Go back to previous page
Forum URL: http://www.webbsleuths.com/cgi-bin/dcf/dcboard.cgi
Forum Name: more and more JBR
Topic ID: 2010
#0, Judge Thrash gets Ramsey/FOX suit
Posted by jameson on Jan-01-04 at 01:11 PM
U.S. District Court
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta

CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 03-CV-3976

Ramsey, et al v. Fox News Network

Filed: 12/23/03
Assigned to: Judge Thomas W. Thrash
Jury demand: Plaintiff
Demand: $2,000,000
Nature of Suit: 320
Lead Docket: None
Jurisdiction: Diversity
Dkt# in other court: None
Cause: 28:1332 Diversity-Libel, Assault, Slander

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN RAMSEY L. Lin Wood, Jr.
plaintiff
Katherine M. Ventulett

Office of L. Lin Wood
100 Peachtree Street
2140 The Equitable Building
Atlanta, GA 30303
404-522-1713

PATSY RAMSEY L. Lin Wood, Jr.
plaintiff (See above)

Katherine M. Ventulett
(See above)

BURKE RAMSEY, a minor, by his L. Lin Wood, Jr.
next friends and natural (See above)
parents, JOHN RAMSEY and PATSY
RAMSEY Katherine M. Ventulett
plaintiff (See above)

v.

FOX NEWS NETWORK, LLC
dba
Fox News Channel
defendant

DATE # IMG DOCKET ENTRY

12/23/03 1 COMPLAINT filed. Consent form to proceed before U.S.
magistrate and pretrial instructions given to attorney;
jury demand FILING FEE $150.00 #515617 (er)


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This is good news. Judge Thrash has already dealt with the Ramsey case, knows quite a bit about what has happened there. (He dismissed the case LHP brought against the Ramseys.)

He knows a bit about what was public in this case - and when. That can only help here - get this dealt with properly and quickly.


#1, RE: Judge Thrash gets Ramsey/FOX suit
Posted by Smokey on Jan-01-04 at 01:43 PM
In response to message #0
Candy said the Ramseys should have filed in Michigan, where they currently reside. I think because they were living in Atlanta at the time of the FOX broadcast which the suit is based on, the proper venue is Atlanta. Also, not having sold their home in Atlanta, they are still residents of Atlanta, GA, are they not?

#2, RE: Judge Thrash gets Ramsey/FOX suit
Posted by Margoo on Jan-01-04 at 02:00 PM
In response to message #1
Who is Katherine M. Ventulett?

#3, RE: Judge Thrash gets Ramsey/FOX suit
Posted by Saluda on Jan-01-04 at 04:16 PM
In response to message #2
It appears to be that she is part of Lin Wood's legal team.

#4, RE: Judge Thrash gets Ramsey/FOX suit
Posted by Margoo on Jan-01-04 at 05:51 PM
In response to message #3
Thank you, Saluda. I have not, in the past, noticed a 'secondary' attorney named along with Lin Wood. Has Ms. Ventulett be named before? Since Lin is in Georgia, would she perhaps be an attorney from Michigan or Delaware, a necessary requirement for the multiple states noted in the suit?

#5, RE: Judge Thrash gets Ramsey/FOX suit
Posted by Smokey on Jan-01-04 at 06:52 PM
In response to message #4
She also appears on the Condit complaint filed by Lin Wood, page 45: http://www.courttv.com/news/2003/1219/condit.pdf

#6, RE: Judge Thrash gets Ramsey/FOX suit
Posted by Margoo on Jan-01-04 at 09:07 PM
In response to message #5
Thanks, Smokey, it shows that she is a Georgia attorney, so I guess she is co-counsel.

#7, Anyone surprized?
Posted by DonBradley on Jan-02-04 at 02:15 PM
In response to message #0
Anyone surprized at the demand being only two million dollars?

#8, RE: Anyone surprized?
Posted by Saluda on Jan-02-04 at 03:34 PM
In response to message #7
The suit asks for $2 million each for John, Patsy and Burke Ramsey. In addition, the suit asks for punitive damages of $10 million, for a total of $16 million. The AP news article that was widely published in newspapers stated a total figure of $12 million. I think the AP reporter got it wrong. Read the original documents that jameson has posted online.

#9, who she is
Posted by jameson on Jan-02-04 at 10:29 PM
In response to message #8
An associate attorney who works for Lin Wood.

#10, Candy posted
Posted by jameson on Feb-08-04 at 00:06 AM
In response to message #9
Candy posted that three New York lawyers working for FOX News have applied for pro hac vice status in Georgia for this case. They have all designated Judson Graves of Alston& Bird, LLP as their local Atlanta attorney.

Their names are Jason Conti, Dori Ann Hainswirth and Trina Hunn.

~~~~~~~~~~~

I think Lin's suit was pretty cut and dry - I don't see how they can defend Carol's statements when we have all seen the TV programs outlining Lou Smit's Powerpoint demonstration.

I think we will see a settlement initiated by FOX.


#11, RE: Candy posted
Posted by DonBradley on Feb-08-04 at 04:16 AM
In response to message #10
>I think we will see a settlement initiated by FOX.
While that is possible, I think instead they are going to fight this one tooth and nail.

#12, RE: Judge Thrash gets Ramsey/FOX suit
Posted by jameson on Feb-08-04 at 08:41 AM
In response to message #0
Read the complaint - it is very specific and tight - - I simply don't see how FOX thinks they can benefit from fighting it - - - it will cost them a fortune to defend it and they have to lose.

THE FALSE AND DEFAMATORY FOX NEWS BROADCAST
27.
On December 27, 2002, in connection with the sixth (6th)
anniversary of the murder of JonBenét Ramsey, Fox News televised
a news segment about the JonBenét Ramsey murder investigation on
the Fox News Channel ("the Ramsey segment").

28.
In the Ramsey segment, Ms. McKinley uttered the following
false and defamatory statements of and concerning John, Patsy
and Burke Ramsey:

"Detectives say they had good reason to suspect
the Ramseys. The couple and JonBenét's nine-year-old
brother, Burke, were the only known people in
the house the night she was killed. JonBenét had
been strangled, bludgeoned and sexually
assaulted, most likely from one of her mother's
paintbrushes. The longest ransom note most
experts have ever seen - three pages - was left
behind. Whomever killed her spent a long time in
the family home. Yet, there has never been any
evidence to link an intruder to her brutal
murder.
"
29.
The gist of the statements uttered by Ms. McKinley in the
Ramsey segment is that in all probability, one or more of the
Ramseys murdered JonBenét.
30.
The gist of the statements uttered by Ms. McKinley in the
Ramsey segment is false and defamatory.


#13, If she had phrased the comment
Posted by Maikai on Feb-08-04 at 09:41 AM
In response to message #12
LAST EDITED ON Feb-08-04 AT 09:45 AM (EST)
 
differently, she might have gotten away with it. But it stands on its own:

"Yet, there has never been any evidence to link an intruder to her brutal murder."

She starts out saying "detectives" as a vague general term, when she should have said Steve Thomas, because based on his book, that's what he thinks. Lou Smit is a retired detective, hired by the DA's office under contract---who said there is intruder evidence. That makes the statement libeous, IMO.

Carol is not some newscaster that has never been to Boulder...or someone that never talked to everyone she could about the crime (on both sides). She was even allowed to sit and interview the Ramseys. She had knowledge that there was intruder evidence---she should have said some on the BPD couldn't or wouldn't link it to an intruder....maybe then she would have gotten away with it. If it does go to trial, Fox News will probably hide behind the statements of the BPD--more specifically Steve Thomas, as a defense. We know the damage was done when the purposely placed leaks were put out there that weren't bothered to be corrected---it wouldn't surprise me if they (Fox) hauls the BPD in before it's all over.


#14, RE: If she had phrased the comment
Posted by DonBradley on Feb-08-04 at 09:50 AM
In response to message #13
>She starts out saying "detectives" as a vague general term,
>when she should have said Steve Thomas,

And the statements following that are continuations of the material from the "detectives".

A more precisely worded equivalent would be: 'detectives' are of the opinion that there is no evidence of an intruder'.


#15, RE: If she had phrased the comment
Posted by jameson on Feb-08-04 at 12:42 PM
In response to message #14
Carol said, "... there has never been any
evidence to link an intruder to her brutal
murder."

Rose asked, "Could it be that Carol's argument will be that there is no "conclusive physical evidence" that does link an intruder?"

Intruder evidence includes:

use of a stun gun when LE can't find any evidence that the family had access to one.

the cord found on the body doesn't match anything in the house and the BPD could never link the parents to such a cord.

ditto on the duct tape

The handwriting on the ransom note doesn't match any of the Ramseys.

The fresh boot print found near the body remains unsourced.

There is DNA under JonBenét's nails and mixed with the blood in her panties that doesn't come from any family member.

It seems to me that all of that is conclusive physical evidence that points to an intruder.

And that is not all of it.

Carol saw Lou Smit's presentation, she can't say she was in the dark about that evidence. She knew about it and chose to mislead the public. To me that is defamatory reporting.

FOX will try to get the case dismissed to start - every time there has been a lawsuit the first thing is the defendants ask for the suit to be dismissed.... but I think the judge will see the merits of the lawsuit and after that I think FOX will ask for a chance to settle and save the cost of lawyers and more court costs.

JMO


#16, RE: If she had phrased the comment
Posted by jameson on Feb-08-04 at 12:44 PM
In response to message #14
Don, she could have really protected FOX by saying, "Steve Thomas, a retired detective who worked on the investigation, is of the opinion that there is no evidence of an intruder."

But that isn't what she did - she said, as a fact, that "... there has never been any evidence to link an intruder to her brutal murder."


#17, RE: If she had phrased the comment
Posted by Mikie on Feb-08-04 at 01:04 PM
In response to message #16
LAST EDITED ON Feb-08-04 AT 01:07 PM (EST)
 
Although I sympathize with the Ramseys, I do not see where that statement directly accuses them. It is a rather vague implication and it seems to be the opinion of the "detectives". It is more like a summary of their opinion. Therefore, I question whether this is a false and defamatory statement. It may well be a true reflection of the "detectives" opinion, even though it (edit:the opinion), may be false. I think it (edit: the lawsuit)could easily be thrown out. But of course it is really the judges decision (edit:whether it is defamatory or not).

"Detectives say they had good reason to suspect
the Ramseys. The couple and JonBenét's nine-year-old
brother, Burke, were the only known people in
the house the night she was killed. JonBenét had
been strangled, bludgeoned and sexually
assaulted, most likely from one of her mother's
paintbrushes. The longest ransom note most
experts have ever seen - three pages - was left
behind. Whomever killed her spent a long time in
the family home. Yet, there has never been any
evidence to link an intruder to her brutal
murder."


#18, RE: If she had phrased the comment
Posted by Margoo on Feb-08-04 at 01:11 PM
In response to message #16
If Carol is going to report the NEWS, she should REPORT the news. To say, in December 2002, that "there has never been any evidence to link an intruder to her brutal murder" is eliminating a large part of the facts surrounding her news report. Since she knew full well by December 2002 that there WAS evidence of an intruder (ie Smit's Power Point Presentation) that included indications of a disturbance at a potential entry point along with a trail of leaves and debris straight into the room where the body was found, she IS in trouble with her "reporting". In December 2002, the case had been taken away from the BPD. Carol had to know that and by wrapping it up with saying NO evidence to link an intruder, knowing full well there was, she has exposed her biased reporting and her intentions to only report half the "news" is clear.

I think the Ramseys' successful suits against news agencies has motivated people like Carol to continue to stand at the pulpit and say "no way". I suspect her reasons for excluding that part of her "news" story was to continue to inflame the public with defamatory lop-sided "reporting" in order to support her disagreement with the Ramseys' success in the courts.


#19, It might be helpful to watch
Posted by Maikai on Feb-08-04 at 01:24 PM
In response to message #18
other news reports by Carol McKinley prior to December of 2002, to see what she said about an intruder. She always seemed to try to play both sides, depending who she was talking to. The show when she interviewed the Ramseys at their home in Atlanta was pretty unbiased....except when they got to the end, and she made what I intrepreted as a snide comment, which ended the show. She was talking about a supposed conversation between JBR and a playmate and all the trophies in her room---she claims JBR said those are my mother's. (ie: the inference being that although JBR won them, it was for her mother--at least that's the way I intrepreted it).

#20, RE: It might be helpful to watch
Posted by jameson on Feb-08-04 at 02:44 PM
In response to message #19
For a moment in 1997 - right after the first police interviews and Ramsey press conference with the "chosen few" - Carol was not BORG. She actually said that when she met the ramseys she felt they were inocent.

Her media peers hated it.

She returned to the BORG fold and mended her ways.

She may have tried to walk the fence from time to time, (to put on a show, I think) but in the end, Carol was BORG to the bone in all her projects.

That's how I see it.

Look at what posters she chose as friends.... her bias certainly did show there.