Justice Watch Discussion Board "Rams To Sue Thomas" [ Main ] [ Post New Thread ] [ Help ] [ Search ] Table of Contents ................................................................... Rams To Sue Thomas, momo, 16:33:57, 5/10/2000 the first time, maxi, 16:36:43, 5/10/2000, (#1) Good question maxi, momo, 16:41:33, 5/10/2000, (#2) I'm Pretty Sure, Real Stormy, 16:46:17, 5/10/2000, (#3) Thomas, lake, 16:49:27, 5/10/2000, (#5) Constitutional rights only count, SJ, 21:50:09, 5/10/2000, (#25) What the sam hell, Holly, 03:56:32, 5/11/2000, (#32) Holly, mary99, 20:51:43, 5/11/2000, (#69) Fox News reported..., Jellyjaws, 16:46:45, 5/10/2000, (#4) if they sue Thomas, Edie Pratt, 16:50:11, 5/10/2000, (#6) Edie,Patsy has mentioned , momo, 16:55:27, 5/10/2000, (#8) He didn't, Starling, 16:53:21, 5/10/2000, (#7) Lin Wood, lake, 16:55:50, 5/10/2000, (#9) Lin Wood , momo, 16:58:55, 5/10/2000, (#10) Lin Wood is a moron, Ribaldone, 17:08:59, 5/10/2000, (#12) I agree, Ruthee, 17:01:17, 5/10/2000, (#11) Ruthee, LOL!, Ribaldone, 17:12:52, 5/10/2000, (#13) ooooh this is getting good, momo, 17:17:03, 5/10/2000, (#14) Momo,, Ribaldone, 17:29:55, 5/10/2000, (#15) Lol Ribaldone, momo, 21:00:33, 5/11/2000, (#70) Thomas, docg, 17:56:44, 5/10/2000, (#16) He only has to prove that based on the , SJ, 21:55:45, 5/10/2000, (#27) Sheer stupidity>>, ayelean, 19:05:16, 5/10/2000, (#17) ayelean>>>'Thar She Blows!', mary99, 06:38:47, 5/11/2000, (#42) I bet Steve Thomas is , fiddler, 20:12:09, 5/10/2000, (#18) ram a dam a ding dong, Msracoon, 20:25:05, 5/10/2000, (#20) I Know, lake, 20:23:01, 5/10/2000, (#19) lake--Steve Thomas is, fiddler, 20:37:25, 5/10/2000, (#21) Polygraphs?, FT, 20:55:38, 5/10/2000, (#22) FT..., ace21214, 16:50:29, 5/11/2000, (#58) It's all hype: response to Burke suite reaction, chebrock, 21:02:19, 5/10/2000, (#23) Discovery, AutumnBorn, 21:26:48, 5/10/2000, (#24) reality check, Gemini, 21:51:16, 5/10/2000, (#26) So far, all I've heard..., GuyGene, 22:10:20, 5/10/2000, (#28) Sometimes Things get Boring, Ruthee, 22:28:04, 5/10/2000, (#29) fiddler, lake, 22:56:58, 5/10/2000, (#30) Lake, momo, 03:15:24, 5/11/2000, (#31) Nope, just a friend, Cassandra, 04:44:55, 5/11/2000, (#33) Ruthie , Watching you, 05:00:11, 5/11/2000, (#36) Steve Thomas, Morris, 04:51:29, 5/11/2000, (#34) The Poz...., Byron, 04:59:18, 5/11/2000, (#35) Well, I guess that everyday the Rams, sds, 05:31:19, 5/11/2000, (#37) Thanks Byron!, Starling, 05:48:51, 5/11/2000, (#39) Isn't there a point, Watching you, 05:48:42, 5/11/2000, (#38) Wasn't it Frank Coffman, Watching you, 05:55:54, 5/11/2000, (#40) I think you're right, WY, Chris, 06:42:44, 5/11/2000, (#43) Yes, Chris, I think, Watching you, 06:46:01, 5/11/2000, (#45) Ram-Change Operation, starry, 06:08:34, 5/11/2000, (#41) I don't think, Watching you, 06:44:43, 5/11/2000, (#44) LOL sds...&...Byron!!!, Cassandra, 06:58:32, 5/11/2000, (#46) Cassandra, priceless......, sds, 16:38:39, 5/11/2000, (#57) Cassie, Chris, 11:38:03, 5/11/2000, (#48) of all the people to sue, Edie Pratt, 11:30:18, 5/11/2000, (#47) Poz, Seashell, 11:50:49, 5/11/2000, (#49) It just dawned on me, AutumnBorn, 13:37:23, 5/11/2000, (#50) Sue, sue, sue, zoomama, 14:24:50, 5/11/2000, (#53) Unlike a Criminal Trial, lake, 14:04:46, 5/11/2000, (#51) Like I said, lake, Watching you, 06:40:24, 5/12/2000, (#75) And, Lake ..., v_p, 17:40:43, 5/11/2000, (#59) I welcome the Lawsuit, momo, 14:20:06, 5/11/2000, (#52) It is well to realize, lake, 14:35:19, 5/11/2000, (#54) I too, Gemini, 14:40:26, 5/11/2000, (#55) Take the NY Post for example, lake, 14:48:59, 5/11/2000, (#56) lake, I actually, fiddler, 18:39:20, 5/11/2000, (#60) But, lake, 18:45:46, 5/11/2000, (#61) Lake, momo, 18:56:39, 5/11/2000, (#62) Well, lake, 19:16:42, 5/11/2000, (#64) Thomas Cop Gone Bad???, Maude4, 20:28:09, 5/11/2000, (#65) Well, lake, 20:35:25, 5/11/2000, (#67) Well,,,lake,, Maude4, 21:43:26, 5/11/2000, (#72) No, Maude, lake, 21:51:13, 5/11/2000, (#73) Gee Lake, I guess I forgot you know everything., Maude4, 21:59:23, 5/11/2000, (#74) Well Spoken Ruthie, Paralegal, 19:15:54, 5/11/2000, (#63) The bible verse goes, momo, 20:32:42, 5/11/2000, (#66) Yeah, sure..., shadow, 20:41:15, 5/11/2000, (#68) Shadow, Hannah, 21:11:32, 5/11/2000, (#71) ................................................................... "Rams To Sue Thomas" Posted by momo on 16:33:57 5/10/2000 I just saw where the Rams are going to sue Thomas on their behalf. I guess we knew this was coming. I know in an interview I saw Thomas said he welcomes a lawsuit. He Wants to get them on the stand. Is it time to call Darnay, Steve? Or will they be suing St. Martin's Press? [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 1. "the first time" Posted by maxi on 16:36:43 5/10/2000 Won't this be the first time the Rams have brought suit for libel of their own names? Any idea on how the suit would be written so that they don't have to prove they didn't do it? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 2. "Good question maxi" Posted by momo on 16:41:33 5/10/2000 How can the Ram's sue when they have not been cleared? Talk about someone having ba!!s! Don't put the cart before the horse people. And don't count your eggs before they hatch. Sheeeeesh! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 3. "I'm Pretty Sure" Posted by Real Stormy on 16:46:17 5/10/2000 That St. Martin's Press would have had the book vetted by their own attorneys and probably have insurance to cover such a lawsuit. I know that sometimes insurance companies pressure a policy holder to settle because it is cheaper than going to court. I hope in this case if that happens, St. Martin's and Thomas hold out for a trial. I, like Thomas, would love for them to be deposed under oath. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 5. "Thomas" Posted by lake on 16:50:38 5/10/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 16:50:38, 5/10/2000 Will settle with the Ramseys if he is not brain dead. The facts brought out in his defense in the civil trail will likely to expose him to criminal charges and likely federal charges of violating the constitutionally protected rights of the Ramseys. Thomas needs a real good lawyer on this one. And it is not Darnay Hoffman that Thomas is going to need. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 25. "Constitutional rights only count" Posted by SJ on 21:50:09 5/10/2000 in a case where the defendant is accused of doing something against a government entity or is being prosecuted by a state or government agency or office, etc., and I also think it needs to be a criminal case. Not sure exactly, as this is not my area but it is something like this. Also, the Rams should be considered as public figures. How can they not be? I believe all these lawsuits are just a campaign to take the attention away from the issue of MW and FW and anything else that we or someone may have come close to and hit a nerve. Not to mention a sleazy way to make money. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 32. "What the sam hell" Posted by Holly on 03:57:09 5/11/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 03:57:09, 5/11/2000 are you talking about, lake? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 69. "Holly" Posted by mary99 on 20:51:43 5/11/2000 Lake is under the impression that the Ramseys have succeeded in their attempt to add a new amendment to the Constition: **At no time may any private citizen think ill of or have a bad thought about the Ramseys **or utter the name 'Ramsey' out loud **or form an opinion about any Ramsey. **or even think about their daughter, JonBenet, without their permission **or serve on a jury whose purpose is to convict the Ramseys **no more books or forums about the Ramseys, except their own book and forum **no more newspaper articles about the Ramseys, except the ones they write **and most important of all, no laughing, ever, at the Ramseys! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 4. "Fox News reported..." Posted by Jellyjaws on 16:46:45 5/10/2000 ...at about seven minutes into the show a brief blurb on the Ramsey's. I saw it too, momo. The brief report just listed all the parties the Ramsey's have sued on Burke's behalf then said they intended to sue an additional party on their own behalf. That is Steve Thomas! Bet there are plenty of lawyers on line to get behind Steve. WOW! DISCOVERY at last. JfJBR. Check out "Hard Ball" as well. Goldie Hawn is on (looking great) and excellent in expressing her opposition to free trade with China based on human rights violations [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 6. "if they sue Thomas" Posted by Edie Pratt on 16:50:11 5/10/2000 how many bets it'll be for the rights to use JonBenet's picture on the cover. Or, something equally lame. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 8. "Edie,Patsy has mentioned " Posted by momo on 16:55:27 5/10/2000 the picture. But I'll bet it is more than that. BTW, Lake, Steve Thomas will have plenty of lawyers knocking his door down. And ringing his phone off the hook. He's already had offers. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 7. "He didn't" Posted by Starling on 16:53:21 5/10/2000 But Steve Thomas didn't say anything bad really about John Ramsey - and it is his "theory" that Patsy did it. Since when is it illegal to exercise your 1st amendment right? I'm sitting here racking my brain and the worse thing I can think of that Thomas said about John is that other officers have written reports that state he read to JonBenet and that he locked the house before he went to bed - 4 months later he said he didn't say that. Can't they subpeonna anyone and everyone who witnessed things in those early days? Starling [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 9. "Lin Wood" Posted by lake on 16:55:50 5/10/2000 Has the winning cards in his hand. It is going to be like shooting fish in a barrel in all the suits he is filing. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 10. "Lin Wood " Posted by momo on 16:58:55 5/10/2000 is lower than POND SCUM!!!!! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 12. "Lin Wood is a moron" Posted by Ribaldone on 17:08:59 5/10/2000 And Edie, I think you may be right. I don't understand how they could sue Steve for stating his opinion based on his own professional experience inside the investigation and evidence that he was privy to. As far as I know, Steve has always said that "he believes" Patsy killed her daughter and that is his "hypothesis" and "theory" as well as that of the other investigators and FBI experts (except Smit). What's wrong with that? He's not claiming to have seen her commit the crime. He's just stating his beliefs based on the evidence. Good luck Rams, you losers. You're gonna need it when you're burning in hell. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 11. "I agree" Posted by Ruthee on 17:01:17 5/10/2000 just like shooting tadpoles in a pond. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 13. "Ruthee, LOL!" Posted by Ribaldone on 17:12:52 5/10/2000 Yeah . . . blindfolded! The Rams did alot more libeling in their POS that anyone has done against them. At least there is evidence against Patsy, which is alot more than they can say about any of the suspects they named so freely. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 14. "ooooh this is getting good" Posted by momo on 17:17:03 5/10/2000 The fanfare died down and she couldn't stand it. She is going to eventually feel the need to tell what happened. I can feel it. They have to create drama to keep the hoopla going. LOL It's the craziest thing I've ever seen. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 15. "Momo," Posted by Ribaldone on 17:29:55 5/10/2000 I feel it too. Patsy is rumbling like a volcano that's getting ready to blow! I'm gonna make some popcorn, sit back and wait for all hell to break loose! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 70. "Lol Ribaldone" Posted by momo on 21:00:33 5/11/2000 You didn't actually eat the popcorn did you? That could cause some serious heartburn! A new pocorn called "Poppin' Patsy." LOL [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 16. "Thomas" Posted by docg on 17:56:44 5/10/2000 better have his act together. If Patsy is the one, like he thinks, then there's no way the Ramseys will sue him. If John's the one, then Thomas better watch it. He might well be sued. And if he tries to "turn things around" to implicate Patsy, he could be destroyed! Guilty or no, proving Patsy did it in a court of law will be an exercise in futility. All the absurd elements in Thomas' theory would be laid bare and he won't be able to defend himself. Sorry, guys. This does NOT look good. If I were Thomas, I'd start looking HARD at DocG's theory. He may well need it! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 27. "He only has to prove that based on the " Posted by SJ on 21:55:45 5/10/2000 >better have his act together. If >Patsy is the one, like he >thinks, then there's no way the >Ramseys will sue him. If >John's the one, then Thomas better >watch it. He might well >be sued. And if he tries >to "turn things around" to implicate >Patsy, he could be destroyed! >Guilty or no, proving Patsy did >it in a court of law >will be an exercise in futility. > All the absurd elements in >Thomas' theory would be laid bare >and he won't be able to >defend himself. >Sorry, guys. This does NOT look >good. >If I were Thomas, I'd start looking >HARD at DocG's theory. He >may well need it! the evidence he is aware of that his personal opinion and theory is that Patsy is the perp. He will have no problem doing that. He can back up his statements with actual evidence. He can't be sued for slander or libel and lose when he is using true facts in his book to back his professional theory. The burden of proof will be on the Rams, particularly Patsy, to prove that what is in his book is not true. How does she do that unless she tells who did it, other than her? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 17. "Sheer stupidity>>" Posted by ayelean on 19:05:16 5/10/2000 The Ramseys are filing suit against a writer that all but exonerates her for outright Murder and says it was accidental! What, he ignored how much planning and preparation she did to make this thing look like someone else did it. They don't like the thought that he has written the best defense she has for getting off with the least amount of penalty? Posters, you are right, she wants full, credit for making this a notable crime. She is ready to blow. She wants to be guilty. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 42. "ayelean>>>'Thar She Blows!'" Posted by mary99 on 06:38:47 5/11/2000 I love your imagery! The 5 lawsuits will require a small faction of Lin Wood clones to service PR round the clock while the countdown continues...seismologists will travel to Georgia to measure changes in pressure, lava buildup, core temps and steam emissions on a giant combo polygraph/volcano activity scale. The white hot molten material at the center of the inferno will be evaluated by Dr. Lee as chunks spew from the main. it's gonna be a doozy! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 18. "I bet Steve Thomas is " Posted by fiddler on 20:12:09 5/10/2000 in heaven tonight. At last, he gets a shot at SOMETHING. Maybe rich people have their OWN brand of justice--just like O. J. Simpson. If the loss of money and reputation is the worst the state can do to someone, well, civil court may be the wave of the future.... I can't wait. I just hope the depositions aren't sealed. And lake, yes, yes, we know. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 20. "ram a dam a ding dong" Posted by Msracoon on 20:25:05 5/10/2000 Y A W N. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 19. "I Know" Posted by lake on 20:23:33 5/10/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 20:23:33, 5/10/2000 Some of you don't care who gets skinned alive in a trial. If it has to be Thomas, so be it. Just as long as there is a trial. Right? And if Thomas were to follow docg's advice he would have lost the trial before it began. After all the Rs are bringing suit based on the Thomas book. So if Thomas were to change horses in the middle of the stream, he would surely go under. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 21. "lake--Steve Thomas is" Posted by fiddler on 20:37:25 5/10/2000 an honest, straightforward cop. I'm sure he can deal with whatever befalls him. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 22. "Polygraphs?" Posted by FT on 20:55:38 5/10/2000 Do the Ramseys plan to sue Steve Thomas before or after they take polygraphs? Oh, 'scuse me, I forgot, they are only flinging lawsuits to deflect attention away from the fact that they are failing to fulfill their nationally publicized offer to take polygraphs. Chickens. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 58. "FT..." Posted by ace21214 on 16:50:29 5/11/2000 YOU ARE SO RIGHT!!!! That's exactly why these lawsuits are flying around and we're falling for it. Let's never forget that they ultimately refused the polygraph. Personally, I can't wait for them to sue ST (even though I don't wish the aggravation on him) just to see them get on the stand and be cross-examined. I'll stay home from work to watch it on Court TV if televised. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 23. "It's all hype: response to Burke suite reaction" Posted by chebrock on 21:02:19 5/10/2000 This lawsuit talk by the Ramsey's is all hype. Thomas has nothing to worry about. All he has to do is hold out for the trial and they'll drop it like a hot potato. I believe they want him to settle so they can claim victory. It's just another ploy. When we get wind of their games, they throw a curve ball but it doesn't work because they don't have the power behind it. It's just like the lie detector bluff. If you hold out long enough, they'll back down. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 24. "Discovery" Posted by AutumnBorn on 21:26:48 5/10/2000 is exactly what the Rams could be hoping for...this wouldn't be a criminal trial and they'd be able to see all the evidence that had been gathered against them. Therefore, they can prepare for the criminal trial far in advance, or avoid one entirely. JMO. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 26. "reality check" Posted by Gemini on 21:51:16 5/10/2000 Of course, there's another possibility for why the Ramseys don't seem to fear discovery. I'm not going to insult anyone by laying that out in detail. I'm sure any thinking person already has that thought tickling at their consciousness, whether they'll admit it or not. When we run with a herd, it's hard to veer off to one side, even if we see a drop-off dead ahead. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 28. "So far, all I've heard..." Posted by GuyGene on 22:10:20 5/10/2000 is that the R's INTEND to sue ST. Just like they INTENDED to take a lie detector test. I think they'd be nuts to sue ST and expose themselves to questioning. Oh wait, they ARE nuts...almost forgot. Personally, I hope they go through with it, but I'm not holding my breath. You'd think that after the GJ let them off the hook, they'd just go quietly into that good night and shut the f**k up. It really does look like they are looking for ways to self-destruct. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 29. "Sometimes Things get Boring" Posted by Ruthee on 22:31:06 5/10/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 22:31:06, 5/10/2000 Not the forums or the posters, just the same subject being talked to death. I know that each and every post contains new information for someone, but when you've been traveling down the same path for going on four years you get discouraged. There are two aspects of this murder that always spark my interest. One is anything that Patsy Ramsey says. I mean her quotes in her own words and anything Susan Bennett says. I mean her own quotes. These two women are much the same to me. Neither believe they can be "out-smarted" and both believe that they hold some status that places them above "the masses." Both are "unique and special." Both have the belief that others are jealous of them. They have superficial different reasons for this. Patsy for her self percieved station in "this society" and Susan for her self percieved station in "the case." I find it interesting that Patsy and her family continue to express jealousy of the family financial circumstances as a basis for any hostile comments. I really believe that Patsy believes this is the cause of any negative attitude toward her. Susan continually agrees with Patsy regarding the jealously issue, as does Pam Paugh. I believe this originates from the wish to vicariously live through another person, even though that person may be a murderer. Judith Phillips was very insightful when she mentioned to me that Patsy Ramsey's qualification for a friendship required that that person see her (Patsy) as "on a pedestal." It seems to me that those who remain by her are those that see in her something that they lack in themselves. It's an illusion, a reality only to those on the inside of the plastic facade of their own distorted concept of Camalot. So in the end, it matters not that there is a henious act on an innocent child. In the end, it matters not that JonBenet is dead. The only thing that matters is that the "society" see and understand the suffering of one who inflicted upon another a wound that is beyond my comprehension. Patsy Ramsey lives by manipulation, it is her defense against the horrible realization that she depends on other people and material possessions for her sense of self. She can thank her mother for some of that reasoning. "Take care of your body, without that you have nothing." [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 30. "fiddler" Posted by lake on 22:56:58 5/10/2000 Surely you jest. "Thomas is an honest cop". Don't know how you bring yourself to type that kind of foolishness. Thomas is a cop gone bad who broke about every rule in the book in a murder investigation. And the smart money is on the fact that he is going to be prosecuted. It is a sure bet from where it stand. The cops and DA's in the state of Colorado cannot run the risk of some future cop resigning and spilling his guts about a homicide investigation that he thinks did not go the way it should have gone while the case is still open. Thomas rolled the dice and lost. Now he has a price to pay. But I doubt he is smart enough to really know how much trouble he is really in. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 31. "Lake" Posted by momo on 03:15:24 5/11/2000 are you Patsy? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 33. "Nope, just a friend" Posted by Cassandra on 04:44:55 5/11/2000 I'd like to know where he gets his hat. Rabun, Lanier? Cassie [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 36. "Ruthie " Posted by Watching you on 05:00:11 5/11/2000 you know, don't you, what makes those people tick. I had them figured out long ago, but couldn't quite put the right words on my thoughts. You did the job for me in your last post. Truer words were never spoken. So, the Rams are going to (when?) sue ST? I too think if they sue it will be for the use of JB's picture, but you never know. I truly think they believe they are untouchable. Do they have a case? I don't know all the legalities, but I don't think they do. They can go straight to hell, as far as I am concerned. They caused all this, let them live with it. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 34. "Steve Thomas" Posted by Morris on 04:51:29 5/11/2000 I can think of no one who has ever had more of a champion than JonBenet has had in Steve Thomas. I am beyond proud of his integrity and courage. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ EMAIL Morris ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 35. "The Poz...." Posted by Byron on 04:59:18 5/11/2000 ...is pissed!!! Peter Boyles said (I think, it was early) that Larry Pozner, noted Ramsey defender, will be on later. He said Larry is PISSED at the R's regarding all their lawsuits, and that he can't stand Lin Wood. Since Larry is buds with Hal Haddon, I think we can tell what Hal might be thinking as well. is that the R's INTEND to sue ST. Just like they INTENDED to take a lie detector test. I think they'd be nuts to sue ST and expose themselves to questioning. Boyles says the same thing...there's NO WAY they're going to sue Thomas. It's just a threat. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 37. "Well, I guess that everyday the Rams" Posted by sds on 05:31:19 5/11/2000 are going to be suing somebody else. They will never carry it thru with ST because they will have to testify under oath in a court of law. What about all the people that they libeled in their little book? Talk about the kettle calling the pot black....... And why is all of this suing coming out now? I have to agree that it is just to take the heat off of their stupid offer to take a lie detector test. The BP were smart to call their bluff. But, no doubt, these people will do anything to keep the limelight shining on them. All the attention little Elian is getting must be driving Pats nuts. Yes, a confession for this horrid crime might be in the works. What better way than to keep the spotlight shining on you for the rest of your life??? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 39. "Thanks Byron!" Posted by Starling on 05:48:51 5/11/2000 I think it's a ruse too, FWIW. I like Thomas and I think he is within his constitutional right to express himself. I wish Patsy and John would defect to Russia or something.LOL Starling [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 38. "Isn't there a point" Posted by Watching you on 05:48:42 5/11/2000 where the courts get annoyed with someone filing so many suits, one after the other? This is plain vendetta - we'll teach you to mess with us sort of thing. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 40. "Wasn't it Frank Coffman" Posted by Watching you on 05:55:54 5/11/2000 aka Masked Man over on Moron Mountain, who was admitted to being "on retainer" for some of these magazines? He was feeding them info about the Rams. That was before he had a Ram-change operation. LOL, wouldn't it be funny if MM was one of the unnamed ones in the lawsuits? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 43. "I think you're right, WY" Posted by Chris on 06:42:44 5/11/2000 Frank Coffman was the power-broker/go-between for many of the tab transactions I think. A-Ha! No wonder he's working so hard to "make nice" these days. I still have that tape of him inviting the Ramseys to sue him...I think ToppCat has a copy, too. Maybe we can get him to put it online. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 45. "Yes, Chris, I think" Posted by Watching you on 06:46:01 5/11/2000 that would be an excellent idea. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 41. "Ram-Change Operation" Posted by starry on 06:08:34 5/11/2000 ROFLOL [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 44. "I don't think" Posted by Watching you on 06:44:43 5/11/2000 I have ever read of post of yours, Lake, that was not negative. Thomas is a cop gone bad? Just how the hell would you know that? Because he refused to be a team player? Because he saw wrong and tried to expose it? That makes him a bad cop? It's easy for you to pass judgment on Thomas, isn't it, while you sit in your perfect little world. You don't know jack, lake. Nothing new there. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 46. "LOL sds...&...Byron!!!" Posted by Cassandra on 06:58:32 5/11/2000 sds: Surely you don't think that "you know who" will turn up in a inner tube off the coast! LOL Byron!!! Please tell us more about the Poz and his reaction to the flood of lawsuits, and LW! I might be in love! Cassie [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 57. "Cassandra, priceless......" Posted by sds on 16:38:39 5/11/2000 JR and PR floating in inner tubes off the coast of Florida......but PR would need hers made by the Sharper Image! Now that would be a real headline grabber! Maybe they should sue Elian next for grabbing the headlines away from them!!! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 48. "Cassie" Posted by Chris on 11:38:03 5/11/2000 Okay, I'll admit it. For the very first time today I actually enjoyed listening to THE POZ. Maybe it was cause I didn't have to look at his beady little eyes bugging out and bobbling back and forth. At one point he did get in that mode we've all seen him in when he's on Internight but for the most part he seemed pretty sane. THE POZ thinks that this lawsuit business is pretty over the top. If they were his clients he'd tell them, look go quietly and move on with your lives. He did point out that it is awfully hard to move on with your lives when your kid is dead but his suggestion was more along the lines of "QUIT PICKING THAT DAMN SCAB OR THE SCAR WILL NEVER GO AWAY!" as opposed to working towards some sort of healing/coming to terms with life as it is. NOTE: Doesn't this sound like something Watching You would say? "QUIT PICKING THAT DAMN SCAB OR THE SCAR WILL NEVER GO AWAY!" [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 47. "of all the people to sue" Posted by Edie Pratt on 11:30:18 5/11/2000 I would, if I were them, sue the pants off the ex-beau that told the tabs EVERY GUY IN COLLEGE HAD PATSY PAUGH. That was quite an allegation, as Southern Belles live and die by their reputations,lol. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 49. "Poz" Posted by Seashell on 11:50:49 5/11/2000 Even the Rams staunch defenders are getting pi$$ed. This is priceless. When they go to trial, they won't be able to find a defender! A lawsuit against ST? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 50. "It just dawned on me" Posted by AutumnBorn on 13:37:23 5/11/2000 that Wood is probably working on a contingency basis. He probably won't get paid unless they win and he'll probably get a good portion of the winnings. Therefore, no $ out of the Rams pockets unless they win. Wood is probably assuring them that they will. He just hasn't figured out yet that one or both of them is guilty. I think he's just a greedy schmuck who sees a $ making opportunity. Since the plaintiff has to show that the statements made are false, I doubt this will ever see the light of a court room. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 53. "Sue, sue, sue" Posted by zoomama on 14:24:50 5/11/2000 What is this now 5 lawsuits for the Rams. Remember that you can sue anyone anytime but collecting...that's the thing. Aha. I would bet that the plethera of lawsuits is so that anyone of them could strike paydirt. They surely don't expect to collect on all so throw out a lot and see what sticks. IMO [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 51. "Unlike a Criminal Trial" Posted by lake on 14:20:49 5/11/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 14:20:49, 5/11/2000 In a civil trial the burden of proof falls on both sides, not just on the person bring the suit. Thomas would have to support, in a civil trial that it is more likely than not that his charges he makes in his book are true. Lin Wood would need to do the same regarding the Ramseys position on the matter before the civil jury. I believe Thomas will be sued, and I would think that most here would welcome such a suit. It seems that a civil trial is about the only way most if not all of the evidence and circumstances of this killing will ever be aired on equal footing in a trial. And Watching you, I may not know your friend Jack but I do know more about the law than you apparently do. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 75. "Like I said, lake" Posted by Watching you on 06:40:24 5/12/2000 you don't know jack, especially about what I know about the law. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 59. "And, Lake ..." Posted by v_p on 17:40:43 5/11/2000 >>>And Watching you, I may not know your friend Jack but I do know more about the law than you apparently do.<<<< You're hell on that "edit" button too! :-) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 52. "I welcome the Lawsuit" Posted by momo on 14:20:06 5/11/2000 because Steve welcomes the suit. He has stated several times that he can't wait. Since there will probably never be a murder trial, a civil trial will turn up the heat and get the Rams on the stand. They can't possibly keep up with their lies. I can't wait until they are under oath. Because when they are under oath, we can go back and see what they've said from the very beginning and one by one pick their lies apart.lolololololol [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 54. "It is well to realize" Posted by lake on 14:36:42 5/11/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 14:36:42, 5/11/2000 That Wood is likely bringing the suits on behalf of BR first to gain information and facts in discovery that he will be able to use against the enitites he is planning to sue on behalf of the Ramsey parents. And as I see it, those publications that Wood is bringing suit against on Burke's behalf do not have even a one legged table to stand on. I would think that most would probably settle rather than go to trial. Except those that maintain that they were just repeating the Star story. And for those, they would only have to prove that they did not act irresponsably and with disregard for the harm that they would be doing to a minor should the Star story not be accurate. And I think that would be hard to prove for the publications. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 55. "I too" Posted by Gemini on 14:40:26 5/11/2000 have a problem finding justification for any publication reprinting a tabloid story without one single call to the referenced authorities for verification. Sounds pretty irresponsible to me ... flagrant disregard for whether or not the story was factual. Tab tactics are widely recognized. Red flags should have been raining from the sky. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 56. "Take the NY Post for example" Posted by lake on 14:59:06 5/11/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 14:59:06, 5/11/2000 They have their editor on TV defending the fact that they suspected that the Mayor was having an affair with an a city employee but did not print it because they could not confirm it with hard evidence. Now is printing a story about the charge that a 9 year old boy killed his sister to be treated with less caution that the Mayor having a affair with a city employee while married? The way I see it is that all the suits involving the repeating of the Star story will be settled or won by Wood. The same goes for the suit on BR's behalf against the Globe. But the suit against the publisher, authors and contributors to the book "A Little Girl's Dream" is a horse of a different color. I don't think they cited any inside the investigation sources. They seemed to be going with information in the media. But there again, the question is did they act with due care in using Tabloid and other media information that may or may not turn out to be accurate when they settled on BR as the killer? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 60. "lake, I actually" Posted by fiddler on 18:40:32 5/11/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 18:40:32, 5/11/2000 sort of agree with you that Thomas "went bad". Theoretically, I think he should have bitten his tongue and stayed with the case. But it's easy to say what someone else should have done--he was the one who had to physically live with his decision. The only penalty the loser in a civil suit pays is monetary--there's no "trouble" per se that the loser could be in. I don't think Thomas wrote his book for money, and I don't think he cares if he loses it. I think he wrote it to get what he believes is the truth "out there". A civil suit would do that, maybe better than a book. Whether he's correct or not, I don't know--but I have the feeling that if it turns out he isn't, he'd apologize. I don't think he's scared of the Ramseys in any way. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 61. "But" Posted by lake on 18:45:46 5/11/2000 For Thomas, what he may reveal in a civil trial in his own defense ( or be revealed by others) could lay the ground work for criminal charges or federal charges of some kind. So, IMO Thomas would have to walk a narrow line in a civil trail. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 62. "Lake" Posted by momo on 18:56:39 5/11/2000 Might I ask what sort of charges you are talking about? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 64. "Well" Posted by lake on 19:16:42 5/11/2000 Do you happen to recall when Steve Thomas was approached by the FBI regarding the tape of JS where there was the talk of what amounted to the blackmail of Thomas to get more information out of Thomas? Now at that time, Thomas gave the excuse that he just wanted to put the whole thing behind him and refused to cooperate with the FBI? I suspose writing a book and doing the media tour was putting the whole thing behind him? One might suspect that Thomas had something to hide himself by not joining with the FBI is persuit of the Globe. Was Thomas really in somebodys pocket? It could be you know. It has been known to happen. Not that unusual at all were out of control cops are concerned. And Thomas was out of control. He was frantic. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 65. "Thomas Cop Gone Bad???" Posted by Maude4 on 20:28:09 5/11/2000 Really lake, reading your diatribes sounds like a shyster trying to sell rotten eggs to a chicken farmer. IF, one is to believe that a law suit against ST is to be filed by the RST, then it must logically follow that it can be "proven" that everything (or most everything) in ST's book is false and he is "making assumptions" not based on facts. I might just have to buy a plane ticket to the court to watch this one go down. I would also pay for a copy of the depositions and the transcripts of the trial. If nothing else, the Rams should be able to be prosecuted for perjury and obstruction of justice. Just MHO. Keep posting, you help me see how truly incredulous, totally illogical and bizarre people can be. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 67. "Well" Posted by lake on 20:38:03 5/11/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 20:38:03, 5/11/2000 you keep posting your mindless tripe, Maude. Because Thomas obviously cannot support his conclusion. His book proves that. And all Wood will have to do is show that Thomas did not give adequate weight to alternative evidence and circumstances that could or should have led him to a different conclusion, or no conclusion at all. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 72. "Well,,,lake," Posted by Maude4 on 21:43:26 5/11/2000 it would be nice for Wood if that is all he would have to prove. However, he would have to prove that there is no evidence to support Thomas's position. Based on the evidence, according to experts to have read/seen it all,there is enough for probable cause. Gee, does that mean the experts all got it wrong too???? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 73. "No, Maude" Posted by lake on 21:54:15 5/11/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 21:54:15, 5/11/2000 But it does mean that probable cause was more than two years ago. And it also may mean that if the BPD had given adequate weight to the other evidence and circumstances in this case, the experts would not have agreed that there was even probable cause. The GJ apparently did not find probable cause in October of 1999. They did not indict, and probable cause was all they needed. You of course can speculate that that Hunter did not give the GJ the option to indict, but that would just be your speculation. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 74. "Gee Lake, I guess I forgot you know everything." Posted by Maude4 on 21:59:23 5/11/2000 >But it does mean that probable cause >was more than two years ago. Try 3 1/2 years. > And it also means that >if the BPD had given adequate >weight to the other evicence and >circumstances in this case, the experts >would not have agreed that there >was even probable cause. Your opinion which is not consistent with the experts. >GJ apparently did not find probable >cause in October of 1999. No, they did not indict because in Hunter's words, they had to pass the test of "Beyond a reasonable doubt." >They did not indicte, and probable >cause was all they needed. See above. >You of course can speculate that >that Hunter did not give the >GJ the option to indict, but >that would just be your speculation. And of course, you are not "just speculating". Of course not, you know exactly what happened that night, or so you would have us believe. Were you there? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 63. "Well Spoken Ruthie" Posted by Paralegal on 19:15:54 5/11/2000 It is refreshing to read something so insightful about the psyche of these offensively obnoxious women. It is true, after almost 4 years of analyzing this case, not much new IS being discussed. I don't think we need to fear all these libel suits flying in behalf of the Rams. There is much truth in the old saying "Pride Goeth Before a Fall". Whatever successes they have in refilling the coffers will most definitely be well spent on their future defense and eliminate the possibility of appeal for lack of adequate defense, to say the least. It is MOST important that those of us who have long sought justice for JonBenet not give up hope! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ EMAIL Paralegal ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 66. "The bible verse goes" Posted by momo on 20:32:42 5/11/2000 something like this. "Pride goeth before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall." [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 68. "Yeah, sure..." Posted by shadow on 21:00:23 5/11/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 21:00:23, 5/11/2000 Thomas did not say Burke killed JBR... the Ramseys will never sue Steve Thomas, unless their "crack-team" of investigators can find a homeless person that Hunter and his people can charge with this crime. shadow [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 71. "Shadow" Posted by Hannah on 21:16:05 5/11/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 21:16:05, 5/11/2000 Better yet, someone who died, and confessed. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ]