I agree with you on this one and probably on most of this case..unfortunately i have forgotten most of what i knew of this case...but i do remember something about Smit having a religious slant towards the ramseys...somehow in his latter years lost his objectivity when it came to them...I also notice some other so called experts lost their objectivity like fbi profiler and author John Douglas..maybe it's god or the money god.or maybe its just because its hard to believe a affluent white mother would kill her kid...but there are a lot of people who pissed away their integrity on this case. Can you tell me what you remember about Lou's lack of objectivity?
Are the Ramseys involved or not?
- Thread starter Britt
- Start date
- Status
I agree with you on this one and probably on most of this case..unfortunately i have forgotten most of what i knew of this case...but i do remember something about Smit having a religious slant towards the ramseys...somehow in his latter years lost his objectivity when it came to them...I also notice some other so called experts lost their objectivity like fbi profiler and author John Douglas..maybe it's god or the money god.or maybe its just because its hard to believe a affluent white mother would kill her kid...but there are a lot of people who pissed away their integrity on this case. Can you tell me what you remember about Lou's lack of objectivity?
If you have 2 hours to spare, rent the DVD "Perfect Murder, Perfect Town". It is a very good "refresher course" on the case. It shows a memorable scene with Lou Smit praying in a van with the Rs. That prayer session supposedly convinced him they were innocent. Real professional. What he didn't realize was that they were really praying they didn't get caught!
Thanks Dee Dee...your post is reminding me of what I once knew. I will look into it further.
eileenhawkeye
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2010
- Messages
- 8,755
- Reaction score
- 132
Perfect Murder Perfect Town is on YouTube, for anyone interested in watching it.
From another one of those pesky links.....According to Greta there was an unidentified palm print, boot print and pubic hair. Why didn't Steve Thomas correct her if the palm print belonged to Melinda Ramsey? I still have yet to find a reliable source that it belonged to Melinda, anyone care to provide one?
VAN SUSTEREN: Struggles between police eager to make an arrest and prosecutors cautionary about the law are common. But did the disputes between Boulder investigators and the district attorney have an effect on the JonBenet Ramsey investigation?
Steve, anybody who's in the house where a murder is committed certainly are under the umbrella of suspicion. In this case, though, here's what the prosecution's faced with. There were burglaries in the areas prior to the murder, there's a broken window, there was a foot print that can't be identified, a palm print that can't be unidentified, unidentified pubic hair on the body, a very compromised murder scene and no history of child abuse. Any defense lawyer could drive a Mack truck through that case. Why do you think that this case should proceed forward in light of that fact?
THOMAS: I'm not saying that at all. I agree that, at this point, a criminal prosecution and a beyond-a-reasonable-doubt threshold is unattainable. Early in this case, as I said, when pressure should have been brought to bear by the government that was charged to do the right thing, we, being part of that government at the time, failed to do so. I think there were these opportunities -- were we able to get in a room and interview the Ramseys early in this thing, who knows what we might have learned. We'll never...
VAN SUSTEREN: Struggles between police eager to make an arrest and prosecutors cautionary about the law are common. But did the disputes between Boulder investigators and the district attorney have an effect on the JonBenet Ramsey investigation?
Steve, anybody who's in the house where a murder is committed certainly are under the umbrella of suspicion. In this case, though, here's what the prosecution's faced with. There were burglaries in the areas prior to the murder, there's a broken window, there was a foot print that can't be identified, a palm print that can't be unidentified, unidentified pubic hair on the body, a very compromised murder scene and no history of child abuse. Any defense lawyer could drive a Mack truck through that case. Why do you think that this case should proceed forward in light of that fact?
THOMAS: I'm not saying that at all. I agree that, at this point, a criminal prosecution and a beyond-a-reasonable-doubt threshold is unattainable. Early in this case, as I said, when pressure should have been brought to bear by the government that was charged to do the right thing, we, being part of that government at the time, failed to do so. I think there were these opportunities -- were we able to get in a room and interview the Ramseys early in this thing, who knows what we might have learned. We'll never...
Zak
Active Member
Hi Junebug! Welcome! I found this link regarding the palm print being identified:
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...benet-ramsey-john-and-patsy-ramsey-palm-print
Also, possibly when Greta had Steve on her show the palm print had not been identified until later on.
Zak
Active Member
Junebug, here is another link to the palm print being identified:
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=czofAAAAIBAJ&sjid=HtAEAAAAIBAJ&pg=3009,3510898
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=czofAAAAIBAJ&sjid=HtAEAAAAIBAJ&pg=3009,3510898
runsdeep
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2011
- Messages
- 439
- Reaction score
- 5
that just doesnt add up to me.
and the crime is so more advanced than a 9 yr old boy, i think burke would have shown these tendencies prior to and/or since that night.
You just nailed it, Mikebr. I can't remember who it was, but someone said that they certainly didn't see any of his supposed greatness in this case.
Okay, I'm willing to admit, he may have been great at one time. But let's not forget that when he caught the Ramsey case, he was getting older, and for all we know, becoming senile. Add to that the fact that he'd never run into suspects like the Ramseys before AND his own wife had been battling cancer like Patsy had done, and it's a bad receipe.
Add to that he was hired by the DA's office. I can't help but wonder what effect they might have had on him, especially guys like Trip DeMuth and Pete Hofstrom!
You're not kidding! If it had been JUST Lou Smit, that would be one thing. But this was practically an EPIDEMIC.
Incidentally, have you ever heard Douglas's recollection of when he and Smit first teamed up? All I could think was, "get a ROOM."
I'll get to that later. (Oh, boy, will I get to that!)
Not only can I TELL you, Mikebr, I'll give it to you straight from chapter eight!
A retired detective with an office in Colorado Springs, he had made a rep in Amarillo, Texas as a homicide man. He had a record for solving homicides. He possessed an easygoing, aw-shucks manner that, to hear his friends tell it, masked a human bloodhound. Most of the people who knew him and know him consider him their friend. This made him seem like the right man to lead the case and teach the inexperienced Boulder Police a thing or two.
That's not what happened. Three days after arriving on the case, before he'd even read the file, he sat back in his chair and said, "I don't think the Ramseys did it." He never budged from that position.
Another incident which took place later set it in concrete. Smit, a devout Christian (the kind who picket abortion clinics), had been approached by the Ramseys to pray with them. Knowing that this tactic had won confessions in the past, he agreed. He came out of that meeting a believer in them.
That SHOULD have been the deal-breaker right there. Any good attorney would tear him apart for even the APPEARANCE of impropriety. But he was allowed to remain for another year-and-a-half. The intruder theory owes its existence to him. Smit is often referred to as the evidence man in the case. He puts so much stock in evidence, he makes up his own!
SNIP
-Smit has always claimed that if evidence were to arise implicating the Ramseys, he'd go after them. But on several occasions, that has happened. and he was one of the first to pooh-pooh it. In 2000, Gideon Epstein, one of the country's leading handwriting experts, studied the ransom letter, then offered to have Smit go over his findings with him. Smit flat-out refused. Why? If he's the man he says he is, he certainly wouldn't turn down a good lead, right? And if Epstein's conclusions are nothing but hooey, if Smit's evidence of innocence is so overwhelming, what could he possibly have to fear? Secondly, he claimed that the fibers that actually can be traced to the night of the killing, those from Patsy Ramsey, don't mean anything. Although when pressed, he conceded that they are incriminating. Smit apparently thinks he's smarter than all the experts, Epstein being just one example. During his deposition in a lawsuit filed against the Ramseys (more on that later), he essentially admitted that he didn't speak to anyone who didn't agree with him:
A. Because I think he came to the wrong conclusion.
Q. But can't an expert that is well qualified reach the wrong conclusion occasionally?
MR. WOOD: Are you asking him to comment on Dr. Spitz's qualifications?
MR. HOFFMAN: Well, yeah, I asked him why he didn't feel he was qualified, and he said just because he came to the wrong conclusion. That doesn't necessarily mean he is not qualified.
MR. WOOD: All I am saying is to the form of your question, your question assumes a well-qualified expert.
MR. HOFFMAN: Okay. Then I am going to ask --
Q.(By Mr. Hoffman)-- Detective Smit whether you think Werner Spitz is a well-qualified expert?
A. Personally, no.
Q. Okay. And the reasons for that?
A. Mainly because I have seen his reports. I have also talked to other doctors and pathologists. They do not agree with Warner Spitz. I will also go by what they say.
As dedicated as he claims to be, you might think he'd take a minute to talk to Werner Spitz first!
Smit thinks he knows more than Dr. Richard Krugman, as well:
Q. But Dr. Richard Krugman is the dean of the, I think, Colorado University Health Sciences Center, and is considered a nationally-known child abuse expert, and apparently doesn't agree with you.
MR. WOOD: Are you talking about, when you say "sexually molested," are you representing that Dr. Krugman is taking the position that there was not a sexual assault as evidenced by the trauma to JonBenet Ramsey's vagina?
MR. HOFFMAN: No. That simply that there wasn't sexual gratification as a motivation behind it; that there was some sort of an assault on the sex organs, but they weren't necessarily for the purposes of sexual gratification. That is the representation.
MR. WOOD: So the representation is that Dr. Krugman acknowledges that she was physically assaulted with some type of instrument in her vaginal area, but Dr. Krugman, you represent, has some theory as to why that attack took place that would differ from --
MR. HOFFMAN: No, I just want you --
MR. WOOD: Excuse me.
-- the idea that it was a sexual motivation?
MR. HOFFMAN: I just wanted to ask Detective Smit whether or not he had heard that and whether he knew of it.
MR. WOOD: I am just not sure what he is being asked to say that he heard of.
Q.(By Mr. Hoffman) Simply -- well, have you heard that Dr. Krugman does not believe that this was a sexual assault involving gratification?
A. No, I have not.Again, would it be asking too much to talk to him?!
I reckon that'll do for starters!
I was going to mention that, Zak. Unless I'm totally screwed up about my timeline here, that interview with Greta was in 2000. ST had already turned in his badge two years earlier. The palm print and arm hair evidence wasn't made public until the summer of 2002. So it's not just possible, but likely that he didn't know.
HMM! I could SWEAR that's what I've been saying!
SuperDave said:
I realize I'll probably regret asking, but what's wrong with it?
I'm not talking about Burke. Far as I'm concerned, he's not even in the running.
runsdeep
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2011
- Messages
- 439
- Reaction score
- 5
you wont regret asking, i'm here to discuss not debate
if john did it and went to jail, what would patsy and burke do for that kind of money? and with ovarian cancer, she was on shaky ground healthwise too. knowing what she did, that gave her power from there on out.
if patsy did it and went to jail, how would that change john's way of life? without a motive to maintain a way of life, then who would want to stay with someone who is likely to go off the edge and choke you in your sleep? how did she better his circumstances in life?
but then i dont have the hunger for wealth, nor the logic of a pervert or murderer.
you wont regret asking, i'm here to discuss not debate
Whatever!
I follow you.
You ask good questions, rusndeep. But your next line leads me to the answer:
It's about ego, as far as I go, (and keep in mind, I AM speaking hypothetically here, and DID legitimately want to know what was wrong with that line of thinking). Those who have the most have the most to lose, and the greatest reason to hold onto even if the alternative would be easier. (Richard Nixon comes to mind!)
How would it change his life? Aside from robbing his son of a mother? Or of having to admit to himself that his judgment was so terribly wrong? That he screwed up his first marriage to marry a monster? That's hard to take.
Committing murder isn't like taking a bus ride. You can't get off at different stops.
I agree burke did not crash in her skull.
I think Patsy wrote the note. I also think the note was written to first fool John so he might leave the house long enough for Patsy to dump the prestaged body......Here are my arguments against John being involved...
If both parents were involved the body would have been removed from the house...why would parents call the police to their house with a body not well hidden in their basement? I don't think Patsy expected John's reaction and I believe in her own words she said John told her to call 911. Do you think John is dumb enough to expect the police to never search the house? I think its pretty clear that the Boulder Police screwed this up. If this had been a poor or working class household..the police would have immediately removed everyone from the house and with swat would have cleared that house room by room, nook by nook...how did anyone know the "kidnapper" was not hidding in a closet...there was no obvious method of entrance or exit. So again why did John tell PR to call police if he knew a body was in the basement? So either patsy did it (my theory) alone or there was an intruder which i do not believe the intruder theory.
runsdeep
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2011
- Messages
- 439
- Reaction score
- 5
hey mikebr, why would john stay with her instead of kick her off to the side and get on with life without someone who could strangle him or their son? what was her hold?
from what i read, john was eager to fly them out of there that day.
Good questions.
Why would a mom kill her kid so violently?...Lots of questions..my guess it that there were lots of secrets in the house. I posted my longer theories weeks ago..don't want to rehash..but in short I think the murder was the result of wanting to cover a secret and the secret might have involved John or someone else John cared about.
I think the only thing Patsy didn't expect was that John would redress his daughter's body. I think that is what caused Patsy to become flustered later during police questioning about the panties.
Then again, my thoughts are that PR killed her daughter, and monstrous narcissist that PR was, she decided to stage the "rape" . . . and since I don't believe you can really stage a rape, I think she meant this act of violence with all her heart. PR didn't just want a dead daughter found. That wouldn't be enough attention for her. A kidnapping and rape would be even better for her to wring her hands over in front of the cameras.
She left her child semi-nude and violated down in the basement and John found her the next morning(first visit). The Bloomies panties for the niece were down there with other gifts and JR dressed his daughter, wrapped her in a blanket(undoing?), and went back upstairs. He later "discovered" her when the police told him to search.
- Status