Lou Smit's Agenda

Here's a good opportunity for the Smit disparagers to post their reasons for believing that Lou is a liar, highly subjective in his interpretations of the evidence, and inclined toward tortured distortions of the facts, etc.

Let's try to limit the discussion here to his Agenda as evidenced by the aforementioned professional misconduct, not his theory (assuming he has one) and refrain from commenting on his flawed analyses.

Sometimes it's hard to discern whether the Smit antagonists are arguing that his theories and analysis are flawed because Smit himself is flawed, or the other way around.

I vote that he has no agenda other than to obtain justice for JonBenet.

i respect lou smit. i do not think he has an agenda. i understand this thread is in regards to his agenda, but i think that you are misconstruing some people's (or at least my own!) perspective of lou smit's work with an agenda. although they are unrelated, if one has issue with his work, they will disagree with any conclusions he brings to the table. therefore, i feel this post to be relevant. i will offer my 2 major criticisms of his work, though, only the second of which, he is personally responsible for.

1-smit did not get involved in the case until 3 months after the crime was committed, and well after the body was buried and the crime scene altered. this is something that he cannot control, but it is something that will affect his analysis. we all know that much of the crime scene was altered that very morning all the way up to the point that JR carried JBR's body upstairs. to visit the house afterwards may give you a sense of the environment, but it doesn't give much in the way of hard evidence. photos can only be taken so far.

2-smit seems to shrug off the suggestion that a ramsey did this, without addressing the numerous pieces of hard evidence that suggest otherwise. if anyone is going to put forth an intruder theory, they need to fully dismiss the suggestion that a ramsey is responsible. truth is, there is much evidence pointing to either theory, but in my opinion, neither side can prevail without refuting the evidence to the contrary.

smit, in his resignation letter stated, "instead of letting the case tell them which way to go, they have elected to follow a theory and let *their theory direct them rather than allowing the evidence to direct them." he is absolutely nuts if he doesn't see why any detective on 12/26/96 would have immediately thought a ramsey was guilty. noone thought the ramseys were guilty because of the media...this is where the evidence, at least at first, pointed.

i am interested to hear your perspective, RC, on these points.

RedChief said:

Here's a good opportunity for the Smit disparagers to post their reasons for believing that Lou is a liar, highly subjective in his interpretations of the evidence, and inclined toward tortured distortions of the facts, etc.

Let's try to limit the discussion here to his Agenda as evidenced by the aforementioned professional misconduct, not his theory (assuming he has one) and refrain from commenting on his flawed analyses.

Sometimes it's hard to discern whether the Smit antagonists are arguing that his theories and analysis are flawed because Smit himself is flawed, or the other way around.

I vote that he has no agenda other than to obtain justice for JonBenet.

Click to expand...

Looks like the only thing we can comment on in this thread is "Lou Smit's agenda", which I interpret as meaning his motive in doing what he's doing. Okay, I'll bite:

IMO Lou Smit's motive for doing what he's doing is primarily religion. Smit bonded early-on with the Ramseys over religion and, as we all know, anyone who is religious cannot possibly do anything evil (TIC).

BlueCrab

Voice of Reason said:

i respect lou smit. i do not think he has an agenda. i understand this thread is in regards to his agenda, but i think that you are misconstruing some people's (or at least my own!) perspective of lou smit's work with an agenda. although they are unrelated, if one has issue with his work, they will disagree with any conclusions he brings to the table. therefore, i feel this post to be relevant. i will offer my 2 major criticisms of his work, though, only the second of which, he is personally responsible for.

1-smit did not get involved in the case until 3 months after the crime was committed, and well after the body was buried and the crime scene altered. this is something that he cannot control, but it is something that will affect his analysis. we all know that much of the crime scene was altered that very morning all the way up to the point that JR carried JBR's body upstairs. to visit the house afterwards may give you a sense of the environment, but it doesn't give much in the way of hard evidence. photos can only be taken so far.

2-smit seems to shrug off the suggestion that a ramsey did this, without addressing the numerous pieces of hard evidence that suggest otherwise. if anyone is going to put forth an intruder theory, they need to fully dismiss the suggestion that a ramsey is responsible. truth is, there is much evidence pointing to either theory, but in my opinion, neither side can prevail without refuting the evidence to the contrary.

smit, in his resignation letter stated, "instead of letting the case tell them which way to go, they have elected to follow a theory and let *their theory direct them rather than allowing the evidence to direct them." he is absolutely nuts if he doesn't see why any detective on 12/26/96 would have immediately thought a ramsey was guilty. noone thought the ramseys were guilty because of the media...this is where the evidence, at least at first, pointed.

i am interested to hear your perspective, RC, on these points.

Click to expand...

OK, good, Voice, now you're being reasonable....in my estimation, I hasten to add.


"although they are unrelated, if one has issue with his work, they will disagree with any conclusions he brings to the table." I couldn't agree more. I don't scold anyone for disagreeing with Smit. I disagree with him myself, on some of his analysis especially. I do take issue with those who proclaim that he deliberately distorts facts and engages in highly subjective analysis, etc., and is, therefore, not to be taken seriously. What do they expect to gain by this character assassination (did I spell that right?)? The proper way to discuss evidence and analysis, etc., is to avoid disparaging those who present it and remark about it. No one has a monopoly on knowledge, analytical ability and proper assessment of behavior, etc. Smit DOES have a lot of experience; I think that alone gives him credibility, and makes his statements worth pricking our ears to. It doesn't mean he can't be wrong. If we have an honest disagreement with him, and can dispassionatley, and respectfully state our counterarguments, that's one thing. To suggest that he's totally wrong with every opinion he's offered is quite another. To do that, is to suggest that either he has an agenda, or he's a fool.

"he is absolutely nuts if he doesn't see why any detective on 12/26/96 would have immediately thought a ramsey was guilty." Here you go again, bashing Smit, and you're right, this is the place to do it--in this thread. I don't recall that Smit ever said he didn't see why any detective on 12/26/96 could be suspicious of a Ramsey. If memory serves, he, himself was suspicious of them when he first began investigating the case. I think what he tried to say, and didn't say clearly enough to avoid criticism, is that once it became evident that someone other than a Ramsey might have been involved, the investigation should have steered in a new direction--in the direction of what he saw as evidence of the involvement of an unknown. He, himself, said, if the evidence leads to the Ramseys, so be it. He, himself, said that he's convicted Christians before; hasn't shyed away from convicting Christians. I suppose one could easily verify that claim via public records.

I think a lot of people think that Lou has a agenda, and that it's not aimed at seeking the truth, but rather to exonerate the Ramseys at all costs, even to shattering his reputation. I think that's a false impression. JMO. I wonder how he ever managed to solve all those many homicides that's he's been commended for???? It may be, I'll grant, that having solved the Heather Dawn Church homicide, he's a little biased in favor of an intruder, though I don't know that to be the case. Maybe he's just keenly aware that what first appears to be the case, is not always the case.

I don't take serious objection to either of your two major points. I think you've made some valid observations. It's too bad that Smit didn't come onto the scene before the body had been discharged from the morgue and sent home. Then we probably wouldn't be fighting about this stun gun hypothesis. We'd know one way or the other. It's too bad he wasn't the first detective on the scene that morning; then maybe we wouldn't be arguing whether it was an intruder or the Ramseys. Unfortunately, we have to play with the cards we're dealt.

One more point (already stated elsewhere) that's inherent in the following question: If Thomas' detective work and theory and analyses were so highly valued, why wasn't he called to testify before the grand jury? Just askin'.

Let's don't be blinded by our own biases; that's all I'm asking. That's an easy rut to fall in to.

Oh..."without addressing the numerous pieces of hard evidence that suggest otherwise [than an intruder]." Which numerous pieces are those? Also, there is a theory floating around (UKGuy has alluded to it) that there might have been an intruder who was a family friend/acquaintance that the Ramseys are reluctant to identify for one reason or another. What do you think of this possibility?

Darn...this thread's rapidly getting out of control...

Lou's agenda was to be the super detective he previously proved himself to be on the prior case (forgot the girl's name) - where he recognized a stun gun mark and was proclaimed a hero.

He was called in by the D.A's office (who was in conflict with the police/investigators in this case) to obtain a fresh look at the Ramsey case.

Smit's EGO went charging into the crime investigation - once he prayed with the Ramsey's, his agenda was to prove an intruder....to once again be proclaimed as the lone hero in this case.

Smit says his agenda is to "stand in the shoes of the victim" - but he never did that in this case (or he would never have disregarded the pineapple) - Smit's real agenda was to maintain his reputation and his EGO.

TLynn said:

Lou's agenda was to be the super detective he previously proved himself to be on the prior case (forgot the girl's name) - where he recognized a stun gun mark and was proclaimed a hero.

He was called in by the D.A's office (who was in conflict with the police/investigators in this case) to obtain a fresh look at the Ramsey case.

Smit's EGO went charging into the crime investigation - once he prayed with the Ramsey's, his agenda was to prove an intruder....to once again be proclaimed as the lone hero in this case.

Smit says his agenda is to "stand in the shoes of the victim" - but he never did that in this case (or he would never have disregarded the pineapple) - Smit's real agenda was to maintain his reputation and his EGO.

Click to expand...

EGO, yes, that's a possibility.

What's the case you're referring to; the one where Smit recognized a stun gun mark, solved the case and was proclaimed a hero? So, you don't think he actually deserved that accolade? I was thinking he might have been biased because of his success in the Heather Dawn Church case; the one where he found a print (no stun mark) which was traced to the killer? In that case, too, "everyone" thought the parents had done it.

The DA's office was in conflict with the police in the case? In what sense were they in conflict? They were demanding solid evidence, and the police weren't producing it? Hunter wanted evidence and Thomas wanted to follow his gut?

I think he said he prayed with the Ramseys in order to give them the impression he was trying to be objective. Whereas Smit was trying to gain their confidence, the BPD were driving a wedge. What made the Ramseys think they'd fare better with Smit and Ainsworth than with Thomas?

Smit would never have disregarded the pineapple? I wasn't aware that he had disregarded the pineapple. How could he? Didn't Smit suspect that the pineapple had been taken from a container in her bedroom and eaten? Has that idea ever been shown to be erroneous?

Here's what John Douglas had to say about the pineapple (I paraphrase); it's not important. It might help to establish the time of death but nothing more. So, why would the parents be reluctant to admit that the child had been eating pineapple? Patsy has been quoted as saying the kids were free to help themselves to the pineapple. She didn't say that they hadn't. She said that she didn't feed them any.

Obviously, JonBenet had eaten something that night that hadn't cleared her small intestine; we've been over this subject with an electron microcsope. The experts are saying it was pineapple. There was a bowl of pineapple on the dinner table with a serving spoon in it. Had she helped herself to the pineapple or had someone served it to her? Dunno. If it could be proved that she ate the pineapple around about the time she was supposed to have been sleeping, according to the parents, then they may have lied. Unfortunately, for the investigators, they can't pin down when the pineapple was consumed. It looks like she was killed about an hour after, but we can't be sure about that either.

Thomas, in his depo, was unable to state definitively that she had eaten pineapple or that the pineapple was from the same batch as was found in the home. In his book he said it was identical down to the rind. In his depo, he was forced to back off from that. No matter, the pineapple isn't immensely relevant.

How is Smit going to maintain his reputation by surrendering to his EGO? Or is that his reputation--egomaniac?

The piggy bank is getting full...

Lou Smits agenda is not to put horse blinders on. Lou's agenda is to find truth not speculation.

IMO any "agenda" as opposed to "interest" or "passion" would be Religion. Ahh, religion.

When religion ruled the world, it was called the Dark Ages. You can all look that up on the Wikipedia, friends, if you think i jest.

GuruJosh said:

IMO any "agenda" as opposed to "interest" or "passion" would be Religion. Ahh, religion.

When religion ruled the world, it was called the Dark Ages. You can all look that up on the Wikipedia, friends, if you think i jest.

Click to expand...

From Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition:

agenda--an underlying often ideological plan or program <a political ~>

interest--there are five definitions, none of which is remotely linked to agenda nor remotely opposed to agenda.

passion--there are five definitions, none of which is remotely linked to agenda nor remotely opposed to agenda.

The thread is concerned with Lou Smit's agenda; why some think he isn't following the evidence, but rather following an agenda--carrying out a program to exonerate the Ramseys, despite "evidence" of their guilt. Maybe he's a Ramsey operative, a plant?

Religion? So Lou Smit is determined to exonerate all who are Christians? Does this notion have any basis in fact, or is it siezed upon as a stratagem to disparage Smit in order to counter the IDI argument?

Thanks for your contribution...