Toth said:
That's odd? I've seen no 'antics'. He seems calm, quiet, professional and polite. Even his insistence on appearing before the grand jury was handled as quietly as possible when he had to get a court order. No 'antics' at all. He still has the reputation of a top evidence oriented investigator and prior to joining DA-Keenan in her quest for the truth, he was working three days a week for El Paso County as a homicide investigator, so I don't think they considered him a "laughing stock". Do you think DA-Keenan wanted to hire a "laughing stock"?
Smit HAD a wonderful reputation. Wisdom is knowing when to call it a day. He ruined his own reputation and I'll tell you why.
When posters like yourself and others post statements as FACTS rather than theories or opinions, it is just considered foolish and/or misinformation. That is why it is so important to state that it is your THEORY, BELIEF, OPINION.
When a "seasoned homicide investigator" with a wonderful reputation makes a powerpoint presentation along with going on national TV and news shows and presents theories and possibilities as stone cold FACTS it becomes IMO, MALPRACTICE.
Imagine a doctor telling you for a FACT that you have a brain tumor without benefit of lab work, X rays, MRI, etc. He may believe, based on his experience with the symptoms you describe, that it sounds like symptoms produced by a brain tumor, but it is not FACT until the lab reports tell him so.
That is what Lou Smit has done, plain and simple.
When one retires from a profession, at least how I was taught ethically, you are ALWAYS and FOREVER held to the proper standards. Volunteering, working as a consultant, paid or unpaid, helping the DA, etc. does not excuse UNprofessionalism.
When Lou Smit makes blanket statements that have not yet been scientifically or forensically proven and presents them as FACTS in the case, he has stepped over the ethical line. When he prayed with the Ramseys, he stepped over the line. They were, whether it was his belief or not, the prime suspects in this investigation and he should not have befriended them as a PROFESSIONAL.
As far as the GJ and Smit having to go to court to present his findings, you leave out the part that Smit stole the evidence and in order to keep it, he blackmailed the DA, Hunter and that's how the whole GJ issue was resolved. You can call it a mutual: "I won't tell on you if you don't tell on me" scenario. Let's not make those who don't know enough about the case believe that Lou was an innocent and was oppressed by LE. That was not the case. Lou Smit ILLEGALLY took materials and worked out this little arrangement with Hunter to keep them in exchange for Hunter's secrets kept.
Let me respond BEFORE it is posted:
Steve Thomas' book was based on his OPINION and THEORY which was made clear.
Unethical is part of Lou's reputation now, which means his reputation is no longer wonderful