Judge Thrash's opinion in the Linda Hoffmann-Pugh case should be compared to Judge Carnes opinion in the Chris Wolf case:<P>Judge Carnes:<P>"The Court concludes that the statements made in defendants’ book are reasonably read to impute the crime of murder to plaintiff. Although defendants do not directly state that plaintiff killed JonBenet, they claim that they did not kill their daughter, and name plaintiff as one of the people they suspected may have done so. <P>"In determining whether a statement is defamatory, ‘he trial judge should read and construe the publication as a whole, and thereafter ‘may find that it is not defamatory, that it is defamatory, or that it is ambiguous and the question is one for a jury. <P>"In considering whether a writing is defamatory as a matter of law, we look…at what construction would be placed on it by the average reader.” Mead v. True Citizen, Inc., 203 Ga. App. 361, 362, 417 S. E. 2d 16, 17 (1992) (citations omitted). <P>"The Court concludes that a jury could reasonably conclude from these statements, taken as a whole, that the Ramseys were imputing the murder of JonBenet to plaintiff. <P>"The next question is whether these statements are capable of being proved false. <P>"Defendants claim that they are not because they merely represent their impressions at the time that plaintiff “represented too many unanswered questions.” <P>"Plaintiff, however, argues that defendants killed JonBenet, and therefore had no basis for their supposed belief that plaintiff had something to do with her death. At this stage of the proceedings, the Court must take all facts in favor of the plaintiff. <P>"Assuming for the purpose of this order that defendants did know who killed JonBenet, and knew that the murderer was not plaintiff, their statements was not merely opinion, but was indeed a falsity." <P>Id. at 11-12.<P>