The Lawsuit
#1
https://www.scribd.com/document/36139579...-CBS-et-al#
Reply
#2
TATE OF MICHIGAN
IN THE 3RD CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF WAYNE
JOHN 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 John Ramsey
 ____________________________________________/
JF
Reply
#3
COMPLAINT FOR DEFAMATION

A civil action between these parties or other parties arising out of the transaction or occurrence alleged in the complaint has been previously filed in this Court, where it was given docket number 16-017577-CZ and was assigned to Judge David A. Groner. The action remains pending.

NOW COMES Plaintiff, John 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. CBS Corporation (“CBS”) aired a four-hour documentary, The Case of: JonBenét
Ramsey, on primetime television on September 18, 2016, and September 19, 2016 (the
“Documentary”). A DVD copy of the Documentary is attached hereto as Exhibit A and a
transcription of the Documentary made by counsel is attached hereto as Exhibit B, each of which
are incorporated herein by reference.
2. John Ramsey (“John”) brings this defamation action to redress the permanent
damage to his reputation resulting from Defendants’ false and malicious accusation in the
Documentary that he engaged in a criminal cover-up in the death of his six-year-old daughter,
JonBenét Ramsey (“JonBenét”), including the accusation that he strangled the remaining life out
of JonBenét after finding her alive but unresponsive and brain dead on December 25, 1996.
3. Indeed, Defendants falsely and maliciously asserted that Burke Ramsey
(“Burke”), John’s son, delivered a fatal blow to JonBenét’s head with a flashlight, but conceded
that JonBenét was still alive when she was subsequently asphyxiated to death with a torture
device known as a garrote. By falsely stating, for instance, that “as far as the cover-up itself . . .
Page 3 of 113

it’s John and Patsy who were involved in that,” Defendants expressly and impliedly accused
John of committing the final act contributing to JonBenét’s death and thereafter executing a
dizzying array of evasive tactics to hide his and Burke’s crimes.
4. The leaps of logic glossed over by Defendants in order to make their accusations
appear to be factual and plausible border on the absurd. For instance, Defendants conveyed three
irreconcilable facts: (a) JonBenét would quickly die from the fatal head injuries inflicted by
Burke; (b) JonBenét had no visible head trauma; and © JonBenét was still alive when John
strangled her to death. This set of facts falsely conveyed that John found his six-year-old
daughter unconscious but alive without visible injuries and then quickly devised and executed a
heinous criminal plan to cover-up Burke’s act by: (i) creating a garrote – a homemade torture
device; (ii) strangling his daughter to death with the garrote; (iii) binding her wrists; (iv) duct
taping her mouth; (v) desecrating her body; (vi) hiding and staging her remains in the basement
wine cellar; (vii) knowingly contaminating the crime scene; (viii) assisting in preparing a fake
ransom note; (ix) assisting in staging a fraudulent 9-1-1 call; (x) staging the discovery of
JonBenét’s body with police and friends present in his home; (xi) successfully lying to law
enforcement and others about his and his family’s involvement in the crimes for twenty years;
and (xii) obstructing justice.
5. Each of the factual assertions set forth in Paragraph 4 above are false. Yet, under
Defendants’ false narrative, these monstrous acts came more naturally to John than calling 9-1-1
for help after finding his six-year-old daughter unconscious but without visible injuries that
might possibly indicate her death was imminent.
6. The gist of The Case of: JonBenét Ramsey – that John covered-up Burke’s crime
and in doing so, contributed to causing JonBenét’s death – is false and defamatory per se.
Page 4 of 113

7. John did not kill JonBenét, did not asphyxiate her with a garrote, and otherwise
had no involvement in her death and the unconscionable acts committed upon her.
8. Defendants knowingly predicated their accusations against John on a multitude of
false, omitted, and misrepresented facts.
9. CBS represented and promoted The Case of: JonBenét Ramsey as a documentary
that would reveal the truth as to who killed JonBenét Ramsey.
10. CBS represented and promoted that the Documentary would reveal the truth by
presenting to viewers “new witnesses,” “new evidence,” and “new theories.”
11. 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.
12. Defendants claimed that their Documentary and “experts” presented “one
complete theory that explains everything,” that their audience would be “convinced who killed
JonBenét,” and that their accusation was “supported by the evidence” after a “legitimate
investigation.”
13. Defendants declared – either verbally or through imagery – their investigators’
supposed expertise on no less than ninety-six (96) occasions within the Documentary itself. The
plain purpose of repeating their alleged expert credentials was to give CBS’s audience a false
impression of credibility, that Defendants’ accusations were based in fact, that Defendants’
accusations and representations were truthful, and that Defendants’ accusations had been
validated or established by “experts.”
14. Defendants declared that they were conducting an unbiased, complete, and
legitimate investigation on at least twenty-four (24) occasions within the Documentary itself.
Page 5 of 113
Reply
#4
THE PARTIES
20. John Ramsey maintains a residence in Charlevoix, Michigan.
21. In December of 1996 and for a brief period thereafter, John and his wife Patsy
Ramsey (“Patsy”) maintained a second home in Charlevoix, where the family would frequently
visit on holidays and during summer months.
22. In 2002, Charlevoix became John’s residence.
23. In 2004, John unsuccessfully sought election to the Michigan House of
Representatives.
24. John has no history of criminal conduct, sexual abuse, drug abuse, alcohol abuse,
or any type of violent or aberrant behavior.
25. Defendant CBS is a Delaware corporation, with its principal place of business
located at 51 West 52nd Street, New York, New York 10019.
26. 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 most
watched 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.
Page 7 of 113

27. In 2016, CBS reported revenues of $13.17 billion, operating income of $2.62
billion, and net earnings from continuing operations of $1.55 billion. See
https://www.cbscorporation.com/wp-conten...arter-2016
Earnings-Release.pdf (last visited September 2, 2017).
28. 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.
29. 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).
30. 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.
31. 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 a 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/.
Page 8 of 113

32. Defendant 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.”
33. 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
renowned” investigators who would allegedly conduct a “complete reinvestigation starting right
from scratch.”
34. 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.”
35. 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.”
36. 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 self
promotion, 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.”
37. 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
self-promotion, publicity, and profit. Lee also played an acting role in the Documentary as one
Page 9 of 113

of the seven “world renowned” investigators who would allegedly conduct a “complete
reinvestigation starting right from scratch.”
38. Defendant A. James Kolar (“Kolar”) is a resident of the State of Colorado. Since
he was the author of the book heavily relied upon as a script for the Documentary, Kolar 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.”
39. Kolar was a police officer who was briefly employed by the Boulder District
Attorney’s Office from 2004 to the Spring of 2006.
40. Kolar was hired by then Boulder DA Mary Lacy as an experienced agency
administrator to help build an investigations unit.
41. 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.
42. Prior to July 2005, Kolar had never been involved in the law enforcement
investigation of the murder of JonBenét Ramsey.
43. 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.
44. 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 John covered it up, and claimed that he had gone
through the investigative files searching for any tidbit that might be used to support his theory.
Page 10 of 113

45. The presentation by Kolar to members of the Boulder DA’s Office of his
accusation against Burke and John has been described, among other descriptive terms, as
“ludicrous,” “total smoke and mirrors,” and “speculation based on hearsay.”
46. Kolar’s employment at the Boulder DA’s Office ended shortly after his
presentation in the Spring of 2006.
47. Kolar subsequently sought to personally profit from his rejected theory against
Burke and John by writing Foreign Faction, which he self-published after the manuscript was
rejected by traditional publishing houses.
48. 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.
Reply
#5
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
49. Defendants are subject to the jurisdiction of this Court with proper venue.
50. Defendants are subject to being sued in the State of Michigan based on the
personal residence of Spitz and pursuant to the Michigan Long-Arm Statute for the other
Defendants.
51. Sufficient contacts exist with respect to this action and the State of Michigan to
satisfy the requirements of due process.
52. Defendants are subject to the jurisdiction of this Court pursuant to MCL §
600.705(2).
53. The Court maintains general jurisdiction over CBS and Spitz, and specific
jurisdiction over all Defendants.
Page 11 of 113

54. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to MCL §§ 600.1621(a), 600.1627, and
600.1629.
55. Defendants reasonably anticipated being haled into court in Michigan to answer
for the truth of their false and defamatory statements about John.
56. Defendants reasonably anticipated being haled, and have already been haled, into
court in Michigan to answer for the truth of their false and defamatory statements about Burke.
57. Defendants expressly aimed their false and defamatory accusations at John, fully
aware of his longstanding connections with Michigan.
58. CBS maintains an office and transacts business in Wayne County.
59. CBS has wide and regular circulation and viewership in Wayne County and
Michigan.
60. Critical Content’s television series have wide and regular circulation and
viewership in Wayne County and Michigan.
61. CBS published the Documentary in Wayne County and throughout Michigan.
62. CBS owns, uses, and possesses real property in Wayne County.
63. Critical Content entered into an agreement with CBS to produce, market, and
publish the Documentary, including in Wayne County and throughout Michigan.
64. Upon information and belief, Critical Content had an interest in the Documentary
whereby it purposefully derived a benefit tied to the volume of viewership, including in Wayne
County and Michigan.
65. Defendants knew and intended that the Documentary would be published
throughout the CBS network, which broadcasts in Wayne County and Michigan.
Page 12 of 113

66. Defendants intended that their accusations in the Documentary be published
throughout the CBS network, which broadcasts in Wayne County and Michigan.
67. It was the natural and foreseeable result of the Documentary that Defendants’
false and defamatory accusations against John would be published and republished in Wayne
County and Michigan, causing substantial and permanent harm to John in the state.
68. Defendants knew and intended that the substantial harm from the Documentary
would be caused and felt in Michigan.
69. John has suffered, is suffering, and will continue to suffer harm and original
injury in Michigan from Defendants’ tortious conduct in Wayne County and elsewhere.
70. CBS purposefully derived a benefit from the Documentary by broadcasting it in
Wayne County and in Michigan on the station it owns, WWJ-TV. Those benefits included
revenue from selling advertising for airing the show in Michigan.
71. The state of Michigan has a substantial interest in adjudicating this dispute.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
PART ONE: BACKGROUND
72. On the night of December 25 or the early morning hours of December 26, 1996,
an unknown intruder brutally tortured, sexually assaulted, and murdered JonBenét while the rest
of the Ramsey family slept in their home in Boulder, Colorado.
73. For years, JonBenét’s murder was the subject of a massive investigation by law
enforcement officials in the State of Colorado, spearheaded by the Boulder PD and the Boulder
County District Attorney’s Office, with some occasional assistance from the Federal Bureau of
Investigation.
74. Media coverage of the Boulder PD and DA’s investigation ensued as the general
public became interested in the crime.
Page 13 of 113

75. With the passage of time, official investigative efforts have significantly lessened
from the activity in the early years following her murder, as has media coverage of the crime.
76. Twenty years later, with the crime remaining unsolved, Defendants stole the
headlines and viewership by maliciously and falsely accusing John of covering-up Burke’s crime
in their four-hour Documentary, which they promised would reveal JonBenét’s killer.
A. John Ramsey Has Already Been Exonerated in the Murder of His Daughter

77. Both the judicial system and the Boulder County District Attorney’s Office have
previously declared John’s innocence in the death of his daughter.
78. In 2003, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
painstakingly analyzed the evidence of JonBenét’s murder in connection with a contention that
Patsy killed JonBenét. In a March 31, 2003, Order entered on a motion for summary judgment,
the Honorable Julie Carnes declared that “the weight of the evidence is more consistent with a
theory that an intruder murdered JonBenét[.]” Wolf v Ramsey, 253 F Supp 2d 1323, 1363 (ND
Ga 2003) (the “Wolf Decision”). A copy of the Wolf Decision is attached hereto as Exhibit C.
79. Despite being fully aware of Judge Carnes’ order, Defendants ignored and did not
disclose the Wolf Decision during the Documentary, including many of key facts and information
cited therein in support of Judge Carne’s decision.
80. On April 7, 2003, former Boulder DA Mary Kennan, n/k/a Mary Lacy, issued a
press release stating, in part, “I agree with [Judge Carnes’] conclusion that ‘the weight of the
evidence is more consistent with a theory that an intruder murdered JonBenét than it is with a
theory that Mrs. Ramsey did so.’” A copy of said press statement is attached hereto as Exhibit
D.
Page 14 of 113
Reply
#6
81. Despite being fully aware of the press release, Defendants ignored and did not
disclose DA Lacy’s April 2003 press release during the Documentary.
82. On July 9, 2008, former Boulder DA Lacy relied on newly discovered DNA
evidence to officially exonerate the Ramsey family (including John) in an open letter released to
the public.  DA Lacy found:
[N]ew scientific evidence convinces us that it is appropriate, given the circumstances of this case, to state that we do not consider your immediate family including you, your wife, Patsy, and your son, Burke, to be under any suspicion in the commission of this crime. . . .
 
The Bode Technology laboratory was able to develop a profile from DNA recovered from the two sides of the long johns.  The previously identified profile from the crotch of the underwear worn by JonBenét at the time of the murder matched the DNA recovered from the long johns at Bode.  Unexplained DNA on the victim of a crime is powerful evidence.  The match of male DNA on two separate items of clothing worn by the victim at the time of the murder makes it clear to us that an unknown male handled these items.
 
Examples of CBS’s coverage of the Lacy exoneration letter are attached hereto as Exhibit E.
83. Although referenced by Defendants in the Documentary, Defendants grossly
misrepresented and failed to accurately disclose the basis for Boulder DA Lacy’s exoneration of
the Ramsey family, as more specifically detailed below, before declaring in the Documentary
that the DNA evidence is “totally erroneous” and “should be ignored,” and in marketing
materials that the exoneration was “absurd.”
B. Burke Ramsey Has Also Been Exonerated by Law Enforcement and Courts on Numerous Occasions
 
84. Defendants’ accusations against John were predicated upon their accusations
against Burke.  Accordingly, it is necessary and prudent to examine background facts regarding
Page 15 of 113
 
Burke – including those that Defendants consciously misrepresented and failed to disclose – with
respect to both falsity and fault.
85. Burke had no involvement in JonBenét’s death and did not kill his sister. 
86. In addition to the Wolf Decision, the 2003 public statement by former Boulder DA
Mary Lacy, and the 2008 exoneration of the Ramsey family by former Boulder DA Mary Lacy,
Burke’s lack of involvement in his sister’s death has been publicly stated by numerous public
officials working for the Boulder PD and Boulder DA’s office, as well as by the judicial system.
87. On December 26, 1996, outside the presence of his parents and unknown to them,
Burke was interviewed by Boulder PD Detective Fred Patterson, who concluded that Burke did
not have any idea or knowledge about what had happened to his sister.
88. On January 8, 1997, Burke was interviewed with his parents’ consent and outside
of their presence by a psychologist, Dr. Suzanne Bernhard, who concluded in writing on her
report to the Boulder PD that it was clear to her that Burke did not witness the murder of his
sister.
89. On June 10, 11, and 12, 1998, Burke was interviewed with his parents’ consent
and outside of their presence by Boulder PD Detective Dan Schuler.
90. As part of the investigation, a grand jury was impaneled in September of 1998
and dismissed in the fall of 1999.
91. The Boulder PD and the Boulder DA publicly exonerated Burke before, during,
and after the grand jury investigation.
92. In early 1998, former Boulder PD Chief Mark Beckner stated during a news
conference that Burke was not involved in the killing of JonBenét, was not a suspect in
JonBenét’s murder, and was not being looked at as a suspect.
Page 16 of 113
 
93. Despite being fully aware of his comments, Defendants ignored and did not
disclose Chief Beckner’s 1998 comments during the Documentary.
94. In May of 1999, former Boulder DA Alex Hunter issued a press statement that
publicly and officially stated that Burke was not a suspect in connection with the murder of
JonBenét.  It said, in part:
[A]lmost a year ago [Boulder] Police Chief Mark Beckner stated during a news conference that Burke was not a suspect and that we are not looking at him as a possible suspect.  To this day Burke Ramsey is not a suspect.
 
95. Former Boulder DA Hunter’s May 1999 exoneration occurred approximately
eight months after he convened a grand jury and approximately five months before the grand
jury investigation concluded.
96. Despite being fully aware of the press release, Defendants ignored and did not
disclose DA Hunter’s May 1999 statements during the Documentary.
97. The Boulder DA hired Michael Kane, Esq. (“Kane”), a prosecutor from
Pennsylvania, as a Special Prosecutor to oversee the grand jury investigation.
98. On or about December 12, 1999, Kane publicly acknowledged in a statement to,
and published by, the Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, Sunday Patriot News that there was no evidence
developed in the investigation that supported an accusation that Burke killed JonBenét:
One of the more horrendous mistakes by the media, Kane said, was the story by a supermarket tabloid, The Star, that branded Burke as the killer.  Earlier this month, the Ramseys filed a $25 million libel suit against the paper.  Kane recalled that when the story first came out last May, it troubled the prosecution.  And when the story began getting picked up by other newspapers, they knew they had to do something.  . . .
 
“Alex Hunter and I decided there was no basis for that speculation and no evidence to support it, and we issued a press release to put it to rest,” Kane said, “I think it’s horrible that a 12-year-old kid would have a finger pointed at him
Page 17 of 113
 
with no evidence to support it and have to see his picture on the cover of tabloids every time he’s in a supermarket saying that he killed his sister.”
 
(Emphasis added).
99. Kane’s December 1999 statements occurred approximately two months after the
thirteen-month grand jury investigation concluded.
100. Despite being fully aware of his comments, Defendants ignored and did not
disclose Kane’s December 1999 comments during the Documentary.
101. In a sworn affidavit dated October 12, 2000, former Boulder DA Alex Hunter
reaffirmed under oath that Burke had never been a suspect in the investigation into his sister’s
murder.  A copy of said affidavit is attached hereto as Exhibit F.  The affidavit stated, in part:
From December 26, 1996, to the date of this affidavit, no evidence has ever been developed in the investigation to justify elevating Burke Ramsey’s status from that of witness to suspect.
 
102. Despite being fully aware of his affidavit, Defendants ignored and did not
disclose DA Hunter’s October 2000 affidavit during the Documentary.
103. In 2003, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
painstakingly analyzed the evidence of JonBenét’s murder in connection with a contention that
Patsy Ramsey killed JonBenét Ramsey.  In a March 31, 2003, order entered on a motion for
summary judgment, the Honorable Julie Carnes declared that “the weight of the evidence is more
consistent with a theory that an intruder murdered JonBenét[.]”  Wolf Decision at 1363; see
Exhibit C.
104. Despite being fully aware of Judge Carnes’ order, Defendants ignored and did not
disclose the Wolf Decision during the Documentary.
Page 18 of 113
 
105. CBS has, itself, many times supported Burke’s innocence.  Indeed, CBS has
broadcast many reports regarding the exculpatory information establishing that Burke and John
did not kill JonBenét.  See, e.g., Exhibit E.
106. There was no evidence developed prior to or during the law enforcement
investigation and the grand jury investigation that in any way links Burke to the killing of
JonBenét or that caused the Boulder PD or the Boulder DA to consider him a suspect in the
investigation of her murder.
107. Since the grand jury concluded in October 1999, and aside from law
enforcement’s intervening exonerations of Burke, the only new and material evidence discovered
by Boulder law enforcement investigators has been the DNA evidence relied upon by former
Boulder DA Lacy to exonerate the Ramsey family in 2008.
Reply
#7
C. Key Facts About the Murder of JonBenét and Law Enforcement’s Investigation

108. Twenty years after JonBenét’s death, the perpetrator of her brutal murder has
never been identified, and no indictment has ever been filed by law enforcement prosecutors
against any individual in connection with her death.
109. JonBenét was six-years-old when she was brutally tortured, assaulted, and
murdered. Burke was just nine-years-old.
110. JonBenét competed in beauty pageants. In 1995, she held the title of Little Miss
Colorado Sunburst and on December 6, 1996, appeared in the Lights of December Parade at the
Boulder Mall.
111. On the night of December 25, 1996, the Ramsey family attended a Christmas
dinner at the home of their friends Fleet and Priscilla White.
Page 19 of 113

112. After the family returned home, John and Patsy put their children to bed and went
to bed themselves soon after.
113. The Ramsey family intended to rise early the following morning because they
were flying to Charlevoix for a family vacation.
114. John and Patsy awoke at approximately 5:30 a.m. on the morning of December
26, 1996, to prepare for their trip to Charlevoix.
115. John and Patsy were not awakened during the night.
116. Burke was not awakened during the night.
117. Burke did not leave his bedroom during the night.
118. Shortly after waking up, Patsy went down two flights of stairs from her room to
the main floor. On a step near the bottom of the stairs, she discovered a two-and-a-half-page
handwritten ransom note stating that JonBenét had been kidnapped (the “Ransom Note”).
119. Patsy screamed and rushed to check JonBenét’s bedroom, which was empty.
120. John heard the scream and rushed to find Patsy.
121. John and Patsy checked on Burke, who appeared to them to be sleeping in his
room.
122. Panicked and frightened, Patsy dialed 9-1-1 at approximately 5:52 a.m.,
breathlessly imploring the operator to send help (the “9-1-1 Call”).
123. After she hung up with 9-1-1, Patsy telephoned family friends, who promptly
came to the Ramsey home.
124. Police arrived shortly thereafter, but failed to properly secure the crime scene, a
failure that seriously compromised the crime scene.
Page 20 of 113

125. The Ransom Note stated that the kidnappers would call between “8 and 10 a.m.
tomorrow,” but the call never came.
126. To keep John occupied, Boulder PD Detective Linda Arndt instructed him to
search the home for anything unusual.
127. The Ramsey home had previously been searched by Boulder PD officers and
John’s family friend, Fleet White.
128. John and Fleet White began their search in the basement.
129. John and Fleet White first searched the playroom and observed, among other
things, a broken ground-level window and a suitcase beneath that window that was normally
stored in a different place.
130. John eventually searched what is often called the “wine cellar” in the basement
that served as a storage area (the “Wine Cellar”).
131. A Boulder PD officer had previously observed that the door to the Wine Cellar
was locked from the outside and did not open the door to inspect the room. Fleet White had
previously opened the door to the Wine Cellar but did not turn on the light in the room.
132. Despite prior searches by Fleet White and the Boulder PD, nobody had yet found
JonBenét’s body.
133. John opened the door to the Wine Cellar, turned on the light, and discovered
JonBenét’s body.
134. Duct tape covered JonBenét’s mouth, her wrists were tied above her head, and she
had a garrote embedded in her neck.
135. John scooped his daughter up in his arms and carried her body upstairs, crying out
for help.
Page 21 of 113

136. Detective Arndt observed JonBenét’s body and informed John that his daughter
was dead.
137. JonBenét was strangled to death with a torture and bondage device known as a
garrote.
138. The garrote was made from a nylon cord and a wooden handle fashioned from the
middle of a paintbrush discovered in Patsy’s paint tray in the boiler room in the basement. The
end of the nylon cord was tied to this wooden handle and, on the other end, was a loop with a
slipknot, with JonBenét’s neck within the loop.
139. Until her autopsy, it was not visually apparent that JonBenét also suffered a
massive blow to her head that fractured the right side of her skull – an injury that has been
described as the equivalent to an injury resulting from a fall from the third floor of a building.
140. The pathologist performing the autopsy on JonBenét’s body discovered that she
was sexually assaulted by being vaginally penetrated, including penetration with the broken
wooden handle of the garrote.
141. Defendant Spitz concurred during his examination in the 1990s that JonBenét was
penetrated with the broken wooden handle of the garrote.
142. JonBenét’s body showed many signs of a struggle with her attacker.
143. Although John and Patsy found themselves under suspicion by the Boulder PD in
connection with the investigation into JonBenét’s murder, the Boulder PD’s focus was on Patsy.
144. During the course of the investigation, John and Patsy sought repeatedly to
cooperate with investigators, including signing more than one hundred releases for information
requested by the police, and providing all evidence and information in their possession requested
by the police.
Page 22 of 113

145. John and Patsy gave the Boulder PD historical handwriting samples and
supervised written exemplars.
146. John and Patsy gave hair, including pubic hair, and DNA samples to police.
147. Burke also gave a DNA sample to the police.
148. John, Patsy, and Burke each consented to multiple interviews by law enforcement.
149. Burke was interviewed regarding JonBenét’s death on at least three occasions
outside the presence of his parents.
150. On December 26, 1996, John gave the Boulder PD handwriting exemplars for
himself and Patsy.
151. On December 26, 1996, John voluntarily provided police with a note pad Patsy
had previously used in their home. Law enforcement subsequently determined that the Ransom
Note was written on that pad.
152. Law enforcement consulted six qualified and highly respected experts in the field
of handwriting analysis, who performed extensive analysis of Patsy, John, and Burke’s
handwriting samples to the original Ransom Note.
153. All six experts conclusively eliminated John and Burke as authors of the Ransom
Note.
154. None of the six experts concluded that Patsy wrote the Ransom Note. Although
they could not determine with 100% certainty that Patsy did not author the Ransom Note, the
handwriting experts’ consensus was that the chances she wrote the Ransom Note were “very
low”:
During the investigation, the Boulder Police Department and Boulder County District Attorney’s Office consulted at least six handwriting experts. . . . All six experts agreed that Mr. Ramsey could be eliminated as the author of the Ransom Note. None of the six consulted experts identified Mrs. Ramsey as the author of
Page 23 of 113

the Ransom Note. Rather, the experts’ consensus was that she “probably did not” write the Ransom Note. On a scale of one to five, with five being elimination as the author of the Ransom Note, the experts placed Mrs. Ramsey at a 4.5 or a 4.0. The experts described the chance of Mrs. Ramsey being the author of the Ransom Note as “very low.”

Wolf Decision, 253 F. Supp. 2d at 1334; see Exhibit C.

155. The Ramsey home was not secure on the night of December 25, 1996. They had
not turned their security alarm on, and at least seven windows and one door were found unlocked
on the morning of December 26, 1996. A door from the kitchen to the outside was found open.
156. On the ground level of the Ramsey home, there was a removable grate over three
windows that opened into the playroom area of the basement.
157. The center window had a broken pane.
158. Law enforcement found scuffmarks and a suitcase positioned upright beneath the
center window leading to the playroom area of the basement (the “Window”).
159. The area around the Window showed clear evidence of a disturbance.
160. Leaves and white Styrofoam packing peanuts that had pooled in the Window area
appeared to have been cleared from, or brushed to either side of, the Window sill.
161. A shard of glass was found on the suitcase beneath the Window.
162. Green foliage was found tucked under the movable grate over the Window well.
163. Leaves and debris consistent with that found in the Window area were found on
the floor of the basement underneath the Window.
164. A leaf and white Styrofoam packing peanuts like those in the Window area were
found in the Wine Cellar where JonBenét Ramsey’s body was found.
Page 24 of 113

165. The end portion of the wooden handle and the cord used to construct the garrote
were never found in the Ramsey home; i.e., the perpetrator removed these items from the home
after killing JonBenét.
166. The duct tape covering JonBenét’s mouth was never sourced to the Ramsey
home.
167. Fiber evidence suggests that the cord and duct tape were, at one time, in the
second-floor area of the home near JonBenét’s bedroom.
168. Fibers consistent with those of the cord used to make the slip knots and garrote
were found on JonBenét’s bed.
169. Other items not belonging on the second floor of the Ramsey home were found
there on the day after the murder.
170. A rope was found inside of a brown paper sack in the guest bedroom on the
second floor.
171. Small pieces of the material of this brown sack were found in JonBenét’s bed and
in the body bag that was used to transport her body.
172. John and Patsy disclaimed ownership and knowledge of that rope.
173. An unidentified baseball bat was found on the north side of the house containing
fibers consistent with fibers found in the carpet in the basement where JonBenét Ramsey’s body
was found.
174. Brown cotton fibers found on JonBenét’s body, the garrote handle, the duct tape,
and the wrist ligatures were not sourced to and do not match anything in the Ramsey home.
175. Recently-made and unidentified shoeprints containing a “HI-TEC” brand mark
were found in the basement imprinted in mold growing on the basement floor.
Page 25 of 113

176. Neither John, Patsy, nor Burke owned any HI-TEC brand shoes at the time of the
murder.
177. The DNA of an unidentified male was found under JonBenét’s fingernails.
178. The DNA found under JonBenét’s nails did not match John, Patsy, or Burke’s
DNA.
179. The DNA of an unidentified male was found in the crotch of JonBenét’s
underwear.
180. The DNA found in JonBenét’s underwear did not match John, Patsy, or Burke’s
DNA.
181. The DNA found in JonBenét’s underwear was likely from saliva.
182. The DNA of an unidentified male was found on the left and right sides of the
waistband of the pajama bottoms worn by JonBenét at the time of her death.
183. The DNA found on JonBenét’s pajama bottoms does not match John, Patsy, or
Burke’s DNA.
184. The DNA found on JonBenét’s pajama bottoms was touch DNA.
185. The saliva DNA found on JonBenét’s underwear was consistent with the touch
DNA found on JonBenét’s pajama bottoms.
186. An unidentified Caucasian pubic or auxiliary hair was found on the blanket
covering JonBenét’s body and did not match hairs of John, Patsy, or Burke.
187. The medical examiner found the cause of JonBenét’s death was asphyxia by
strangulation with the garrote associated with craniocerebral trauma.
188. The medical examiner found physical evidence that conclusively established that
JonBenét was alive at the time she was asphyxiated.
Page 26 of 113

189. There were physical findings on her body that strongly suggested that JonBenét
struggled with her attacker and was conscious at the time she was garroted.
190. JonBenét’s neck had fingernail abrasions and scrapes in the area where the garrote
was embedded in her neck.
191. JonBenét had burn like marks on her face and back consistent with the application
of a stun gun. These marks were not present on JonBenét’s face in photos taken Christmas
morning.
192. The autopsy report revealed that although no head injury was visible when
JonBenét’s body was found, she received a severe blow to her head shortly before or after the
time of her death.
193. JonBenét was sexually assaulted shortly before her death.
194. Wood fragments from the paintbrush used to create the garrote were found in
JonBenét’s vagina.
195. JonBenét’s hymen was injured during the sexual assault, causing her to bleed onto
her underwear.
196. The City of Boulder recorded the 9-1-1 Call on a recycled tape that had
previously been used to record an unknown number of unrelated, prior 9-1-1 calls (the “9-1-1
Recording”).
197. After Patsy hung up her wall phone from the 9-1-1 Call, the 9-1-1 Recording
contains six seconds of inaudible background noise consistent with the sounds of computer
keystrokes being made by the 9-1-1 operator.
Reply
#8
198. Investigators sent the 9-1-1 Recording to the FBI and U.S. Secret Service for
testing, but those agencies could not discern any conversations or voices from the background
noise on the tape.
199. In 1997, Boulder PD investigators sent the 9-1-1 Recording to the Aerospace
Corporation (“Aerospace”) asking its technicians to decipher the unintelligible sounds at the tail
end of the 9-1-1 Call.
200. Aerospace technicians claimed they heard the following at the tail end of the 9-1
1 Recording: (a) John saying, “We’re not talking [speaking] to you”; (b) Patsy saying, “Help me,
Jesus. Help me, Jesus”; and Burke saying, “[Well,] what did you find?” See, e.g., Steve Thomas,
JonBenét: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation 14-15 (St. Martin’s Press 2000); Foreign
Faction, pp. 102-103.
201. Law enforcement developed two primary theories: that an intruder killed
JonBenét or Patsy killed JonBenét.
202. While under the umbrella of suspicion along with Patsy, investigators did not
believe John killed his daughter after completing the initial investigation.
203. The Boulder PD officers handling the investigation had no experience in
investigating homicides.
204. The Boulder DA subsequently hired the highly-respected Colorado homicide
Detective Lou Smit (“Smit”) to review the case.
205. Smit concluded that JonBenét was murdered by an intruder who subdued her with
a stun gun and then sexually assaulted, tortured, and brutally murdered her in the basement of the
Ramseys’ home (“the Smit intruder theory”).
Page 28 of 113

206. Former Boulder PD Detective Steve Thomas (“Thomas”), who was the lead
detective on the case, was an undercover drug officer with zero homicide experience. Thomas
was the leading public proponent of the Patsy-did-it theory, participating in media interviews and
publishing a book setting forth his accusations against Patsy after he resigned from the Boulder
PD. Thomas has testified that the Boulder PD theory was that Patsy accidentally struck
JonBenét in a rage after discovering that she had wet her bed and thereafter staged a cover-up of
her crime in which John quietly acquiesced after he discovered JonBenét’s body.
207. In June of 1998, Boulder PD presented their evidence to the Boulder DA.
208. In September of 1998, Boulder DA Alex Hunter convened a grand jury to
investigate JonBenét’s death.
209. The grand jury investigation ended in October of 1999, without criminal charges
or indictments being brought by the Boulder DA’s Office against any individual.
210. Following the conclusion of the grand jury investigation, Boulder DA Alex
Hunter held a press conference stating that “I must report to you that I and my prosecution task
force believe we do not have sufficient evidence to warrant the filing of charges against anyone
who has been investigated at this time.”
211. John and Patsy strongly believe that the Boulder PD investigation was seriously
flawed from the outset of the investigation through the date the investigation was taken over in
December 2002 by former Boulder DA Mary Lacy with the agreement of then Boulder PD Chief
Beckner.
212. In 2013, it was leaked to the media that the grand jury had voted to recommend
that John and Patsy be indicted by the Boulder DA for “commit[ting] a child to be unreasonably
placed in a situation which posed a threat of injury to the child’s life or health” and for
Page 29 of 113

“render[ing] assistance to a person with the intent to hinder, delay and prevent the discovery,
detention, apprehension, prosecution, conviction and punishment of such a person knowing the
person being assisted has committed and was suspected of the crime of Murder in the First
Degree and Child Abuse Resulting in Death.”
213. In the exercise of their professional and ethical duties as prosecutors, however,
members of the Boulder DA’s Office did not believe that those recommended charges could be
successfully prosecuted based on the evidence related to JonBenét’s death and, therefore,
declined to sign any indictment.
PART TWO: THE PRODUCTION OF THE CASE OF: JONBENÉT RAMSEY
214. Upon information and belief, Defendants agreed to engage in a conspiracy to
defame John and Burke, and CBS and Critical Content entered into a joint venture agreement to
promote, produce, and publish the Documentary.
215. The Documentary was produced and structured to support the preconceived
storyline that Burke killed JonBenét and John covered it up by, among other things, strangling
JonBenét with the garrote.
216. From the outset, Defendants understood and agreed that the Documentary would
be intentionally produced and structured to support the accusation that Burke killed JonBenét
and John covered it up before Defendants ever commenced their claimed “complete
reinvestigation.”
A. CBS, Critical Content, and the Pseudo-Experts Agree to Film and Publish the Documentary

217. Upon information and belief, CBS originally intended to produce the
Documentary in-house through its highly-respected show that specializes in true crime stories,
48 Hours.
Page 30 of 113

218. Upon information and belief, CBS abandoned its 48 Hours production and joined
forces in the late spring of 2016 with Critical Content, an outside entity, to produce the
Documentary.
219. Upon information and belief, CBS’s in-house broadcast standards are
substantially more rigorous than the standards of Critical Content.
220. Upon information and belief, CBS decided to work with an outside production
company because CBS knew that the Documentary’s preconceived conclusion – that Burke
killed JonBenét and John covered it up – would not pass CBS’s stringent broadcast review
standards.
221. Upon information and belief, CBS and Critical Content originally agreed to
produce and publish a three-part, six-hour documentary, but elected on the eve of the broadcast
to cut the Documentary to just two-parts for a total of four-hours.
222. Upon information and belief and unknown to the viewers of the Documentary, the
third part of the Documentary examined evidence related to individuals other than members of
the Ramsey family, thereby supporting the preconceived storyline that Burke and John joined
together to murder JonBenét and that this accusation was the only conclusion supported by the
evidence.
223. Upon information and belief, CBS and Critical Content have an agreement
through which they shared resources to film and publish the Documentary.
224. Upon information and belief, CBS and Critical Content entered into a joint
venture agreement whereby they agreed to jointly produce and publish the Documentary: a
single project for profit.
Page 31 of 113

225. Upon information and belief, CBS and Critical Content agreed to a sharing of
profits as well as losses in connection with the Documentary.
226. CBS and Critical Content contributed their skills and property to the
Documentary.
227. CBS and Critical Content had a community interest and control over the
Documentary, including a right of joint control.
228. Clemente, Richards, Fitzgerald, Kolar, Stanley, Spitz and Lee (collectively, the
“Pseudo-Experts”) were acting as CBS’s and Critical Content’s employees and/or agents during
the filming and publication of the Documentary.
229. All acts and omissions of the Pseudo-Experts were undertaken in the normal
course of and for the furtherance of CBS’s and Critical Content’s business, in furtherance and
within the scope of CBS’s and Critical Content’s resource sharing agreement, and within the
scope of their employment and/or agency relationship.
230. Defendants knowingly agreed to participate in and further the Documentary’s
production and unlawful purpose of falsely accusing Burke of killing JonBenét and John of
covering it up as established by their participation in the filming of the Documentary.
231. The Pseudo-Experts all knowingly agreed to appear in the Documentary as actors
and to allow CBS and Critical Content to use their professional reputations and credentials to
legitimize the false and defamatory accusations that Burke killed JonBenét and John covered it
up by, among other things, strangling JonBenét with the garrote.
232. The Pseudo-Experts all knowingly agreed to allow CBS and Critical Content to
use their professional reputations and credentials to legitimize the false portrayal of the
Documentary as a “complete reinvestigation starting right from scratch.”
Page 32 of 113

233. From the outset of the production of the Documentary, the Pseudo-Experts knew
that the Documentary would be scripted from Kolar’s self-published book and was never
intended to be an independent reinvestigation of the murder.
B. Defendants’ Marketing of the Documentary
234. CBS planned, promoted, and produced the Documentary to attract the largest
number of viewers possible and then hook those viewers into watching later installments of its
anticipated new true-crime series and its new fall lineup of TV shows.
235. Defendants represented and promoted that the Documentary would reveal
JonBenét’s killer.
236. Defendants represented and promoted that The Case of: JonBenét Ramsey would
be a documentary that presented factual information revealing “who did what to whom and when
and how.”
237. Defendants represented and promoted that their team of seven “highly skilled”
experts would “get to the truth about how she died” by presenting “new witnesses,” “new
evidence,” and “new theories.” See, e.g., http://www.laurarichards.co.uk/featured/...al-trailer
the-case-of-JonBenét-ramsey/.
238. When Defendants advertised that they would present “new witnesses,”
Defendants’ advertisement previewed their interview of 9-1-1 operator Kim Archuletta.
239. Ms. Archuletta’s interview in the Documentary is nearly identical to her interview
with Kolar, which he published in Foreign Faction in 2012. See Foreign Faction, p 100.
240. Kim Archuletta was not a “new witness.”
241. Defendants knew Ms. Archuletta was not a “new witness.”
Page 33 of 113

242. When Defendants advertised that they would present “new evidence,”
Defendants’ advertisement shows their purported enhancement of the 9-1-1 Call.
243. In 1997, Aerospace purportedly enhanced the 9-1-1 Recording and published a
transcript virtually identical to the transcript in the Documentary. Aerospace’s 1997 transcript
was published in the supermarket tabloids in 1998, by Steve Thomas in 2000, and Kolar in 2012.
See, e.g., JonBenét: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation, pp. 14-15; Foreign Faction, pp.
101-102. These “transcripts” have always been the subject of great dispute, with their accuracy
being denied by members of Boulder law enforcement investigating the case and by John, Patsy,
and Burke.
244. The purported analysis of the 9-1-1 Recording was not “new evidence” and was
not the result of any advancements in technology: the analysis was performed in 1997.
245. Defendants knew the supposed 9-1-1 Recording was not “new evidence.”
246. When Defendants advertised that they would present “new theories,” Defendants’
advertisement shows a purported cobweb demonstration in the basement Window.
247. The Documentary’s cobweb theory and demonstration was not a “new theory,” as
it was also taken directly from Kolar’s book, Foreign Faction. See Foreign Faction, pp. 234
239.
248. Defendants knew that the cobweb was not a “new theory.”
249. Clemente promoted the Documentary as fact, its theory as conclusive, and the
case as resolved.
250. Clemente stated as follows on his Twitter account: “We can FINALLY tell the
world the truth! Just shot an investigative docu-series about JonBenét Ramsey’s death. Just
Facts & TRUTH!” See, in addition to other media republications of this statement,
Page 34 of 113

https://twitter.com/JimClemente/status/7...ref_url=ht
tps%3A%2F%2Fwww.romper.com%2Fp%2Fwho-is-jim-clemente-on-the-case-of-jonbenet
ramsey-he-could-have-insight-into-the-case-16899.
Reply
#9
251. Clemente made the following claims published by The Sydney Morning Herald:
It explains who did what to whom and when and how.

That’s why the case was inconclusive until today.

Cold case homicide investigations many times are at an advantage. People wouldn’t talk before and now they’d talk to us. Technology has advanced. Criminal behavioral analysis has advanced. All these things coming together helped us find new evidence and helped us better understand the evidence from before. Our team got together, we argued it out, and we came up with one comprehensive theory.

Hopefully that documentary will build enough groundswell support to get the District Attorney’s office to resolve the case.

See http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/tv-a...docuseries
will-name-new-suspect-says-retired-fbi-agent-jim-clemente-20160919-grjj11.html.
252. Clemente made the following claims published by Mirror: “We all came to one
complete theory that explains everything that happened,” and “[t]he world has heard so many
false rumors. The people of the community need to know the truth so they can put pressure on
the district attorney.” See http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/JonBe...sey-theory
explains-everything-8867093.
253. Clemente also claimed on a CBS interview that “we are confident that the team of
experts we put together will move this case forward so that there will be justice for JonBenét,”
and “if you watch the show . . . we have some very strong conclusions about what happened that
day to JonBenét Ramsey.” See http://amp.cbslocal.com/video/category/i...504304-jim
clemente-tom-forman-discuss-JonBenét-ramsey-docuseries/.
Page 35 of 113

254. In the same interview, Tom Forman promoted the Documentary’s team of
independent experts and their purported independent yet identical conclusion:
[A] team of the best investigators in the world – it’s Henry Lee and Werner Spitz, these guys are world-class at what they do – spent the summer reinvestigating this case, and independently, each one of them reaches the same conclusion: that there is only one way this could have gone down.

255. When Fitzgerald was promoting the Documentary, he proclaimed “we solved it.”
See http://www.eonline.com/news/795944/the-c...the-murder
but-no-one-will-be-arrested-here-s-why.
256. According to Fitzgerald, “[y]ou will learn a lot and you will be, I’m pretty sure,
convinced who killed JonBenét Ramsey.” Originally published at
http://highlighthollywood.com/2016/10/bu...-following
outrageous-JonBenét-death-accusations/.
257. While Richards was promoting the Documentary, she stated that they “tested
every hypothesis.” See http://extratv.com/videos/0-98uf19sb/.
C. Defendants Based the Documentary on Foreign Faction
258. Foreign Faction was the primary source for Defendants’ script.
259. A copy of Foreign Faction can be seen thoroughly tabbed on various occasions in
the Documentary, particularly when Clemente, the leader of the Pseudo-Experts, is in the frame.
260. Defendants’ fraud on the viewers kicks off in the first three minutes of the
Documentary when Clemente proclaims, “what we need to do is a complete reinvestigation
starting right from scratch.” At that exact moment, the television frame shows a copy of Kolar’s
Foreign Faction on the war room table – unintentionally but accurately revealing the script for
the preconceived storyline of the Documentary. A copy of this television frame showing
Foreign Faction is attached hereto as Exhibit G.
Page 36 of 113

261. Rather than conducting a “complete reinvestigation starting right from scratch,”
Pseudo-Expert Clemente made thorough notes on Pseudo-Expert’s Kolar purported investigation
that was the basis of his self-published 2012 book, Foreign Faction.
262. Contrary to their representations to the public, Defendants did not present an
actual Documentary and did not conduct a “complete reinvestigation starting right from scratch”
based on true facts, “new witnesses,” “new evidence,” and “new theories.”
263. Defendants merely presented the sensational and rejected accusations of Foreign
Faction and the long ago legally rejected accusations of the supermarket tabloids.
264. The sting of Defendants’ Documentary and the allegations supporting that sting
were largely lifted straight from Foreign Faction, in which Kolar praised the assistance provided
by his legal counsel, Thomas B. Kelley, of the firm of Levine Sullivan Koch & Schultz.
265. Mr. Kelley served as co-counsel for Globe International, Inc. and Globe
Communications, Corp. in the successful libel litigation brought on behalf of Burke arising out
of the November 1998 supermarket tabloid accusations against Burke that were strikingly similar
to the accusations published in Foreign Faction and the Documentary.
266. Defendants knew that Foreign Faction was the basis for the Documentary but
failed to disclose that fact to the public as it would have detracted from the compelling but false
storyline that the Documentary was a complete reinvestigation by new experts presenting new
theories based upon new evidence and new witnesses.
267. Defendants knew that the majority of the falsehoods, half-truths, material
witnesses, and theories presented in the Documentary were taken from Foreign Faction and did
not, as represented to the public, result from a complete reinvestigation by new experts.
Page 37 of 113

268. CBS knew that a Documentary rehashing a stale and rejected theory set forth in a
commercially unsuccessful and self-published book would not capture the public’s imagination
and produce the ratings and profits sought by CBS. CBS needed the public to buy into the idea
that the well-trodden Ramsey case was about to be blown wide open with JonBenét’s killer being
publicly revealed by a new reinvestigation, which would solve the twenty-year-old murder
mystery.
269. To accomplish their goals of achieving ratings and profits, Defendants produced
the Documentary to make the false accusations of Foreign Faction appear to be real.
270. Defendants created the illusion of a new, authentic, and real-time reinvestigation
by using individuals with law enforcement credentials as actors to play the role of the Pseudo
Experts and support and act out the accusations of Kolar’s book and the basis supporting its
accusations.
271. Defendants falsely marketed, promoted, and portrayed Clemente, Richards,
Fitzgerald, Kolar, Spitz, and Lee as “independent” experts who were coming together for the
first time in the Documentary and who independently reached the same conclusion.
272. In fact, Kolar had discussed his rejected theory with Fitzgerald and the FBI’s
Behavioral Analysis Unit as early as 2006.
273. Fitzgerald, Clemente, and Stanley all previously worked for the FBI’s Behavioral
Analysis Unit.
274. Upon information and belief, Fitzgerald had discussed Kolar’s theory with
Richards, and Richards agreed to join a team to review the Ransom Note prior to Richards
“putting together this elite and renowned team.”
Page 38 of 113

275. Upon information and belief, Kolar had discussed his theory and Spitz’s flashlight
theory with Spitz prior to Richards “putting together this elite and renowned team.”
276. Kolar relied extensively on Spitz and Lee in writing Foreign Faction.
277. Defendants knew, before undertaking any purported “complete reinvestigation,”
that Kolar would accuse Burke of killing JonBenét and John of covering it up.
278. Defendants hired Clemente, Richards, Fitzgerald, Stanley, Spitz, and Lee because
they were familiar with and/or collaborated on various aspects of Kolar’s “Burke-did-it”
explanation, well in advance of the Documentary and its purported “complete reinvestigation.”
279. Defendants hired Fitzgerald, Clemente, and Richards because Defendants knew,
before conducting any “complete reinvestigation,” that they would accuse Burke of killing
JonBenét and John of covering it up.
280. Defendants hired Spitz and Lee because Kolar had previously relied on their
theories to support his false accusation against Burke.
281. According to Foreign Faction, Kolar had spoken on many occasions with the
FBI’s Behavioral Analysis Unit, and Fitzgerald in particular, regarding his Burke-did-it-theory
between 2006 and 2012. See Foreign Faction, pp. 364-367.
282. And according to Kolar, “Fitzgerald was very interested in [Kolar’s] theory,”
“wanted to know if [Kolar would] be willing to come to Quantico to share it with members of his
team,” “[Fitzgerald] offer[ed] to put together a small team of forensic linguistic experts from
around the nation to take another objective look at the ransom note,” and that “[o]ne of his peers
from the United Kingdom had volunteered to participate as well.” Id. at 366-367.
283. Upon information and belief, Fitzgerald’s purported team of forensic linguistic
experts included Clemente, Richards, and Stanley.
Page 39 of 113

284. Kolar even wrote a letter dated January 1, 2007, to Colorado Governor Bill
Owens requesting that “consideration be given to inviting the FBI’s Behavioral Analysis Unit to
participate in the examination of this new evidence and case theory.” Id. at 380-381.
285. Clemente, Fitzgerald, and Stanley are former co-workers.
286. Clemente, Fitzgerald, and Richards are current co-workers. The three of them are
key employees at a production company called X-G Productions LA, Inc. (“X-G Productions”).
287. X-G Productions consults on and produces fictional crime films and TV shows.
See http://www.xgproductions.com/.
288. X-G Productions’ slogan is “authenticity.” Id.
289. X-G Productions’ expertise is to portray fictional crime stories to make them
appear real to television and movie viewers.
290. X-G Productions works on an array of fictional crime shows and movies,
including Criminal Minds, Blindspot, Quantico, Sleepy Hollow, NCIS, The Americans, Person
of Interest, True Detective, Smokin’ Acees 2 Assassins’ Ball, The Closer, and King & Maxwell.
291. X-G Productions also employs Aliza Rosen (“Rosen”) as its Chief Content
Officer.
292. The Documentary credits Clemente, Richards, and Rosen for its “Concept” and as
its Co-Executive Producers.
293. Prior to the commencement of the phony reinvestigation, Defendants had their
“concept” and the seven so-called “independent experts” who had agreed to act out Foreign
Faction under the guise of engaging in a legitimate reinvestigation: one “expert” who was the
only person connected in any manner to the investigation to have suggested that Burke was the
killer; one “expert” who was an FBI linguist known to have consulted on and supported Kolar’s
Page 40 of 113

theory for years; three “experts” who were the linguist’s past and current co-workers with whom
he shared Kolar’s theory; and two “experts” relied on by Kolar to support his theory.
294. Defendants’ promotions and representations concerning the new, complete
reinvestigation that would reveal the killer were hugely successful, as Defendants’ accusation
against Burke and John was a worldwide shout of guilty by CBS – the Tiffany Network. The
media, in headline after headline, article after article, and social media post after social media
post repeated and republished the CBS shout of guilty: CBS says Burke killed JonBenét and
her parents covered it up.
295. No longer were the false accusations against Burke and John emanating from the
netherworld of Ramsey conspiracy theorists or from the pages of the supermarket tabloids or
from the pages of a self-published book rejected by law enforcement and the mainstream media.
Now CBS – the most respected name in broadcast news and the network of Murrow, Cronkite,
and Wallace – placed the full power and credibility of its brand and its reputation for integrity
solidly behind the accusation that Burke killed his sister and John covered it up by, among other
things, strangling his daughter to death.
PART THREE: THE BROADCAST OF THE CASE OF: JONBENÉT RAMSEY
A. Defendants and Their Purported Fields of Expertise
296. At the beginning of the Documentary, Defendants introduced their team of so
called “world renowned” “experts”: Clemente, Richards, Fitzgerald, Kolar, Stanley, Spitz, and
Lee – i.e., the Pseudo-Experts.
297. The Documentary described Clemente as, among other things, a “Retired FBI
Profiler,” an “expert in the areas of child sex crimes, child abductions, and child homicides,” and
a former member of “the FBI’s Behavioral Analysis Unit.”
Page 41 of 113

298. Clemente currently works for X-G Productions as a writer and co-producer of
fictional crime series and films.
299. The Documentary did not disclose Clemente’s connection to X-G Productions.
300. The Documentary described Richards as a “Criminal Behavioral Analyst”
“trained by New Scotland Yard and the FBI.”
301. Richards currently works for X-G Productions as a co-producer of fictional crime
series and films.
302. The Documentary did not disclose Richards’ connection to X-G Productions and
Clemente.
303. The Documentary describes Fitzgerald as a “Profiler,” “Forensic Linguist,” and “a
former police officer too.”
304. Like Clemente, Fitzgerald was also a member of the FBI’s Behavioral Analysis
Unit.
305. Fitzgerald currently works for X-G Productions as a co-producer of fictional
crime series and films.
306. The Documentary did not disclose that Fitzgerald worked for the FBI’s
Behavioral Analysis Unit, his connection to X-G Productions, or his connections to Clemente
and Richards.
307. Stanley was also a member of the FBI’s Behavioral Analysis Unit.
308. The Documentary did not disclose that Stanley was a member of the FBI’s
Behavioral Analysis Unit or his connection to Clemente and Fitzgerald.
309. The Documentary described Kolar as an “Investigator for the Boulder D.A.” and
“Chief of Telluride Marshall’s Department.”
Page 42 of 113

310. According to his book, Kolar became familiar with the FBI’s Behavioral Analysis
Unit and Fitzgerald while corresponding with the FBI’s Behavioral Analysis Unit regarding his
Burke-did-it theory.
311. The Documentary did not disclose that Kolar authored Foreign Faction or his
connections to the FBI’s Behavioral Analysis Unit and Fitzgerald.
312. The Documentary described Spitz as a “Forensic Pathologist” who consulted on
the “JFK Autopsy” and “MLK Assassination.”
313. Federal judges have referred to Spitz as “not useful or credible,” and his opinions
as “simplistic and preposterous.” Spitz once provided dubious testimony about a man’s cause of
death to support his paying client, even though his testimony explicitly contradicted his own
treatise.
314. Kolar relied heavily on Spitz to support his theory in Foreign Faction.
315. Spitz has a long history of using his résumé to interject himself into high profile
cases for money and publicity.
316. The Documentary described Lee as a “world renowned criminalist,” “Forensic
Scientist,” and a “Pathologist.”
317. Kolar relied heavily on Lee to support his theory in Foreign Faction.
318. Lee has a long history of using his résumé to interject himself into high profile
cases for money and publicity.
319. The Documentary did not disclose that Kolar relied on Spitz and Lee in his book,
Foreign Faction.
Page 43 of 113

320. Despite these connections, Defendants consciously conveyed to the viewers that
these seven “experts” were independent and came together to conduct a complete and legitimate
investigation – the first of its kind.
Reply
#10
B. The False, Defamatory, and Malicious Gist of the Documentary
321. The false and defamatory gist of Defendants’ Documentary was that Burke
delivered a fatal blow to JonBenét, but before she died John strangled her to death with a torture
device known as a garrote to cover-up for Burke. The false and defamatory gist is further that
John and Burke participated in a criminal cover-up of the crime, lying to the police and the
public about their involvement to this day.
322. Defendants negligently published the Documentary and negligently published the
accusation that John strangled JonBenét to death and otherwise participated in a criminal cover
up on behalf of Burke.
323. Prior to publishing the Documentary and the accusation against John, Defendants
had actual knowledge that neither John nor Burke killed JonBenét or they published their
accusation with a reckless disregard for the truth.
324. Defendants made their false accusation against John and Burke with actual
malice, in that Defendants predetermined the result of their Documentary, but nevertheless
portrayed the Documentary as being a “complete reinvestigation” featuring “new witnesses,”
“new evidence,” and “new theories.”
325. Defendants made their false accusation against John and Burke with actual
malice, in that Defendants preselected their team of Pseudo-Experts because they had robust
preexisting connections with each other, but were willing to be marketed and falsely portrayed as
independent.
Page 44 of 113

326. Defendants made their false accusation against John and Burke with actual
malice, in that Defendants knew their team of Pseudo-Experts would portray John and Burke as
guilty before conducting a “complete reinvestigation,” but marketed and portrayed that their
Pseudo-Experts “independently . . . reache[d] the same conclusion[.]”
327. Defendants supported their accusation with a web of statements, re-creations, and
images, most of which were knowingly false, misrepresentative, and/or omitted and ignored
accurate information.
328. The purpose of the Documentary was to generate ratings and profits at the
expense of permanently impugning the reputations of John and Burke, evidencing a wanton,
reckless, and malicious disregard for the damage to John and Burke that was entirely foreseeable.
329. Defendants failed to meaningfully investigate, and recklessly dismissed, evidence
that supported explanations for JonBenét’s death other than the conclusion that John and Burke
were guilty.
330. Defendants’ version of events is so improbable on its face that Defendants
necessarily acted with a reckless disregard for truth or falsity in publishing it.
331. When Defendants published the Documentary, there were obvious reasons to
seriously doubt the truth and credibility of any accusation that Burke killed JonBenét and John
covered it up, and those reasons were easily ascertainable by Defendants, as they were part of the
public record related to the murder investigation.
332. When Defendants published the Documentary, they knew that there was no direct
evidence ever developed that supported an accusation that Burke killed JonBenét and John
covered it up.
Page 45 of 113

333. When Defendants published the Documentary, they knew that their accusation
that Burke killed JonBenét and John covered it up had no basis in fact.
334. When Defendants published the Documentary, they had actual knowledge that for
almost two decades CBS had discussed and reported on information and evidence that
exonerated Burke, necessarily exonerating John for covering up Burke’s alleged crime.
335. In publishing the Documentary, Defendants purposefully avoided and ignored the
overwhelming evidence that established that Burke did not kill his sister and John did not cover
up such a killing.
336. CBS’s strategy for purposefully avoiding and ignoring the truth included using a
third-party production company, in a misguided effort to try and legally insulate itself from the
overwhelming evidence that John did not cover-up that Burke killed JonBenét, and its direct
involvement in the conscious, intentional manipulation and misrepresentation of information in
the Documentary undertaken to support the false accusation against John.
337. CBS’s use of a third-party production company – instead of an in-house team
such as 48 Hours or 60 Minutes – was contrary to its usual practice in discussing and
investigating true crime stories and was motivated by CBS’s desire to avoid the truth and
insulate itself from the falsity of its accusations, thus evidencing a reckless disregard for truth or
falsity.
338. Upon information and belief, CBS, by and through its CEO Leslie Moonves and
Glenn Geller, President of CBS Entertainment, was presented an opportunity by a trusted and
well-respected member of the media to review prior to airing the Documentary, a large notebook
containing the mountain of exculpatory information regarding Burke – an offer they declined.
Page 46 of 113

339. When Defendants published the Documentary, they acted with a reckless
disregard for the truth in accusing John of covering up that Burke killed JonBenét in the face of
verifiable denials by John, Burke, the Ramsey family, and numerous law enforcement officials
who have steadfastly professed John and Burke’s innocence for over 18 years.
340. When Defendants published the Documentary, they acted with a reckless
disregard for the truth of the accusation that John covered-up that Burke killed JonBenét by
failing to verify and investigate the serious charge it was levying against him.
341. Indeed, because the accusation that John covered-up that Burke killed JonBenét
was not “hot news” – i.e., Defendants did not publish information that must be communicated
immediately to prevent it from losing its newsworthiness – Defendants acted with a reckless
disregard for the truth by conducting a phony investigation (or no investigation at all) that was
grossly inadequate under the circumstances.
342. When Defendants published the Documentary, CBS acted with a reckless
disregard for the truth of the accusation that John covered-up that Burke killed JonBenét by
relying on Critical Content. Critical Content is in the business of fiction and “reality” television,
rather than the business of conducting legitimate criminal investigations into twenty-year-old
murders that have remained unsolved despite unparalleled scrutiny by law enforcement and
investigative journalists.
343. When Defendants published the Documentary, they acted with a reckless
disregard for the truth of the accusation that John covered-up that Burke killed JonBenét,
because they hired “experts” who were essentially “TV talking heads” with dubious experience,
independence, and reputation, who were not reliable, unbiased sources or experienced homicide
investigators.
Page 47 of 113

344. When Defendants published the Documentary, CBS and Critical Content acted
with a reckless disregard for the truth of the accusation that John covered-up that Burke killed
JonBenét by relying on Clemente, Richards, and Fitzgerald, whose current occupations are to
make fake crime appear real on TV.
345. When Defendants published the Documentary, CBS and Critical Content acted
with a reckless disregard for the truth of the accusation that John covered-up that Burke killed
JonBenét by relying on Kolar and his self-published book Foreign Faction. Kolar’s Burke-did-it
accusation had been widely rejected by the many public officials and members of the mainstream
media to whom he shopped it, in large part because it was a nonsensical and unsupported
accusation against an innocent young man based on lies and rampant speculation.
346. The egregious nature of Defendants’ conduct is conclusively established by the
fact that Defendants sought to hide their reliance on Foreign Faction from the public and the
viewers of the Documentary – the book is not mentioned in the Documentary or its credits.
347. When Defendants published the Documentary, they acted with a reckless
disregard for the truth because they knew that the Documentary was not a complete
reinvestigation that uncovered new evidence that could implicate John or Burke; nevertheless,
Defendants knowingly published the accusation that John covered-up that Burke killed JonBenét,
which contradicted the law enforcement findings that CBS had long reported.
348. When Defendants published the Documentary, they acted with a reckless
disregard for the truth, because they premised their accusations on factual assertions that were
false, contrary to established evidence, and, in some cases, contrary to prior assertions made by
their own Pseudo-Experts when they were briefly involved in the actual law enforcement
investigation of JonBenét’s murder.
Page 48 of 113

349. When Defendants published the Documentary, they knowingly based their
accusation against John and Burke on false assertions of fact.
350. When Defendants published the Documentary, they acted with a reckless
disregard for the truth, because they knowingly omitted from the Documentary and recklessly
ignored exculpatory information that definitively establishes John and Burke’s innocence.
351. When Defendants published the Documentary, they had actual knowledge that
because the actual evidence did not support the accusation that John covered-up that Burke killed
JonBenét, the Documentary grossly manipulated, misrepresented, and distorted information and
juxta-positioned certain statements to intentionally create and support the false gist of the
Documentary.
352. When Defendants published the Documentary, they knowingly manipulated and
distorted the results of the Documentary’s demonstrations and re-creations to lend unwarranted
support to their false accusation that John covered-up that Burke killed JonBenét.
353. Upon information and belief, when Kolar self-published Foreign Faction, he
sought out 48 Hours to promote his book, but 48 Hours declined to even interview him, rejecting
his book’s conclusion as absurd and not worthy of belief based on known evidence and
information about the case.
354. After the Documentary was broadcast, John promptly demanded that Defendants
retract and correct the Documentary, including the false and defamatory conclusion, gist, and
implication that John covered-up that Burke killed JonBenét. John further described and
demanded retraction of various specific false and defamatory statements, as well as other
statements the Documentary juxta-positioned to support the false and defamatory gist that John
Page 49 of 113

covered-up that Burke killed JonBenét. Copies of the retraction demands delivered to
Defendants are attached hereto as Exhibits H and I.
355. Defendants refused to retract the false and defamatory gist and implication of the
Documentary, as well as the many specific statements creating and supporting the false gist.
356. Defendants’ refusal to retract the accusation that John covered-up that Burke
killed JonBenét, despite being put on notice that it was false and defamatory, also evidenced
their reckless disregard for the truth.
357. Defendants’ ultimate conclusion, implication, and gist – that John covered-up that
Burke killed JonBenét – is comprised of several false, misrepresented, omitted, and defamatory
factual assertions predesigned to bolster their accusations against John and Burke.
358. Nearly every segment, every statement, and every image in the Documentary is a
building block designed and juxta-positioned to convince Defendants’ audience that Burke killed
JonBenét and John covered it up.
C. Defendants’ False and Defamatory Conclusion that John Covered-up that Burke Killed JonBenét

359. The segment of the Documentary analyzed in this section of the Complaint is
found at page 77 and through page 84 (the end) of the script attached hereto as Exhibit B.
360. After engaging in rank speculation, junk science, confirmation bias, consciously
skewing the facts at every opportunity to implicate John and Burke, and combining suggestive
juxtapositions alongside false and omitted facts, Defendants concluded their Documentary by
clearly and falsely accusing John of the following:
a. Finding JonBenét alive but unresponsive shortly after Burke delivered a fatal
blow to JonBenét’s head with a flashlight and electing to engage in a criminal
cover-up rather than call 9-1-1 for help;
Page 50 of 113

b. Conspiring with Patsy to devise and execute a criminal cover-up of JonBenét’s
death;
c. Making a strangulation and torture device known as a garrote to use to strangle
JonBenét for the purpose of staging her murder as having been done by an
intruder;
d. Strangling JonBenét to death while still alive and without any visible head
trauma;
e. Restraining JonBenét’s limbs with rope;
f. Duct taping JonBenét’s mouth closed;
g. Staging JonBenét’s remains in the Wine Cellar;
h. Participating in the preparation of the Ransom Note;
i. Participating in the fraudulent and staged 9-1-1 Call;
j. Contriving to discover JonBenét’s dead body while in the company of friends;
k. Intentionally contaminating the crime scene;
l. Lying to police, prosecutors, the media, friends, and family; and
m. Obstructing justice for twenty years thereafter.
361. John did not perform any of the heinous criminal acts set forth in the above
Paragraph, nor did he have any other involvement in JonBenét’s death.
362. Defendants conveyed their above conclusions through, among other statements
and images, the following false and defamatory statements:
a. Then John came upstairs and apparently Detective Arndt asked him to search the house from “top to bottom.” So, again, John went down to the basement with Fleet White. He went into the wine cellar. Clemente, Exhibit B, p. 78.

b. In my view, this would have been so easy to figure out if they had not used lawyers who shut the door to any additional investigation. Spitz, Exhibit B. p. 78.
Page 51 of 113


c. Yeah, I believe the Ramseys distanced themselves from the investigation while at the same time claiming to the world through media appearances that they were fully cooperating. Clemente, Exhibit B. p. 79.

d. No, I don’t believe that it was somebody from the outside. Spitz, Exhibit B, p. 79.

e. 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. Clemente, Exhibit B, p. 80.

f. And, of course, you know, the media is speculating on a pedophile or a sex offender. Dr. Lee said that the DNA evidence in this case is totally erroneous. Richards, Exhibit B, p. 80.

g. That DNA has no forensic value. It’s really no sexual assault here. Lee, Exhibit B, p. 80.

h. I don’t think so, either. But I think what we do find though is an intent to mislead [and] an intent to cover-up. Clemente, Exhibit B, p. 82.

i. I think early on we discussed the lack of the family actually getting involved with the investigation to begin with. And that is so atypical of what I see in a case where someone close to you have passed away. You’ll do whatever you can to get the case resolved. We didn’t see that here . . . but maybe we did. Maybe we saw it with her brother. “Do everything we can to protect this child.” We see it in the letter. It’s a sales job, trying to take the cops down a certain avenue. And we see it in the press conferences. . . . Every step along the way we see it. Stanley, Exhibit B, p. 82.

j. Mixed motives make it pretty clear that both parents are involved. Kolar, Exhibit B, p. 82.

k. Yeah, I mean, I think from a profiling perspective, mixed motives tells us that it’s a high probability that it’s more than one person involved in staging, right? Clemente, Exhibit B, p. 82.

l. Arguably, yes, and that’s been the experience that we’ve had looking at staged crime scenes over the years. And I think that’s what we have here in the language utilized [in the Ransom Note, 9-1-1 Call, and press conferences], as well as the crime scene itself, the body and everything else. Within an hour of this crime being committed, there’s probably a cover-up starting with whatever they did to the body and certainly the writing of this letter, the 9-1-1 call, everything that happened later. But I don’t think Burke was involved in the cover-up. He was not directly involved in writing letters. He certainly didn’t do the phone call to 91-1. He may have been there in the room as we found out later. . . Now was he
Page 52 of 113

interviewed later on by investigators and child psychological experts and did he perhaps say some things that perhaps were not exactly true that happened that night, that’s very possible. . . But as far as the cover-up itself, I would say, primarily, it’s John and Patsy who were involved in that. Fitzgerald, Exhibit B, pp. 82-83.

m. I think the most likely probability is that the adults in that family, John and Patsy Ramsey – and this is consistent with what the grand jury wanted to indict them for – staged this to look like a monster predator had come in their house and killed their daughter. It’s my opinion that the Ramsey family did not want law enforcement to resolve this case and that’s why it remains unsolved. Clemente, Exhibit B, p. 83.

n. 100% agree. Fitzgerald, Exhibit B, p. 83.

o. In the 20 years since this horrendous death, I have no doubt someone involved in this homicide talked to someone about what happened and I would only hope at some point the persons who may have heard something from John Ramsey, from Burke Ramsey, and perhaps the late Patsy Ramsey, would still come forth. I’d love to hear from them. Fitzgerald, Exhibit B, p. 83.

p. I think in the end this was about two parents [who] deeply cared for the daughter they lost and wanted to protect the child they had remaining. Clemente, Exhibit B, p. 84.

363. Each of the above statements, individually in context and together in combination,
conveyed the false and defamatory accusation that John engaged in a criminal cover-up on behalf
of Burke, including the criminal act of strangling the remaining life out of JonBenét.
364. Defendants also used fictional recreations and audio depicting their accusations to
bolster the defamatory and factual impression of their conclusions.
365. Defendants published their above accusations despite knowledge of their falsity or
with reckless disregard for their falsity.
366. Even had Defendants not offered such a clear accusation at the end of their
Documentary, the Documentary would nonetheless have been defamatory and would nonetheless
have falsely conveyed that John engaged in a criminal cover-up that included the criminal act of
strangling the remaining life out of JonBenét.
Page 53 of 113

367. In addition to the statements identified above, and countless false and material
facts, Defendants further utilized throughout the broadcast a number of suggestive juxtapositions
and other statements designed to support their preconceived storyline that John engaged in a
criminal cover-up on behalf of Burke.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)