as to why we were specifically interested in this case, and what I can say about that is simply that there is great general interest among television viewers in fascinating true stories with interesting characters and real life dramas, and for better or for worse, this case certainly has those elements. It merited a book length treatment by Watkins, and it seems to us to be a very compelling story for television documentary treatment. See Ramsey v. Fox News Network, LLC., 351 F.Supp.2d 1145, 1147 (D.Colo.2005) (concluding that the 1996 unsolved murder of a six-year-old was a matter of public concern when a broadcast about the investigation was televised nationally in 2002, six years after the murder); see also Patrick v. Cleveland Scene Publ'g, 582 F.Supp.2d 939, 951-52 (N.D.Ohio 2008) (<HOLDING>), aff'd, 860 Fed.Appx. 592 (6th Cir.2009)
holding that a doctors protest against the laying off of other physicians was of public concern holding that if the speech in question does not address a matter of public concern there is no first amendment violation holding that 2004 magazine article questioning a physicians medical training and the validity of his selfproclaimed role in developing the heimlichmaneuver in the 1970s involved a matter of public concern holding that the absence of a motivating desire to address a matter of public concern was not dispositive as to whether the speech addressed a matter of public concern holding that falsification of information in a search warrant affidavit was a matter of public concern