Lou Smit

[ellen13]

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.

 

[Buzz Mills]

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.

 

[narlacat]

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.

 

[tipper]

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.

 

[ellen13]

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??

 

[sissi]

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.

You are aware of the source of Schiller's info, right?

 

[tipper]

[...]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!"
[...]

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." [...]

So which is it. John Ramsey's word or after only 72 hours.

Would YOU participate in the arrest and prosecution of someone you thought was innocent?

As far as "what suspect would ever admit he did it?" again I'd direct you to how the Susan Smith case was handled. There are also numerous others where the police build lines of communication to suspects and ultimately get confessions.

I read Delmar's letter back when he first wrote it. Been waiting for "Plan B" ever since.

"If I do not hear from you within the allotted time period, I will assume you have decided to ignore and "... work cooperatively with Lou Smit, the Ramseys..." At this time, I will initiate Plan B. As I stated earlier in this letter: Govern yourself accordingly."

 

[ellen13]

You are aware of the source of Schiller's info, right?

Sissi,
Please enlighten me-that's why I'm here.
Thank you,
Ellen

 

[rashomon]

(Tipper)I read Delmar's letter back when he first wrote it. Been waiting for "Plan B" ever since.

I asked Delmar England a few days ago what he meant by plan B. His reply:

"The plan was to contact various media with the truth about
assorted fallacies being propagated and promoted, including the
aberrations of Lou Smit. This included all major networks with
criticism of specific programs, especially those featuring Looney
Louie. If I count newspapers and magazines, I made over a hundred
contacts with zero interest in the truth. This is an illustration
of just how deep and influencing the garbage was and is after all
the years of lies upon lies."

Today he posted on the Forum for Justice (great forum btw!) that he won't ever give up. He has his heaviest artillery ready and will move it to the firing line. And Delmar is not the person to utter empty threats.
You read his letter to Mary Keenan? I thought it was awesome and very convincing.

(Tipper)Would YOU participate in the arrest and prosecution of someone you thought was innocent?

You missed my point. Smit was an investigator, and therefore can't let his belief direct his decisions. Theoretically, suppose some irrefutable evidence had one day been thrown into Smit's face which even that blind owl would have recognized as such, he still would never participate in the Rameys' indictment or arrest. These were his own words

So which is it. John Ramsey's word or after only 72 hours.

Read Lou Smit's words thoroughly and you have your own question answered.

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."

Three days is 72 hours, and after those three days Smit let John Ramsey swear he didn't do it, and said he would take him at his word. LOL!
And no way could Smit have worked himself through the massive evidence files in only three days. Impossible. But he decided after those three days that the Ramseys were innocent. Priceless.
And Smit's claiming to know John Ramsey 'pretty good' after only 72 hours is psychologically dumb beyond description.

 

[tipper]

[...]Read Lou Smit's words thoroughly and you have your own question answered.

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."

Three days is 72 hours, and after those three days Smit let John Ramsey swear he didn't do it, and said he would take him at his word. LOL!
And no way could Smit have worked himself through the massive evidence files in only three days. Impossible. But he decided after those three days that the Ramseys were innocent. Priceless.
And Smit's claiming to know John Ramsey 'pretty good' after only 72 hours is psychologically dumb beyond description.

We will have to agree to disagree over how "awesome" Delmar is.

I think you are confusing your 72 hours. To quote Thomas: "Three days later at a detectives briefing, Smit made his first appearance, greeting us all and taking a seat along the west wall. He had been around only seventy-two hours, not anywhere near long enough to devour the case material, but we hoped he might have some initial insights. He did.

Lou shifted the toothpick to a corner of his mouth, and his eyes twinkled with the excitement of a good bird dog on point. He said, "I don't think it was the Ramseys."

Obviously one side or the other is wrong, but I don't see any difference between Smit suspecting it wasn't the Ramseys within three days of looking at the evidence and BPD coming to the opposite conclusion in less that 3 days before the evidence had been collected and processed. One of the things I found interesting is that Smit joined the case thinking they were guilty.

I think if irrefutable evidence came up against the Ramseys. Smit would change his position just as I would hope Thomas would do if irrefutable evidence exonerating them came up.

 

[sharpar]

They and any other suspects in the USA only have the priviledge of presumed innocent in a court of law.
Anywhere else we can presume anything we want, innocent, guilty, insane, arrogant, obstructive, lying, admirable, detestable, true christians, posers/hypocrites, psychopaths, pawns, fools, jesters, victims, monsters or saints.

In order to bring them to trial you have to have a DA willing to prosecute, which the one in Boulder was not then and is not still to this present day 9 years after the murder. Why we arent privy too. Same with the
Grand Jury. We have no idea of what evidence they have that has not been released to the public if any. So we draw conculsions and judgements based on what we do know. This case also has an abundance of differing experts, you can pick the one you chose to believe.
I ask you why would you pay an expensive attorney for nine years if you have never been charged with a crime?

Many arguments used for the intruder are simply inaccurate or incomplete.
Many here myself included believe that there never was an intruder, a
kidnapping attempt, that those were tactics/ staging used by the parents to
mislead and misdirect . Other people think they are innocent .

The bottom line for me is that the R's had means, method and opportunity to commit this crime. I believe there was a very common motive. I dont believe that any of the physical/ foresnic evidence eliminates them as being the culprits. I believe their behavior indicates guilt and I think they incrimminate themselves in interviews and written books.

You may disagree with me, okay by me JMO .

 

[ellen13]

They and any other suspects in the USA only have the priviledge of presumed innocent in a court of law.
Anywhere else we can presume anything we want, innocent, guilty, insane, arrogant, obstructive, lying, admirable, detestable, true christians, posers/hypocrites, psychopaths, pawns, fools, jesters, victims, monsters or saints.

In order to bring them to trial you have to have a DA willing to prosecute, which the one in Boulder was not then and is not still to this present day 9 years after the murder. Why we arent privy too. Same with the
Grand Jury. We have no idea of what evidence they have that has not been released to the public if any. So we draw conculsions and judgements based on what we do know. This case also has an abundance of differing experts, you can pick the one you chose to believe.
I ask you why would you pay an expensive attorney for nine years if you have never been charged with a crime?

Many arguments used for the intruder are simply inaccurate or incomplete.
Many here myself included believe that there never was an intruder, a
kidnapping attempt, that those were tactics/ staging used by the parents to
mislead and misdirect . Other people think they are innocent .

The bottom line for me is that the R's had means, method and opportunity to commit this crime. I believe there was a very common motive. I dont believe that any of the physical/ foresnic evidence eliminates them as being the culprits. I believe their behavior indicates guilt and I think they incrimminate themselves in interviews and written books.

You may disagree with me, okay by me JMO .

Sharpar-
Excellent post! I wish I could have worded it like you did! Wow! That says it all!
Ellen:dance: :clap:

 

[sharpar]

Thanks ellen and I too am wonderin on the source question -

 

[sharpar]

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.

[…]

Tipper -

I am aware of this " the story" I just dont think it happened that way!
Their child had just been murderered . Why would a friend think of legal issues ( even taking in consideration he is an attorney ) when the family must immediately deal with the surviving child; arranging a funeral; notification to other family and friends; the incoming calls as the word spread. Wouldnt it seem more likely to say sometime tomorrow we need to talk but this is brought up shortly after the discovery of her body - just doesnt ring true.

 

[tipper]

Tipper -

I am aware of this " the story" I just dont think it happened that way!
Their child had just been murderered . Why would a friend think of legal issues ( even taking in consideration he is an attorney ) when the family must immediately deal with the surviving child; arranging a funeral; notification to other family and friends; the incoming calls as the word spread. Wouldnt it seem more likely to say sometim-e tomorrow we need to talk but this is brought up shortlly after the discovery of her body - just doesnt ring true.

I don't think Bynum has a reason to lie.

His expertise is law. He knew what they were in for and his way of helping was to make sure the legal issues got handled. I don't see that much difference between a cook applying her expertise by bringing a casserole and a lawyer applying his by giving legal advice. I would think if John were guilty he would want to maintain control and would put him off until "tomorrow." Instead he gave him carte blanche.

If you thought friends were guilty of murdering their child would you lie to protect them? The Ramseys did not have a history in Boulder that went back for generations or even decades. They did not have a huge fortune or great political clout. What motive did Bynum have to lie about this?

 

[tipper]

They and any other suspects in the USA only have the priviledge of presumed innocent in a court of law.
Anywhere else we can presume anything we want, innocent, guilty, insane, arrogant, obstructive, lying, admirable, detestable, true christians, posers/hypocrites, psychopaths, pawns, fools, jesters, victims, monsters or saints.

In order to bring them to trial you have to have a DA willing to prosecute, which the one in Boulder was not then and is not still to this present day 9 years after the murder. Why we arent privy too. Same with the
Grand Jury. We have no idea of what evidence they have that has not been released to the public if any. So we draw conculsions and judgements based on what we do know. This case also has an abundance of differing experts, you can pick the one you chose to believe.
I ask you why would you pay an expensive attorney for nine years if you have never been charged with a crime?

Many arguments used for the intruder are simply inaccurate or incomplete.
Many here myself included believe that there never was an intruder, a
kidnapping attempt, that those were tactics/ staging used by the parents to
mislead and misdirect . Other people think they are innocent .

The bottom line for me is that the R's had means, method and opportunity to commit this crime. I believe there was a very common motive. I dont believe that any of the physical/ foresnic evidence eliminates them as being the culprits. I believe their behavior indicates guilt and I think they incrimminate themselves in interviews and written books.

You may disagree with me, okay by me JMO .

So why didn't Kane want prosecute? Although I believe there is evidence the public doesn't know I don't believe there is anything earth-shattering. Had there been, Kane would have been gung-ho to charge them because he would know he had an evidentiary ace up his sleeve.

What lawyer have they been paying for 9 years?

 

[ellen13]

After reading the interview between John's attorney and Sawyer, I just thought of something I had never thought of. When did they supposedly tell Burke about what had happened and what were John and Burke discussing with the attorney.
His whole interview with Diane Sawyer sounds suspicious.

 

[Seeker]

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' ...!

I haven't read Little's book, nor the Ramsey's book, but I question where this verbatim account of a private conversation came from to begin with.

It would have to have been written by the Ramsey's in their book as I know that Lou Smit has not written a book about the case right? I know this is in PMPT, but I don't know that I would go so far as to say it was in a report by Lou Smit. It could have been, but would he have bothered to go into such personal details?

So I have to ask, just where did this firsthand account of Lou Smit and the Ramsey's conversation come from? Anyone ever sourced it or confirmed it? Or was it just in Schiller's book as hearsay?

 

[Toltec]

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.

Exactly what are Lou Smits "findings"? Are you privy to all his investigative work?

Just because Smit solved the murder of a young girl by finding an overlooked fingerprint doesn't mean he could declare the Ramseys innocent. He is still to this day looking for the proverbial fingerprint and so far he has come up empty-handed.

If he is such a great detective...then why has he not solved this murder?

 

[sharpar]

Lawyers lie all the time - but they call it Practice or defending a client .

That is my point - MB would take the heat because if John has asked him
to get legal things going it WOULD look bad and as a attorney he would know that . Make no mistake JR has an excellent idea of what occurred and by whom and surely knows his role in all of this.

RASHMON - can you give the link to the letter to Mary Keenan ? I would like to read it . Thanks


I dont know why DA has not pressed charges, we dont talk. IMO arrest them and let the chips fall where they may. They are already resumed their lives
so what's to loose?

Who is Schillers source ?

They are paying / or paid the attorneys still representing them, GJ , Media , LE , lawsuits, etc etc . Surely you dont think they work for free do you ? And if they werent being represented actions in Boulder might be different. JMO