10-14-2017, 05:08 PM
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.
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.