M. Defendants Set the Stage for Their Preposterous Theory that Burke Killed
JonBenét for Taking His Pineapple
640. Defendants absurdly claim that Burke knew that the pineapple is the smoking gun
for this crime, and that he then successfully deceived law enforcement as to his knowledge.
Page 95 of 108
641. The false and defamatory gist of this section is that Burke killed JonBenét after
becoming enraged when she took a piece of his pineapple without asking, lied to investigators,
and was complicit in the cover-up of JonBenét’s death.
642. Defendants attempt to support this preconceived gist by reviewing pre-selected
excerpts from Burke’s interview with Boulder PD Detective Schuler eighteen months after
JonBenét’s death (the “Schuler Interview”).
643. Defendants use the Schuler Interview to set the stage for their knowingly false,
defamatory, and purely speculative accusation that Burke killed JonBenét over a piece of
pineapple and then stabbed her with his toy train track. These theories are taken straight from
Foreign Faction. See, e.g., pp. 65, 343, 384-385.
644. Defendants go so far as to make the inherently improbable assertion that during
the Schuler Interview, Burke is “aware that that piece of pineapple in JonBenét’s stomach
actually creates a major problem in terms of the timeline of when and how she was killed.”
645. Defendants knowingly fail to disclose that they have no basis whatsoever to assert
that Burke, at eleven-years-old, is playing a high-stakes game of cat and mouse with Detective
Schuler.
646. In this segment, Defendants continue to cast a shadow over Burke’s alleged
improper behavior during interviews.
647. For instance, Clemente claims that Burke is “acting like a smart aleck here, like
I’m smart and I’m proud of myself.” Clemente’s knowingly false and defamatory implication is
that Burke is proud of himself for outsmarting law enforcement by hiding that he killed
JonBenét.
Page 96 of 108
648. Clemente also falsely accuses Burke of deception because he “oversell[s]” when
he states “I always sleep really deeply and I can never hear anything.”
649. Defendants then use two topics raised by Detective Schuler as a springboard for
two key aspects of their version of events: the purported pineapple in JonBenét’s lower intestine
and Burke’s toy train track.
650. For instance, Defendants show an excerpt of Burke responding yes to Detective
Schuler’s question about JonBenét liking pineapple, and then Defendants pounce. Defendants
make the false and defamatory accusation that Burke lost his temper and bludgeoned JonBenét
with a flashlight because she at a piece of his pineapple.
651. Defendants then preface their wildly false and speculative conclusion by stating
that the pineapple issue “might look quite innocuous and inconsequential but it also tells us a lot
about what probably went on” that night.
652. Defendants knowingly and falsely claim that the pineapple “gives us a possible
timeline,” because “the pineapple was ingested subsequently” to the Ramseys returning home
from dinner at the Whites.
653. Defendants conjecture is particularly far reaching in this segment. Spitz
extrapolates from his “three children” in order to accuse Burke of killing JonBenét:
Clemente: But it’s certainly reasonable to believe that JonBenét may have snatched one
piece.
Spitz: Right, directly with her fingers. For estimating time of death, this is important.
Clemente: Isn’t it possible that JonBenét came down and saw that Burke was eating this,
and took one piece? She didn’t touch the bowl, she didn’t touch the spoon—
Spitz: You know, I have three grandchildren myself. Kids will do that. They’ll go by and
pick out a piece with their fingers.
Page 97 of 108
654. To convince their audience that their rampant speculation is accurate, Defendants
splice in a clip of a blonde girl stealing a piece of pineapple from a young boy, who, in turn,
violently grabs the girl by the wrist.
655. Upon information and belief, Defendants had actual knowledge and failed to
disclose that a Boulder PD analysis after the autopsy determined that JonBenét’s small intestine
had the remnants cherries, grapes, and pineapple—common fruit cocktail ingredients. Yet,
because the presence of cherries and grapes completely undermines Defendants’ series of events,
Defendants consciously fail to share their knowledge with the viewer. Instead, Spitz merely asks
“Did the pathology report indicate what the pineapple looked like, or the gastric contents?”
656. Further, Spitz is aware that the presence of the fruit cocktail in JonBenét’s
stomach does not establish a concrete timeline from which investigators may glean her time of
death, and that the minimum amount of time it would require for the fruit to get to JonBenét’s
lower intestine undermines the theory that it “started the cascade of the rest of events that
happened on the day she died.”
657. Defendants also knowingly failed to disclose that the amount of time it would
have taken the pineapple to travel to JonBenét’s small intestine is fundamentally inconsistent
with the Burke-did-it accusation.
658. Defendants then note that while Burke and Patsy’s fingertips are on the bowl of
pineapple, JonBenét’s are not. This is explainable, Defendants speculate, because she must have
only taken “one piece” but “didn’t touch the bowl” or “touch the spoon.”
659. Defendants have no factual basis for speculating that JonBenét took a piece of
Burke’s pineapple, much less that her fingerprints are not present on Defendants’ purported
smoking gun because she only “snatched one piece.”
Page 98 of 108
660. The fact JonBenét’s fingerprints are not on the bowl of pineapple or the spoon is
actually strong evidence that she did not eat the pineapple from the bowl.
661. Upon information and belief, Defendants knowingly failed to disclose that there
was more than one piece of fruit in JonBenét’s digestive tract.
662. Upon information and belief, Defendants knowingly failed to disclose that there
was more than one type of fruit in JonBenét’s digestive tract.
663. Defendants next use a clip of Burke affirming that he had an electric train set to
Schuler as an opportunity to replace the stun gun with Burke’s toy train. “It was an incredible
discovery, to find a toy in the house that could have been responsible for these injuries. . . . An
adult would have been calling 9-1-1 for an ambulance.”
664. Pseudo-Expert Kolar then repeats his entirely speculative accusation, discussed
above, that Burke used one of his train toys to inflict the supposed stun gun injuries on JonBenét.
See Foreign Faction, pp. 384-385.
N. Defendants Pronouncement that Burke Killed JonBenét
665. After Defendants presented the limited “evidence” they could muster against
Burke, Defendants announced the conclusion of their “complete reinvestigation” in rapid-fire
succession.
666. The inescapable false and defamatory conclusion of this final segment is that
Burke killed JonBenét.
667. Defendants began this segment with Clemente proclaiming their goal:
Now that we’ve been investigating for months, we’ve been working together as a
team, I think we need to actually try to piece together everything that happened.
Anybody who does a legitimate investigation will look at all the evidence and see
where that evidence takes you. So we have to test every theory and the ones that
remain, are the ones that are supported by the evidence.
Page 99 of 108
668. Defendants first agreed quickly and with little examination—correctly—that
neither John or Patsy killed JonBenét.
669. Defendants then declared that there was no intruder: “I don’t think the evidence
that stands up to scientific or behavioral scrutiny indicates that somebody came in from outside
that home and killed JonBenét.”
670. Defendants falsely attacked the intruder theory by proclaiming “that the DNA
evidence in this case is totally erroneous” and there is “really no sexual assault here.”
671. Richards then invited Kolar to share what he believes happened that night, as
though she did not already know: “James, I’m interested to know what exactly you think
happened in the house that night.”
672. Kolar then stated the grand accusation against Burke—the same one from Foreign
Faction:
My hypothesis was that I think the Ramseys came home around 9:30, 10:00
o’clock. I think JonBenét was asleep. I think John did carry her upstairs. Patsy
remained downstairs with Burke and served him the tea and the pineapple. I think
that accounts for the physical evidence as well as the latent prints. Then I think
she got JonBenét up to make sure she used the toilet so she didn’t wet the bed that
night. JonBenét was up, she may or may not have brushed her teeth. That stuff
was out on the counter. And then I think she was up and awake enough, but she
maybe was still hungry and went downstairs. In the meantime, Patsy continued
packing for the Michigan trip. I think if Burke was upset about circumstances or
Christmas presents, he probably would’ve been upset about her trying to snag a
piece of pineapple. Out of anger he may have struck her with that flashlight.
673. Without further discussion, the remaining five Pseudo-Experts unanimously
agreed with Kolar’s accusation that Burke killed JonBenét with the Flashlight over a piece of
pineapple:
Spitz: “I think we all agree on that.”
Clemente: “Yeah.”
Page 100 of 108

STATE OF MICHIGAN
IN THE 3RD CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF WAYNE
BURKE RAMSEY
Plaintiff,
v.
CBS CORPORATION, CRITICAL CONTENT, LLC,
JIM CLEMENTE, LAURA RICHARDS, A. JAMES
KOLAR, JAMES R. FITZGERALD, STANLEY B.
BURKE, WERNER U. SPITZ, and HENRY C. LEE,
Defendants.
____________________________________________/
Case No. ____________-CZ
Hon. ___________________
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
LAW OFFICES OF JOHN A. LESKO, ESQ.
John A. Lesko (P55397)
JL@DetroitCounsel.com
134 N. Main St.
Plymouth, MI 48170
(734) 652-1338
L. LIN WOOD, P.C.
L. Lin Wood (pro hac vice pending)
lwood@linwoodlaw.com
Nicole Jennings Wade (pro hac vice pending)
nwade@linwoodlaw.com
Jonathan D. Grunberg (pro hac vice pending)
jgrunberg@linwoodlaw.com
G. Taylor Wilson (pro hac vice pending)
twilson@linwoodlaw.com
1180 West Peachtree Street
Suite 2400
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
404-891-1402
404-506-9111 (fax)
Attorneys for Plaintiff Burke Ramsey
____________________________________________/
COMPLAINT FOR DEFAMATION
There is no other pending or resolved civil action
arising out of the transaction or occurrences alleged in this Complaint.
FILED IN MY OFFICE
WAYNE COUNTY CLERK
12/28/2016 2:13:24 PM
CATHY M. GARRETT
16-017577-CZ
DB
Page 2 of 108
NOW COMES Plaintiff, Burke Ramsey, and states his Complaint for Defamation against
Defendants CBS Corporation, Critical Content, LLC, Jim Clemente, Laura Richards, James
Kolar, James R. Fitzgerald, Stanley B. Burke, Werner Spitz, and Henry C. Lee (collectively,
“Defendants”), showing the Court as follows:
INTRODUCTION
1. This defamation action is brought by Burke Ramsey to redress the permanent
damage to his reputation resulting from Defendants’ false accusation that he killed his sister,
JonBenét Ramsey.
2. This action arises out of the four-hour documentary, The Case of: JonBenét
Ramsey, broadcast by CBS Corporation (“CBS”) on primetime television in two-hour shows that
aired on September 18, 2016, and September 19, 2016 (“the Documentary”).
3. CBS aired the Documentary during a critical time in the fall schedule, as CBS
was looking to gain viewers to launch its new primetime season.
4. Approximately 10.4 million people tuned in to view the September 18th show and
approximately 8.24 million tuned in to watch the September 19th show.
5. Because CBS represented and promoted The Case of: JonBenét Ramsey as a
documentary, viewers expected a presentation of factual information about real people, places,
and events that was truthful.
6. CBS represented and promoted The Case of: JonBenét Ramsey as a documentary
that would reveal the truth as to who killed JonBenét Ramsey—a question that has captivated the
world for twenty years since her December 1996 murder in Boulder, Colorado.
7. CBS represented and promoted that the Documentary would reveal the truth by
presenting to viewers “new witnesses,” “new evidence,” and “new theories.”
Page 3 of 108
8. CBS further represented and promoted that for the Documentary, it had assembled
a highly skilled team of seven “world renowned” investigators who would conduct a “complete
reinvestigation starting right from scratch,” including a re-examination of crucial evidence.
9. The gist of The Case of: JonBenét Ramsey is that JonBenét’s brother, Burke
Ramsey, killed his six-year old sister.
10. At the time of her death, Burke Ramsey was nine-years old.
11. The gist of The Case of: JonBenét Ramsey is false and defamatory per se.
12. Burke Ramsey did not kill his sister and had no involvement in her brutal murder.
13. As far back as 1998, law enforcement authorities responsible for the JonBenét
Ramsey murder investigation have repeatedly, publicly and unequivocally cleared Burke
Ramsey of any involvement in the death of his sister.
14. Law enforcement officials publicly declared that Burke Ramsey was not a suspect
in a 1998 press release by former Boulder Police Chief Mark Beckner, in a 1999 press statement
by special grand jury prosecutor Michael Kane, in a 1999 press release and a 2000 sworn
affidavit by former Boulder District Attorney Alex Hunter, and in a 2003 press release and a
2008 letter by former Boulder District Attorney Mary Lacy.
15. CBS perpetrated a fraud upon the public—instead of being a documentary based
on a new investigation by a so-called team of experts, The Case of: JonBenét Ramsey was a
fictional crime show based primarily on a preconceived storyline scripted in a self-published and
commercially unsuccessful book, Foreign Faction, written by Defendant James Kolar (“Kolar”)
and published in 2012.
16. Defendants’ accusation that Burke Ramsey killed his sister was not based on
truthful facts, new witnesses, new evidence, or new theories.
Page 4 of 108
17. Defendants’ accusation that Burke Ramsey killed his sister was based on a
compilation of lies, half-truths, manufactured information, and the intentional omission and
avoidance of truthful information about the murder of JonBenét Ramsey.
18. Defendants’ accusation that Burke Ramsey killed his sister was negligently
published and was published with actual knowledge of falsity and/or a reckless disregard of the
truth.
THE PARTIES
19. Plaintiff Burke Ramsey (“Burke”) is a resident of the State of Michigan.
20. Burke has continuously resided in Charlevoix, Michigan, since August of 2015,
where he is currently employed as a software engineer.
21. Burke was born on January 27, 1987, in Atlanta, Georgia, and is 29-years-old.
22. At the time of his sister’s death in December of 1996, Burke resided in Boulder,
Colorado, with his sister and their parents, John Ramsey (“John”) and Patsy Ramsey (“Patsy”).
23. In December of 1996 and for a brief period thereafter, John and Patsy had a
second home in Charlevoix, where the family would frequently visit on holidays and in the
summer months.
24. In 2002, Charlevoix became Burke, John, and Patsy’s permanent home.
25. Burke graduated from Charlevoix High School in 2005.
26. Burke graduated from Purdue University.
27. Burke has no history of criminal conduct, sexual abuse, drug abuse, alcohol
abuse, or any type of violent behavior.
28. Burke is a private citizen and has never attained the status of public figure for
purposes of filing and prosecuting a defamation action to seek redress for false attacks on his
Page 5 of 108
reputation. Since the time of his sister’s death until September of this year, Burke never
voluntarily participated in any media or public interviews to discuss his sister’s tragic murder.
29. In September of this year, following decades of silence and only after learning
that CBS was planning to broadcast a JonBenét Ramsey show based on Foreign Faction in
which it would accuse him of killing JonBenét, Burke exercised his right of reasonable response
by granting one interview to Dr. Phil McGraw in which he denied any involvement in
JonBenét’s murder.
30. Defendant CBS is a Delaware corporation, with its principal place of business
located at 51 West 52nd Street, New York, New York 10019.
31. CBS represents on its website that it “is a mass media company that creates and
distributes industry-leading content across a variety of platforms to audiences around the world.”
About CBS Corporation, http://www.cbscorporation.com/about-cbs/ (last visited Dec. 21, 2016).
CBS “has businesses with origins that date back to the dawn of the broadcasting age as well as
new ventures that operate on the leading edge of media.” Id. CBS claims that it “owns the mostwatched
television network in the United States and one of the world’s largest libraries of
entertainment content, making its brand—‘the Eye’—one of the most recognized in business.”
Id. The company’s “operations span virtually every field of media and entertainment, including
cable, publishing, radio, local TV, film, and interactive and socially responsible media.” Id.
Through one of its subsidiaries, CBS owns and operates a television station in Detroit,
Michigan—WWJ-TV.
32. In calendar year 2015, CBS reported gross revenues of almost $14 Billion
($13,886,000,000) and net earnings of nearly $1.5 Billion ($1,413,000,000).
Page 6 of 108
33. Defendant Critical Content, LLC (“Critical Content”), is a California limited
liability company with its principal place of business located at 1040 North Las Palmas Avenue,
Building 40, Los Angeles, California 90038.
34. According to its website, “Critical Content is a leading global independent content
studio.” About Critical Content, http://www.criticalcontent.com/about.html (last visited Dec. 21,
2016). Critical Content, which was “[l]aunched in October of 2015, . . . focuses on unscripted
and scripted programming for broadcast, cable and digital platforms.” Id. The company
“currently has more than 60 projects in production for more than 30 different networks.” Id.
Critical Contents’ series include Limitless (CBS), Home Free (FOX), Catfish (MTV), and The
Woodsmen (History).
35. Previously known as Relativity Television, Critical Content reemerged from a
2015 bankruptcy filing with a reported $100 Million ($100,000,000) in new financing and no
debt.
36. Critical Content’s relationship with CBS is well-established. Tom Forman, CEO
of Critical Content and Executive Producer of the Documentary, previously ran a production
company called Tom Forman Productions, which produced series and pilots airing on CBS. He
is the former long-time producer of CBS’s 48 Hours. Critical Content and CBS have recently
partnered on CBS’s hit series Limitless. See http://www.criticalcontent.com/.
37. Defendant Jim Clemente (“Clemente”) is a resident of the State of California and
played an acting role in the Documentary as one of the seven “world renowned” investigators
who would allegedly conduct a “complete reinvestigation starting right from scratch.”
38. Upon information and belief, Defendant Laura Richards’ (“Richards”) is a
resident of California and played an acting role in the Documentary as one of the seven “world
Page 7 of 108
renowned” investigators who would allegedly conduct a “complete reinvestigation starting right
from scratch.”
39. Defendant James R. Fitzgerald (“Fitzgerald”) is a resident of the State of Virginia
and played an acting role in the Documentary as one of the seven “world renowned”
investigators who would allegedly conduct a “complete reinvestigation starting right from
scratch.”
40. Defendant Stanley B. Burke (“Stanley”) is a resident of the State of Virginia and
played an acting role in the Documentary as one of the seven “world renowned” investigators
who would allegedly conduct a “complete reinvestigation starting right from scratch.”
41. Defendant Werner U. Spitz (“Spitz”) is a resident of the State of Michigan who
has a place of business and conducts business in Wayne County. Spitz is a well-known
television talking head who frequently interjects himself into high profile cases for publicity and
profit. Spitz also played an acting role in the Documentary as one of the seven “world
renowned” investigators who would allegedly conduct a “complete reinvestigation starting right
from scratch.”
42. Defendant Henry C. Lee (“Lee”) is a resident of the State of Connecticut. Lee is a
well-known television talking head who frequently interjects himself into high profile cases for
publicity and profit. Lee also played an acting role in the Documentary as one of the seven
“world renowned” investigators who would allegedly conduct a “complete reinvestigation
starting right from scratch.”
43. Defendant A. James Kolar (“Kolar”) is a resident of the State of Colorado. Since
he was the author of the book relied upon as a script for the Documentary, Kolar also played an
Page 8 of 108
acting role in the Documentary as one of the seven “world renowned” investigators who would
allegedly conduct a “complete reinvestigation starting right from scratch.”
44. Kolar was a police officer who was briefly employed by the Boulder District
Attorney’s Office from 2004 to the Spring of 2006.
45. Kolar was hired by then Boulder DA Mary Lacy as an experienced agency
administrator to help build an investigations unit.
46. Kolar had no significant experience in criminal homicide investigations and no
cold case homicide experience, but claimed that as of July 2005, he was taking the place of
former lead Ramsey investigator Tom Bennett, who had retired from the Boulder DA’s Office.
47. Prior to July 2005, Kolar had never been involved in the law enforcement
investigation of the murder of JonBenét Ramsey.
48. In July 2005, Kolar acknowledged that he was unfamiliar with the JonBenét
Ramsey investigative files and that it would take “some period of time” to become fully
acquainted with the investigative files.
49. Subsequently, Kolar requested a meeting with then Boulder DA Lacy and key
members of her team and much to the surprise of the Boulder DA, announced at the meeting his
theory that Burke committed the murder and claimed that he had gone through the investigative
files searching for any tidbit that might be used to support his theory.
50. The presentation by Kolar to members of the Boulder DA’s Office of his
accusation against Burke has been described, among other descriptive terms, as “ludicrous,”
“total smoke and mirrors,” and “speculation based on hearsay.”
51. Kolar’s employment at the Boulder DA’s Office ended shortly after his
presentation in the Spring of 2006.
Page 9 of 108
52. Kolar subsequently sought to personally profit from his rejected theory against
Burke by writing Foreign Faction, which he self-published after the manuscript was rejected by
traditional publishing houses.
53. Prior to 2016, Kolar also contacted several members of the mainstream media,
including CBS, ABC, and NBC, seeking interviews and publicity for his book, but his
promotional efforts were uniformly rejected.
54. Although Burke was aware of the self-publication of Foreign Faction, he did not
sue Kolar for libel because (a) the book had no audience and received little or no publicity, (b)
the accusations were ridiculous and had been rejected by law enforcement authorities and the
mainstream media, © he did not wish to elevate Kolar or his book to a position of credibility
they did not deserve, (d) the book was a miserable failure, and (e) its publication did not at that
time cause any significant harm to Burke’s reputation.
55. In May and June of 2016, Burke was shocked to learn of rumors circulating in the
media community that CBS was planning to produce and broadcast a documentary based on
Foreign Faction.

  quote.pdf (Size: 440.84 KB / Downloads: 8)
OK, I am looking at the files on the DNA - lots of stuff to read and it took a long time to find the report I feel is most important.

IMO, the whole file boils down to a single fact.  While some of the DNA can be disputed, there is a single piece of evidence that points directly to the man who was with JonBenét when she died. 



That man left his DNA mixed with her blood in her panties when he sexually assaulted her.



Amy Jeanguenat is the DNA expert who worked on this sample at BODE Laboratories.  I am looking at the results of the lab report that went to Investigator Tom Bennett.  There are 13 locus listed and allelles after each separate loci.  In other words, they have the killer's DNA profile and can solve this case!


To those who would say the DNA is "iffy" or "mud" or had multiple sources, I say that simply is not true and this report proves it.  

THE QUOTE:





"When asked, Jeanguenat stated that she saw no indication

that a third party contributed to the mixture and would

'testify in court' to that effect."

OK, I am looking at the files on the DNA - lots of stuff to read and it took a long time to find the report I feel is most important.

IMO, the whole file boils down to a single fact.  While some of the DNA can be disputed, there is a single piece of evidence that points directly to the man who was with JonBenét when she died. 




That man left his DNA mixed with her blood in her panties when he sexually assaulted her.



Amy Jeanguenat is the DNA expert who worked on this sample at BODE Laboratories.  I am looking at the results of the lab report that went to Investigator Tom Bennett.  There are 13 locus listed and allelles after each separate loci.  In other words, they have the killer's DNA profile and can solve this case!


To those who would say the DNA is "iffy" or "mud" or had multiple sources, I say that simply is not true and this report proves it.  

THE QUOTE:

   

I thought the rope looked the same but was told one was much more pliable than the other and the diameters were different- they were NOT the same.

I was not told that by the Ramseys and don't know if they ever got to compare the ropes side by side - - don't know where the rope is that was used in the photo shoot.

Ramsey book creators sued
Former reporter says book libels him
By Camera staff
October 15, 2002
A former newspaper tabloid writer has filed a lawsuit against a publisher and an author he says libeled and defamed him in the book "Perfect Murder, Perfect Town," a publication about the JonBenet Ramsey murder investigation.
Jeffrey Shapiro, 29, of Florida, who wrote about the high-profile homicide for the Globe, filed his case on Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Albuquerque, N.M., because the state has a three-year statute of limitations on libel and defamation cases.
The book, written by Lawrence Schiller and published by Harper Collins Publishers Inc. in February 1999 in hardcover and in November 1999 in paperback, was distributed throughout the country.
According to the complaint, Shapiro says one sentence in the book contains a libelous statement that could have been corrected before paperback editions were printed.
"It's one sentence with pretty substantial ramifications," Shapiro's Los Angeles attorney, Neville L. Johnson, said Monday.
That sentence implicates Shapiro in an alleged extortion of former Boulder police Det. Steve Thomas when, in reality, Shapiro warned authorities of the crime, records showed.
In August 1998, the Globe editors told Shapiro of plans to blackmail Thomas into providing details of the investigation, according to the complaint. Shapiro then told Thomas and police Chief Mark Beckner about the tabloid's plan to extort Thomas, the document showed.
Two months later, Shapiro reported the plot to the FBI, the complaint said. Shapiro was fired in February 1999.
The lawsuit alleges that during a conversation with Schiller before the book was published, Schiller read a passage to Shapiro that said, "... Shapiro had a conversation with the FBI about the possibility someone had engaged in extortion with Thomas."
The published passage said "Several months later, the FBI talked to Shapiro about the possibility that he had engaged in extortion with Thomas."
In a subsequent conversation with Schiller, which Shapiro recorded, the author said he would change the sentence before the paperbacks were published. It was not changed, Shapiro's attorneys said.
"He's the man who went to the FBI to say my supervisors want to do something bad," Johnson said. "We've got Schiller admitting that he was incorrect."
Schiller said Monday night he had not seen the lawsuit, and declined to comment.
The suit is one of several that have sprung from the 1996 slaying of the Boulder girl. JonBenet's beaten and garroted body was found the basement of her parent's Boulder home on Dec. 26 of that year. The murder has gone unsolved.
http://www.dailycamera.com/bdc/city_news...66,00.html




 
1. "DP story"
In response to message #0
 
  
JonBenét book spurs libel suit
By Jim Kirksey
Denver Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, October 15, 2002 - Former Globe newspaper freelance reporter Jeffrey Shapiro contends that "Perfect Murder, Perfect Town," the book about the murder of JonBenét Ramsey and the subsequent investigation, is not a perfect account.
Shapiro has filed a libel suit against the book's author, Lawrence Schiller, saying the book misrepresents Shapiro's role in an alleged extortion plot by the editors of the Globe against former Boulder detective Steve Thomas in an attempt to get information about the case from Thomas.
Shapiro says in the suit that he warned Thomas of the extortion plot, then told Boulder police and the FBI, even playing tapes of his conversations with the Globe editors where the plot was discussed.
The former reporter contends he explained his role in the matter to Schiller on three occasions, and that role was acknowledged by the author. In the book, however, Schiller wrote that "the FBI talked to Shapiro about the possibility that he had engaged in extortion with Thomas."
The suit filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court in New Mexico does not specify damages, but there is a floor of $75,000 at issue to qualify for filing in U.S. District Court.
The suit was filed in New Mexico because the statute of limitations is less restrictive in that state, said Shapiro's attorney, Neville Johnson.
Schiller said he was not aware of the suit. Attempts to reach co-defendant HarperCollins Publishers, which published the book, late Monday afternoon were not successful.

http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413...7E,00.html


 


@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
  
EXHIBIT 1
Page 722 "Perfect Murder, Perfect Town" soft-back:
Shapiro said. Thomas thought the reporter was playing
good cop, bad cop – the oldest trick in the book.
“They know about your mother, Shapiro continued.
“We know she committed suicide.”
“My mother…my mother…”Thomas said, staring at
Shapiro.” You’ve got that all wrong. Thomas had been just
seven years old when his mother became suddenly ill and
died.
“I don’t want to see that story run,” Shapiro said. “I’m
just trying to protect you.”
But the way Thomas saw it, Shapiro was trying to buy
him. He told the reporter to leave at once.
three days later, a FedEx package arrived at Thomas’s
home. In it was a letter from Craig Lewis of the Globe, who requested an interview. Enclosed
were pictures of Thomas’s
long-deceased mother and late aunt, who had died of brain
cancer.
That afternoon, Thomas told his lawyer to write
Shapiro and the Globe that any further contact with him
would be met with legal action. Before long, Thomas heard
that the DA’s office was floating a rumor that mental
instability ran in his family.
Several months later, the FBI talked to Shapiro about
the possibility that he had engaged in extortion with Thomas.
Shapiro played them a tape he had recorded during a
conversation with Globe staff, where the topic of how to go about
levereging Detective Steve Thomas had been discussed.
Thomas decided not to press charges against the Globe
or any of its employees and the FBI dropped the investigation
for the time being. To clear his own name, Shapiro
went public with excerpts from more than half a dozen
phone conversations he’s recorded with his editors at the
Globe. It wasn’t long before he was appearing on TV and in such publications as Editor and
Publisher with his views on
tabloid journalism.

Just posted the Dec. 2016 story Charlie Brennan did on a grand juror speaking out.  First a quote, then my comments.

The quote:

The grand juror briefly laid out several reasons central to why the grand jury voted to indict John and Patsy Ramsey.

The reasons offered by the juror are:

• "No evidence of an intruder. No footprints in the snow, no physical evidence left behind."

• "The killer was in the house for hours between the blow to the head and the strangling."

• "The location of the body in a hard-to-find room."

• "The ransom note written in the house with weird personal information and never a ransom call."

• The juror, after rattling off those points, then posed a question: "Also, how much evidence is there really that this was a sex crime?"

My comments:

Remembering the Grand Jury was seated for over a year, and that the prosecutors were trying to get Patsy arrested.  Remembering that while Lou Smit did get to speak to them he felt the persecutors were treating him with disrespect and trying to make the jury see him as less than a stellar investigator - - I have this to say.

Did no one tell them that John Fernie walked from the alleyway to the south door and then to the front door - - and if prints would have shown at all, his would have.  There were no prints in the snow because the walkways were CLEAR.

The jury didn't see evidence of anything left behind?

 Did they not hear that Dr. Doberson would testify that the marks on her body were, "to a medical certainty", caused by a stun gun and that the police could not link any Ramsey to a stun gun? 

Did they not know the cord and tape matched nothing in the house?

How about the fibers, the beaver hair, the prints, the pubic hair found on the blanket?

Did no one tell them about the foreign DNA mixed with the child's blood in her panties?

Did LE actually LIE to them about the head blow coming an hour before she died?  Did their common sense not tell them there would have been a lot of bleeding if she had lived any length of time after he skull was broken like that?

The ransom note written in the house - - and the handwriting not matching either Ramsey - - in fact far from a match for either one.

The weirdness - - would it not be more likely for a rich family staging a kidnapping to ask for a million, to include the daughter's name and NOT spend so much time writing a note to leave WITH a body?

Did no one point out the similarities in the note to other documents and movies?  The author watched movies and read about old crimes like Leopold, Loeb and Bobby Franks.

Did they really think loving and caring parents would not call for help if they saw their daughter in need?

And to answer the question, she was sexually violated by someone who would torture her with a garrote.  Was this a sex crime?  It wasn't an invite to a picnic!

Ramsey grand juror welcomes new DNA tests, discusses reasons for indicting parents
But juror says DNA didn't play big role in deliberations
By Charlie Brennan

Staff Writer
Posted: 12/16/2016 03:28:33 PM MST

Members of the Boulder County grand jury that investigated the JonBenet Ramsey case leave the Justice Center after the panel was disbanded on Oct. 13,
Members of the Boulder County grand jury that investigated the JonBenet Ramsey case leave the Justice Center after the panel was disbanded on Oct. 13, 1999.(Camera file photo)

A JonBenet Ramsey case grand juror on Friday applauded the news that there is to be a new round of DNA testing in the unsolved investigation, but is unsure that it will necessarily lead to the killer's identity.

Also, exclusively to the Daily Camera, the juror cited key reasons that the grand jury voted to indict John and Patsy Ramsey in their child's Christmas night 1996 murder — indictments never prosecuted by then-Boulder County District Attorney Alex Hunter, due to his belief there was insufficient evidence to prove a case beyond reasonable doubt.

"I am glad to hear that there will be new DNA testing," said the juror, who offered the comments based on assurance of anonymity.

The Ramsey grand jury heard evidence in the case from September 1998 to October 1999 before it was disbanded.

"I'm also feeling doubtful that it will bring the killer to justice," the juror said. "But I know that other cases are being solved after much time has passed with new technology, so perhaps this can be, too."

The juror had seen the news on Tuesday when it was reported that, following a joint investigation by the Camera and 9NEWS raising concerns about the DNA-based exoneration of the Ramsey family, police and prosecutors are planning to submit certain evidence to the latest generation of DNA testing.

"I was happy to see that it's moving forward," the juror said, "but not that hopeful of a resolution."

Until now, it has never been known to what extent DNA evidence — far less advanced in the late 1990s than it is today — had influenced the jury's decision- making process.

Not very much, according to this juror.

"To me, it seemed like the DNA evidence was just inconclusive. I don't remember it playing a major role in our discussions, because what did it mean?" the juror said. "It didn't seem to include or exclude anyone."

A subsequent round of additional DNA testing on which then-District Attorney Mary Lacy based her July 9, 2008, exoneration letter — which has repeatedly been dismissed as "meaningless" by her successor, Stan Garnett — was not initiated until late in 2007, eight years after the Ramsey grand jury disbanded.

Multiple experts contacted this year through the Camera/9NEWS investigation said Lacy's letter greatly overstated the certainty or clarity of the results reached through that later round of testing. Those experts also said there was no way to state — as Lacy did — that the DNA profile identified by her office as "Unknown Male 1" had to be that of JonBenet's killer.

Reasons for the Ramsey indictment

The grand juror briefly laid out several reasons central to why the grand jury voted to indict John and Patsy Ramsey.

The reasons offered by the juror are:

• "No evidence of an intruder. No footprints in the snow, no physical evidence left behind."

• "The killer was in the house for hours between the blow to the head and the strangling."

• "The location of the body in a hard-to-find room."

• "The ransom note written in the house with weird personal information and never a ransom call."

• The juror, after rattling off those points, then posed a question: "Also, how much evidence is there really that this was a sex crime?"

The grand jury indictments of the Ramseys remained perhaps the best-kept secret of the star-crossed case until January 2013, when it was first reported by the Camera that the jury had voted to indict both parents on charges of child abuse resulting in death.

A reporter's subsequent lawsuit resulted in an October 2013 decision by a judge to unseal those indictments, which not only confirmed the indictments' existence, but also revealed that both parents also had been indicted on a second charge, that of accessory to an unidentified third person in the crime of first-degree murder.
 
Holiday stirs memories

Patsy Ramsey died in 2006, after a 13-year battle with ovarian cancer. Both of JonBenet's parents steadfastly asserted their innocence in the case, and have said that an unknown killer broke into their home while the family was attending a Christmas night party, then waited for the family to return and retire to bed before targeting JonBenet.

JonBenet was found Dec. 26, 1996, in a little-used basement room, having suffered a fractured skull and asphyxiation by a garrote. A strip of duct tape covered her mouth and her wrists were loosely bound.

Patsy Ramsey reported finding a 2-½ page ransom note shortly before dawn that day, demanding the unusual sum of $118,000 for her child's safe return. There was never any attempt to actually collect on that demand prior to JonBenet's body being discovered by her father and a family friend early that afternoon.

The juror confessed to "not doing much at all" for Christmas this season, which marks 20 years since JonBenet was buried in a Marietta, Ga., graveyard with her killer's identity still a mystery.

However, the juror said, the holiday certainly triggers many thoughts about the tragedy.

"Yes, a lot of things can spark a memory of the case, and a lot of them are tied to Christmas," the juror said. "So, I do remember her this time of year. I still feel sad that we weren't able to help JonBenet."

Charlie Brennan: 303-473-1327, brennanc@dailycamera.com or twitter.com/chasbrennan

JonBenét Ramsey Murder Claim Suit: Burke's Lawyer Rips CBS's Call to Dismiss
Monday, March 20, 2017 at 5:19 a.m.
By Michael Roberts

CBS has formally asked a court to dismiss a lawsuit filed on behalf of Burke Ramsey over a 2016 docuseries in which a team of analysts concluded that he'd murdered his sister, JonBenét Ramsey, in their Boulder home on Christmas Day 1996. In response, Ramsey family attorney Lin Wood summarily rejects the arguments made by CBS and Dr. Werner Spitz, a participant in the docuseries being sued separately for comments he made last September during a WWJ-AM/CBS Detroit interview publicizing the program.

"CBS and the other docuseries’ defendants have recently moved to dismiss Burke’s complaint on essentially the same basis that Dr. Spitz did previously, contending that their accusation against Burke is protected opinion when taken in context," notes the Atlanta-based Wood, corresponding via e-mail. "In both instances, the defense asserts, as it must, that no reasonable mind could have taken the accusation to be one of fact rather than a mere subjective opinion or hypothesis."
Wood feels otherwise.

"CBS — one of the most well-known news outlets in the world — put up seven 'experts' in a four-hour 'documentary' and marketed their 'true-crime' series as giving one 'complete theory' that 'solved' the case, all the while representing the series as a documentary," he maintains.

Specifically, Spitz and the other panelists on the program, titled The Case of: JonBenét Ramsey, concluded that Burke killed his sister with a blow to the head. The following image from the docuseries captures a reenactment; Spitz is seen at left.
Dr. Werner Spitz, left, watches as a child is called upon to act out a theory of how Burke Ramsey could have killed his sister, JonBenét, from the CBS program The Case of: JonBenét Ramsey.


In Wood's view, "It is difficult to understand how, in that context, the accusation against Burke could have been intended and received as anything but a factual accusation. And that is clearly what the viewer expected — a truthful and factual 'documentary' providing insight into this case."

Instead, as the lawsuit alleges, "CBS and the others consciously portrayed false, skewed and misrepresentative facts and recreations throughout the broadcast that stole from the viewers their ability to evaluate the murder of JonBenét Ramsey and CBS’s accusation against Burke," Wood allows. "For this reason, and the issue of objective fact or subjective opinion aside, I do not believe the First Amendment protects statements that are based on a false disclosed basis or an undisclosed and incomplete basis."

Wood also provides an update on the Spitz suit, which was filed in Michigan.

"We had a hearing...in Detroit on the defense’s motion to dismiss the case," he notes. "Interestingly, despite the defense having provided to the court a DVD of CBS’ documentary and stating it was 'central' to their opinion defense, Dr. Spitz never provided to the court a copy of his WWJ radio interview wherein he made the statements complained of in the lawsuit. When the court requested a copy at the hearing, it appeared to my team that his lawyers were reluctant to provide it to the court."

Nonetheless, Wood goes on, "that radio broadcast will be provided to the court and to me....  So we will know more about the context in which Dr. Spitz uttered his accusations against this young man in short order."
Click to read excerpts of Spitz's remarks.

Meanwhile, Wood stresses, he's determined to press forward with both court actions — and he's confident the dismissal calls won't prevail.

"As paradoxical as it may seem in light of the many exonerations of Burke by several public officials, Burke will continue his quest to prove his innocence in a court of law," he writes. "We do not expect the court to deny him that opportunity by ruling that these accusations are protected speech."

From 2001 documentary

Lou Smit was giving a tour of the house.

"This is the door to JonBenét's room and right over here is the door to the guest bedroom.
and there was a real interesting thing that we found out about this room. This window overlooks the garage and the driveway and would be a great vantage point for anyone that would want to see if the Ramseys were coming home that night.
What's interesting about this room Also what was real interesting in this room we did see that some of the drawers in the bathroom right off the bedroom were partially open which look like they were out of place.
Also in this room there was a rope and we don't know where that rope came from. No one can explain why that rope is in this room.
Also what's real interesting in this room, and it's just a small detail, but there was a dust ruffle all the way around the bed that was tucked in except for just a small area right in front of the bed. It seem to have been pulled out. Now does that mean that killer may have been under that bed, we just don't know. But its just an observation.
The dust ruffle is just one of the small things that detectives look for."