The civil lawsuit brought by the Ramseys against former Boulder Police Detective Steve Thomas was
dismissed Wednesday. The case, in which the couple sought $80 million for defamation and libel, was
settled for an undisclosed amount in May. The lawsuit was resolved with Thomas, co-writer Don Davis
and St. Martin's Press, the publishing company.

"(The Ramseys) are not going to sit back and allow themselves and their family to be attacked -
period. Those days are over," said Atlanta attorney Lin Wood.

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

1. "The letter from Thomas"
In response to message #0


A Letter From Steve Thomas

The frivolous lawsuit filed by the Ramseys has concluded.

I am sorry for the delay in making a public statement until now, but the Ramsey announcement of a
resolution in March was
premature.

I am bound by the terms of the settlement not to discuss its conclusive points but I can tell you this:
it was a thoughtful, deliberate
decision. For the record, I was not the one who sought out a settlement in this case.

My absolute requirement for any resolution was the mandate that I would admit no wrongdoing
whatsoever, nor would I personally
pay a single dollar in settlement. And that is exactly what was achieved with this resolution. In fact,
the book can continue to be
published, advertised, quoted, and marketed. I will continue to speak on the case whenever I wish. I
continue to stand resolutely by
my book and the opinions I expressed in it. My beliefs have not changed.

The reality was this: I was well within my Constitutional rights to have stated my opinion regarding the
events surrounding this
murder. But this was a civil case. It was about money. Justice and "doing the right thing" do not
always prevail in these cases, as
we all know.

On the other hand, we would have enjoyed deposing and taking people in front of a jury, and
discovering the truth. Unfortunately,
financial constraints continued to prohibit this, as I was in no position to take on the Ramseys' wealth.
In fact, I lost my house and
savings during this struggle.

After almost 6 years, I can now look forward to a much brighter future. I continue to receive a warm
welcome and tremendous
support from police around the country. Although I miss police work, and have had invitations to
re-join law enforcement, I have
respectfully declined. I am taking my life in a new direction and am enjoying it with people I care
about.

Again, I want to reiterate that I personally paid not one red cent, not one thin dime, not one single
dollar to settle this suit. I tried to
the very end to take a principled position in this tragic case, and I believe I have done so.

The future still holds hope that true justice for the murderer of an innocent girl will prevail. As I
mentioned Proverbs 28:13 on Larry
King Live, I still believe -- "without confession there is no forgiveness".

Please know how forever grateful I am to you for supporting me throughout this ordeal. I can tell you
that there are no finer men
than Daniel Petrocelli and Chuck Diamond, who supported me unequivocally. Perhaps this knowledge
and explanation is some
small consolation for your support and dedication in helping me with this fight.

Prior to my resignation in 1998, a man whom I admire greatly shared a famous quote with me: "It is a
sin to remain silent, when it's
your duty to protest."

Wise words about those who whistle-blow also proved true in the subsequent fight -- "You will feel
isolated and vilified, but
ultimately you will know what you did was right. Nothing can diminish that knowledge."

Steve Thomas
6 August 2002

```````````````````````````````

jameson
Member since 5-8-02
08-23-02, 06:33 PM (EST)

2. "BN story"
In response to message #1


http://www.dailycamera.com/bdc/city_news/article/0,1713,BDC_2422_1338472,00.html

Thomas denies paying Ramseys
Former detective says he admitted no wrongdoing in settling libel case

By Matt Sebastian, Camera Staff Writer
August 21, 2002

Former detective Steve Thomas insists he did not pay "one red cent" to settle a
libel lawsuit brought by John and Patsy Ramsey, according to a letter sent to
supporters on what would have been JonBenet Ramsey's 12th birthday.

In the letter, authenticated by a friend of Thomas', the retired Boulder police
detective wrote that he admitted no wrongdoing in settling the lawsuit over his
book, "JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation."

"I personally paid not one red cent, not one thin dime, not one single dollar to
settle this suit," Thomas wrote in the letter, dated Aug. 6, the day before the case
was formally dismissed in U.S. District Court in Atlanta.

Thomas, who couldn't be reached for comment Tuesday, agreed in March to settle
the lawsuit, which originally sought $80 million from the detective, his co-author
and publisher St. Martin's Press.

Although the terms of the settlement remain confidential, Ramsey attorney L. Lin
Wood on Tuesday said the lawsuit was resolved with "a significant payment made
on Steve Thomas' behalf."

"John and Patsy Ramsey were satisfied that the case was settled in their favor
when it was ensured that Steve Thomas won't profit off a book about the death of
their daughter," Wood said.

The Ramseys sued Thomas in March 2001, alleging the former detective libeled the
couple by falsely accusing them in his book of killing their 6-year-old daughter on
Christmas night 1996.

Boulder police have never arrested anyone in connection with JonBenet's slaying.

Thomas' letter, mailed to supporters who contributed to his legal fund, was posted
on the Internet this week at www.forstevethomas.com.

Tricia Griffith, the Web site's owner, identified herself as a friend of Thomas' and
said she was among the supporters who received the letter that is posted on the
site.

"I can assure you it's authentic," said Griffith, a Utah resident.

Thomas, in the letter, defended his book and said he had looked forward to trying
the case in front of a jury and "discovering the truth."

"Unfortunately, financial constraints continued to prohibit this, and I was in no
position to take on the Ramseys' wealth," Thomas wrote. "In fact, I lost my house
and savings during this struggle."

None of Thomas' three attorneys returned phone calls seeking comment from the
Daily Camera. Representatives of St. Martin's Press also could not be reached.

Wood, who has won settlements for the Ramseys from a number of media
organizations, said Thomas is simply trying to save face with his legion of fans on
the Internet.

"Steve Thomas lost this case," Wood said. "The Ramseys won this case, and he can
spin it any way he wants to. The bottom line is he won't profit off that book."

``````````````````````````````````````

Dave
Member since 5-8-02
08-26-02, 00:37 AM (EST)

3. "RE: The letter from Thomas"
In response to message #1


I appears that ST is misquoting Abraham Lincoln, but I'm unable to verify that even this particular
quote is accurate:

"It is a sin to remain silent when it is your duty to speak up." <1>

However, I believe that a much more appropriate quotation from Lincoln, considering that this is ST
we're talking about, is:

"What kills a skunk is the publicity it gives itself." <2>

<1>
http://www.teacherssavingchildren.org/national/unionoptions.html

<2> Robert I. Fitzhenry, Editor. The Harper Book of Quotations. Third edition, HarperPerennial,
1993, page 19.

``````````````````

jameson
Member since 5-8-02
08-26-02, 08:06 AM (EST)

4. "Banning Thomas' book"
In response to message #3


The flamers are saying that the Ramseys didn't win their lawsuit against Thomas - - their
reasoning is that even if he signed an agreement and they made a deposit into their bank
account, he still has his book out there and people can buy it.

That is true - - his book will always be out there - - the US government has NEVER gone into our
homes and removed a book. Many books are the subject of libel suits and they are NOT removed
from the book stores. Just isn't done.

I only know of ONE CASE where a book was removed from the market - - and that was a
situation where national security was involved.

If anyone else can cite where a book was "unpublished" and recalled, PLEASE do share that with
us.

This POV that seems to fill the BORG sites is really assinine.

Steve Thomas lost his suit - - The Ramseys won. His book remains out there - but anyone
paying attention will understand he libeled people in it - - and paid for that.

(Yes, the insurance company paid the ramseys directly, but Thomas himself says he lost his
house and life savings fighting the battle. To me that is losing.)

AH: Well, I think it stinks. I guess he'll have a bag of gold to buy his way into heaven. You know, he's put a butcher knife into this
investigation. You're a former police officer.

CM: (Laughing) Well, briefly, at least.

AH: Well, briefly. But you know, you gained some insights like we all do, little pieces here and there. I mean, he's peddling the case file. The
citizens of Boulder have spent $2 million plus on this case. It's not his case.

CM: If he had written an adulatory book saying you're the best thing since sliced bread, would you have a problem with this book?

AH: No, because he wouldn't be divulging confidential information. You know, when you start talking about what a witness said, you know
there's one place in the book - I don't even want to get into it in detail - where a witness, a critical witness in the case, begs him not to make a
disclosure of some very personal information. He lays it out in the book. He criticizes his colleagues about the fact that they botched the early
hours which I think, you know, I can make another argument. You know, you don't change evidence. There may be a technical contamination
when the body's brought upstairs but, you know, first of all, you pick up in this book his investigative techniques, because the way he writes
the book reflects that technique. This is a homicide detective who'd never had a homicide case, and his supervisor had never had a homicide
case. Fortunately, believe it or not, there are some excellent officers - he was not the lead detective - that have worked this case, have busted
their gut, have put in the sweat, have dropped the tears, who he puts the knife to in the book. And you can see this man sitting down with this
guy Davis, who's the writer, and I can hear Davis saying to him, you have to add color here, you have to add color there.

CM: This has . . . I know this hurts your feelings and it hurts your image. Certainly, I would fight it too. But how has it hurt the investigation?

AH: Yeah, but let me say something. I'm on this show not because my butt feels raw or my feelings are hurt. I'm on this show because this
detective is getting, you know, kissed by ABC. He goes on four mornings. They have a little chat with him.

CM: On GMA.

AH: And the fact is that what has happened here - I mean it's one, the book is done, and he'll make a million dollars. I'm hoping that the
orphans and widows of slain police officers at the Boulder Police Department are not going to be out on the front stoop with a cup waiting for
his contribution. But I'm here because I want us to learn another lesson from this case. There are some wonderful lessons, some hard lessons
in this case, and one of them is, we cannot have a detective breach the public trust that I think he or she has when they are compiling
confidential information, interviewing witnesses, you know, building the file on behalf of the people. That's why I'm here. I'm not here to say
he's a bad guy because he doesn't like me. You know, this guy is not relevant to this case. He's been gone for 18 months, he had nothing to do
with the grand jury investigation. He's a cop that, you know, was basically a patrol officer and did a little narcotics work.

CM: Yeah, but you know, he exploited a ready market out there. The reason he will make any money he makes is that there are a lot of people
in this country - I won't buy the book because I wouldn't know if it's true or not, and you make it sound like it probably isn't - but let me tell
you there're are a lot of people who've watched this case for four years who've seen this wealthy couple who seem to be treated with kid gloves
and they wonder, "How long can this case go on?" You, on the other hand, have been in the DA's job for all these years and you probably know
that some cases aren't going to be solved, that the law isn't perfect. What should we know from your point of view, without giving away the
case, that we should know about this case that makes us wrong when we say, "Where the hell's this thing going?"

AH: You know it really is interesting - in the early days of this case, 30 days out, 60, 90 days out, the public and the media were crying about,
"How come this case isn't solved?" And you know, we would all shake our heads, and you know as a former police officer that cases don't get
solved in an hour like they do in some of the shows people watch. And I don't mean to talk down because I like those shows, and I'm always
amazed how they can pack it in in an hour.

But beyond that, since the Ramseys are clearly public figures, even if they can prove the falsity, they additionally have to prove some kind of
what's called "actual malice" in the law, which in layman's terms means that whoever is saying these things would have to have some
conscious knowledge that they're really not true. I think that's almost an impossible burden for any public figure libel plaintiff, and especially
the Ramseys.

PETROCELLI: Geraldo?

GERALDO: One second. It would just seem to me, Dori Ann, that what a suit against Steve Thomas would be, or really, even a suit against
someone like me, would be a mini-trial of the homicide, who did it, and they would have to open themselves up in a way that heretofore they have
not.

HANSWIRTH: Absolutely. And my guess is that they probably won't take it that far. They've extracted a settlement out of one publication and
just like Lin Wood did in the case of Richard Jewell, where he used some settlements to bankroll lawsuits against other publications, I think
that's what they're doing. Whether they will actually come forward under oath and say what really happened that night, that's anybody's guess.
But that's what they'd have to do.

SHARGEL: They're represented by counsel, and there's not a criminal defense lawyer in America who would advise them to go forward and be
deposed and testify at a trial.

GERALDO: Dan, you were saying?

PETROCELLI: When you're accused of something as heinous as this, and you want people to think you're innocent, whether or not you're
innocent, you file a libel suit. The purpose of these suits is strictly public relations. They rarely go to jury verdict and ironically, when they do
go to jury verdict, plaintiffs have a very good chance of success, especially high-profile plaintiffs. But putting that aside, there are so many
obstacles in these cases, as Dori Ann was pointing out, chief among which is that you have to prove malice.

GERALDO: And malice is not that easy.

PETROCELLI: I'll take your case, too, Geraldo, if you get sued.

GERALDO: Thank you. Thank you. I tell you, I'll take this crew to defend me. Gotta go.

Jameson's Posting:

My letter to WestWord

I read the book review on Steve Thomas' book - - the one calling it the "Best Book on the Murder of JonBenét Ramsey". What garbage!

Thomas carefully wrote that book making SURE to let the reader know it was NOT to be taken as FACT but his OPINION, his THEORY.

The BORG media (that means the lynch mob media) LOVED the book - but I honestly doubt most actually READ it.

Thomas built NO case against Patsy Ramsey.

His personal theory is NOT supported by the evidence. For example, the headwound bled VERY LITTLE - evidence the garrote was in place
first. But Thomas has the garrote placed on her long after the blow to the head and does not even attempt to explain the lack of bleeding in the
skull from a 8 inch fracture and displaced bone.

He misquoted some important people - Chet Ubowsky of the CBI, for example. He later admitted on Boyles show that he had never heard Chet
say that - but he heard someone else heard... and this was a DETECTIVE??? Heaven help us all!

Not one reporter writing on his book mentioned his "true professional" prime witness is discredited on page 284 - not one that I found. But
there is more to that story. Anyone wanting to find out the true story of Foster should visit my web page at

http://www.jameson245.com/Foster_Page.htm

The book review I just read ends with this - "He has been branded a bitter, irrational man, an incompetent cop and a money-hungry
publicity-seeker. Yet in this flurry of ad hominem recrimination, Thomas's facts have been neither addressed nor disproved. This book may
bring us as close as we'll ever come to understanding the murder of JonBenét."

Thomas knows the authorities are not going to open case files to discredit him - but John and Patsy Ramsey met Thomas on national TV, on
Larry King Live and DID tell him he was wrong, that he will be sued for his efforts to maliciously hurt the Ramsey family.

I have also had a small voice here. I am in Thomas' book. He totally misrepresented MY part inthis - and lying by omission is still lying.

I have taken the time to disect his book - not the best job, but adequate, I think. I have a companion to Thomas' book - read a chapter of his book then my comments - it might just open your eyes a bit.

http://www.jameson245.com/Thomasbook1.htm
http://www.jameson245.com/Thomasbook2.htm

Thanks for letting my voice be heard,
jameson

JonBenét Chronicler Seeks to Seal Deposition

R. Robin McDonald
Fulton County Daily Report
09-18-2002

A former Colorado detective who mined confidential police files for his book about the 1996 slaying of
JonBenét Ramsey has sought to seal permanently the deposition he gave in connection with a libel
case filed by the child's family. CBS Broadcasting Inc. in turn has asked a federal judge in Atlanta to
reject former Boulder detective Steve Thomas' attempts.

L. Lin Wood Jr., who deposed Thomas for clients John B. and Patricia P. "Patsy" Ramsey, said that in
the deposition Thomas responded to allegations that he disclosed confidential police information to
the media. The deposition also explored how Thomas acquired confidential information included in his
book, Wood said. Thomas also was questioned about who served as anonymous sources for Vanity
Fair, which published an article on JonBenét's slaying, and for a national tabloid reporter who also
covered the case.

The deposition was taken under a blanket protective order that allowed either party to the litigation
and witnesses to request confidentiality for discovery materials, including depositions.

On Sept. 11, U.S. District Judge Julie E. Carnes of the Northern District of Georgia denied Thomas'
motion for a permanent protective order that would have sealed his deposition. Carnes gave Thomas
until Oct. 1 to file a "good cause" motion arguing why certain sections of the deposition should remain
under seal.

Carnes also denied CBS' motion to intervene, but will allow the broadcasting company a second
opportunity if Thomas refashions his request. CBS is seeking access to the deposition because it has
reported and continues to report extensively on the Ramsey case.

Wood deposed Thomas in connection with a defamation suit filed against the Ramseys in Atlanta by
former Boulder resident Robert Christian Wolf. Wolf v. John B. Ramsey, No. 1:00-cv-1187 (N.D. Ga.
Sept. 11, 2002). Wolf claims that the couple libeled him in their book about their daughter's killing,
"The Death of Innocence," when they listed him among those Boulder police investigated.

The Ramseys separately had filed an $80 million defamation suit against Thomas and St. Martin's Press
over his book "JonBenét: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation," which pointed to Patsy Ramsey as
her daughter's killer. That case settled earlier this year. The terms are sealed.

In seeking to open Thomas' deposition to public scrutiny, CBS argued that in his book, Thomas himself
made public the subject matter of much of his deposition. Thomas, on the other hand, argued that a
blanket protective order was justified because the Ramseys intended to use it in a "vast media
campaign" against him. The Ramseys have objected to sealing all but several select portions of the
deposition that focuses on other individuals who were scrutinized by police as potential suspects,
Wood said.

Meanwhile, a letter supposedly written by Thomas and circulating on the Internet "sounds like him"
and, if Thomas did write it, potentially violates the Ramseys' settlement agreement, Wood said.

The letter, dated Aug. 6, when it was posted on the Internet, and signed by Thomas, calls the
Ramseys' suit against Thomas "frivolous." "My absolute requirement for any resolution was the
mandate that I would admit no wrongdoing whatsover, nor would I personally pay a single dollar in
settlement," the Internet letter stated. "And that is exactly what was achieved with this resolution.
... I will continue to speak on the case whenver I wish. I continue to stand resolutely by my book and
the opinions I expressed in it. My beliefs have not changed.

"Again, I want to reiterate that I personally paid not one red cent, not one thin dime, not one single
dollar to settle this suit. I tried to the very end to take a principled position in this tragic case, and I
believe I have done so." Neither Thomas nor his publicist could be reached to confirm that he authored
the Internet letter.

"Clearly, he's just trying to parse words and spin to his Internet supporters and people foolish enough
to send him money," Wood said. But he acknowledged that the settlement agreement did permit
Thomas to discuss publicly a "general characterization of the settlement and the motive for
settlement of the case."

Thomas, according to Wood, "obviously was trying, through a very careful selection of words to
convey no money was paid to the Ramseys and that was just not true. ... The bottom line is that this
is not a violation, at least at this point in time, that the Ramseys would pursue."