Lou Smit

[capps]

While it was still considered a kidnapping,Det.Arndt felt secure enough in John Ramsey,and felt no threat in John Ramsey to ask him to search the house on his own ...moments later as John brings up JonBenet's body,Det.Arndt knew then and there that John was the killer of JonBenet,even to the point of checking how many bullets she had in her gun.I'm sure her attitude towards John changed quite a bit,and I'm sure she shared her "instant revelation" with the rest of the LE.I don't call that professional.

I'd get myself an attorney real quick.

 

[tipper]

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

SO why would Bynum coverup the murder of a little girl? Do you think he lied to the police when they questioned him. Attorneys aren't allowed to lie to LE. They may invoke priviledge but not lie. If Bynum had done that I'm sure it would have been in either Thomas' or Schiller's books.

Delmar's letter:
http://www.acandyrose.com/05202003keenanletter.htm

Quote from Kane:http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_1234851,00.html
[…]
"I don't feel slighted" by Keenan, Kane said. "I worked that case intensely. I had my shot. I did everything with the information that I had at the time to try to come up with an answer. And it didn't happen
[….]
Asked if he's frustrated that no one has been charged in JonBenet's slaying, he didn't hesitate: "Lots. In a word, lots. I didn't sign on there to not come up with a conclusion that was not prosecutable."
[…]

I think they stopped using Haddon et al after the grand jury finished. My understanding is Wood works on a contingency basis. Check the 2000 interviews.

Schiller's source:
http://websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=428238&highlight=schiller+source#post428238
Linda Arndt's deposition
http://www.acandyrose.com/03182000-...po-04102000.htm

11 Q. Did Schiller, based on the information that you
12 received, incorporate any of the information Steve
13 Thomas gave him in his book?
14 A. Well, from what I was told, there was
15 conversation - yeah. There's a lot of information.
16 Q. That Steve Thomas was the source of, in
17 Larry Schiller's book?
18 A. I don't know if he's named as a source.
19 Q. But based on the information you received,
20 he was the source; is that correct?
21 A. He was the source.

 

[ellen13]

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

Exactly Toltec!
That's what I asked Buzz 3 times now with no answer.
Ellen

 

[sharpar]

SO why would Bynum coverup the murder of a little girl? Do you think he lied to the police when they questioned him. Attorneys aren't allowed to lie to LE. They may invoke priviledge but not lie. If Bynum had done that I'm sure it would have been in either Thomas' or Schiller's books.

In a word YES and I am sure he doesnt consider it lying or covering up a murder - but defending his client or just putting a little spin on it. Its a minor point and as I stated from the begining only my opinion.

I would hope Schiller and thomas were spending their time going after the much bigger lies that would jail a child murderer for a very long time.

Would still like that to happen somehow .

 

[rashomon]

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.

What's confusing about the 72 hours? Smit had been there for only three days, told the BPD he didn't think it was the Ramseys and after those same three days, had John swear to God he didn't do it.
He never budged from his 'the Ramseys are innocent' position.
I don't think the BPD came to a conclusion after only three days, but when a child is found dead in her own home, you must look at the parents. And there was not much of the circumstantial evidence found at the crime scene which would have exonerated them. Just think of that idiotic ransom note for example.

Where did you get the info that Smit joined the case thinking the Ramseys were guilty?

 

[rashomon]

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.

Don't you think you are mixing things up here a bit? This is not a courtroom with the prosecution having the burden of proof, but a true crime discussion forum. I think the Ramseys are guilty, but if I thought they were innocent, I'd only be too eager to make my input on a message board too.
So why don't you go ahead?

 

[tipper]

What's confusing about the 72 hours? Smit had been there for only three days, told the BPD he didn't think it was the Ramseys and after those same three days, had John swear to God he didn't do it.
He never budged from his 'the Ramseys are innocent' position.
I don't think the BPD came to a conclusion after only three days, but when a child is found dead in her own home, you must look at the parents. And there was not much of the circumstantial evidence found at the crime scene which would have exonerated them. Just think of that idiotic ransom note for example.

Where did you get the info that Smit joined the case thinking the Ramseys were guilty?

There is some disconnect here in our communication.

Are you saying he spent his first 3 days interrogating John Ramsey?

The info that he started out thinking the parents were guilty came from a Court TV show.

http://www.jameson245.com/doc2usa.htm
The Elite - Nov 7, 2002:

[…]NARRATOR - During his 32 year career, Smit investigated more than 200 murders. He solved over 90 per cent of them. He never lost a case in court. He'd worked for the Colorado Springs Police Department, DA's office and coroner. His last job was running homicide investigations for the El Paso County Sheriff's Office.
Under Smit, the sheriff's office cleared up all its unsolved murders and even solved older cases that had been closed.

LOU SMIT (looking at photo album, talking about arrest in Dawn Church case) - Boy that was something, the day we caught him, we must have had fifty cars all lined up there.... .

NARRATOR - The decision to involve Smit in the Ramsey case was widely approved.

JOHN ANDERSON - That was a brilliant decision. In crime scene investigation, Lou's the very best. He's been there. He's been there in the field. He's seen those. He just didn't read about them, he'd actually been there over and over and over. Lou Smit, is the very best violent crimes homicide detective that I know.

NARRATOR - By the time Smit joined the investigation, the couple were being hounded everywhere they went.

One of their lawyers, worried by Smit's appointment, telephoned Colorado's former chief public defender, Greg Walta, to ask about him.

GREG WALTA - "He knew I'd tried cases against Smit. I told him that if the Ramsey's were guilty, they'd better look out because Smit would nail them and if they were guilty not to let them talk to Smit. He'd get under their skin and he'd get information that would kill them. On the other hand, I told him that if they were innocent, go ahead and cooperate, because this guy has integrity. He'll follow that evidence wherever it goes, and if it leads away from the Ramsey's, he would follow it.

NARRATOR - Smit, driving his family's camper van, arrived in Boulder three months after the killing. His task - to investigate the murder for the DA's office and to pass on his findings to the police leading the investigation. He didn't think it would take long.

LOU SMIT driving van - "It seemed as though the parents were probably involved in it. From what I'd seen in the newspapers and heard on television was that there'd been snow all around the house, there were no footprints in the snow, how could anyone get into the house? The ransom note was supposedly written inside the house. I thought this would be a fairly easy case. I thought it would be a slam dunk.

NARRATOR - At first, the police welcomed Smit's arrival. One detective referred to his "terrific reputation". And indeed, his first discoveries would be dramatic.

[…]

RE BPD early conclusion:
http://www.angelfire.com/ar3/jonbenet/1998ae.html

Man: While the Ramseys were being cared for by friends, their home became a major crime scene. Few of the police here had ever handled a murder before but they immediately assumed the parents were involved. The fact that JonBenet was found in her own home by her father was considered damning. By the time her body was taken from the house that evening, some of the suspicion had been passed to a local journalist. The tragedy of the murder was about to enter a new phase.

Man: Friday, Dec. 27th, while police activity at the house intensified, in nearby Denver a local newspaper ran the first story hinting police suspicion about the Ramseys. They quoted an assistant District Attorney saying it was very unusual for the kidnap victims body to be found at home. It's not adding up he said. Reporter Charlie Brennen said he knew from the beginning the parents were the only real suspects.

Charlie Brennen: I had that sense at that time, I had that sense at that time, yes. I had the belief that the police were under a strong suspicion from the very beginning that it had to be the parents.

Man: A local television reporter who also covered the story on the 27th gave the same conclusion.

Julie Hayden, TV Reporter: Early on there, definitely before the five o'clock newscast, we were beginning to get the sense that the police were not hunting Boulder for some mad kidnapper – That the police were looking more inside the family.

Man: From now on, a clear pattern was to emerge. While police chief Tom Koby said little, others continually leaked information and often it was misleading information intended to implicate the Ramseys. The pattern began that day. A story was leaked that suggested ONLY a family member could have
[...]

 

[capps]

"What's confusing about the 72 hours? Smit had been there for only three days, told the BPD he didn't think it was the Ramseys and after those same three days, had John swear to God he didn't do it.
He never budged from his 'the Ramseys are innocent' position.
I don't think the BPD came to a conclusion after only three days, but when a child is found dead in her own home ...."

Perhaps my previous post (#41) was overlooked.

Maybe Smit made his decision after looking over the evidence in three days. Det.Arndt,part of the BPD,made her decision in just moments,without looking at evidence,because a murder investigation hasn't even started,and immediately accused one person of murder.She never budged from her 'John killed JonBenet' position.

So why so hard on Smit,when Arndt in my opinion was worse.

 

[rashomon]

There is some disconnect here in our communication.
Are you saying he spent his first 3 days interrogating John Ramsey?

I'm not saying that. I'm going strictly by what Smit himself said. He told John Ramsey he had been there for 72 hours now and wanted him to swear to God he didn't do it.
What does swearing to God that one didn't do it have to do with a murder investigation, I ask myself.
Pretty strange also that Smit claimed to have gotten to know J. Ramsey pretty well. How well can one claim to know a person after only three days? Such an attitude is psychologically dumb.
And technically speaking, how could Smit have been interrogating Ramsey for three days and have been working himself through the massive case file at the same time?

 

[rashomon]

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

Sharpar, Tipper provided the link in post # 42 on this thread. Delmar England's arguments are very convincing imo.

 

[rashomon]

Maybe Smit made his decision after looking over the evidence in three days. Det.Arndt,part of the BPD,made her decision in just moments,without looking at evidence,because a murder investigation hasn't even started,and immediately accused one person of murder.She never budged from her 'John killed JonBenet' position.

So why so hard on Smit,when Arndt in my opinion was worse.

Do you seriously believe Smit could have worked himself through the massive case file in three days?
And in terms of Linda Arndt - hmm, she seems to have changed her mind about John: for why do you think she received flowers from John and Patsy Ramsey after some time? Like Steve Thomas sarcastically remarked, detectives normally don't get flowers from suspects. Which is why I doubt that she never budged from her position. She eventually let herself be influenced by the Ramseys just as many others both in the BPD and the DA's office.
Police chief Tom Koby for example was a spineless jellyfish who let his own detectives stand out there in the cold because he was too much of a coward to confront DA Alex Hunter on anything. Mark Beckner was just as bad.
We have a saying in German: "fish starts stinking from the head". And the 'stinking head' in the Ramsey case was DA Alex Hunter, whose minions cowardly parroted what he said, for fear of damaging their careers.

 

[rashomon]

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

Have you read his letter to Mary Keenan?

 

[Toltec]

While it was still considered a kidnapping,Det.Arndt felt secure enough in John Ramsey,and felt no threat in John Ramsey to ask him to search the house on his own ...moments later as John brings up JonBenet's body,Det.Arndt knew then and there that John was the killer of JonBenet,even to the point of checking how many bullets she had in her gun.I'm sure her attitude towards John changed quite a bit,and I'm sure she shared her "instant revelation" with the rest of the LE.I don't call that professional.

I'd get myself an attorney real quick.

Let's not forget that before Detective Arndt called upon the Ramseys, she was briefed by Officer French. French told her that something was "not right."

 

[tipper]

Have you read his letter to Mary Keenan?

Yes. As I said earlier I read it when it first appeared 3 years ago.

I re-read it shortly after you started this thread. My opinion hasn't changed since I first read it.

Added: Regarding the interview on which Smit (according to Delmar) based his belief in the John Ramsey's innocence - Smit had been on the case for 15 months when that interview happened. Don't you think he had done some investigating and formed some conclusions prior to that interview?

 

[capps]

Let's not forget that before Detective Arndt called upon the Ramseys, she was briefed by Officer French. French told her that something was "not right."

Toltec,

That's fine. Officer French was not accusing anyone of being innocent or guilty,he was merely sharing with another member of the BPD that in his observations,something didn't seem right. He was doing his job.

I'm not trying to defend Smit or Arndt.
Rashomon was going on and on about how ridiculous it was for Smit,after just three days,to come to the conclusion the Ramsey's were innocent,and how she didn't think the BPD came to a conclusion after three days.

But that wasn't true,hence my bringing up the Arndt scenerio,and wondering why so much negative posts about Smit ... when the same could be said about Arndt,but never is.

I've said it before ...I think all the players in this investigation,no matter what side,let their egos or political agendas get in the way ... to the detriment of justice.

 

[tipper]

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!

http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/famous/smith/confess_8.html

After Wells told Susan this, she asked him to pray with her. At the close of the prayers Wells said, "Lord, we know that all things will be revealed to us in time." Wells then looked at Susan and said, "Susan, it is time."

Susan dropped her head and wailed, "I am so ashamed, I am so ashamed." She asked Sheriff Wells for his gun so that she could kill herself. Sheriff Wells asked Susan why she wanted to do that and Susan replied, "You don’t understand, my children are not all right."

Susan told Wells about the crushing isolation she had felt while driving her Mazda along Highway 49 on the night of October 25th and the consuming desire she had to commit suicide. Susan had planned to drive her sons to her mother’s house, but emotionally she felt so bad that she felt even her mother could not help her. Susan told Wells that her whole life had felt wrong and that she felt she could not escape the loneliness, isolation and failure that had ensnared her. Susan told Wells about her abortion, her troubled marriage to David and her affair with Tom Findlay. Susan collapsed and began to sob; other investigators entered the room to obtain her written confession

 

[rashomon]

I'm not trying to defend Smit or Arndt.
Rashomon was going on and on about how ridiculous it was for Smit,after just three days,to come to the conclusion the Ramsey's were innocent,and how she didn't think the BPD came to a conclusion after three days.

But that wasn't true,hence my bringing up the Arndt scenerio,and wondering why so much negative posts about Smit ... when the same could be said about Arndt,but never is.

You obviously didn't read my #51 reply to you. I didn't defend Linda Arndt in any way. From what we know from Steve Thomas, she was a pretty lousy detective, and he was glad when she finally left the BPD.
Also I doubt if she never budged from her position re John Ramsey's guilt because later she received flowers from the Ramseys who thanked her for the good cooperation. Like Thomas sarcastically remarked, detectives normally don't get flowers from suspects.
Arndt jumped to a premature conclusion and let herself be fooled by the Ramseys later.

But still, when there is a dead child found in the home, you must look at the parents, and go where the evidence leads you. That's what Steve Thomas did. This doesn't mean 'jumping to a premature conclusion', if in the course of the investigation just about everything points to the parents.

Smit was not part of the original investigation, but walked into the conferece room after being there only three days and said he didn't think it was the Ramseys. What did he base that on? On his belief that parents couldn't have done this? Like that silly Trip De Muth, who told Steve Thomas the same thing?

Sure blunders were made in the original investigation. Nobody denies that. But a bungled investigation doesn't make the Ramseys innocent, nor does it make Smit's claims of an intruder any more credible.

 

[Buzz Mills]

SNIP

Sure blunders were made in the original investigation. Nobody denies that. But a bungled investigation doesn't make the Ramseys innocent, nor does it make Smit's claims of an intruder any more credible.

And, in the same breath, it certainly doesn't make the Ramseys guilty.

 

[sharpar]

And, in the same breath, it certainly doesn't make the Ramseys guilty.

Doesnt make them innocent either . What evidence are you relying on to
assume innocent ? The ramson note is fake, the garrote, ligature is fake the events of the morning arent true ?
i am curious what leads you to believe they are not murderers and liars ?

 

[Bev]

for the failure of the investigation in this case is John Eller. From the very beginning his arrogance, hubris and lack of expertise made this case impossible to bring to a conclusion. He can claim that he didn't have the manpower to investigate this crime on the 26th, but that it isn't true. He not only had the means to call in every detective and street officer, but he also had the FBI, the Denver police and Boulder county sherriff's office available to him from the moment he was contacted. Yes, Lou Smit is a bumbler when it comes to forensic evidence interpretation, but in the end this rests with the very bad decisions of Eller.