|
[copy furnished courtesy justice watch forum] LAWSUIT - Ramsey v Thomas and others
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
COME NOW Plaintiffs, John Ramsey and Patsy Ramsey, and state their Complaint for Libel, Slander, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Deprivation of Constitutional Rights against Defendants, Steve Thomas, Don Davis, St. Martin's Enterprises, Inc., SMP (1952), Inc., doing
business as St. Martin's Press and St. Martin's Paperbacks, and Unknown Officials of the City of Boulder, Colorado Police Department, including, but not limited to, Officer John Doe 1, Officer John Doe 2, Officer John Doe 3 and Officer Jane Doe, as follows:
JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT
1. Plaintiffs John Ramsey and Patsy Ramsey (hereinafter collectively "Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey") are individuals who reside in Atlanta, Georgia.
2. Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey are citizens of the State of Georgia for purposes of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
3. Defendant Steve Thomas (hereinafter "Defendant Thomas") is an individual who resides at 5225 Gladiola Street, Arvada, Colorado.
4. Defendant Thomas is a citizen of the State of Colorado for purposes of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
5. Defendant Thomas is subject to the jurisdiction of this Court pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 9-10-91 with proper venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391.
6. Defendant Don Davis (hereinafter "Defendant Davis") is an individual who resides at 6350 Modena Lane, Longmont, Colorado.
7. Defendant Davis is a citizen of the State of Colorado for purposes of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
8. Defendant Davis is subject to the jurisdiction of this Court pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 9-10-91 with proper venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391.
9. Defendant St. Martin's Enterprises, Inc. is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware with its principal place of business being located at 175 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York.
10. Defendant St. Martin's Enterprises, Inc. is a citizen of the State of Delaware for purposes of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
11.Defendant St. Martin's Enterprises, Inc. is subject to the jurisdiction of this Court pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 9-10-91 with proper venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391.
12. Defendant St. Martin's Enterprises, Inc. can be served with summons and complaint by service upon its registered agent, St. Martin's Press, Inc. Attn: General Counsel, at its registered address, 175 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York 10010.
13. Defendant SMP (1952), Inc. is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York with its principal place of business being located at 175 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York.
14. Defendant SMP (1952), Inc. is a citizen of the State of New York for purposes of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
15. Defendant SMP (1952), Inc. is subject to the jurisdiction of this Court pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 9-10-91 with proper venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391.
16. Defendant SMP (1952), Inc. can be served with summons and complaint by service upon its
registered agent, The Corporation Attn: Legal Department, at its registered address, 175 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York 10010.
17. Among other corporate activities, Defendant St. Martin's Enterprises, Inc. and Defendant SMP (1952), Inc. (hereafter collectively "Defendant St. Martin's Press") own and operate a book publishing
company known as St. Martin's Press and St. Martin's Paperbacks.
18. Defendant St. Martin's Press publishes, distributes and sells hardback books and paperback books throughout the nation on a regular basis, including the State of Georgia.
19.Defendant St. Martin's Press regularly does or solicits business in the State of Georgia and engages in a persistent course of business conduct in the State of Georgia, deriving revenue from hardback books and paperback books regularly distributed and sold in the State of Georgia.
20. Defendant Officer John Doe 1, a Boulder, Colorado police officer or official, is a citizen of the State of Colorado for purposes of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. His identity is presently unknown, but it will be uncovered during discovery in this litigation at which time, service of process
can be perfected upon him.
21. Defendant Officer John Doe 1, is subject to the jurisdiction of this Court pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 9-10-91 with proper venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391.
22. Defendant Officer John Doe 2, a Boulder, Colorado police officer or official, is a citizen of the State of Colorado for purposes of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. His identity is presently unknown, but it will be uncovered during discovery in this litigation at which time, service of process
can be perfected upon him.
23. Defendant Officer John Doe 2 is subject to the jurisdiction of this Court pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 9-10-91 with proper venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391.
24.Defendant Officer John Doe 3, a Boulder, Colorado police officer or official, is a citizen of the State of Colorado for purposes of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. His identity is presently unknown, but it will be uncovered during discovery in this litigation at which time, service of process
can be perfected upon him.
25. Defendant Officer John Doe 3 is subject to the jurisdiction of this Court pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 9-10-91 with proper venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391.
26. Defendant Officer Jane Doe, a Boulder, Colorado police officer or official, is a citizen of the State of Colorado for purposes of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Her identity is presently unknown, but it will be uncovered during discovery in this litigation at which time, service of process
can be perfected upon her.
27. Defendant Officer Jane Doe is subject to the jurisdiction of this Court pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 9-10-91 with proper venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391.
28.This Court has original subject matter jurisdiction with respect to this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 as there exists complete diversity of citizenship between Plaintiffs and Defendants and the amount in controversy exceeds Seventy Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00), exclusive of interest
and costs.
FACTUAL STATEMENT
29. On the night of December 25, 1996 or during the early morning hours of December 26, 1996, while Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey were sleeping in their home in Boulder, Colorado, an unknown assailant brutally murdered their six-year-old daughter, JonBenét Ramsey.
30. JonBenét Ramsey died as a result of asphyxiation due to strangulation with a garrote, a killing implement made from rope tied to a wooden handle.
31.Upon autopsy, the garrote rope was found deeply imbedded into and around the throat of JonBenét Ramsey, with evidence that it had been severely tightened around her throat at such time as she was still alive.
32. Upon autopsy, physical findings on the body of JonBenét Ramsey indicated that she had been sexually assaulted shortly before her death and attacked with a stun gun on at least two areas of her body.
33. Immediately before or at the time of her death from strangulation, JonBenét Ramsey suffered a massive blow to her head that crushed almost the entire upper right side of her skull.
34. Only a miniscule amount of blood was found upon autopsy in the skull cavity of JonBenét Ramsey, establishing beyond reasonable dispute that the massive blow to her head was delivered at a time when the garrote had been sufficiently tightened around her neck to the point of cutting off the flow of blood from her heart to her brain.
35.Since the date of her death, law enforcement officials in the State of Colorado, including members of the City of Boulder Police Department and the Boulder County District Attorney's Office, have investigated the murder of JonBenét Ramsey.
36.As of the date of the filing of this Complaint, the murder of JonBenét Ramsey has not been solved and no criminal charges have been filed against any individual in connection with her brutal murder.
37. At the time of the murder of JonBenét Ramsey, Defendant Thomas was employed by the City of Boulder Police Department (hereinafter "the Boulder Police Department") as a police officer working undercover narcotic assignments.
38. On December 28, 1996, Defendant Thomas was assigned to the JonBenét Ramsey murder investigation.
39. The JonBenét Ramsey murder investigation was the first murder case investigated by Defendant Thomas in his law enforcement career.
40. Defendant Thomas worked on the JonBenét Ramsey investigation from December 28, 1996 until June 26, 1998 when he took a leave of absence from the Boulder Police Department due to alleged health problems.
41. Defendant Thomas resigned from the Boulder Police Department on August 6, 1998.
42. Subsequent to Defendant Thomas' resignation, a grand jury was convened in Boulder County, Colorado in September of 1998, assigned the primary tasks of investigating the JonBenét Ramsey murder, hearing and obtaining evidence concerning the murder and determining whether probable cause existed under the evidence to justify filing a criminal indictment or charge against any individual in connection with the murder of JonBenét Ramsey.
43.The grand jury investigation ended in October of 1999 without a criminal indictment or charge being filed against any individual in connection with the murder of JonBenét Ramsey.
44. Prior to resigning from the Boulder Police Department, Defendant Thomas formulated a plan to publish a book about the JonBenét Ramsey murder investigation.
45. Subsequent to his resignation, Defendant Thomas signed a book-publishing contract with Defendant St. Martin's Press to co-author with Defendant Davis a book about the JonBenét Ramsey murder investigation.
46. As part of the financial consideration for the book-publishing contract, Defendant Thomas received an advance payment from Defendant St. Martin's Press estimated to be in the amount of several hundred thousand dollars.
47. Defendant Thomas received the large advance payment from Defendant St. Martin's Press based in part on the fact that in an effort to increase book sales, Defendant Thomas agreed to publish confidential law enforcement information about the JonBenét Ramsey murder investigation that had not previously been disclosed to the public.
48. Defendant Thomas received the large advance payment from Defendant St. Martin's Press based in part on the fact that, in an effort to increase book sales, Defendant Thomas agreed to publish confidential law enforcement information about Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey and their family members.
49. Defendant Thomas received the large advance payment from Defendant St. Martin's Press based in part on the fact that in an effort to increase book sales, Defendant Thomas agreed to state in his book that Plaintiff Patsy Ramsey killed her daughter, JonBenét Ramsey, and wrote a ransom note found in her home on the morning of December 26, 1996, and that Plaintiff John Ramsey engaged in a criminal cover-up of his wife's crime.
50. On April 10, 2000, Defendant Thomas, Defendant Davis and Defendant St. Martin's Press published the hardback book entitled JONBENÉT: INSIDE THE RAMSEY MURDER INVESTIGATION (hereinafter "the hardback book," said book being filed under separate cover as "Exhibit A" to Plaintiffs' Complaint).
51. In December of 2001, Defendant Thomas, Defendant Davis and Defendant St. Martin's Press published the paperback book entitled JONBENÉT: INSIDE THE RAMSEY MURDER INVESTIGATION (hereinafter "the paperback book," said book being filed under separate cover as "Exhibit B" to Plaintiffs' Complaint) and included in it a "new update" in the Epilogue (the hardback book and the paperback book shall hereinafter be collectively described as "the books").
52. Unknown officials of the Boulder Police Department, including, but not limited to, Defendants, Officer John Doe 1, Officer John Doe 2, Officer John Doe 3 and Officer Jane Doe, actively participated in the publication of the book by providing Defendant Thomas with confidential law enforcement information about the JonBenét Ramsey murder investigation.
COUNT ONE - LIBEL
53. Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey hereby incorporate, adopt and re-allege Paragraphs 1 through 28 of the Jurisdictional Statement of this Complaint and Paragraphs 29 through 52 of the Factual Statement of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
54. Prior to the murder of their daughter, Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey were private citizens.
55. Following the murder of their daughter and prior to the publication of the hardback book, Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey granted a number of media interviews and in March of 2000, published their account of events surrounding the death of their daughter in a book entitled THE DEATH OF INNOCENCE: THE UNTOLD STORY OF JONBENÉT'S MURDER AND HOW ITS EXPLOITATION COMPROMISED THE PURSUIT OF TRUTH.
56.Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey's efforts to publicly discuss their daughter's murder and the investigation of her murder were undertaken in part to rebut accusatory media coverage of the murder investigation, including accusations directed against them by Defendant Thomas, and in part to assist in finding the murderer of their daughter.
57. Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey were entitled to publicly respond to the accusatory media coverage of the murder investigation, including the accusations by Defendant Thomas, and to engage in public efforts to assist in finding the murderer of their daughter without by so doing, losing their status as private defamation plaintiffs and valuable legal protections against defamation.
58. The gist of the books published by Defendant Thomas, Defendant Davis and Defendant St. Martin's Press is that Plaintiff Patsy Ramsey killed her daughter, JonBenét Ramsey, and wrote the ransom note found in her home on the morning of December 26, 1996 and that Plaintiff John Ramsey engaged in a criminal cover-up of his wife's crime.
59. Plaintiff Patsy Ramsey did not kill her daughter, JonBenét Ramsey, and did not write the ransom note found in her home on the morning of December 26, 1996.
60. Plaintiff John Ramsey did not engage in a criminal cover-up of any crime in connection with the murder of his daughter.
61. Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey do not know the identity of the murderer of their daughter and do not know the identity of the author of the ransom note found in their home on the morning of December 26, 1996.
62. The gist of the books is false and defamatory and constitutes libel per se in that it charges that Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey are guilty of heinous crimes - the brutal murder of their daughter and a cover-up of the murder.
63. The books also contain numerous false statements that constitute libel per se in that many false statements published therein convey to the average reader that Plaintiff Patsy Ramsey killed her daughter, JonBenét Ramsey, and authored the ransom note found in her home on the morning of December 26, 1996 and that Plaintiff John Ramsey engaged in a criminal cover-up of his wife's crime.
64. The books contain the following libelous statements, among others, falsely conveying that Plaintiff Patsy Ramsey killed her daughter, JonBenét Ramsey, and that Plaintiff John Ramsey engaged in a criminal cover-up of his wife's crime: But there are only two possible answers. One is that an intruder, known or unknown to the family, crept into the house, killed JonBenét in a botched kidnapping attempt while the family slept, then vanished, leaving behind what has been called the War and Peace of ransom notes, and then disappeared. The other scenario is that the little girl was killed by a family member, whom I believe to have been her panicked mother, Patsy Ramsey, and that her father, John Ramsey, opted to protect his wife in the investigation that followed.
The district attorney and his top prosecutor, two police chiefs, and a large number of cops, although so at odds on some points that they almost came to blows, all agreed on one thing - that probable cause existed to arrest Patsy Ramsey in connection with the death of her daughter. But due to a totally inept justice system in Boulder, no one was ever put in handcuffs, and the Ramseys were never really in serious jeopardy.
What follows is the story of how someone got away with murder.
The hardback book at 13-14 (emphasis added, italics in original).
65. The books contain the following libelous statements, among others, falsely conveying that Plaintiff Patsy Ramsey killed her daughter, JonBenét Ramsey, and that Plaintiff John Ramsey engaged in a criminal cover-up of his wife's crime because they were allegedly uncooperative and evasive concerning the investigation into JonBenét's murder:
John and Patsy Ramsey broke their silence on New Year's Day with an interview on the Cable News Network instead of talking to us. Arranging an interview with a news organization was a tactic they would use repeatedly in coming years, and in my opinion it was always sheer propaganda, allowing them to spin a public relations story while avoiding the police. Most of the time the reporters involved agreed in advance not to ask them anything about the murder of their daughter. And the reporters, however well informed, knew only a fraction of the real case. Cops wanted to ask tougher, deeper questions - and on the first day of 1997 our topics would have included a long ransom note written in a familiar hand, JonBenét's bed-wetting, a broken paintbrush used to make a garrote, pineapple found in a bowl and in the victim's stomach, and what looked like traces of semen on the victim. The only danger to Patsy and John Ramsey when they put on their dog and pony shows did not come from the interviewers but from themselves. Even a carefully controlled statement still might give us something we could use.
The hardback book at 87, the paperback book at 97 (emphasis added).
66. The books contain the following libelous statements, among others, falsely conveying that Plaintiff Patsy Ramsey killed her daughter, JonBenét Ramsey, and that Plaintiff John Ramsey engaged in a criminal cover-up of his wife's crime:
Evidence was accumulating to indicate the involvement of a parent, but we could not ignore other leads, and there were dozens of them
It was extremely frustrating to chase the nonsense leads, and we seemed to be constantly heading down roads that led nowhere.
Information evaporated before our eyes, suspects were cleared, tips were not what they seemed. The effort spent on such things was chewing up detective hours and not getting us close to the people on whom we should be concentrating.
Evidence at hand pointed to the Ramseys. But instead of the focus narrowing, as in normal investigations, this one widened like an inverted funnel. At some point we hoped common sense would take over; we wanted to stop chasing phantoms. There was no shortage of suspects, just a shortage of detectives.
One day I asked Trip DeMuth, our primary contact with Alex Hunter's office, why they didn't see what we saw. Everyone we had interviewed had resulted in a dead end, the evidence was piling up, and of all of the handwriting examples, only one person - Patsy Ramsey - came back as the likely author. We saw nothing that pointed to anyone outside the home being involved. Locked house. Dead child. Two parents. Hello?
The hardback book at 140, 142, the paperback book at 159, 161-62 (emphasis added).
67. The books contain the following libelous statements, among others, falsely conveying that Plaintiff Patsy Ramsey killed her daughter, JonBenét Ramsey:
There was no doubt in my mind that Patsy wrote the note. "I believe she committed the murder," I told Smit and proceeded to lay out what I thought had happened that night.
In my hypothesis, an approaching fortieth birthday, the busy holiday season, an exhausting Christmas Day, and an argument with JonBenét had left Patsy frazzled. Her beautiful daughter, whom she frequently dressed almost as a twin, had rebelled against wearing the same outfit as her mother.
When they came home, John Ramsey helped Burke put together a Christmas toy. JonBenét, who had not eaten much at the Whites' party, was hungry. Her mother let her have some pineapple, and then the kids were put to bed. John Ramsey read to his little girl. Then he went to bed. Patsy stayed up to prepare for the trip to Michigan the next morning, a trip that she admittedly did not particularly want to make.
Later JonBenét awakened after wetting the bed, as indicated by the plastic sheets, the urine stains, the pull-up diaper package hanging half-way out of a cabinet, and the balled-up turtleneck found in the bathroom. I concluded that the little girl had worn the red turtleneck to bed, as her mother originally said, and that it was stripped off when it got wet.
As I told Smith, I never believed the child was sexually abused for the gratification of the offender but that the vaginal trauma was some sort of corporal punishment. The dark fibers found in her pubic region could have come from the violent wiping of a wet child. Patsy probably yanked out the diaper package in cleaning up JonBenét.
Patsy would not be the first mother to lose control in such a situation. One of the doctors we consulted cited toileting issues as a textbook example of causing parental rage. So, in my hypothesis, there was some sort of explosive encounter in the child's bathroom sometime before one o'clock in the morning, the time suggested by the digestion rate of the pineapple found in the child's stomach. I believed JonBenét was slammed against a hard surface, such as the edge of the tub, inflicting a mortal head wound. She was unconscious, but her heart was still beating. Patsy would not have known that JonBenét was still alive, because the child already appeared to be dead. The massive head trauma would have eventually killed her.
It was the critical moment in which she had to either call for help or find an alternative explanation for her daughter's death. It was accidental in the sense that the situation had developed without motive or premeditation. She could have called for help but chose not to. An emergency room doctor probably would have questioned the "accident" and called the police. Still, little would have happened to Patsy in Boulder. But I believe panic overtook her.
John and Burke continued to sleep while Patsy moved the body of JonBenét down to the basement and hid her in the little room.
As I pictured the scene, her dilemma was that police would assume the obvious if a six-year-old child was found dead in a private home without any satisfactory explanation. Patsy needed a diversion and planned the way she thought a kidnapping should look.
She returned upstairs to the kitchen and grabbed her tablet and a felt-tipped pen, flipped to the middle of the tablet, and started a ransom note, drafting one that ended on page 25. For some reason she discarded that one and ripped pages 17-25 from the tablet. Police never found those pages.
On page 26, she began the "Mr. & Mrs. I," then also abandoned that false start. At some point she drafted the long ransom note. By doing so, she created the government's best piece of evidence.
She then faced the major problem of what to do with the body. Leaving the house carried the risk of John or Burke awakening at the sounds and possibly being seen by a passerby or a neighbor. Leaving the body in the distant, almost inaccessible, basement room was the best option.
As I envisioned it, Patsy returned to the basement, a woman caught up in panic, where she could have seen - perhaps by detecting a faint heartbeat or a sound or a slight movement - that although completely unconscious, JonBenét was not dead. Others might argue that Patsy did not know the child was still alive. In my hypothesis, she took the next step, looking for the closest available items in her desperation. Only feet away was her paint tote. She grabbed a paintbrush and broke it to fashion the garrote with some cord. Then she looped the cord around the girl's neck.
In my scenario, she choked JonBenét from behind, with a grip on the broken paintbrush handle, pulling the ligature. JonBenét, still unconscious, would never have felt it. There are only four ways to die: suicide, natural, accidental, or homicide. This accident, in my opinion, had just become a murder.
Then the staging continued to make it look more like a kidnapping. Patsy tied the girl's wrists in front, not in back, for otherwise the arms would not have been in that overhead position. But with a fifteen-inch length of cord between the wrists and the knot tied loosely over the clothing, there was no way such a binding would have restrained a live child. It was a symbolic act to make it appear the child had been bound.
Patsy took considerable time with her daughter, wrapping her carefully in the blanket and leaving her with a favorite pink nightgown. The FBI had told us that a stranger would not have taken such care.
As I told Lou, I thought that throughout the coming hours, Patsy worked on her staging, such as placing the ransom note where she would be sure to 'find' it the next morning. She placed the tablet on the countertop right beside the stairs and the pen in the cup.
While going through the drawers under the countertop where the tablet had been, she found rolls of tape. She placed a strip from a roll of duct tape across JonBenét's mouth. There was bloody mucus under the tape, and a perfect set of the child's lip prints, which did not indicate a tongue impression or resistance.
I theorized that Patsy, trying to cover her tracks, took the remaining cord, tape, and the first ransom note out of the house that night, perhaps dropping them into a nearby storm sewer or among the Christmas debris and wrappings in a neighbor's trash can.
She was running out of time. The household was scheduled to wake up early to fly to Michigan, and in her haste, Patsy Ramsey did not change clothes, a vital mistake. With the clock ticking, and hearing her husband moving around upstairs, she stepped over the edge.
The way I envisioned it, Patsy screamed, and John Ramsey, coming out of the shower, responded, totally unaware of what had occurred. Burke, awakened by the noise, shortly before six o'clock in the morning, came down to find out what had happened and was sent back to bed as his mother talked to the 911 emergency dispatcher.
Patsy Ramsey opened the door to Officer Rick French at about 5:55 A.M. on the morning of December 26, 1996, wearing a red turtleneck sweater and black pants, the same things she had worn to a party the night before. Her hair was done, and her makeup was on. In my opinion, she had never been to bed.
The diversion worked for seven hours as the Boulder police thought they were dealing with a kidnapping.
John Ramsey, in my hypothetical scenario, probably first grew suspicious while reading the ransom note that morning, which was why he was unusually quiet. He must have seen his wife's writing mannerisms all over it, everything but her signature. But, where was his daughter?
He said in his police interview that he went down to the basement when Detective Arndt noticed him missing. I suggested that Ramsey found JonBenét at that time and was faced with the dilemma of his life. During the next few hours, his behavior changed markedly as he desperately considered his few options - submit to the authorities or try to control the situation. He had already lost one child, Beth, and now JonBenét was gone too. Now Patsy was possibly in jeopardy.
The stress increased steadily during the morning, for Patsy, in my theory, knew that no kidnapper was going to call by ten o'clock, and after John found the body, he knew that too. So when Detective Linda Arndt told him to search the house, he used the opportunity and made a beeline for the basement.
Then, tormented as he might be, he chose to protect his wife. Within a few hours, the first of his many lawyers was in motion, the private investigators a day later.
The hardback book at 286-89, the paperback book at 318-22 (emphasis added).
68. Prior to the publication of the statements set forth in paragraph 67 above, Defendant Thomas had actual knowledge that his description of the circumstances surrounding the murder of JonBenét Ramsey was not factually supported or supportable by credible evidence and that it was directly contradicted and refuted by strong and compelling evidence, including physical, forensic and medical evidence.
69. The books contain the following libelous statements, among others, falsely conveying that Plaintiff Patsy Ramsey killed her daughter, JonBenét Ramsey, because she allegedly wrote the ransom note found in her home on the morning of the day her daughter was found murdered:
When taken together, the tablet, the Sharpie pen, and the writing formed a powerful base of evidence. And that evidence pointed directly at Patsy Ramsey.
The hardback book at 74, the paperback book at 81 (emphasis added).
...[w]e pointed out that none of the expert document examiners, not even those hired by the defense, could eliminate Patsy Ramsey as the author. The CBI examiner explained that of the seventy-three persons whose writing had been investigated, there was only one whose writing showed evidence that suggested authorship and had been in the home the night of the killing and could not be eliminated by no less than six document examiners - Patsy Ramsey. I followed that up with a lengthy description of the findings by linguist Donald Foster, who had concluded that Patsy wrote the ransom note."
The hardback book at 306, the paperback book at 344.
That made five independent sources that would not rule her out, plus Chet Ubowski at the Colorado Bureau of Investigation, who thought she wrote it but could not say so under oath in a courtroom. And the Speckin Lab was ready to testify that there was only an infinitesimal chance that some random intruder would have handwriting characteristics so remarkable similar to those of a parent sleeping upstairs.
Taken together, the six opinions formed a strong body of evidence, but I wanted more - I wanted someone willing to stand in a court of law and decisively declare who wrote the note. I had no idea where to find such a person."
The hardback book at 200-01, the paperback book at 224 (emphasis added).
I finally heard the magic words while seated in the book-lined office of Don Foster...who just happened to be a hell of a linguistic detective. 'Steve,' said Foster, 'I believe I am going to conclude the ransom note was the work of a single individual: Patsy Ramsey.'
The hardback book at 261, the paperback book at 291 (emphasis added).
70.Prior to the publication of the statements set forth in paragraph 69 above, Defendant Thomas had actual knowledge that the credible analysis of Plaintiff Patsy Ramsey's handwriting and the ransom note conducted by the Boulder Police Department did not identify Plaintiff Patsy Ramsey as the author of the ransom note, finding significant differences between her handwriting and the handwriting of the author of the note.
71. Prior to the publication of the statements set forth in paragraph 69 above, Defendant Thomas had actual knowledge that the opinion of Don Foster, the so-called "linguistic detective," had been totally rejected by Boulder law enforcement officials in part based on the fact that on June 18, 1997, Foster had written a letter to Plaintiff Patsy Ramsey stating that after his review of the ransom note, he was "absolutely and unequivocally" convinced that she was innocent and did not write the note.
72. The books contain the following libelous statements, among others, falsely conveying that Plaintiff Patsy Ramsey killed her daughter, JonBenét Ramsey, by fictionalizing Plaintiff Patsy Ramsey's background:
From a very young age, Patsy appeared determined to rise above her West Virginia upbringing to succeed, and showed that she appreciated the value of a good appearance. You could almost plot her progression from high school sweetheart to glamorous beauty queen to well-to-do hostess in the pretty front rooms of an expensive home. Her history showed she understood the value of drama and staging. The FBI would tell us that the disposal of the body of JonBenét had the classic elements of a staged crime, complete with a Hollywoodized ransom note.
The hardback book at 75, the paperback book at 82 (emphasis added).
73. Prior to the publication of the statements set forth in paragraph 72 above, Defendant Thomas had actual knowledge that there was no evidence that Plaintiff Patsy Ramsey had any experience or understanding of crime scene "staging."
74. The books contain the following libelous statements, among others, falsely conveying that Plaintiff Patsy Ramsey killed her daughter with a blow to her head during a rage or loss of temper over bed-wetting:
Nedra was chatty about almost everything else but became evasive when asked about the bed-wetting history of JonBenét...Could there have been a bed-soiling accident that night? Patsy was the only person who could tell us, and she wouldn't.
It is not unusual for a parent to lash out in unreasoning anger after becoming extremely frustrated with a child over toileting issues. It is also not unheard of for children to dirty themselves as a defense against sexual abuse and incest, intentionally making themselves unattractive to the offender. We let Nedra's evasiveness go for now but would later become convinced that bed-wetting played a significant role in whatever happened to the child.
The hardback book at 91-92, the paperback book at 102 (emphasis added).
75.Prior to the publication of the statements set forth in paragraph 74 above, Defendant Thomas had actual knowledge that there was no physical evidence that JonBenét Ramsey wet her bed prior to her murder on December 25 or 26 and he had actual knowledge that the sheets on her bed were dry and not soiled with urine stains.
76. Prior to the publication of the statements set forth in paragraph 74 above, Defendant Thomas had actual knowledge that there was no credible evidence that JonBenét Ramsey was sexually abused at any time other than the brutal sexual assault inflicted upon her in connection with her murder.
77. Prior to the publication of the statements set forth in paragraph 74 above, Defendant Thomas had actual knowledge that there was no evidence that JonBenét Ramsey was a victim of incest.
78. The books contain the following libelous statements, among others, falsely conveying that credible evidence existed in April of 1997 proving Plaintiff Patsy Ramsey was involved in the death of her daughter, JonBenét Ramsey:
The interviews with Patsy and John Ramsey produced no earthshaking revelations… But at the end of the day, I concluded that as investigators, we had reached our goal - we had established probable cause. And when Patsy Ramsey left that room, I believe she could have been in handcuffs and charged with involvement in the death of JonBenét.
The hardback book at 164, the paperback book at 184 (emphasis added).
79. The books contain the following libelous statements, among others, falsely conveying that in the police interview of April of 1997, Plaintiff Patsy Ramsey was close to confessing involvement in the death of her daughter, JonBenét Ramsey:
The only time her composure broke was when she was asked to describe the discovery of her daughter's body. She dissolved into weeping, and although it was touching, it was also her weakest point of the session and the time for me to press harder, to really exploit the opportunity. But just as I was about to allow an opening by suggesting, "It was an accident, wasn't it? You didn't mean for this to happen, did you?" Pat Burke and Pete Hofstrom ruined the moment, consolingly saying "Let's take a break." Our own DA's chief trial deputy helped destroy what in my opinion was the best opportunity of the day. By the time the interview resumed, Patsy Ramsey had gotten her wind back. I felt she knew she had dodged a bullet.
The hardback book at 167-68, the paperback book at 188 (emphasis added).
80. The books contain the following libelous statements, among others, falsely conveying that Plaintiff Patsy Ramsey killed her daughter because Boulder District Attorney Alex Hunter allegedly believed she was the killer:
Chief Koby would also tell me later that District Attorney Alex Hunter thought "from day one that Patsy did it"...
The hardback book at 176, the paperback book at 197 (emphasis added).
81.The books contain the following libelous statements, among others, falsely conveying that Plaintiff Patsy Ramsey killed her daughter because Boulder Chief of Police Mark Beckner allegedly believed she was the killer:
I asked Beckner point-blank if he thought the Ramseys did it, and he took a deep breath. Yes, he said, one or both were involved.
The hardback book at 232, the paperback book at 258 (emphasis added).
82. The books contain the following libelous statements, among others, falsely conveying that Plaintiff Patsy Ramsey killed her daughter:
Only a few hours later a letter arrived from Patsy Ramsey, written in flowing script, dated almost two weeks before, and delivered to the police department by a Team Ramsey lawyer. The contents would have been startling had we not been so familiar with her empty promises.
They were ready to work closely with Beckner "in any way," the letter said, and meet anytime "in the spirit of cooperation to achieve a common goal." But the letter contained the large caveat that they would speak with the "capable professionals" in the district attorney's office. It was bogus. How could they pledge to help a police commander in any way while simultaneously refusing to meet with his detectives? We warned Beckner to be wary.
"Don't let Patsy fool you with that letter," Wickman said. Detective Harmer added, "Patsy is in total denial. She's rationalized this in her mind and can probably even visualize an intruder."
The hardback book at 243-44, the paperback book at 270-71 (emphasis added; italics in original).
83.The books contain the following libelous statements, among others, falsely conveying that Plaintiff John Ramsey engaged in a criminal cover-up of his wife's crime by allegedly removing evidence from the scene of the murder on the day after the death of his daughter:
...John was overheard to ask someone quietly, "Did you get my golf bag?" When I learned of that statement, it seemed totally out of order. There had been two golf bags in the house, but he had not specified which one he wanted. Neither bag was collected by police. Moreover, it was winter in Colorado, Michigan, and Georgia, not exactly optimal golfing conditions. Why would a man whose daughter had just been murdered be wanting his golf clubs anyway? I wondered what else might have been in the bag that was so important that Ramsey would even think to ask about it.
The hardback book at 48, the paperback book at 53 (emphasis added).
84. The books contain the following libelous statements, among others, falsely conveying that Plaintiff John Ramsey engaged in a criminal cover-up of his wife's crime because he allegedly did not ask police officials for information on December 27, the day after his daughter's body was discovered:
The session lasted only forty minutes, during which time the detectives learned little. Ramsey asked no questions about the murder, the autopsy, or how JonBenét was killed. I later considered this very peculiar behavior. Parents usually want to provide information as soon as possible to help police find who harmed their child before the trail goes cold.
The hardback book at 48, the paperback book at 53.
85.The books contain the following libelous statements, among others, falsely conveying that Plaintiff John Ramsey engaged in a criminal cover-up of his wife's crime because the books falsely state that he lied in his statements to the police:
I had always considered that [John] Ramsey might have known something before he entered, and with this new admission of going to the basement earlier, I was sure of it. By the time he went back downstairs with Fleet White, I thought he knew exactly where the body was.
The hardback book at 172, the paperback book at 193 (italics in original).
86. In addition to restating verbatim the libelous statements initially published in the hardback copy, the paperback book on its back cover states specifically that it provides the reader with "the information you've been waiting for: Who really killed JonBenét?"
87. Like the hardback book, the paperback book viewed as a whole, as well as specific false and defamatory statements published therein, falsely conveys to the average reader that Plaintiff Patsy Ramsey "really" killed her daughter, JonBenét Ramsey.
88. Defendant Thomas and Defendant Davis jointly authored the books.
89. The acts and omissions of Defendant Thomas and Defendant Davis are imputed to Defendant St. Martin's Press as a matter of law.
90. The state of mind of Defendant Thomas and Defendant Davis with respect to the publication of the false and defamatory statements about Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey, including their knowledge or lack of knowledge regarding the truth or falsity of those statements, is imputed to Defendant St. Martin's Press as a matter of law.
91. The false and defamatory statements about Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey were negligently published by Defendant Thomas, Defendant Davis and Defendant St. Martin's Press and were published with a reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the statements.
92. Defendant Thomas, Defendant Davis and Defendant St. Martin's Press wrote, edited and published libelous statements about Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey with actual knowledge that they had not been arrested or charged with any crime in connection with the death of their daughter, JonBenét Ramsey, and that they would not be arrested, prosecuted or convicted for any crime in connection with her death.
93. Defendant Thomas, Defendant Davis and Defendant St. Martin's Press wrote, edited and published libelous statements about Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey with actual knowledge that no criminal charges had been filed against Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey and no criminal charges would be filed against them in connection with their daughter's death, despite almost three and one-half years of intensive investigation by the Boulder Police Department and the Boulder County District Attorney's Office, aided by four veteran district attorneys and two assistant district attorneys from nearby Colorado counties and an alleged grand jury prosecution specialist from Pennsylvania, in addition to the 13-month investigation by the Boulder County grand jury.
94.Despite his actual knowledge that Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey would not be charged with any crime in connection with their daughter's death, and that they would not be arrested, prosecuted or convicted for any crime in connection with her death, Defendant Thomas, intentionally and with constitutional and common law malice toward Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey, engaged in a public campaign of character assassination designed to convince the public that Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey were criminally responsible for the death of their daughter.
95. As a proximate result of the libelous statements by Defendant Thomas, Defendant Davis and Defendant St. Martin's Press, members of the public were led to believe that Plaintiff Patsy Ramsey killed her daughter.
96.As a proximate result of the libelous statements by Defendant Thomas, Defendant Davis and Defendant St. Martin's Press, members of the public were led to believe that Plaintiff Patsy Ramsey authored the ransom note found in her home on December 26, 1996.
97. As a proximate result of the libelous statements by Defendant Thomas, Defendant Davis and Defendant St. Martin's Press, members of the public were led to believe that Plaintiff John Ramsey engaged in a criminal cover-up of his wife's crime.
98. As a proximate result of the libelous statements by Defendant Thomas, Defendant Davis and Defendant St. Martin's Press, members of the public were led to believe that Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey were individuals who were guilty of criminal involvement in the death of their daughter, JonBenét Ramsey.
99. As a proximate result of the libelous statements by Defendant Thomas, Defendant Davis and Defendant St. Martin's Press, Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey's reputations have been permanently damaged.
100. As a proximate result of the libelous statements by Defendant Thomas, Defendant Davis and Defendant St. Martin's Press, Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey have suffered adverse physical consequences from stress, emotional distress and mental pain and suffering.
101. As a proximate result of the libelous statements by Defendant Thomas, Defendant Davis and Defendant St. Martin's Press, Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey have suffered public hatred, contempt and ridicule.
102. As a proximate result of the libelous statements by Defendant Thomas, Defendant Davis and Defendant St. Martin's Press, Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey have suffered a permanent impairment to their ability to obtain or maintain gainful employment.
103. Defendant Thomas, Defendant Davis and Defendant St. Martin's Press possessed actual knowledge of the falsity of certain of their libelous statements made against Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey and acted with a reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of all of the false and defamatory statements published by them.
104. The conduct of Defendant Thomas, Defendant Davis and Defendant St. Martin's Press demonstrated willful misconduct and that entire want of care that raises a presumption of conscious indifference to consequences.
105.Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey are entitled to an award of punitive damages from Defendant Thomas, Defendant Davis and Defendant St. Martin's Press in order to punish and penalize said Defendants and deter them from repeating their unlawful conduct.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, John Ramsey and Patsy Ramsey, demand:
(a) That judgment be entered against Defendants, Steve Thomas, Don Davis, St. Martin's Enterprises, Inc. and SMP (1952), Inc., doing business as St. Martin's Press and St. Martin's Paperbacks, jointly and severally, on Count One of this Complaint for compensatory damages in an amount not less than Ten Million Dollars ($10,000,000.00);
(b) That judgment be entered against Defendants, Steve Thomas, Don Davis, St. Martin's Enterprises, Inc. and SMP (1952), Inc., doing business as St. Martin's Press and St. Martin's Paperbacks, jointly and severally, on Count One of this Complaint for punitive damages in an amount not less than Twenty Five Million Dollars ($25,000,000.00) to punish and penalize said Defendants and deter said Defendants from repeating their unlawful conduct; and
(c) That all costs of this action be assessed against said Defendants.
TRIAL BY JURY DEMANDED ON COUNT ONE.
COUNT TWO - SLANDER
106. Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey hereby incorporate, adopt and re-allege Paragraphs 1 through 28 of the Jurisdictional Statement of this Complaint, Paragraphs 29 through 52 of the Factual Statement of this Complaint and Paragraphs 53 through 105 of Count One of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
107. Subsequent to the publication of the hardback book on April 10, 2000, Defendant Thomas has at various times participated in numerous media interviews in which he has verbally stated that Plaintiff Patsy Ramsey killed her daughter, JonBenét Ramsey, and wrote the ransom note and that Plaintiff John Ramsey engaged in a criminal cover-up of his wife's crime.
108. Plaintiff Patsy Ramsey did not kill her daughter, JonBenét Ramsey, and did not write the ransom note found in her home on the morning of December 26, 1996.
109. Plaintiff John Ramsey did not engage in a criminal cover-up of any crime in connection with the murder of his daughter.
110. A false statement made to the media imputing to another a crime punishable by law constitutes slander per se pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 51-5-4 (a).
111. During ABC's April 10, 2000 broadcast of Good Morning America, Defendant Thomas slandered Plaintiff Patsy Ramsey by stating that she killed her daughter:
ELIZABETH VARGAS: You think Patsy Ramsey killed her daughter?
STEVE THOMAS: I do.
112. During CNN's April 14, 2000 broadcast of Larry King Live, Defendant Thomas slandered Plaintiff Patsy Ramsey by stating that Plaintiff Patsy Ramsey wrote the ransom note and, therefore, killed her daughter:
KING: Is it, in your opinion, if she wrote the note, she's the killer?
THOMAS: Absent some conspiracy, I don't think that's a tremendous leap to make.
113. In the April 14, 2000 interview on Larry King Live, Defendant Thomas slandered Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey by stating that Plaintiff Patsy Ramsey killed her daughter, JonBenét Ramsey, and that Plaintiff John Ramsey engaged in a criminal cover-up of his wife's crime:
THOMAS: [A]nd people always ask, what kind of motivation is this? And I say in law enforcement circles, this is - under this hypothesis that I purport, that this was not an intentional killing, that this was accidental, initially, which, by definition, lacks motive, but then what happened, I think, a panicked mother instead of taking that next step, went left and covered this thing up. I don't think that - this isn't rocket science here...
KING: Well, you're saying they - you're saying one of them murdered their kid and the other is covering.
THOMAS: Certainly. And I think there's evidence to support that.
114. During CNBC's April 17, 2000 broadcast of Rivera Live, Defendant Thomas slandered Plaintiff Patsy Ramsey by stating that she killed her daughter:
DAN ABRAMS: So the theory is that Patsy did it.
THOMAS: My theory - I certainly offer a hypothesis in this book - a couple of pages out of a 360-and-some-odd page book...
DAN ABRAMS: Well you know, that's what, that's the thing everybody's waiting to hear.
THOMAS: Certainly, and I think Patsy Ramsey committed this crime. I make no bones about it.
115.During FOX News' April 17, 2000 broadcast of The Edge, Defendant Thomas slandered Plaintiff Patsy Ramsey by stating that she was involved in the killing of her daughter because she wrote the ransom note:
MODERATOR PAULA ZAHN: [Y]ou say the most compelling piece of evidence is the ransom note. You are 100% convinced she wrote that note?
THOMAS: [T]he writer of the note is involved in the killing of the child. And I'm convinced, as are others, that she authored that note.
116. During FOX News' April 24, 2000 broadcast of The O'Reilly Factor, Defendant Thomas slandered Plaintiff Patsy Ramsey by stating that she killed her daughter:
BILL O'REILLY: On a scale of 1% to 100%, how convinced are you that Patsy Ramsey is the killer here.
THOMAS: I'm convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, having seen all the evidence that I saw.
117.During a May 11, 2000 interview on FOX-TV's Bookmark, Defendant Thomas again slandered Plaintiff Patsy Ramsey by stating that she killed her daughter and wrote the ransom note:
FOX BOOKMARK [PATRICK RILEY]: Assuming the readers haven't read the book yet, who killed JonBenét Ramsey?
STEVE THOMAS: Well it's my belief that the child's mother, Patsy, was involved in the death of her daughter. I'm not the sole voice or opinion that believes that, [but] I'm the first one from the government's position - this government that failed this case so miserably of which I was a part, that wouldn't even call her a suspect...
STEVE THOMAS: In a nutshell...I'm not a conspiracy theorist, [but] absent some great conspiracy, whoever wrote the note killed the child, and I am convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that [Patsy] wrote that note.
118. During CNN's May 31, 2000 broadcast of Larry King Live, Defendant Thomas slandered Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey by stating that Plaintiff Patsy Ramsey killed her daughter, JonBenét Ramsey, and that Plaintiff John Ramsey engaged in a criminal cover-up of his wife's crime:
KING: Your theory is?
THOMAS: My theory is that Patsy, in a violent confrontation with her daughter . . .
KING: Accidentally killed her?
THOMAS: No, not - accidental, I hypothesize, in the sense that it lacked motive, not unlike . . .
KING: No motive.
THOMAS: Accidental in that sense. Excuse me, John, did you have something else?
J. RAMSEY: I've got lots else, but go ahead.
THOMAS: At that point, instead of making a right turn, she made a left turn and covered this up...
J. RAMSEY: I want to hear your theory, Steve. Let me ask you this: Are you prepared to state that Patsy killed JonBenét, that I covered it up, and that you can prove that in a court of law? Are you prepared to say that tonight?
THOMAS: I've written a book, and I stand by my book...
P. RAMSEY: What can you imagine? I can't imagine. I want to...you look at me and tell me what you think happened.
THOMAS: Actually, I will look you right in the eye. I think you're good for this...
119. The slanderous statements uttered by Defendant Thomas were heard by tens of millions of Americans and citizens of other countries viewing the broadcasts of his media interviews.
120. As a proximate result of the slanderous statements by Defendant Thomas, members of the public were led to believe that Plaintiff Patsy Ramsey killed her daughter.
121. As a proximate result of the slanderous statements by Defendant Thomas, members of the public were led to believe that Plaintiff John Ramsey engaged in a criminal cover-up of his wife's crime.
122. As a proximate result of the slanderous statements by Defendant Thomas, members of the public were led to believe that Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey were individuals who were guilty of criminal involvement in the death of their daughter, JonBenét Ramsey.
123.As a proximate result of the slanderous statements by Defendant Thomas, Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey's reputations have been permanently damaged.
124.As a proximate result of the slanderous statements by Defendant Thomas, Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey have suffered adverse physical consequences from stress, emotional distress and mental pain and suffering.
125. As a proximate result of the slanderous statements by Defendant Thomas, Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey have suffered public hatred, contempt and ridicule.
126. As a proximate result of the slanderous statements by Defendants, Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey have suffered a permanent impairment to their ability to obtain or maintain gainful employment.
127. Defendant Thomas possessed actual knowledge of the falsity of certain of his slanderous statements made against Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey and he acted with a reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of all of the false and defamatory statements uttered by him.
128. The conduct of Defendant Thomas demonstrates willful misconduct and that entire want of care that raises a presumption of conscious indifference to consequences.
129. Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey are entitled to an award of punitive damages from Defendant Thomas in order to punish and penalize Defendant Thomas and deter Defendant Thomas from repeating his unlawful conduct.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, John Ramsey and Patsy Ramsey, demand:
(a) That judgment be entered against Defendant, Steve Thomas, on Count Two of this Complaint for compensatory damages in an amount not less than Five Million Dollars ($5,000,000.00);
(b) That judgment be entered against Defendant, Steve Thomas, on Count Two of this Complaint for punitive damages in an amount not less than Ten Million Dollars ($10,000,000.00) to punish and penalize said Defendant and deter said Defendant from repeating his unlawful conduct; and
(c) That all costs of this action be assessed against said Defendant.
TRIAL BY JURY DEMANDED ON COUNT TWO
COUNT THREE - INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
130.Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey hereby incorporate, adopt and re-allege Paragraphs 1 through 28 of the Jurisdictional Statement of this Complaint, Paragraphs 29 through 52 of the Factual Statement of this Complaint and Paragraphs 53 through 105 of Count One of this Complaint and Paragraphs 106 through 129 of Count Two of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
131. During the interview on CNN's May 31, 2000 broadcast of Larry King Live, Defendant Thomas stated:
J. RAMSEY:...Let me ask you this: Are you prepared to state that Patsy killed JonBenét, that I covered it up, and that you can prove that in a court of law? Are you prepared to say that tonight?
THOMAS: I've written a book, and I stand by my book...
P. RAMSEY: What can you imagine? I can't imagine. I want to...you look at me and tell me what you think happened.
THOMAS: Actually, I will look you right in the eye. I think you're good for this...
132. Defendant Thomas' comment, "I think you're good for this" was directed to Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey.
133. By his remarks directed to Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey, Defendant Thomas intentionally stated that they were guilty of crimes in connection with their daughter's death in that Plaintiff Patsy Ramsey killed her daughter, JonBenét Ramsey, and that Plaintiff John Ramsey engaged in a criminal cover-up of his wife's crime.
134. At the time Defendant Thomas intentionally stated that Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey were guilty of crimes in connection with their daughter's death, Defendant Thomas had actual knowledge that there was no possibility that Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey would ever be arrested, prosecuted or convicted for any crime in connection with their daughter's death, as evidenced by his many public statements to that effect, including, but not limited to, his statements in an interview on CNN's April 18, 2000 broadcast of Burden of Proof:
THOMAS...I agree that, at this point, a criminal prosecution and a beyond-a-reasonable-doubt threshold is unattainable...
135. The conduct of Defendant Thomas as a former Boulder police officer involved in the JonBenét Ramsey murder investigation was intended by him to inflict emotional distress on Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey as a form of "vigilante justice" because he knew that they would never be charged with any crime in connection with their daughter's death, due to a lack of evidence.
136. The conduct of Defendant Thomas directed toward Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey was intentional and reckless.
137. The conduct of Defendant Thomas directed toward Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey was extreme and outrageous.
138.The conduct of Defendant Thomas directed toward Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey was willful, malicious and wanton misconduct.
139. The conduct of Defendant Thomas directed toward Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey was of such serious import as to naturally give rise to such intense feelings of humiliation, embarrassment, and extreme outrage as to cause severe emotional distress.
140. The conduct of Defendant Thomas directed toward Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey was so insulting as to naturally humiliate and embarrass them.
141. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Thomas' wrongful conduct, Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey have experienced severe emotional distress.
142. The conduct of Defendant Thomas demonstrated willful misconduct and that entire want of care that raises a presumption of conscious indifference to consequences.
143. Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey are entitled to an award of punitive damages from Defendant Thomas in order to punish and penalize him and deter him from repeating his unlawful conduct.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, John Ramsey and Patsy Ramsey, demand:
(a) That judgment be entered against Defendant Steve Thomas on Count Three of this Complaint for compensatory damages in an amount not less than Five Million Dollars ($5,000,000.00);
(b) That judgment be entered against Defendant Steve Thomas on Count Three of this Complaint for punitive damages in an amount not less than Ten Million Dollars ($10,000,000.00) to punish and penalize said Defendant and deter said Defendant from repeating his unlawful conduct; and
(c) That all costs of this action be assessed against said Defendant.
TRIAL BY JURY DEMANDED ON COUNT THREE
COUNT FOUR - 42 U.S.C. § 1983 DEPRIVATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
144. Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey hereby incorporate, adopt and re-allege Paragraphs 1 through 28 of the Jurisdictional Statement of this Complaint, Paragraphs 29 through 52 of the Factual Statement of this Complaint and Paragraphs 53 through 105 of Count One of this Complaint and Paragraphs 106 through 129 of Count Two of this Complaint, Paragraphs 130 through 143 of Count Three of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
145. Defendant Thomas and unknown officials of the Boulder Police Department, including, but not limited to, Defendant Officer John Doe 1, Defendant Officer John Doe 2, Defendant Officer John Doe 3 and Defendant Officer Jane Doe (hereinafter "the unknown Boulder Police co-conspirators"), are sued in their individual capacities.
146. At all times referred to herein, the unknown Boulder Police co-conspirators were employed by the City of Boulder Police Department as police officers or high-ranking police officials.
147. At all times referred to herein, Defendant Thomas and the unknown Boulder Police co-conspirators acted under color of the laws, statutes, ordinances, regulations, policies, customs and usages of the State of Colorado and the City of Boulder.
148. Prior to the publication of the hardback book, Defendant Thomas and the unknown Boulder Police co-conspirators expressly or impliedly entered into an agreement to deny Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey their constitutional rights to privacy, due process of law and equal protection of the laws under the Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution (hereinafter "the Boulder Police conspiracy").
149. In furtherance of the Boulder Police conspiracy, as admitted by Defendant Thomas in the Author's Note to the books, the unknown Boulder Police co-conspirators were actively involved in the preparation of Defendant Thomas' book:
To certain members of the Boulder Police Department, cops who still cannot speak out publicly and who know this story all too well, I appreciate your continued support and the confidences you provided me in the preparation of this book.
150. In furtherance of the Boulder Police conspiracy, prior to resigning from the Boulder Police Department, Defendant Thomas, with the active assistance of the unknown Boulder Police co-conspirators, unlawfully copied, confiscated and obtained documents and materials from confidential law enforcement files of the JonBenét Ramsey murder investigation and unlawfully obtained confidential law enforcement information about the JonBenét Ramsey murder investigation (hereinafter collectively "confidential law enforcement information").
151. In furtherance of the Boulder Police conspiracy, after he resigned his position as a City of Boulder police officer, Defendant Thomas continued to receive confidential law enforcement information from the unknown Boulder Police co-conspirators.
152. The information upon which Defendant Thomas relies in his book and in his media interviews as the basis for his false accusations that Plaintiff Patsy Ramsey killed her daughter, JonBenét Ramsey, and Plaintiff John Ramsey engaged in a criminal cover-up of her crime, is almost exclusively the product of, or directly derived from, the confidential law enforcement information.
153. Much of the information upon which Defendant Thomas relies in his book and in his media interviews to support his false accusations that Plaintiff Patsy Ramsey killed her daughter, JonBenét Ramsey, and wrote the ransom note found in her home on the morning of December 26, 1996 and that Plaintiff John Ramsey engaged in a criminal cover-up of his wife's crime, is information that could not have been obtained by him or by the unknown Boulder Police co-conspirators except for the exercise of the state police power to investigate crimes under color of state law, including obtaining information through search warrants and consent forms.
154. But for his former position as a Boulder, Colorado Police officer and the efforts of the unknown Boulder Police co-conspirators, Defendant Thomas would not have had access to confidential law enforcement information that was essential to his ability to write and publish the books.
155. The Boulder Police Department obtained personal and private information from Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey under color of state law and Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey had a right to expect that Boulder police officers and officials would not unlawfully disclose confidential law enforcement information to the public and members of the media and that the information would not be utilized by Boulder police officers to write and publish a book about the investigation into their daughter's murder during an ongoing murder investigation.
156. The illegal copying, confiscation, obtaining and misuse of confidential law enforcement information by Defendant Thomas and by the unknown Boulder Police co-conspirators deprived Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey of their constitutional right to privacy under the Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, as it allowed for public disclosure of their private financial information, their private medical information and private facts about their personal lives that were only obtained by Defendant Thomas and the unknown Boulder Police co-conspirators through the exclusive state police power to investigate crimes under color of state law.
157. Defendant Thomas and the unknown Boulder Police co-conspirators conspired to unlawfully copy, confiscate and obtain confidential law enforcement information for the purpose of making that information public and thereby making it available to private litigants for use in civil litigation against Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey.
158. The confidential law enforcement information published by Defendant Thomas, with the active assistance of the unknown Boulder Police co-conspirators, has been used to support essential elements of two civil lawsuits filed against Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey, Linda Hoffman-Pugh v. Patricia Ramsey and John Ramsey, Civil Action File No. 1:01 CV-0630, U.S.D.C. (N.D Ga) and Robert Christian Wolf v. John Bennett Ramsey and Patricia Paugh Ramsey, Civil Action No. 1:00-CV-1187, U.S.D.C. (N.D Ga), which include accusations that Plaintiff Patsy Ramsey killed her daughter JonBenét Ramsey, and wrote the ransom note found in her home on the morning of December 26, 1996, and that Plaintiff John Ramsey engaged in a criminal cover-up of his wife's crime.
159. Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey's ability to defend themselves against these civil lawsuits that seek to put them on trial for the murder of their daughter is prejudiced by the fact that the plaintiffs in those actions have the benefit of the confidential law enforcement information published by Defendant Thomas with the active assistance of the unknown Boulder Police co-conspirators.
160. Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey's ability to defend themselves against these civil lawsuits that seek to put them on trial for the murder of their daughter is prejudiced by the fact that they do not have the ability to obtain relevant confidential law enforcement information about the investigation of their daughter's murder that would be strong and compelling evidence establishing their innocence.
161.The illegal copying, confiscation, obtaining and misuse of confidential law enforcement information by Defendant Thomas and by the unknown Boulder Police co-conspirators deprived Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey of their constitutional rights to due process of law and equal protection of laws under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution as it prejudiced them by subjecting them to civil lawsuits and by denying them the ability to fairly and fully defend themselves in said civil litigation.
162. High-ranking Boulder Police officials believed to be among the unknown Boulder Police co-conspirators, as a matter of custom, policy and practice, have allowed members of the Boulder Police Department, including Defendant Thomas and the unknown Boulder Police co-conspirators, to leak confidential law enforcement information to the media and to allow for personal use of confidential law enforcement information by Boulder Police officers and officials in conjunction with seminars, presentations and various publications.
163. High-ranking Boulder Police officials believed to be among the unknown Boulder Police co-conspirators were fully aware that Defendant Thomas and the unknown Boulder Police co-conspirators intended to utilize confidential law enforcement information in order to publish a book about the JonBenét Ramsey murder investigation while the investigation was still active and no charges had been filed against any individual in connection with the crime.
164. In furtherance of the Boulder Police conspiracy, high-ranking Boulder Police officials, who are members of the unknown Boulder Police co-conspirators, deliberately and consciously took no administrative or legal action in an effort to prevent Defendant Thomas from illegally utilizing confidential law enforcement information in the books.
165. In publishing his libelous book, Defendant Thomas and the unknown Boulder Police co-conspirators acted under color of state law and abused their status as a law enforcement officers by substantially contributing to an unlawful and unconstitutional "trial-by-media in the court of public opinion" of Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey, individuals not charged with any crimes, who have been deprived by Defendant Thomas and the unknown Boulder Police co-conspirators of fundamental constitutional protections in criminal prosecutions, including the priceless right to a presumption of innocence.
166. As a direct and proximate result of the Boulder Police conspiracy to deprive them of their constitutional rights of privacy, due process and equal protection of the laws, Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey have suffered and continue to suffer damage to their reputations, incurred attorneys' fees and expenses in defending civil litigation and have suffered and continue to suffer severe mental anguish and emotional trauma in connection with the deprivation of the their constitutional rights under the Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States and protected by 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
167. The acts and/or omissions of Defendant Thomas and the unknown Boulder Police co-conspirators were committed under color of state or local law.
168.In violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the acts and/or omissions of Defendant Thomas and the unknown Boulder Police co-conspirators under color of state law, deprived Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey of their rights, privileges, and immunities under the laws and Constitution of the United States, including the right of privacy, the right to due process and the right to equal protection of the laws secured by the Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
169. Defendant Thomas and the unknown Boulder Police co-conspirators acted with deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey.
170. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey are entitled to recover reasonable attorney fees as the result of the violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by Defendant Thomas and the unknown Boulder Police co-conspirators as set forth herein.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, John Ramsey and Patsy Ramsey, demand:
(a) That judgment be entered against Defendants, Steve Thomas and Unknown Officials of the Boulder, Colorado Police Department, including, but not limited to, Officer John Doe 1, Officer John Doe 2, Officer John Doe 3 and Officer Jane Doe, on Count Four of this Complaint for compensatory damages in an amount not less than Five Million Dollars ($5,000,000.00);
(b) That judgment be entered against Defendants, Steve Thomas and Unknown Officials of the Boulder, Colorado Police Department, including, but not limited to, Officer John Doe 1, Officer John Doe 2, Officer John Doe 3 and Officer Jane Doe, on Count Four of this Complaint for punitive damages in an amount not less than Ten Million Dollars ($10,000,000.00) to punish and penalize said Defendants and deter said Defendants from repeating their unlawful conduct;
(c) That judgment be entered against Defendants, Steve Thomas and Unknown Officials of the Boulder, Colorado Police Department, including, but not limited to, Officer John Doe 1, Officer John Doe 2, Officer John Doe 3 and Officer Jane Doe, on Count Four of this Complaint for attorneys' fees and expenses in an amount shown to be reasonable and just by the evidence; and
(d) That all costs of this action be assessed against said Defendants.
TRIAL BY JURY DEMANDED ON COUNT FOUR.
L. LIN WOOD, P.C.
L. Lin Wood
Brandon Hornsby
Of Counsel:
|