Lawrence Smith Replies - If you can say that

[UKGuy]

I know he can interpret facts, but stating the petechiae are scratches is more than that. Ignoring the fact that if they were scratches there would be skin and blood under her nails shows that he KNOWS they are not.
Let's also remember that Coroner Meyer did not follow proper procedure (again) and used the same nail clippers for each of her fingernails, instead of a sterile, new pair for each finger (which IS correct procedure). Because of this sloppiness, we cannot even assume that the clippers that were used were even sterile to begin with. The DNA under her nails may have come from the clippers.
And I agree that he jumped on the RST wagon to suppress the facts and push the "Rs as victims" agenda.

DeeDee249,

I know he can interpret facts, but stating the petechiae are scratches is more than that. Ignoring the fact that if they were scratches there would be skin and blood under her nails shows that he KNOWS they are not.

I agree, and its details such as this, that allow us to question his motivation. You might have expected Steve Thomas to make such assertions, but not a vastly experienced homicide detective such as Lou Smit.

Another prime mover in the RST was Mike Bynum, Ramsey friend and business associate.

His own account of lawyering up is:

Transcript # 97091003-j08 T
ABC PRIMETIME LIVE, SEPTEMBER 10, 1997
HEADLINE: THE MYSTERY OF JONBENET RAMSEY

DIANE SAWYER: (on camera) Why did they get a lawyer?

MICHAEL BYNUM: I went, as their friend, to help. And I felt that they should have legal advice -- nothing more, nothing less.

DIANE SAWYER: So you're the reason they got a lawyer?

MICHAEL BYNUM: I'm the one.

...

MICHAEL BYNUM: Well, first of all, that was not the words that I used. I told John there were some legal issues that I thought needed to be taken care of. And John just looked at me and said, "Do whatever you think needs to be done," and he and Burke -- he went into a room to talk with Burke and so I did.

DIANE SAWYER: What made you think there were legal issues?

MICHAEL BYNUM: I was a prosecutor. I know how this works. I know where the police attention's going to go, right from the get go.

Later like Lou Smit, and using his legal privilege at the Colorado Criminal Defense Bar he actively assisted in promoting the idea that an Intruder Did It:

Rocky Mountain News

Tale similar to JonBenet's posed to bar

Author draws parallels in case of slain girls where parents were 'wrongly' suspected

August 9, 1997

By Charlie Brennan

BOULDER -- A story was told Friday of two parents wrongly accused in their daughter's murder, two parents whose cries of innocence weren't heeded until one was wrongly convicted and their lives turned upside down.

David Protess, co-author of Gone in the Night, spoke to the Boulder County branch of the Colorado Criminal Defense Bar about miscarriages of justice, most notably the 1988 Chicago-area murder of Jaclyn Dowaliby.

He was there on the invitation of Boulder lawyer Michael Bynum, who represents John Ramsey's company, Access Graphics, and is a Ramsey family friend.

Protess's talk was timely in light of the unsolved JonBenet Ramsey homicide, in which John and Patsy Ramsey are suspects. The audience included prosecutors from Boulder District Attorney Alex Hunter's office, as well as two lawyers assisting the Ramseys with their own investigation of the Christmas night slaying.

"There are some obvious parallels'' between the Dowaliby and Ramsey cases, Protess said. In both cases, only the two parents, a brother and the murdered girl were known to be in the house at bedtime. In both cases, one or both parents, while protesting their innocence, quickly retained lawyers.

In both cases, the parents became suspects in the girls' murders. One significant difference is that while 7-year-old Jaclyn Dowaliby turned up dead four days after her disappearance in a field 5 miles from home, 6-year-old JonBenet was found strangled in her family's basement. Society prefers to suspect family members in the cases of murdered children, Protess said.
"It's comforting to think that the parents did it,'' he said. "We don't want to accept that there are predators out there who can break into a home and kill a child.''

On the thinnest of evidence, Protess said, David and Cynthia Dowaliby were arrested and tried for their daughter's murder. Cynthia Dowaliby won a directed verdict of acquittal before the jury began deliberations. But her husband was found guilty and sentenced to 45 years in prison. It was only through the appeals process that it was revealed three key witnesses had lied, and another had been mistaken in his testimony. David Dowaliby was exonerated.

Protess, a professor at Northwestern University's Medill School of Journalism, said the media was used by Dowaliby investigators to fuel suspicion.
Several tips leaked by police and repeated by the press that were damaging to the Dowalibys -- such as that a basement window was allegedly broken from the inside -- were revealed later to have been lies. No one else has ever been charged in the murder of Jaclyn Dowaliby. "The Dowalibys were doubly wronged,'' Protess told the bar association gathering, "first by the killer, then by the authorities.''

 

[BBB167893]

No proof of that. Nothing in the autopsy, and that certainly would have been included. Smit is the only person who has said that JonBenet struggled with her killer, clawing at her neck, and he was not the only person who would know if she did or not...so out of all of the investigators, police officers, DA men, FBI, experts, et cetera, why is Lou Smit the ONLY person making this struggle claim, and why does the IDI run with it as if it were gospel truth when there's nothing anywhere to back it up at all?

Because no one wants to believe that a mother could kill her own child, NP.

 

[Ames]

Because no one wants to believe that a mother could kill her own child, NP.

But yet...sadly...it happens ALL the time. And some of them not just kill her own CHILD...they kill their CHILDREN...2,3,4,5....of them at a time. (Insert Andrea Yates' picture here).

 

[DeeDee249]

I have a theory about that kind of thing. Parents (especially MOTHERS) who can kill their own children are able to separate themselves from their kids in a psychopathic way. They don't see themselves as their mothers; they see themselves as being the instrument of either punishing or liberating their kids. Whatever the reasons for their actions they do not view themselves as guilty-they feel they have just reasons for doing this heinous act. Sometimes they are truly insane. I don't believe in "temporary" insanity, though our legal system does. But there are cases where the killer truly is insane, and not just at the time of the murders. I feel that as much of a "stage mother" as PR was, she saw JBR as not so much her child, but her "product"- either an extension of herself or something to be molded into what she was no longer able to be. It is a kind of disassociation.
With PR, I don't see insanity, temporary or otherwise. I see rage and an accidental injury so severe that it results in death. When PR made the statement "I know in my heart I did not do this." what she is really doing is justifying her actions. She did NOT intend to kill her daughter. So she keeps that as her focus, and that is why she can make that statement truthfully. She feels that JBR died as a result of an accident which she did not mean to cause- so she feels deep down she is not really responsible. What she means is- "she died as a result of an interaction with me- but I did not actually KILL her".
To phrase her comment that way - "I know in my heart..." is an odd way of putting it for an innocent person. Someone innocent of ALL involvement in this crime would never say that. JR makes a similarly odd statement: "We didn't mean for this to happen". Well, who the heck DOES mean for kidnappers to grab, sexually assault, and kill their child? Those 2 statements, to me, are the words of parents who KNOW what happened, were THERE when it happened.

 

[JMO8778]

good post Deedee.I think you're right.When Susan Smith drowned her 2 boys,I recall the FBI saying that usually when mothers kill their children,they tend to be found (but not always),in water or wrapped in plastic,a sort of subconscious 'sending them back to the womb' kind of thing I suppose.And JB was found wrapped in a blanket...something a parent would do,not an intruder.

 

[DeeDee249]

Interesting...I am thinking it is easier for someone who does that to put their kids in water also- a cleaner, quick removal (out of sight). A can see where even a psychotic mother might have a hard time burying a child they just killed for a lot of reasons. It's more time consuming for one; then the act of burial itself I feel would be harder to do, not just from a point of view of digging the grave, but harder emotionally. With the water burial- the hope is that they will never be found. That is not foolproof. Bodies rise, unless they are prevented from doing so. Think of poor Natalee Holloway. Something else had to have been done to prevent her remains from surfacing somewhere.

 

[Ames]

good post Deedee.I think you're right.When Susan Smith drowned her 2 boys,I recall the FBI saying that usually when mothers kill their children,they tend to be found (but not always),in water or wrapped in plastic,a sort of subconscious 'sending them back to the womb' kind of thing I suppose.And JB was found wrapped in a blanket...something a parent would do,not an intruder.

And she was wrapped like a "papoose"....or swaddled...the way that I wrap my three month old daughter. Doesn't sound quite like what an intruder would do, does it?

 

[Ames]

I have a theory about that kind of thing. Parents (especially MOTHERS) who can kill their own children are able to separate themselves from their kids in a psychopathic way. They don't see themselves as their mothers; they see themselves as being the instrument of either punishing or liberating their kids. Whatever the reasons for their actions they do not view themselves as guilty-they feel they have just reasons for doing this heinous act. Sometimes they are truly insane. I don't believe in "temporary" insanity, though our legal system does. But there are cases where the killer truly is insane, and not just at the time of the murders. I feel that as much of a "stage mother" as PR was, she saw JBR as not so much her child, but her "product"- either an extension of herself or something to be molded into what she was no longer able to be. It is a kind of disassociation.
With PR, I don't see insanity, temporary or otherwise. I see rage and an accidental injury so severe that it results in death. When PR made the statement "I know in my heart I did not do this." what she is really doing is justifying her actions. She did NOT intend to kill her daughter. So she keeps that as her focus, and that is why she can make that statement truthfully. She feels that JBR died as a result of an accident which she did not mean to cause- so she feels deep down she is not really responsible. What she means is- "she died as a result of an interaction with me- but I did not actually KILL her".
To phrase her comment that way - "I know in my heart..." is an odd way of putting it for an innocent person. Someone innocent of ALL involvement in this crime would never say that. JR makes a similarly odd statement: "We didn't mean for this to happen". Well, who the heck DOES mean for kidnappers to grab, sexually assault, and kill their child? Those 2 statements, to me, are the words of parents who KNOW what happened, were THERE when it happened.

I agree with JMO...this is an excellent post. "I know in my heart"...IS an odd way of putting that, for an innocent person. Almost like she knows in her "heart"...but not in her "head"...that she did not do this. As you said...I think that actually she meant..."I know in my heart that I did not intend to do this".

 

[Ames]

Interesting...I am thinking it is easier for someone who does that to put their kids in water also- a cleaner, quick removal (out of sight). A can see where even a psychotic mother might have a hard time burying a child they just killed for a lot of reasons. It's more time consuming for one; then the act of burial itself I feel would be harder to do, not just from a point of view of digging the grave, but harder emotionally. With the water burial- the hope is that they will never be found. That is not foolproof. Bodies rise, unless they are prevented from doing so. Think of poor Natalee Holloway. Something else had to have been done to prevent her remains from surfacing somewhere.

I agree, I told my husband the same thing. She had to have been put into something, or tied to some cement blocks. Look at Laci Peterson...I am sure that Scott thought that she would never be found...and she was tied to something, and weighted down...she just broke free.

 

[JMO8778]

There is speculation that NH was put into a cage,or box of some sort,that fishermen use,and then loaded onto a boat and dumped out to sea.There's a forum here just for her,try doing a search.

 

[JMO8778]

And she was wrapped like a "papoose"....or swaddled...the way that I wrap my three month old daughter. Doesn't sound quite like what an intruder would do, does it?

nope,and UK mentioned Jaqualyn Dowaliby earlier;the difference is that her body was found behind a dumpster at an apt. building,highly decomposed and infiltrated w. insects,and I think it was said she wasn't fully dressed either.(someone correct me if I'm wrong on any of this,its been while since I saw this on tv,I think it was a movie).I believe she had also been verifiably sexually assualted ..not quite what we see here w/ JB,which could have all been done due to corporal cleaning.
Anyway,that is definitely NOT the way a parent would leave a child,and I fully believe both parents to be innocent in that case,and not just due to that.I recall some of the witnesses lied for a relative that's thought to have done it,and that he was actually not where they said he was,and I think there were other reasons he was thought to be guilty as well.I haven't followed that story so I don't know what happened after that.

 

[Ames]

There is speculation that NH was put into a cage,or box of some sort,that fishermen use,and then loaded onto a boat and dumped out to sea.There's a forum here just for her,try doing a search.

I will..thanks. I have been on that forum before, but not lately. If it was a box, it will surface eventually, too...the same way that "Baby Grace", did.

 

[Ames]

nope,and UK mentioned Jaqualyn Dowaliby earlier;the difference is that her body was found behind a dumpster at an apt. building,highly decomposed and infiltrated w. insects,and I think it was said she wasn't fully dressed either.(someone correct me if I'm wrong on any of this,its been while since I saw this on tv,I think it was a movie).I believe she had also been verifiably sexually assualted ..not quite what we see here w/ JB,which could have all been done due to corporal cleaning.
Anyway,that is definitely NOT the way a parent would leave a child,and I fully believe both parents to be innocent in that case,and not just due to that.I recall some of the witnesses lied for a relative that's thought to have done it,and that he was actually not where they said he was,and I think there were other reasons he was thought to be guilty as well.I haven't followed that story so I don't know what happened after that.

And if an "intruder" had of sexually assaulted JB, with a paintbrush...or whatever, he would have done way, WAY more damage..than what was done. Whoever did the insertion, whether it be digitally, or with an object (the paintbrush)...was WAY to careful with her...or GENTLE..that would be a better word for it. An intruder/kidnapper/molester/killer would not have been so gentle.

 

[UKGuy]

And if an "intruder" had of sexually assaulted JB, with a paintbrush...or whatever, he would have done way, WAY more damage..than what was done. Whoever did the insertion, whether it be digitally, or with an object (the paintbrush)...was WAY to careful with her...or GENTLE..that would be a better word for it. An intruder/kidnapper/molester/killer would not have been so gentle.

Ames, You are surely correct. Not only may her injuries have been more severe, no intruder would have decided to change her into clean size-12's, replacing her longjohns, all after bringing her barbie-gown along for some reason? Not only is Steve Thomas' PDI flawed in many respects he even ignores some of his own investigators forensic evidence, or minimally offers no explanation. .

 

[Albert18]

...Not only is Steve Thomas' PDI flawed in many respects he even ignores some of his own investigators forensic evidence, or minimally offers no explanation. .

Well if Patsy didn't do it then it must have been a gentle intruder.

You nor anyone else has brought forth one piece of evidence that causes problems with Steve Thomas' theory.

 

[UKGuy]

Well if Patsy didn't do it then it must have been a gentle intruder.

You nor anyone else has brought forth one piece of evidence that causes problems with Steve Thomas' theory.

Albert18,
You reckon, much of Steve Thomas' PDI is speculative, he rules out John's participation, but the forensic evidence places him at the crime-scene, also John's account of placing a sleeping JonBenet to bed is contradicted by the pineapple found in JonBenet's stomach. How do Patsy and John arrive at the same account if JonBenet was placed to bed wearing the red turtleneck, but John discovers her wearing the white gap-top? Patsy is supposed to have removed forensic evidence by dumping it outdoors in sewers and neighbors trash-cans, I doubt that. Patsy left JonBenet wearing urine-soaked longjohns, but bedwetting is the event that led to Patsy killing JonBenet, so why bother doing any staging, just to leave her wearing urine-soaked clothes? Then there is the splinter discovered inside JonBenet, what has that to do with staging, is it a fake sexual assault, if so, why hide it beneath size-12's, longjohns, and a blanket? Also there is the ignoring of expert opinion citing chronic sexual abuse, with no explanation to demonstrate why his theory is better.

imo Steve Thomas' PDI theory is flawed.


.

 

[DeeDee249]

I believe the stagers had no way of knowing that a splinter was left inside the vagina. It was on the finger that snapped the paintbrush, and probably came off during the digital penetration. This splinter was found at autopsy, during dissection of the vagina. The coroner didn't just look inside and see it.
I think the urine stains on the long johns and underwear came from post-mortem release. The thermal weave of the long johns and the thin cotton undies could dry pretty quick. By the time she was wrapped in the blanket- she was dry. I think the stagers didn't think the stains would be noticed, o if they were, that it wouldn't be an issue. Urine-soaked clothes don't LOOK stained when wet. I think that her parents were well aware of the fact that people knew JBR wet the bed and had incontinence problems. I just don't think they thought it would be an issue. (Like the pineapple and the too-big panties- it was a shock to them when they became an issue).

 

[Ames]

I believe the stagers had no way of knowing that a splinter was left inside the vagina. It was on the finger that snapped the paintbrush, and probably came off during the digital penetration. This splinter was found at autopsy, during dissection of the vagina. The coroner didn't just look inside and see it.
I think the urine stains on the long johns and underwear came from post-mortem release. The thermal weave of the long johns and the thin cotton undies could dry pretty quick. By the time she was wrapped in the blanket- she was dry. I think the stagers didn't think the stains would be noticed, o if they were, that it wouldn't be an issue. Urine-soaked clothes don't LOOK stained when wet. I think that her parents were well aware of the fact that people knew JBR wet the bed and had incontinence problems. I just don't think they thought it would be an issue. (Like the pineapple and the too-big panties- it was a shock to them when they became an issue).

I don't believe that they thought that it was an issue either. I think that they believed that they did such a wonderful staging job, that nobody would have ever in a million years...suspected them. So, the pineapple and the urine soaked clothes were not an issue (for them).

 

[DeeDee249]

Yes- I bet they were sure they had thought of everything. That night- they must have been running on pure adrenaline- the pure panic takes over and you just GO. Automatic pilot. It's not like they sat down and made a to-do list. They thought they staged a perfect murder scene. I guess in a way it worked. They got away with it.

 

[Ames]

Yes- I bet they were sure they had thought of everything. That night- they must have been running on pure adrenaline- the pure panic takes over and you just GO. Automatic pilot. It's not like they sat down and made a to-do list. They thought they staged a perfect murder scene. I guess in a way it worked. They got away with it.

Yep, it sure did.