rashomon,
Some accounts suggest Patsy never knew about the head injury, and mistakenly killed JonBenet when the wine-cellar staging was constructed?
.
Lawrence Smith Replies - If you can say that
- Thread starter Solace
- Start date
rashomon,
Some accounts suggest Patsy never knew about the head injury, and mistakenly killed JonBenet when the wine-cellar staging was constructed?
.
I can see that. While those of us who have seen that horrible fractured skull can't imagine NOT feeling that hole, it IS possible that PR never did feel it.
DeeDee249,
I guess it depends on your favorite theory, but many people seem to iron out inconsistencies in their theories with qualifications such as not feeling the fracture or panic etc.
imo there was a degree of measured planning applied to the staging, since if you accept that John was involved prior to the 911 call, then he patently vetoed certain courses of action e.g. federal lea involvement?
I reckon Patsy, John and Burke, along with as yet unnamed individuals were involved in a conspiracy to cover up JonBenet's death, and avoid any convictions.
JMO8778
..at the beach!
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2006
- Messages
- 5,554
- Reaction score
- 38
like who? do you mean someone(s) JR called (for sure he had help via that route,IMO),or that there were others there that night?
I don't think BR was involved,other than knowing more than he's saying,ie-he heard the scream,and or his parents talking,etc.
I'm not sure if I have understood you correctly - do you mean that per these accounts, Patsy, while staging the 'garrote' scene in the basement, accidentally inflicted the head injury?
JMO8778,
I reckon John phoned for advice, and he need not say we have a dead body etc, so those he phoned and others subsequent to the post-mortem have colluded to avoid a court appearance, and any prospect of a conviction. A lot of the media stuff and Lou Smit's Sherlock Holmes act was all pure PR, designed to hoodwink the public, very little was motivated by the desire to arrest Jonbenet's killer.
Burke was involved, he knows way more than what is suggested by all the books, he may not have done any staging, or physically harmed JonBenet, but I reckon he was up and awake, and knew something was taking place, and this applies from the time frame in which JonBenet was killed right through to the 911 call. I reckon Burke was told to go back to bed and fake being asleep, this will be why he was moved out asap, since if interviewed, he may just let something slip, damaging the parents version of events, as he did eventually by saying JonBenet walked into the house, whereas the parents say she was carried sleeping. Anyway Burkes continued silence tells you he is colluding.
Get this: You have read up on this case, you have considered Lou Smit's IDI theory, given the forensic evidence, we know that that particular IDI theory is false. Now if we know this, and Lou Smit who has had access to far more forensic evidence than us, must also know this, then why should he continue with his public stance on this issue? He can say he believes this or that in the same manner he professes his christian beliefs, so why does he not publicly accept his IDI theory is redundant?
Its not possible to suggest he is ignorant or misguided, he is an experienced investigator, so why does he continue proclaiming the IDI theory as sound?
Answers on a postcard to the X-Files Conspiracy Laboratory ...
rashomon,
No the other way round, she inflicts the head injury as a consequence of the Toilet Rage, and not realizing she is still alive then kills her whilst staging the garrote scene.
That is JonBenet's head injury was accidental, but thinking she was dead, this is the reason why no medical assistance was sought for her, sadly Patsy mistakenly garrotes JonBenet, thus inadvertently killing her. An alternative scenario ropes in John to enact a similar scene.
.
JMO8778
..at the beach!
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2006
- Messages
- 5,554
- Reaction score
- 38
amen to that.
what would he say then,if he didn't come right out and say JB was dead?
it does,I just think from what he said on the 911 call,that he was genuinely surprised there was a crisis that morning.And he was ordered quickly back to bed,then ushered out,after LE arrives and SEES for themselves that he's 'asleep'.
pride-he can't admit he was wrong,he felt sorry for Patsy having cancer...who knows.I also think he was hired to 'find' an intruder,or rather,to make the IDI theory 'fit' somehow,and that's how he came up w/ that stun gun nonsense.
I haven't heard anything on him lately,it seems maybe his silence is the key? it's deafening...if he really believed there was an intruder,he should have been the first one to be jumping up and down,"I told you there was an intruder!",during the Karr fiasco,or rather,afterwards,at the least.
Instead,nothing,just nothing.
UKGuy, I follow what you are saying, and I agree. I do feel JR did the garroting, though, I feel he came on board with this crime right after his wife accidentally caused the skull fracture. And yes, while I do not feel BR was a part of the staging, I do think he was sent to bed and told NOT to move out of that bed till they came or him. He may not know everything but he knows MORE than we think.
DeeDee249,
I'm not certain who performed the ligature strangulation as described in the autopsy report, but this may be distinct from the staging e.g. adding the paintbrush handle.
The reason I draw this distinction follows from the Toilet Rage theory and the small gap of time between JonBenet's head injury and her ligature strangulation.
That is contrary to popular assumption Patsy may only have added a piece of the paintbrush handle?
This small gap of time suggests that JonBenet was deliberately killed and not as the result of an accidental injury.
Minimally Burke knows his parents version of events is inconsistent, and if he was told to fake being asleep, then he must have a good idea who was responsible for his sisters death?
That Pamela Paugh was allowed back to the house, location of a homicide, with a shopping list of items to remove, is a big red flag, how did she know what to remove and from where? Unless there is evidence to demonstrate otherwise, this shows she is taking part in a planned conspiracy!
.
JMO8778,
I doubt someone with Lou Smit's experience would allow empathy to get in the way of investigating, he is on record stating he would fake it to lull suspects into a false sense of security. Pride may be an issue but I reckon there is a difference between that and looking stupid, which is a consequence of denying the facts. Also Lou Smit changed sides, he moved from BPD to the domain of the Ramsey's influence, eventually playing Sherlock Holmes in the various documentaries, promoting an inconsistent IDI theory, for which he says he was never paid?
There you go, just like Burke, silence? Lou Smit has had no problem doing media interviews to promote his IDI theory, or particpate in the Ramsey documentaries playing the part of the fabled crime investigator, who alike Sherlock Holmes, can fit the clues together to catch the offendor. So why no comment on a Karr, who patently has mental issues, would his remarks detract from the perception that an intruder did it?
.
JMO8778
..at the beach!
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2006
- Messages
- 5,554
- Reaction score
- 38
as in,which parent,or both?
absolutely,I couldn't agree more.did you see her talk on tv during the Karr fiasco? She is such a FAKE.
JMO8778
..at the beach!
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2006
- Messages
- 5,554
- Reaction score
- 38
even so,I think this one hit home for him.He had personal experience w. it.
not much,IMO.he doesn't want to look stupid...there's his pride.
I think he was suckered in immediately by the R's fake charm.He said he would never be a part of convicting them,right after he met them.That is very unprofessional,to say the least.
right on,and I'm saying that you would think,at the least,after Karr was released,that he (and JR,too,for that matter,of course) would have been saying,'Ok,this guy wasn't it,but there's still an intruder/killer out there.Please help us find him! '.Instead,all we hear is JR feeling sorry for him,and seeing that he is not using his media time wisely to appeal to the public for further help.
But what are you saying,UK? I'm not sure Smit would have agreed to be party to a conspiracy,right off the bat.I think he was slowly suckered into it.As in,ok,he was a hero on a prior case,so he was told something similar could happen w/ this one,and to 'make an IDI theory fit'.Of course,none did,this wasn't a similar case,as in,hard evidence points to the parents,and there was no 'intruder'. A real let down for him,I'm sure,but he should still do the right thing,I agree.
Even renowned experts can come to wrong conclusions in criminal cases. The Ramseys successfully pulled the wool over Smit's eyes, just as they succeed with John Douglas.
Littledeer
Former Member
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2007
- Messages
- 2,826
- Reaction score
- 14
I'm not sure that it was "successfully" done. I'm not even sure that Smit even know's it was done. (I believe he has a lot of dreams where he wakes up not knowing yes or no). Meaning RDI, or IDI.
That being said........I am not a IDI believer 95%, even though I will listen to Holden. (now if he/she can only say/post rationalionally).
Stomping off........
That being said........I am not a IDI believer 95%, even though I will listen to Holden. (now if he/she can only say/post rationalionally).
Stomping off........
JMO8778,
I'll reserve judgement on whether he was suckered or solicted the Ramsey's influence? That prayer session is important, since that also may be a fabrication, how do we know they never sat in the vehicle and done a deal? All this Christian stuff sounds good and pious, but it may simply have been a rationale, a smoke-screen to conseal what was really taking place? Also review the Ramsey appearances at the local church where they presented themselves to the media, that was all orchestrated to present a particular picture of the Ramsey's.
The Prayer Session
What I'm suggesting is that the conspiracy aspect is real and took place, continuing today. That Lou Smit, fabled investigator, left the BDI, for the Ramsey camp, all under the guise of seeking out JonBenet's killer, then going on to embroider his IDI theory with outlandish claims that it was a local pedophile, or that a stun-gun was used, that the garrote was the work of an experienced predator etc. If that was not enough he then takes part in documentaries which further promote the Ramsey agenda that an intruder did it.
Now the point about the above is that he is not John Doe average, or Mr Media Presenter. he is a trained investigator. Over the years, Lou Smit gained a reputation as an "evidence man.", he knows just as much as we do when the evidence does not stack up, and on this aspect, he fails, not once, or twice, but on multiple occassions, to the point where he now appears stupid, possibly even a foil to Karr e.g. one is nuts, and invents his facts, the other believes he knows the facts.
So summarising it all.
1. He meets with the Ramseys and agrees to a Prayer Session, not an interview!
2. Smit resigns his position at the Boulder District Attorney's office in September 1998.
3. After prosecutors deny him the right to testify, he argues his case in court, and goes on to testify in March of 1999. The grand jury did not indict!
4. March of 2000, he grants interviews to Newsweek and local newspapers. Outlining his IDI theory, using the open basement window, the boot print, and the garrote as all pointers to an intruder.
5. Followed up by various media appearances, including the Michael Tracey' Documentaries.
Lastly there is Lou Smits' interpretation of the forensic evidence, which can mostly be demonstrated to be false, but from memory there are instances when he simply makes it up, e.g. the rope fibers.
So is he simply an elderly stupid detective, or someone who fashions the available evidence to suit his favored theory which is an Intruder Did It, which also coincidentally happens to be the Ramsey agenda. So he is acting in concert with the Ramsey's, his promotion of the IDI theory via the paper press and those documentaries did no service whatsoever to bringing JonBenet's killer to justice.
All of that sounds like a conspiracy to me?
.
JMO8778
..at the beach!
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2006
- Messages
- 5,554
- Reaction score
- 38
all good points,UK,very good.
edited to add: for one thing,first and foremost...I don't see how he can look at that utterly STUPID,ridiculous,rambling RN,and not know the truth.He even admitted it 'didn't fit',yet tried to make the rest of the evidence fit,even if he had to twist it.If I recall correctly,he even speculated the 'intruder' inflicted JB's head wound using the flashlight,while in the basement.Yet..the flashlight was found on the kitchen counter,wiped clean,inside and out,and of course,no intruder would bother to bring it back up to there,and then turn around and leave out that basement window Smit says he used.That is just ridiculous.
Littledeer
Former Member
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2007
- Messages
- 2,826
- Reaction score
- 14
Let's start with the word "conspiracy...........
That means "one or more involved".
I have always been wondering why "INVESTIGATOR Smit", would go into a van with John Ramsey and Pat Ramsey and then pray with them?
I understand about the praying, as I do believe that Lou Smit really did care about finding the murderer of JonBonet. (And of course, there's Patsy)
But IMO......................LOU SMIT BLEW IT RIGHT THERE..............
That is (imo) NOT ANYthing an investigator would do.
That means "one or more involved".
I have always been wondering why "INVESTIGATOR Smit", would go into a van with John Ramsey and Pat Ramsey and then pray with them?
I understand about the praying, as I do believe that Lou Smit really did care about finding the murderer of JonBonet. (And of course, there's Patsy)
But IMO......................LOU SMIT BLEW IT RIGHT THERE..............
That is (imo) NOT ANYthing an investigator would do.
Ames
New Member
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2006
- Messages
- 5,838
- Reaction score
- 57
I would just be happy if Holdon would answer my questions.
Ames
New Member
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2006
- Messages
- 5,838
- Reaction score
- 57
Oh why not, JMO? Holdon believes that the pineapple was fed to JB in the basement and the intruder brought the bowl back up. I guess that he had his hands full, with bringing all of that stuff back upstairs. The flashlight, the pineapple bowl and spoon, the tea glass...I guess that he balanced the pineapple bowl on his head. (ROLLS EYES)