Ned's Final Theory-Lou Smit are you still reading here?

JMO8778 said:
I think Smit was hired to say there was an intruder as well. I recall he admitted the RN didn't make any sense,but the way JB was found,with the extra loop tied around her wrist,he thought indicated some kind of sexual play.
Maybe I should start a new thread on this,but is it possible the loops(I am assuming there was on on each wrist,altho it doesn't show 2, as JR says he untied one when he found JB)were used as part of a prior staging,with JB's arms thru the bigger loop, and then hooked onto something else by the smaller ones...like the bedposts on her bed that are shown in the pics of her bedroom(end of the bed).Or perhaps she was staged a bit more in the WC than was let on.I think I recall there was something blacked out there on the official documents.Since we know the garrotte wasn't usable,I can only thing the loops might have been used to hold her arms up onto something,esp with the way JB's arms were found above her head.Any thoughts anyone?

Makes sense
 
Chrishope said:
The whole business about the chair raises more questions. If there are crime scene photos of the chair blocking the door, then as Rash says, JR had to have put it back, because FW and Det. French didn't report it blocking the door.

If there are CS photos, it only proves the chair was there when the photo was taken. It didn't become a murder case until 1:05pm, and who knows when the photos were actually taken? If the photo was taken at 6 or 7 am then I'd say we have to wonder why FW and French didn't mention it. But since they didn't, and the photo was probably taken after 1pm, I think we have to wonder why the chair was there later, but not earlier.

Are there really CS photos? And if so, are these "official" e.g. police photos, or Lou Smit photos?

Why would JR put the chair (back) there? I don't know.

John says he moved the chair, walked in, checked out the room, walked out replaced the chair.
 
Now why would he bother to replace the chair? Do they normally store chairs loaded with stuff in doorways? It just seems odd to me that he'd put the chair back in the doorway if he had to move it to open the door.
 
Nuisanceposter said:
I'm pretty sure I've seen a picture of the chair piled with stuff that had been in front of the door, but I don't know where. I'm looking for it. There are some crime scene photos here.

http://www.acandyrose.com/crimescene-ramseycase.htm
I forgot how absolutely gruesome these photographs were. How does someone hit their child so hard that it splits their head eight and one half inches. You have to know you will kill her using this kind of force, she is no more than 40 pounds. I cannot see this as an accident and yet I know that most everyone on this board believes it was an accident, at least 60%.

But how do you hit someone this hard and it is still an accident.

Nusiance and Rash, do you think it was an accident?
 
Nuisanceposter said:
I'm pretty sure I've seen a picture of the chair piled with stuff that had been in front of the door, but I don't know where. I'm looking for it. There are some crime scene photos here.

http://www.acandyrose.com/crimescene-ramseycase.htm
I forgot how absolutely gruesome these photographs were. How does someone hit their child so hard that it splits their head eight and one half inches. You have to know you will kill her using this kind of force, she is no more than 40 pounds. I cannot see this as an accident and yet I know that most everyone on this board believes it was an accident, at least 60%.

But how do you hit someone this hard and it is still an accident.

Nuisance and Rash, do you think it was an accident?
 
I've questioned whether that was an accident or not many times. How is hitting a child with that amount of force an accident? Whoever hit her had to have been aiming at her and intended to hit her good and hard.

I think the flashlight was the most likely object, because it fits the wound and it was wiped clean down to the batteries. I think that indicates it was directly involved in the crime and evidence removed.

But if that was the object, the head end of the flashlight hit the back of her head. That's where the big hole in the skull is. I imagine the person who hit her (imo, Patsy) was standing behind JonBenet, facing her back.

I suspect the head wound was unintentional more than an accident. I figure maybe Patsy was angry, and went to swing, and ended up hitting her much harder than she intended to. I don't know, though. Maybe it was John. Maybe he really was a molester, and she said she was going to tell and turned around to run to Mommy, with JR trying to stop her by smacking her on the head. All I can do is wonder.

I don't think the person who hit her intended to kill her in a pre-meditated manner. I think the person who hit her was either angry and lost control or was upset and needed to silence JonBenet. In that aspect I think it was an accident...but whoever hit her had to know hitting her on the head was going to hurt her, and meant to hurt her. I sincerely hope JonBenet never saw it coming and did not realize whoever hit her was aiming at her head and swinging.
 
Nuisanceposter said:
I've questioned whether that was an accident or not many times. How is hitting a child with that amount of force an accident? Whoever hit her had to have been aiming at her and intended to hit her good and hard.

I think the flashlight was the most likely object, because it fits the wound and it was wiped clean down to the batteries. I think that indicates it was directly involved in the crime and evidence removed.

But if that was the object, the head end of the flashlight hit the back of her head. That's where the big hole in the skull is. I imagine the person who hit her (imo, Patsy) was standing behind JonBenet, facing her back.

I suspect the head wound was unintentional more than an accident. I figure maybe Patsy was angry, and went to swing, and ended up hitting her much harder than she intended to. I don't know, though. Maybe it was John. Maybe he really was a molester, and she said she was going to tell and turned around to run to Mommy, with JR trying to stop her by smacking her on the head. All I can do is wonder.

I don't think the person who hit her intended to kill her in a pre-meditated manner. I think the person who hit her was either angry and lost control or was upset and needed to silence JonBenet. In that aspect I think it was an accident...but whoever hit her had to know hitting her on the head was going to hurt her, and meant to hurt her. I sincerely hope JonBenet never saw it coming and did not realize whoever hit her was aiming at her head and swinging.
Also, Cyril Wecht says (I don't agree with everything, but some things yes). Anyway, he says that she had two bruises on each side of her head on the inside from someone shaking her. He supposes she was hit and then shaken to try and wake her up. Can you imagine carrying her down to the basement and placing her there. Can it get any worse than that. They had to be insane, Just insane. No wonder Patsy was so stoned on CNN a week later. When that interview first came out, I guess I was not paying attention because I did not realize how much she was slurring her words and then Will posted it on A&E and she is really slurring her words. So if you are taking that much medication, the pain and the fear must be almost unbearable.

What I don't get is how Patsy bounces back, especially in that video of her, where she is wearing the blue suit and running across the street with John and they are holding hands and she sort of waves a thank you to a driver for letting them pass. They are going to a conference to announce that Patsy passed the lie detector test. They could not have looked happier. The whole $#%ing thing is bizarre. Just bizarre.
 
Solace said:
Hi Charlie:

I have the book with me and looked it up. It is in the transcripts of the interviews with Lou Smit.

pg. 303: "John said he went down to the basement sometime between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. looking for an intruder. He worked his way through the so-called trian room of the basement, etc.".

Page 313: "Like Patsy, John was shown a series of crime scene photographs. One showed a chair blocking the door into the train room".

page 314: Lou Smit interviews John and re same. (Nuisanceposter posted the whole conversation about 5 posts back in this thread).

Charlie, the timeline is what was confusing me. I ALWAYS thought he had gone down from 7-9 and that the 10 time was wrong. I think people are assuming he was down there because Arndt could not find him. (He may well have been, but he says 7 to 9 for about 30 seconds to a minute). He says he went in and had to move the chair and upon leaving, moved it back. I am not following your last paragraph about John getting the time confused. I do not think he got it confused. There are crime scene pictures of the chair in front of the door. John may have been there earlier and placed JB in the wine celler, BUT WHAT HE IS ADMITTING TO is 7-9 a.m searching the first time. And the crime scene photos prove that the chair was in front of the door.

Facts we agree upon so far
1. John went down into the basement between 7-9am on the 26th
2. During this trip John saw the chair blocking the hobby room door, moved it, went into the room, looked around then left the room then replaced the chair
3. French and Fleet went down to the basement shortly after thier arrival, which was before 7am. Both men didnt see the blocked chair. Fleet went into the hobby room and saw the broken glass.
4. There is a crime scene photograph taken of the blocked chair - time unknown.

Solace what i'm trying to illustrate it that John went into the basement AFTER both fleet and french had been down already and had seen no blocked chair. How could John have seen this blocked chair during his trip between 7 and 9am when fleet and french hours before had seen none.

Now a crime scene photograph shows the blocked chair, but we dont know when this photograph was taken. What we really need to urgently know is when this crime scene photpraph was taken. Lets assume all the crime scene photographs are taken during the same period has anyone found a crime scene photogrpah that has been released that has got a time stamp on it?

If john replaced the chair after he moved it, then when both him and fleet came into the basement at 1pm that afternoon, both went into the hobby/train room as fleet points out the broken window and john said that he broke it months earlier during summer. This would mean both men would once again encounter this damn chair blocking the room. Yet again fleet doesnt remember any chair. I wonder is john was questioned about whether he saw the chair again at 1pm.
 
I don't know,but FW was with him at 1pm or so,when JR found the body.
 
Nuisanceposter said:
Now why would he bother to replace the chair? Do they normally store chairs loaded with stuff in doorways? It just seems odd to me that he'd put the chair back in the doorway if he had to move it to open the door.
I asked the same thing. Only conclusion I can draw is opps finger prints on chair. Must say I moved chair then moved back to justify the prints.....
 
Charlie said:
Facts we agree upon so far
1. John went down into the basement between 7-9am on the 26th
2. During this trip John saw the chair blocking the hobby room door, moved it, went into the room, looked around then left the room then replaced the chair
3. French and Fleet went down to the basement shortly after thier arrival, which was before 7am. Both men didnt see the blocked chair. Fleet went into the hobby room and saw the broken glass.
4. There is a crime scene photograph taken of the blocked chair - time unknown.

Solace what i'm trying to illustrate it that John went into the basement AFTER both fleet and french had been down already and had seen no blocked chair. How could John have seen this blocked chair during his trip between 7 and 9am when fleet and french hours before had seen none.

Now a crime scene photograph shows the blocked chair, but we dont know when this photograph was taken. What we really need to urgently know is when this crime scene photpraph was taken. Lets assume all the crime scene photographs are taken during the same period has anyone found a crime scene photogrpah that has been released that has got a time stamp on it?

If john replaced the chair after he moved it, then when both him and fleet came into the basement at 1pm that afternoon, both went into the hobby/train room as fleet points out the broken window and john said that he broke it months earlier during summer. This would mean both men would once again encounter this damn chair blocking the room. Yet again fleet doesnt remember any chair. I wonder is john was questioned about whether he saw the chair again at 1pm.

I don't want to make too much of this, because I see where you're going with it. However, We don't really know JR went to the basement at all, at any time. We only have his word. We don't know whether he saw or moved the chair, again just his word. #3 we know because they'd probably have reported moving the chair. #4 well, I havn't seen the photo. It probably exists, but I'd like to know if it's a real crime scene photo, or a Lou Smit 3 days later photo.

It appears between 7-9 am, then disappears by 1pm. Yeah, ok John.
 
Charlie said:
Facts we agree upon so far
1. John went down into the basement between 7-9am on the 26th
2. During this trip John saw the chair blocking the hobby room door, moved it, went into the room, looked around then left the room then replaced the chair
3. French and Fleet went down to the basement shortly after thier arrival, which was before 7am. Both men didnt see the blocked chair. Fleet went into the hobby room and saw the broken glass.
4. There is a crime scene photograph taken of the blocked chair - time unknown.

Solace what i'm trying to illustrate it that John went into the basement AFTER both fleet and french had been down already and had seen no blocked chair. How could John have seen this blocked chair during his trip between 7 and 9am when fleet and french hours before had seen none.

Now a crime scene photograph shows the blocked chair, but we dont know when this photograph was taken. What we really need to urgently know is when this crime scene photpraph was taken. Lets assume all the crime scene photographs are taken during the same period has anyone found a crime scene photogrpah that has been released that has got a time stamp on it?

If john replaced the chair after he moved it, then when both him and fleet came into the basement at 1pm that afternoon, both went into the hobby/train room as fleet points out the broken window and john said that he broke it months earlier during summer. This would mean both men would once again encounter this damn chair blocking the room. Yet again fleet doesnt remember any chair. I wonder is john was questioned about whether he saw the chair again at 1pm.
Charlie,

We don't know if Fleet does not remember a chair. I checked my books last night and he never mentions moving a chair. But it appears that none of the authors think it is important, because NO ONE MENTIONS IT. Not Schiller, Thomas, Wecht or Hodges.

We need to find Fleets interview. We need to find French's interview. But I do not have a clue as to where to find it. And even if they do not mention it, it means nothing if they are not asked about it. It is a crime in itself that everyone was not questioned immediately that day and into the night. So many unanswered questions would have been answered had we had a Columbo on the scene.
 
coloradokares said:
I asked the same thing. Only conclusion I can draw is opps finger prints on chair. Must say I moved chair then moved back to justify the prints.....
Why does he have to justify prints, it is his house?
 
Chrishope said:
I don't want to make too much of this, because I see where you're going with it. However, We don't really know JR went to the basement at all, at any time. We only have his word. We don't know whether he saw or moved the chair, again just his word. #3 we know because they'd probably have reported moving the chair. #4 well, I havn't seen the photo. It probably exists, but I'd like to know if it's a real crime scene photo, or a Lou Smit 3 days later photo.

It appears between 7-9 am, then disappears by 1pm. Yeah, ok John.
But there is no reason for him to lie about that. In fact, if he is the one who placed Jon Benet in the wine cellar, it is more to his benefit to say he was down there in case he left "anything" that would tie him to being there that morning.
 
Solace said:
I forgot how absolutely gruesome these photographs were. How does someone hit their child so hard that it splits their head eight and one half inches. You have to know you will kill her using this kind of force, she is no more than 40 pounds. I cannot see this as an accident and yet I know that most everyone on this board believes it was an accident, at least 60%.

But how do you hit someone this hard and it is still an accident.

Nusiance and Rash, do you think it was an accident?
When Dr. Henry Lee stated that at the origin of this tragic case there was an "accident", he brought a lot of confusion into the discussion of JBR case imo.
Lee's point was that this was no premeditated crime, and that the attacker did not mean to kill JB.
Still I would not call it an accident, but a 'rage attack' instead.

Someone (I believe it was Patsy) struck out at JB in a blind rage and then realized to her shock that irreparable damage had been done. Not that different from what Jeffrey MacDonald did to his wife and older child when he was in a blind fury.

Now it has been argued that surely Patsy, when striking at JB with the heavy flashlight (or yanking her violently against the bathtub) must have known that she might hurt her child terribly.
But what is typical for rage is that it prevents people from thinking clearly about the possible results of their actions.
There are probably quite a few people in prison for crimes which they would never have committed if they hadn't been in a rage. Many manslaughters and second-degree murders fall into that category.
After the person in a rage sees what he/she has done, it is like cold water ("Oh my God what have I done!").

And I think everything which followed from there was done for staging purposes to cover up the original attack on JB.
And since the child obviously had also been the victim of chronic sexual abuse, the Ramseys probably tried to cover this up too by inflicting the vaginal injury on JB.
 
rashomon said:
When Dr. Henry Lee stated that at the origin of this tragic case there was an "accident", he brought a lot of confusion into the discussion of JBR case imo.
Lee's point was that this was no premeditated crime, and that the attacker did not mean to kill JB.
Still I would not call it an accident, but a 'rage attack' instead.

Someone (I believe it was Patsy) struck out at JB in a blind rage and then realized to her shock that irreparable damage had been done. Not that different from what Jeffrey MacDonald did to his wife and older child when he was in a blind fury.

Now it has been argued that surely Patsy, when striking at JB with the heavy flashlight (or yanking her violently against the bathtub) must have known that she might hurt her child terribly.
But what is typical for rage is that it prevents people from thinking clearly about the possible results of their actions.
There are probably quite a few people in prison for crimes which they would never have committed if they hadn't been in a rage. Many manslaughters and second-degree murders fall into that category.
After the person in a rage sees what he/she has done, it is like cold water ("Oh my God what have I done!").

And I think everything which followed from there was done for staging purposes to cover up the original attack on JB.
And since the child obviously had also been the victim of chronic sexual abuse, the Ramseys probably tried to cover this up too by inflicting the vaginal injury on JB.
If there was this kind of rage going on that night, I cannot believe that Berke knows nothing. But from the 911 tape, he appears to know nothing. So the killing had to take place after he went to sleep, which seems so since the pineapple is found; which means she came home, walked in the house as Berke said, ate some pineapple and went up stairs. They are definitely lying about her being asleep when they got home. Patsy's fingerprints are on the bowl - she is caught right there - but the pro Ramseys refuse to see that. Her fingerprints are on the bowl and they got there that night. They are not from yesterday, they are from that night and so is the pineapple and Berke was also in the kitchen area (as seen from his glass of tea). So HE KNOWS JON BENET was up. So he is also lying and he was told to. But I don't think he was up when she was killed.

I know you don't think she made it to bed that night, but then what about the pineapple being mostly digested, takes about 2-4 hours. They get home at 9:30, she eats it. She was probably killed about 1:00. I think she went to bed and something happened that enraged Patsy and then hell was in session.
 
I think that makes perfect sense, we have tried to follow the Ramsey & they have confused us about the whole night, but when you look at just what is printed above all makes sense,all but one part, why did she have to be asleep when the family got home ,,what were they trying to cover up with that statement ??,thanks lanni
 
Solace said:
If there was this kind of rage going on that night, I cannot believe that Berke knows nothing. But from the 911 tape, he appears to know nothing. So the killing had to take place after he went to sleep, which seems so since the pineapple is found; which means she came home, walked in the house as Berke said, ate some pineapple and went up stairs. They are definitely lying about her being asleep when they got home. Patsy's fingerprints are on the bowl - she is caught right there - but the pro Ramseys refuse to see that. Her fingerprints are on the bowl and they got there that night. They are not from yesterday, they are from that night and so is the pineapple and Berke was also in the kitchen area (as seen from his glass of tea). So HE KNOWS JON BENET was up. So he is also lying and he was told to. But I don't think he was up when she was killed.

I know you don't think she made it to bed that night, but then what about the pineapple being mostly digested, takes about 2-4 hours. They get home at 9:30, she eats it. She was probably killed about 1:00. I think she went to bed and something happened that enraged Patsy and then hell was in session.
I remember reading here that pineapple takes about one to two hours to digest as far as it was found in JB's small intestine.
It is also interesting that the Ramseys put Dec 25 as the death date on JB's headstone. As if they knew that JB had died before midnight ...

In terms of Burke not knowing anyting: it was a huge house, and Burke's room was not next to JB's room, but at the other end of the same floor (see drawing in PMPT).
 
rashomon said:
I remember reading here that pineapple takes about one to two hours to digest as far as it was found in JB's small intestine.
It is also interesting that the Ramseys put Dec 25 as the death date on JB's headstone. As if they knew that JB had died before midnight ...

In terms of Burke not knowing anyting: it was a huge house, and Burke's room was not next to JB's room, but at the other end of the same floor (see drawing in PMPT).
She probably did die before midnight. But also I could see Patsy going for December 25th, for the date alone.

Right, Berke is on the other side of the house.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
115
Guests online
1,941
Total visitors
2,056

Forum statistics

Threads
590,002
Messages
17,928,877
Members
228,037
Latest member
shmoozie
Back
Top