PDA

View Full Version : Blunt Force Trauma



little1
01-13-2004, 11:39 AM
Hello everyone! I just was wondering what you guys would think of this:

Could the damage to JBR's skull have been caused by carrying her body downstairs and dropping her? (What were the stairs, cement, hard wood?)
Not sure if this is plausible, not sure if that amount of force could be caused by her being dropped......

DejaNu
01-13-2004, 12:09 PM
Little, I've often wondered this myself. I think that kind of skull fracture could be caused by a drop or shove to a floor, whether down the spiral staircase or down the basement stairs. But I will defer to the medical experts.

Imon128
01-13-2004, 12:13 PM
Depending on the distance of a fall like that, I'd think there would be lots more physical evidence in the autopsy, to other parts of JB's body. I don't see that at this point.

Toth
01-13-2004, 12:39 PM
There would be lots more evidence in the autopsy and also there would probably be some evidence of skull impact in some portion of the home.

I think you may be forgetting the metal baseball bat found outside the home, in an unusual location, in December, still bearing fibers from the basement carpeting. All this suggests that it was recently dropped outside by the fleeing intruder.

why_nutt
01-13-2004, 01:07 PM
I think you may be forgetting the metal baseball bat found outside the home, in an unusual location, in December, still bearing fibers from the basement carpeting. All this suggests that it was recently dropped outside by the fleeing intruder.

It does no such thing. Unless, of course, you want to be the sort of person you criticize, one who makes claims unsupportable; in this case, that that portion of the yard had a force field over it, impenetrable by any object or person but a killer-intruder and the items that person carried. Shall we paint you as that person, Toth? "Ramsey defenders come up with the wackiest theories, such as the one where the bat was left in a part of the yard only an intruder could or would walk through, so the bat must have been left by the intruder."

tipper
01-13-2004, 01:16 PM
I would thinnk the condition of the fibers could give some sense of how recently the bat had been left outside.

Ivy
01-13-2004, 01:49 PM
Dr. Werner Spitz conducted experiments in which he struck cadaver skulls with a Maglite like the Rs' Maglite...and the resulting fractures were nearly identical to the one on JonBenet's skull.

I don't have a source to post for this information. I saw Spitz's demonstration on TV. It may have been four or five years ago.

little1
01-13-2004, 02:17 PM
Just a thought.... I wasn't sure. I also thought there would be trauma to other parts of her body, but if she were dropped head first?

The bat is a nice thought....but why has there not been more info about this?

The maglite was what I originally thought was the "culprit" but I just thought about the dropping thing last night while I was getting ready to go to sleep.

Toth
01-13-2004, 02:50 PM
Lou Smit has never wanted to elaborate on the exact location of the bat, simply that it was not in a place where kids would normally have been playing with a baseball bat and simply left it there.

I've always felt that the fact of the bat being found outside in December weather and yet still having basement-fibers meant that it had to be recently placed out there, however, I do admit to never having conducted any experiments on this issue. It just seems logical that rain, snow, dew, etc. as well as wind would remove such fibers fairly promptly. The fact that such fibers were not removed means that the bat was placed there fairly recently and therefore probably by the intruder as he fled the premises.

packerdog
01-13-2004, 03:12 PM
I had mentioned this a long time ago but thought it was worth bringing up again. A friend of my mothers husband was found dead in the tub when his wife came home from shopping. She had thought that he had a heart attack because there was no sign of blood. It wasn't until they did an autopsy that they found a crack in his skull. They then came to the conclusion that he had fallen in the tub while taking a shower. I have always felt that Patsy slamed JB's head against the tub or toilet, something porcelain.

why_nutt
01-13-2004, 03:18 PM
Lou Smit has never wanted to elaborate on the exact location of the bat, simply that it was not in a place where kids would normally have been playing with a baseball bat and simply left it there.

I've always felt that the fact of the bat being found outside in December weather and yet still having basement-fibers meant that it had to be recently placed out there, however, I do admit to never having conducted any experiments on this issue. It just seems logical that rain, snow, dew, etc. as well as wind would remove such fibers fairly promptly. The fact that such fibers were not removed means that the bat was placed there fairly recently and therefore probably by the intruder as he fled the premises.

Did you learn nothing from the Westerfield case? Danielle Van Dam's body was left out in the open under extremely harsh Santa Ana wind conditions, for far more than the day you would have the bat exposed to the elements by an intruder, yet her body retained fiber evidence which would go on to convict David Westerfield. History can be your lesson in the absence of hands-on experimentation. Fact: fibers can withstand environmental assaults for a longer period of time than a day.

TLynn
01-13-2004, 03:27 PM
It's been a long time since I've discussed that bat...could someone refresh my memory on where outside it was found. I remember the "spot" being different then the Butler doors, the basement window, where the light was turned off, etc.

why_nutt
01-13-2004, 03:42 PM
It's been a long time since I've discussed that bat...could someone refresh my memory on where outside it was found. I remember the "spot" being different then the Butler doors, the basement window, where the light was turned off, etc.

The bat was found right around the corner from the front of the house. In the picture link below, you would find it directly to the right of the concrete rain spout. To the left, just beyond the tree you see, are the front steps and the front door.

http://s92053900.onlinehome.us/bat2.jpg

Edited to add:

In this picture, you can see that the bat was left there long enough for dried brown leaves and a twig to push themselves up against it. Note again: the leaves and twig are not under the bat, but next to it.

http://s92053900.onlinehome.us/bat1.jpg

little1
01-13-2004, 03:42 PM
I had mentioned this a long time ago but thought it was worth bringing up again. A friend of my mothers husband was found dead in the tub when his wife came home from shopping. She had thought that he had a heart attack because there was no sign of blood. It wasn't until they did an autopsy that they found a crack in his skull. They then came to the conclusion that he had fallen in the tub while taking a shower. I have always felt that Patsy slamed JB's head against the tub or toilet, something porcelain.


Okay, lets take this a step forward:

WHat if PR was bathing JBR or washing her off after the wet the bed incident, and dropped her in the tub--on the tile floor? Plausible?

Barbara
01-13-2004, 04:06 PM
Okay, lets take this a step forward:

WHat if PR was bathing JBR or washing her off after the wet the bed incident, and dropped her in the tub--on the tile floor? Plausible?

That is one of the theories that has been around a long time. Accident and a cover up.

little1
01-13-2004, 04:09 PM
That is one of the theories that has been around a long time. Accident and a cover up.


I know, I am just trying to take it a step further. Lots of theories have been posted about what kind of accident is was....I have never heard of that scenario, the only I know of is PR flipping out and "accidently" banging herhead on the tile or sink, etc.

DejaNu
01-13-2004, 04:18 PM
Such an innocent accident, why not call 911 for an ambulance to save her rather than concoct a ligature, strangle her, molest her, write a 3 page ransom note, then clean everything up to eliminate forensic evidence? That's certainly what they did when Burke clobbered JB in the face with a golf club, not finish her off. What would make THIS accident any different from THAT accident?????

little1
01-13-2004, 04:23 PM
Such an innocent accident, why not call 911 for an ambulance to save her rather than concoct a ligature, strangle her, molest her, write a 3 page ransom note, then clean everything up to eliminate forensic evidence? That's certainly what they did when Burke clobbered JB in the face with a golf club, not finish her off. What would make THIS accident any different from THAT accident?????


Nothing would. WHy are you getting so upset? Why would it be more plausible for either incident?

It was a suggestion. I just wanted to know what people thought, not to get jumped on.

Maxi
01-13-2004, 04:50 PM
I think it's possible Patsy flung JBR against something in the bathroom that would leave a fracture like that on JBR's skull. You can pick up a lot of momentum in a bathroom if the floor is slippery, and many of the surfaces are hard.

I think the kidnap scenario was probably staged to cover up the sexual abuse. It's one thing to explain a head injury to emergency room workers. It's quite another to have to explain vaginal bleeding. The combination of the two is sure to cause trouble.

Toth
01-13-2004, 04:52 PM
Danielle Van Dam's body was left out in the open under extremely harsh Santa Ana wind conditions, for far more than the day you would have the bat exposed to the elements by an intruder, yet her body retained fiber evidence Yes, I'm sure her body and particularly the clothing retained fiber evidence despite the very dry Santa Ana winds. Is there a correlation between a partially clothed body retaining fiber evidence in dry conditions and a naked baseball bat retaining fibers in wet conditions? Perhaps there is a high correlation. Perhaps not. I frankly do not know.

K777angel
01-13-2004, 05:06 PM
The bat was found right around the corner from the front of the house. In the picture link below, you would find it directly to the right of the concrete rain spout. To the left, just beyond the tree you see, are the front steps and the front door.

http://s92053900.onlinehome.us/bat2.jpg

Edited to add:

In this picture, you can see that the bat was left there long enough for dried brown leaves and a twig to push themselves up against it. Note again: the leaves and twig are not under the bat, but next to it.

http://s92053900.onlinehome.us/bat1.jpg


First of all, WHY would this "intruder" take the bat OUTSIDE with him when he supposedly flees? Not only that, the intruder did it theorists claim he left out the basement window. So picture it: He is hoisting himself up out that little window - and now he has to maneuver this bat with him? WHY? And then, he decides to stick around even longer and go around to the FRONT side of the house from the back? Not run down the alley AWAY?
Also - the picture gives you something very important to consider with this bat used by the intruder theory.
Look where it is. On this small little concrete ledge. In order for it to STAY there it obviously would have to have been "placed" there so it wouldn't roll off. Now this nice intruder just walked up and "placed" the bat there - rather than tossing it as he ran away? LOL!
THINK people. THINK!

Islander
01-14-2004, 01:22 AM
Some folks believe an intruder left via the butler door, which was reportedly found open by John Fernie. It may be possible (I don’t know if there was a pathway on that side of the house) that an intruder could have exited by way of the butler door, turned right, walked toward the front of the house, laid the bat down gently so that it would not make a noise, and walked on out to the street.

Now why would an intruder walk to the front of the house instead of heading out to the back alley? Someone like an Oliva type would have almost certainly headed for the alley to escape the area. But what about someone familiar with the neighborhood, someone who perhaps lived a very short distance away?

In his book, Steve Thomas described that Christmas night as the “quietest night of the year.” If so, it is at least possible that a neighbor could have simply walked down the street to his nearby home without anyone seeing him. Thomas said in his deposition that he was unaware that some young fellows had moved into the neighborhood on the other side of the street across from (a reason not to use the alley) and close to the Ramsey house. He was also unaware if the police had ever interviewed these fellows. Probably no more than just another example of poor police work that is all to commonly associated with this case, but it’s something that shouldn’t be ignored in my opinion.

popcorn
01-14-2004, 01:57 AM
Yes, I'm sure her body and particularly the clothing retained fiber evidence despite the very dry Santa Ana winds. Is there a correlation between a partially clothed body retaining fiber evidence in dry conditions and a naked baseball bat retaining fibers in wet conditions? Perhaps there is a high correlation. Perhaps not. I frankly do not know.

A used baseball bat will have lots of nicks and imperfections from impact with the ball that would have picked up the carpet fibers. How else do you assume they stuck there in the first place?

Toth
01-14-2004, 03:16 AM
Bat did not appear to be particularly beat up or nicked or dented, but I'm sure it was not pristine. I just don't think the fibers would adhere as strongly to a baseball bat which is smooth as to a partially clothed body to which fibers would adhere more strongly. Perhaps WhyNut can obtain some studies on this matter for us?

txsvicki
01-14-2004, 03:55 AM
A program was on tv tonite about JonBenet's murder. Sorry, I can't remember the man's name, but he was brought into the case and did lots of investigating. He said that the skull trauma came right as she was dying of the strangling, because there was no swelling or blood from the head wound. He also showed how he felt that an intruder came in the basement area. He also said that the bed showed no signs of being wet. I haven't followed this case a lot, so I don't know if this man has been discussed yet or not.

imo

Toth
01-14-2004, 09:08 AM
You are referring to Lou Smit a retired homicide investigator of the highest reputation in Colorado and the lowest reputation in this forum.

Shylock
01-14-2004, 09:57 AM
You are referring to Lou Smit a retired homicide investigator of the highest reputation in Colorado ...Are you refering to the delusional old man who actually claimed a blue arc from electricity will color a person's skin blue if it contacts it?
Do you think he also believes his hand will turn blue if he puts it into the blue flame on the burner of his gas stove?

LOL....de-Lou-sional

little1
01-14-2004, 12:47 PM
I think it's possible Patsy flung JBR against something in the bathroom that would leave a fracture like that on JBR's skull. You can pick up a lot of momentum in a bathroom if the floor is slippery, and many of the surfaces are hard.

I think the kidnap scenario was probably staged to cover up the sexual abuse. It's one thing to explain a head injury to emergency room workers. It's quite another to have to explain vaginal bleeding. The combination of the two is sure to cause trouble.


But if PR did this (for whatever reason) why would JBR have vaginal bleeding? Unless she had been molested right before?

K777angel
01-14-2004, 01:24 PM
You are referring to Lou Smit a retired homicide investigator of the highest reputation in Colorado and the lowest reputation in this forum.

No Toth - Lou Smit HAD the "highest reputation" at one time. He no longer does. He blew it with his very unethical and unproffesional antics in the JonBenet Ramsey case. He is in fact the laughing stock of his trade. Too bad. But he did it to himself.

TLynn
01-14-2004, 01:34 PM
Lou Smit - the one who stands in JonBenet's "shoes" and says she woke up and ate pineapple from a tubberware in her bedroom...?

Toth
01-14-2004, 01:39 PM
No Toth - Lou Smit HAD the "highest reputation" at one time. He no longer does. He blew it with his very unethical and unproffesional antics in the JonBenet Ramsey case. He is in fact the laughing stock of his trade. Too bad. But he did it to himself. That's odd? I've seen no 'antics'. He seems calm, quiet, professional and polite. Even his insistence on appearing before the grand jury was handled as quietly as possible when he had to get a court order. No 'antics' at all. He still has the reputation of a top evidence oriented investigator and prior to joining DA-Keenan in her quest for the truth, he was working three days a week for El Paso County as a homicide investigator, so I don't think they considered him a "laughing stock". Do you think DA-Keenan wanted to hire a "laughing stock"?

why_nutt
01-14-2004, 02:58 PM
He still has the reputation of a top evidence oriented investigator and prior to joining DA-Keenan in her quest for the truth, he was working three days a week for El Paso County as a homicide investigator, so I don't think they considered him a "laughing stock". Do you think DA-Keenan wanted to hire a "laughing stock"?

Interestingly, Smit was working to solve cold El Paso cases. Guess what? He solved not one of them. I feel free to say this: if Smit cannot solve a case within a few months of applying himself to the task, he will not solve it at all. His greatest triumph, the Heather Dawn Church case, was solved within two months of the time he was hired. Not two years, not more than two years; two months. And, as the Denver Post rightly noted at the time, "Browne could have been arrested almost immediately if his fingerprint card had been on file with Colorado Springs police and the Colorado Bureau of
Investigation." So Smit's reputation rests on the incompetency of others, not on his own merits as someone with great detective skills unmatched by any other detective in either Colorado or the United States.

BlueCrab
01-14-2004, 03:04 PM
A used baseball bat will have lots of nicks and imperfections from impact with the ball that would have picked up the carpet fibers. How else do you assume they stuck there in the first place?


There were TWO baseball bats found outside. One was out in the open in the back yard, and the other one was semi-hidden on the north side of the house where people seldom went because of the dense shrubs and was too close to the nextdoor neighbor's house to allow kids to play there.

Both bats were youth-size aluminum baseball bats. The one in the back yard was identified by John Ramsey, in a photo shown to him by Lou Smit, as "Burke's bat." A photo of the other bat, the one on the north side of the house, was shown to John and he responded that the bat "doesn't belong there." He said that on that north side there's a "large planting area there ... we never went on that side of the house."

In this interview it was also noted that the grass and foliage was trampled under the nearby window (It was the window to the bathroom in the basement) and was hidden enough for the painter to have missed painting that window.

Just my opinion.

BlueCrab

Maxi
01-14-2004, 03:41 PM
But if PR did this (for whatever reason) why would JBR have vaginal bleeding? Unless she had been molested right before?

I can see a couple of possibilities. One would be that John Ramsey had been molesting her, and Patsy knew about it. Or Patsy could have been molesting her. I consider these unlikely, but possible.

A more likely possibility, imo, is that Patsy herself inflicted the scrape on JBR's hymen with her fingernails. Given the type of injury, their shallow position within the vaginal vault, and the position of a young child's hymen, I think they could have been inflicted by a too vigorous wiping of a wiggling child.

why_nutt
01-14-2004, 04:08 PM
A more likely possibility, imo, is that Patsy herself inflicted the scrape on JBR's hymen with her fingernails. Given the type of injury, their shallow position within the vaginal vault, and the position of a young child's hymen, I think they could have been inflicted by a too vigorous wiping of a wiggling child.

I can agree with that theory. The entire pedophile-intruder theory ignores that most important word: "shallow." The injury just barely grazed JonBenet's interior. How could that possibly be if someone was intent on probing her for pleasure? It is that very shallowness which, in my opinion, is at the heart of any "gentle molestation" claim. If the abrasion represents a graze from a fingernail, then, of course, the birefrigent material may be a flake from nail polish. This makes sense. A pedophile rooting around in JonBenet's underwear, leaving DNA on her panties but not on her genitalia, and managing to abrade her inside while leaving not a scratch on her pubic area or labia, does not make sense.

popcorn
01-14-2004, 04:18 PM
I agree about the shallowness of the injury, the depth is even more shallow relative to a child who is perhaps sitting upright on the potty vs laying down.

PS-don't forget to consider Patsy's manicured claws as evident on the rings thread.

Barbara
01-14-2004, 04:25 PM
That's odd? I've seen no 'antics'. He seems calm, quiet, professional and polite. Even his insistence on appearing before the grand jury was handled as quietly as possible when he had to get a court order. No 'antics' at all. He still has the reputation of a top evidence oriented investigator and prior to joining DA-Keenan in her quest for the truth, he was working three days a week for El Paso County as a homicide investigator, so I don't think they considered him a "laughing stock". Do you think DA-Keenan wanted to hire a "laughing stock"?

Smit HAD a wonderful reputation. Wisdom is knowing when to call it a day. He ruined his own reputation and I'll tell you why.

When posters like yourself and others post statements as FACTS rather than theories or opinions, it is just considered foolish and/or misinformation. That is why it is so important to state that it is your THEORY, BELIEF, OPINION.

When a "seasoned homicide investigator" with a wonderful reputation makes a powerpoint presentation along with going on national TV and news shows and presents theories and possibilities as stone cold FACTS it becomes IMO, MALPRACTICE.

Imagine a doctor telling you for a FACT that you have a brain tumor without benefit of lab work, X rays, MRI, etc. He may believe, based on his experience with the symptoms you describe, that it sounds like symptoms produced by a brain tumor, but it is not FACT until the lab reports tell him so.

That is what Lou Smit has done, plain and simple.

When one retires from a profession, at least how I was taught ethically, you are ALWAYS and FOREVER held to the proper standards. Volunteering, working as a consultant, paid or unpaid, helping the DA, etc. does not excuse UNprofessionalism.

When Lou Smit makes blanket statements that have not yet been scientifically or forensically proven and presents them as FACTS in the case, he has stepped over the ethical line. When he prayed with the Ramseys, he stepped over the line. They were, whether it was his belief or not, the prime suspects in this investigation and he should not have befriended them as a PROFESSIONAL.

As far as the GJ and Smit having to go to court to present his findings, you leave out the part that Smit stole the evidence and in order to keep it, he blackmailed the DA, Hunter and that's how the whole GJ issue was resolved. You can call it a mutual: "I won't tell on you if you don't tell on me" scenario. Let's not make those who don't know enough about the case believe that Lou was an innocent and was oppressed by LE. That was not the case. Lou Smit ILLEGALLY took materials and worked out this little arrangement with Hunter to keep them in exchange for Hunter's secrets kept.

Let me respond BEFORE it is posted:

Steve Thomas' book was based on his OPINION and THEORY which was made clear.

Unethical is part of Lou's reputation now, which means his reputation is no longer wonderful

why_nutt
01-14-2004, 04:32 PM
PS-don't forget to consider Patsy's manicured claws as evident on the rings thread.

One more item: in the book MEDICOLEGAL INVESTIGATION OF DEATH, a standard textbook for investigators of crime scenes, investigators are warned that if they see marks on a victim's neck associated with strangulation and appearing to come from fingernails, they are not to assume that the nails belonged to the victim. Sometimes perpetrators will leave behind nail marks as they scratch their victim's neck while trying to remove the ligature.

Charlie
01-14-2004, 11:38 PM
Why_nut posted
"that portion of the yard had a force field over it, impenetrable by any object or person but a killer-intruder and the items that person carried."

I agree with you Why_nutt, the baseball bat's location doesn’t suggest an intruder necessarily dropped it there. If the Ramsey’s did stage the crime scene then why on earth wouldn’t they put the baseball bat in what they call an unusual place in the yard, it would contribute to the staging. Well...unless of course that part of the yard had a magnetic field where by only an intruder with a few loose screws in their head would be drawn to that place :)

Futhermore, if John stated that it this bat "doesn't belong here" why would the intruder bring his own baseball bat and leave it at the crime scene yet take all his other materials with him. If this intruder is so clever that nothing will be traced back to him why leave the baseball bat?

Shylock
01-15-2004, 01:59 AM
Do you think DA-Keenan wanted to hire a "laughing stock"?Oh Keenan hired Smit now, huh Toth? Just where did you get THAT information? Gee, we thought only Tom Bean-it was on the BOCO payroll.

K777angel
01-15-2004, 02:36 AM
That's odd? I've seen no 'antics'. He seems calm, quiet, professional and polite. Even his insistence on appearing before the grand jury was handled as quietly as possible when he had to get a court order. No 'antics' at all. He still has the reputation of a top evidence oriented investigator and prior to joining DA-Keenan in her quest for the truth, he was working three days a week for El Paso County as a homicide investigator, so I don't think they considered him a "laughing stock". Do you think DA-Keenan wanted to hire a "laughing stock"?

Lou Smit "professional"?? He can't even speak proper English! "I seen it."
"I done it." AGGHHH!
You say no antics? You've got to be kidding! Trolling his lame theory from network to network pretending that he has been objective in his assessing the evidence in this crime when he in fact very conveniently LEAVES OUT all those facts that do not "fit" his intruder theory is about as big an antic as I can imagine. Where is his admittance that this child was: *placed on a blanket instead of the cold dirt floor? *Wrapped up in a blanket and not tossed like a discarded rag doll? *Wiped down and her panties and pants pulled back up (and then wrapped up in a blankie) --- ALL actions he KNOWS does not at all indicate that an intruder did it.
And where has he pointed out that Patsy Ramseys jacket fibers were found intertwined in the cord around JonBenet's neck?
And where does he bring up the very troubling aspect of the pineapple in her system?
And where does he objectively point out the familiar phrases of Patsy Ramsey in the ransom note?
And when does he explain just WHEN the perp supposedly placed that note on the spiral staircase?? This MUST be considered in this crime. It makes NO sense either placing it before he supposedly went up the stairs to get JonBenet as the pages would be lying there in his way on the way down them.
And it makes NO sense that he had them down in the basement with him and then ran back upstairs after he killed her to place the pages there - GREATLY increasing his chances of being caught - and then what? Runs back down to the basement and out the little window? Oh! With the baseball bat mind you.
No, he doesn't go out a door on the main level where he is after placing that note on the stairs (the quickest exit opportunity). He must have gone back down the stairs to the basement again because that is what Lou Smit said he thinks happened.
So - when did he place that note LOU? Remember - it was in top condition.
No wrinkles. No creases. No fingerprints even.
Nobody could step over them on those huge winding stair steps. So he would have had to step ON them coming down carrying JonBenet.
And no one did.
And it is ludicrous to believe he took the time after killing her to come BACK upstairs to the main part of the house! Especially when he knew there was no kidnapping for ransom now.

Lou Smit is a fool. And proves it every time he opens his mouth.

Toth
01-15-2004, 07:55 AM
I know of no 'familiar phrases' in the note; I know of quite a few 'unfamiliar phrases' in the note.
I see no problem in the placement of the note.
I see no reason why Lou Smit's early educational environment should play a role in this investigation. A 'dese,dem and dose' guy can still be honest and perceptive.

Barbara
01-15-2004, 09:28 AM
"A 'dese,dem and dose' guy can still be honest and perceptive."

I agree. But Lou has missed the mark on the honest and perceptive part, even if he spoke the King's English

Jayelles
01-15-2004, 10:17 AM
Yes, I'm sure her body and particularly the clothing retained fiber evidence despite the very dry Santa Ana winds. Is there a correlation between a partially clothed body retaining fiber evidence in dry conditions and a naked baseball bat retaining fibers in wet conditions? Perhaps there is a high correlation. Perhaps not. I frankly do not know.

Danielle was naked. They never found her clothes.

K777angel
01-15-2004, 11:24 AM
I know of no 'familiar phrases' in the note; I know of quite a few 'unfamiliar phrases' in the note.
I see no problem in the placement of the note.
I see no reason why Lou Smit's early educational environment should play a role in this investigation. A 'dese,dem and dose' guy can still be honest and perceptive.


There most certainly ARE familiar phrases to the Ramseys in that note/letter.
Perhaps if you "know of none" as you say - you might read up a little on it.

The placement of the note is a big problem. You tell me just WHEN the "intruder" would have been able to put those 3 pages on the steps Toth.
When? When do YOU think he did it?

I did not question in my post Lou Smit's "perceptiveness" or "honesty" - but I sure will here. He seems to have neither anymore. I was questioning what you called his "profressionalism." I pointed out that he does NOT sound professional. He sounds like a backwoods hick. He sounds uneducated.

He might be a kind man. He might be a gentle and soft spoken man. But he is not ethical nor professional in handling the Ramsey case. His own peers will tell you that.

why_nutt
01-15-2004, 12:09 PM
There most certainly ARE familiar phrases to the Ramseys in that note/letter.
Perhaps if you "know of none" as you say - you might read up a little on it.


Note: It's up to you now John!
Patsy (in Colorado Woman Magazine, December 1994): It isn't up to them if you have the sonogram, it's up to you!

Note: if you want her to see 1997
Patsy (in 1996 Christmas letter): I'm sure we'll be seeing the orthodontist in 1997
Patsy (same 1996 Christmas letter): We are all enjoying continued good health and look forward to seeing you in 1997
Patsy (in 1995 Christmas letter): Please come see us in 1996!

Note: We respect your bussines, but not the country that it serves.
Patsy (in 1995 Christmas letter): Europe has been successfully conquered with offices in every country except Norway!

Note: Victory!
Patsy (in 1995 Christmas letter): John, John Andrew, and Melinda took the crew of the Miss America (our sailing sloop) to victories in the NOOD Races

Maxi
01-15-2004, 01:18 PM
ST expressed respect for Lou Smit, and I don't think he'd have done that just to look good. IMO, Smit is another of the many people who is blinded by the Ramsey charisma. You'd think a tough old cop would know better, but I've seen seasoned newsmen (who may be the most cynical people in the world) get caught up in the Kennedy magic.

That kind of charisma is a mixed blessing. Assuming no Ramsey is guilty, I think it may have been a factor in JBR's death.

TLynn
01-17-2004, 01:18 PM
John also stated they wanted a "proper burial" for JonBenet.

Smit touted around a photo of the basement window wide open - he claimed it was a crime scene photo and that was his indication it was an intruder. He knew that wasn't an accurate crime scene photo - the window was NEVER open like that.

He's been dishonest about this case. He continued his charade of dishonesty when he did his little dance climbing through the basement window.

He based his theory on a lie and refused to incorporate the true facts of the case (including the pineapple).

Toth
01-17-2004, 08:32 PM
>John also stated they wanted a "proper burial" for JonBenet.
I wish some threads on this forum would get a proper burial. Oops, perhaps you think my use of the phrase 'proper burial' is somehow indicative of guilt?

>Smit touted around a photo of the basement window wide open
> - he claimed it was a crime scene photo and that was his indication it
>was an intruder. He knew that wasn't an accurate crime
>scene photo - the window was NEVER open like that.
The window would have been open like that if anyone passed through it. I do not know if it was open when the police photographer took his photographs, though I believe it was. I believe there is testimony that the window was originally found open and was closed prior to the discovery of the corpse.

>He continued his charade of dishonesty when he did his little dance
>climbing through the basement window.
Dishonesty? He demonstrated that a large man could get through the window with ease. Nothing dishonest about that.

Ivy
01-17-2004, 08:57 PM
Well, Toth, Smit sure didn't demonstrate that someone could climb in through the window without scooting his butt over the sill and disturbing the dust...now, did he? If an Intruder entered or exited via the window, he must have flown or floated through it.

K777angel
01-17-2004, 09:22 PM
What was patently dishonest is how Lou Smit made a fool of himself when he tried to tie that suitcase in with some intruder needing it to get up and out that window. Did you SEE how low to the ground the window was? LOL!
I guess the "intruder" was a midget. Oh - and remember, Smit also wants us to believe this intruder also carried a baseball bat out the window with him so he could "lay" it gently on the small concrete ledge outside of the house.

And THIS is the guy we are supposed to admire as some great detective.
Ha! Not any more.

Islander
01-18-2004, 02:27 AM
The window would have been open like that if anyone passed through it. I do not know if it was open when the police photographer took his photographs, though I believe it was. I believe there is testimony that the window was originally found open and was closed prior to the discovery of the corpse.

Toth: You are wrong about the testimony and TLynn is 100 percent correct. Lou Smit, in an attempt to sell his intruder theory to the public, used the picture of the wide-open basement window when he knew the picture was inaccurate. He knew this because John Ramsey told him so during John’s interview on June 23, 1998. It was Smit who asked John if he ever went down to the basement. John replied that he had early on the morning of December 26, saw the window open about an inch or so, and latched it. He told Smit that he didn’t remember if he told anyone that he found the window open. He also explained that he had used that window to enter the house before, and that they sometimes left the window open a bit to cold down the basement. John had previously told Steve Thomas the same thing when interviewed in April of 1997. Perhaps we can cut Smit some slack for not knowing about the Thomas interview, but certainly he should have remembered what he heard directly from John Ramsey. Yet he continued to include that wide-open window picture in his infamous Power Point presentation.

Toth
01-18-2004, 08:05 AM
What was patently dishonest is how Lou Smit made a fool of himself when he tried to tie that suitcase in with some intruder needing it to get up and out that window. How do you account for the shard of glass being on top of the suitcase when the suitcase would normally have been located nowhere near the window but over next to the stairs?

popcorn
01-18-2004, 08:43 AM
Since when is there a reliable source for where the suitcase normally was placed, and for obvious reasons prime suspects can't be included. This was a basement playroom for children and the family had a history of being slobs. By admission this was not the family's favored type of luggage. If the suitcase had been donated to charity the month before John Ramsey would never have even missed it.