their innocence," Wood said. "The system of justice has been flipped on its head." The Ramseys' lawsuit denounces Thomas' theory that Patsy killed her daughter and that John Ramsey helped her stage a crime scene, including a ransom note. The lawsuit also forwards the Ramseys' own theory that JonBenét was killed by an intruder. It states that her attacker sexually assaulted her and attacked her with a stun gun, a theory not widely endorsed by local law enforcement officials. Wood is an experienced trial lawyer who has been practicing civil litigation for 24 years and is the attorney for Atlanta security guard Richard Jewell, who was falsely accused in the 1996 Olympic bombing. Jewell's lawsuit against the Atlanta Journal-Constitution for libel is still pending. Wood has worked mostly on medical malpractice suits and has been working libel cases only since the Jewell case. He has never taken one to trial, but he said he and the Ramseys are prepared to go to trial if necessary. "John and Patsy Ramsey did not file this lawsuit to settle it," he said. Wood said he predicts that Thomas will seek to dismiss the lawsuit and cause delays to avoid getting to the central issues of whether his claims were true or false. One of the key issues that most likely will have to be resolved is whether the Ramseys are public or private figures as plaintiffs. Libel suits on behalf of public figures require a higher standard in order to prove defamation. Denver attorney Scott Robinson said the civil case and other lawsuits will probably have significant impact on public opinion. "It will be interesting to see which of these cases goes to trial first," he said. "The lawsuits will live on longer than JonBenét was alive, and that is the sad, sad, truth." Contact Christopher Anderson at (303) 473-1355 or andersonc@thedailycamera.com. March 30, 2001 (c) Boulder Daily Camera [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 19. "Mary99" Posted by Greenleaf on 07:21:48 3/30/2001 I believe that any stun gun marks would have been obliterated by now. GL [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 21. "Well" Posted by momo on 07:31:36 3/30/2001 Several things are starting to come together now. Now we know why LS stun-gunned a pig. Now we know why Jams is not allowed to talk about Foster. We also know why they did the NE interview. Ahh, yes, the Ramseys have been covering their arses, haven't they? I hope it all comes down on their faces soon. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 24. "Jarndyce and Jarndyce" Posted by Dunvegan on 08:08:42 3/30/2001 This case is beginning to take on the Byzantine proportions of Jarndyce v.Jarndyce. You may remember that was the name of the case that Dickens created in "Bleak House" to illustrate what he found hoplessly misfunctional in the English justice system...and by extension, England itself. Jarndyce v. Jarndyce, was all about disputed will and inheritance. The case drug on for generations and laid waste to the wealth and health of the all of the characters held in its thrall. The Ramsey case is becoming a suit/countersuit labyrinth. Someone must think they are incredibly "familiar with Law enforcement countermeasures and tactics" and is trying desparately to muddy the waters. "Nothing of what is nobly done is ever lost." [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 22. "I'm sorry, I still" Posted by Watching you on 07:52:32 3/30/2001 don't get it. How the hell can Lin Wood put false statements in that lawsuit - the freaking autopsy did NOT mention a stun gun or stun gun marks. If the allegations are false, how can this be a serious claim? BTW, this is the way jams works, and this is the way the Rams wrote their book. Blatant lies. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 23. "Boulderites" Posted by Bobby on 08:03:58 3/30/2001 If the people of Boulder have ANY pride whatsoever or any interest in how their community is perceived then they will have to be angered by items brought out in Ramsey allegations brought out in Anderson's article. We shall now see if they rally behind their officials or not and also who will stand behind the police dept. Tap. . tap. . tap . . . [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 26. "Well, would you look" Posted by Watching you on 08:26:02 3/30/2001 at that, (and they said Lou Smit isn't working for the Rams, haha). Jameson state on hir Public Forum that Lou Smit will be interviewing with Katie Couric, and the interview will be broadcast over the course of a week sometime in late May. Also, DickWood will be on morning shows next week - Tuesday. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 29. "Man, they did the work for us!" Posted by Cassandra on 08:49:22 3/30/2001 It's right there in black and white, all pulled together in a nice package. It will be stressful for Thomas, but ultimately good for the prosecution of the case. I can't believe they proceeded with this, it seems to be against their self interests. And, I always said she wore a red turtleneck that got wet. Then someone started talking about a jumper, probably the Tooth Fairy. I pointed out that the British call a sweater type garment a jumper. Man, I can't believe they are going forward with this lawsuit. I'd love to know what the Colorado lawyers think of this development! They must be shaking their heads. Cassie [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 27. "If y'all brought your" Posted by Watching you on 08:32:16 3/30/2001 barf bag with you, you can read all about the chat with Lin Wood at the Public Forum - you know who is ever the cutsie pie with hir little asides. I do hope ST's lawyers are reading there, too. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 28. "Some Libel Law" Posted by New York Lawyer on 08:48:59 3/30/2001 The 1996 case of Church of Scientology International v. Time Warner (932 F.Supp 589, SDNY) has an informative discussion of several libel defenses that someone like Steve Thomas can use (besides the defense of truth). Quoting from the decision: "There are three relevant related doctrines under which courts have granted judgment for defendants in libel suits: (1) the libel-proof plaintiff doctrine, (2) the incremental harm doctrine, and (3) the subsidiary meaning doctrine. Because these separate doctrines have not always been distinguished, and because the terms are not used consistently, some definition of the doctrines for purposes of this Opinion is in order. (1) The libel-proof plaintiff doctrine reasons that when a particular plaintiff's reputation for a particular trait is sufficiently bad, further statements regarding that trait, even if false and made with malice, are not actionable because, as a matter of law, the plaintiff cannot be damaged in his reputation as to that trait. (2) The incremental harm doctrine reasons that when unchallenged or nonactionable parts of a particular publication are damaging, another statement, though maliciously false, might be nonactionable on the grounds that it causes no harm beyond the harm caused by the remainder of the publication. (3) The subsidiary meaning doctrine reasons that where a maliciously false statement implies the same ultimate conclusion as that of the remainder of the publication, which has been published without actual malice, a plaintiff cannot "base his defamation action solely on inaccuracies contained within statements subsidiary to these larger views." (pp.593-94) ONE FINAL OBSERVATION: As a lawyer, I can tell the Ramseys think they may have problems with their case. The tip-off is the fact that it is obvious from their complaint that they actually intend to argue for the lower standard of proof (preponderance of the evidence as against clear and convincing, and negligent rather than intentional falsity, i.e. actual malice). This lower standard is reserved solely for "private persons" who have not injected themselves into a case by giving press conferences, appearing in documentaries, written a bestselling book and gone on a media tour promoting it. If the Ramseys are "private" as against "public" figures, then I'm Michael Jackson. Lin Wood tried to pull this in the Richard Jeweell, case, arguing that Jewell was a private and not public figure. He lost, big time. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 32. "That's right, NYL" Posted by janphi on 09:33:06 3/30/2001 That's what LLW said in that E&P interview: "...As a result, Wood thinks the "public figure" legal standard needs to be revisited and redefined for the Jewells -- and, he says, the Ramseys -- of the news." ... I guess that's something akin to John Ramsey "changing the way" we "get the news." [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 30. "So, what you're saying" Posted by Watching you on 08:52:43 3/30/2001 then, NYL, is that Lin Wood and the Rams have filed a frivolous lawsuit? Or is it, they have about as much chance as a snowball in hell of winning this lawsuit. Even further, they might come out looking like big dumb fools with this lawsuit. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 31. "Support Steve thread" Posted by Cassandra on 09:30:01 3/30/2001 is where I posted my opinion. If I had learned what ayelean was trying to teach me, I'd post it here, too! lol Cassie [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 33. "Watching You" Posted by New York Lawyer on 09:39:36 3/30/2001 Something like that..... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 35. "The lawsuit states..." Posted by LurkerXIV on 10:04:46 3/30/2001 ...that the stragulation came first, immediately followed by the blow to the head. Does anyone have that famous JR quote from the Crock, where he says something like "How can anyone believe that after a wonderful Christmas I molested- strangled- and bludgeoned my daughter?" ...the quote where he lays out the sequence of events for us? Only one person in the whole world knows the sequence for sure, and that's the murderer. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 34. "New York Lawyer" Posted by momo on 10:00:58 3/30/2001 In #51, the paragraph says that the paperback was released in December, 2001. Do typo's matter? Also, thanks for the posts. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 36. "Typo's might" Posted by janphi on 10:07:44 3/30/2001 make a minuscule difference. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 40. "What a crock of...well...you know..." Posted by JR on 10:30:47 3/30/2001 Wood said he and the Ramseys are prepared to try the question of whether Patsy Ramsey killed JonBenet to prove their case, and challenged Thomas to back up his book's claim in court. Hmmmm...so do we "assume" now that it was John and not Patsy? Their "proof?" Hey they took lie detecter tests (yes multiple at least in Patsy's case) and passed them! Normally these are not allowed in court but maybe they are banking on being able to get in the statement (even if it's "stricken from the record") that they passes polys. Speaking of banking - there are these places who advertise you can borrow against future funds - maybe they really are "broke" and this is a way to keep up their life style in the manner they are accustomed to. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 38. "Lurker14" Posted by Edie Pratt on 10:20:00 3/30/2001 that's the way I read that too! For people who'd "rather not know", they certainly have a definitive knowledge of how the murder was done, don't they? Especially JR, and he insists he was in dreamland...stun gun my piglet pink butt! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 39. "Edie" Posted by momo on 10:21:39 3/30/2001 ROFLMAO! You are out of your mind! :-) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 42. "Lawsuit" Posted by Country Girl on 11:22:50 3/30/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 11:22:50, 3/30/2001 Notice they didn't quote the LKL show where they admitted that whoever wrote the ransom note was the killer. I don't suppose Steve Thomas would like to see how much confidential case information Lou Smit gave them. Or how much Hunter was involved. From what I read I don't see that Steve Thomas said anything that would be libel. The book was his story about inside the investigation and his beliefs. Foxes? Does sly like a fox come to mind? Now we see why they agreed to the LKL face off with Thomas. They probably had a little cheat sheet under the desk to make sure they covered everything LLW wanted them to. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 43. "that's right, CG" Posted by Edie Pratt on 11:28:38 3/30/2001 I recall JR droning, "answer the question, answer the question, answer the question.."all the time Patsy talked over Steve. Can't remember what the question was, but do recall all of us cheering ST that he didn't give them the satisfaction, lol. I think this suit proves one thing, and that is JR is involved involved involved. Why else so confident that ST "is sooooo wrong"? Because JR did it, that's what, and there's nothing in ST's book that says so, and hence, they think he'll lose. Hardy har har:-) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 41. "Wonder Why" Posted by JR on 11:12:57 3/30/2001 They filed one suit and not two - except they do tend to hang in there togeather. If they filed separate they might double their money, double our fun! Of perhaps it has to do with wife/husband can't testify against each other? (Yeah...yeah...I know we have determined there are legal grounds to allow this.) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 45. "Edie," Posted by LurkerXIV on 11:57:01 3/30/2001 Johndidit, Johndidit, Johndidit! Why else would the Patster be so smug? And if he didn't, you can stungun my big white whale butt! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 44. "well, now that" Posted by vic on 11:41:29 3/30/2001 the Ramsey's have have "changed the way we get the news" and done a fine job of it, I guess now they are going to tackle the legal system and "the way we go to jail". Good Lord, what could be next in their quest to change the world? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 47. "Chris Darden's book" Posted by Mini on 12:20:11 3/30/2001 about his involvement in the Simpson trial is very similar to ST's. Darden also laid out his theory as to how the crime went down and revealed a lot of inside details, yet I seem to remember that Schiller's book that used Kardashian as a source was the only one threatened with a lawsuit. It would be hard to say that the Ramseys are less public figures than OJ because both are known primarily for the infamy of the associated crimes and their subsequent public exposure. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 46. "Vic" Posted by JR on 12:13:43 3/30/2001 You wrote: Good Lord, what could be next in their quest to change the world? You don't want to go there pal! You missed one - they have also tried to change our views of what a 6 year old should look like. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 49. "So...." Posted by rose on 13:22:49 3/30/2001 the Ramsey have a right to publish a book and defend their position but Steve thomas does not! He had been a policeman on a case that he saw mishandled from inside out. He quit his job to protest and made a deal with a publisher to vent his flustrations and expose what he thought. John might be right, he will change the way the media covers things. If this suit against Thomas goes forward, what will happen next time when a co. or Goverment offical or individal is challenged by a concerned citizen? Will he be in more trouble than the persons he is trying to expose? In Nazi Germany the saying goes, "They came and arrested my neighbor and I said nothing, when they came and arrested me, there was no one left to protest." Our first amendment rights is a Constitutional law , if and when a man in this country can not speak up and sinecerly say how he percieves a matter without fear of law suits and jail, then we will be in a sorry mess. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 48. "Don't Forget!" Posted by New York Lawyer on 12:43:58 3/30/2001 They also changed the way "grieving" parents behave. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 50. "Vigilante" Posted by doScubie on 13:27:29 3/30/2001 I wish a group of vigilantes would get ahold of both of them, and take them to separate locations, and keep them there until they confessed. "Vigilante justice" my a$$. Their frivilous suit is more proof they think they are "somebody". They lost that the night their daughter was killed. They need the money to pay the lawsuits that Chris Wolf and LHP filed. I can't wait until it gets thrown out. They can't prove anything they say without producing the "killer". [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 51. "DoScubie" Posted by momo on 13:38:03 3/30/2001 Like I always say, a room, a stun-gun, a vial of truth serum and about 10 minutes is all I would need. I would giggle endlessly as John and Patsy howled in pain all the while begging to confess. Also, I'm just dying for John to have to go apply at Home Depot and Patsy at Wal-Mart. I'd move to Atlanta just to see that. :-) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 52. "Good point, Rose......." Posted by sds on 13:51:09 3/30/2001 when you said that the Ramseys could publish anything they want and Steve Thomas can't? Think about this, Steve Thomas proposed that Patsy murdered JBR and that's not ok, but they can suggest three killers of their daughter and ruin these people's reputations and that is alright? What a bunch of hypocrits the Ramseys are. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 53. "also..." Posted by Edie Pratt on 13:56:11 3/30/2001 what about the LKL showdown? ST said the same thing on national tv as is in his book. The R's can't sue him for going on air and expressing his opinion, what makes inked opinion worse? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 58. "WOW" Posted by Nedthan Johns on 14:59:51 3/30/2001 That's a hell of a law suit and took me forever to read. The Ramsey's aren't fooling around. Thomas better hope he is right 25 million and 10 million. Holly cow! Just some observations: Later JonBenét awakened after wetting the bed, as indicated by the plastic sheets, the urine stains, the pull-up diaper package hanging half-way out of a cabinet, and the balled-up turtleneck found in the bathroom. I concluded that the little girl had worn the red turtleneck to bed, as her mother originally said, and that it was stripped off when it got wet. Nedd: What wet bed? What plastic sheets? And she wasn't wearing the red turtleneck. As I told Smith, I never believed the child was sexually abused for the gratification of the offender but that the vaginal trauma was some sort of corporal punishment. The dark fibers found in her pubic region could have come from the violent wiping of a wet child. Nedd: Where's that blue towel Thomas? Did Patsy only own one, or did she hide them all in the golf bag along with that tape and rope??? Patsy probably yanked out the diaper package in cleaning up JonBenét. Nedd: Where was the diaper? Oh I know in the golf bag too. LOL Patsy would not be the first mother to lose control in such a situation. One of the doctors we consulted cited toileting issues as a textbook example of causing parental rage. So, in my hypothesis, there was some sort of explosive encounter in the child's bathroom sometime before one o'clock in the morning, the time suggested by the digestion rate of the pineapple found in the child's stomach. Nedd: Right because she was hungry and hadn't eaten at the White's house so Patsy gave her hungry child only two bites of pineapple? I believed JonBenét was slammed against a hard surface, such as the edge of the tub, inflicting a mortal head wound. She was unconscious, but her heart was still beating. Patsy would not have known that JonBenét was still alive, because the child already appeared to be dead. The massive head trauma would have eventually killed her. Nedd: Even if I tried I don't think my wife could inflict that kind of head wound against a wall. This was deliberate, not accidental. As I envisioned it, Patsy returned to the basement, a woman caught up in panic, where she could have seen - perhaps by detecting a faint heartbeat or a sound or a slight movement - that although completely unconscious, JonBenét was not dead. Others might argue that Patsy did not know the child was still alive. In my hypothesis, she took the next step, looking for the closest available items in her desperation. Only feet away was her paint tote. She grabbed a paintbrush and broke it to fashion the garrote with some cord. Then she looped the cord around the girl's neck. Nedd: Seems like a lot of time has passed in Thomas' scenario yet the evidence suggests the strangulation came first, followed by the head wound. Doesn't quite fit Thomas' sceario, does it? Patsy took considerable time with her daughter, wrapping her carefully in the blanket and leaving her with a favorite pink nightgown. The FBI had told us that a stranger would not have taken such care. Nedd: How does Thomas know if she was wrapped carefully in the blanket, or anyone else besides John Ramsey for that matter? Why in the world would Patsy take such elaborate time staging the crime scene, yet lay out JB's favorite nightgown? How does that make sense? While going through the drawers under the countertop where the tablet had been, she found rolls of tape. She placed a strip from a roll of duct tape across JonBenét's mouth. There was bloody mucus under the tape, and a perfect set of the child's lip prints, which did not indicate a tongue impression or resistance. Nedd: Well then the bloody mucus on the tape would tell me that the body was moved with the tape on it or most likely she was being strangled with the tape over her mouth, therefore resulting in the mucus pressing out through her lips. If it were staged, then there wouldn't be any mucus, just perfect lip imprint marks I theorized that Patsy, trying to cover her tracks, took the remaining cord, tape, and the first ransom note out of the house that night, perhaps dropping them into a nearby storm sewer or among the Christmas debris and wrappings in a neighbor's trash can. Nedd: Wait a minute here? There was no evidence of foot prints in the snow or outside, so how did Patsy make it out of the home and to the neighbors trash can? This is the most ridiculous statement in his book. sorry Thomas. Patsy Ramsey opened the door to Officer Rick French at about 5:55 A.M. on the morning of December 26, 1996, wearing a red turtleneck sweater and black pants, the same things she had worn to a party the night before. Her hair was done, and her makeup was on. In my opinion, she had never been to bed. Nedd: Boy I need to get some of her hair spray and makeup. To think she was up all night and just had enough time to stage an elaborate murder crime scene, yet her hair and makeup held togther. Because according to Thomas she was keeping this from John so she certainly didn't rush back up stairs to apply "fresh" makeup. Those were detective French's words. I know what my wife looks like in makeup after being up all night, do you Thomas? The stress increased steadily during the morning, for Patsy, in my theory, knew that no kidnapper was going to call by ten o'clock, and after John found the body, he knew that too. So when Detective Linda Arndt told him to search the house, he used the opportunity and made a beeline for the basement. Then, tormented as he might be, he chose to protect his wife. Within a few hours, the first of his many lawyers was in motion, the private investigators a day later. Nedd: Yes for no apparent reason at all John desides to cover for his wife 4 1/2 years later after a brutal murder, all for what Thomas LOVE? It is not unusual for a parent to lash out in unreasoning anger after becoming extremely frustrated with a child over toileting issues. It is also not unheard of for children to dirty themselves as a defense against sexual abuse and incest, intentionally making themselves unattractive to the offender. We let Nedra's evasiveness go for now but would later become convinced that bed-wetting played a significant role in whatever happened to the child But just as I was about to allow an opening by suggesting, "It was an accident, wasn't it? You didn't mean for this to happen, did you?" Pat Burke and Pete Hofstrom ruined the moment, consolingly saying "Let's take a break." Our own DA's chief trial deputy helped destroy what in my opinion was the best opportunity of the day. By the time the interview resumed, Patsy Ramsey had gotten her wind back. I felt she knew she had dodged a bullet. Nedd: BOO HOO. They had their chance and they certainly questioned Patsy. Doesn't sound to me like she wasn't cooperating there. What did Thomas want her to do when he asked her about seeing her dead child? I'll tell you what. This is going to be a good law suit. Because there is certainly evidence that Thomas chose to omit from his book, that in my opinion slanders the Ramsey's. Make no doubt about it, this book was meant to sell and make money. IN Thoams haste, he sold out. Now he will have to prove his theory and we all know his theory doesn't hold water. Will be interesting what Foster will have to say and how easily he will be discredited. Sorry but this suit is far better then the LHP and WOlf suit. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 60. "Ned" Posted by momo on 15:09:25 3/30/2001 You don't think the Rams left any of that behind in a golf bag now, do you? They had all night to take care of "business". Oh, and we know it's you that is responding to the lawsuit. Although, it does give me a laugh to see Nedd:. I always think that maybe you don't know who it is in your head so you have to be specific. All in fun. :-) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 54. "Edie" Posted by momo on 14:09:56 3/30/2001 Don't speak too soon. The LKL interview was on May 31, 2000. Officially they have two more months to file a lawsuit against CNN! Do you think they will? Oh my God, the Ramseys are turning out to be a couple of side show freaks at the circus! Wonder what they will think up next? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 55. "I don't know 'bout that, Momo" Posted by Edie Pratt on 14:21:57 3/30/2001 they went to LKL willingly. Whatever was said, they countered, or attempted to. Nobody had one of John's guns to their heads. They're running out of defendants, lol. I find that very telling in the grand scheme of things. Now, if there's nothing to JR's culpibility in this, we should see lawsuits against every tab and book that says he did. Right? Afterall, he's the bread winner, or was, and these articles just contributed to his unemployability. You'd think he'd sue on his behalf first, he always thought of himself first, before:-) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 56. "Edie" Posted by momo on 14:48:58 3/30/2001 I know. I just have to wonder what they will come up with next. If the Rams don't sue those who say John did it then I think that is very telling. I'd think that if the Ramseys agreed to be on LKL then this lawsuit wouldn't hold much merit. Maybe NYL knows. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 57. "well, you never know, Momo" Posted by Edie Pratt on 14:58:57 3/30/2001 with Linc at the wheel, the bus could go just about anywhere! Wheeeeeeeeee! -s-c-r-e-e-c-h- buddump buddump STOP! buddump..."don't worry folks, just a little detour..." "Patseee, honeee, open me another "pop", darlin', I got me a powerful bloodthirst comin' on." "Hey John! Are you still with us, buddyboy? heh heh" [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 59. "LOL, Edie" Posted by momo on 15:03:56 3/30/2001 I hope Leroy Lincoln turns into a lincoln log at the wheel with Patsy and John in it. Oh, that was bad. No harm, of course. :-) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 61. "actually..." Posted by Edie Pratt on 15:11:57 3/30/2001 logs have been used to hold the gas pedal down as the car with the body goes over the embankment:-) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 66. "Watch Out!" Posted by momo on 15:32:58 3/30/2001 Here comes Lead-Foot Lincoln Log Leroy! Out of the way! The bus is sucking people under it as it goes! LOL Hey, that could be a headline. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 62. "Momo" Posted by Nedthan Johns on 15:18:20 3/30/2001 You don't think the Rams left any of that behind in a golf bag now, do you? They had all night to take care of "business". Nedd: Well according to Thomas they did, and Patsy may have disposed of tape in the neighbors trash can LOL Oh, and we know it's you that is responding to the lawsuit. Although, it does give me a laugh to see Nedd:. I always think that maybe you don't know who it is in your head so you have to be specific. All in fun. :-) Nedd: What re-pharse for me? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 68. ""I can do this, I can do this"" Posted by Edie Pratt on 15:34:19 3/30/2001 said CAP as she went into the Hellhole for a "cupla things". ST describes it as "scorched earth", lol. But, truth is, she went in and collected wayyyy more than a "cupla things", and couldn't have possibly known the whereabouts of certain things, without instructions. Now tell me fellow human beings, when a loved one has died, could you write a thank you note, nevermind a longgggg list of "I needs"? And, do they always leave their passports lying about? Would you care to tee off, any time soon? Come now, be honest. Not a single stuffed animal, tiara, passport, dictionary, etc., was taken without a reason. And, I think the overboard collection was by design, (JR's da man!), so the real "I needs" wouldn't be noticed or catalogued. Notice CAP's MIA, heh heh heh...dismissed! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 64. "Well lookie there Britt" Posted by Nedthan Johns on 15:30:42 3/30/2001 Looks like Smit is coming to defend the Ramsey's after all. He speaks. And Greenleaf the stun gun marks weren't dispelled by now becuase Smit can prove they exsist [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 63. "Nedd" Posted by momo on 15:28:22 3/30/2001 I was just making a comment about how funny I think it is that you always put Nedd: next to your comment. That's all. :-) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 65. "Momo" Posted by Nedthan Johns on 15:31:21 3/30/2001 OH :0)- Nedd :0) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 67. "Oh say Momo" Posted by Nedthan Johns on 15:33:22 3/30/2001 The Ramsey's say there won't be settling and expect Thomas will delay this law suit. Sounds to me they are pretty certain of their innocence, what do you think? Can they really be this confident? Smit is out now and willing to talk. This should be real interesting. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 72. "Ned" Posted by JR on 17:48:07 3/30/2001 The Ramsey's say there won't be settling where Ned? In jail? ;-\ [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 69. "No, Nedd" Posted by momo on 15:41:04 3/30/2001 It's not confidence. It's cockiness (is that a word?) and pride. Not to sound spiritual but a bible verse comes to mind. "Pride goeth before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall." [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 70. "Boy, I have to tell" Posted by Watching you on 16:00:53 3/30/2001 you something, these people remind me of the school bullies - no one is ever going to get one up on them - control, I told y'all, it's all about control. They are freaking control freaks. I only wish I had a couple of those Scud Missles right now. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 71. "A reply to some of Ned's comments" Posted by Mini on 17:47:51 3/30/2001 Nobody said Patsy put the diaper on JB. If she had, then there probably wouldn't have been a problem. The plastic mattress cover indicated that bedwetting was a problem. Ned, where did you come up with JB eating 2 bites of pineapple? All I've seen is that it was a small amount. Even the Ramseys didn't say that JB hadn't eaten anything at the Whites. It's the Ramseys that are insisting that the head wound came after or was concurrent with the strangulation, not the experts. The bloody mucous on the duct tape would have already been on her face when the tape was applied. Fleet White also saw the blanket around JB. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 73. "Thought it was "Pull-ups"" Posted by JR on 17:49:13 3/30/2001 not diapers. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 78. "Just thinkin'...." Posted by bootz913 on 18:46:52 3/30/2001 I'm REALLY having to dig down deep for any objectivity now! To be victorious in their suit, don't they have to prove that what Thomas said is false? And, if that's true, don't they have to prove they didn't do it? And, if that's true, how do they prove a negative? By proving who did do it? What are they doing? And, how 'bout this......Suppose someone has some concrete evidence here that hasn't leaked out yet? I can't see Steve Thomas putting himself in jeopardy. And let's say Thomas has access to that evidence. Then let's say he's been sitting on it and just waiting for his shot. His book's out, and the Ramsey's have made their move, as incredible as that seems to be. Can't Thomas now lay down his hammer and devote all the time necessary to bring justice here? If that's possible, I can't see him sweating this at all. We weren't taught law in steamfitter school, but, it's making sense to me...... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 74. "This takes the cake, eh?" Posted by Ginja on 18:16:29 3/30/2001 I didn't realize Jewell was Wood's first libel case. But with his comments to the press today, I can definitely see he's chewed off (much) more than he can chew. Most notable is his (mis)understanding of private vs. public figure. And if the Ramseys were truly private citizens, there might be (a little) something to this lawsuit; otherwise, I think the libel-proof plaintiff doctrine is going to knock the Ramseys and their attorneys out of the ballpark. That coupled with the fact that actual malice is a bitch to prove. Fear not -- the Court will deem them public figures. With that said, this case will go forward for the same reason(s) cited by the Court in denying the motion to dismiss in Wolf's case. It'll be a bitch to prove that Wolf's and Pugh's suits are based or founded on Thomas' book. I mean, talk about reaching! And unless they can name the cops who "conspired" to steal investigative work product, and then prove they actually took it and then handed it over to Thomas, it looks as though those counts will get thrown out as well. This is 51 pages of crap, to be honest with you. There wasn't much "new" information in Thomas' book, or anything that you could really point to as coming from the investigation (or police conspirators!). Most facts Thomas covered had already been released to the public in one form or another, so the Rams are reaching in those allegations. Thomas' hypothesis reeks and has more holes than swiss cheese. Ditto that for the Ramseys' allegations! It's going to be fun to watch this all play out. What's not fun is the abuse of the justice system by this litigious couple. An eye for an eye? They had more than ample opportunity to prove their innocence simply by cooperating with police. None of this 'bargaining' BS that finally got them in for questioning four months after the murder. They set themselves up for public opinion swaying in the direction it has. The public didn't need people like Thomas or Arndt or Schiller or the Governor of Colorado to insinuate or allege any wrongdoing. These people murdered their daughter and are using the system to 'get even' and the public isn't so stupid it can't see that! What really pisses me off is that the Boulder DA has done nothing, absolutely nothing, in bringing these two before the Court to answer for their heinous actions. And until the Boulder charges these two, they will continue to file frivolous, vengeful suits. Bottom line, I blame the Boulder County District Attorney's Office for this fiasco and don't understand why it doesn't have to answer not only for the acts of this vengeful couple, but for their total disregard for the life (and death) of a six year old child by their refusal to prosecute such a simple case of murder. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 75. "I guess" Posted by Gemini on 18:19:58 3/30/2001 this is the "run in circles to keep from eating crow" thread for the folks who were absolutely, positively certain this suit would never be filed. : ) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 76. "JR" Posted by Mini on 18:27:16 3/30/2001 I'd call a Depends a diaper, too, if I was describing it generically. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 77. "Well Gem," Posted by v_p on 18:40:28 3/30/2001 Would you call this a REAL lawsuit ... or a little something to throw out there to save face because they HAD to do something. Remember JR gulping and snorting on LKL about how they hadn't even started yet. All they are concerned with, all these two pukes have ever been concerned with are appearances. It's probably what got JBR killed ... she wasn't cooperating. They know damned well this will go nowhere. To me, it's the same as not suing him. But that's just me. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ]