Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 84

Thread: Lou Smit

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,649

    Lou Smit

    I have just finished reading Delmar England's May 20, 2003 letter to Mary Keenan.
    Awesome and totaly impressive! Delmar tore Lou Smit apart that nothing is left of that phony and the figments of his imagination, and rightly so!
    I almost fell out of my chair when reading that Smit only went by John Ramsey's word: "I swear to God that I didn't do it!"
    Oh me, oh my - which suspect would ever admit that they did it? But in the world according to Lou Smit, just let the suspect swear by God and take him at his word. INCREDIBLE!!! I suppose not even the most poorly directed police movie would have such a scene in its screenplay because this would be too idiotic for anyone to believe it. Smit asking John Ramsey such a question and blindly believing him borders on the comical and is just another illustrative example that truth is stranger than fiction!

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    NSW Australia
    Posts
    9,284
    I agree rashomon.
    Lou Smit was a joke.
    He was on the case less than 72 hours and he was proclaiming the Ramseys innocent, he hadn't even had time to review the case.
    His belief that the Ramsey's are innocent goes hand in hand with his belief in God.
    Lou Smit was duped.

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by rashomon
    I have just finished reading Delmar England's May 20, 2003 letter to Mary Keenan.
    Awesome and totaly impressive! Delmar tore Lou Smit apart that nothing is left of that phony and the figments of his imagination, and rightly so!
    I almost fell out of my chair when reading that Smit only went by John Ramsey's word: "I swear to God that I didn't do it!"
    Oh me, oh my - which suspect would ever admit that they did it? But in the world according to Lou Smit, just let the suspect swear by God and take him at his word. INCREDIBLE!!! I suppose not even the most poorly directed police movie would have such a scene in its screenplay because this would be too idiotic for anyone to believe it. Smit asking John Ramsey such a question and blindly believing him borders on the comical and is just another illustrative example that truth is stranger than fiction!
    My recollection is that after he was hired and after he went through the evidence to date Smit decided an intruder was a distinct possibility. I would have to look it up but I think that happened prior to the interviews. It's not uncommon for police to ask question more for the way the question gets answered than the specific answer itself. Where did you get the information that Smit only went by John Ramsey's word?

    Personally I think it would have been a lot better if this case had been handled along Smit's mode (which seems quite similar to the way the sheriff in the Susan Smith case operated) rather than Eller's "slam the jail door" method. I think Bynum wouldn't have felt the Ramseys needed lawyers immediately to protect them from a police force that was too centered on the parents. Even if the parents are guilty is seems stupid to let them know right off the bat that they are suspects.

  4. #4
    sharpar's Avatar
    sharpar is offline If dogs dont go to heaven I want to go where they are
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Home of the Alamo
    Posts
    1,249
    I doubt that it was Mike who suggested Lawyer Up - think that came straight from John after realizing what had really occurred while he was sleeping.

    Finally someone has ripped the blinders off his eyes. An investigator is supposed to let the evidence lead to where it leads not opinionate and make rash judgements before examining all the known facts .

    An attorney shouldnt be defending clients that havent been charged with anything. Why would you pay an expensive attorney for 9 years when you havent been accused of any crime ? That is pretty strange particularily
    when you are unemployed and have been for a long time.

    I would prefer police treat all situations as crime scenes until proven otherwise. I would prefer that finding a child killer be more important than
    upsetting wealthy parents.

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by sharpar
    I doubt that it was Mike who suggested Lawyer Up - think that came straight from John after realizing what had really occurred while he was sleeping.

    Finally someone has ripped the blinders off his eyes. An investigator is supposed to let the evidence lead to where it leads not opinionate and make rash judgements before examining all the known facts .

    An attorney shouldnt be defending clients that havent been charged with anything. Why would you pay an expensive attorney for 9 years when you havent been accused of any crime ? That is pretty strange particularily
    when you are unemployed and have been for a long time.

    I would prefer police treat all situations as crime scenes until proven otherwise. I would prefer that finding a child killer be more important than
    upsetting wealthy parents.
    http://thewebsafe.tripod.com/09101997bynumabcprimetime.htm

    […]

    MICHAEL BYNUM: I went, as their friend, to help. And I felt that they should have legal advice -- nothing more, nothing less.

    DIANE SAWYER: So you're the reason they got a lawyer?

    MICHAEL BYNUM: I'm the one.

    DIANE SAWYER: It did not occur to them first?

    MICHAEL BYNUM: They certainly never made any mention of it to me. DIANE SAWYER: I'm trying to imagine, if I am in the middle of this agony and my friend says to me, "You better get a lawyer " I think I'd go, "What? What?"

    MICHAEL BYNUM: Well...

    DIANE SAWYER: This horrible thing has happened to my child. There's a note here. I should get a lawyer?

    MICHAEL BYNUM: Well, first of all, that was not the words that I used. I told John there were some legal issues that I thought needed to be taken care of. And John just looked at me and said, "Do whatever you think needs to be done," and he and Burke -- he went into a room to talk with Burke and so I did.

    DIANE SAWYER: What made you think there were legal issues?

    MICHAEL BYNUM: I was a prosecutor. I know how this works. I know where the police attention's going to go, right from the get go.

    DIANE SAWYER: (voice-over) And he says that's exactly what happened. By Saturday, two days after the murder that the police were openly hostile. An assistant DA gave him some news.

    MICHAEL BYNUM: He said the police are refusing to release JonBenet's body for burial unless John and Patsy give them interviews. I have never heard of anything like that. I said to the DA, "I don't know whether or not this is illegal, but I'm sure it's immoral and unethical." I just was not willing to participate and facilitate or do anything other than to say "no." Not only no, but hell, no, you're not getting an interview. And I did say that.

    […]


  6. #6
    Hmmm, I do recall John Ramsey telling folks that he got lawyers and private investigators to help look for his daughters killer.

    Then later he says that he retained these lawyers and PI's for defense purposes.

    The man LIES...
    ...We have said to ourselves, look, there is never going to be a victory in this, there is no victory...John Ramsey: 6/24/98

  7. #7
    I don't think the two are mutually exclusive.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,649
    Quote Originally Posted by tipper
    My recollection is that after he was hired and after he went through the evidence to date Smit decided an intruder was a distinct possibility. I would have to look it up but I think that happened prior to the interviews. It's not uncommon for police to ask question more for the way the question gets answered than the specific answer itself. Where did you get the information that Smit only went by John Ramsey's word?

    Personally I think it would have been a lot better if this case had been handled along Smit's mode (which seems quite similar to the way the sheriff in the Susan Smith case operated) rather than Eller's "slam the jail door" method. I think Bynum wouldn't have felt the Ramseys needed lawyers immediately to protect them from a police force that was too centered on the parents. Even if the parents are guilty is seems stupid to let them know right off the bat that they are suspects.
    Smit had been hired a good time after the crimes. And after only 72 hours, he told the detectives "I don't think it was the Ramseys." No way could he have studied all those massive evidence files in such a short time.
    The Heather Dawn Church case had gotten to Smit's head, and he probably thought from then on that parents automatically must be innocent.
    He was totally biased in favor of the Ramseys right from the start, he met privately with them and prayed with them, and even said he would never participate in their indictment or arrest (p. 185 in Steve Thomas' book). An investigator uttering a sentence like that should have been thrown out on the spot and charged with obstruction of justice.

    I got the information that Smit only went by John Ramsey's word from the book 'Journey Beyond Reason' by Peggy Lakin, where D. England's complete letter to Mary Keenan is printed. I'm sure the source is also somewhere on the 'A Candy Rose' site.
    p. 98:
    Lou Smit: "You know, we have been here for three days now. We have gone over a lot of things and I think I have gotten to know you pretty good at this time, and you have probably gotten to know us, and, you know, there is a lot of people out there that really do believe you did this to your daughter, or that your wife did this. And you know that you have said you didn't do that, and I am going to take you at your word. We know you are a Christian, John, and would you swear to God that you didn't do this?
    JohnRamsey: "I swear to God that I didn't do it."

    Priceless how that 'experienced investigator' conducted an interrogation. Just let the suspect swear he didn't do it and take him at his word. LOL!
    Oh, how all those convicted killers out there would have loved to have had someone like Lou Smit as an 'investigator' ...!

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    at home
    Posts
    24,558
    Quote Originally Posted by rashomon
    Smit had been hired a good time after the crimes. And after only 72 hours, he told the detectives "I don't think it was the Ramseys." No way could he have studied all those massive evidence files in such a short time.
    The Heather Dawn Church case had gotten to Smit's head, and he probably thought from then on that parents automatically must be innocent.
    He was totally biased in favor of the Ramseys right from the start, he met privately with them and prayed with them, and even said he would never participate in their indictment or arrest (p. 185 in Steve Thomas' book). An investigator uttering a sentence like that should have been thrown out on the spot and charged with obstruction of justice.

    I got the information that Smit only went by John Ramsey's word from the book 'Journey Beyond Reason' by Peggy Lakin, where D. England's complete letter to Mary Keenan is printed. I'm sure the source is also somewhere on the 'A Candy Rose' site.
    p. 98:
    Lou Smit: "You know, we have been here for three days now. We have gone over a lot of things and I think I have gotten to know you pretty good at this time, and you have probably gotten to know us, and, you know, there is a lot of people out there that really do believe you did this to your daughter, or that your wife did this. And you know that you have said you didn't do that, and I am going to take you at your word. We know you are a Christian, John, and would you swear to God that you didn't do this?
    JohnRamsey: "I swear to God that I didn't do it."

    Priceless how that 'experienced investigator' conducted an interrogation. Just let the suspect swear he didn't do it and take him at his word. LOL!
    Oh, how all those convicted killers out there would have loved to have had someone like Lou Smit as an 'investigator' ...!
    Did you happen to watch the dicumentary, made at the time that Lou Smit did his investigation. Within in a few very short days, he had pointed out countlesss things, completely overlooked by the LE investigators, that definitely pointed to an intruder having committed the crime. Don't blame the Ramseys for the very shoddy police work in this case.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    NSW Australia
    Posts
    9,284
    We don't believe in that crocko doco around here Buzz.
    You obviously need to do more research.
    Smit was a joke and most everyone knows it.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    751
    Quote Originally Posted by narlacat
    I agree rashomon.
    Lou Smit was a joke.
    He was on the case less than 72 hours and he was proclaiming the Ramseys innocent, he hadn't even had time to review the case.
    His belief that the Ramsey's are innocent goes hand in hand with his belief in God.
    Lou Smit was duped.
    Narla,

    I agree. The Ramsey's roped him into "God" and spirituality and they all connected on that level, so Lou thought they must be good Christians and couldn't have done it. I remember reading that they were saying inappropriate things about God when they were talking (instead of interrogating them like he should have done). Lou crossed the line.
    Ellen

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    at home
    Posts
    24,558
    Quote Originally Posted by narlacat
    We don't believe in that crocko doco around here Buzz.
    You obviously need to do more research.
    Smit was a joke and most everyone knows it.
    Seemed perfectly credible to me narlacat. Especially in light of the investigative work, or should I say, lack of it, accomplished by the Police.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    751
    Quote Originally Posted by Buzzm1
    Did you happen to watch the dicumentary, made at the time that Lou Smit did his investigation. Within in a few very short days, he had pointed out countlesss things, completely overlooked by the LE investigators, that definitely pointed to an intruder having committed the crime. Don't blame the Ramseys for the very shoddy police work in this case.
    Buzz,
    So how did the intruder get in? (Don't get me started on my spider web theory again)and, Who was sexually abusing prior to the night of her death (a coincidence that she was being abused and then got abused again by an intruderand why didn't the Ramsey's take a lie-detector right away without involving lawyers who eventually had them take a test that the Ramsey's dictated only certain questions could be answered?
    So in your mind, what has Lou Smit pointed out that hasn't been explored? And, if this is the case, why hasn't it been solved? I bet we could all come up with an answer for anything you cite that has not been explored.
    Respectfully,
    Ellen
    Last edited by ellen13; 05-04-2006 at 05:39 PM. Reason: additions

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    at home
    Posts
    24,558
    If anyone has evidence that the Ramseys did this, it's as good a time now, as any other; reconvene the Grand Jury, and get on with it. Before you convince me that the Ramseys arre guilty, you will have to prove that to me, and prove it to me in a court of law, not on an internet forum that isn't privy to all of the actual facts on the case.

    What is holding up the prosecution??

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    751
    Quote Originally Posted by Buzzm1
    If anyone has evidence that the Ramseys did this, it's as good a time now, as any other; reconvene the Grand Jury, and get on with it. Before you convince me that the Ramseys arre guilty, you will have to prove that to me, and prove it to me in a court of law, not on an internet forum that isn't privy to all of the actual facts on the case.

    What is holding up the prosecution??
    Buzz,
    You're answering my question with a question. You tell me what Lou knows that's holding this up in terms of getting someone else convicted with all of the leads you told me he had in the first 72 hours. I don't believe the Ramseys are guilty of killing their child. I think they have lied about a cover-up. Why all the lies?

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    at home
    Posts
    24,558
    Quote Originally Posted by ellen13
    Buzz,
    You're answering my question with a question. You tell me what Lou knows that's holding this up in terms of getting someone else convicted with all of the leads you told me he had in the first 72 hours. I don't believe the Ramseys are guilty of killing their child. I think they have lied about a cover-up. Why all the lies?
    Ellen13, as of now, the Ramseys stand innocent. Innocent, until proven Guilty. That is where you guys come in.

    The question, to ask yourself, would be: If you believe the Ramseys are guilty, why haven't they been prosecuted??

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    751
    Quote Originally Posted by Buzzm1
    Ellen13, as of now, the Ramseys stand innocent. Innocent, until proven Guilty. That is where you guys come in.

    The question, to ask yourself, would be: If you believe the Ramseys are guilty, why haven't they been prosecuted??
    Buzz,
    Let me remind you that as of now, OJ Simpson stands innocent as well. The answer to your question is that the crime scene was all mucked up by the police and there was too much political bull going on. Even Dr. Lee said the crime scene was all messed up and he is the leading expert on DNA in this country. Have you read the books on this? This is why they haven't been prosecuted. Like I asked you before, what lead does Lou Smit know that hasn't been explored that could prove someone else's guilt?
    Ellen13

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    at home
    Posts
    24,558
    Quote Originally Posted by ellen13
    Buzz,
    Let me remind you that as of now, OJ Simpson stands innocent as well. The answer to your question is that the crime scene was all mucked up by the police and there was too much political bull going on. Even Dr. Lee said the crime scene was all messed up and he is the leading expert on DNA in this country. Have you read the books on this? This is why they haven't been prosecuted. Like I asked you before, what lead does Lou Smit know that hasn't been explored that could prove someone else's guilt?
    Ellen13
    Ellen13, there you go again, attempting to get me to prove that someone else is guilty. That's not my job. For me, this is about the Ramseys. They are presumed innocent, until proven guilty. You can't cite the OJ case, he was tried, and the jury was polluted. This case never went to trial.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    maryland
    Posts
    1,832
    All of the experienced valued criminal investigators are WRONG!

    Honorable persons, Carnes, John Douglas, Lou Smit, have been devalued by the media, leaving the public no recourse but to search out the "truth according to Steve".

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    751
    Quote Originally Posted by Buzzm1
    Ellen13, there you go again, attempting to get me to prove that someone else is guilty. That's not my job. For me, this is about the Ramseys. They are presumed innocent, until proven guilty. You can't cite the OJ case, he was tried, and the jury was polluted. This case never went to trial.
    The OJ jury was just as polluted as the Ramsey crime scene and I certainly can draw a parallel-I never said it was a perfect analogy. Buzz, you're contradicting yourself here. You're the one who brought up Lou Smit having all these leads that were unexplored so that's why I am asking you about someone else's guilt.
    You opened up that can of worms by discussing Smit and now you're saying it's just about the Rams. I'm asking you very simple questions. Why don't you just say that you don't know the answers to my questions??

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    751
    Quote Originally Posted by sissi
    All of the experienced valued criminal investigators are WRONG!

    Honorable persons, Carnes, John Douglas, Lou Smit, have been devalued by the media, leaving the public no recourse but to search out the "truth according to Steve".
    Sissi,
    So you're saying that Steve is wrong? I wasn't referring to just his book. I was referring to Schillers as well, which has been said to be the most factual and unbiased. Do you know of a better source and could you elaborate a little more on the all of the experienced valued criminal investigators being wrong. Do you know something that we don't know here? Please do tell.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    at home
    Posts
    24,558
    Quote Originally Posted by ellen13
    The OJ jury was just as polluted as the Ramsey crime scene and I certainly can draw a parallel-I never said it was a perfect analogy. Buzz, you're contradicting yourself here. You're the one who brought up Lou Smit having all these leads that were unexplored so that's why I am asking you about someone else's guilt.
    You opened up that can of worms by discussing Smit and now you're saying it's just about the Rams. I'm asking you very simple questions. Why don't you just say that you don't know the answers to my questions??
    Ellen13, you are attempting to put the shoe on the wrong foot. If you want to find the Ramseys guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt, the burden of proof is upon you. I'm quite content with Lou Smit's findings.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    NSW Australia
    Posts
    9,284
    Lou Smit does appear to have a little following, you are not alone in your assessment of him Buzz.
    But, IMO he earnt his nickname.
    He even has lunch with teenagers who are self confessed JonBenét groupies.
    I think he has zero credibility.

  24. #24
    Did anyone see John Walsh on FOX's The Lineup a couple days ago? It is being reported that he said he doesn't think the Ramsey's are guilty. I've been looking for a transcript but no luck.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    751
    Quote Originally Posted by Buzzm1
    Ellen13, you are attempting to put the shoe on the wrong foot. If you want to find the Ramseys guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt, the burden of proof is upon you. I'm quite content with Lou Smit's findings.
    Buzz, I think instead of me putting the shoe on the wrong foot, one needs to re-evaluate and put one's foot in one's mouth. You're missing my point. I challenge you to elaborate on Smit's findings and let's debate them. I'm open to the fact that you may know something that is valuable enough to sway me. However, you're not saying what you're thinking. What are you so content with??

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •