Broken/open window discovery-a lie?

As much as I think LS was wrong with his ideas, I'm not convinced that he was sucked in by the Ramsey's religious commitments etc.

There's a lot of people on these boards, heck, most of America, who seem to be quite religious and yet 90%+ of us believe the Ramsey's were involved in this crime.

More to the point, it sort of implies that non-religious types (like myself) would automatically be taking the opposing side.

Not necessarily. Being very involved in organized religion and being religious are two different things. Perhaps "spiritual" is a better word than religious. I have long turned from organized religion but I am still a spiritual person. Yet the lack of religion or faith in God wouldn't seem to me to make a person more likely to believe the parents did this. Neither would their religious affiliation or how devout they were in its practice imply the opposite (to me). However, people like LS, who seemed to be as devout as the Rs seemed to be might be swayed by that. It is hard to stay impartial when this fervor is shared by someone you are trying to implicate in a crime like this.
Some of the most heinous crimes are committed by religious people. Hitler was a Christian, too. Religious wars, including the Crusades, have perpetrated terrible acts. Being an atheist may imply that no punishment awaits in the hereafter (actually, the hereafter wouldn't exist either), but I don't see much evidence of that being the motivation for committing horrendous crimes.
I think as far as the Rs and LS go, it is far simpler. He felt a religious "kinship" with them, and that clouded his ability to consider that they did this.
 
That's fair I guess, but would someone with LS's experience and track record really let his judgement be clouded on just this ONE case? Sure, they shared the same spiritual affiliation etc as each other, but in US society in the late 1990s, is that likely to have swayed someone one way or the other irrespective of the evidence?

I suppose the main reason I question this is that simply forming a bond with someone shouldn't then lead to a series of clues unable to be discounted by other professionals or experts thus muddying the case for all.

Either the story/evidence presented by LS is legit, possible, or clearly bogus...and if it is either of the first two, his religion shouldn't really be relevant surely?
 
That's fair I guess, but would someone with LS's experience and track record really let his judgement be clouded on just this ONE case? Sure, they shared the same spiritual affiliation etc as each other, but in US society in the late 1990s, is that likely to have swayed someone one way or the other irrespective of the evidence?

I suppose the main reason I question this is that simply forming a bond with someone shouldn't then lead to a series of clues unable to be discounted by other professionals or experts thus muddying the case for all.

Either the story/evidence presented by LS is legit, possible, or clearly bogus...and if it is either of the first two, his religion shouldn't really be relevant surely?

Apparently he solved other crimes. Did he only solve crimes involving non-religious people?
 
That's fair I guess, but would someone with LS's experience and track record really let his judgement be clouded on just this ONE case? Sure, they shared the same spiritual affiliation etc as each other, but in US society in the late 1990s, is that likely to have swayed someone one way or the other irrespective of the evidence?

I suppose the main reason I question this is that simply forming a bond with someone shouldn't then lead to a series of clues unable to be discounted by other professionals or experts thus muddying the case for all.

Either the story/evidence presented by LS is legit, possible, or clearly bogus...and if it is either of the first two, his religion shouldn't really be relevant surely?

Heyya wonderllama.

He certainly was able to ingratiate himself with the Ramseys, with their shared Christian faith and group prayer in the van when they first met.
 
Heyya wonderllama.

He certainly was able to ingratiate himself with the Ramseys, with their shared Christian faith and group prayer in the van when they first met.




Oh my what an ethical man LS was.
 
I don't think he was in it for the money, I really don't. He didn't come off that way, but hey- I suppose it is possible.
Rather, I believe it was your suggestion he was unduly influenced (brainwashed is maybe too strong a word for it) by the Rs apparent religious fervor. LS seemed to be a committed Christian. The Rs seemed to him to be the same. Possibly he felt that since HE couldn't have done this, that they couldn't have either. I am sure he had never come across a case quite like this one, either. And it must always be remembered that whenever you think/feel that YOU couldn't have done this- well, you really don't KNOW for a fact whether you would have done this unless you were actually faced with the same situations.
Sometimes we don't know ourselves as much as we think/hope we do. It is impossible to walk in another's shoes- and sometimes even our own shoes take us in a direction we never thought we'd go.

I truly believe that Lou Smit knew the truth, or what he truly believed was the truth. The entire truth, in Ramsey speak, whatever it may be. Since I believe JonBenets death involved an accident gone very wrong, turning in to deliberate staging, I think he didn't want, or knew, the actual person responsible could not be prosecuted. Could NOT be prosecuted and wanted to 'spare' the R's any further pain.

Was he right to fabricate evidence, ignore the truths that were plainly in site, defend the lies perpetrated by the R's? Of course not! But I honestly believe he did not 'do this' for money, but perhaps to ensure that the guilty party would not be prosecuted. The other issue I take with this, is all the people who have had their names and reputations harmed, by LS and the Ramsey 'dream team' of lawyers and PR people.

John made MANY slip ups at first. As time went on and Patsy seemed to become the person under the most suspicion, his words, attitudes and behaviors, seemed to revolve and change. Feeling like he was 'out of the woods'?
 
I truly believe that Lou Smit knew the truth, or what he truly believed was the truth. The entire truth, in Ramsey speak, whatever it may be. Since I believe JonBenets death involved an accident gone very wrong, turning in to deliberate staging, I think he didn't want, or knew, the actual person responsible could not be prosecuted. Could NOT be prosecuted and wanted to 'spare' the R's any further pain.

Was he right to fabricate evidence, ignore the truths that were plainly in site, defend the lies perpetrated by the R's? Of course not! But I honestly believe he did not 'do this' for money, but perhaps to ensure that the guilty party would not be prosecuted. The other issue I take with this, is all the people who have had their names and reputations harmed, by LS and the Ramsey 'dream team' of lawyers and PR people.

John made MANY slip ups at first. As time went on and Patsy seemed to become the person under the most suspicion, his words, attitudes and behaviors, seemed to revolve and change. Feeling like he was 'out of the woods'?

Sunnie,

I wonder what ever happened to LS power point? The DA after editing it gave him the rest to keep. If his children have this information than maybe they should be made aware of just how much that info is worth. Unless there are stipulations and or JR has them. I read that some media outlets have copies, what would be the reason for not sharing those with the public (besides the snips we've been shown)?
 
24 LOU SMIT: There have been some questions

25 about your activities between let's say 10:30 and

0159

1 noon. Do you remember where you were between those

2 two times?

3 JOHN RAMSEY: I was either in this bedroom

4 with Linda Arndt talking about procedure or what

5 we're going to do, or I was waiting for the phone

6 call. Because that was 10 to 12, as I recall, was

7 when he would have called.

-------------

he wasn't with LA,she was the one who reported him missing
lol
 
Hi, I'm new, but have been reading and lurking for years....I'll take a break for a while, come back, and see or hear new things, and get different perspectives. I am no expert, and I have no final decision made up one way or the other as to who committed this crime. I try to be open-minded each time I get back on and see what the evidence and discussions have to tell me with fresh eyes.... I don't want to have my mind made up so that I only see what I want in the evidence, etc. So I have wavered on the fence time after time, gone back and forth with new information that is found. ....I also am not as read up as most people and invested in this case as most who have been on here for years, so didn't want to post anything out of ignorance, and be told - go read up first...so I've waited so many times and wondered all these years what might make me finally sign up and post. So, with that, I finally have to say....

How is this not a smoking gun?:

JOHN RAMSEY: That looked wrong. That suitcase did not belong there.
PATSY RAMSEY: It was out of place.
JOHN RAMSEY: It was out of place.
BARBARA WALTERS: So you thought perhaps..
JOHN RAMSEY: It was...
BARBARA WALTERS: ...the kidnapper had gone through that window.
JOHN RAMSEY: I...that was my first impression, yes.
BARBARA WALTERS 20/20 MAR 15/00

COURIC: Detective Linda Arndt was assigned to the Ramsey home during those long hours. Sometime that morning, John Ramsey headed for the basement. Why did you go there?
Mr. RAMSEY: We had a basement window that was under a--a grate, a removable grate that I had used the past summer to get into the house when I'd lost my keys. I--I wanted to check that window. I went down to that room. The window was open. It was broken. I went back upstairs and reported that to Detective Arndt.
COURIC: You did tell her about the...
Mr. RAMSEY: Yes.
COURIC: ...open window?
Mr. RAMSEY: I did.
COURIC: And what did she say?
Mr. RAMSEY: I don't recall that she said anything.
Today Show, March 20, 2000


KING: In the book, you write about the suitcase and the open basement window, but the police say you never told them about it.
J. RAMSEY: That's false.
P. RAMSEY: False.
J. RAMSEY: I told Linda Arndt that I found the window open and I found a suitcase under the window.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0003/27/lkl.00.html

"Each window had four panes, and Fleet White, having been down there earlier, pointed out the baseball-sized hole in the upper left pane of the middle window. 'Damn it, I had to break that,' John Ramsey said, adding that it happened the previous summer when he kicked in the window to get into the house after locking himself out. Should have fixed it then, he noted, taping his forehead. The window was closed but unlatched."
JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation, Steve Thomas, page 27

"Rick French....was reportedly still tortured by his failure to open the wine cellar door when he searched the house in those first few minutes"
Perfect Murder, Perfect Town, Lawrence Schiller, page 660

Larry King: A window. Was that window open when they investigated it?
Lou Smit: Yes. When John Ramsey had first seen the window...
Larry King: There we see a window. That's the window, right?
Lou Smit: That's the window. Now, again, that picture that you see is the first photograph taken of that window after the crime scene technicians got back into the house. Now, later on, I believe that it was noted that this window may have been opened even by John Ramsey and Fleet White. But what that window did show us, when we first seen it, was that entry could have been made there.
May 28, 2001 Larry King Live Interview with Lou Smit


Lou Smit: "So you think that the chair would block the door and nobody would have gotten in there without moving it?"
John Ramsey: “Correct.”
Lou Smit: "In other words, let's say that the intruder goes into the train room, gets out, let's say, that window?”
John Ramsey: “Uh huh.
Lou Smit: "How in effect would he get that chair to block that door, if that is the case, is what I'm saying?"
John Ramsey: "I don't know... I go down, I say, "Ooh, that door is blocked." I move the chair and went in the room."
Lou Smit: So you couldn’t have gotten in without moving the chair?”
John Ramsey: "Correct... I had to move the chair."
Lou Smit: "The thing I'm trying to figure out in my mind then is, if an intruder went through the door, he'd almost have to pull the chair behind him... because that would have been his exit... so that's not very logical as far as......"
John Ramsey: "I think it is. I mean if this person is that bizarrely clever to have not left any good evidence, but left all these little funny clues around, they... are clever enough to pull the chair back when they left."

John Ramsey, 1998 Interview
__________________

Okay. Seriously.
JR states that he went to that basement room sometime that morning, before being told to check the house by Linda Arndt, because he wanted to "check THAT window" that he had broken into previously when he had lost his keys. He says twice above that he broke that window to get in. Then he says, "The window was open. It was broken. I went back upstairs and reported that to Detective Arndt".

Now, it's already been noted and commented on before that he has changed his story on whether he reported it to her or not. But if he is the one who broke it anyway, what did he report to her about it, if he, in fact, did that? That he found the window more broken, but he is the one who broke it anyway? ...And he does say that he was checking to see if it "hadn't been broken again". So had it? If it was already broken, why would it be broken again? And why would it be just that window? Why not any of the windows? Maybe the kidnapper thought it would just be easiest to get in through the one window that was already a little broken? If so, did the window look 'broken again'? Were JR's concerns/suspicions confirmed? If JR had told Det. Arndt that it was open and broken, and entrance/exit by the kidnapper might have been gained that way, then it would have been noted and checked. After all, he said he went down there specifically for that reason, knowing that was a compromised possible entrance. Also, this time he matter-of-factly states that he reported it to her, but he says that he does not recall that she said anything about it. If he went down there for that reason, and found it to be more disturbed and out of place, including the suitcase, etc., then he would remember reporting it to her, would have recalled what she said, and with that important info, she, or someone else from LE would have gone down there to check it out. Especially since he says:

JR: It was dramatically out of the ordinary, but, that is, I thought about it.

So, ok?......


And I can't even fathom the next bit of ridiculosity (that's what it is, because there is no other word).

Lou Smit asks JR about the chair blocking the door and no one being able to enter that room without having to move/remove it. JR agrees that it had to be moved. Okay let's stop right there for a moment.

JOHN RAMSEY: I came down the stairs. I went in this room here. This door was kind of blocked.
We had a bunch of junk down here and there was a chair that was in front of the door. Some old
things. I moved the chair, went into this room, went back in here.
This window was open, maybe that far.

If he's going down there to see if the kidnapper came IN through that window, does he not pause at first sight of the door being totally blocked by the chair? If it were me, I'd go, well he probably didn't come in this way then, seeing as this door is/has been blocked. Why? Because if the kidnapper HAD come IN through that window, then the chair had to NOT be blocking that door in the first place, no? So you would then have to ask yourself why the chair is NOW blocking the door.

In order to proceed through these questions logically you will see that one does not fit with the other, or doesn't make sense if the other is true....

So if the kidnapper didn't come IN that way, but possibly LEFT that way, why is the chair blocking the door?

Lou Smit: "The thing I'm trying to figure out in my mind then is, if an intruder went through the door, he'd almost have to pull the chair behind him... because that would have been his exit... so that's not very logical as far as......"
John Ramsey: "I think it is. I mean if this person is that bizarrely clever to have not left any good evidence, but left all these little funny clues around, they... are clever enough to pull the chair back when they left."


The statement above by JR is the most absurd thing I have ever read. :doh: Bizarrely clever? Not.

Okay, why would the kidnapper do this? If he came in that way, the door was not blocked by the chair. So if he is now exiting that way, why would he now block the door with a chair that was an awkward and difficult thing to do in the first place? Do you not want someone to think you came in that way? What do you care, esp. if the window was broken and open anyway? If you came in that way, the door was not blocked by that chair before, so why would you put it there now? And you could NOT close the door all the way anyway because your arm would be in the way while you are holding that chair to block the door. There has to be some space between the chair and you getting your arm out to close the door and then go.

So if the chair WAS there the whole time, and the kidnapper did NOT come in that way, then why would he LEAVE that way? Why would he not leave the way he came in? And if he thought he needed another exit than the way he came in, why/how would he know that there was a viable exit beyond a door blocked by a chair in a room full of junk that didn't have much entrance/exit traffic? How would he know to go out that way? And if he did, why didn't he enter that way then? He couldn't have, if the chair was blocking the door.

The chair was either:
1) Blocking that room for some time, many a month maybe, with all the junk down there, until JR first moved it to go in there and 'check that window' that morning...in which you would surmise though that the killer could NOT have entered that way then, at least.

2) JR or someone else put the chair there at some point during the crime to block that room for some reason, and is now lying about the chair being put there by an intruder.

3) Intruder put the chair there.

So why did the kidnapper/killer block the door? He didn't.


the door blocked by chair claim is another lie IMO
why?
because JR claims he went down there AFTER the cops went
then it means one of the cops removed the chair and put it back.
really
must be in their notes then,right?but why bother
nope
also,JR claims the lights were "probably off"....he forgot again that the cops went down there BEFORE him


no no no
his trip to the basement between 7-9 is a LIE
 
he was down there at a different time to move the body (he told Melinda's bf he found JB around 11/this would also fit the time Arndt said he went missing)

i guess he was afraid that he left evidence(prints on doors,etc) so he made that "other" trip to the basement when he "discovered the broken open window" up
 
look what i found on acandyrose:

0277-09) LOU SMIT: I wanted to direct your attention, if you could, John. This photograph 71, and especially in the entryways there and into the various rooms. Now this must have been taken fairly early on the morning of the 26th. Can you describe what you see there? - (0277-18) JOHN RAMSEY: What is difference is, I think that the door is blocked by this drum table. Here's the chair I said was brought to the door. And it's not. I moved the chair to get into the door. If this was taken before I was down there -- well I put it back. When I went down there, that chair was kind of blocking that entrance right there.
___

What is he saying? His statement seems to be contradictory and self-incriminating. The candyrose website does not show the picture - image isn't there anymore I guess. Is the chair not blocking the door in the photo he's being shown, and if the photo was taken before he says he went down there, does that bust his story? He's saying if it's not blocking the door in that photo, that he put it back? That doesn't work either if it was not there before he went down, and the photo was taken before he supposedly went down there, then when does he put it back? On an additional trip? What?

And what is he saying about the door being blocked by a drum table? Does anyone know what this photo looks like? Is it a different door? Same door? Is he trying to explain away how the photo does not match his story?
 
i think JR forgot that police officers went down there before he claims he did.he also didn't know FW was down there around 6AM.
 
http://www.crimelynx.com/alexfoxapr4.html

HUNTER: You know, I can't tell. And I don't exactly - and I'm not sure that I want to get into that. I guess the proof is in the pudding. I want to see what he has.

I mean, so far, what I hear from Detective Smit is old stuff, old stuff that has been considered and most of it debunked.
 
look what i found on acandyrose:

0277-09) LOU SMIT: I wanted to direct your attention, if you could, John. This photograph 71, and especially in the entryways there and into the various rooms. Now this must have been taken fairly early on the morning of the 26th. Can you describe what you see there? - (0277-18) JOHN RAMSEY: What is difference is, I think that the door is blocked by this drum table. Here's the chair I said was brought to the door. And it's not. I moved the chair to get into the door. If this was taken before I was down there -- well I put it back. When I went down there, that chair was kind of blocking that entrance right there.
___

What is he saying? His statement seems to be contradictory and self-incriminating. The candyrose website does not show the picture - image isn't there anymore I guess. Is the chair not blocking the door in the photo he's being shown, and if the photo was taken before he says he went down there, does that bust his story? He's saying if it's not blocking the door in that photo, that he put it back? That doesn't work either if it was not there before he went down, and the photo was taken before he supposedly went down there, then when does he put it back? On an additional trip? What?

And what is he saying about the door being blocked by a drum table? Does anyone know what this photo looks like? Is it a different door? Same door? Is he trying to explain away how the photo does not match his story?

There are three other people that went down to the basement BEFORE John Ramsey...Officer French, Fleet White, Officer Reichenbach.

Did they all move the chair or table, enter the room, then replace them?
 
or, there are three other people that went down to the basement before John Ramsey SAYS he went down for the first time, right? .....

And in the pic he's being shown in the statement I bolded above, it sounds like he sees that the chair is not blocking the door in that pic, and if that pic was taken before he says he went down there that morning, then the door would not have been blocking the door at that time.

He had to have been talking about it being blocked and have gone down there before anyone else was there that morning, and didn't realize the scene and the photos were not going to match his story, nor count on others having been down there before he says he was down there, and it not having been blocked when they looked, if that is the case, right?

I want to know more about which door was blocked by a drum table.
 
look what i found on acandyrose:

0277-09) LOU SMIT: I wanted to direct your attention, if you could, John. This photograph 71, and especially in the entryways there and into the various rooms. Now this must have been taken fairly early on the morning of the 26th. Can you describe what you see there? - (0277-18) JOHN RAMSEY: What is difference is, I think that the door is blocked by this drum table. Here's the chair I said was brought to the door. And it's not. I moved the chair to get into the door. If this was taken before I was down there -- well I put it back. When I went down there, that chair was kind of blocking that entrance right there.
___

What is he saying? His statement seems to be contradictory and self-incriminating. The candyrose website does not show the picture - image isn't there anymore I guess. Is the chair not blocking the door in the photo he's being shown, and if the photo was taken before he says he went down there, does that bust his story? He's saying if it's not blocking the door in that photo, that he put it back? That doesn't work either if it was not there before he went down, and the photo was taken before he supposedly went down there, then when does he put it back? On an additional trip? What?

And what is he saying about the door being blocked by a drum table? Does anyone know what this photo looks like? Is it a different door? Same door? Is he trying to explain away how the photo does not match his story?




WhaleShark,

The question I want someone to answer is this>>> Are we supposed to believe, that an intruder came through the basement window, had to move a chair from in front of the train room door, to exit the room, passing a small table on his way? Than, instead of using either of those two objects to help him out of the window, he instead (according to JR) carried back with him the suitcase, that was by the WC, to use as the step stool for his exit?

I have not read one interview where he was asked why he thought the intruder did such a stupid thing. Probable why LS tried to plant the seed of the kidnapper trying to place JBR in the suitcase. He too thought it was odd, that the chair was dragged back into place and not used for the exit of the train room.
 
well yeah, me too...that's why my very first post was talking about that kind of thing...and if the chair, maybe a drum table, boxes, all the crap were possibly/probably blocking that door, those rooms, during the holidays...someone is not entering through that door anyway. if they tried, they would be blocked. and again it takes me to that circular argument...one would have to know how to maneuver from that window, that room, that area, through the house, and know where they were going. but if one knew that house to do so, one would also know the easier way to get in the house, and would already know that those areas are blocked, or would have been trapped or something.

If it was an intruder, they did not enter and exit that way. Even when Lou Smit tried the window as an entrance, a lot of leaves and debris and crap came in with him.
 
...so then when it becomes clear that that room is not the entrance/exit, then one has to question JR's story about him specifically going down to the train room to 'check that window' and see if it 'hadn't been broken again' to see how an intruder would enter. why did he really go down there, and when?

If he's really going to look around the house for how someone came in and sees all the crap in front of that door down there, he's not going to think the guy came in that way. He would then be looking for other unlocked and opened doors, broken and forced entries, other broken windows....check out the door that maybe Patsy said was always unlocked but had a bell on it - the one to the garage?

and if he genuinely broke that window and came in that way a long time ago, and he really was checking that window as a legit. entrance/exit point, what did he think of all the crap in front of the door? why would he say he put the chair back in front of the door? when did that happen? why would he put the chair back in front of the door?
 
WhaleShark,

The question I want someone to answer is this>>> Are we supposed to believe, that an intruder came through the basement window, had to move a chair from in front of the train room door, to exit the room, passing a small table on his way? Than, instead of using either of those two objects to help him out of the window, he instead (according to JR) carried back with him the suitcase, that was by the WC, to use as the step stool for his exit?

I have not read one interview where he was asked why he thought the intruder did such a stupid thing. Probable why LS tried to plant the seed of the kidnapper trying to place JBR in the suitcase. He too thought it was odd, that the chair was dragged back into place and not used for the exit of the train room.

if you check all their interviews,all this pedo intruder coming/going through that window, stepping on the suitcase,strangulation came first,stun gun bs became "THEIR" theory only AFTER LS joined the team.these are his ideas not their feelings/opinions.
if I have a gut feeling regarding who might have killed my child and why,like JR had those first moments (so he told ppl present) ,that it was an inside job,then i guess i stick to my gut feeling.
nope,everything changed after LS entered the scene.

J.Douglas had a much better intruder profile.LS contradicts it.who would you rather trust if you were them and innocent?

the fact that they took LS's theory and made it sound like it was their own is suspicious and it doesn't happen in real world.their lawyers probably thought it sounded better.
 
That's fair I guess, but would someone with LS's experience and track record really let his judgement be clouded on just this ONE case? Sure, they shared the same spiritual affiliation etc as each other, but in US society in the late 1990s, is that likely to have swayed someone one way or the other irrespective of the evidence?

I suppose the main reason I question this is that simply forming a bond with someone shouldn't then lead to a series of clues unable to be discounted by other professionals or experts thus muddying the case for all.

Either the story/evidence presented by LS is legit, possible, or clearly bogus...and if it is either of the first two, his religion shouldn't really be relevant surely?


Wonder, I have some things that I found and after rereading this thread, I thought I would share them with you... Every snip I am about to post can be found at this link (http://www.acandyrose.com/lousmit.htm) and from there each snip has a link to the full article/transcript...


Couric: “There were reports that there were red fibers found on JonBenet that matched a sweater Patsy Ramsey was wearing.”

Smit: “Patsy Ramsey was sitting on the same blanket, probably, that night, when she changed JonBenet’s clothing."

(How does a mother put pants on her sleeping child while sitting down? Lou, should have asked his own wife about this, before he told this “probably” lie…..

“Smit: “Well, there’s a couple of good reasons for not taking a ransom note into the house. If you’re caught, for instance, taking in a ransom note, you have it in your pocket when you come into the house, for instance, and there’s an alarm that goes in or the police check the house or somebody sees you, it’s pretty obvious what your plan would have been.”

Smit: “That’s a very important part of this too. And that, I think, shows that the person who was writing this note had plenty of time to do it. And it starts off with “Dear Mr. And - ” and it starts the word M on Mrs. Then it stopped. Between that practice note and the ransom note, by looking at the torn out pieces of the - of the ransom note, I believe there was close to six pages that are missing. Those pages are not found in the house either, Katie.”

(Let me get this straight. The intruder was worried about being caught with the 2 ½ page RN while he/they were breaking in. However, the 6 page practice RN wasn’t an issue, even though he/they were leaving a murder scene? Uhh, yeah, okay, think I may need another glass of that kool aid Lou.

Smit: “The main thing you learn as a detective when you go into a crime scene, is you always try to get an interview with the people that are there. If you find a body, and you realize that there’s a homicide that occurred, you always bring them into the station. If you find evidence that they’d been involved in a violent death and they have marks or bruises on them, that goes to their guilt. But if you find that they don’t have these things, it also goes to their innocence.”

Couric: “And you do it separately? You separate them?”

Smit: “Yes. And you take all their clothing. And you interview them separately. That’s the time to do it.”

Couric: “Why wasn’t that done?”

Smit: “I don’t know. Somebody made a decision not to do that.”

Couric: “In fairness to the Boulder Police Department though, they did try on several occasions reportedly to get the Ramseys to be interviewed down at the police station, and the Ramseys reportedly refused. I mean if I were a parent and I want to find out who murdered my child, God forbid, I would do everything in my power to help the police solve the case.”

Smit: “Yes Katie. But you would also go by what your lawyers advised you to do.”

Couric: “Do you think their lawyers did them a disservice in some ways by protecting them too much, at least in the court of public opinion?”

Smit: “Yes, in the court of public opinion that is the perception. But from the lawyers’ perception is that they were trying to keep their clients out of jail. That was their main focus was to protect their clients. Their main focus was not public perception.”

(If they were not guilty Lou, why did lawyers need to keep them out of jail?

Carol McKinley: These are pictures Lou Smit wants the world to see. They are early crime scene and autopsy photographs taken by the Boulder police and the Boulder County coroner's office in late Dec 1996, right after JonBenét's body was found. JonBenet's empty bed and bedroom, a footprint on the basement floor, a cord embedded in her neck.

Lou Smit: I've been very reluctant to show these photographs.

Carol McKinley: But Smit says he's releasing them now because they point to JonBenet's killer. He took the pictures without permission when he resigned from the investigation 2.5 yrs ago. Boulder authorities sued to get them back but Smit won the right to keep them. His decision to go public angers case investigators who want to keep these images sealed.

Bill Ritter: This is an investigation that you could still pick up tomorrow and work and the less the public knows about intimate details more likely you are to apprehend the killer or killers.

Lou Smit: I don't blame them a bit Carol. I think that if somebody interfered in my case I think that I'd probably be angry too.

(Lou, stole the pictures! Sorry but all his credibility just flew out the window, as far as I am concerned. He does not gain my respect. A criminal act, to support another criminal act how disgusting and now I suppose we are to believe that he would steal something, but he wouldn’t lie or help to cover up a crime.. Kiss my grits you pack of criminals!!!!!!

Lou Smit, the most experienced murder detective to investigate the crime, admits that revealing secret police evidence is the hardest thing he has ever done, but justice for JonBenét demands it.

(So let me get this straight, its only wrong to give out info if you’re not on the Rs spin team? Hypocrites and criminals!!!

Erin Moriarty: "No expert could eliminate Patsy Ramsey as the ransom note writer. That's damning isn't it?"

Lou Smit: "No not at all. You're always going to have similarities in handwriting. To sit down and write a note like that, with all of those details in there after brutally killing your daughter, you never done that before, come on, give me a break."

(Yet, no one else’s was similar, just Patsy’s. How does that work Lou? I know he cant answer but boy if he could!

November 12, 2002 - Larry King Live interview with Lin Wood

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

Lou Smit: "I know you're a Christian, John. Would you swear to God you didn't do this?"

John Ramsey: "I swear to God I didn't do it. I swear to God."

(And that’s all Lou needed, an “I swear to God.” Wonder if he asked the Patster if she would swear to God?
 

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
223
Guests online
2,084
Total visitors
2,307

Forum statistics

Threads
592,665
Messages
17,972,710
Members
228,854
Latest member
ramada.williams.gc@gmail.
Back
Top