The Lawsuit
#11
368. As a predicate for their false accusation against John, Defendants falsely
concluded that Burke killed JonBenét with a flashlight, thereby giving John motive for engaging
in a criminal cover-up:
a. 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. Kolar, Exhibit B, p. 80.

b. I think we all agree on that. Spitz, Exhibit B, p. 80.

c. Yeah. Clemente, Exhibit B, p. 80.

d. Yes. Fitzgerald, Exhibit B, p. 80.

e. Absolutely. Richards, Exhibit B, p. 80.

f. Sure, yeah, I agree with that. Lee, Exhibit B, p. 80.

g. Okay. Spitz, Exhibit B, p. 80.

h. However, I think it’s not the intentional murder. Lee, Exhibit B, p. 80.

i. Maybe in anger he swung it faster than he thought it would. We’re talking about a ten-year-old, who, by the way, had hit the same person in the head with a golf club and what happened? Clemente, Exhibit B, p. 81.

j. Nothing happened. Spitz, Exhibit B, p. 81.
Page 54 of 113


k. Nothing happened, so . . . Clemente, Exhibit B, p. 81.

l. Yeah, because he didn’t hit that with that same force that he used the flashlight. Spitz, Exhibit B, p. 81.

m. Let’s say, “Don’t steal my pineapple!” [with accompanying physical demonstration]. Lee, Exhibit B, p. 81.

n. Maybe it comes down to what accident means to you. For me, legally, what an accident means is if somebody who did not form the intent to kill . . . Clemente, Exhibit B, p. 81.

o. But still hits you with a lot of impact. Spitz, Exhibit B, p. 81.

p. That could be a fact, but what you don’t know is what’s going in on his head. Clemente, Exhibit B, p. 81.

369. As more fully set forth herein, Burke did not kill JonBenét.
370. Each of the below sections examines the false and defamatory factual assertions,
conclusions, and suggestive juxtapositions on which Defendants’ accusation against John is
based.
D. Defendants Falsely Convey that New Evidence Establishes that Burke Can Be Heard on the 9-1-1 Call and John Participated in Staging the Call

371. The segment of the Documentary analyzed in this section of the Complaint is
found at page 5 through page 13 of the script attached hereto as Exhibit B.
372. In this segment, Defendants falsely asserted – as predicates to their false and
defamatory accusation that John engaged in a criminal cover-up – that John and Patsy staged the
9-1-1 Call to cover-up for Burke, and that John lied about Burke being asleep during the 9-1-1
Call and the morning of December 26, 1996.
373. Patsy did not stage the 9-1-1 Call.
374. John did not participate in staging the 9-1-1 Call.
Page 55 of 113

375. John did not lie about Burke not being in the kitchen at the time the 9-1-1 Call
was made.
376. John did not lie about seeing Burke sleeping and/or remaining in his room on the
morning of December 26, 1996.
377. Defendants directly conveyed their conclusion that John participated in staging
the 9-1-1 Call through, among other statements and images, the following false and defamatory
statements:
a. I mean this changes things because their account is that Burke was asleep at the time. Richards, Exhibit B, p. 10.

b. They made a point of saying he was asleep and he had nothing to do with it and that they never even asked him whether he heard anything. Richards, Exhibit B, p. 10.

c. Was there a shift in kind of tone from sort of being very hysterical to suddenly something quite different? Richards, Exhibit B, p. 12.

d. Right. What bothered me immensely, it sounded like she said “Okay, we’ve called the police, now what?” And that disturbed me. So I remained on the phone trying to hear what was being said – sounded like there were two voices in the room, maybe three different ones. I had a bad feeling about this. To me it seemed rehearsed. Mm-hmm. Archuletta, Exhibit B, p. 12.

e. That’s one of the reasons why I even stayed on until they disconnected because there were things being said that somebody needed to know. Archuletta, Exhibit B, p. 13.

f. We spoke to Kim Archuletta, who was the 9-1-1 dispatcher at the time, and she said the thing that stayed with her was as Patsy thought she had disconnected and she was typing up the call, she could hear a gear shift, an instant gear shift which was in direct contrast to the emotion of the call and she basically said that what she heard Patsy say was “Okay, we’ve called the police, now what?” Richards, Exhibit B, p. 13.

g. You had John saying “We’re not talking to you,” very clipped. And then it could have been, “What did you do?” and “Help me, Jesus,” from Patsy. And then the young boy’s voice saying “Well, what did you find?” And we must remember that they did say in their statements that Burke was asleep. Why say he’s asleep
Page 56 of 113

when he’s clearly not. I believe we heard his voice on the 9-1-1. Richards, Exhibit B, p. 13.

378. Each of the above statements, individually in context and together in combination,
conveyed the false and defamatory accusation that John participated in a fraudulent and staged 9
1-1 call. This accusation was a predicate for, and was calculated to convey and support, the
accusation that John participated in a criminal cover-up.
379. Defendants also used fictional recreations and audio depicting their accusation to
bolster the defamatory and factual impression of their conclusions.
380. In addition to the statements identified above, Defendants further utilized a
number of suggestive juxtapositions and other statements designed to support their preconceived
storyline that John participated in staging the 9-1-1 Call and otherwise engaged in a criminal
cover-up on behalf of Burke. Among other things, Defendants stated the following in this
segment:
a. There are, you know, many factors that are very interesting from a forensic linguistic perspective. The fifth word used is the plural pronoun “we”. “We” have a kidnapping. What does that even mean? Where’s the ownership? Fitzgerald, Exhibit B, p. 5.

b. She doesn’t mention her daughter’s name, she says my daughter, my six-year-old blonde. Clemente, Exhibit B, p. 5.

c. I’m the mother . . . Richards, Exhibit B, p. 6.

d. I’m the mother. Clemente, Exhibit B, p. 6.

e. These are behavioral things that, I think, are extremely unusual. Clemente, Exhibit B, p. 6.

f. The hanging up, if you will – when you make that phone call, someone close to you has disappeared, you’re sending out that phone call for help. I’ve looked at a lot of 9-1-1 calls over the years. They’ll hold on until the police get there, that’s your lifeline, that help indicates hope. The moment you hang up that phone, you end the hope. And for that phone to be hung up, you’ve got to ask yourself why. Stanley, Exhibit B, p. 6.
Page 57 of 113


g. Right. And if they’re legitimately hoping for their child to be taken care of, rescued, saved, whatever. If there is something else going on then you have a different set of parameters involved. Fitzgerald, Exhibit B, p. 6.

h. And it’s interesting that Patsy thought she had hung up the call and disconnected it while the dispatcher was actually calling out her name because she wanted to talk to her more, and keep her on the phone until the police arrived. . . But she did not hang up the phone. Clemente, Exhibit B, p. 6.

i. In the background, we heard some voices. Lee, Exhibit B, p. 6.

j. Some more voices. Who do you hear? In the 90’s they tried to do enhancements of that tape. . . . There’s been a lot of controversy about what they’ve actually uncovered on the tape. And most of the general public has never heard the enhanced version. We want to use today’s technology to actually nail down what exactly was said and by whom in those final moments of that tape. Clemente, Exhibit B, p. 6.

k. Yeah. I’ve never heard that before. Clemente, Exhibit B, p. 8.

l. Right. There were only four people in that house. Richards, Exhibit B, p. 9.

m. Right, one of them was dead. Clemente, Exhibit B, p. 9.

n. I believe we’ve heard John Ramsey’s voice. We’ve heard Patsy’s voice. So we know the only other person in the address at the time is Burke. Richards, Exhibit B, pp. 9-10.

o. This is hugely significant. Richards, Exhibit B, p. 10.

p. Oh, my god. Clemente, Exhibit B, p. 10.

q. Yeah, I’ve always been under a gag order so I’ve never really talked to anybody. Um, so my side of the story has never really been heard. Archuletta, Exhibit B, p. 10.

r. This is the first time that anyone’s asked for my opinion. . . . In 20 years. Archuletta, Exhibit B, p. 11.

s. I just remember having that sunken feeling like something wasn’t right. The problem was if you hear the frantic in her voice as she’s speaking to me where she couldn’t even answer my questions, it immediately stopped. Archuletta, Exhibit B, p. 12.

Page 58 of 113

t. Was there a shift in kind of tone from sort of being very hysterical to suddenly something quite different? Richards, Exhibit B, p. 12.

u. And it’s interesting cause there are some bits that we can’t quite make out but there are some very clear bits that we can. Richards, Exhibit B, p. 12.

v. Yeah, when we cleaned it up, we hear a man say “We’re not speaking to you,” and he’s very stern, and then, I think we hear Patsy saying something like “What did you do? Help me, Jesus,” or “Help me, Jesus. Help me, Jesus.” And then Burke, I think, say “What did you find?” Clemente, Exhibit B, p. 12.

w. It was never addressed. I think it really would have turned the case around. Archuletta, Exhibit B, p. 13.

x. And that absolutely changes the entire focus of this investigation and we should keep that in mind as we evaluate the rest of this evidence. Clemente, Exhibit B, p. 13.

381. Defendants intentionally conveyed that John and Patsy staged the 9-1-1 Call.
382. Defendants based their purported accusation and rank speculation that John was
involved in staging the 9-1-1 Call on forensic linguistics.
383. Forensic linguistics is, at best, an unreliable pseudo-science, yet Defendants
represent that the Pseudo-Experts’ linguistic analysis is credible and conclusive.
384. Defendants further consciously based their purported accusation and rank
speculation that John was involved in staging the 9-1-1 Call on false and incomplete facts.
385. Defendants knew that they lied to the audience about the efficacy of the 9-1-1
Recording.
386. Defendants knew, failed to disclose, and grossly misrepresented that, in truth,
Aerospace conducted an analysis of the 9-1-1 Recording in 1997 at the request of Boulder PD
investigators and gave a nearly identical analysis of the 9-1-1 Call.
Page 59 of 113

387. Indeed, Defendants knew that they conducted and portrayed a false, deceitful, and
dishonest dramatization of Aerospace’s twenty-year-old disputed analysis of the 9-1-1 Call and
gave it the false impression of a new, real-time discovery made for the first time.
388. Defendants did not use new technology to “nail down what exactly was said and
by whom” on the 9-1-1 Recording for the first time.
389. Despite their representations to the contrary, Defendants had already heard the
purported enhancement of the 9-1-1 Recording.
390. Defendants lifted their purported breakthroughs straight from Foreign Faction
and broadcast them nearly verbatim into the Documentary. See, e.g., Foreign Faction, pp. 100
102.
391. Defendants knew that they were merely reciting what Aerospace claimed to have
discovered when it “enhanced” the 9-1-1 Call in 1997.
392. Defendants knew, contradicted, recklessly ignored, and failed to disclose that
despite law enforcement efforts to analyze and enhance the 9-1-1 Recording, no consensus has
ever been reached as to what, if anything, transpired on the 9-1-1 Recording.
393. As set forth above, even the FBI and U.S. Secret Service were unable to decipher
any statements of the 9-1-1 Recording after Patsy hung up.
394. Defendants further knew, recklessly ignored, and failed to disclose that the 9-1-1
Recording was made a recycled tape of prior 9-1-1 calls.
395. Yet Defendants proclaimed that their use of new techniques conclusively
established Burke’s voice on the 9-1-1 Recording, and that John and Patsy made incriminating
statements to Burke on the 9-1-1 Recording.
Page 60 of 113

396. At the end of the 9-1-1 Recording, John did not say “We’re not talking to you”;
and Defendants knew it.
397. At the end of the 9-1-1 Recording, Patsy did not say “What did you do? Help me,
Jesus”; and Defendants knew it.
398. At the end of the 9-1-1 Recording, Burke did not say “Well, what did you find?”;
and Defendants knew it.
399. Defendants further staged their purported interview with Kim Archuletta, the 9-1
1 operator.
400. Archuletta had already been interviewed, and Defendants knew it.
401. For instance, Archuletta had already given a virtually identical interview to Kolar
in 2005. See Foreign Faction, p. 100.
402. Yet, Defendants intentionally give the impression that they are discovering, and
Archuletta is giving, for the very first time, Archuletta’s version of events.
403. Defendants knew that Archuletta was not reliable or credible.
404. Defendants knew that Archuletta was not credible because they knew that she had
already given her version of events to, at a minimum, Kolar.
405. Defendants knew that neither Archuletta’s statements nor Aerospace’s version of
the 9-1-1 Recording were new evidence.
406. Defendants’ conscious decision to portray that 9-1-1 Recording and Archuletta’s
version of events as newly discovered evidence that is “hugely significant” and “changes the
entire focus of the investigation” was calculated to convey to viewers that their investigation was
superior to all those investigations that preceded it, including those investigations resulting in
Page 61 of 113

John and Burke’s exonerations, and that they had made new discoveries about the 9-1-1 Call
previously unknown to Boulder law enforcement authorities.
407. Defendants published their above accusations despite knowledge of their falsity or
with reckless disregard for their falsity.
Reply
#12
E. Defendants Falsely Claim that Patsy Wrote the Ransom Note and that John Participated in Same

408. The segment of the Documentary analyzed in this section is of the Complaint is
found at pages 13 to 20 and page 62 of the script attached hereto as Exhibit B.
409. In this segment, Defendants falsely assert – as a predicate to their false and
defamatory conclusion that John engaged in a criminal cover-up – that John and Patsy staged the
Ransom Note.
410. The Ramseys did not write or participate in writing the Ransom Note.
411. The Ransom Note was written by an unknown intruder.
412. Defendants conveyed their above conclusions through, among other statements
and images, the following false and defamatory statements
a. I think she [Patsy] was the author of that ransom note. We know that was her pad. Her fingerprints were on that pad. The Sharpie pen we located that and ink matched it to the ransom note which bore handwriting characteristics that some experts said were remarkably similar to Patsy’s. If we found that body of evidence in the possession of any third party, that’s pretty demining evidence, but in this case, for some reason, the district attorney wanted to create some parallel universe why it wasn’t hers. I find it preposterous. Thomas, Exhibit B, p. 62.

b. There seems to be multiple motives embodied in this document so you first start out with this foreign faction – that’s always stuck out in my mind. Clemente, Exhibit B, p. 14.

c. The first language they learned in life was English. I have no doubt about that. Age is not always easy to determine, but I would certainly say this persons’ an adult. No indication of sort of teenage slang, vernacular, so I would say we have someone, an adult, 30 or older. The last one and part of a linguistic profile is gender and this can be one of the trickiest ones to determine. There are at least
Page 62 of 113

six examples of what I would call maternalistic language. The very first sentence is already circled. Can you picture a mother telling their young child “Listen carefully, when you get home,” not when you get back to your house, not when you get to your residence, “when you get home.” “Do not particularly like you” – would a guy necessarily care if someone likes them or not in this context? I find in the thousands of cases I have worked over the years, when someone puts a statement in like that, it turns out to be a female. Fitzgerald, Exhibit B, p. 16.

d. Assuming this is done by an outside person who broke into the house for the purposes of a kidnapping. Fitzgerald, Exhibit B, p. 18.

e. I think we can all agree this letter is clearly staged. What we have to decide through our investigation is whether it was staged by someone in the family or somebody who came into this home. Clemente, Exhibit B, p. 18.

f. Right and much more prominent are the parental kidnappings of a non-custodial parent or by a non-custodial parent. So it was my belief at this juncture that as I said, the ransom note was a red herring and that it was staging. Walker, Exhibit B, p. 20.

413. Each of the above statements, individually in context and together in combination,
conveyed the false and defamatory accusation that John participated in the use of the Ransom
Note as part of staging to cover-up that Burke killed his sister. This accusation was a predicate
for, and was calculated to convey and support, the accusation that John participated in a criminal
cover-up.
414. In addition to the statements identified above, Defendants further utilized a
number of suggestive juxtapositions and other statements designed to support their preconceived
storyline that John participated in staging the Ransom Note and otherwise engaged in a criminal
cover-up on behalf of Burke. Among other things, Defendants stated the following in this
segment:
a. I find it fascinating because first, it addresses, you know, it, the addressee, Mr. Ramsey. But then the next two words are “Listen carefully.” And if we, we look at the letter here, this jumps out at me simply because, number one, it’s a letter. What are we listening to? Stanley, Exhibit B, p. 14.

b. So it should say read carefully. Clemente, Exhibit B, p. 14.
Page 63 of 113


c. And I wouldn’t even expect to read carefully. You have a missing child, you’re gonna read this carefully. That’s a given. Stanley, Exhibit B, p. 14.

d. The amount $118 is very close to the bonus Mr. John Ramsey would have received or did receive that year. That’s a unique number. The fact that it’s so specific makes it stand out. Stanley, Exhibit B, p. 15.

e. He’s a millionaire. I mean if you’re gonna do this, you go large. I mean why would you go for the $118 when you can go for a million? Richards, Exhibit B, p. 15.

f. When the Boulder investigators came to me and showed me this letter, I noticed some quotes in here that I said, “Well, I recognize them from somewhere.” And it was sort of early in the Internet days and it wasn’t as easy to search things back then. But I rented a few movies that I thought I recognized these lines from and the first of ‘em comes from these four sentences I’m about to read. So if you follow along with me here, on the second page we have some quotes borrowed from a cinematic version of a kidnapping of a young girl, the 1972 movie “Dirty Harry.” Fitzgerald, Exhibit B, p. 15.

g. One of the things that we know from the actual crime scene video was that the house was filled with movie posters. Fitzgerald, Exhibit B, p. 15.

h. “If we catch you talking to a stray dog, she dies.” In the movie, instead of it actually being a dog, a dog breed is actually mentioned. “If you alert bank authorities, she dies, she dies, she dies.” Well, we’re not done. Last page, “Don’t try to grow a brain, John.” A certain character who was an LAPD police officer who was on a runaway bus was talking to a mad bomber on a cell phone. The movie was “Speed.” Fitzgerald Exhibit B, p. 15.

i. This here, “If you alert bank authorities, she dies.” You told us early on follow your instructions or she’ll be beheaded, executed, beheaded, so why do you have to keep telling us over and over again? 76% of this is extraneous. . . . It’s not necessary. To me, they’re trying to sell this now. It’s a sales job. Stanley, Exhibit B, p. 15.

j. Writing ability I would say is high. We have an advanced writing style expressed throughout this letter. The only mistakes are found in the first paragraph. We had the concept of foreign faction up here in the second sentence. Well, right below it we have the word “business” and if you’ll notice, it’s misspelled. There’s an extra “s” in here. Perhaps someone who is not a native English speaker would in fact insert that extra “s.” So what I noticed early on is that this was a purposeful mistake. This was done to tie in somehow to the concept that this person is a foreigner and perhaps does not speak English as their native tongue. Fitzgerald Exhibit B, p. 16.
Page 64 of 113


k. “Particularly,” “enforcement,” “countermeasures,” they’re all spelled properly. Clemente, Exhibit B, p. 16.

l. What it tells me is there’s an element of disguise involved. These misspellings, they were inserted for a reason to make it look like it’s somebody other than who it really was. Language one, and I would clearly say it’s English. Fitzgerald, Exhibit B, p. 16.

m. The less information you give in a ransom letter or note, the less of a chance you have of being caught. You don’t want to leave clues. This does just the opposite. Stanley, Exhibit B, p. 16.

n. Yeah and that, the fact that it was written in the house, not before the fact in preparation for a kidnapping, which you would think they would, right? Clemente, Exhibit B, p. 17.

o. Whoever wrote this managed to commit a murder, find the pad, find the pen, practiced a couple times because they didn’t want to show bad penmanship or something, write it and then put the pad and pen back to where they normally are kept. Clemente, Exhibit B, p. 17.

p. It makes no sense at all to do that, unless it’s something other than what the note is making it appear to be. Fitzgerald, Exhibit B, p. 17.

q. But even if they did it this fast, that’s 21 and a half minutes that they could’ve been caught. 21 and a half minutes that they stayed in the house longer than they needed to. Clemente, Exhibit B, p. 18.

415. Defendants intentionally conveyed that John and Patsy used the Ransom Note as
staging to cover-up that Burke had killed his sister.
416. Defendants based their accusation and rank speculation that John was involved in
staging the Ransom Note on forensic linguistics.
417. Forensic linguistics is, at best, an unreliable pseudo-science, yet Defendants
represent that the Pseudo-Experts’ linguistic analysis is credible and conclusive.
418. Rather than rely on the established and judicially recognized science of
handwriting analysis which totally undermines Defendants’ accusations against John and Burke,
Page 65 of 113

the Documentary relied on the junk science of “statement analysis” to analyze the Ransom Note
and form a false, misrepresentative, and unreliable basis for claiming that Patsy wrote the
Ransom Note and John participated.
419. Defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that their Pseudo-Experts’ analysis of
the Ransom Note was unreliable pseudo-science and would not be admissible evidence in a court
of law.
420. Defendants further consciously based their purported accusation and rank
speculation that John was involving in staging the Ransom Note on false and incomplete facts.
421. Defendants not only knowingly disregarded and failed to disclose the
longstanding findings of the legitimate handwriting experts, but knowingly contradicted them.
422. The six legitimate handwriting experts who analyzed the original Ransom Note
and original handwriting exemplars of John, Patsy, and Burke long ago rejected the theory that a
member of the Ramsey family wrote the Ransom Note.
423. Each of the six handwriting experts concluded that Burke and John did not write
the Ransom Note, and the consensus of the six experts was that the chances that Patsy wrote it
were “very low.”
424. As set forth in the Wolf Decision,
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 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 at 1334; see Exhibit C.
Page 66 of 113

425. Defendants knew that if a Ramsey did not write the Ransom Note, an intruder
committed the murder.
426. Defendants misled their viewers and misrepresented the known evidence by
knowingly and intentionally failing to disclose the legitimate experts’ findings that the Ramseys
did not write the Ransom Note.
427. The fact that a stranger to the Ramsey family wrote the Ransom Note is
fundamentally inconsistent with Defendants’ false accusation that John covered-up that Burke
killed his sister.
428. Defendants further relied on multiple references to Hollywood films in the
Ransom Note as evidence that it was written by Patsy. Yet Defendants fail to disclose that the
author of the Ransom Note also lifted the line “listen carefully” from movies featuring
kidnappings that were heavily referenced in the Ransom Note: (1) Dirty Harry, “Now listen to
me carefully. Listen very carefully”; (2) Nick of Time, “I need you to listen carefully”; and (3)
Ruthless People, “Listen very carefully!”
429. Despite claiming that the Ramsey home contained many movie posters,
Defendants failed to disclose that investigators searched the Ramsey home and did not find any
posters of the movies referenced in the Ransom Note (nor the movies themselves), nor did they
find any evidence that any member of the Ramsey family had ever viewed those films.
430. Defendants also knew but failed to disclose that investigators had long ago
recognized the Ransom Note’s apparent references to movie dialogue.
431. Despite disclosing a handful of references to kidnapping films, Defendants failed
to disclose and recklessly disregarded at least three additional movie references, one of which
debuted less than two months before JonBenét’s murder.
Page 67 of 113

432. The idea that Patsy and John – in the midst of covering-up Burke’s killing of
JonBenét in the middle of the night by strangling and sexually assaulting their daughter – not
only recalled numerous Hollywood film references but took the time to work those film
references into a three-page Ransom Note while carefully disguising the handwriting is so
inherently improbable that it is not worthy of belief and certainly not a legitimate basis on which
to base any accusation against the Ramsey family, and that leaving a long Ransom Note would
not have been in the Ramseys’ best interests, either.
433. Defendants suggestion that precisely 76% of the words in the Ransom Note were
extraneous further demonstrates their confirmation bias and conscious decision to skew all facts
to support their accusations against the Ramsey family. Defendants’ intentional implication was
that if an intruder had committed this crime, they would have used an economy of words. In
doing so, Defendants intentionally ignore that an intruder may have written the Ransom Note to
cast suspicion onto the Ramsey family, including a reference to $118,000.
434. Defendants further falsely state that the only spelling or grammar mistake in the
Ransom Note is the misspelling of “business.” However, the Ransom Note is littered with
grammatical errors.
435. Defendants’ implication that the Ransom Note is high risk behavior for an
intruder is similarly true for the Ramseys.
436. Indeed, as noted by the Wolf Decision, which Defendants consciously failed to
disclose, “the length of time that it took to practice and write the note could also conceivably
undermine any notion that Mrs. Ramsey wrote it. Under plaintiff’s scenario, Mrs. Ramsey was
working quickly to create a staged crime scene. . . . Given those time constraints, and
presumably a desire to provide as little handwriting as possible for purposes of future analysis,
Page 68 of 113

she arguably would not have written such a long note.” Wolf Decision at 1361. This is even
more persuasive in light of the several accurate quotations and references to dialogue from
Hollywood films.
437. Defendants’ reliance on these immaterial details as evidence of the Ramseys’
guilt merely demonstrates the extremes to which they were willing to go to justify their
preconceived storyline.
438. Defendants consciously ignored that there was no reasonable basis for accusing
Patsy of authoring the Ransom Note and John of participating in same or being aware that Patsy
was the author.
439. Defendants consciously ignored that none of the bases on which they base their
accusations point to Patsy, John, or Burke as authors of the Ransom Note.
440. Indeed, many of the points Defendants rely on forcefully point to an intruder
authoring the Ransom Note.
441. Defendants published their above accusations despite knowledge of their falsity or
with reckless disregarding for their falsity.
Reply
#13
F. Defendants Falsely Cast Suspicion on John Based on Purported Behavior During the Hours After the 9-1-1 Call

442. The segment of the Documentary analyzed in this section of the Complaint is
found at page 18 through page 27 of the script attached hereto as Exhibit B.
443. In this segment, Defendants falsely asserted – as predicates to their false and
defamatory conclusion that John engaged in a criminal cover-up – that John staged the discovery
of JonBenét’s body and otherwise behaved in a guilty manner at the crime scene on December
26, 1996.
444. John did not stage the discovery of JonBenét’s body.
Page 69 of 113

445. John spontaneously discovered JonBenét’s body while searching the Ramsey
home pursuant to Boulder PD’s instructions.
446. Defendants begin this segment by introducing former FBI Agent Ron Walker
(“Walker”), whom Clemente and Richards described as the only first responder who “went as a
behavioral analyst,” who “knew what to look for,” and would “have the answers to some of the
gaps we’ve got.”
447. Defendants directly conveyed their conclusion that John staged the discovery of
JonBenét’s body through, among other statements and images, the following false and
defamatory statements:
a. But what I learned later on from Linda is that when she tells John, “We’re going to search the house top and bottom and we’re gonna start at the top.” Ramsey is there with Fleet White. He grabs Fleet by the arm and makes a bee line for the basement door. John Ramsey opens the door, says something about finding his daughter and then turns the light on. Virtually every staged murder case that I have seen the perpetrator manipulates the arrival of friends or other family members who are then put in the situation where they actually discover the body or they are with the perpetrator as the body is discovered. Walker, Exhibit B, p. 21.

b. They bring somebody along. They discover the body, but with a witness who can testify to their shock and awe and horror at what they find. Clemente, Exhibit B, p. 21.

c. When Larry Mason and I came down here, the lights were on. . . . Probably because John Ramsey had turned them on after he had opened the door. Walker, Exhibit B, p. 23.

d. The statements that were made said that John called out that she was here before he turned the light on. Clemente, Exhibit B, p. 24.

e. From my perspective now I can look in here and see objects. . . . But I don’t know that I can necessarily identify objects. . . . Now this just looks like a jumble of cloth. Walker, Exhibit B, p. 24.

f. Right. And how would you know that that was actually your daughter wrapped up in there? Clemente, Exhibit B, p. 24.

Page 70 of 113

g. Right around the time that I was there, there was another detective there that I think had overheard John making a call for his airplane. This is after the body has been discovered. Why does John Ramsey want to leave so quickly when he has to understand that there’s going to be a police investigation, and his daughter has just been killed. Walker, Exhibit B, p. 25.

h. You know, for me this isn’t just a red flag, this is an absolute anomaly. Richards, Exhibit B, p. 25.

i. As I recall, he’s never been asked those questions. Walker, Exhibit B, p. 24.

448. Each of the above statements, individually in context and in combination,
conveyed the false and defamatory accusation that John staged the discovery of JonBenét’s body.
This accusation was a predicate for, and was calculated to convey and support, the accusation
that John participated in a criminal cover-up of Burke killing his sister.
449. Defendants also used fictional recreations and audio depicting their accusation to
bolster the defamatory and factual impression of their conclusions.
450. In addition to the statements identified above, Defendants further utilized a
number of suggestive juxtapositions and other statements designed to support their preconceived
storyline that John participated in staging the 9-1-1 Call and otherwise engaged in a criminal
cover-up on behalf of Burke. For instance, Defendants stated the following in this segment:
a. Well, more importantly, I want to control the movements of the people in that crime scene. About noon, Linda Arndt calls into Mason and tells him that uh, Ramsey has been out of pocket for about an hour and a half. Walker, Exhibit B, p. 20.

b. First, when he reappears, his demeanor has changed. Richards, Exhibit B, p. 20.
c. He’s agitated. Clemente, Exhibit B, p. 20.
d. That way we’re not gonna run into the situation where for an hour and a half he goes missing again. Walker, Exhibit B, p. 21.

e. He puts her down on the ground, but right here is a living room couch, a coffee table, chairs. Why would he put her on the floor? Clemente, Exhibit B, p. 21.

Page 71 of 113

f. And, and I asked them, I said, “Hey were you standing here when the body was found?” And he’s says, “yeah.” He says, “Ramsey brought the body up and put it right there.” I looked down at my feet and I said to French, I said, “You mean right here?” And he says, “Yeah, right there.” What I’m thinking is crime scene contamination. Walker, Exhibit B, p. 21.

g. Right, or what about concealing the body for a time too? Richards, Exhibit B, p. 23.

h. Or concealing the body, right. Walker, Exhibit B, p. 23.

i. It was my belief that the philosophy that was kind of laid out for the police department that day was we have to treat them with kid gloves. Treat them with deference. Treat them as victims and not as suspects. . . . They were influential. They were wealthy. Walker, Exhibit B, p. 24.

j. From what I can see, the influence here really had a very significant impact as to why people were allowed to come and go from the house. Richards, Exhibit B, p. 24.

k. Yeah. Going through the list of things that initially puzzled me, but then I started thinking, when you add them all together, I started thinking, well, there’s something really bizarre and odd about all of this. Walker, Exhibit B, p. 24.

l. First thing you do in a homicide case, if you have witnesses, is you separate them, you take them some place, and you get a statement. . . . And the only problem is, they didn’t get interviewed by the police. Walker, Exhibit B, p. 25.

m. I certainly find that a very curious decision, why would you invite your friends to your home address when you’re in crisis and chaos. Richards, Exhibit B, p. 25.

n. Especially if you they think that somebody actually came into their home and abducted their child. Why are they bringing in other friends? Clemente, Exhibit B, p. 25.

451. Defendants intentionally conveyed that John staged the discovery of JonBenét’s
body and otherwise attempted to obstruct the police investigation.
452. Defendants falsely asserted that witness statements were made that John called
out he found JonBenét’s body before he turned the light on in the Wine Cellar, and that he could
not have seen JonBenét’s body without the light on.
Page 72 of 113

453. Defendants knew and failed to disclose that John turned the light on before
finding JonBenét as confirmed by John and the sole witness, Fleet White.
454. John was not “out of pocket” at any time on the morning of December 26, 1996.
Rather, John was in his study in the Ramsey home.
455. John was not instructed by Linda Arndt to start his investigation at the top of the
home. Rather, as Defendants knew, the phrase “top to bottom” is merely a common phrase for a
thorough search.
456. Defendants further knew and failed to disclose that Linda Arndt is a biased and
unreliable witness. Indeed, Defendants knew and failed to disclose that Linda Arndt had
previously accused John of murdering his daughter, including knowledge that she had made that
accusation on the morning show of a national television network, ABC.
457. Defendants sought to cast suspicion on John because he placed JonBenét’s body
on the floor rather than the living room couch, but knowingly failed to disclose that he was
directed by police to place her body on the floor.
458. Defendants then knowingly misrepresent John’s call to his airplane pilot that
morning. Defendants knew that John was actually making travel arrangements for his other
children to come to Michigan from out-of-state.
459. In sum, Defendants never missed an opportunity to purposefully skew and
misrepresent true facts in order to support their preconceived storyline that John covered-up for
Burke.
460. Defendants hid from the viewers the fact that Kolar had also relied on Ron
Walker in Foreign Faction.
Page 73 of 113

461. Defendants published their above accusations despite knowledge of their falsity or
with reckless disregard for their falsity.
G. Defendants Assert that JonBenét Suffered Massive Head Trauma Before Being Strangled to Death While Still Alive

462. The segment of the Documentary analyzed in this section of the Complaint is
found at page 31 through page 40 of the script attached hereto as Exhibit B.
463. In this segment, Defendants falsely asserted – as predicates to their false and
defamatory conclusion that John engaged in a criminal cover-up – that Burke caused massive
head trauma to JonBenét before she was later strangled to death while still alive but brain dead
and without visible injuries.
464. Burke did not kill JonBenét.
465. John did not engage in a cover-up of Burke killing his sister.
466. John did not strangle JonBenét.
467. Through a series of false facts, incomplete facts, and suggestive juxta-positioning
of facts, Defendants conveyed the false and defamatory gist that John strangled the remaining
life out of JonBenét. For instance, Defendants state the following in this segment:
a. I believe the family [would not let me in the Ramsey home]. The police had to get permission from them. They told the police “No dice. He’s not coming to this house.” They did not want me in the house. Maybe, must just be, that I would figure something out that nobody else knows. Spitz, Exhibit B, p. 32.

b. This is what I had an artist draw for me. This is how the flashlight fits to perfection approximately half an inch through the bone. Spitz, Exhibit B, p. 33.

c. Oh yeah. It made me wonder what is being put away, hidden? Spitz, Exhibit B, p. 34.

d. Do you believe she was alive when she was struck on the head? Richards, Exhibit B, p. 34.

e. Oh, yes. Spitz, Exhibit B, p. 34.
Page 74 of 113


f. And she was also alive when she was choked, strangled? Richards, Exhibit B, p. 34.

g. Please understand this, when a very severe injury to the brain occurs, because the heart has its own ability to produce contractions, to cause a false impression of life existing. Spitz, Exhibit B, p. 34.

h. That is my advantage as a forensic pathologist. They did not know that so they applied a mechanism of death that at face value that, oh she was strangled. And then of course she has a blow to the head, so which is it? Well, it’s very simple when I explain to you that yes, she was strangled to make believe that was the cause of death. She already was brain dead. Spitz, Exhibit B, p. 34.

i. There’s a few more injuries that we need to talk about, the neck injuries and the ligatures because I think this is also kind of really important, the fact that her hands were tied in this way with a slip knot. Clemente, Exhibit B, p. 34.

j. So if she’s not unconscious, why doesn’t she just do this [and remove the ligatures]? Clemente, Exhibit B, p. 34.

k. Or if she had duct tape on her mouth. Richards, Exhibit B, p. 34.

l. Yeah, but if she’s dead . . . Spitz, Exhibit B, p. 34.

m. So what does that tell you? This was staging. Clemente, Exhibit B, p. 34.

n. You’re totally correct. Spitz, Exhibit B, p. 34.

o. Why does anybody need this contraption [garrote]? Why do you need the stick? . . . You can just put that around your hand and then do the same thing on the other hand, totally unnecessary. When you break into a house, isn’t time of the essence? . . . You want to come in, do your killing and leave. So why do you need this? Spitz, Exhibit B, p. 35.

p. The skin is extremely elastic so it would go with the impact and not hold on to the impact. . . . The skull may break but the skin may not. . . . There would not have been any blood. Spitz, Exhibit B, p. 36.

q. The reason why we want to do impact test is to determine whether or not that flashlight could’ve made the fracture in the skull of JonBenét Ramsey and whether or not it took a tremendous amount of force to create that kind of fracture. Clemente, Exhibit B, p. 37.

Page 75 of 113

r. But one thing is important, there was not a drop of blood on the outside. Why was there not a drop of blood? Because there is an elasticity to the skin, so this is all blunt. Nothing here will cut the skin. When the flashlight came down if the flashlight went in for about half an inch, the skin was pushed in, broke the boke and did not cause any damage to the skin. Spitz, Exhibit B, p. 37.

s. So would it take tremendous strength to do this? Richards, Exhibit B, p. 38.

t. No because this is a heavy object with three batteries in it. The skull of a sixyear-old, we call them “eggshell skulls.” . . . You don’t need such huge amount of force. Not that is a mistake. It could be an adult, It could be a child that did it. Spitz, Exhibit B, p. 38.

u. And you can see how it’s broken. It’s very similar to the type of break that we saw on JonBenét. Clemente, Exhibit B, p. 39.

v. The impact of the demonstration was a convincing confirmation of the association of the flashlight with the injury in the head. . . . There was, in my view, no doubt that this flashlight or one exactly like it caused that injury. Spitz, Exhibit B, p. 39.

468. Taken alongside Defendants’ concluding segment, wherein they directly accuse
John of completing the actions necessary to cover-up for Burke, the above statements in context
and in combination support the defamatory gist that John engaged in a criminal cover-up,
including strangling JonBenét while she was still alive.
469. In this segment, Defendants conducted a segment with Spitz that culminated with
a reprehensible, staged demonstration intended to plant in the viewers’ minds the powerful and
incriminating image of Burke killing JonBenét: Spitz commands a ten-year-old boy to, in effect,
pretend he is bludgeoning JonBenét to death by using a flashlight to strike a pig skin skull
covered with a blonde wig.
470. The main proposition of this flashlight segment is lifted directly from Foreign
Faction. Spitz also suggested that the flashlight was the murder weapon during his original
review of the case in the 1990s.
Page 76 of 113

471. With no direct evidence establishing the murder weapon, Defendants recklessly
state that the murder weapon used to kill JonBenét was the three D-cell Maglite flashlight (the
“Flashlight”) that had been found on the kitchen counter of the Ramsey home.
472. Defendants’ false and defamatory conclusion that John covered-up that Burke
killed JonBenét depends on the Documentary misleading the viewer into believing that the
Flashlight was the murder weapon and the blow it delivered preceded the strangulation. After
all, not even Defendants could sell the absurd notion that Burke, at the tender age of nine,
asphyxiated his sister with a garrote made of cut cord, slipknots, and Patsy’s broken paintbrush
handle.
473. But as Spitz and the other Defendants knew, the coroner who actually examined
JonBenét’s body found her cause of death to be by asphyxiation with a garrote found deeply
embedded in her neck at her autopsy.
474. Despite Defendants’ aversion to the truth, even they cannot contest the undisputed
physical and medical findings establishing that JonBenét was alive when she was asphyxiated
with the garrote. So, Defendants falsely assert that she was bludgeoned and “brain dead” or
“virtually dead” before being asphyxiated, but still technically alive at that time.
475. Defendants also conceded that JonBenét had no visible head injury as a result of
the blow with the Flashlight.
476. Defendants failed to confront the inherent improbability of the story they
manufactured which requires finding that John discovered JonBenét while she was still alive and
without any visible head injury, but they quickly concocted their plan, found the materials, made
the garrote, and choked what life remained out of their six-year-old daughter while sexually
assaulting her.
Page 77 of 113

477. Later in the Documentary – when accusing Burke of causing the purported stun
gun injuries to JonBenét Ramsey’s lifeless body with his toy train track – Kolar touches on the
absurdity of Defendants’ accusation: “An adult would have been calling 9-1-1 for an ambulance”
upon finding their child alive but unresponsive.
478. Further, Defendants knowingly failed to disclose that there were strong
unmistakable signs that JonBenét was actually conscious when she was asphyxiated, including
physical evidence that JonBenét struggled against the garrote, clawing at the ligature around her
neck, leaving tell-tale fingernail marks.
479. The medical evidence reviewed by the physician who performed her autopsy
established that JonBenét was alive and conscious when she was being tortured with a garrote.
480. If JonBenét was conscious while being garroted, Defendants knew their audience
would not accept that a family member – much less her nine-year-old brother – was responsible
for the brutal physical and sexual assault that preceded her death.
481. Defendants knowingly and falsely stated that the fracture to JonBenét’s “skull
preserved the appearance, the dimensions of the [Flashlight],” which “fits to perfection.”
482. The Documentary initially created a misleading and false demonstration with a
flashlight that had Pseudo-Expert Clemente striking a thin wooden board with a flashlight to
allegedly recreate the physical damage to JonBenét’s skull from a blow delivered by the
Flashlight. The experiment has no scientific validity. This made-for-TV demonstration was
staged and phony. In short, Defendants knowingly lied to the viewers by performing a fake
experiment, all with the aim of convincing the viewers that Burke killed his sister with the
flashlight.
Page 78 of 113

483. Defendants then knowingly conducted a second misleading and false
demonstration with a flashlight: only this time a ten-year-old child is instructed to use a
flashlight to strike a purported skull covered by a pigskin and blonde wig.
484. Defendants knew that their demonstration with the child and a flashlight had no
scientific validity.
485. Defendants rigged this demonstration in an obvious attempt to recreate the image
in the viewers’ minds of Burke killing JonBenét. For example, after the boy struck the wigged
skull, the Documentary revealed the damage. Defendant Clemente falsely proclaimed that the
defect in the skull is “very similar to the type of break that we saw on JonBenét.” The injury to
JonBenét’s skull was a rectangle with rounded edges, whereas the skull in the Documentary has
a triangular hole. Yet Defendants falsely proclaim, “The demonstration was a convincing
confirmation of the association of the Flashlight with that injury in the head” and there is “no
doubt that this Flashlight or one exactly like it caused that injury.”
486. Upon information and belief, Defendants did takes of several demonstrations of
the pig skull being struck by the ten-year-old actor until they got a result they felt would support
their false accusations against John and Burke.
487. As Defendants knew, legitimate and knowledgeable experts had previously
determined that it took a tremendous amount of force to create the fracture of JonBenét’s skull –
considerably more force than a child could muster. Nevertheless, Defendants ended the
flashlight segment with the knowingly false conclusion that “it didn’t take tremendous strength
to” cause the injury to JonBenét’s skull.
Page 79 of 113

488. Defendants’ second Flashlight demonstration was designed and manufactured by
Defendants to convey to the viewers the shocking image of Burke striking JonBenét’s head with
a flashlight.
H. Defendants Misrepresent the Interviews of the Ramsey Family to Cast Suspicion Toward John

489. The segment of the Documentary analyzed in this section of the Complaint is
found at page 40 through page 44 of the script attached hereto as Exhibit B.
490. In this segment, Defendants falsely asserted – as support for their false and
defamatory conclusion that John engaged in a criminal cover-up – that John and Patsy’s media
statements were indicia of their guilt by suggesting through the application of a faulty and
unreliable forensic linguistics analysis that their statements demonstrated that they knew who
killed JonBenét.
491. On the contrary, John and Patsy provided media interviews to truthfully defend
themselves against the hailstorm of media coverage that developed around JonBenét’s death.
492. Defendants directly conveyed their conclusion that John and Patsy lied during
their media statements through, among other statements and images, the following false and
defamatory statements:
a. This is probably a very honest question John and Patsy Ramsey are asking themselves. It’s very likely they know who did it and they may still be trying to figure out “why did this happen?” Fitzgerald, Exhibit B, p. 41.

b. It’s like an unconscious utterance in a way. Richards, Exhibit B, p. 41.

c. It’s almost like he jumped past that conclusion as to who did it, and now he wants to why. Stanley, Exhibit B, p. 41.

493. Each of the above statements, individually and together in combination, conveyed
the false and defamatory accusation that John lied during his media appearances because he
Page 80 of 113

knew who JonBenét’s killer was. This accusation was pre-calculated to convey and support the
accusation that John participated in a criminal cover-up.
Reply
#14
494. In addition to the statements identified above, Defendants further utilized a
number of suggestive juxtapositions and other statements designed to support their preconceived
storyline that John lied during media appearances, knew who JonBenét’s true killer was, and
otherwise engaged in a criminal cover-up on behalf of Burke. Among other things, Defendants
stated the following in this segment:
a. Within days of JonBenét’s body being found the Ramseys speak to CNN before they’ve even given interviews to the Boulder Police department. Richards, Exhibit B, p. 40.

b. It’s probably one of the most important because it was right at the start within days after their daughter being found murdered and they invite the media in and I think it’s really interesting what they actually said at that press conference as well. It’s not just about them being proactive. It’s the content of what they said. Richards, Exhibit B, p. 40.

c. Right and they have not sat down with the police department to do separate interviews in order to rule them out as suspects in this crime, yet they’re sitting down with CNN. Clemente, Exhibit B, p. 40.

d. Someone’s breaking into your home, someone has killed and abused your child. Richards, Exhibit B, p. 40.

e. You’re gonna be angry and you’re gonna want to find out who did it and you want to see punishment. That’s the natural response. Stanley, Exhibit B, p. 40.

f. Shaking her head “no.” Shaking her head “no,” and then when John says “yes” she changes her head to a nod up and down. Clemente, Exhibit B, p. 41.

g. What I find interesting here, Jim, is he said “yes.” That’s an answer to that question. . . . What throw that in there? It’s not necessary; you have your answer “yes.” . . . But he wants to make sure the listener or the viewer hears we are a loving and gentle family. “Gentle,” that’s the message that’s being sent here. For our grief to resolve itself we now have to find out why this happened. Stanley, Exhibit B, p. 41.

h. I mean is I the “why” is important? Clemente, Exhibit B, p. 41.

Page 81 of 113

i. It’s a very odd turn of phrase isn’t it? Richards, Exhibit B, p. 41.

j. Stop right there. Why is that such an accomplishment to go and talk to the police about the possible resolution of your daughter’s homicide? Stanley, Exhibit B, p. 43.

k. A hundred and twenty days after it happened. Fitzgerald, Exhibit B, p. 43.

l. Right. Why is that a successful accomplishment. Stanley, Exhibit B, p. 43.

m. Compare this statement that he’s making right now hemming and hawing, umming and awing, to what he said about four minutes ago. “I did not kill my daughter.” Patsy, “I didn’t murder my daughter.” Now all of a sudden he’s not even answering the question and, and the non sequiturs he’s throwing out there he can’t even put in cogent sentences. And what I find in situations such as this it’s not just important what is said, it can also be just as important, if not more so, what is not said. Stanley, Exhibit B, p. 44.

495. Defendants intentionally conveyed their accusation and rank speculation that John
was lying during his media appearances because he knew who JonBenét’s killer was.
496. Defendants based their accusation and rank speculation that John lied on forensic
linguistics.
497. Forensic linguistics is, at best, an unreliable pseudo-science, yet Defendants
misrepresented that the Pseudo-Experts’ linguistic analysis is credible and conclusive.
498. Defendants’ so-called statement analysis further makes many of the same
assertions made by Kolar in Foreign Faction.
499. As with Defendants’ prior statement analysis, Defendants cherry picked particular
statements, examining very limited, hand-selected, and highly edited segments of John and
Patsy’s interviews.
500. Defendants knew when publishing their accusation that John was lying that there
was no reasonable basis for doing so.
Page 82 of 113

501. That John referenced wanting to know “why” JonBenét was killed and reiterating
that his family was a gentle family is not a reasonable, valid, or scientific bases or evidence upon
which to base a malicious accusation that Burke killed JonBenét and John covered it up.
502. That Patsy nodded her head during her interview is not a reasonable, valid, or
scientific basis upon which to base a malicious accusation that Patsy engaged in a criminal
cover-up.
503. Defendants’ attempts to find inculpatory meanings in such statements was an
exercise in reckless fabrication manufactured out of whole cloth.
504. Defendants were further aware at the time of publication that John and Patsy did
not merely “go and talk to the police,” but rather they, as grieving parents of their murdered six
year-old daughter, were subjected to lengthy interrogations related to the law enforcement
investigation of their involvement, if any, while they knew the real killer continued to roam free.
505. Defendants further consciously based their purported accusation and rank
speculation that John lied during his media appearances on false and incomplete facts.
506. Contrary to Defendants’ assertion to the contrary, Defendants knew that John,
Patsy, and Burke had all been interviewed by the Boulder PD before CNN interviewed John and
Patsy on January 1, 1997 (the “CNN Interview”).
507. The Boulder PD’s interview of Burke on December 26, 1996, was clearly
exculpatory. Defendants knew that Boulder PD Detective Fred Patterson had interviewed Burke
one-on-one that day and concluded that Burke had no knowledge of what had happened to
JonBenét – a conclusion that absolutely contradicts any notion that Burke killed JonBenét.
Defendants knowingly disregarded the trained detective’s conclusions and intentionally failed to
Page 83 of 113

disclose same to the viewers. It is inherently improbably that Burke – as a nine-year-old child a
few hours removed from killing his sister – could deceive a trained detective.
508. As Defendants knowingly failed to disclose, the Boulder PD interviewed John
shortly after the murder, including on December 26, 27, and 28, 1996.
509. As Defendants knowingly failed to disclose, the Boulder PD interviewed Patsy
shortly after the murder, including on December 26 and 28, 1996.
510. Defendants further knowingly failed to disclose that John and Patsy offered to sit
for extensive interviews with the Boulder PD in the days after JonBenét’s murder. The Ramseys
had asked that the interviews occur at their friends’ home, because Patsy’s doctor said she was
too ill to sit for a long interview at the police station. The Boulder PD refused this offer, and
even went one horrible step further: threatening to withhold JonBenét’s body from the family
until John and Patsy came down to the police station for the interviews.
511. Defendants knowingly failed to disclose that Patsy was heavily medicated during
the CNN Interview. Mired in grief, Patsy had taken anti-anxiety medication and tranquilizers
that altered her speech and demeanor.
512. Defendants published their above accusations despite knowledge of their falsity or
with reckless disregard for their falsity.
I. Defendants Falsely Attack the Intruder Theory on All Fronts with Fraudulent Demonstrations, False and Incomplete Facts, and Stale Rejected Theories

513. Rather than consider alternative intruder suspects, Defendants skewed their
presentation and elected to falsely attack the intruder theory so as to leave only the Ramseys as
viable suspects.
Page 84 of 113

514. Defendants made their purpose known immediately at the beginning of their
intruder theory analysis: “Do you believe that pieces of evidence point us outside the house to a
kidnaper or somebody who’s trying to make people believe they’re a kidnapper or inside the
house towards the family?” Clemente, Exhibit B, p. 46.
515. Throughout the Documentary, Defendants falsely asserted – as a predicate to their
false and defamatory conclusion that John engaged in a criminal cover-up – that the intruder
theory should be “eliminated” because it is contradicted by the evidence.
516. As with the remainder of Defendants’ false and defamatory conclusions,
Defendants asserted that their declaration that it must have been a member of the Ramsey family
rather than an unknown intruder was based upon a legitimate investigation by experts
discovering truthful facts for the first time. For instance: “So we’re all here almost 20 years later
and we’re on a fact-finding mission. This is a reinvestigation and of course we’ve got some of
the best brains, not just in the U.S., but in the world, around the table trying to understand, you
know, what went on in the house that night.” Richards, Exhibit B, p. 46.
517. Defendants directly conveyed their conclusion that the intruder theory should be
“eliminated” because it is contradicted by the evidence and therefore a member of the Ramsey
family must have committed the crime through, among other statements and images, the
following false and defamatory statements:
a. To me this crime happened within the four walls of that home. Fitzgerald, Exhibit B, p. 59.

b. So I think you can eliminate the outside intruder hypothesis. So more likely it’s cover-up something. What to cover-up? Lee, Exhibit B, p. 59.

c. 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.

Page 85 of 113

518. Each of the above statements, individually in context and together in combination,
conveyed the false and defamatory accusation that that the intruder theory should be
“eliminated” and therefore a member of the Ramsey family inside the house that night
committed the crime. That accusation was a predicate for, and was calculated to convey and
support, the accusation that John participated in a criminal cover-up.
519. Defendants also used fictional recreations to support their accusations and to
bolster the defamatory and factual implications of their conclusions.
520. In addition to the statements identified above, Defendants’ further utilized a
number of suggestive juxtapositions of facts and other information designed to support their
preconceived notion that an intruder did not commit this crime and therefore a member of the
Ramsey family inside the house was guilty. Among other things, Defendants stated as follows:
a. And because there was no history of abuse, no domestic violence child abuse, in the house, ergo, he though it must be an intruder. Richards, Exhibit B, p. 47.

b. Yeah. Why does it only have to be those two things? Parents can be involved in another way other than murder. It’s not one or the other. There’s a bunch of shades in-between and we have to look at every one of them. That’s the responsibility of an investigator. Clemente, Exhibit B, pp. 47-48.

c. And that’s something that seemed to escape a lot of the people who thought intruders were involved. Kolar, Exhibit B, p. 48.

521. In addition to the statements identified above, Defendants’ conclusion that the
evidence rendered the intruder theory ”eliminated” was based upon a series of false factual
attacks on the intruder theory and the evidence supporting the intruder theory, including: (a)
falsely concluding that the basement window entry point surmised by Lou Smit was impossible
based upon a fraudulent cobweb demonstration; (b) falsely concluding – in contradiction to their
own Pseudo-Expert’s conclusions in the 1990s and the official autopsy report – that JonBenét
was not sexually assaulted; © falsely asserting that Burke caused the injuries Lou Smit thought
Page 86 of 113

to be stun gun injuries with a train track toy; and (d) falsely concluding that the DNA evidence
on which former Boulder DA based her 2008 exoneration of the Ramsey family is worthless.
522. Because the Boulder DA exonerated and refused to prosecute the Ramseys, while
the Boulder PD sought to investigate John and Patsy, Defendants then seek to purposefully
undermine the Boulder DA’s Office’s credibility and to bolster that of law enforcement.
523. These false factual conclusions, suggestive juxtapositions, and other statements
were predesigned to support Defendants’ preconceived storyline that John engaged in a criminal
cover-up on behalf of Burke.
524. Defendants consciously based their accusation that the intruder theory is
“eliminated” on false and incomplete facts, which are hereinafter addressed.
1. Defendants’ Create a False Cobweb Demonstration to Discredit the Intruder Theory

525. The segment of the Documentary analyzed in this section of the Complaint is
found at page 48 to page 50 and page 22 of the script attached hereto as Exhibit B.
526. In this segment, Defendants concocted a fraudulent cobweb demonstration – as a
predicate to their false and defamatory conclusion that John engaged in a criminal cover-up – to
falsely assert that no intruder could have entered the basement Window as stated by Lou Smit
and, therefore, the intruder theory should be “eliminated” because it is contradicted by the
evidence.
527. No member of the Ramsey family committed this crime.
528. An intruder murdered JonBenét.
529. In a misguided and misrepresentative effort to lend false credibility and support to
their conclusion that it is that the evidence did not support a finding that an intruder committed
Page 87 of 113

this crime, Defendants made the following factual assertions and suggestive juxta-positioning of
facts:
a. We’re rebuilding key rooms that relate to this case [including] the basement [and] the wine cellar where JonBenét’s body was eventually found. Richards, Exhibit B, p. 22.

b. We can’t turn back time inside the real house, but what we can do here, as much as we can, clinically and scientifically try to put it together. Schmidt, Exhibit B, p. 22.

c. Reproduce us and put us in it. Richards, Exhibit B, p. 22.

d. It’s incredibly important for us to actually see and feel what that house looked like and actually forming a hypothesis and a theory of how the crime was actually committed. Clemente, Exhibit B, p. 22.

e. Uh, you’ve done a good job with the, the duplication. Walker, Exhibit B, p. 22.

f. So one of the key issues with this case is the theory of an intruder coming through the basement. That was Lou Smit’s theory, right? Richards, Exhibit B, p. 47.

g. And he was hired by? Clemente, Exhibit B, p. 47.

h. By Alex Hunter. Kolar, Exhibit B, p. 47.

i. The district attorney at the time. Clemente, Exhibit B, p. 47.1

j. He spent about a week looking at the crime scene photos and such and came up with the theory of the intruder. Kolar, Exhibit B, p. 47.

k. The cobwebs in that corner, there you go. Kolar, Exhibit B, p. 48.

l. Oh wow, okay, stop. Here you can see that all this dust and debris is already caught in it. It’s weathered. It’s got materials in it. It’s very clear that this is not a brand new web. Clemente, Exhibit B, p. 48.


1 As will be discussed below, this reference is important because Defendants smear DA Hunter and DA Lacy later in the Documentary in order to undermine the Boulder DA’s office refusal to prosecute the Ramseys and 2008 exoneration of the Ramseys, among other pro-Ramsey actions, as well as to suggest that the Pseudo-Experts and Boulder PD were correct to focus on the family.
Page 88 of 113

m. That would not have survived someone going through that window. Kolar, Exhibit B, p. 48.

n. Right. Go back where he’s in the window sill and freeze it, please. When he’s coming through, if there was a cobweb going across here, he would’ve knocked it out. And look where his hand is. His hand is holding the corner there, exactly where that spider web was. Clemente, Exhibit B, p. 49.

o. Yep. So all the foliage would’ve been disturbed. Richards, Exhibit B, p. 49.

p. [Some of the debris] would be on my – the soles of my shoe as I’m walking through. In the crime scene video, this was completely intact and of course here’s a photo showing that it was. And I was trying to be careful, but I’m not sure if the intruder or intruders, if they were coming through would really be thinking, “Hang on, there’s a cobweb there. I must leave that intact.” Richards, Exhibit B, p. 50.

q. The whole theory that Lou Smit espouses is that this suitcase was left here in order for the intruder or intruders to get out through this window. You gotta figure out a way to get out of there and not further disturb what’s left of these spider webs. Clemente, Exhibit B, p. 50.

r. I mean it’s just completely gone now. And look at the disturbance that you’ve made. This would’ve been very obvious to the crime scene investigators, but they did find the web here and they didn’t find that disturbance. Clemente, Exhibit B, p. 50.

s. Right. So it makes no sense. Richards, Exhibit B, p. 50.

530. Defendants intended their statements and recreations to convey that the intruder
theory should be “eliminated” because an intruder could not have entered the home through the
basement Window.
531. Defendants knowingly misrepresented to the viewers that their recreations of the
basement Window were accurate portrayals of the actual crime scene.
532. In truth, their re-creations were significantly different in key areas from the actual
crime scene and were intentionally fraudulent portrayals.
Page 89 of 113

533. Defendants lifted their “cobweb” theory straight out of Foreign Faction but
falsely presented it to the viewers as a newly discovered theory in the ordinary course of their
purported investigation.
534. A crime scene video taken shortly after JonBenét’s murder shows the cobwebs
and debris in the Window. There is a small cobweb in the bottom corner of the Window and bits
of debris, such as leaves and Styrofoam packing peanuts.
535. Defendants knowingly and intentionally inflated the cobweb and debris in the
Documentary until they bore no meaningful resemblance to the condition of the Window as it
existed shortly after JonBenét’s murder. The Documentary’s cobweb is anchored from almost
halfway across the sill to almost halfway up the right-side jamb, whereas the actual cobweb
spans a much smaller distance. Crime scene photos of the actual condition of the Window are
attached hereto as Exhibit J; photos of the Documentary’s misrepresentative recreation of the
Window are attached hereto as Exhibit K.
536. Pseudo-Expert Richards then crawled in and out of the Window in a manner that
ensured she would disturb the cobweb and scatter the other debris. Defendants then concluded
that it “makes no sense” that the murderer used the Window because the grossly inflated cobweb
in the Documentary was broken while the small cobweb in the actual Window appeared intact
after the crime.
537. Defendants’ conclusions about the Window are blatant misrepresentations, as
Defendants knew that the actual cobweb was small enough to remain undisturbed by a person
climbing through the Window.
538. Defendants had actual knowledge of, knowingly contradicted, failed to disclose,
and recklessly ignored evidence about the Window that supported the Lou Smit intruder theory,
Page 90 of 113

including the following: (1) there were at least eight unlocked windows and/or doors found in the
Ramsey home on the morning of December 26th; (2) there was a new scuff mark on the wall
under the Window that was likely caused by the intruder; (3) debris outside of the Window had
been pushed to either side of the Window, while debris in front of the other two windows
remained intact, (compare Exhibit J with Exhibit K); (4) leaves and packing peanuts found
outside the Window were located on the floor of the basement beneath the broken Window; (5) a
leaf and packing peanuts like those found outside the Window were found in the Wine Cellar;
and (6) the grate outside the Window well had been recently raised and lowered, as evidenced by
fresh green foliage stuck underneath the grate, where it could not have grown naturally.
539. Defendants had actual knowledge of, knowingly contradicted, failed to disclose,
and recklessly ignored other facts that supported the Lou Smit intruder theory, including the
following: (1) fibers consistent with those of the garrote were found in JonBenét’s bed; (2) other
items not belonging on the second floor were found there on the day after the murder, including a
brown paper sack with a rope in it; (3) small pieces of the brown paper sack were found in
JonBenét’s bed; (4) unidentified and recent “HI-TEC” shoeprints in the basement that did not
match any shoes owned by the Ramseys; (5) an unidentified Caucasian pubic or auxiliary hair
not matching the Ramseys; and (6) an unidentified baseball bat found outside the Ramsey home.
540. Defendants’ purposefully false Window demonstration provided no evidence
supporting the accusation that John covered-up that Burke killed JonBenét.
541. Defendants published their above statements despite knowledge of their falsity or
with reckless disregard for their falsity.
Reply
#15
2. Defendants Falsely Convey That JonBenét Was Not Sexually Assaulted

542. The segment of the Documentary analyzed in this section of the Complaint is
found at page 50 through page 51 and page 80 of the script attached hereto as Exhibit B.
543. In this segment, Defendants falsely asserted – as a predicate to their false and
defamatory conclusion that John engaged in a criminal cover-up – that JonBenét was not
sexually assaulted because Defendants realized the viewers would have found it difficult to
believe that John, Patsy, or Burke penetrated JonBenét’s vagina either during her life or in
connection with her death or as part of a cover-up.
544. The Documentary spent less than two minutes discussing whether JonBenét was
sexually assaulted, because there is zero evidence that supports Defendants’ assertion that she
was not sexually assaulted.
545. In a misguided and misrepresentative effort to lend credibility and support to their
conclusion that JonBenét was not sexually assaulted by an intruder, Defendants made the
following factual assertions and suggestive juxta-positioning of facts:
a. It’s really no sexual assault here. Lee, Exhibit B, p. 80.

b. Certainly over the last few months, we’ve heard about all the theories that this was someone outside the family, an intruder, coming through the basement, who assaulted her sexually. Richards, Exhibit B, p. 50.

c. An autopsy technician brought for me a microscopic slide that was from the genital tract of this young lady, JonBenét. And I looked at that in the microscope. The amount of damage is almost nonexistent. There is a few fibers of wood in this microscopic slide. Spitz, Exhibit B, p. 51.

d. Really look at that size, it’s microscopic. Lee, Exhibit B, p. 51.

e. You probably wouldn’t even have seen with the naked eye. Spitz, Exhibit B, p. 51.

Page 92 of 113

f. I think there’s two possibilities. One is that the piece of wood was actually inserted there and the other is that it’s secondary transfer. Clemente, Exhibit B, p. 51.

g. A secondary transfer could be anything even during transfer the body, because don’t forget the body had been moved up and then moved quite a few times in different locations, then the blanket was put on, so many manipulations at the scene. Lee, Exhibit B, p. 51.

h. Underwear was only spot, could be from any other transfer. It’s really no sexual assault here. Lee, Exhibit B, p. 51.

i. No. This finding is not indicative of a sexual assault. Spitz, Exhibit B, p. 51.

j. They’re looking for the wrong type of person if this was not a sexually motivated crime, which we believe it was not. Richards, Exhibit B, p. 51.

k. Exactly. Lee, Exhibit B, p. 51.

546. Defendants intended their statements and recreations to convey that JonBenét was
not sexually assaulted in order to lend credibility to their false and defamatory conclusion that an
intruder did not commit this crime and therefore a member of the Ramsey family in the house
that night did commit the crime. Defendants knew that despite almost four hours of falsely
casting suspicion against John and Burke, the viewers would find it extremely difficult to believe
that John inserted a splintered piece of wood into his daughter’s vagina as a gratuitous act to
cover-up that Burke killed his sister.
547. But, in this instance, Defendants cannot simply suspend all rational thought or
hide behind pseudo-science when making their false and rank speculation that JonBenét was not
sexually assaulted: their own Pseudo-Expert concluded in the 1990s that JonBenét was sexually
assaulted with a piece of wood and had published those same statements to CBS Detroit radio the
very day the Documentary was initially broadcast.
548. Defendants cannot even be afforded the label of “confirmation bias,” because they
knew that Pseudo-Expert Spitz had previously concluded that JonBenét was sexually assaulted.
Page 93 of 113

Indeed, on page 66 of Foreign Faction, Kolar had written regarding Spitz’s findings: “Inflicted
perimortem with her death, was the insertion of the paintbrush handle into JonBenét’s vaginal
orifice.”
549. Defendants knowingly failed to disclose Spitz’s prior conclusions confirming a
sexual assault.
550. As Defendants knew, additional and irrefutable evidence existed that established
as a fact that JonBenét’s murderer also sexually assaulted her: (1) blood on JonBenét’s
underwear and the entrance of her vagina; (2) JonBenét’s hymen had been freshly broken, likely
close in time to her death; (3) forensic pathologists that examined her found that she had been
penetrated; and (4) fragments of wood that matched the garrote handle were found in her vagina.
551. The Documentary discussed with the viewers only a sliver of the evidence
proving that JonBenét was sexually assaulted, while intentionally choosing to discount,
contradict, and ignore that evidence with absurd, false, and incredible explanations.
552. The Documentary discussed wood that was found in JonBenét’s genital tract.
This piece of wood – particularly when analyzed with the other evidence – strongly suggested
that JonBenét was sexually assaulted.
553. Defendants did not disclose that the wood found in JonBenét’s vagina was traced
to the paintbrush handle used to construct the garrote handle.
554. The Documentary attempted to dismiss the piece of wood by strongly suggesting
that it found its way into her vagina due to a secondary transfer. Pseudo-Expert Lee states that
the secondary transfer could have occurred when JonBenét’s body was moved repeatedly or
when a blanket was put on her.
Page 94 of 113

555. The secondary transfer theory regarding the piece of wood is so inherently
improbable and absurd as to be patently false. As Defendants knew, the piece of wood was
traced to the very same paintbrush that was used to make the garrote handle. Further, the
secondary transfer theory assumes that wood from the paintbrush somehow crawled through
JonBenét’s pajamas, then through her underwear, and then up into her genital tract, all because
her body was moved or a blanket was placed on top of her. This nonsensical scenario evidences
the irrational depths these “experts” were willing to go to in order to support their false
accusations against John and Burke.
556. Spitz’s claim that JonBenét was not sexually assaulted is particularly egregious,
because he changed his opinion without identifying any new evidence supporting the change or
disclosing his prior opinion to the viewers.
557. The Documentary discussed JonBenét’s blood spot in her underwear. The blood
spot, in conjunction with other evidence, is powerful proof that JonBenét was injured from the
sexual assault.
558. The Documentary cursorily discounted the blood spot. Pseudo-Expert Lee fell
back on his secondary transfer theory, ignoring the virtual absence of blood on other parts of
JonBenét’s body and the barriers the blood would have had to get through to reach JonBenét’s
underwear. In short, Defendants’ secondary transfer theory is so irrational and improbable that it
is not worthy of belief, and it contradicts the undisputed evidence of her sexual assault. Yet,
because Defendants continuously tout Lee’s expertise and credibility, the viewers were misled
by conveying this absurd assertion as truth.
559. Defendants published their above accusations despite knowledge of their falsity or
with reckless disregard for their falsity.
Page 95 of 113

3. Defendants Falsely Assert that Burke Caused the Stun Gun Injuries with His Train Toy

560. The segment of the Documentary analyzed in this section of the Complaint is
found at page 52 through page 53 and page 76 through page 77 of the script attached hereto as
Exhibit B.
561. In this segment, Defendants falsely conveyed – as predicates to their false and
defamatory conclusion that John engaged in a criminal cover-up – that an intruder did not inflict
stun gun injuries to JonBenét but rather the burn marks on her body were inflicted by Burke with
his train toy.
562. Burke did not inflict the injuries to JonBenét’s back or face with a train toy or any
other object.
563. An intruder caused the injuries to JonBenét’s back and face.
564. In a misguided and misrepresentative effort to lend false credibility and support to
their conclusion that an intruder did not commit this crime, Defendants made the following
factual assertions and suggestive juxta-positioning of facts:
a. The stun gun played a very key part in Lou Smit’s theory. Richards, Exhibit B, p. 52.

b. The whole theory is that it would subdue her, or make her unconscious. Clemente, Exhibit B, p. 53.

c. It does the actual opposite. It just doesn’t make any sense. Richards, Exhibit B, p. 53.

d. They don’t look anything like that. Clemente, Exhibit B, p. 53.

e. If this were done to this kid, you would have a scream from this kid that would have done through the entire building. Spitz, Exhibit B, p. 53.

f. And a Sargent at my office said, hey – I might have found something that could possibly be responsible for these injuries. Hey talked about the O-gauge track, and I asked Boulder PD to do some one to one photos with this as well as with the
Page 96 of 113

train tracks. These pins that connect the tracks together, you can see that the scaled pictures of the two outside pins of the train track matched exactly to the injuries on JonBenét. You’ve got this train room and pieces of track here in this room, and then there were pieces of train track in the crime scene video that were on the floor in Burke’s room as well. I thought it was an incredible discovery, to find a toy in the house that could have been responsible for these injuries. Kolar, Exhibit B, p. 76.

g. You know, I would have to conclude that it’s either this or something like it. Spitz, Exhibit B, p. 77.

565. Defendants intended their statements and recreations to convey that no intruder
committed this crime because a stun gun was not used on JonBenét as Lou Smit and a highly
respected pathologist had previously concluded.
566. Defendants lacked any credible or reliable basis to assert how JonBenét would
have responded to being stunned, and they knew it.
567. Defendants’ position that a stun gun would not restrain a six-year-old child is
inaccurate, rank speculation. Moreover, stun guns are used as weapons by law enforcement
officers across the nations for a reason: they subdue individuals, even grown adults.
568. Defendants had actual knowledge of, knowingly contradicted, failed to disclose,
and recklessly ignored prior findings and photographs that explained and depicted, the striking
similarities of JonBenét’s burn mark injuries to those of other dead stun gun victims.
569. As Defendants knew, their unreliable stun gun demonstration proved nothing
about the injuries JonBenét suffered when she was stunned and was purposefully staged in a
misrepresentative manner to support Defendants’ accusations against John and Burke.
570. Defendants further lacked any basis for suggesting that, even assuming the
injuries were not stun gun injuries, then the injuries must have been caused by a member of the
Ramsey family, much less that Burke inflicted the injuries with a train toy.
Page 97 of 113

571. Like so many other details portrayed by Defendants as part of their purported new
reinvestigation, Defendants merely echoed Kolar’s unsupported speculation in Foreign Faction.
Foreign Faction asserts: (1) that “Spitz opined that the mark on her cheek had been caused by
the imprint of a small object versus a deteriorating burn mark from a stun gun” (p. 246); (2) that
the marks from a stun gun do “not match the injuries on the body of JonBenét” (p. 272); (3) that
“it is [Kolar’s] belief that JonBenét would have screamed bloody murder if [a stun gun] had ever
been used on her” (p. 311); (4) that Kolar’s colleague in Telluride, “Sergeant Harry Stephens”
sent Kolar “a single piece of the ‘O’ gauge style train track, the same model of train and track
depicted in the crime scene video of the basement play room” (p. 384); and (5) that Kolar
thought “I think you just found the weapon used to inflict those marks on JonBenét” (p. 385).
Even the purported scaled photographs used by Defendants to support their position are lifted
directly from Foreign Faction. See pp. 385-386.
572. Defendants published their above statements with actual knowledge of falsity or
with reckless disregard for the truth.
4. Defendants Falsely Claim that the DNA Evidence is Worthless
573. The segment of the Documentary analyzed in this section of the Complaint is
found at page 54 through page 59 of the script attached hereto as Exhibit B.
574. In this segment, Defendants falsely conveyed – as a predicate to their false and
defamatory conclusion that John engaged in a criminal cover-up – that the DNA evidence used
by former Boulder DA Mary Lacy to exonerate the Ramseys in 2008.
575. To lend false credibility and support to their conclusion that an intruder did not
commit this crime and therefore a Ramsey did commit the crime, Defendants made the following
factual assertions and suggestive juxta-positioning of facts:
Page 98 of 113

a. DNA technology has evolved significantly since 1996. Today trace DNA, or what some people call touch DNA, can actually be found in multiple situations and you have to actually understand what is the significance in any particular case. Since twenty years ago, DNA has gone from the science where we needed a lot of material in order to find something. Clemente, Exhibit B, p. 54.

b. The first generation DNA. Lee, Exhibit B, p. 54.
c. The panty, here’s some foreign DNA was found but not to any family members. That DNA maybe has no forensic value, it just has some innocent explanation got there. It’s not a true piece of physical evidence to link somebody or to exonerate somebody. Come to my Institute of Forensic Science Center laboratory. Should test again for DNA. That can shed some light on the whole case. Lee, Exhibit B, p. 54.

d. Dr. Lee, isn’t it true that DNA can transfer from one garment that’s worn on top of another garment? That just the friction pulling it on, wearing it, moving back and forth can transfer. Clemente, Exhibit B, p. 58.

e. There are some studies even say, send a shirt to laundry sometimes can have a transfer come back. Lee, Exhibit B, p. 58.

f. It seems like District Attorney Lacy should not have exonerated anybody based on just transferred DNA. Clemente, Exhibit B, p. 58.

g. DNA recovered from the case sample probably should be ignored. Lee, Exhibit B, p. 58.

h. I think they have to take your recommendations and re-test with newer technology, with more reliable DNA tests, all the evidence that they have. DNA is reliable evidence if you interpret it properly. Clemente, Exhibit B, p. 58.

576. Defendants intended their statements and recreations to convey that an intruder
did not commit this crime because the male foreign DNA found at the scene is not valid or
reliable evidence.
577. The decision by Defendants to ignore the DNA evidence discovered in 1997 and
2008 defies modern law enforcement’s use of DNA and, without a legitimate basis to do so,
undermines the extensive and beneficial use of DNA to solve crimes and exonerate innocent
individuals. Efforts to find an innocent explanation for foreign DNA found on the body or
Page 99 of 113

clothing of a murder victim border on the preposterous and evidence a biased and improper
approach to a homicide investigation.
578. Defendants intended their statements and recreations to convey that their use of
superior technology in their alleged complete and legitimate reinvestigation allowed them to
solve this crime, whereas the Boulder DA’s investigation was flawed by use of older technology.
579. In truth, Defendants merely rehashed stale theories, including those espoused in
Foreign Faction.
580. Defendants published their above statements despite knowledge of their falsity or
with reckless disregard for their falsity.
5. Defendants Purposefully Undermine the Boulder DA’s Office to Further Discredit the Intruder Theory

581. The segment of the Documentary analyzed in this section of the Complaint is
found at page 59 through page 65 of the script attached hereto as Exhibit B.
582. The Boulder DA did not find evidence to support the filing of any criminal
charges against any member of the Ramsey family.
583. The Boulder DA hired Lou Smit, recognized as one of the most foremost
homicide detectives in the nation, who conducted a thorough review of the actual evidence
developed by law enforcement investigators and concluded that an intruder brutally tortured and
murdered JonBenét.
584. The Boulder DA signed an affidavit stating under oath that no evidence existed
that justified Burke being viewed as anything other than a possible witness.
585. The Boulder DA issued a press statement stating that there was no evidence
against Burke.
Page 100 of 113

586. The Boulder DA’s special prosecutor that oversaw the 13-month grand jury
investigation issued a press statement stating there was no evidence against Burke.
587. A different Boulder DA issued a press statement stating that it was more likely
that an intruder committed the crime.
588. That same Boulder DA issued a press statement exonerating the entire Ramsey
family.
589. With the exception of Boulder PD Chief Beckner’s press statement that there was
no evidence against Burke – which Defendants did not disclose to viewers – the Boulder PD
aggressively investigated the Ramsey family.
590. Accordingly, to support their accusation that John covered-up for Burke and that
an intruder did not commit this crime, Defendants maligned former Boulder DA Hunter and
former Boulder DA Lacy.
591. In a misguided and misrepresentative effort to lend false credibility and support to
their conclusion that an intruder did not commit this crime, Defendants made the following
factual assertions and suggestive juxta-positioning of facts:
a. Well the fear from inside the department [that there may be a killer on the loose] was not felt because some people felt that they knew who the murderers were. However, we wanted to make the community feel comfortable, so we would do extra patrol. Gretchen, Exhibit B, p. 60.

b. I think there was not some killer on the loose or not some random killer roaming the neighborhoods looking for little girls. Gretchen, Exhibit B, p. 60.

c. So that must’ve been pretty frustrating to see what was reported in the media about a killer being on the loose. Kolar, Exhibit B, p. 60.

d. I think the media was led to believe that. There were other voices speaking to the media. . . . The DA. Gretchen, Exhibit B, p. 60.

e. Even though that may not have been the attitude of what was actually going on in the case. Gretchen, Exhibit B, p. 60.
Page 101 of 113


f. The JonBenét case destroyed morale completely. There was no morale. You know when you’re a police officer; you want to work with the District Attorney’s office. You should be partners in your job . . . and we weren’t at all. The goal is to find the bad guy and put him behind bars. Gretchen, Exhibit B, p. 61.

g. Well, the parents of the child, they had money. The District Attorney’s office and some of the administration did not want to hear that an affluent member of the community was guilty of a crime like this. They didn’t want to hear that. I don’t think they wanted to solve this crime. And if they had to go down a different path that might not have been the truth, I think they were willing to do that. Gretchen, Exhibit B, p. 61.

h. [I]n this case, for some reason, the district attorney wanted to create some parallel universe why it [the ransom note] wasn’t her’s [Patsy’s]. Thomas, Exhibit B, p. 62.

i. Did you feel you were hamstrung from the beginning? Clemente, Exhibit B, p. 62.

j. Ah, it’s the understatement of the, of the day Jim. Thomas, Exhibit B, p. 62.

k. And – okay so who was responsible for that? Clemente, Exhibit B, p. 62.

l. The District Attorney. Thomas, Exhibit B, p. 62.

m. “Mr. District Attorney, no disrespect intended, but a little girl is moldering in the ground and something needs to be done. Are you going to call a grand jury?” And I’ll never forget Alex Hunter, the elected District Attorney’s response, “I need to get with my people. This is a political decision.” I leaned back after working this case for two years, against that cinderblock wall and thought to myself, “I can’t do this anymore. I won’t do this anymore.” Thomas, Exhibit B, p. 63.

n. It became about politics and agendas and creating a smoke screen. Why? Richards, Exhibit B, p. 63.

o. If the grand jury, those who heard all the evidence and heard from all the witnesses felt that there were a ground to indict the Ramseys then Alex Hunter, you would, you know, it’s surprising that he decided not to prosecute them. Richards, Exhibit B, p. 63.

592. Defendants intended to discredit the Boulder DA’s office, and thereby discredit
the intruder theory while bolstering the Boulder PD’s flawed investigation of John and Patsy.
Page 102 of 113

593. As Defendants knew but failed to disclose, the fact that the Boulder DA that
convened the grand jury and the special prosecutor that oversaw the grand jury believed there
was no evidence to support Defendants’ accusation that John covered-up for Burke is strong and
compelling evidence of their innocence.
594. Indeed, despite knowing that the grand jury received no evidence that Burke
killed JonBenét as publicly confirmed by prosecutors, Defendants knowingly asserted that the
rejected recommendation of a possible charges against John and Patsy evidenced that they were
covering for Burke because Burke could not be prosecuted due to his age: “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” to protect Burke. Clemente, Exhibit B, p. 83.
595. Defendants knowingly failed to disclose that their accusation was contradicted by
former Boulder PD Chief Beckner’s pre-grand jury public exoneration of Burke in 1997.
596. Defendants knowingly failed to disclose that their accusation was contradicted by
former Boulder DA Hunter’s public exoneration of Burke in 1999 during the grand jury
proceeding.
597. Defendants knowingly failed to disclose that their accusation was contradicted by
Special Prosecutor Kane’s December 1999 public statement exonerating Burke approximately
two months after the grand jury investigation concluded.
598. Defendants knowingly failed to disclose that their accusation was contradicted by
former Boulder DA Hunter’s public exoneration of Burke in 2000.
599. Defendants knowingly failed to disclose that their accusation was contradicted by
the Boulder DA’s exoneration of the Ramsey family in 2008.
Page 103 of 113

600. Defendants knew that the Boulder DA did not present an evidence-based theory to
the grand jury that John covered-up that Burke killed JonBenét, yet they falsely conveyed to their
audience that John and Patsy were indicted by the grand jury for covering up Burke’s crime.
601. Finally, this accusation was also scripted from Foreign Faction. See p. 428 (“I
believe each member of the Ramsey family, home on the night of the murder, may have been
involved at least as an accessory after the fact. Burke, only nine years old at the time, could not
have been prosecuted for any crime because, in Colorado, a child under ten years of age is
presumed incapable of forming criminal intent. The statutes of limitations for the crime of
accessory after the fact have long since expired”).
602. Defendants knew that they lacked any reasonable basis for conveying that the
grand jury believed John covered-up that Burke killed JonBenét.
J. Defendants Falsely Assert that Burke Lost His Temper and Killed JonBenét Over a Lone Piece of Pineapple

603. The segment of the Documentary analyzed in this section of the Complaint is
found at page 70 through page 76 and page 80 of the script attached hereto as Exhibit B.
604. In this segment, Defendants falsely conveyed – as predicates for their false and
defamatory conclusion that John engaged in a cover-up – that Burke killed JonBenét after losing
his temper when JonBenét stole a piece of pineapple from Burke’s snack.
605. Defendants first falsely conveyed that Burke had a bad temper and a history of
hitting JonBenét by relying on Judith Phillips, a witness they knew was not credible or reliable
and whom had previously accused the Ramsey family in tabloid interviews. For instance:
a. I think he had a bad uh, Burke had a temper. It’s like he had a chip on his shoulder. He had hit JonBenét. Before the murder I would have to say it was probably a year and a half. They were playing in the yard and apparently he hit her with a golf club right here. Phillips, Exhibit B, p. 70.

Page 104 of 113

b. Oh, I think I asked Patsy at the time when I was photographing them, what the scar was. She said that the kids were playing and Burke lost his temper and hit her with a golf club. Phillips, Exhibit B, p. 70.

606. Burke did not attack JonBenét with a golf club, and Defendants knew it.
607. Defendants knew it because, as referenced in Foreign Faction, the golf club
incident was an accident.
608. Defendants next conveyed that Burke had mental problems by relying on hearsay
information that they knew was not credible or reliable:
a. One other connection, internal, in this family that we haven’t discussed – there were reports that Burke had a history of scatological problems. Clemente, Exhibit B, p. 71.

b. One of the former housekeepers, as we mentioned, had talked about him smearing feces on a bathroom wall. Kolar, Exhibit B, p. 71.

c. And there was a softball-sized ball of feces found in JonBenét’s bed at some point.

d. The media perception or community perception can be that they’re the perfect family, but once you start to scratch the surface, you see that that’s not the case. Richards, Exhibit B, p. 71.

609. Burke did not demonstrate any scatological behavior, and Defendants knew it.
610. In addition to concluding that Burke killed JonBenét over a piece of pineapple in
their concluding segment on page 80, Defendants also falsely asserted – as a predicate to their
false and defamatory conclusion that John engaged in a criminal cover-up – that JonBenét ate a
single piece of Burke’s pineapple and he killed her over it in a fit of rage, as follows:
a. So one of the key issues with this case comes back to something that might look quite innocuous and inconsequential, but it also tells us a lot about what probably when on that night. Richards, Exhibit B, p. 73.

b. In JonBenét’s small intestine, there was a piece of organic material that looks like pineapple. Clemente, Exhibit B, p. 74.

c. Which means, it’s way after the meal. Lee, Exhibit B, p. 74.
Page 105 of 113


d. So she completely digested her dinner, and after that, she then ate this pineapple. Clemente, Exhibit B, p. 74.

e. So you start linking all these dots, it gives us a possible timeline. Lee, Exhibit B, p. 74.

f. Yes, you approximately know the time that they came back home. . . . The pineapple was ingested subsequently. Spitz, Exhibit B, p. 74.

g. Do you think this could have been the tipping point that started the entire rest of the cascade of events that happened on the day she died? Clemente, Exhibit B, p. 75.

h. Could be. Spitz, Exhibit B, p. 75.

i. Such a simple question to ask, why isn’t he just saying what it is? He’s evading any answer and is uncomfortable about answering. This should be an insignificant conversation. Richards, Exhibit B, p. 76.

j. I think he’s 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. Clemente, Exhibit B, p. 76.

611. Again, Defendants’ false accusation that pineapple was the tipping point resulting
in JonBenét’s death is rank speculation.
612. To convince viewers that their rampant speculation deserved serious
consideration, Defendants spliced 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.
613. 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 undermine Defendants’ series of events,
Defendants consciously failed to share that information with viewers. Instead, Spitz merely
asked “Did the pathology report indicate what the pineapple looked like, or the gastric contents?”
Page 106 of 113

614. Further, the Pseudo-Experts were aware that the presence of the fruit cocktail in
JonBenét’s stomach does not establish a concrete timeline from which investigators may
estimate her time of death, and that the minimum amount of time it would require for the fruit to
get to JonBenét’s lower intestine undermined the theory that it “started the cascade of the rest of
events that happened on the day she died.”
615. 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.
616. Defendants had no factual basis for speculating that JonBenét took a piece of
Burke’s pineapple, much less that her fingerprints were not present on Defendants’ purported
smoking gun because she only “snatched one piece.”
617. Upon information and belief, Defendants knowingly failed to disclose that there
was more than one piece of fruit in JonBenét’s digestive tract.
618. Upon information and belief, Defendants knowingly failed to disclose that there
was more than one type of fruit in JonBenét’s digestive tract.
Reply
#16
CAUSES OF ACTION
COUNT I - DEFAMATION (ALL DEFENDANTS)
619. John reasserts and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 618 of this
Complaint as if fully restated herein.
620. Defendants negligently and maliciously published the false and defamatory gist
that John completed the final act ending JonBenét’s life: strangling her to death with a garrote.
621. Defendants negligently and maliciously published the false and defamatory
accusation that John covered-up that Burke killed JonBenét.
Page 107 of 113

622. Defendants negligently and maliciously published the false and defamatory
accusation that John engaged in a criminal cover-up and lied to police.
623. Defendants published and communicated the false and defamatory statements
about John to third-parties and did so without privilege or authorization.
624. Defendants published their false and defamatory accusations against John with
actual malice – e.g., with actual knowledge of falsity and/or with reckless disregard for falsity.
625. Defendants also published their false and defamatory statements against John with
common law malice – e.g., in bad faith and/or with ill-will towards John.
626. Defendants’ false and defamatory accusations against John are defamatory per se,
thereby causing serious and permanent harm to John’s reputation.
627. Defendants’ false and defamatory accusations against John caused him to be
exposed to public hatred, contempt and ridicule and continues to so expose him.
628. Defendants’ false and defamatory accusations against John were repeated and
republished worldwide throughout the media and by countless private individuals. Examples are
attached hereto as Exhibit L.
629. Defendants intended that their false accusations against John be republished.
630. The republications of their false and defamatory accusations against John were
reasonably foreseeable by Defendants at the time they published the statements.
631. The republications of Defendants’ false and defamatory accusations against John
were the natural and probable result of Defendants’ original publication of those false and
defamatory statements.
Page 108 of 113

632. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ false and defamatory accusations
against John, he has suffered and will continue to suffer damage and other harm, including
economic damages, damages to his reputation, mental anguish, and special damages.
633. Defendants’ conduct demonstrates that degree of willful misconduct and an entire
want of care that raises a conscious indifference to the consequences of their actions.
634. Defendants published their accusations against John with constitutional actual
malice, thereby entitling John to an award of punitive damages.
635. John is also entitled to an award of punitive damages to punish Defendants for
their unlawful conduct and to penalize and deter them from repeating similar unlawful and
egregious conduct.
636. John is also entitled to recover exemplary and/or punitive damages because
Defendants are guilty of fraud, oppression, and malice in publishing the false accusation that
John strangled JonBenét to death and engaged in a criminal cover-up.
COUNT II – CONSPIRACY TO DEFAME (ALL DEFENDANTS)
637. John reasserts and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 636 of this
Complaint as if fully restated herein.
638. Defendants and their Pseudo-Experts agreed to form and engaged in a conspiracy
to create and publish the false and defamatory Documentary.
639. Defendants and their Pseudo-Experts preconceived the story line that John
covered-up that Burke killed JonBenét.
640. Defendants and their Pseudo-Experts pre-calculated and pre-planned to make
their false accusations against John under the guise of conducting a sham reinvestigation and
claiming that the accusation was based on the evidence discovered in the reinvestigation.
Page 109 of 113

641. Defendants and their Pseudo-Experts knowingly agreed to participate in the
Documentary’s fraudulent portrayal of a reinvestigation of the murder of JonBenét.
642. Defendants and their Pseudo-Experts knowingly agreed to present the ultimate
conclusion of Kolar’s Foreign Faction, and the supposed reinvestigation was a charade.
643. Defendants and their Pseudo-Experts knowingly agreed to an unlawful plan to
make their false accusations against John.
644. Each of the Defendants knowingly and intentionally took a responsible part in the
publication of the Documentary, including Defendants’ false and defamatory accusations against
John.
645. Defendants and their Pseudo-Experts knowingly engaged in concerted action and
made overt actions in furtherance of their unlawful plan to publish their false and defamatory
accusations against John.
646. Defendants and their Pseudo-Experts knowingly took concerted action and made
overt actions in furtherance of their unlawful plan to mislead the viewers into believing that John
strangled JonBenét to death and engaged in a criminal cover-up.
647. Defendants and their Pseudo-Experts, acting jointly and according to their
preconceived and unlawful plan, knowingly and recklessly published false and defamatory
statements with actual malice conveying that John strangled JonBenét to death and engaged in a
criminal cover-up.
648. Through the conspiracy, Defendants proximately caused John to be exposed to
public hatred, contempt and ridicule and continue to so expose him.
649. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conspiracy and the false and
defamatory gist regarding John, he has suffered and will continue to suffer damage and other
Page 110 of 113

harm, including economic damages, damages to his reputation, mental anguish, and special
damages.
650. John is entitled to an award of punitive damages to punish Defendants for their
unlawful conspiracy and to penalize and deter them from repeating similar unlawful and
egregious conduct.
651. John is also entitled to recover exemplary and/or punitive damages because
Defendants by and through their conspiracy are guilty of fraud, oppression, and malice in
publishing that John strangled JonBenét to death and engaged in a criminal cover-up.
COUNT III – JOINT VENTURE (CBS AND CRITICAL CONTENT)
652. John reasserts and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 651 of this
Complaint as if fully restated herein.
653. CBS and Critical Content entered into an agreement indicating an intention to
undertake a joint venture in connection with the Documentary.
654. CBS and Critical Content jointly undertook to produce and publish the
Documentary.
655. Pursuant to their joint venture agreement, CBS and Critical Content undertook the
Documentary project for profit.
656. Pursuant to their joint venture agreement, CBS and Critical Content shared in the
profits as well as losses in connection with the Documentary.
657. Pursuant to their joint venture agreement, CBS and Critical Content contributed
skills and property in connection with the Documentary.
658. Pursuant to their joint venture agreement, CBS and Critical Content had a
community interest and control over the Documentary, including a joint right of control.
Page 111 of 113

659. CBS and Critical Content preconceived the story line that John strangled
JonBenét to death and engaged in a criminal cover-up.
660. Pursuant to their joint venture agreement, CBS and Critical Content planned to
accuse John of strangling JonBenét to death and engaging in a criminal cover-up under the guise
of a sham reinvestigation and claiming that the accusation was based on the evidence discovered
in the reinvestigation.
661. Pursuant to their joint venture agreement, CBS and Critical Content knowingly
agreed to participate in the Documentary’s fraudulent portrayal of a reinvestigation of the murder
of JonBenét.
662. Pursuant to their joint venture agreement, CBS and Critical Content knowingly
agreed to present the ultimate conclusion of Kolar’s Foreign Faction, and the supposed
reinvestigation was merely a charade.
663. Pursuant to their joint venture agreement, CBS and Critical Content knowingly
agreed to accuse John of strangling JonBenét to death and engaging in a criminal cover-up.
664. Pursuant to their joint venture agreement, CBS and Critical Content knowingly
and intentionally took a responsible part in the publication of the Documentary, including the
false and defamatory statements conveying that John strangled JonBenét to death and engaged in
a criminal cover-up.
665. Pursuant to their joint venture agreement, CBS and Critical Content knowingly
and recklessly published false and defamatory statements with actual malice conveying that John
strangled JonBenét to death and engaged in a criminal cover-up.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff John Ramsey respectfully requests that this Court enter
judgment, jointly and severally, against Defendants, awarding him compensatory damages in an
Page 112 of 113

amount not less than $100 Million ($100,000,000.00) and punitive damages to punish and deter
Defendants in an amount not less than $250 Million ($250,000,000.00) and granting such other
and further legal or equitable relief deemed appropriate.
Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ John A. Lesko 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


Dated: September 14, 2017










Page 113 of 113

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury on all claims in this action triable by jury.

Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ John A. Lesko 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

Dated: September 14, 2017
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)