Welcome, Guest
You have to register before you can post on our site.

Username
  

Password
  





Search Forums

(Advanced Search)

Forum Statistics
» Members: 29
» Latest member: Gildedingold
» Forum threads: 1,090
» Forum posts: 3,390

Full Statistics

Online Users
There are currently 19 online users.
» 0 Member(s) | 19 Guest(s)

Latest Threads
Q&A
Forum: Answering BORG questions
Last Post: CA4Now
10-28-2017, 12:11 PM
» Replies: 17
» Views: 2,611
partial
Forum: Clues in the Case - May 2001
Last Post: jameson245
10-22-2017, 04:58 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 144
looking for the web
Forum: Broken window/ Spider web
Last Post: Gemini6
10-20-2017, 12:59 PM
» Replies: 13
» Views: 2,283
Important info in "We hav...
Forum: We Have Your Daughter
Last Post: Summer Dawn
10-19-2017, 07:24 PM
» Replies: 12
» Views: 1,499
Kirsten Hatfield
Forum: OTHER children taken from their beds
Last Post: jameson245
10-18-2017, 06:54 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 58
Jennifer Schuett
Forum: OTHER children taken from their beds
Last Post: jameson245
10-18-2017, 05:43 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 66
Charles Lindbergh - 1932
Forum: OTHER children taken from their beds
Last Post: jameson245
10-18-2017, 05:37 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 50
Polly Klaas
Forum: OTHER children taken from their beds
Last Post: jameson245
10-18-2017, 05:36 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 53
Took her, raped her, AND ...
Forum: OTHER children taken from their beds
Last Post: jameson245
10-18-2017, 05:27 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 52
2017 - 6 year old escaped
Forum: OTHER children taken from their beds
Last Post: jameson245
10-18-2017, 05:22 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 57

 
  COMPARE THE IMAGES! CBS LIED!
Posted by: jameson245 - 03-22-2017, 05:30 PM - Forum: Burke sues CBS for 750 million - Replies (3)

           

Print this item

  COMPARE THESE TWO IMAGES!
Posted by: jameson245 - 03-22-2017, 05:27 PM - Forum: Broken window/ Spider web - Replies (1)

       

This shows just how far CBS, Kolar and the others went to mislead the public!

Print this item

  Gurule and Dorrance - 2010
Posted by: jameson245 - 03-22-2017, 03:43 PM - Forum: Boulder crimes - Replies (1)

Men arrested in Boulder burglary could be linked to many more over 15 years
By Vanessa Miller Camera Staff Writer
Posted:   04/07/2010 08:42:11 PM MDT


[Image: 20100407_115753_NicholasDorrance_200.jpg]
Nicholas Dorrance (Boulder County Sheriff's Office)
Two men recently arrested on suspicion of breaking into a north Boulder home may have been behind dozens of residential burglaries in the city and other parts of the Denver metro area over the past 15 years, according to police.
Nicholas Dorrance, 46, and James P. Gurule, 45, were arrested March 27 on suspicion of second-degree burglary after witnesses saw them leaving Nassau Place in a white 2000 Ford Expedition about the same time a home on the street was burglarized, according to police.
The department issued an alert for the vehicle, and Westminster police and the Colorado State Patrol helped officers stop the men on U.S. 36 near Wadsworth Boulevard. Investigators found evidence in the SUV that linked the men to the break-in, and detectives suspect they've been committing burglaries for years.
[Image: 20100407_115836_JamesGurule_200.jpg]
James P. Gurule (Boulder County Sheriff's Office)
"We feel like this is going to be a significant arrest that allows us to give homeowners some answers in a lot of different cases," said Boulder police spokeswoman Sarah Huntley.
Detectives have found hundreds of items believed to be stolen, including jewelry, weapons and electronics.
Officers have matched up some of the found property with victims of previous burglaries. As for the rest of the items, officers are photographing them and plan to post the images on the department's Web site by the end of the week so victims can be reunited with their property, Huntley said. So far, the department has photographed more than 400 items, she said.
Advertisement

"The items likely come from burglaries that occurred in Boulder and other parts of the metro area, possibly stemming back from 15 years ago," Huntley said.
The suspected burglars are believed to have already sold many of the high-end items, Huntley said. But, she said, many of the items that police hope to reunite with their owners might have sentimental value.
One of the items, for example, is a bracelet that has charms on it seeming to signify children's ages, she said.
Boulder Police Chief Mark Beckner said his department recently created a task force to focus on catching the residential burglars. He couldn't say how many crimes Dorrance and Gurule are suspected of being involved in, but he said their arrests were "satisfying" for the officers.
Both men have posted $20,000 bonds to be released from the Boulder County Jail. They couldn't be reached for comment Wednesday. They're due back in a Boulder County Jail courtroom today for the filing of charges.
Both Gurule and Dorrance have lengthy criminal histories in Colorado, according to court records, including previous arrests for theft, drugs and alcohol violations.

Print this item

  Discussion
Posted by: jameson245 - 03-22-2017, 01:11 PM - Forum: Burke sues CBS for 750 million - Replies (6)

Got this in email, was asked to post and say it is from "Dave"  (an old-time poster)

I watched the CBS hatchet job on Burke. This was nothing more than a
huge exercise in group confirmation bias --- as you yourself may have
concluded.

snip

post from a contributor, if you would be so kind. Please feel free to
say it's from "Dave" if you wish.

-------------------------------

On the CBS television show The Case of: JonBenét Ramsey, “pseudo-expert”
Henry Lee [1] performed DNA tests on some brand new underwear fresh off
the shelf. The test consisted of:

1) Spraying the underwear with chemicals to locate regions that
contained organic material.

2) Cutting out the identified regions.

3) Submitting the cuttings for DNA testing.

It was reported that female DNA was found.

This is an incompetently designed test.

What should have been done instead:

1) Randomly drop colored solution or other easily identifiable markings
no larger than 0.5 inches in diameter on the crotches of the underwear
--- no more than a few such drops per piece of underwear, similar in
size and distribution as the blood spots found on JonBenét's underwear.

2) Cut out these identified regions.

3) Submit the cuttings for testing for the presence of male DNA, not
female DNA.

Spraying the underwear with chemicals to locate regions that contain
organic material is a stupid mistake that shows the sloppiness that
“pseudo-expert” Henry Lee brings to many of his cases. The relevant
question is not: “Can we find DNA somewhere on these panties?” but
rather: “How likely is it that a spot of blood would land on a region
that contains DNA?”

Claiming that finding female DNA somewhere on the panties is significant
to the case is just another stupid and unfounded conclusion of
“pseudo-expert” Henry Lee. Throughout the history of the garment
industry, females dominate production. The likelihood of male DNA
landing on garments compared to the likelihood of female DNA is far, far
lower. Again, the question isn't “Can we find DNA somewhere on these
panties?” but rather: “How likely is it that any DNA found on the fresh
underwear is male?”

Even though this test is incompetently designed, the approximate
likelihood of finding male DNA in a region of 0.5 inches in diameter
that is randomly chosen can be confidently stated as ZERO, based on the
information provided in the show regarding this irrelevant test.
Nevertheless, now that this incompetently designed test has been not
only performed, but publicized in the popular press, it should be
replaced by a relevant test like the one that I have described above,
performed by competent personnel at an independent laboratory.

[1] The label "pseudo-expert" is an accurate description, in my opinion,
of Henry Lee from: STATE OF MICHIGAN IN THE 3RD CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE
COUNTY OF WAYNE
BURKE RAMSEY, Plaintiff,
v.
CBS CORPORATION, CRITICAL CONTENT, LLC, JIM CLEMENTE, LAURA RICHARDS, A.
JAMES KOLAR, JAMES R. FITZGERALD, STANLEY B.BURKE, WERNER U. SPITZ, and
HENRY C. LEE, Defendants.

Print this item

  JonBenet Ramsey's brother sues Dr. Werner Spitz; case to be heard in Michigan court
Posted by: Summer Dawn - 03-22-2017, 10:09 AM - Forum: Burke sues Werner Spitz for $150,000,000.00 - No Replies

JonBenet Ramsey's brother sues Dr. Werner Spitz; case to be heard in Michigan court


Defamation lawsuit filed over what Spitz said in CBS documentary

By Nick Monacelli - Reporter , Dave Bartkowiak Jr.
Posted: 7:26 AM, March 22, 2017Updated: 8:46 AM, March 22, 2017


DETROIT - JonBenet Ramsey's brother, Burke Ramsey, is suing Dr. Werner Spitz for what he said in a CBS documentary about who killed the 6-year-old girl back in 1996. 
Burke Ramsey's defamation lawsuit against the esteemed pathologist seeks $150 million. The case goes before a judge in Wayne County on Wednesday. The judge will have to decide if this will go to trial. 
"It's nonsensical. It's outrageous. It will not stand," said L. Linn Wood, attorney for Burke Ramsey. 

During part of the documentary, Spitz accuses Burke Ramsey of JonBenet's murder, saying, "You cannot come to a different conclusion. It's the boy who did it. Whether he was jealous or mentally unfit or something ... I don't know the why."

Burke Ramsey's attorney said Spitz is unqualified to make such claims. 

"He never examined the child. He's never spoken to the forensic pathologist. He's never been to the crime scene. He's never firsthand examined a single piece of actual evidence. And yet he goes out and says, 'Oh it was the flashlight in the hands of the son in the kitchen. It's like he's playing the game of Clue," said Wood. 

Burke Ramsey was 9 years old at the time of JonBenet's murder. He's about 30 now. While police never identified a murder weapon, Spitz claimed the weight and shape of a flashlight found on the Ramsey family's kitchen counter was consistent with the skull injury which killed the young beauty queen. 

The day after the documentary first aired, Burke Ramsey's attorney demanded a retraction. Spitz refused. 
The lawsuit claims Spitz's theory has deeply harmed Burke Ramsey. 

"I have no fear of Burke Ramsey clearing his name against the false accusations of Werner Spitz in a court of law," said Wood. 

Burke Ramsey also field a lawsuit against CBS for $750 million. CBS said they stand by what was said and the broadcast. The media company will defend it in a court of law if necessary. 
In court documents, Spitz's attorneys said he should be covered by the First Amendment regardless of what he said. 

About Dr. Werner Spitz
Spitz is often recognized as one of the most respected forensic scientists worldwide. After 45 years of work, he said he is still up to the challenge of helping solve some of the most mysterious cases. He currently works as a professor of pathology at the Wayne State University School of Medicine in Detroit. 

[Image: Dr-Werner-Spitz-testifies-in-Wafer-trial...40_360.png]

[/url]

Before a long career in several high-profile cases, Spitz served on two prestigious panels that investigated the death of President John F. Kennedy. He said he immediately ruled out any notion of a conspiracy in Kennedy's death because the president's neck wound proved the bullet was fired from behind him.


More recently, Spitz testified in the Casey Anthony murder trial. During the trial Spitz told the jury he thought it was a shoddy investigation and that the autopsy conducted by the Orlando medical examiner was flawed. He said he believes the examiner's office staged photos of Caylee Anthony's skull and that duct tape was placed on her skull after the body had decomposed.

After about a half century of cases, Spitz said there are two Detroit-area cases that definitely stick with him: The 
Oakland County Child Killer case from the 1970s and the crash of Northwest Airlines flight 255, which crashed in Romulus in 1987, killing all aboard except one 4-year-old passenger -- the deadliest sole-survivor plane crash in U.S. history.

Print this item

  Broken Windows and spider web crime scene photos
Posted by: Summer Dawn - 03-21-2017, 06:41 PM - Forum: Broken window/ Spider web - Replies (8)

Check these crime scene photos...


First one is the window RIGHT to the middle window..

Please click on it to see a bigger picture!!!



Attached Files Thumbnail(s)
   
Print this item

  Lawsuit part 2
Posted by: jameson245 - 03-21-2017, 04:48 PM - Forum: The CBS suit - Replies (2)

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

Print this item

  Lawsuit
Posted by: jameson245 - 03-21-2017, 04:37 PM - Forum: The CBS suit - Replies (8)

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

Print this item

  The QUOTE
Posted by: jameson245 - 03-21-2017, 09:20 AM - Forum: DNA - more technical discussions - No Replies


.pdf   quote.pdf (Size: 440.84 KB / Downloads: 6)
OK, I am looking at the files on the DNA - lots of stuff to read and it took a long time to find the report I feel is most important.

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



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



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


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

THE QUOTE:





"When asked, Jeanguenat stated that she saw no indication

that a third party contributed to the mixture and would

'testify in court' to that effect."

Print this item

  The important quote
Posted by: jameson245 - 03-21-2017, 09:19 AM - Forum: DNA found in panties - No Replies

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

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




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



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


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

THE QUOTE:





"When asked, Jeanguenat stated that she saw no indication

that a third party contributed to the mixture and would

'testify in court' to that effect."

Print this item