Lou Smit

[rashomon]

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?

You are right that this interview was done in 1998; I thought it had been done much earlier. For those interested: according to info from poster Little on Forums for Justice, the interview is in the National Enquirer book.

But if Lou Smit asked John this in 1998, it gets even more grotesque: therefore of course he had to have done some investigation up until there.
If we go along with your comparison to Sheriff Wells praying together with Susan Smith: no doubt Wells knew that she was guilty and used the prayer to make her break down and confess.
So you think Smit (like Wells with Susan Smith) had come to the conclusion too that the Ramseys were guilty and used the prayer to get John to confess? But when receiving a negative reply from John, he didn't pursue the matter further and switched to "innocent"?
This doesn't make sense.
Or do you think that Smit, as a result of researching the case for quite some time, had come to the conclusion that the Ramseys were innocent? But then, why did he feel it necessary at all to ask John to swear to God he had done it and told him he would take him at this word?
This doesn't make sense either.

Sheriff Wells used the prayer as a tool to get Susan Smith to confess, but I doubt that Lou Smit used the prayer as a tool to get Ramsey to confess. He bonded with the Ramseys because they were as avid church goers as he was, so he thought they were 'good Christians'. He even prayed together with them in his van and said he would never take part in their indictment or arrest. Pretty much says it all about how biased Smit was.

 

[tipper]

You are right that this interview was done in 1998; I thought it had been done much earlier. For those interested: according to info from poster Little on Forums for Justice, the interview is in the National Enquirer book..

It's also online:
http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/1998BPD-John-Interview-Complete.htm

But if Lou Smit asked John this in 1998, it gets even more grotesque: therefore of course he had to have done some investigation up until there.
If we go along with your comparison to Sheriff Wells praying together with Susan Smith: no doubt Wells knew that she was guilty and used the prayer to make her break down and confess.
So you think Smit (like Wells with Susan Smith) had come to the conclusion too that the Ramseys were guilty and used the prayer to get John to confess? But when receiving a negative reply from John, he didn't pursue the matter further and switched to "innocent"?
This doesn't make sense.
Or do you think that Smit, as a result of researching the case for quite some time, had come to the conclusion that the Ramseys were innocent? But then, why did he feel it necessary at all to ask John to swear to God he had done it and told him he would take him at this word?
This doesn't make sense either.

Sheriff Wells used the prayer as a tool to get Susan Smith to confess, but I doubt that Lou Smit used the prayer as a tool to get Ramsey to confess. He bonded with the Ramseys because they were as avid church goers as he was, so he thought they were 'good Christians'. He even prayed together with them in his van and said he would never take part in their indictment or arrest. Pretty much says it all about how biased Smit was.

No, I don't think Smit thought the Ramsey's were guilty. The point of Sheriff Well's handling of Susan Smith is that from the start he kept the lines of communication open. He gained her trust. That is also what Smit advocated from the start. I think if Patsy were guilty she would have confessed to a sympathetic ear. Particularly if it had been an accident.

I think Smit went into those interviews suspecting the Ramseys were innocent just as BPD went in suspecting they were guilty. My guess is Smit asked John the swear to God question so he could watch his response. Any hesitation or change in voice or body language could give an indication of innocence or guilt. It's a standard technique in interrogation. He used God because he felt religion was important to John Ramsey and that was common ground for both of them. Again, a line of communication to be used as necessary and expedient. Comfort for the innocent or a lever for the guilty.

You may not approve that they were praying together but at least they were talking.l

Do you think Smit never arrested a churchgoer? How is it he developed such an outstanding reputation among LE throughout his career? Other detectives have nothing but praise for him and it's not all based on the Heather Dawn Church case which happened in 1987 and he worked on in 1991 a year after he'd retired.

What is the benefit of Eller and the BPD's heavy-handed interrogation methods? What did they gain by being so harsh with Melinda Ramsey that she left the interview in tears? Were they hoping for some kind of Michael Crowe type confession. Read Arndt's testimony where she talks about how people didn't want to talk to BPD because of way they were treated by the Boulder Police Department and members of the investigative team. How did any of this advance the investigation?

 

[Paradox]

How did any of this advance the investigation?

It advanced it to the point of arresting Patsy. Then Hunter stepped in to scuttle everything.

 

[rashomon]

Do you think Smit never arrested a churchgoer? How is it he developed such an outstanding reputation among LE throughout his career? Other detectives have nothing but praise for him and it's not all based on the Heather Dawn Church case which happened in 1987 and he worked on in 1991 a year after he'd retired.

But how would you explain that this 'outstanding' Lou Smit did not say a word about his intruder theory to the CASKU people?

The Child Abduction and Serial Killer Unit of the FBI (CASKU) had invited members of the DA's office and the BPD to a meeting. These highly respected profilers are among the cream of the crop in LE.
Lou Smit also attended this meeting together with Trip DeMuth and Hofstrom from the DA's office. Member of the BPD present were Thomas, Harmer, Trujillo, Gosage and Wickman.

The FBI CASKU profilers' assessment of the case was:
- the crime would have been incredibly risky for an outsider to undertake, and was committed by someone who had a high degree of comfort inside the home.
- they had never seen anything like the long and rambling Ramsey ransom note. Kidnappers' notes are usually terse; the fewer words, the less the police have to go on.
- the FBI deemed the whole crime "criminally unsophisticated", citing the child being left in the home, the $118,000 demand in relation to the net worth of the family, the description of the accomplices as "gentlemen", and the concept that John would be "scanned for electronic" devices on delivering the money. For obvious reasons, kidnappers avoid a face-to-face meeting.
- The poorly tied ligatures indicated staging rather than control.
- the ransom note was created to misdirect law enforcement and focus attention elsewhere. It was also a cathartic act that allowed the offender to "undo" the crime in his/her own mind.

Their bottom line was that there had never been a kidnapping attempt.

Now let's look at how Smit behaved during the meeting. Now wouldn't one think that this super investigator felt that he was in the same league as the FBI experts and would have presented his 'Intruder' theory to them? Wouldn't you have done that in Smit's place if you were so convinced that an intruder was there?
But what did Smit say? Incredible but true: He said NOTHING!!!

(ST, page 219): "Throughout the FBI session, Lou Smit said not a word about his Intruder theory."

Hey Louie, why did you cowardly keep your mouth shut? Pathetic. You probably knew you were out of our league here and that the FBI's top-notch experts would tear you and your absurd intruder theory apart.

 

[tipper]

But how would you explain that this 'outstanding' Lou Smit did not say a word about his intruder theory to the CASKU people?

The Child Abduction and Serial Killer Unit of the FBI (CASKU) had invited members of the DA's office and the BPD to a meeting. These highly respected profilers are among the cream of the crop in LE.
Lou Smit also attended this meeting together with Trip DeMuth and Hofstrom from the DA's office. Member of the BPD present were Thomas, Harmer, Trujillo, Gosage and Wickman.

The FBI CASKU profilers' assessment of the case was:
- the crime would have been incredibly risky for an outsider to undertake, and was committed by someone who had a high degree of comfort inside the home.
- they had never seen anything like the long and rambling Ramsey ransom note. Kidnappers' notes are usually terse; the fewer words, the less the police have to go on.
- the FBI deemed the whole crime "criminally unsophisticated", citing the child being left in the home, the $118,000 demand in relation to the net worth of the family, the description of the accomplices as "gentlemen", and the concept that John would be "scanned for electronic" devices on delivering the money. For obvious reasons, kidnappers avoid a face-to-face meeting.
- The poorly tied ligatures indicated staging rather than control.
- the ransom note was created to misdirect law enforcement and focus attention elsewhere. It was also a cathartic act that allowed the offender to "undo" the crime in his/her own mind.

Their bottom line was that there had never been a kidnapping attempt.

Now let's look at how Smit behaved during the meeting. Now wouldn't one think that this super investigator felt that he was in the same league as the FBI experts and would have presented his 'Intruder' theory to them? Wouldn't you have done that in Smit's place if you were so convinced that an intruder was there?
But what did Smit say? Incredible but true: He said NOTHING!!!

(ST, page 219): "Throughout the FBI session, Lou Smit said not a word about his Intruder theory."

Hey Louie, why did you cowardly keep your mouth shut? Pathetic. You probably knew you were out of our league here and that the FBI's top-notch experts would tear you and your absurd intruder theory apart.

I don't know why Lou chose to not present his Intruder theory. Perhaps he felt their list didn't conflict with the idea this was done by an acquaintance, perhaps he had already discussed it with them, perhaps we didn't get the complete story from Thomas. Maybe you should contact Smit and ask.

Why do you feel that name calling adds to your argument?

edited to fix spelling error noted by paradox

 

[Paradox]

Hey Louie, why did you cowardly keep your mouth shut? Pathetic. You probably knew you were out of our league here and that the FBI's top-notch experts would tear you and your absurd intruder theory apart.

Lou kept his words for ears that have a greater authority than the F.BI. : the Lords of Shangri Lala land. Puff the magic dragon lived by the sea ... Bong!

Lou is still busy chasing down Big Foot, er, I mean the intruder.

'Tis better to rule in Hell than serve in Heaven.

 

[rashomon]

I don't know why Lou chose to not present his Intruder theory. Perhaps he felt their list didn't conflict with the idea this was done by an acquaintance, perhaps he had already discussed it with them, perhaps we didn't get the complete story from Thomas. Maybe you should contact Smit and ask.

Why do you feel that name calling adds to your arguement?

Please point out to me where I called anyone names in my #64 post. Or do you mean that I called Lou Smit a coward because he didn't dare to present his intruder theory to the FBI CASKU experts?

 

[Toltec]

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.

Good post Bev...I too believe that Eller was way over his head but his ego got in the way of this investigation.

The Ramseys did not want nothing at all to do with their "hell hole" of a house but yet they coincidently drive by when Lou Smit is present. They stop and enter Lou's van and pray near the hell hole....

 

[Bev]

Arrogance, hubris and egotism ran this case from the beginning. Of course, one question we'll never have answered is why the FBI left, and why J. Ramsey allowed them to leave. Here we have a ransom note that says this is a federal crime - it was not just kidnapping, but a threat against a global corporation - how did the FBI know that other executives weren't threatened or had their children kidnapped? The note clearly states that the kidnappers are a "foreign faction". That alone would have given the FBI legal status to claim jurisdiction in the case, and not only that, but a case like that could have made someone's FBI career. What we're to believe then, is that the FBI looked at the note, decalred it "hinky" and went to breakfast. What's wrong with this picture?

 

[sissi]

It was Atlanta/Jewell mentality. The local police knew the family did it, the FBI was no smarter. Had they been, they would have brought in the dogs, maybe they would have followed Jonbenet's scent out and then back into the house. Perhaps sniffed out a car or two that "should" have been checked. The story may have been quite different had they done their job.

 

[rashomon]

It was Atlanta/Jewell mentality. The local police knew the family did it, the FBI was no smarter. Had they been, they would have brought in the dogs, maybe they would have followed Jonbenet's scent out and then back into the house. Perhaps sniffed out a car or two that "should" have been checked. The story may have been quite different had they done their job.

Although many blunders happened in the initial investigation, I'm convinced that the Ramseys would not have stood up to pressure if a tough prosecutor had handled the case right from the beginning, and not spineless Alex Hunter who let himself be intimidated by the Ramseys' lawyer team. It is simply incredible how the Ramseys were handled with kid gloves on the part of the DA's office.
Hunter prevented this case from being investigated how it should have been investigated, throwing obstacle after obstacle in the detectives' way.
Former FBI profiler Gregg McCrary said that Hunter should have been charged with prosecutorial malfeasance and obstruction of justice.

 

[Nuisanceposter]

I absolutely think Hunter should have been charged. I can't understand why he was allowed to do the things he did or didn't do. He clearly wasn't out for justice for JonBenet.

Three FBI agents were there in the Ramsey house the morning of the 26th, but when JonBenet was discovered in the basement, the case turned from a kidnapping to a homicide, making it local, and therefore longer a case for them.

Steve Thomas's book, hb page 33 -

"A pair of Denver FBI agents wanted a word. Things had changed, they said, since the agency had first been notified that a federal crime, kidnapping, had been committed. "This is now a homicide, said one. "It's local, it's not our case." Agent Ron Walker added, "Look at the parents. No bull***** that's where you need to be." They promised future FBI assistance and left. A third agent, from Boulder, stuck around to help."

I doubt a dog could have helped because I seriously doubt JonBenet left that house after she came home with her parents on Christmas night.

ST's book page 216

"In turn, the CASKU agents noted that of the more than seventeen hundred murdered children they had studied since the 1960s, there was only one case in which the victim was a female under the age of twelve, who had been murdered in her home by strangulation, with sexual assault and a ransom note present - and that was JonBenét Ramsey.

They told us that while it might be possible that someone broke into the house that night, it wasn't very probable. The staging, evidence, and totality of the case pointed in one direction - that this was not the act of an intruder.

snip

The FBI deemed the entire case "criminally unsophisticated", citing the child being left on the premises, the disingenuous $118,000 demand in relation to the net worth of the family, the description of the accomplices as "gentlemen", and the concept of a ransom delivery where one would be "scanned for electronic devices." Kidnappers prefer isolated drops for the ransom delivery, not a face-to-face meeting.

There was also the absence of strong language and anger, and the victim was never referred to by name, thus depersonalizing her to the offender. The note was created to misdirect law enforcement and focus attention elsewhere and was a cathartic act that allowed the offender to "undo" the murder in one's mind.

Their bottom line was that there had never been a kidnapping attempt."


No one came in and attacked that child, certainly not with the intention of kidnapping her. IMO, her mother killed her by accident and everything else is her sorry attempt to make it look like someone else did it.

 

[narlacat]

<<No one came in and attacked that child, certainly not with the intention of kidnapping her. IMO, her mother killed her by accident and everything else is her sorry attempt to make it look like someone else did it.>>

I think you are right Nuisance, there was no intruder...there was no kidnapping.
But I'm not so sure it was an accident anymore....how do you accidently strangle someone??
The garrotte was not the weapon used to strangle JBR, it was part of the staging, so she must have been strangled another way...the device was put there to convince everyone there was a pedophile intruder on the loose and to detract away from what really happened.

 

[Paradox]

The again, if Patsy is mentally ill, then the whole thing could have been done while she was in her own little world. What passes for staging might just be a person doing things for themselves while in their own dream world.

It's easier for me to believe a chronically irrational person did this than a normal but desperate person did.

 

[Nuisanceposter]

As easy as it is for me to believe Patsy killed JonBenet, it's hard for me to believe it was intentional...but as narlacat said, how do you strangle someone by accident? Maybe she blacked out and didn't know what she was doing.

I have to assume that Patsy, whom I already believed to be unstable at best, killed JonBenet in a rage and then realized what happened when her child lay lifeless in front of her, and panicked. I used to think John was part of the staging, but now I think he wasn't and didn't know what was up until he found JonBenet when Detective Arndt noticed he was missing around 10 am. He must have noticed that the ransom note was obviously his wife's work, in wording and in writing.

I think JonBenet was awake when they got home Christmas night. On pg. 317 of ST's book, Burke is being interviewed for the grand jury, and says that "his sister fell asleep in the car on the way home but awakened to help carry presents into the house of a friend. When they got home, JonBenet walked in slowly and went up the spiral stairs to bed, just ahead of Patsy."

So Burke's saying that she was awake when they got home. I would believe him over J and P's inconsistent statements. From there I assume that JonBenet, instead of going to sleep as soon as she got home, asked for a snack, and Patsy fed her pineapple from their fridge. From there on out, something happened - either JB went to sleep and awoke with a wet bed and Patsy snapped, perhaps grabbing her by the collar and strangling her that way....or maybe Patsy kept her up, and wanted her to rehearse a cute little performance for the older kids tomorrow at Charlevoix, and JB rebelled, making Patsy decide to punish her....

I'm not sure what to think of the garotte. I think that was part of the staging, done from behind so Patsy wouldn't have to see her daughter's face. The hand tying and tape were clearly staging. The sexual assault (and I could be wrong) I believe to be punishment and not for gratification. I think Patsy was punishing JB for her incontinence, which I'm sure was a much bigger problem for Patsy than she ever let on. Housekeeper LHP said JB's bed-wetting had resurfaced about a month prior to her murder - that leads me to believe she was reacting to some other stress in her life.

Also mentioned in ST's book that Patsy had called Dr Beuf three times on December 17th, but he was unable to find out why Patsy would need to call the family pediatrician about JonBenet three times in one day.

 

[sissi]

Burke was nine, he may have his Christmas eve events and his Christmas night events confused. It would seem a child when asked this question after such a lapse in time couldn't be counted on to be accurate. My Grandson had a traumatic event happen on Christmas day two years ago. The week after it happened he was fresh with correct information, months later there were forgotten spots, and now two years later, he has trouble recalling the event in detail and accuracy. He has changed it adding bits picked up in conversation with others concerning the "event". BTW, I would bet,his being in the top 1% of the nation in those "tests", that he should hold information better than most.

 

[Nuisanceposter]

Well, Burke may not be able to remember what JonBenet was wearing or something more trivial like that, but he should absolutely be able to accurately remember if his sister was awake and walked in or was sleeping and was carried. The fact that he says that she walked up the stairs ahead of their mother is enough detail to lead me to believe he remembers it. Usually when my kids are making something up they leave out detail - especially when questioned about their story.

 

[narlacat]

<<I think Patsy was punishing JB for her incontinence, which I'm sure was a much bigger problem for Patsy than she ever let on>>

I think so too.
LHP said Patsy took JBR into the bathroom and locked the door, to punish her.
I think Patsy saw the incontinence as a reflection on her self...I think it was a way bigger problem than she let on too nuisance.
And so it should have been a reflection on her, she let just about anybody help JBR with her toileting.
I think Patsy was lazy when it came to her kids, she was too busy being a soical butterfly to parent her children effectively and responsibly.

 

[rashomon]

<<I think Patsy was punishing JB for her incontinence, which I'm sure was a much bigger problem for Patsy than she ever let on>>

I think so too.
LHP said Patsy took JBR into the bathroom and locked the door, to punish her.
I think Patsy saw the incontinence as a reflection on her self...I think it was a way bigger problem than she let on too nuisance.
And so it should have been a reflection on her, she let just about anybody help JBR with her toileting.
I think Patsy was lazy when it came to her kids, she was too busy being a soical butterfly to parent her children effectively and responsibly.

When interviewed in June 1998, Burke confirmed that JB's bedwetting had been a big problem (SteveThomas, 'JB', p. 317).

 

[RiverRat]

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

JonBenet's Last Breath took care of that one. IMO.