Father says DNA could solve one of country’s biggest murder mysteries: Who killed JonBenét Ramsey

Status
Not open for further replies.
I will read it, if only because I think his theory is the least likely. He believes Burke initiated the head blow, but was not responsible for the ransom note nor garrotte?
I agree that his theory is the least likely. One thing that stands out to me in that theory is PR's behavior. She was intently focused on finding the kidnappers--and according to everyone present--she went into an emotional tailspin when her child's body was carried up from the basement.

In order for Kolar's theory to be true, Patsy would have to know her child was dead the whole time LE was setting up a kidnapping response. Her performance would have won an Emmy. Once she actually knew her child was dead, she fell apart and had to be sedated.

No, Burke didn't do it. But, Kolar does present other facts in a non-biased way so it's worth a read. It's interesting that he took evidence he didn't have a right to take when he left the BPD and the DA had to make him return it.
 
I’m wondering if after the initial indictments were handed down, considering the severity of the charges, were the Ramsey’s ever investigated by CPS regarding Burke and child abuse, dangerous environment etc?
Remember, there were no charges. The Ramseys were never charged.

The evidence was too flimsy, according to Hunter.

Here is Hunter's exact statement:

“The Boulder Grand Jury has completed its work and will not return.
No charges have been filed. The Grand Jurors have done their work
extraordinarily well, bringing to bear their legal powers, life experiences,
and shrewdness. Yet I must report to you that I and my prosecution task
force believe we do not have sufficient evidence to warrant the filing of
charges against anyone
who has been investigated at the present time.”
 
This is all my own opinion what I write here, but I write this after doing some research online about GJ, justice system and the DA. I did this research only for me, as I am from another country and do not understand the American Justice System like many other here do.

As I understand, the DA is a political party in this case and DA Hunter never wanted to move forward with the trial regardless of the results. He stalled with the GJ and went on with it because Gov. Romer insisted it after Thomas's letter. As I have learned, it is rather rare for a DA to refuse to proceed with a grand jury true bill. The "insufficient evidence" remark does not matter, as DA is allowed to proceed with the case even then, and to my understanding, it is rather suggested that it would. If there was no vote for True Bill, it would not be expected to go to trial by the GJ. But a True Bill was voted by the GJ and it was expected by the GJ that the case will proceed in trial.
Grand Jury only needs probable cause to indict someone. A reasonable belief of guilt.

I understand that DA has the power to override it, and that is exactly what happened here. But this is rare. There are only a few cases where that has actually happened because GJ's almost always goes to trial. And in the Ramsey case the Grand Jury allowed for the defense to testify and present their evidence, which is also very rare. Yes, Ramsey's did not testify, but their defense team did. Why was this allowed? Isn't defense only allowed a voice when the DA doesn't want an indictment. Was that known previously? Then the GJ was just a show.

What I see is that even though there were things done wrong during the GJ - the defense was involved and allowed to show their evidence - the GJ still did choose to indict on the charges of child abuse resulting in death and accessory to murder. One for Patsy and one for John. They simply did not decide mutually on who did exactly what. So the GJ must have believed that Alex Hunter will go forward with the trial and the actual jury would later decide who did exactly what. Even when Grand Jury recommended charges, Hunter still tried to hide this from public for months. Public had the right to know and when the results were learned there were some attorneys who spoke out saying that Hunter's actions were questionable and that: "Proper legal procedure would have involved filing the document with the court and moving to dismiss the charges in open court."

And this is why I believe that it did not happen because of lack of evidence, or not wanting to "spend the taxpayers money". This is just absurd, IMO. The result of a trial can never be predicted beforehand and DA had no reason to just override them. Unless the reasons of power, money and politics. That decision was purely political. IMO
 
This is all my own opinion what I write here, but I write this after doing some research online about GJ, justice system and the DA. I did this research only for me, as I am from another country and do not understand the American Justice System like many other here do.

As I understand, the DA is a political party in this case and DA Hunter never wanted to move forward with the trial regardless of the results.

There's no indication Hunter never wanted a trial. But he was a careful man and he wanted to have a solid case to take before judge and jury - this is why, when it became clear that the police were not doing a comprehensive investigation, Hunter wanted his own investigators to work on the case. The end result was going to be a trial, but if the Ramseys had plea-bargained with a confession, no one would have been happier than Hunter.

One thing Schiller raises is that Hunter had gone out on a limb before - he had charged a woman whose lover had killed her child, while she had given testimony against her lover in exchange for not being charged in a deal with the police. But bowing to public outrage Hunter charged the woman too, which ended her cooperation and got the killer a lower sentence, all very embarrassing for Hunter and counterproductive for justice. After that, Hunter always wanted to take his time and have a strong case before trial, and not just charging because of public pressure.

He stalled with the GJ and went on with it because Gov. Romer insisted it after Thomas's letter.

When to go with a Grand Jury is a matter of differing opinions. This is because it can be used for multiple purposes. The regular one is to get indictments so you can go to trial. The other is to use it as an investigative tool with their subpoena power - this is what Kane favored and criticized Hunter over not doing sooner (that, of course is contingent on there being actual evidence to uncover). Hunter, though, wanted more solid evidence before going in, with the risk of no-billing being a thing.

As I have learned, it is rather rare for a DA to refuse to proceed with a grand jury true bill.

It's rare, but it's also rare for the political establishment to put so much pressure on a DA to charge an individual - or two, as in this case. There was the ongoing threat of replacing him with a special prosecutor, the addition of an outside prosecutor to handle the GJ (Kane) and the forced removal of Hunter's own investigators. It was not a normal situation to begin with.

The "insufficient evidence" remark does not matter, as DA is allowed to proceed with the case even then, and to my understanding, it is rather suggested that it would.

It usually is, but if the case ends up squeaking by with only four out of eighteen charges signed and no evidence that would save them from a sure-fire acquittal, then it's like Morrissey said. Going ahead with a trial when you don't have enough evidence to win is malpractice - and an injustice to the victim.

By not charging, Hunter left the door open for future evidence to emerge against the Ramseys with a potentially successful trial and conviction. No such evidence ever emerged, of course, but that's not Hunter's fault.

If there was no vote for True Bill, it would not be expected to go to trial by the GJ. But a True Bill was voted by the GJ and it was expected by the GJ that the case will proceed in trial.

But this was not a clean true bill. Only four out of eighteen charges were signed, and not the main ones - there was no charge signed for the murder of JonBenet.

Grand Jury only needs probable cause to indict someone. A reasonable belief of guilt.

And a prosecutor needs to provide evidence beyond a reasonable doubt for the case to prevail at trial. To go ahead with a trial despite not having that, just because the public demands it?

I understand that DA has the power to override it, and that is exactly what happened here. But this is rare. There are only a few cases where that has actually happened because GJ's almost always goes to trial.

Exactly! GJs vote to indict 95% of the time, so there's usually no issue. But here they only indicted for a partial, weaker set of charges.

And in the Ramsey case the Grand Jury allowed for the defense to testify and present their evidence, which is also very rare.

The GJ has subpoena power..they can request to hear from whoever they want. But the show is still run by the prosecutors, in this case Kane, and the defense had no say. Lou Smit testified because he had been part of the prosecutor's team.

Yes, Ramsey's did not testify, but their defense team did.

Calling it their defense team is wrong. Lou Smit (former part of the prosecution, not part of the defense) fought a legal battle to be able to present his evidence. Even so,.that was one day of a year's worth of unopposed prosecutorial presentations.

Why was this allowed? Isn't defense only allowed a voice when the DA doesn't want an indictment. Was that known previously? Then the GJ was just a show.

Smit first sent a letter to the GJ foreman, asking to be able to present evidence. Kane denied it, so Smit sued to be able to appear, and won. And there's a stark difference in that the prosecutors are always present, and Smit (while not divulging what his testimony was) said the prosecutors were confrontational and dismissive.

This wasn't some unbiased, equal session where the prosecution presents their case, the defense theirs and the GJ decides. This was the prosecution's show, start to end.

What I see is that even though there were things done wrong during the GJ - the defense was involved and allowed to show their evidence - the GJ still did choose to indict on the charges of child abuse resulting in death and accessory to murder.

The defense wasn't "allowed". Smit fought a legal battle to be able to present his evidence. The Ramseys had also requested to be heard, but the prosecutors denied them.

One for Patsy and one for John. They simply did not decide mutually on who did exactly what. So the GJ must have believed that Alex Hunter will go forward with the trial and the actual jury would later decide who did exactly what.

It's not clear at all that they must have believed that. The Grand Jury doesn't decide on strategy, they just decide on what the prosecution has been able to show probable cause for. If no evidence has been presented to show who killed JonBenet, then a trial jury - who needs evidence at a much higher standard - will not be able to decide that either - as the interviewed Grand Juror made clear he understood perfectly.

Even when Grand Jury recommended charges, Hunter still tried to hide this from public for months.

His statement was perfectly true. They didn't have enough evidence to go to trial and reach a conviction.

Public had the right to know and when the results were learned there were some attorneys who spoke out saying that Hunter's actions were questionable and that: "Proper legal procedure would have involved filing the document with the court and moving to dismiss the charges in open court."

Yet Hunter didn't reach this decision alone. He consulted with the involved prosecutors Kane, Morrissey and Levin, and as Morrissey later confirmed, they recommended Hunter do what he did.

The panel convened by governor Owens - the true political force in this case - came to the conclusion that Hunter hadn't erred.

The suggestion by the lawyer quoted above wouldn't have changed anything.

And this is why I believe that it did not happen because of lack of evidence, or not wanting to "spend the taxpayers money". This is just absurd, IMO.

Not to those who actually know the case and handled the Grand Jury. Kane has been pretty aggressively anti-Ramsey over the years, both Hunter and Morrissey suspected them - yet they didn't think there was enough evidence to prevail at a trial.

And neither did the interviewed Grand Juror.

The result of a trial can never be predicted beforehand and DA had no reason to just override them.

That is just not true. A case so weak only four out of eighteen charges were signed, and thirteen months of GJ hearings not turning up any new evidence, is a sure loser at trial. If you throw yourself off a ten story building you can't predict that a mattress delivery truck will not park right below you while you're in mid air - but you shouldn't bet on it either.

Unless the reasons of power, money and politics. That decision was purely political. IMO

How was it political? That if anything is absurd. No political pressure was ever evident on the Ramsey's behalf,.while one, arguably two governor(s) applied pressure against them.
 
This is all my own opinion what I write here, but I write this after doing some research online about GJ, justice system and the DA. I did this research only for me, as I am from another country and do not understand the American Justice System like many other here do.

As I understand, the DA is a political party in this case and DA Hunter never wanted to move forward with the trial regardless of the results. He stalled with the GJ and went on with it because Gov. Romer insisted it after Thomas's letter. As I have learned, it is rather rare for a DA to refuse to proceed with a grand jury true bill. The "insufficient evidence" remark does not matter, as DA is allowed to proceed with the case even then, and to my understanding, it is rather suggested that it would. If there was no vote for True Bill, it would not be expected to go to trial by the GJ. But a True Bill was voted by the GJ and it was expected by the GJ that the case will proceed in trial.
Grand Jury only needs probable cause to indict someone. A reasonable belief of guilt.
It seems as though every official involved with this case was labeled as being "political" or playing favorites at some point by someone else. Remember that Lou Smit accused the BPD of being unreasonably biased against the Ramseys and making them victims of a witch hunt.
I understand that DA has the power to override it, and that is exactly what happened here. But this is rare. There are only a few cases where that has actually happened because GJ's almost always goes to trial. And in the Ramsey case the Grand Jury allowed for the defense to testify and present their evidence, which is also very rare. Yes, Ramsey's did not testify, but their defense team did. Why was this allowed? Isn't defense only allowed a voice when the DA doesn't want an indictment. Was that known previously? Then the GJ was just a show.
GJ indictments don't typically go to trial. Only a small number do because most are pleaded or dropped like this one.

This entire case was political, as you mention, and the Whites were putting political pressure on the governor and demanding a Special Prosecutor.

In reality, the DA's office didn't think there was enough evidence to convene a grand jury but public pressure, stirred up greatly by the Whites, was wreaking chaos.

And, it's too bad it happened that way.

What I see is that even though there were things done wrong during the GJ - the defense was involved and allowed to show their evidence - the GJ still did choose to indict on the charges of child abuse resulting in death and accessory to murder. One for Patsy and one for John. They simply did not decide mutually on who did exactly what. So the GJ must have believed that Alex Hunter will go forward with the trial and the actual jury would later decide who did exactly what. Even when Grand Jury recommended charges, Hunter still tried to hide this from public for months. Public had the right to know and when the results were learned there were some attorneys who spoke out saying that Hunter's actions were questionable and that: "Proper legal procedure would have involved filing the document with the court and moving to dismiss the charges in open court."

No, that wouldn't have been "proper legal procedure." There are two parties involved in filing criminal charges--the GJ is one party and the DA is the other. If either of them choose not to charge--there are no charges.
And this is why I believe that it did not happen because of lack of evidence, or not wanting to "spend the taxpayers money". This is just absurd, IMO. The result of a trial can never be predicted beforehand and DA had no reason to just override them. Unless the reasons of power, money and politics. That decision was purely political. IMO
The Whites' push was absolutely political, and several media outlets commented on the possibility that Fleet was involved in JBR's death.

Lou Smit, who was one of the highest-regarded detectives, made strong points in his resignation letter. Copied here from Koval's book:

“Dear Alex,
It is with great reluctance and regret that I submit this letter of
resignation. Even though I want to continue to participate in the official

investigation and assist in finding the killer of JonBenét, I find that I cannot
in good conscience be part of the persecution of innocent people. It would
be highly improper and unethical for me to stay when I so strongly believe
this…

At this point in the investigation the “case” tells me that John and

Patsy Ramsey did not kill their daughter, that a very dangerous killer is still
out there and no one is actively looking for him….

The case tells me there is substantial, credible, evidence of an intruder
and lack of evidence that the parents are involved...”


That's really the saddest of all of this--a vicious child killer was out there and the BPD was involved in a witchhunt of the Ramseys.

MOO
 
This is all my own opinion what I write here, but I write this after doing some research online about GJ, justice system and the DA. I did this research only for me, as I am from another country and do not understand the American Justice System like many other here do.

As I understand, the DA is a political party in this case and DA Hunter never wanted to move forward with the trial regardless of the results. He stalled with the GJ and went on with it because Gov. Romer insisted it after Thomas's letter. As I have learned, it is rather rare for a DA to refuse to proceed with a grand jury true bill. The "insufficient evidence" remark does not matter, as DA is allowed to proceed with the case even then, and to my understanding, it is rather suggested that it would. If there was no vote for True Bill, it would not be expected to go to trial by the GJ. But a True Bill was voted by the GJ and it was expected by the GJ that the case will proceed in trial.
Grand Jury only needs probable cause to indict someone. A reasonable belief of guilt.

I understand that DA has the power to override it, and that is exactly what happened here. But this is rare. There are only a few cases where that has actually happened because GJ's almost always goes to trial. And in the Ramsey case the Grand Jury allowed for the defense to testify and present their evidence, which is also very rare. Yes, Ramsey's did not testify, but their defense team did. Why was this allowed? Isn't defense only allowed a voice when the DA doesn't want an indictment. Was that known previously? Then the GJ was just a show.

What I see is that even though there were things done wrong during the GJ - the defense was involved and allowed to show their evidence - the GJ still did choose to indict on the charges of child abuse resulting in death and accessory to murder. One for Patsy and one for John. They simply did not decide mutually on who did exactly what. So the GJ must have believed that Alex Hunter will go forward with the trial and the actual jury would later decide who did exactly what. Even when Grand Jury recommended charges, Hunter still tried to hide this from public for months. Public had the right to know and when the results were learned there were some attorneys who spoke out saying that Hunter's actions were questionable and that: "Proper legal procedure would have involved filing the document with the court and moving to dismiss the charges in open court."

And this is why I believe that it did not happen because of lack of evidence, or not wanting to "spend the taxpayers money". This is just absurd, IMO. The result of a trial can never be predicted beforehand and DA had no reason to just override them. Unless the reasons of power, money and politics. That decision was purely political. IMO
@GRT I fully agree with your comments. @Ponytale I think it is important to note that the Defense was not allowed to participate as it is in all GJ processes since the objective is to decide if the prosecutor has enough evidence to proceed. There was evidence presented that would have helped the defense (the intruder theory and the other write analysts that disagreed with Pat's writing the letter) but it was presented as part of the prosecutor's investigation. The reason Lou went to extremes to participate is because he strongly believed that an stranger was the culprit and that the police had not followed that lead at all because he felt they were biased with their hypothesis. The defense did not participate.
 
@GRT I fully agree with your comments. @Ponytale I think it is important to note that the Defense was not allowed to participate as it is in all GJ processes since the objective is to decide if the prosecutor has enough evidence to proceed. There was evidence presented that would have helped the defense (the intruder theory and the other write analysts that disagreed with Pat's writing the letter) but it was presented as part of the prosecutor's investigation. The reason Lou went to extremes to participate is because he strongly believed that an stranger was the culprit and that the police had not followed that lead at all because he felt they were biased with their hypothesis. The defense did not participate.
However the Grand Jury did indeed hear from Douglas and Smit their theory regarding an intruder having committed the murder and again....The Grand Jury rejected it and voted to indict the parents.
 
This is why I think it’s the least likely. It defies logic that a 9-year-old fashioned a working garrotte when veteran homicide investigators say they had never seen one in their entire careers. 9-year-olds do not tell their fathers to “grow a brain” or “use that Southern good sense” when JR was born in Michigan. And this young boy had no access to p**n in that era. There is simply zero evidence that someone showed him these sadistic devices, including writing a sadistic letter and then he could hide it from the police and social workers. No way, imo
And that is exactly why I think PR did the deed. Housekeeper said that Patsy had been in tears after JR yelled at her over housecleaning and her lack of cooking skills. I am pretty sure that would have really fried the beauty queen. Especially after filling that house with christmas stuff. She seemed pretty high strung and thin skinned. Just by observing her interviews.

And why attack JR personally? Did PR think JBR was replacing her in JR's affections? Mother being jealous over daughters is not new.

The letter was long because PR had to get her digs into John, IMO. PR blamed JR for her actions.
 
A couple points - I just can’t take the time to snip and comment on so many other lengthy comments -

One, I get tired of disingenuous assertions that Lou Smit worked for the prosecution. He was as pro-Defense as you can get.

Two, it is my belief that Hunter could have prosecuted the Rs on the true bills they had. That it was not for murder is, in my opinion, the reason he did not proceed. In other words, it was an all or nothing decision.
IMO
 
A couple points - I just can’t take the time to snip and comment on so many other lengthy comments -

One, I get tired of disingenuous assertions that Lou Smit worked for the prosecution. He was as pro-Defense as you can get.

It's not disingenuous. Smit was hired by the prosecution and developed his evidence while working for them. That is what he wanted to show the GJ, evidence he thought they needed to hear to make an informed decision. He wasn't part of the Ramseys' defense, unless you somehow become that by disagreeing with the prosecution.
 
It's not disingenuous. Smit was hired by the prosecution and developed his evidence while working for them. That is what he wanted to show the GJ, evidence he thought they needed to hear to make an informed decision. He wasn't part of the Ramseys' defense, unless you somehow become that by disagreeing with the prosecution.
Yes, obviously we all know he was not officially part of the Rs Defense. But he was very pro R. Their side. Regardless of who signed his paycheque.

It is you who continues to remind us that a GJ is not a trial where the prosecution and defense both make their case. Yet you say “he wanted to show them evidence he thought they needed to hear to make an informed decision”. He gave them info that you yourself claim is not done in GJ proceedings because it is not the purpose of the GJ. What he gave them was info that in fact was appropriate for an actual jury in an actual trial to “make an informed decision”.
 
Last edited:
Yes, obviously we all know he was not officially part of the Rs Defense. But he was very pro R. Their side. Regardless of who signed his paycheque.

Or pro-JonBenet if you see it from his perspective.

It is you who continues to remind us that a GJ is not a trial where the prosecution and defense both make their case. Yet you say “he wanted to show them evidence he thought they needed to hear to make an informed decision”. He gave them info that you yourself claim is not done in GJ proceedings because it is not the purpose of the GJ. What he gave them was info that in fact was appropriate for an actual jury in an actual trial to “make an informed decision”.

Normally Smit would have made the request, the prosecutors would deny him like they did the Ramseys and that would be that. But Smit forced the issue by suing to be heard and got a court to agree. I haven't seen that decision, but that's why the claims that the "defense got to present" is the wrong claim to make. Smit wasn't invited by obsequious prosecutors - he forced them to hear him. And the prosecutors still got to counter Smit during his presentation.
 
Only under great pressure from the Whites. Fleet threatened to sue them and wrote rambling, disjointed letters (with a writing voice much like the ransom note) to the Boulder newspaper and others. According to internal conversations, the BPD decided the safest thing to do was name them as witnesses, not suspects so that they could change that designation at any time in the future.

And, Fleet ran around the basement touching everything when he was supposed to be guarding the basement door -- plus, the Whites had a story about how JBR had soiled her underwear at the Whites earlier and and Fleet had changed them, so they pretty much covered all their bases about how Fleet's DNA, fingerprints, etc., could have been all over the child. Plus, he touched her dead body in the basement.

FDI
The White's had been cleared by LE. Yet the Ramseys were ensuring through certain people in their circle (that they lied to) that rumors and lies were getting circulated in the Boulder community. So yes, Fleet pursued having an official announcement made. I would've done the same if someone mounted a false campaign to undermine my integrity and present me as a whack job in order to keep suspicion away from them.

The incident you referred to previously about the piece of glass happened BEFORE the body was found. He did not run around the basement touching everything, where are you getting your information? Yes he ran back down there and moved the tape onto the blanket. He should not have done that. Neither should John have taken it off JonBenet or touched her at all, let alone picked her up and brought her upstairs. Spreading DNA? Shall we acknowledge how the Ramseys invited a house full of people over to spread their DNA around? Patsy throwing herself on the body? Was Fleet's DNA found on the body? No. The clothing she was wearing? No. The blanket she was wrapped in or the nightgown next to her? No.

Fleet had recounted that there had been times in the when he had to wipe JonBenet and that there had been at least one time where she soiled herself and had to have her panties changed while visiting them and playing with Daphne. He did not say that it happened Christmas night. Her parents were present. One of them would've taken care of that. There is no story about having her panties changed at the White's on Christmas night. False.
 
@GRT I fully agree with your comments. @Ponytale I think it is important to note that the Defense was not allowed to participate as it is in all GJ processes since the objective is to decide if the prosecutor has enough evidence to proceed. There was evidence presented that would have helped the defense (the intruder theory and the other write analysts that disagreed with Pat's writing the letter) but it was presented as part of the prosecutor's investigation. The reason Lou went to extremes to participate is because he strongly believed that a stranger was the culprit and that the police had not followed that lead at all because he felt they were biased with their hypothesis. The defense did not participate.

There wasn’t a “defense team?”

For perspective consider:

“Judge Lowenbach (the judge who decided Brennan v, Garnett, the case that got the indictments released)”

2013
“This court agrees that transparency of a prosecutor’s decision not to proceed with an indictment from the Grand Jury is in the public interest. Under the rationale of the prevailing opinions in Cox, the term “record of official action” in the form of an indictment should include the completed work of the grand jury, even if the district attorney has declined to sign it. This court agrees that the fact of this official action should not happen in secret in circumstances that give the public the impression that the grand jury has declined to act”
Colorado Judicial website

IMO Alex Hunter thought that the GJ would issue “no true bill” and then, because of newly passed statute in Colorado, anyone aledged to have committed a murder/crime could be exonerated. The Ramsey’s would be cleared. FYI- The DA has the power to move indictments to trial despite No True Bill.

The deliberation of the GJ was delayed until that bill was passed 4/97. (The bill was introduced 2 weeks after the murder) The details and all the connections/conflicts of interest/ shenanigans of the DA’s office with this statute and the grand jury are in Fleet Whites open letter which is available on R.

MOO. Fleet Whites letter
8/17/98
 
It's not disingenuous. Smit was hired by the prosecution and developed his evidence while working for them. That is what he wanted to show the GJ, evidence he thought they needed to hear to make an informed decision. He wasn't part of the Ramseys' defense, unless you somehow become that by disagreeing with the prosecution.
Smit provided evidence?

Didn’t he provide a theory?

Didn’t the GJ have a “defense team?

“Smit was hired by the prosecution”
What is your source for that?
 
There wasn’t a “defense team?”

Not presenting before the Grand Jury.

The deliberation of the GJ was delayed until that bill was passed 4/97. (The bill was introduced 2 weeks after the murder) The details and all the connections/conflicts of interest/ shenanigans of the DA’s office with this statute and the grand jury are in Fleet Whites open letter which is available on R.

MOO. Fleet Whites letter
8/17/98

The deliberation was delayed by a law that passed a year and a half before the GJ was even empanelled?

And the less said about Fleet's tinfoil hattery the better.

Smit provided evidence?

That's what he was there to do

Didn’t he provide a theory?

Based on the evidence.

Didn’t the GJ have a “defense team?

Nope

“Smit was hired by the prosecution”
What is your source for that?

Schiller, PMPT. Also any other book on the case. Lou Smit and Tom Haney were hired as investigators by the DA.
 
IMO Alex Hunter thought that the GJ would issue “no true bill” and then, because of newly passed statute in Colorado, anyone aledged to have committed a murder/crime could be exonerated. The Ramsey’s would be cleared. FYI- The DA has the power to move indictments to trial despite No True Bill.
And there is a real possibility that this was the case. It would explain a lot. IMO
 
Or pro-JonBenet if you see it from his perspective.



Normally Smit would have made the request, the prosecutors would deny him like they did the Ramseys and that would be that. But Smit forced the issue by suing to be heard and got a court to agree. I haven't seen that decision, but that's why the claims that the "defense got to present" is the wrong claim to make. Smit wasn't invited by obsequious prosecutors - he forced them to hear him. And the prosecutors still got to counter Smit during his presentation.
But Dr Beuf testified. Close Ramsey friend, attended the same
Not presenting before the Grand Jury.



The deliberation was delayed by a law that passed a year and a half before the GJ was even empanelled?

And the less said about Fleet's tinfoil hattery the better.



That's what he was there to do



Based on the evidence.



Nope



Schiller, PMPT. Also any other book on the case. Lou Smit and Tom Haney were hired as investigators by the DA.

And there is a real possibility that this was the case. It would explain a lot. IMO
I hope you have an opportunity to read that letter. The amount of conflicts of interest with the DA, judicial system, Lockheed is just one more extraordinary detail about this murder, and the pursuit for justice. Fleet White is a warrior IMO.
 
Not presenting before the Grand Jury.



The deliberation was delayed by a law that passed a year and a half before the GJ was even empanelled?

And the less said about Fleet's tinfoil hattery the better.
Wait...Wasn't your theory that a 20 year old male college student committed the murder? And that an " intruder" left a pile of cigarette butts in the alley?
Wheres the evidence for that?
That's what he was there to do
Which the grand jury rejected.
Based on the evidence.'
MOO....he had a theory and tried to come up with evidence to fit his theory. Either way.....Grand Jury didnt buy it.
Nope



Schiller, PMPT. Also any other book on the case. Lou Smit and Tom Haney were hired as investigators by the DA.
 
MOO....he had a theory and tried to come up with evidence to fit his theory. Either way.....Grand Jury didnt buy it.
Hit the nail on the head.

John Ramsey stated that he and Patsy had heard that Lou used to park in front of the Ramsey house every morning on his way to work to pray. So John decided that they should go to the house, introduce themselves and pray with Lou. They got in his van and did just that.

What Lou Smit recorded about this gathering: "That prayer was really an emotional experience. And when I said that, I pray that the Lord will be with the soul of Jonbenet, and I felt John's hand squeeze so tightly*. And I just felt at that time, there's no way this man could have anything to do with the death of his daughter."*

From that moment on he not only lost objectivity but any sense of professionalism he may have had. It was highly inappropriate for him to embark upon a personal relationship with the Ramseys while investigating the case. And it then became all about proving their innocence and making the evidence fit to that scenario instead of following where the evidence led.

He defied the DA by keeping investigative materials that he should have returned, as they were in his possession because he was on the DA's payroll, when he resigned from the case and severed his relationship with the DA's office and the prosecution team. At some point after the GJ, he embarked on a self promoted media tour to anyone and everyone who would give him a platform, at which time his theories went virtually unchallenged. But we know in reality much of his theorized opinions were easily debunked.

Reading transcripts of Lou's interviews with John is quite revealing IMO.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
124
Guests online
1,378
Total visitors
1,502

Forum statistics

Threads
616,404
Messages
18,350,079
Members
237,053
Latest member
Sleepy Turtle
Back
Top