Do you think a Stungun was used?

[madeleine]

This seems like a good spot. I just saw some of tonight's HLN special. I had hopes when I saw Ron Walker and Stephen Pitt, but take it from me: this one's not worth anyone's time. They're not just ignorant of the facts, they're telling outright LIES.

Which brings me to this thread. The stun gun was Lou Smit's baby. And what I just don't get after all this time is why Smit is treated like some kind of hero in this case. Because he is not. Even people who don't agree with him, like Jim Clemente and Co. seem to regard him as a good guy, just misguided. And after a while, he was anything but. Tricia, cynic, and a lot of the other veterans will know what I'm talking about. I don't doubt that he may have been a very good guy once, but his actions in this case were not only unprofessional in the extreme, they crossed the line into downright illegal.

The stun gun is exhibit A. He just whipped it up out of thin air, AGAINST the pathologists. I understand that Smit was from another era of police work. And for whatever it's worth, I've gone on record as saying that no amount of forensic technology will ever replace the old techniques of running down leads and talking to suspects. I understand that sometimes all a policeman has is a hunch, and you follow up that hunch. But you don't keep banging your head against a wall, and that's what he did. He disregarded the coroner and the other pathologists until he found one who would agree with him. I can see a defense lawyer doing that, but not a COP. You have to give up after a while.

And as bad as that was, this man STOLE police evidence! And blackmailed (no other word for it) the DA into dropping the complaint. He SHOULD have gone to jail! Instead, he gets Michael Tracey and David Mills to cook up a story about the police and Mike Kane trying to "destroy evidence." And just like Daniel Ellsberg with the Pentagon Papers, a heel becomes a hero.

God forgive me for saying this, but I'm not sorry he's dead. He never should have been brought onto this case to begin with. And failing that, he should have been yanked off of it the minute he became prayer pals with the Ramseys. May God have mercy on his soul.

We are not closer to the truth like some hope....and I don't blame the Ramsey's...they did what guilty people do.
I blame the BPD for what they did and didn't do (especially that morning). I blame the DA. Bigtime. ST and LS for being so biased even if on different camps. I blame the media and yes , the latest CBS SHOW too. This case is ENTERTAINMENT. Like JR said, this was not about a murdered child. No, it was about egos, careers and money. And I am disgusted, dunno how much I wanna follow this anymore..someone give me a call when one of them confesses... otherwise ...boy I hate to quote H.Lee but the rice is cooked indeed.

 

[johnjay]

We are not closer to the truth like some hope....and I don't blame the Ramsey's...they did what guilty people do.
I blame the BPD for what they did and didn't do (especially that morning). I blame the DA. Bigtime. ST and LS for being so biased even if on different camps. I blame the media and yes , the latest CBS SHOW too. This case is ENTERTAINMENT. Like JR said, this was not about a murdered child. No, it was about egos, careers and money. And I am disgusted, dunno how much I wanna follow this anymore..someone give me a call when one of them confesses... otherwise ...boy I hate to quote H.Lee but the rice is cooked indeed.

I think Stan Garnnett's description:

the extremely unusual nature of this situation for which there is virtually no legal precedent anywhere.

goes a long way to explain the reason why the situation developed as it did.

 

[kanzz]

This seems like a good spot. I just saw some of tonight's HLN special. I had hopes when I saw Ron Walker and Stephen Pitt, but take it from me: this one's not worth anyone's time. They're not just ignorant of the facts, they're telling outright LIES.

Which brings me to this thread. The stun gun was Lou Smit's baby. And what I just don't get after all this time is why Smit is treated like some kind of hero in this case. Because he is not. Even people who don't agree with him, like Jim Clemente and Co. seem to regard him as a good guy, just misguided. And after a while, he was anything but. Tricia, cynic, and a lot of the other veterans will know what I'm talking about. I don't doubt that he may have been a very good guy once, but his actions in this case were not only unprofessional in the extreme, they crossed the line into downright illegal.

The stun gun is exhibit A. He just whipped it up out of thin air, AGAINST the pathologists. I understand that Smit was from another era of police work. And for whatever it's worth, I've gone on record as saying that no amount of forensic technology will ever replace the old techniques of running down leads and talking to suspects. I understand that sometimes all a policeman has is a hunch, and you follow up that hunch. But you don't keep banging your head against a wall, and that's what he did. He disregarded the coroner and the other pathologists until he found one who would agree with him. I can see a defense lawyer doing that, but not a COP. You have to give up after a while.

And as bad as that was, this man STOLE police evidence! And blackmailed (no other word for it) the DA into dropping the complaint. He SHOULD have gone to jail! Instead, he gets Michael Tracey and David Mills to cook up a story about the police and Mike Kane trying to "destroy evidence." And just like Daniel Ellsberg with the Pentagon Papers, a heel becomes a hero.

God forgive me for saying this, but I'm not sorry he's dead. He never should have been brought onto this case to begin with. And failing that, he should have been yanked off of it the minute he became prayer pals with the Ramseys. May God have mercy on his soul.

You are much more generous about Smit than I can be, SuperDave. He was in it to win it for the defense practically from Day One. He had stars in his eyes for the beautiful, rich, Christian folks. (Not an indictment against Christians, I'm just saying that Smit identified.)

If these had been poor people who didn't invoke the name of God at every turn, he probably wouldn't have given them a minute of his of time. They would have been treated as suspects.

There was no Stun Gun. Of all the IDI theory fallacies, this one is probably the most ludicrous. The most obvious issue is that a stun gun does not render anyone unconscious. It produces pain. It temporarily and very briefly immobilizes. Most of the time, people scream.
The marks shown in the photos are not jagged electrical burns, as they would be if someone was jerking away from a stun gun. They are even and regular. It has already been proven these marks were most likely made by the toy train track. I'm down with that.

Smit is a reminder of the old saying: "If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem."[FONT=arial, sans-serif] [/FONT]

 

[BBB167893]

You are much more generous about Smit than I can be, SuperDave. He was in it to win it for the defense practically from Day One. He had stars in his eyes for the beautiful, rich, Christian folks. (Not an indictment against Christians, I'm just saying that Smit identified.)

If these had been poor people who didn't invoke the name of God at every turn, he probably wouldn't have given them a minute of his of time. They would have been treated as suspects.

Well said, kanzz. If these had been two poor people, they wouldn't have gotten past the "t" sound at the end of "I did it."

There was no Stun Gun. Of all the IDI theory fallacies, this one is probably the most ludicrous. The most obvious issue is that a stun gun does not render anyone unconscious. It produces pain. It temporarily and very briefly immobilizes. Most of the time, people scream.
The marks shown in the photos are not jagged electrical burns, as they would be if someone was jerking away from a stun gun. They are even and regular. It has already been proven these marks were most likely made by the toy train track. I'm down with that.

Smit is a reminder of the old saying: "If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem."[FONT=arial, sans-serif] [/FONT]

Boy, if that doesn't hit the nail on the head! Now that I think about it, I don't think Smit had that much experience with stun guns, at least not with how they're used on live people.

 

[TeaTime]

100% do not believe that it was a stun gun. Dr.'s Spitz and Lee told us that is was a post mortem injury and explained why (the blanched center of the red circle). Then, the train track fits. And, all the manufacturers of stun guns that said it was not a stun gun wound. Then we saw a demo of a stun gun and the kind of marks it leaves.

NOT A STUN GUN. Preposterous theory.