RAMSEYS FILE NEW ROUND OF LIBEL LAWSUITS

By: Jim Moscou Editor & Publisher's Interview with John Ramsey



Collectively, it is a jarring claim, with the promise of more to come. On May 8
and 9, John and Patsy Ramsey, on behalf of their 13-year-old son, Burke, filed
four libel lawsuits claiming a total of $54,750,000 in actual and punitive damages
for stories published about the young boy. Served were some of the country's
most renowned and largest media organizations: the New York Post,
Time Warner's Time.com, Texas publisher Windsor House Publishing Group,
and the supermarket tabloid Globe.


All of the lawsuits argue the stories published by the organizations were false and
libelous by suggesting Burke murdered his six-year-old sister, JonBenet, and, in
some accounts, sexually molested her. The family's attorney adds that these
filings are just the beginning of the Ramseys' courtroom efforts to exact revenge
against media that has abused its journalistic responsibility and the Ramsey
family name. The motive, they say, is profit.


Of the four cases, the largest lawsuit was filed against the Globe, where
the family asks for $35 million in actual and punitive damages for a November
1998 story:



GLOBE November 24, 1998

NEW JONBENET CHARGE:

BROTHER, 11, IS THE KILLER - say crime investigators

And Burke will NEVER stand trial!



The roots of Burke's case for libel rests in the months following his sister's
murder in December 1996, when the boy - then nine years old - was publicly
deemed by Boulder authorities as a witness, not a suspect. Still, in the three years
JonBenet's murder has remained unsolved, Burke remains the focus of articles in
the tabloid and mainstream press suggesting he may have played a role in his
sister's killing. Media speculation of Burke's involvement culminated in a May
1999 headline in the tabloid Star:


STAR, May 25, 1999

Ramseys In Top Secret

Plea Bargain Talks

as evidence shows?

JONBENET WAS KILLED BY

BROTHER BURKE

-Heartbreaking story inside





The story was quickly picked up by the mainstream press. And a few weeks later,
in a rare public statement by investigators to help mitigate the indicting headlines,
Burke was definitively cleared by Boulder authorities of any wrongdoing. The
Star soon after retracted the story with a front-page apology.



In November 1999, the Ramseys sued the Star for the May 1999
coverage, asking for $25 million in actual and punitive damages. The case was
settled in March 2000 for an undisclosed amount. But that was not the end story.
Following the May 1999 Star headline, and before Boulder authorities
cleared the young boy, the New York Post and Time.com staff writers
covered the tabloid's account, and gave Burke's possible culpability a credible
nod. Those stories are now at the heart of the family's lawsuits against those
publications. Both ask for $4 million in punitive and actual damages. The family
is also suing Windsor House Publishing for $11,750,000, claiming accusations in
the 1998 book, 'A Little Girl's Dream? A JonBenet Ramsey Story,' of Burke's
involvement in the murder and sexual abuse of his sister were libelous.



L. Lin Wood, the family's libel attorney, says another salvo of libel lawsuits will
be fired within six to eight months on behalf of Burke's parents, John and Patsy
Ramsey. The family and their attorney add they are prepared to try and exact a
fiscal revenge against individuals and media that have treated them unfairly and
are blunt about their future legal agenda. They are ready and eager to summon for
themselves the 'Civil Trial of John and Patsy Ramsey.'



On the list of prospective targets, they say, is Denver Post columnist
Chuck Green, Colo. Governor Bill Owens, Time-Warner's Court TV, former-

Boulder detective and author of the best seller, 'JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey
Murder Investigation' Steve Thomas, Denver radio talk-show host Peter Boyles,
Geraldo Rivera, and others.


While numerous questions still swirl around JonBenet's murder, Editor &
Publisher magazine asks John Ramsey only about the motives behind these
four libel lawsuits and the family's legal agenda. The interview was conducted by
telephone today. Additional comments by John Ramsey, responses from the
media defendants, and an analysis of the lawsuits will appear in the May 15, 2000
edition of Editor & Publisher magazine.



Q: Why instigate these lawsuits on behalf of Burke? He's a young boy, and
may have to endure a long legal battle?

A: It is, I guess really two fold: One is to hold these people accountable for
libeling another human being. But, more importantly, these people have libeled a
nine-year-old child for profit. And that ought to outrage and disgust every
American citizen. And I'm not going to sit back and say, 'Oh, well that's okay.'
It's a tragedy and cancer in our society.



Q: Yet Burke's name and identity will just be perpetuated in the media,
keeping him in the limelight. Why do that to him?

A: Because he's been perpetuated for three years as a murderer of his sister. And
we're going to set the record right and the only way we know how. And that's
through the courts.



Q: Litigation involving Burke could last for a while, and really get bogged
down.

A: We're fully prepared to go years on it.



Q: For Burke's case?

A: For Burke.



Q: Hoping for a settlement instead?

A: I don't care about settlements. I want to hold these people accountable for the
horrendous attack they've made on a child. Because it won't stop with Burke if
we don't put a stop to it. It's very profitable for them. You have, you have to
stand for something in life.



Q: Have you discussed this with Burke, that this is a stand?

A: Not in any great detail. Burke is a tough guy. This is his sister. This is
something that he's, uh, uh, aware of; that he knows we are fighting for him.
Absolutely.



Q: And that Lin Wood is fighting for him as well.

A: Yeah. The worst thing we can do is to ignore this. For three years, these low-

lifes have slandered an innocent child for profit. I can't imagine anything more
horrible that has taken place in the American media in my lifetime.


Q: The?

A: And we have to attack them where it counts, in the pocket book. They are in
this for money pure and simple. It has nothing to do with journalism. It has
nothing to do with good reporting. This has to do with money.



Q: Going after the Star a few months ago seemed like a calculated
move. You got that settled and then you have the Post and Time.com
coverage easily in your sites. Was that the strategy?

A: Yeah. Absolutely. The Star was the original article. And the Post and Time
reprinted it (Editor's note: Both newspapers wrote independent stories recounting
the Star's coverage). So it was a logical, strategic way to approach it.



Q: Any response from these defendants?

A: You'd have to ask Lin. I don't know. I know he's talked to their lawyers. But,
uh, none that I'm aware of.



Q: Lin has said that (former Boulder detective and author) Steve Thomas and
(his publisher) St. Martin's Press is now at the top of the list of people and media
organizations that you intend to file on behalf of you and Patsy. True?

A: Certainly the top five. No question. That's another outrageous, bigger issue
than just 'Patsy and John.' This is about a detective employed by the citizens of a
community to fairly administer justice and he is now taking justice in his own
hands trying to convict Patsy and I, I guess, in the media, all for profit. And that's
a huge issue for the American society. People ought to be just aghast at that. And,
again, if our lives are to account for something, we're going to account for this
kinda crap. That it can't happen in America.



Q: That sounds like you've on a mission, after Thomas.

A: Yeah! This is bigger than dollar and sense and getting even. This is a tragedy
in the American justice system. Steve Thomas ought to be a poster child for what
is wrong with police in America.


Q: You say Thomas is number five. Is that a flippant number?

A: Oh. Yeah. I wouldn't say he's at the top of the list. That would be quite an
honor (Ramsey laughs). He certainly has gotten into target range, let me put it that
way. As Lin Wood says, we could keep a law school busy for the next few years.



Q: A top media lawyer told me earlier that one of the most significant
problems in libel lawsuits is often the plaintiffs -in this case you and your wife -
often dupe themselves and their lawyers into believing they have a case. How
have you assured Lin you're not duping him?

A: Lin is working on a contingency fee. I told him if he thinks this is a winnable
case, if he thinks any of these are winnable cases, you go for 'em. If you don't,
forget 'em. There is only a few I would be interested in filing purely for setting
the record straight.



Q: And which one's is that?

A: Oh, I think this woman Kimberly Ballard who said she was my mistress. An
out-an-out lie. And to expect Lin to take that as a contingency fee would be
ridiculous. But she was on national television saying she was my mistress. And
how am I going to set the record straight other than to prove it in a court of law?



Q: Let me rephrase my earlier questions. How did you convince Lin you two
are innocent?

A: I think, I think any reasonable person that looks at this comes to that
conclusion pretty quickly.



Q: In six months, Lin Wood says he'll be filing libel lawsuits on behalf of you
and Patsy. That's a very different fight than the one Burke is facing.

A: Um. They're probably a bit different. Yeah, but uh?



Q: It's the 'Civil Trial' of you and your wife.

A: Well, that's a possibility. But perhaps that's the only way we can get a trial.
And we certainly aren't afraid of that. But I think our objective here is to, uh -
there is very fundamental principle that has been horribly violated by people in
the media. And we can either choose to, you know, to go in a cave and ignore it,
or stand up for something. And hopefully we can make a difference.



Q: Make a difference in journalism. That must seem a bit ironic to you.

A: Yeah (chuckles). I've been told it can't be done. But certainly in the arena of
journalism that's purely focused on profit, and does things that have been done by
people like the Globe, I don't know, hit 'em where it hurts. And hit them
big.



Q: Like $35 million.

A: Hopefully that's big enough.



Q: Any other thoughts?

A: I think, uh, the important thing is for us to be good examples for Burke. We've
got to fight for what is right.



Q: Is that the motive here?

A: Certainly. And it's not always easy. This has been a horrible wrong.



Q: Was their relief in filing these suits?

A: Oh yeah. We've been anxious to get on with it. I'm glad to see we're making
progress. There's a long -- lot's to go, as far as I'm concerned.



Q: What will the money be used if he wins or settles?

A: For Burke?



Q: Yeah.

A: He has a trust fund administered by my brother and for Burke's benefits.



Q: Any other thoughts?
A: If you just look at the big picture, the American people would be just aghast at
what happened in some of these situations, some of these people that are out
there. It gets back to the principle. There are just huge principles that have been
violated.



Q: Have your Denver (defense) attorneys told you not to pursue these
lawsuits?

A: Well, yeah, a good defense attorney says lock yourself in a closet and don't
come out. But this case and our situation has been taken to the court of public
opinion three years ago by the Boulder police. And we tried to respect the justice
system by not fighting it in the court of public opinion. And, we've had three
years of arguments presented against us capped by Steve Thomas' articulation of
the police theory in his book for profit. And we can't sit back forever and not
recognize that this has been taken to the court of public opinion by the police and
fight it. It's not right. It's not constitutional. But that's the hand we've been dealt.