◆ SpookStack

Page 1 of 6 generally PI.'s Sr. In Opp. To Defs.' 6. J, Mot. [88] at 6, 21; PSDMF 9. ) Further | whereas Detective Smit's summary testimony concerning the investigation is based on evidence, Detective Thomas’ theories appear to lack substantial evidentiary support. (Id. ) Indeed, while Detective Smit is an experienced and respected homicide detective, Detective Thomas had no investigative experience concerning homicide cases prior to this case. (Smit. Dep. at 69.) In short, the plaintiffs evidence that the defendants killed their daughter - and covered up their crime is based on little more than the fact that defendants were present in the house | during the murder. As the arguments in his brief opposing defendants' summary judgment motion are largely restatements of the arguments he makes in support of his efforts to have the testimony of his forensic’ document examiners admitted, plaintiff implicitly acknowledges the dearth of physical evidence supporting his argument. (See id. at 3, 5-6, 9-10, 13-19.) In short, the only hard evidence, as ALL TNFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS UNCLASSIFIED ap Geren rep een p oven oerespoven nes y amen sveeovenomnjennspenenpenrn anon amiable teh une aan pan pane sew Seen paren pean) DATE Le-lo-2o08 BY so3z24 tc BAU /ES/LSC possible association with the case and received summaries of the Boulder authorities’ handwriting evidence, which concluded that Mrs. Ramsey probably did not write the Ransom Note. (J. Ramsey Dep. at 12, 62 & 73- 74.) He also asserts that he had no reason to doubt any of this information. (Id. at 73-74.) As a matter of law, he is entitled to rely on this information. See New York Times Co v. Conner, 365 F.2d 567, 576 (5th Cir. 1966) (defendant entitled to rely on single source even if source one-sided). See also McFarlane v. Sheridan Square Press, Inc., 91 F.3d 1501, 1510 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (stating there is no independent duty to corroborate information, if no reason to doubt truthfulness.) Page 82 opposed to theories, that plaintiff proffers to support his accusation that Mrs.Ramsey murdered her child is evidence indicating that she wrote the Ransom Note. The Court agrees with plaintiff that, if plaintiff adduced clear and convincing evidence from which a reasonable jury could infer that Mrs. Ramsey wrote the Ransom Note, this evidence would then be sufficient to create a jury issue as to whether Mrs. Ramsey killed her child. In other words, if Mrs. Ramsey wrote the Ransom Note, this Court could conclude, as could a reasonable | jury, that she was involved in the murder of her child. The question then is whether plaintiff has proffered such clear and convincing evidence. This Court has earlier ruled that plaintiffs’ expert, Mr. Epstein, is qualified to compare Mrs. Ramsey's handwriting with that contained in the Ransom Note for’ the purposes of pointing out similarities in the two. The Court, however, has concluded that Epstein cannot properly testify that he is certain that Mrs. Ramsey was the author of the Note. For purposes of assessing whether plaintiff has met its burden of proof, however, the Court will analyze the evidence, assuming that Epstein could testify as to his proffered conclusion, as well as assuming that he could testify only as to similarities between both the Ransom Note and Mrs. Ramsey's known handwriting samples. Page 83 5. Analysis of the Two Theories a. Consideration of Epstein’. Testimony That There Were Similarities Between Mrs. Ramsey’. Handwriting and the Ransom Note As discussed supra, much of the physical evidence is consistent with an inference that an intruder came into http://Awww.angelfire.com/ar3/jonbenet/judgecarnes9. html 5/10/2005