Judge Carnes:

"The Court concludes that the statements made in defendants’ book are reasonably read to impute the crime of murder to plaintiff. Although defendants do not directly state that plaintiff killed JonBenet, they claim that they did not kill their daughter, and name plaintiff as one of the people they suspected may have done so.

"In determining whether a statement is defamatory, ‘he trial judge should read and construe the publication as a whole, and thereafter ‘may find that it is not defamatory, that it is defamatory, or that it is ambiguous and the question is one for a jury.

"In considering whether a writing is defamatory as a matter of law, we look…at what construction would be placed on it by the average reader.” Mead v. True Citizen, Inc., 203 Ga. App. 361, 362, 417 S. E. 2d 16, 17 (1992) (citations omitted).

"The Court concludes that a jury could reasonably conclude from these statements, taken as a whole, that the Ramseys were imputing the murder of JonBenet to plaintiff.

"The next question is whether these statements are capable of being proved false.

"Defendants claim that they are not because they merely represent their impressions at the time that plaintiff “represented too many unanswered questions.”

"Plaintiff, however, argues that defendants killed JonBenet, and therefore had no basis for their supposed belief that plaintiff had something to do with her death. At this stage of the proceedings, the Court must take all facts in favor of the plaintiff.

"Assuming for the purpose of this order that defendants did know who killed JonBenet, and knew that the murderer was not plaintiff, their statements was not merely opinion, but was indeed a falsity."

Id. at 11-12.

First, what the word "costs" DOESN'T mean: The Ramseys cannot recover their attorneys' fees. Fair or not, in this country, unless a judge specifically says in his opinion or judgment that "attorneys fees are costs", there is no such recovery. That is because America, unlike England, has a tradition of rarely awarding attorneys' fees to the prevailing party in a lawsuit.

Second, "costs" generally mean "filing fees" (there were none for the Ramseys, since Linda Hoffmann-Pugh's attorneys had to pay the $150 filing fee when she brought her libel suit); or witness fees for experts or lay people (there were none, since there had not been any discovery taken, unlike the Wolf case, in which there have been several depositions); or transcripts for depositions (again there were none); or "reproduction" costs, such as photocopying of briefs, etc. (again, very minor costs, since the only papers photocopied by the Ramseys were their motion to dismiss and some miscellaneous court papers.)

In all, even with the inflated prices law firms charge, the total costs associated with this case should be no more than a couple of hundred dollars, all of which will be paid for by Linda Hoffmann-Pugh's attorneys.

Case against Ramseys dismissed

Couple's book didn't defame housekeeper, federal judge
decides

By Owen S. Good, News Staff Writer
April 11, 2002

BOULDER -- A federal judge has dismissed a defamation lawsuit
filed against John and Patsy Ramsey by their former housekeeper.

The April 8 ruling in federal district court in Atlanta throws out
Linda Hoffmann-Pugh's claim that the Ramseys libeled her in a
book they wrote by saying she was a suspect in the Dec. 26,
1996, slaying of their 6-year-old daughter, JonBenet.

Judge Thomas Thrash found the Ramseys' book, Death of
Innocence, made no such implication. He said Hoffmann-Pugh was
left off a list of 15 potential suspects the Ramseys discussed and
did not fit a profile of the killer also published in the book.

"She is disappointed, naturally," said Hoffmann-Pugh's attorney,
Darnay Hoffman of New York. "But she also said if it weren't for
bad luck she'd have no luck at all."

Hoffman said the dismissal will be appealed.

Ramsey attorney L. Lin Wood of Atlanta called the dismissal "a
resounding victory." He noted that since 2000, six civil suits have
all resulted in settlements or dismissals favorable to the Ramseys.

Monday's dismissal and last month's settlement of a libel lawsuit
against former Boulder Detective Steve Thomas leaves only one
remaining lawsuit, in which the Ramseys' guilt or innocence could
be the focus of a civil lawsuit.

Hoffman also represents former Boulder journalist Chris Wolf,
whose name was among the 15 suspects in the Ramseys' book, in
a libel suit against the Ramseys.

Hoffman conceded that the suits were designed to try the
Ramseys for the murder of their daughter. He has said that
proving their culpability would prove they knowingly, falsely
identified others as suspects.

"There's no question that . . . there is an element of wanting to
put the (criminal) evidence before a jury," Hoffman said.

The couple, despite wide police and public suspicion, have never
faced criminal charges.

Hoffman said the Hoffmann-Pugh case "acted to some degree as
a distraction and additional workload. Now all the efforts can be
concentrated on the Wolf case."

But he denied that the libel claims are solely vehicles for the
quasi-prosecution of the Ramseys in civil court.

"If I felt there was no merit to the Linda Hoffmann-Pugh case, I
never would have brought it," he said.

Hoffmann-Pugh's case resulted in the Colorado courts' secrecy
oath required of grand jury witnesses struck down as
unconstitutional. A federal judge made the ruling in July in a claim
spun off from the case.

I have had reason to review some of the LHP file lately and I have to say I really find her to be repugnant.

The Ramseys were very nice to her and her family. She KNEW they were very gentle, loving people and she SAID SO - - until the tabloid types came with their flashy stories and open checkbooks - - and the woman sold her soul.

She got paid thousands of dollars for what I will call "altered memories" - - and she thought she might get MILLIONS from this bullshit lawsuit.

Well, she got nothing but her name in the paper again - - and in the discussion again. And it isn't flattering. Not at all.

I hope she writes a book - - finds a really stupid publisher with deep pockets like Steve Thomas did - - a publisher who didn't go behind him checking that what they are publishing is the TRUTH. (I called Thomas' publisher to warn them and was told they would not send out fact checkers to speak to me - - Steve Thomas was "an honest man". Well, that "honest man" cost them PLENTY. Anyone who publishes a book by Hoffmann-Pugh will face the same risks. I don't think anyone wants to do that.

As for Linda having bad luck or none at all.... it's Karma, Linda. In MY opinion, you got just what you deserved.

STAR
June 20, 2000

WHY I BELIEVE PATSY KILLED JONBENET
Ramsey's ex house keeper charges

By Linda Hoffmann-Pugh

I worked for John and Patsy Ramsey for a year and a half, just
before JonBenet's murder.

Patsy always treated me very well. We never had any arguments or
fights. So it really hurts me to
the core to tell the world I am convinced Patsy murdered JonBenet.
But I feel I must speak out.

As I watched the Ramseys announce in a televised press conference
that they had passed their lie
detector test, and then take on Detective Steve Thomas last week
on Larry King Live, I was struck
by their arrogance and Patsy's holier-than-thou attitude.

The Ramseys seem to be on some kind of phony crusade, holding
press conferences, appearing with
Barbara Walters on 20/20 and the Today show with Katie Couric.
They're doing everything they can
to rehabilitate their public image.

I think Patsy believes she's gotten away with murder, and she's
trying to convince the world that
she's a victim, too. But as someone who knows the Ramseys and
their habits very well, I can say
that I don't have any doubt in my mind what happened that horrible
Christmas night.

I believe Patsy lost her temper and killed JonBenet. Then she
created an elaborate cover-up to get
away with murder.

I remember that awful day, December 26, 1996, when two detectives
from the Boulder Police
Department showed up at my house with the news that JonBenet had
been killed.

I still get a sick feeling in my stomach when I think about the
detectives asking for handwriting
samples, and telling me to print the words "Ramsey" "and hence"
and worst of all, "beheaded."

I broke down in tears when I wrote 'beheaded,' thinking that
precious princess had had her head cut
off.

Over the following months, as the detectives continued to ask me
questions about the Ramseys, I
came to the conclusion: Patsy Ramsey had struck her little girl
and then strangled her to death!

Here are the five main reasons that led me to my conclusion.

REASON NO. 1:
The bathroom.

In Detective Steve Thomas' book, he talks about his theory of the
case, and says that he believes
the crime began in JonBenet's bathroom. Thomas talked about
inspecting JonBenet's bathroom,
looking for a surface that could have crushed that child's skull.

When I read what Thomas wrote it struck me -- I remember that
Patsy used to take JonBenet into
her bathroom to be punished!

Whenever JonBenet would act up and need discipline, Patsy would
take her into the bathroom
attached to JonBenet's bedroom, close the door and deliver the
punishment in there. I do not know
what kind of punishment Patsy gave her daughter, but I do know she
always did it in JonBenet's
bathroom!

REASON NO. 2:
The handwriting

During the time I worked for Patsy and John, I saw many, many
examples of Patsy's handwriting.
She was always leaving me a note asking me to do something, or
thanking me, or whatever.

The first time I saw the "ransom note" after it was released to
the public, a chill ran down my spine
-- to me, it looked just like Patsy's handwriting!

That was my first reaction to reading the strange, rambling,
three-page message. I know the
authorities have said officially that they can't exclude Patsy as
the author of the note. But to me,
its obvious Patsy wrote it.

And

Don't bother her about writing anything more than that.