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

lannie said:
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

Because with the statement it would totally absolve them from anything doing with the crime. The less they say the better. But they got caught when the pineapple was found in JB's system
 
jubie said:
Maybe JonBenet did go to bed and at some point before Patsy goes to bed herself she realizes JonBenet hadn't been told to go potty and goes to get her to the bathroom before she wets the bed but it's too late. Patsy has to deal with it and JonBenet isn't exactly cooperative because she's having a hard time waking up so soon after falling asleep....




My daughter wakes up with a smile on her face but my son is a bear if he has to be woken up.




Jubie

Jubie, if your daughter wet the bed, would you have changed the sheets, but cluttered it back up with dirty clothes, misplacing the pillow at the end of bed? This woman would have been frantic, but I can't imagine her returning things that "don't belong" especailly if she were staging. JB's room to me does not appear to be "staged" The basement, train room, and wine cellar has staging written all over it. I don't believe JB wet the bed that night
 
Solace said:
There is no reason. Besides he said he went down between 7 and 9, probably after the officer was there and after Fleet White. There are pictures of the chair and probably taken after 1:00 when she was found. Why he returns the chair I do not know, maybe it is a small space and that is the only place he had for the chair. BUT, I agree with Ned and Rash that when he brought her down to the basement originally, the chair was there and he kept that going. This is all supposition, but I really think they were involved. I just wish one of us could come up with an irrefutable fact that places him in the basement, something that he does not offer (John).

There doesn't seem to be a reason, but what we appear to have is FW and Officer French not saying a word about the chair. We need to find their interviews, possibly they did mention it. But if both say they never saw a chair, then the only explanation left is JR put it there. It could be it was there before the 911 call, he moved it, then moved it back between 7-9 (or 10). But if it wasn't there at 6am, then he must have moved it. Why? I don't know.

I'm still skeptical about the crime scene photos. If they were taken by police I'll accept that the chair was there. If taken by LS then it's just more Ramsey BS.
 
Solace said:

Ned: I will have to defend Lou here, as I have always held a tremendous amount of respect for him. He actually did question JR regarding the chair. I wonder however after given the response that John did, how was Lou still convinced an intruder left that home through the window in the train room?

I have to kick in here about Lou Smit. You are right he did question John about it, but he in no way presses him on it. Also, if you have seen the beginning of this interview process, it is really a travesty. It happened to come on and my son was there and he is just not into this case, certainly not the way you or I are, and he said - "look at how he is questioning him, why bother".

He may as well have said John, this is just a formality, we'll have this done in no time. I believe you are innocent and I am running this interview.

Lou Smit just does not believe they had anything to do with it and as S. Thomas said, LS had formed a close relationship with them when he should not have. His wife was going through cancer treatments at the same time as Patsy and he could relate to that. He probably is a very good detective. Just not in this case. IMO I mean I have never heard him address the inconsistencies in this case at all.

HAPPY THANKSGIVING EVERYONE.[/QUOTE]

I agree in that respect. Lou got too close to the Ramsey's. It was a weak interview and I do agree Lou should have pressed harder. However I do not agree with the majority of people here that Lou formed an opinion early on that the Ramsey's were innocent, and I don't believe today that Lou feels that way either. I think Lou, listens and learns and what he thinks today could be entirely different then what he thought early on
 
Nedthan Johns said:
Sol: 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.

Ned: Burke's room was 2 floors up from the basement. It's a big home. Kids sleep sound, he proabably didn't hear a thing. They arrive home at 9:30 or there abouts, JB was changed into her long johns, which were found on her soaked with urine, therefore she was wearing them at the time of death. Her bed doesn't appear to me to have been slept in. It also doesn't appear that the sheets were wet and changed, as there are too many articles of clothes on the bed, pillow misplaced, etc. I just dont' see it as a staged scene. It looks like a very messy bed, missing a child and a pillow in the appropriate place. I believe that JB was fed the pineapple Soon after they arrived home 1opm or so along with Burke, and then either helped Patsy wrap last minute gifts in the basement or was told to go to bed and perhaps played in her room instead. I believe she was murdered before 12 midnight. I believe this is WHY the Ramsey’s chose the 25th date for her tombstone. I don’t know the sequence of events, but had she wet her bed, her bladder would not have been full enough to empty a second time at the time of strangulation, which is what I believe ultimately killed her, not the head blow. The direction of the urine indicates to me death ensued AFTER the head blow and was done to put JB out of her misery. The blow to her head was unintentional in the fact that the person who did it, did not realize the rage and force she used to implement the blow.
Ned, you really studied this case. I know either you or Rash or NP will find something eventually that will out and out prove it. And I will be there to applaud you. Your posts are great. They are informative and just interesting to read.

Have a great Thanksgiving. I look forward to more posts from you. Really interesting.
 
Solace said:
Ned, what do you think happened that night. Do you think it was Patsy or John or both?


I follow the evidence, and ALL the evidence thus far points to Patys except for the fibers from JR's shirt collar apparently being found on JB This to me could only suggest he was involved in the cover up, which I also believe to be true. He knew about the crime prior to the 911 call, but if I had to pin point down a time, I couldn’t do that. I go back to Patsy’s comment after the murder. “We didn’t mean for this to happen”. She clearly implicates John as an accomplice. Perhaps he kept telling her, its okay Patsy, you didn’t mean to do this. We will get through this.” And by all means they did. I do however have a hard time believing JR would let Patsy write that long rambling ransom note, so I tend to lean more towards him not knowing until perhaps ½ hour prior to the 911 call.
 
Nedthan Johns said:
I have to kick in here about Lou Smit. You are right he did question John about it, but he in no way presses him on it. Also, if you have seen the beginning of this interview process, it is really a travesty. It happened to come on and my son was there and he is just not into this case, certainly not the way you or I are, and he said - "look at how he is questioning him, why bother".

He may as well have said John, this is just a formality, we'll have this done in no time. I believe you are innocent and I am running this interview.

Lou Smit just does not believe they had anything to do with it and as S. Thomas said, LS had formed a close relationship with them when he should not have. His wife was going through cancer treatments at the same time as Patsy and he could relate to that. He probably is a very good detective. Just not in this case. IMO I mean I have never heard him address the inconsistencies in this case at all.

HAPPY THANKSGIVING EVERYONE.
I agree in that respect. Lou got too close to the Ramsey's. It was a weak interview and I do agree Lou should have pressed harder. However I do not agree with the majority of people here that Lou formed an opinion early on that the Ramsey's were innocent, and I don't believe today that Lou feels that way either. I think Lou, listens and learns and what he thinks today could be entirely different then what he thought early on[/QUOTE]
Interesting that you should say that BECAUSE Andrew Hodges says in his book that Lou Smit feels differently. But I have combed the book and cannot find where he says this. He speaks of Lou but he does not out and out say it. I will take another look. But Andrew Hodges does say this about Lou Smit. But I thought Lou Smit was still trying to find an intruder.
 
Nedthan Johns said:
I follow the evidence, and ALL the evidence thus far points to Patys except for the fibers from JR's shirt collar apparently being found on JB This to me could only suggest he was involved in the cover up, which I also believe to be true. He knew about the crime prior to the 911 call, but if I had to pin point down a time, I couldn’t do that. I go back to Patsy’s comment after the murder. “We didn’t mean for this to happen”. She clearly implicates John as an accomplice. Perhaps he kept telling her, its okay Patsy, you didn’t mean to do this. We will get through this.” And by all means they did. I do however have a hard time believing JR would let Patsy write that long rambling ransom note, so I tend to lean more towards him not knowing until perhaps ½ hour prior to the 911 call.
I agree with this also. I read that over and over "we didn't mean to do this". Could not believe it. Patsy also says to a producer of the Geraldo show "I know in my heart I did not do this". That struck me. People usually say "I know in my heart I would never mean to do this".

She did it.
 
I know he wasn't aware of FW being down there in the morning, but did he know the cop was down there ? Why lie about a chair when an officer could easily state that it wasn't there when he searched?

Ned: Good point, that why I tend to believe he was in the basment prior to the 911 call, and he flubbed when he recalled his events of that morning.
 
Ned, you really studied this case. I know either you or Rash or NP will find something eventually that will out and out prove it. And I will be there to applaud you. Your posts are great. They are informative and just interesting to read.

Have a great Thanksgiving. I look forward to more posts from you. Really interesting.

Ned: Thanks Solace. this is a great thought provoking thread, but i have been studying and debating this case for years, and we all have yet to come up with something concrete, however this discussion has proven to me that JR was involved in the cover up early on and I do beleive is enough to charge him in this case. Patsy is no longer here, so we need to focus on what evidence points to John Ramsey.
 
Great thread folks. Have a wonderful Holiday weekend, see you all on Tuesday. I expect you all to have solved this damn case by then !!!! :dance:

Cheers!!
 
Nedthan Johns said:
Great thread folks. Have a wonderful Holiday weekend, see you all on Tuesday. I expect you all to have solved this damn case by then !!!! :dance:

Cheers!!
Same to you Ned. Really good discussions this week.
 
I don't think JB made it to bed that night,either.
In ST's book,it says manual strangulation came first,by JB's shirt collar being twisted,thus leaving the abrasions on her face by the perp's knuckles.But ...JB was found in the white gap top.Had she been strangled with that,the collar would have been obviously stretched,loose and wrinkled.There is no mention of that.
But...JR tries very hard in DOI to account for the red turtleneck,which would likely be easier to strangle with,seeing as there is more material on a turtleneck at the top.He does it by saying PR and JB had gotten into an argument over which shirt to wear that evening..but did they really? Or did JR just say that to account for the real shirt she wore that evening(the red one) being stretched at the collar and balled up on the counter? IMO,I think he lied,another reason being PR says she wore the red shirt to bed that night.(And,since they say she never woke up upon returning from the White's,that indicates to me she wore the red shirt that night,the same one she was likely strangled in).Why is this important...b/c if JR so blantantly lied in DOI,it leaves no doubt as to the total cover-up involved in JB's death.It appears DOI was written KNOWING full well there would never be any way to dispute any lies in it,as true evidence (like the White's pics taken that evening) was surely assured to them that it would not EVER be released.
 
Nedthan Johns said:
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?


Ned: Nothing to suggest this because there would have been livitiy in her arms and there was not. the livity was consistant with her coming to rest flat on her back, arms above her head
Sorry,that was misleading the way I said it.I didn't mean up as in over her head,I meant up as in above her head, but level with the rest of her body,as if she were lying on a bed and her arms were tied or looped around the bedpost,yet level with the rest of her body.Because one thing that doesn't make sense to me(and I know ST had to leave out a few things so as not to totally give away the case, at least that's the way the book reads in a few areas),anyway,he says PR tied JB's hands in front,not behind,or else her arms would not have been in that overhead position when she was found.He makes it sound as if her hands were tied in front,level with her waist or so.Yet,she was found with them above her head.Did I read this wrong,or was there a 2nd staging,this time with her arms moved to above her head?If so, then obvioulsy this would have to have been b/f rigor mortis set in.
I thought maybe with the loops on the ends,they could have revised the staging to or from JB's arms being looped around something.(which was blacked out on the reports,or done b/f the last restaging).
 
Nedthan Johns said:
... I don’t know the sequence of events, but had she wet her bed, her bladder would not have been full enough to empty a second time at the time of strangulation, which is what I believe ultimately killed her, not the head blow. The direction of the urine indicates to me death ensued AFTER the head blow and was done to put JB out of her misery. The blow to her head was unintentional in the fact that the person who did it, did not realize the rage and force she used to implement the blow.

I'm not sure what you mean here. IMO the head blow came before the strangulation.
 
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.
I think it was no accident either,and I voted that way.With such a huge crack in her skull,I beleive it was intentional ..a direct hit,so to speak,and done with full force.If it wasn't premediated,then in that instant it *was done with the intention of killing her,IMO.I just don't see it any other way.
Although that doesn't mean the perp later didn't regret doing it.(Which I think was PR).
I looked for Mark Fuhrman's opinion and he said he thought it was intentional as well.There was just too much force used and too direct a blow to convince me otherwise.
 
[Rashomon]Solace: thanks so much for mentioning this!
Wow!
- So John Ramsey said he found a chair blocking the door to the train room when he went down to look for JB?
- So per John, the intruder had already disappeared by the time he went down there, right?
- But John Ramsey never said he himself put that chair back in front of the door.
- Now how on earth did that chair end up blocking the train room door again unless John himself put it there?
Nedthan Johns said:
BULLSEYE, EXACTLY WHAT I WAS TRYING TO POINT OUT. THIS PROVES THAT JOHN RAMSEY LIED AND WAS INVOLVED IN THIS CRIME IMO

Solace said:
John says he moved the chair, walked in, checked out the room, walked out replaced the chair.
Solace, where exactly does John say that he replaced the chair - could you give a link? TIA, for there's so much going on in this thread that I can hardly catch up.


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.

ITA. And just think about the implications of all that: John Ramsey, whose daughter allegedly has been the victim of a kidnapping, not only closes a possible entrance window without mentioning this to the police, but also puts the chair back where it originally was without mentiong this to the police either!!

John was involved in the crime. No question about it imo.

Solace said:
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.
Excellent point, Solace. That was probably the real reason why John was down there: to look if he had forgotten to remove evidence which might implicate him or Patsy.
 
Nedthan Johns said:
I have to kick in here about Lou Smit. You are right he did question John about it, but he in no way presses him on it. Also, if you have seen the beginning of this interview process, it is really a travesty. It happened to come on and my son was there and he is just not into this case, certainly not the way you or I are, and he said - "look at how he is questioning him, why bother".

He may as well have said John, this is just a formality, we'll have this done in no time. I believe you are innocent and I am running this interview.

Lou Smit just does not believe they had anything to do with it and as S. Thomas said, LS had formed a close relationship with them when he should not have. His wife was going through cancer treatments at the same time as Patsy and he could relate to that. He probably is a very good detective. Just not in this case. IMO I mean I have never heard him address the inconsistencies in this case at all.

HAPPY THANKSGIVING EVERYONE.


I agree in that respect. Lou got too close to the Ramsey's. It was a weak interview and I do agree Lou should have pressed harder. However I do not agree with the majority of people here that Lou formed an opinion early on that the Ramsey's were innocent, and I don't believe today that Lou feels that way either. I think Lou, listens and learns and what he thinks today could be entirely different then what he thought early on[/QUOTE]
The end result was no justice for little JonBenet Ramsey. The Grand Jury was basically under the auspices of DA Alex Hunter who was persuaded to let Lou handle that aspect. End result .....we all know. If he indeed listens and learns then why in heavens name does he not speak out to seek justice instead of 9 9/10ths years of COLD Case sprinkled with illusions of intruders that cannot be proved in any way that I have yet to see.
 
Nedthan Johns said:
Neither Fleet nor detective French mention having to move items to get into that room, and even if they did WHY would they replace them to re-block the door? Doesn’t make sense.
Why do you take the word of FW or Officer French(was he a detective?)One is a possible suspect who looked in the body room and found nothing and the other is the cop who missed the body in the first place. You take your facts from strange places which would get torn up in court.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
184
Guests online
1,612
Total visitors
1,796

Forum statistics

Threads
589,951
Messages
17,928,083
Members
228,013
Latest member
RayaCo
Back
Top