Why would Lou Smitt and another FBI profiler say they did not do it?

The post about the profile of the killer-its interesting that he thinks its a female-i mean maybe he asked if she (patsy)had a lesbian lover because it could be a lesbian love thing gone bad and that woman killed jon benet-and it could explain why they dont want her to be found out??
(That is not homophobia-I am a gay woman myself - I am pushing the edges based on the question about patsy being a lesbian is all- and then reading this profile..)..

I find it interesting that they believe its a female as I would think the violence of it would be a man's style- the strangling etc..
 
Cain said:
Exactly.

Ressler: "Ressler said he doubts that a stranger broke into the home and killed JonBenet. But he said he also doubts a family member killed her.

"There may have been other people in the house that night, and I don't mean a stranger or family," Ressler said. "I just don't know. We may never know."

Consider two phases: the crime, and the staging.


And when this second interview, in 2002, Lin Wood already was actively suing everybody.

IMO
dont ya just hate these guys who say stuff like this-i mean what do they expect us to do- figure it out- not a family member and not an intruder???
Then who?? That eliminates everyone doesnt it?? I mean you cant have it both ways unless they believe it was someone who visited them?
 
Misty said:
Profile of JonBenét Ramsey's Killer
Behavioral Analysis of the JonBenet Case
The Ransom "Note"
The killer may be:
.......A white female
.......Age: 35-45 years
...... Single or divorced
.......Average or slightly above average intellectually
.......A loner and acted alone in murder
.......Domineering
.......Sexually she would most likely be aggressive and willing to try anything
.......Aggressive and controlling with masculine demeanor
.......Overconfident with an air of superiority
.......Neatly groomed, slightly overweight with hair short or frequently tied up
.......High birth order with several siblings; highly educated parents
.......History of bi-polar disorder or other mental illness
.......Works as a paralegal, in security field or as a Police Officer.
.......Drawn to excitement-oriented or thrill-seeker hobbies, including books, movies
.......Appears cooperative with Ramsey family or authorities investigating the case
.......Has experienced stress or crisis in job or relationship, and may have been seen expressing anger prior to murder.
.......Has a well established history of drug abuse. Used alcohol and/or drugs before and during the murder
with increased use afterward


Donald Pugh
so misty do u think this is patsy?? I really dont know so thats why I ask- cuz it doesnt specifically say a family member-but very interesting-and if u read my next post i am addressing this post in it-re - lebian lover theory.
 
newtv said:
The post about the profile of the killer-its interesting that he thinks its a female-i mean maybe he asked if she (patsy)had a lesbian lover because it could be a lesbian love thing gone bad and that woman killed jon benet-and it could explain why they dont want her to be found out??
(That is not homophobia-I am a gay woman myself - I am pushing the edges based on the question about patsy being a lesbian is all- and then reading this profile..)..

I find it interesting that they believe its a female as I would think the violence of it would be a man's style- the strangling etc..

IMHO "they" believe it to be both with majority toward female; IMHO; Dr.Andrew Hodges explains both (male/female) involvement in JonBenet's death FYIW. :rolleyes:
 
Donald thought a cop killed JonBenet, specifically Linda Arndt -- Munchausen Syndrome (law enforcement). (I've got a good article on munchausen by law enforcement somewhere.) The syndrome is real; motive is attention. Donald has training in handwriting analysis and came to the conclusion that a woman wrote the note; some of the phrases in the note could be interpreted as cop lingo. Linda's behavior after the crime is bizarre, but I believe that her behavior reflects her own issues.

This profile is not of Patsy.
 
misty- then no wonder there has been so much confusion about who to arrest- seems like there is suspicion cast everywhere-did Linda Arndt know them before the murder??

sorry if this is old news but I had not heard this theory before- and pugh- isnt that patsy's maiden name?? (not relevant but just curious)..thx
 
Blazeboy3 said:
IMHO "they" believe it to be both with majority toward female; IMHO; Dr.Andrew Hodges explains both (male/female) involvement in JonBenet's death FYIW. :rolleyes:
Well that then seems to fit with both John and Patsy doesnt it?
I can sure see why they cant go to court-too many theories to cause reasonable doubt-a jury cant convict if a defense attorney has this much to work with - jmho...thx
 
"dont ya just hate these guys who say stuff like this-i mean what do they expect us to do- figure it out- not a family member and not an intruder???
Then who?? That eliminates everyone doesnt it?? I mean you cant have it both ways unless they believe it was someone who visited them?"


Well, I figure that what Ressler tries to say is that the killer was somebody who was a guest in the house. Even Michael Helgoth or Gary Oliva wouldn't be "intruders" if they were in the house with the Ramsey's knowledge and permit. An intruder is somebody who has not been invited, somebody that breaks in without the owner's consent. So, I think Ressler refers to someone who was there with the family's consent. And yes, that would mean something very near to BlueCrab's theory. In that case, the Ramsey's wouldn't hace told the truth to the police.

Just figuring.

---------------------------------------------
Just my unworthy opinion.
 
newtv said:
dont ya just hate these guys who say stuff like this-i mean what do they expect us to do- figure it out- not a family member and not an intruder???
Then who?? That eliminates everyone doesnt it?? I mean you cant have it both ways unless they believe it was someone who visited them?
Actually he didn't say "not an intruder." He said "not a stranger."

"Ressler said he doubts that a stranger broke into the home and killed JonBenet. But he said he also doubts a family member killed her. "
That could be someone who had worked for them or John's company, someone they'd met somewhere, someone who'd been through the house on a tour. In other words it wasn't a random act.
 
Cain said:
"dont ya just hate these guys who say stuff like this-i mean what do they expect us to do- figure it out- not a family member and not an intruder???
Then who?? That eliminates everyone doesnt it?? I mean you cant have it both ways unless they believe it was someone who visited them?"

Well, I figure that what Ressler tries to say is that the killer was somebody who was a guest in the house. Even Michael Helgoth or Gary Oliva wouldn't be "intruders" if they were in the house with the Ramsey's knowledge and permit. An intruder is somebody who has not been invited, somebody that breaks in without the owner's consent. So, I think Ressler refers to someone who was there with the family's consent. And yes, that would mean something very near to BlueCrab's theory. In that case, the Ramsey's wouldn't hace told the truth to the police.

Just figuring.

---------------------------------------------
Just my unworthy opinion.
:doh: - now that is likely exactly what they mean rofl- ok- so all that really means is they believe it was someone other than the ramseys but who knew the ramseys??
and does anyone know if they knew Linda Arndt prior to the murder investigation? (Since she became a possible suspect based on the profile)..and she said she thought it was John Ramsey-that she was looking into the eyes of a killer..which again makes this a puzzle-everyone involved has a different opinion-the other detective was adamant it was patsy (the guy)..so no wonder it is still unsolved..
 
Ressler called the note "bogus." He also said John and Patsy should have been taken to the police station and interrogated...and interrogated separately. Ressler apparently believes that John and/or Patsy, if not the killer/s, covered up for the killer/s, and that either John or Patsy, or both, wrote the phony ransom note to do just that.

I doubt that Ressler believes the Ramseys would stage a coverup to protect an AG employee, or even an adult family friend. As I said in an earlier post on this thread, because Ressler mentions Burke Ramsey (which no other profiler has done, to my knowledge) and thinks JonBenet's death may have been an accident, I think Ressler may suspect that Burke and/or one or more of his friends killed JonBenet.

imo
 
Misty said:
Donald thought a cop killed JonBenet, specifically Linda Arndt -- Munchausen Syndrome (law enforcement). (I've got a good article on munchausen by law enforcement somewhere.) The syndrome is real; motive is attention. Donald has training in handwriting analysis and came to the conclusion that a woman wrote the note; some of the phrases in the note could be interpreted as cop lingo. Linda's behavior after the crime is bizarre, but I believe that her behavior reflects her own issues.

This profile is not of Patsy.

Yes, that definitely looks to be the case.
 
newtv said:
sorry if this is old news but I had not heard this theory before- and pugh- isnt that patsy's maiden name?? (not relevant but just curious)..thx

Patsy's maiden name was Paugh.
 
You described **** to a "T" LOL

My comments: Lou gave compelling documentation that a stun gun MAY have been used in the commission of this crime, however failed to get the parents to agree to exhume to prove his theory 100%. This from parents who originally stated to the press they would DO ANYTHING in their power to find the killer of their baby. Smit's stun gun theory since has pretty much been debunked. Lou also never intereviewed Patsy personally.
 
newtv said:
Lou Smitt devoted his retired life to this case and did not believe they did the crime-he believes it was an intruder? John Douglas (I think thats his name), a
profiler with the FBI, said he did not believe the ramseys fit the profile at all-and wrote about it..now these 2 were pply privy to most of the details - why would they be so supportive if the ramseys did this..
(I am asking for your thots- not an argument about their guilt or innocence)..I think this is a fair question-2 very well reputed members of society say No Way the ramseys were involved..one by investigating and one by profiling..?
And they do not think it was Burke either?? They have stated in writing and publicly that they do not see how it could be anyone but an intruder..
(I dont have a link but i am sure you know better than me what I am referring to-it was a long time ago but I know I watched a whole program on Lou Smitt and watched the profiler being interviewed many times about the case..)..
At first Fleet White supported Mr. Ramsey too and he was with JR, when JR found JonBenet and most of the day as well. Don't you find it just a bit odd that after Fleet had some time to re-hash the events of the day, all of the sudden he turned on JR and openly stated that He hoped the next time he saw JR was in a courtroom. Just some food for thought. I appreciate your comments because I am the type that always looks at a theory and assumes it to be true then I attempt poke holes in the story. And if I can't poke any holes in the story then I have to continue to assume it's true till I can. The intruder theory, and the theory that the Ramseys are innocent is beginng to look like swiss cheese.
 
Nedthan Johns said:
You described **** to a "T" LOL

My comments: Lou gave compelling documentation that a stun gun MAY have been used in the commission of this crime, however failed to get the parents to agree to exhume to prove his theory 100%. This from parents who originally stated to the press they would DO ANYTHING in their power to find the killer of their baby. Smit's stun gun theory since has pretty much been debunked. Lou also never intereviewed Patsy personally.

The BPD could have gone through the legal process and done the exhumation---Steve Thomas said they didn't do it because they were afraid of negative publicity. It's unreasonable to put this burden on the Ramseys--they weren't running the investigation. Doberson said he is convinced a stun gun was used with a high degree of medical certainty---and he has the experience and knowledge to back him up....not to mention the test on the pig.
 
Maikai said:
The BPD could have gone through the legal process and done the exhumation---Steve Thomas said they didn't do it because they were afraid of negative publicity. It's unreasonable to put this burden on the Ramseys--they weren't running the investigation. Doberson said he is convinced a stun gun was used with a high degree of medical certainty---and he has the experience and knowledge to back him up....not to mention the test on the pig.

I agree that it wasn't/isn't the Ramseys call to order an exhumation. The police should have done that.

I disagree that Doberson's "high degree of medical certainty" would hold up in court. All it would take would be for someone to produce graphical evidence as myself and others have done which indicates that it is unlikely an Air taser was used and that the only way a stungun could be proved for certain would be by tissue sampling.

Stratbucker (sp?) is THE expert on stunguns and he says the marks were absolutely NOT caused by a stungun. His evidence is "discredited" only because he has connections to Taser - not because he is considered incompetent or that his claims were dubious. His evidence is based upon scientific testing and it is likely he would be a powerful witness against Doberson in any actual trial.

I have two marks on my leg which look as if a vampire has had a go at me! I've had them for years and they were caused by sheep ticks.
 
Maikai said:
Doberson said he is convinced a stun gun was used with a high degree of medical certainty---and he has the experience and knowledge to back him up....not to mention the test on the pig.
Doberson has also said you can't be sure without a tissue sample and can't tell by photographs alone. Since he comments in whatever direction gets him the most publicity, nothing he says has any real value.

Additionally, Doberson has yet to explain how a stun gun would even fit into the crime - why anyone would use one - and how you get someone to eat pineapple after you just shocked the hell out of them.
 
Maikai said:
The BPD could have gone through the legal process and done the exhumation---Steve Thomas said they didn't do it because they were afraid of negative publicity. It's unreasonable to put this burden on the Ramseys--they weren't running the investigation. Doberson said he is convinced a stun gun was used with a high degree of medical certainty---and he has the experience and knowledge to back him up....not to mention the test on the pig.

You missed the point once again MaikaI.

The BPD didn't feel a stun gun was used. The Ramseys did. The Ramseys were the ones who decided to pay for the follow up medical experiments, etc. in an effort to prove a stun gun was in fact used. THEY are the ones who wanted to prove this theory, not the BPD. The BPD had no need to exhume because they didn't believe the stun gun theory. They already had their answer.

The Ramseys on the other hand wanted the stun gun theory proven. They paid for the "experts", experiments on pigs, etc. and once again, did the job half-assed. Like the polygraph, they decided to do that as well, but used their own polygrapher. Another half-assed job. When making a claim and then going about proving it, they knew ahead of time that the only way to either prove or disprove that theory was to exhume and they once again, went only as far as needed to be able to continue the lie

Like all things Ramsey, they make a statement, lie, and pay someone to swear by it!
 
Even if it could be proven that the marks on the body were from a stun gun, it wouldn't have helped the investigation. The stun gunner could have been one of the Ramseys just as well as an intruder. Why would LE want to order the body be exhumed if the information gleaned from re-examining the marks would lead nowhere?

All this stuff about a stun gun having been used on JonBenet is Ramsey propaganda, and I don't swallow it.

imo
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
176
Guests online
2,121
Total visitors
2,297

Forum statistics

Threads
589,946
Messages
17,928,043
Members
228,010
Latest member
idrainuk
Back
Top