Lawrence Smith Replies - If you can say that

  • #21
I don't think Patsy picked 118,000 so John would know it was her. I think John helped Patsy, but this is another story.

So do I.I think he picked a low amount to withdraw,something that wouldn't raise a lot of suspicions at the bank (remember the RN specifically said not to alert bank authorities),and something familiar to relate it to (his bonus amt and AG employees).
But this was a panic-driven,ill-fated plan,one they didn't carry out in the end.('If we monitor you getting the money early...' gives JR an excuse to go to the bank early,a provides a reason to be seen outside the house in the early morning).


I also don't believe someone bashed her head against the basement floor. I believe John Ramsey said that also.
he did in DOI.I don't buy it either.
I don't know that I would call Smith Brilliant. We have no idea what his IQ is. Mensa requires a 150 IQ. That to me is not brilliant. 200 is more along the lines of brilliant. Discovering a cure for AIDs is something a I would say was brilliant. The gentlemen who figured out DNA is brilliant.

Lawrence Smith, not sure I would describe him as brilliant.
more like socially inept.Even Jim and Tammy Bakker knew darn well they'd better be charming if they wanted to be believable.
The R's were charming in some ways,but not enough to be believable,overall.They let their guard down,for one.I think that happened after they saw they were going to get away with it, after all.

Thomas's assistant answered the e-mail by the way.
I'm only saying I think he spoke through another person,if he didn't write it himself.
 
  • #22
At the bottom is a reply from L. Smith or his assistant to my inquiry on the release of his book and then my reply to that reply.

RE: Response to Website feedback inquiry‏From:solace boyd ([email protected])Sent:Sun 12/09/07 6:05 PMTo: Laurence Smith ([email protected])


I am somewhat surprised at your response regarding my inquiry into his book or his imaginary book I should say. I hardly think anyone is waiting with baited breath. Trust me Mr. Smith has become somewhat of a laughing stock because of his many scheduled release dates. As far as it being the definitive book, doubtful. I have read what he has said on his website - nothing new really - and quite frankly I think he is wrong. Just thought it would be interesting to read another book - however imaginary this book is.

Lose the sarcasm. Lawrence Smith has no right to be sarcastic with anyone since he is the one not fulfilling the release dates.

Wendy Murphy had no problem with her book and she is quite verbal about what she says happened and it does include the Ramseys.

So save the whining and actually produce something. It is old already.

All the best to you to!!.
Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2007 13:24:36 -0800
From: [email protected]
Subject: Response to Website feedback inquiry
To: [email protected]

Dear Sir: 12/9/07

As I have related to others inquiring on the Ramsey book, Mr Smith is out
of the country consulting on the missing child case of Madeleine McCann.
The Ramsey case and/or book is a low priority for him, as the book cover
work is being changed. You might remind those with whom you interact
with on the crime-sleuthing website(s), that Mr. Smith does not proffer
so-called theories on cases like the JonBenet Ramsey or McCann cases.
Rather, he provides conclusionary findings. Got It? There is a reason that
he has been a member of Mensa for 24 years.

Mr. Smith's secretary has told staff members here that he is somewhat
amused by the overly complicated theories that are amateurishly bandied
about (which we no longer bring to his attention), including about the family dog. Here is a secret for your blog cohorts, the Rameys did not bond with
Jacques because, unbeknownst to JonBenet, he was a look alike replacement for Jacques-1 who had to be put to sleep.

While the waiting time passes for Mr. Smith's Ramsey book, maybe those
with no real lives to live - on the crime sleuthing sites, should focus more closely on Attorney Thomas "Doc" Miller's background, and his wife Judith Phillips who was excoriated by Patsy in the Ramseys book for going against
her wishes regarding personal photos. Now Miller is whining about justice in
his book. He should be lucky to be still practicing law after all the incompet-
ency charges and legal rebukes he has had to fend off.

While inquiring minds wait anxiously, and Ramsey operatives remain in a
timorous mode of trepidation awaiting Mr. Smith's book - that will be
'the definitive ' accounting of the JonBenet Ramsey case; the staff here on
Laurence's behalf - wishes everyone a joyous holiday and a promisingly prosperous new year. Especially, those of like intellectual persuasion.

Julie Simpson
Administrative Asst/
Research Analyst for
Mr. Laurence Smith


Below is the result of your feedback form. It was submitted by ([email protected])
It was submitted on Thursday, December 6, 2007 at 15:11:30
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Feedback Message: I cannot find the book. Is it delayed?

Thank You.


LOL,WS posters and Miller's book seem to be a sore spot for him...I wonder if he delayed it due the competition the Miller book would bring if it's released in English sometime in the near future? Maybe he's waiting for things to die down with that first? If there is even a book by Smith at all.
 
  • #23
Hi Albert,

I have read his FAQ also. Actually, I found his explanation out there. I don't think Patsy picked 118,000 so John would know it was her. I think John helped Patsy, but this is another story. I also don't believe someone bashed her head against the basement floor. I believe John Ramsey said that also.

I don't know that I would call Smith Brilliant. We have no idea what his IQ is. Mensa requires a 150 IQ. That to me is not brilliant. 200 is more along the lines of brilliant. Discovering a cure for AIDs is something a I would say was brilliant. The gentlemen who figured out DNA is brilliant.

Lawrence Smith, not sure I would describe him as brilliant.

Thomas's assistant answered the e-mail by the way.

But how do you know for SURE it was his assistant, and not actually HIM (posing as his assistant)? His "ASSistant" sure was on the defensive.
 
  • #24
"He" may not even be a real person. Does anyone know for sure if "he" (L Smith) is?

My thoughts are that "he" is an imposter.
 
  • #25
But how do you know for SURE it was his assistant, and not actually HIM (posing as his assistant)? His "ASSistant" sure was on the defensive.

I dont. Actually one time I wrote him re book and for some reason the e-mail address of where I work was used (not intentional) and I work at a law firm. WElllllll, the man wrote back that he does not intend to be pursued by another law firm and yade yade yada. I wrote him it was an innocent e-mail just asking about his book.

He wrote back. Oh, I see, well I understand then.

So obviously he has been hounded by Wood and his ilk.

Still, if you are going to undertake a book about the case, then you should be familiar with Lin Wood and expect to hear from him. Lin Wood is not above threatening people as he did with Wendy Murphy. What I don't understand AMES is how Wendy Murphy got hers published with no problem and Tom Miller is having such a problem. Maybe it is Miller's content (he says he will expose how Ramseys used their money, etc.). But Wendy is clear that she thinks molestation was going on.

I don't know.
 
  • #26
I dont. Actually one time I wrote him re book and for some reason the e-mail address of where I work was used (not intentional) and I work at a law firm. WElllllll, the man wrote back that he does not intend to be pursued by another law firm and yade yade yada. I wrote him it was an innocent e-mail just asking about his book.

He wrote back. Oh, I see, well I understand then.

So obviously he has been hounded by Wood and his ilk.

Still, if you are going to undertake a book about the case, then you should be familiar with Lin Wood and expect to hear from him. Lin Wood is not above threatening people as he did with Wendy Murphy. What I don't understand AMES is how Wendy Murphy got hers published with no problem and Tom Miller is having such a problem. Maybe it is Miller's content (he says he will expose how Ramseys used their money, etc.). But Wendy is clear that she thinks molestation was going on.

I don't know.

I don't know either, it makes no sense to me.
 
  • #27
I am not sure about this, but could it be that you can write a book about a crime and crime suspects, but if what you say is the truth, no one can stop you or sue. But If there are things written that are either untrue or conjecture put forth as truth, you can't say it.
 
  • #28
What a rude reply they gave you, Solace. And how nice that they shared the "secret" about Jacques that we already knew about. :rolleyes:
Oh, and we have no life. That's a good one. :banghead:

Thanks for sharing this with us Solace. We may not be members of Mensa but I think we are smarter than Mr. Smith. :)
Rude replies (given online or offline!) as good as always indicate that the replier has been hit on a sore spot. And defensiveness usually indicates that a person has his back up against the wall. And that reply was both rude and defensive. Enough said. :)

From the email:
You might remind those with whom you interact
with on the crime-sleuthing website(s), that Mr. Smith does not proffer
so-called theories on cases like the JonBenet Ramsey or McCann cases.
Rather, he provides conclusionary findings.

Well, if Mr. Smith believes JonBenet's head was banged on the basement floor, that's part of a theory, isn't it? Can't wait to read his alleged 'conclusionary findings' on that! :D

jmo
 
  • #29
[Albert18]:
The FAQ part of his website is very well written and has some tantalizing tidbits. One of the best is that the figure of $118,000 was used by Patsy so John would make the connection to her. A very interesting thought.
From L. Smith's site:

Frequently Asked Questions About The Case [numbers added by rashomon]:

1) Q. If an intruder killed JonBenet, what criminal or psychopathology type could he have been?

A. Because the crime scene was over-staged in attempting to project the crime onto a sexual predator type criminal, the intruder winds up having similar but contradictory characteristics of other pathology type criminals. Including; thrill seeker, thrill killer, adrenalin driven, random killer, and pedophile.


2) Q. How plausible is it for an intruder to have killed JonBenet?

A. Chapter 1 presents the most plausible scenario for an intruder to have been JonBenet’s killer. Followed, by a complete analysis of this scenario in chapter 2. Considering, that there was no DNA evidence discovered from any intruder, along with many inconsistency’s in the crime’s methodology and logic used in various phases of the crime. The likelihood of an intruder having been in the Ramsey home on the night JonBenet was murdered is more than highly unlikely.


3) Q. If JonBenet in fact suffered some type of accident during Christmas night, prior to being murdered, why wasn’t 911 called?

A. It can’t be stated as fact that she suffered some type of accident. However, it certainly seems to be the reason for triggering the events that led to her being murdered later. There would have no other logical explanation for the murderous scenario that followed. Chapter 4 places this element into the murder scenario. It is my contention, that Patsy Ramsey was led to believe that the child’s apparent unconscious state from the accident was fatal, or that Jon Benet would regain consciousness. A parent would have to explain to a hospital emergency room how the child suffered the accident. Which, may have been perceived to be embarrassing for the parent. Furthermore, the child might have told someone at the hospital how she came to have the accident, which also could have proved embarrassing for the parent.


4) Q. Why did the responding Detective, Linda Arndt, arrive at the conclusion
that John Ramsey was responsible for JonBenet’s death?

A. Detective Arndt never officially stated that John Ramsey had killed JonBenet. However, upon being interviewed on a national news program. She stated, that as she was kneeling alongside of John Ramsey at the Christmas tree, after he had brought Jon Benet’s body up from the basement, she was mentally counting the bullets left in her Police revolver. She would go on to say that she knew who killed JonBenet, but wasn’t going to name anyone. She believed that Patsy was covering up for John, having been taken in by Patsy’s continuing hysteria.


5) Q. If Patsy Ramsey killed JonBenet, did she confide this to John Ramsey prior to the discovery of JonBenet’s body.

A. Patsy’s decision not to tell her husband was one of the three smart decisions that she made during the night of JonBenet’s death, it allowed John to act completely natural, when being questioned by Police investigators.

6) Q. What purpose was served by the killer writing a 3 page ransom letter?

A. There were several reasons for this letter being so long, Including; Patsy’s wanting to reveal herself to John by using familiar phrases that John would relate to Patsy, she was also trying to sell a kidnapping for ransom story to the Police, and her natural journalistic writing skills subconsciously prevented her from knowing when to put her pen down.


7) Q. Why did the author of the ransom letter choose the innocuous figure of $118,000?

A. Chapter 6 is entirely devoted to all elements of the ransom letter. There are many connotation’s associated with this figure, that are related to the Ramsey family. Whatever one(s) Patsy Ramsey had in mind is hard say. One thing is certain. Patsy knew that John would make the connection to her, and know that she was somehow involved in this stated kidnapping for ransom plot. Though, not knowing if she was being coerced or not.

8) Q. If John Ramsey was involved in covering up Jon Benet’s death, at what point did he enter into it?

A. John unofficially entered into the cover-up by being very coy with the Police, while he was trying to sort things out in his mind regarding Patsy’s role, after picking up on the clues Patsy left for him in the ransom letter. He would officially become involved in the cover-up after discovering JonBenet’s body in the morning, but not reporting it. Chapter 5 is devoted to John’s cover-up involvement, and why he took the actions that he did.


9) Q. Why were Boulder Police never able to arrest anyone for JonBenet’s murder, especially if all signs point to Patsy Ramsey?

A. There are many reasons for this, which are covered completely at the end of chapter 4. The major reason is that the investigation was mishandled during the initial phase, when Police were acting as though a legitimate kidnapping had occurred. It was too late for them to recover from the many earlier miscues.

http://www.laurencelsmith.com/faq.html

The answer to question 5) seems to be contradicting the answer to question 7).

In # 5, it says that Patsy's decision not to tell her husband was one of the three smart decisions she made, whereas according to the # 7 answer, Patsy wanted John to make the connection to her, which is why she used the $ 118,000 figure in the ransom note. How does that mesh?

Aside from that, nothing really new in this FAQ section imo. The author (like many RDIs on the forums) obviously sees Patsy both as the offender and the main stager of the scene.


Link to L. Smith's homepage: http://www.laurencelsmith.com/index.html

Quote from the homepage:
"The last Christmas of JonBenet Ramsey has just been released and will be in bookstores nationally by December 1, 2007."
Quote from the email to poster Solace:

The Ramsey case and/or book is a low priority for him, as the book cover
work is being changed.
LOL! This would be the first author whose own long awaited and newly released book is "a low priority" for him. Priceless! Does he expect anyone to buy that? :D
So the book cover work is allegedly being changed. I wonder how long this is gong to take?

jmo
 
  • #30
Since this book is a "low priority" for Mr. Smith, I'll finish the dang book for him!
 
  • #31
  • #32
  • #33
A Picture IS Worth a Thousand Words!

Some scoop there about the double doggies....:rolleyes: ...didn't Doggie 1 have a problem with doing #1 in Patsy's house and had to go bye-bye?

Hmmm....:waitasec: ......haven't I heard that scenerio before somewhere?
:innocent:
 
  • #34
Sorry, I only post here once in a while, so don't bash me too much!!!

Anyways rashomom says:

snip....

In # 5, it says that Patsy's decision not to tell her husband was one of the three smart decisions she made, whereas according to the # 7 answer, Patsy wanted John to make the connection to her, which is why she used the $ 118,000 figure in the ransom note. How does that mesh? snip....

I think what #5 was referring to was, that Patsy did not "VERBALLY" tell John, but in #7, Patsy told him through "words".

IMO
 
  • #35
I agree with what Littledeer posted. L. Smith is saying she didn't actually tell him what happened but wanted to give him a heads-up.

I don't think Patsy ran and got John right away because the staging and ransom note don't make sense in that scenario. So I have always wondered how she broke the news and when. The theory put forth by Steve Thomas and apparently L. Smith says she didn't break the news. She let him figure it out for himself. I think this best explains John's behavior that morning. He knew but he didn't know.

The $118,000 figure is very important. It is a ridiculous amount in a kidnapping. Patsy would know that so there must have been a very important reason for her to use the figure. The thought that she was trying to frame somebody familiar John's business doesn't work because of the "foreign faction" comment. The reason L. Smith stated is one that makes sense to me.
 
  • #36
I agree with what Littledeer posted. L. Smith is saying she didn't actually tell him what happened but wanted to give him a heads-up.

I don't think Patsy ran and got John right away because the staging and ransom note don't make sense in that scenario. So I have always wondered how she broke the news and when. The theory put forth by Steve Thomas and apparently L. Smith says she didn't break the news. She let him figure it out for himself. I think this best explains John's behavior that morning. He knew but he didn't know.

The $118,000 figure is very important. It is a ridiculous amount in a kidnapping. Patsy would know that so there must have been a very important reason for her to use the figure. The thought that she was trying to frame somebody familiar John's business doesn't work because of the "foreign faction" comment. The reason L. Smith stated is one that makes sense to me.


I think there is way to much "reading into" in this case. I think the rage happened, Patsy knew it was serious and was out of her mind after that. I think it is very possible that Patsy ran to John. What has the staging and ransom have to do with Patsy telling or not telling John.

She could have mortally hurt JB and ran to John, he came in and felt her head and felt the crack that went the ENTIRE length of her head and saw that Patsy was insane and at that point tried to help her and they both staged. They both knew that JB is fatally injured or would be severely damaged. So they went to plan B and it was not done very well either. There is not much thinking going on in this whole process. They are both nuts and rational thought is gone.

The fact that John let Patsy call friends over tells me he knew JonBenet was dead.
 
  • #37
  • #38
  • #39
I think there is way to much "reading into" in this case. I think the rage happened, Patsy knew it was serious and was out of her mind after that. I think it is very possible that Patsy ran to John. What has the staging and ransom have to do with Patsy telling or not telling John.

She could have mortally hurt JB and ran to John, he came in and felt her head and felt the crack that went the ENTIRE length of her head and saw that Patsy was insane and at that point tried to help her and they both staged. They both knew that JB is fatally injured or would be severely damaged. So they went to plan B and it was not done very well either. There is not much thinking going on in this whole process. They are both nuts and rational thought is gone.

The fact that John let Patsy call friends over tells me he knew JonBenet was dead.

absolutely Solace.he would have been frantic out of his mind calling LE back and screaming at them to lay low now that he's read the whole note..
the SFF comment was just staging within staging,IMO.I don't know any other way to put it.it was just JR helping to make up a story that the 3 men in the note were trying to make themselves appear something that they weren't...i.e.-much bigger than they are,much like the fat cat comment was trying to do.
examine the note a bit closer Albert,and think about the R's behavior..they don't just arbitrarily do anything...everything is for a specific reason..like going on CNN for example.the 'if we monitor you getting the money early' line means something..it means JR was going to be outside the house at some point.he had to account for being seen.combine it with the 'if you alert bank authorities,she dies', line.he was going to the bank.(and who knows where else..possibly to dispose of evidence).he wanted a low ransom amt to withdraw that wouldn't raise suspicion..the amt of his bonus was convenient...as well as it could be used to point to AG employees,the 'inside job' he later referred to.just my .02 worth.
 
  • #40
absolutely Solace.he would have been frantic out of his mind calling LE back and screaming at them to lay low now that he's read the whole note..
the SFF comment was just staging within staging,IMO.I don't know any other way to put it.it was just JR helping to make up a story that the 3 men in the note were trying to make themselves appear something that they weren't...i.e.-much bigger than they are,much like the fat cat comment was trying to do.
examine the note a bit closer Albert,and think about the R's behavior..they don't just arbitrarily do anything...everything is for a specific reason..like going on CNN for example.the 'if we monitor you getting the money early' line means something..it means JR was going to be outside the house at some point.he had to account for being seen.combine it with the 'if you alert bank authorities,she dies', line.he was going to the bank.(and who knows where else..possibly to dispose of evidence).he wanted a low ransom amt to withdraw that wouldn't raise suspicion..the amt of his bonus was convenient...as well as it could be used to point to AG employees,the 'inside job' he later referred to.just my .02 worth.

One of the best explanations I have read yet for the amount they used. Excellent JMO, just great.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
131
Guests online
8,467
Total visitors
8,598

Forum statistics

Threads
633,680
Messages
18,646,329
Members
243,654
Latest member
NINETEENo1
Back
Top