Lawrence Smith Replies - If you can say that

[JMO8778]

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)

LoL,yea,that's why they needed 3 of them...to carry all that stuff.
Hey,next road trip I go on...I MUST get some pineapple to take along ! There's nothing like having some fruit along for a long trip so it can spoil. ..forget the shelf snacks...spoiled fruit is much better.

But really...Hold has deduced just from the RN saying the author stating him/herself is a 'foreigner', (and yea...like we can really trust the author when there's a dead child found in the house),and there were a couple of misspelled words,that this person must be a foreigner,and not only that,he wanted JB for his future bride.And that the pineapple was for a long road trip of at least 2 days.Now HOW on earth can anyone run with such a story??? Yet alone expect anyone else to believe it.
Not to mention the blankets were JB's anyway,and the tape was said to be only 3/4 inch wide.I'd say Mr. Intruder was quite ill-prepared..burglars are more prepared than this made-up intruder was.

 

[JMO8778]

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)

a foreigner might be good at that,you know

 

[DeeDee249]

I just gotta say it was the "future/captive bride" thing that did it for me.
A person has as much right to be an IDI as an RDI (although I don't see HOW if they really read everything about this case and not just DOI). But when they start just saying stuff like that it makes the IDI theory just seem silly. Sad, and silly.

 

[UKGuy]

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.

Littledeer,

I have always been wondering why "INVESTIGATOR Smit", would go into a van with John Ramsey and Pat Ramsey and then pray with them?

After Pamela Paugh's BPD sanctioned raid on the evidence at the scene of a crime, maybe Investigator Smit thought some praying and divine intervention could do no harm, or was he expecting the truth to be revealed biblical style?

imo, it all smacks of a coverup, they had a conversation, Investigator Smit was propositioned, perhaps not directly, maybe the Ramsey's talked about their future need for an experienced investigator to fill their intended Tracey slot, were the seeds of defection planted at this Prayer Meeting?

Also:

Smit said Ramsey's prayer was to the point: "I pray that someday this nightmare will end and we will find the killer of our daughter." Smit then wrote up a report of the encounter.

You do not need to climb into someones van to utter that bolded sentence, it can be done in the open air. imo the report of the encounter as a prayer meeting is a smokescreen.

.

 

[UKGuy]

LoL,yea,that's why they needed 3 of them...to carry all that stuff.
Hey,next road trip I go on...I MUST get some pineapple to take along ! There's nothing like having some fruit along for a long trip so it can spoil. ..forget the shelf snacks...spoiled fruit is much better.

But really...Hold has deduced just from the RN saying the author stating him/herself is a 'foreigner', (and yea...like we can really trust the author when there's a dead child found in the house),and there were a couple of misspelled words,that this person must be a foreigner,and not only that,he wanted JB for his future bride.And that the pineapple was for a long road trip of at least 2 days.Now HOW on earth can anyone run with such a story??? Yet alone expect anyone else to believe it.
Not to mention the blankets were JB's anyway,and the tape was said to be only 3/4 inch wide.I'd say Mr. Intruder was quite ill-prepared..burglars are more prepared than this made-up intruder was.

JMO8778,
The weakness in Hold's approach is employing staged evidence to substantiate his theory, look at Lou Smit, same thing, the garrote constructed precisely and expertly by someone who knew what he was doing -- says that the killer was a "sexual sadist.", remember he characterised JonBenet as a "a pedophile's dream."!


Generating theories based on bogus evidence is bad practise.



.

 

[JMO8778]

Littledeer,

After Pamela Paugh's BPD sanctioned raid on the evidence at the scene of a crime, maybe Investigator Smit thought some praying and divine intervention could do no harm, or was he expecting the truth to be revealed biblical style?

imo, it all smacks of a coverup, they had a conversation, Investigator Smit was propositioned, perhaps not directly, maybe the Ramsey's talked about their future need for an experienced investigator to fill their intended Tracey slot, were the seeds of defection planted at this Prayer Meeting?

Also:

You do not need to climb into someones van to utter that bolded sentence, it can be done in the open air. imo the report of the encounter as a prayer meeting is a smokescreen.

.

Good point,as well as Smit saying he 'just happened' to run into the R's on one of his daily sittings at the house..as if they didn't know he would be there,if he was there every day? Even so,he would have been skeptical and reserved at meeting them;instead,it sounds as if they were waving to each other on the street,as if they were old friends.Perhaps this wasn't their first meeting?

 

[JMO8778]

JMO8778,
The weakness in Hold's approach is employing staged evidence to substantiate his theory, look at Lou Smit, same thing, the garrote constructed precisely and expertly by someone who knew what he was doing -- says that the killer was a "sexual sadist.", remember he characterised JonBenet as a "a pedophile's dream."!


Generating theories based on bogus evidence is bad practise.



.

not only that,he's making it up as he goes along ! we could just as easily say,based on same evidence,and with logic this time..the RN author was NOT foreign,JB was *not removed from her bed to be taken as a future bride,and there was no intended road trip.and that for one glaringly leads to who? ...the parents!

 

[BBB167893]

JMO8778,
The weakness in Hold's approach is employing staged evidence to substantiate his theory, look at Lou Smit, same thing, the garrote constructed precisely and expertly by someone who knew what he was doing -- says that the killer was a "sexual sadist.", remember he characterised JonBenet as a "a pedophile's dream."!


Generating theories based on bogus evidence is bad practise.



.

I'd go further than that. From what I've read, PMPT especially, it seems like Smit had it all backwards: he made up his mind, then looked around until he found someone with alphabet soup after their name to agree with him. Here's a for-instance: the stun gun. He asked Robert Stratbucker to help him out. When Bob told him it didn't look like a stunner, he never heard from Smitty again. Was it something he said?

 

[UKGuy]

I'd go further than that. From what I've read, PMPT especially, it seems like Smit had it all backwards: he made up his mind, then looked around until he found someone with alphabet soup after their name to agree with him. Here's a for-instance: the stun gun. He asked Robert Stratbucker to help him out. When Bob told him it didn't look like a stunner, he never heard from Smitty again. Was it something he said?

SuperDave,
I agree, but I don't think he had it backwords, I reckon he knew what he was about, he was building an IDI theory then went looking for independent corroboration.

The charges laid against Steve Thomas cannot be made about Lou Smit, he had worked homicide cases and was vastly more experienced than Steve Thomas, yet it is Lou Smit who not only ignores forensic evidence, or invents his own e.g. JonBenet snacking pineapple in bed, rope fibers, garrote as a sexual device etc, but also joins up with the Ramsey's to promote their innocence and appear in their documentaries.

I reckon Lou Smit along with some others were part of a post-mortem conspiracy!


.

 

[BBB167893]

Yeah, I've noticed that he can get away with stuff no one else can.

 

[Nuisanceposter]

I'd really like to know why it seems like no one questions Smit's incorrect assertion that JonBenet was able to fight with the person who killed her in any way.

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?

 

[UKGuy]

I'd really like to know why it seems like no one questions Smit's incorrect assertion that JonBenet was able to fight with the person who killed her in any way.

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?

Nuisanceposter,
Many at the BPD did not share Lou Smit's idea that an IDI theory best explained JonBenet's death. To publicly criticise him may have meant referencing evidence not in the public domain, or jeopordize future testimony at trial.

Nearly all the important assertions made by Lou Smit in his IDI have been shown to be plain false, yet the silence from him is deafening, not even a refinement of his IDI to account for updated evidence, and his errors.

imo Lou Smit had an agenda, one he shared post-mortem with other people close to the Ramsey's, and that was to promote the IDI theory as an account of JonBenet's death. Now its not illegal to do this, many have been sucked into the Ramsey's Are Innocent Campaign, but when there is no evidence to demonstrate that an intruder was in the Ramsey household, then all the IDI fellow travellors start to look suspect. I would go as far as to suggest that there was a conspiracy dressed up as a defence to minimize Ramsey involvement seeking to avoid a court case at all costs, whilst simultaneously promoting the IDI.

Lou Smit was not the only person to actively promote an IDI, other members of the inner Ramsey circle did so as well.

 

[JMO8778]

Yes,it appears Smit practiced Christianity in the same manner the R's did,as you say...for appearances only.

 

[UKGuy]

Yes,it appears Smit practiced Christianity in the same manner the R's did,as you say...for appearances only.

JMO8778,

Amen!

 

[DeeDee249]

SuperDave,
I agree, but I don't think he had it backwords, I reckon he knew what he was about, he was building an IDI theory then went looking for independent corroboration.

The charges laid against Steve Thomas cannot be made about Lou Smit, he had worked homicide cases and was vastly more experienced than Steve Thomas, yet it is Lou Smit who not only ignores forensic evidence, or invents his own e.g. JonBenet snacking pineapple in bed, rope fibers, garrote as a sexual device etc, but also joins up with the Ramsey's to promote their innocence and appear in their documentaries.

I reckon Lou Smit along with some others were part of a post-mortem conspiracy!


.

Absolutely spot on!
What infuriates me is that no one seemed to publicly refute Smit's fallacies. The "scratch marks" were NOT scratch marks but rather petechial hemorrhages. The coroner knew that, as did LA and any other LE privy to the autopsy. Yet Smit was never held accountable for his lies. To have an opinion that she struggled is one thing- to knowingly base it on total falsehoods is simply lying.

 

[UKGuy]

Absolutely spot on!
What infuriates me is that no one seemed to publicly refute Smit's fallacies. The "scratch marks" were NOT scratch marks but rather petechial hemorrhages. The coroner knew that, as did LA and any other LE privy to the autopsy. Yet Smit was never held accountable for his lies. To have an opinion that she struggled is one thing- to knowingly base it on total falsehoods is simply lying.

DeeDee249,
I know its maddening, but Lou Smit is at liberty to interpret the forensic evidence as he sees fit. I reckon many investigators thought his IDI theory never matched the facts, and his speculations about a sexual-device, stun-gun etc examples of his overactive imagination.

If that was simply the extent of his questionable behaviour in the case then you could put it down to misplaced trust in his theory, or his christian zeal, but he went on to take part in Ramsey documentaries playing the part of Sherlock Holmes, determined to track down the intruder, and assist the publicly maligned parents repair their damaged reputations.

imo he is either a fool or part of a larger conspiracy to assist the Ramsey's defend themselves against homicide charges?


.

 

[Nuisanceposter]

I don't think Smit is a fool - I'd have to agree with you, UKGuy, he's part of bigger conspiracy to shut this whole RDI thing down by pimping out his IDI theory as loud and as hard as possible.

I used to think he was just the fool, but if he's really as experienced and as capable, credible, etc as they say he is, then he knows better than what he's lying about with the struggle that never took place.

There was no skin or blood found under JonBenet's nails. If she had actually reached up and clawed at her neck to try to relieve the ligature and catch a breath, then her blood and her skin would definitely be under her nails, and obvious, irrefutable proof that she was conscious to struggle.

That just isn't there. The only thing under her nails was some old, undateable DNA that was described as little more than crust in Wecht's book.

It really makes me angry that he's getting away with lying and that no one has publicly challenged his inaccuracies. I know it's a long shot to ever think Steve Thomas might take that on, but I'd pay money to watch Thomas and Smit discuss the case and dispel the myths one on one.

I'd also like to know exactly what Smit did in this investigation - who his suspects were, who he interviewed, who he cleared, et cetera. I get really annoyed by all of the IDI who complain that BPD didn't do this, didn't follow up on that - how about Smit? If BPD didn't do XYZ, did Smit follow up and do it? What were the results, if he did, and why didn't he, if he didn't? The DA has the case now, has had it for the past 5 or so years - are they doing everything the IDI says BPD didn't do?

 

[UKGuy]

I don't think Smit is a fool - I'd have to agree with you, UKGuy, he's part of bigger conspiracy to shut this whole RDI thing down by pimping out his IDI theory as loud and as hard as possible.

I used to think he was just the fool, but if he's really as experienced and as capable, credible, etc as they say he is, then he knows better than what he's lying about with the struggle that never took place.

There was no skin or blood found under JonBenet's nails. If she had actually reached up and clawed at her neck to try to relieve the ligature and catch a breath, then her blood and her skin would definitely be under her nails, and obvious, irrefutable proof that she was conscious to struggle.

That just isn't there. The only thing under her nails was some old, undateable DNA that was described as little more than crust in Wecht's book.

It really makes me angry that he's getting away with lying and that no one has publicly challenged his inaccuracies. I know it's a long shot to ever think Steve Thomas might take that on, but I'd pay money to watch Thomas and Smit discuss the case and dispel the myths one on one.

I'd also like to know exactly what Smit did in this investigation - who his suspects were, who he interviewed, who he cleared, et cetera. I get really annoyed by all of the IDI who complain that BPD didn't do this, didn't follow up on that - how about Smit? If BPD didn't do XYZ, did Smit follow up and do it? What were the results, if he did, and why didn't he, if he didn't? The DA has the case now, has had it for the past 5 or so years - are they doing everything the IDI says BPD didn't do?

Nuisanceposter,

I don't think Smit is a fool - I'd have to agree with you, UKGuy, he's part of bigger conspiracy to shut this whole RDI thing down by pimping out his IDI theory as loud and as hard as possible.

Thats how it appears to me. At some point he simply switched sides, or he was always on board, but faked being an independent investigator?

Ask yourself why was he needed anyway, what did he put on the table that was not already there, what role did he perform that nobody else undertook?

It really makes me angry that he's getting away with lying and that no one has publicly challenged his inaccuracies. I know it's a long shot to ever think Steve Thomas might take that on, but I'd pay money to watch Thomas and Smit discuss the case and dispel the myths one on one.

The extent to which he can be accused of lying is up for debate, his inaccuracies can be characterized as theoretical speculations based on a desire to catch JonBenet's killer. But with no admission that any features of his IDI theory are plain wrong, or an attempt to revise it, to accord with known forensic evidence must mean he is not serious about apprehending JonBenet's killer, or discussing his own assertions, why should that be?

Smit would never discuss the case in public with Steve Thomas, he would be trashed in minutes, thats assuming both could cite forensic information not yet in the public domain. Steve Thomas knows the damage done to the case and his health by Lou Smit, he would eat him alive.

I'd also like to know exactly what Smit did in this investigation - who his suspects were, who he interviewed, who he cleared, et cetera.

I'm not so sure about who he cleared, but quite a few were labelled as suspects on the basis of Lou Smits dubious sleuthing skills, particularly in those Ramsey documentaries. Basically anyone who never had a Ramsey surname was on his IDI list.


Unless Burke or John talk, nobody will ever be put on trial for the death of JonBenet. What can be done instead is to catalog all the evidence and names of those involved in a post-mortem conspiracy. Since one day the truth will be told. As even the Keystone-Cops would never allow a close relative of a homicide suspect prior access to the crime-scene with the sole intention of removing forensic evidence, an event that took place over many hours, where either Pamela Paugh either had an itemised list or used a cell-phone to take requests.


.

 

[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.
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.

 

[JMO8778]

JMO8778,

Amen!

^5 on that!