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.
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...