Lawrence Smith Replies - If you can say that

[Solace]

I don't believe a word of this. I don't think this guy is the genuine article and I don't believe he is "out of the country" consulting on the Madeleine McCann case. I think he may have a very vivid imagination.

Some of us checked him out a while ago - the professional body he claimed to be a member of doesn't exist but the name is very similar to a genuine professional body. Also, there IS a Laurence Smith who IS a distinguished professional and expert in his field - but it isn't the same guy.

This Laurence Smith is very shy about his credentials. A real professional wouldn't be. Genuine professionals with genuine credentials are usually happy to provide them and they don't get shirty when asked for them.

There is an older thread about him is anyone is interested. I think SuperDave may have started it.

Sounds right.

 

[JMO8778]

Exactly. That is why I doubt he is even a real person. I think someone is behind the facade and maybe it is even the trickster.

me too.what's the point? I don't know,but this person goes from saying Patsy did it,to defending the R's about not taking care of JB's dog after the murder.Perhaps it's someone from JR's side? Then that helps throws suspicion off him for the murder,because of course not everyone believes JR had nothing to do with it.In FAQ,the answers sure do make a point of saying JR wasn't involved until afterwards.hmmmm...........

 

[DeeDee249]

me too.what's the point? I don't know,but this person goes from saying Patsy did it,to defending the R's about not taking care of JB's dog after the murder.Perhaps it's someone from JR's side? Then that helps throws suspicion off him for the murder,because of course not everyone believes JR had nothing to do with it.In FAQ,the answers sure do make a point of saying JR wasn't involved until afterwards.hmmmm...........

Interesting point. It would make sense from the perspective of "freeing" JR and BR from the spectre of that horrible night.
After all this time - 11 years next week- and now PR dead- what a way out for JR. Just say: "You were right, my wife DID do it. And in a state of panic I helped to stage the accident to look like a murder. My wife was dying of cancer. What else could I do? I had to help her- I had to keep her around for the sake of our son. I was temporarily insane."

Make sense? JR comes clean and puts the blame on someone who can never be prosecuted. End of story, forever.

 

[JMO8778]

Interesting point. It would make sense from the perspective of "freeing" JR and BR from the spectre of that horrible night.
After all this time - 11 years next week- and now PR dead- what a way out for JR. Just say: "You were right, my wife DID do it. And in a state of panic I helped to stage the accident to look like a murder. My wife was dying of cancer. What else could I do? I had to help her- I had to keep her around for the sake of our son. I was temporarily insane."

Make sense? JR comes clean and puts the blame on someone who can never be prosecuted. End of story, forever.

it does.he would have been so much better off to begin with if he'd done that.I think it would have dropped a lot of the suspicions of molestation,too,because he would at least be telling the truth about what happened to JB.He's so obviously dishonest right now.And the Karr fiasco certainly didn't help his cause at all.
I really think Patsy was afraid he would sell her out after death,and that's what Arndt's book is all about.I doubt she's smart enough to see it though.I think she bought Patsy's story hook line and sinker.

 

[rashomon]

[Albert 18]:
They [the IDIs] don't see how the parents could have done this and the answer is the parents didn't do this. One parent did.

Albert, I have a question.
You seem to be of the opinion that Patsy did all the staging herself.

But if Patsy wated to stage a sexual assault, then why in your opinion did she, after inflicting the wound, wipe the blood off JonBenet and put fresh underwear on her? Imo this doesn't make sense if one wants to stage a sexual assault committed by an intruder.

jmo

 

[Rhett]

I think John could have not known anything. After Patsy is through with all of the staging she gets John, he reads the ransom note. He thinks "did Patsy write this?". She is yelling to call 911 and he is not thinking straight. John is afraid that Burke might hear if he starts in on Patsy so he doesn't. In the meantime Patsy is getting her posse over to the house. She stays away from John so he doesn't get a chance to question her. He doesn't make it a point to question her because he doesn't know if JonBenet is kidnapped, Patsy hurt her, Burker hurt her or what. He also doesn't know if maybe Patsy was coerced in some way to do this. So he says nothing. By the time her body is found he is in way too deep to explain himself out of it. He knows that the police would not believe that he didn't have a hand in the crime. The decision has been effectually made to keep quiet and see what happens. I also think that by this time he decided it was better to save the family face.

 

[Nuisanceposter]

By Christmas of 1996, John Ramsey is well-familiar with the pain and grief of coping with a child having been killed (his oldest daughter, Beth, by then gone 3 years).....

He wakes up to his youngest child's bed empty and a ransom note claiming some SFF has her, is monitoring the house, and will cut her head off if they detect that the Rs have spoken to so much as a stray dog.....

So now he's faced with the loss and very potential death of a second daughter, at the hands of some unknown intruder.....

Is he really going to just disregard those death threats in the RN, and risk JB's head being cut off so that he can have the comfort of friends around him - friends he allowed his supposedly hysterical wife call over, after calling 911 - and not telling either 911 or friends that death threats have been made against JB whom is being held for ransom by a boogeyman?

And on top of that, is he really going to risk sending Burke out of the house, not knowing who's got JB, not knowing where they are or what this SFF might do, or if they could possibly get a hold of Burke and cut his head off as well?

I don't think so. John Ramsey knew the RN was fake from the get-go, or he would not have allowed Patsy to call friends over, and he would not have allowed Burke to go anywhere.

 

[Solace]

By Christmas of 1996, John Ramsey is well-familiar with the pain and grief of coping with a child having been killed (his oldest daughter, Beth, by then gone 3 years).....

He wakes up to his youngest child's bed empty and a ransom note claiming some SFF has her, is monitoring the house, and will cut her head off if they detect that the Rs have spoken to so much as a stray dog.....

So now he's faced with the loss and very potential death of a second daughter, at the hands of some unknown intruder.....

Is he really going to just disregard those death threats in the RN, and risk JB's head being cut off so that he can have the comfort of friends around him - friends he allowed his supposedly hysterical wife call over, after calling 911 - and not telling either 911 or friends that death threats have been made against JB whom is being held for ransom by a boogeyman?

And on top of that, is he really going to risk sending Burke out of the house, not knowing who's got JB, not knowing where they are or what this SFF might do, or if they could possibly get a hold of Burke and cut his head off as well?

I don't think so. John Ramsey knew the RN was fake from the get-go, or he would not have allowed Patsy to call friends over, and he would not have allowed Burke to go anywhere.

Absolutely NP. Great Post. Great. He has lost one and according to him, he was absolutely devastated and I believe him. So the prospect of losing another would be just as devastating - but he acts exactly the opposite of someone who would have been TERRIFIED to lose another daughter. Now someone might say, how do you know how he felt. We are not talking about how he felt; we are talking about his actions. He let Patsy call her friends over. Calls 911 and says in DOI he had hoped they would be more discreet. He would have called his lawyer and talked to him and told him to get help JB is missing and there is a note and we cannot let anyone come up to the house with horns blazing. INSTEAD, they do just that.

John knew.

 

[DeeDee249]

The Rs would have called the FBI themselves, or had their lawyers call them in, if they were innocent.

 

[rashomon]

By Christmas of 1996, John Ramsey is well-familiar with the pain and grief of coping with a child having been killed (his oldest daughter, Beth, by then gone 3 years).....

He wakes up to his youngest child's bed empty and a ransom note claiming some SFF has her, is monitoring the house, and will cut her head off if they detect that the Rs have spoken to so much as a stray dog.....

So now he's faced with the loss and very potential death of a second daughter, at the hands of some unknown intruder.....

Is he really going to just disregard those death threats in the RN, and risk JB's head being cut off so that he can have the comfort of friends around him - friends he allowed his supposedly hysterical wife call over, after calling 911 - and not telling either 911 or friends that death threats have been made against JB whom is being held for ransom by a boogeyman?

And on top of that, is he really going to risk sending Burke out of the house, not knowing who's got JB, not knowing where they are or what this SFF might do, or if they could possibly get a hold of Burke and cut his head off as well?

I don't think so. John Ramsey knew the RN was fake from the get-go, or he would not have allowed Patsy to call friends over, and he would not have allowed Burke to go anywhere.

ITA. Imo all these actions by John show that even before calling the police, he exactly knew what happened to JonBenet.

jmo

 

[JMO8778]

The Rs would have called the FBI themselves, or had their lawyers call them in, if they were innocent.

exactly,and JR has the nerve to whine about that in DOI.Whoa was him.

 

[rashomon]

ITA. Imo all these actions by John show that even before calling the police, he exactly knew what happened to JonBenet.

jmo

The Ramseys payed no attention whatsoever to the instructions in the ransom note, which also indicates they both knew JonBenet had not been kidnapped and that the note was a fake.
Excerpts from D. England's excellent 'Suspect Behavior Analysis': (bolding mine)

Quote:

Using yourself as a reference, imagine that your much-loved child is missing and you have reason to believe the child has been kidnapped. At this instant, your priority value becomes getting the child back safely.
...

Did the actions of John Ramsey on the morning of Dec. 26, 1996 indicate that he believed JonBenet had been kidnapped? There were many actions that conflicted with the claimed belief. A very telling one was John going to the phone and calling in other persons.

What was his mind on then? How was this going to help find the alleged kidnapper and JonBenet? Were any of those called in knowledgeable about kidnapping and called in to assist? If they were not there to assist, why were they there? Could they be anything but a distraction and a hindrance to the investigation?

Yet, John called them in. Why? What truth in John's mind motivated this call? He valued them being there. For what purpose if not to assist in the investigation? They provided consolation and indication that he was believed. Assurance. They provided a buffer between John and the police just by their presence. They provided an emotional escape in a situation that had John on the verge of breakdown.

Although co-perpetrator, Patsy, was on the premises, John was pretty much alone in hostile territory. The hostile territory was in his mind as he knew there would be hostile action if the truth came out. The pressure was getting to him. He was about to lose it. He needed help in the form of friends who would believe, not question. This is what the phone call was about.

If the officer in charge had read suspect behavior, then had upon the arrival of the "guests" met them at the door and sent them away from the crime scene, it could have been a far different story than the long saga that is still being played out.

John knew the staging was poor. He originally held out little hope of getting away with it. On Dec. 26, 1996, he was waiting for the axe to fall. Suppose the officer in charge had after turning away the guest had turned to John and said, "O.K., John, I know there was no kidnapping. You know there was no kidnapping. Where's JonBenet?"

The shock of direct accusation with the expectation of being discovered would have most likely triggered the collapse of all defenses. I estimate that by this move there was a 90%+ chance of getting a confession and ending the matter then and there.

The failure of investigators to correctly observe suspect behavior and the invited "guests" provided John with a bit of a reprieve and a chance to compose himself a bit. Yet, the stress and fear was still very strong and reaching the point of intolerance. Something had to give.

John knew that sooner or later that the body would be discovered in the basement. Even worse, he feared it would not be discovered soon. The dread of what would happen after the discovery was so great that John wanted it over with. Again, John got a break. With the mention of searching the house again, John seized the opportunity and straightway "discovered" the body of JonBenet.

The tension was still there. It would not go away. Fear pervaded every thought. He wanted to run. He tried to run. He called the airport and planned to vacate the premises and the crime scene as soon as possible. He claimed this was out of concern for the safety of his family. Does anyone believe this?
...

Suppose your child was kidnapped and a ransom note left. This ransom note is the link to your child. Taking things at face value, the fate of your child depends on the wishes of the kidnapper and your abiding by those wishes, or at least appearing to.
If the note says don't call the police, either you don't call the police or try to hide the fact from the kidnapper. You study the note in every detail trying to get every bit of information you can. You establish a specific relationship with the note as a link to the kidnapper.

http://www.acandyrose.com/06102001delmaranalysis4.htm

jmo

 

[UKGuy]

Albert, I have a question.
You seem to be of the opinion that Patsy did all the staging herself.

But if Patsy wated to stage a sexual assault, then why in your opinion did she, after inflicting the wound, wipe the blood off JonBenet and put fresh underwear on her? Imo this doesn't make sense if one wants to stage a sexual assault committed by an intruder.

jmo

rashomon,

Of course it only makes sense if you are attempting to conseal a sexual assault, not fabricate one. The last staging, imo, is intended to separate the Ramsey's from the intruder.

The Ramsey's did not want the world to know what JonBenet had endured in her short life!

.

 

[Squishified]

Good to see you back UKGuy

 

[Albert18]

Albert, I have a question.
You seem to be of the opinion that Patsy did all the staging herself.

But if Patsy wated to stage a sexual assault, then why in your opinion did she, after inflicting the wound, wipe the blood off JonBenet and put fresh underwear on her? Imo this doesn't make sense if one wants to stage a sexual assault committed by an intruder.

jmo

I assume her concern for the condition in which JonBenet was found was of more importance.

 

[UKGuy]

Good to see you back UKGuy

Squishified,

Thanks, now those pictures: is that a dog, a bird, a bat, or a baby it sure looks pampered, cute outfits too!

..

 

[daffodil]

Aww Squishy,you got 3 doggies? Now thats just plain greedy! Send me one NOW please!!!!!!!!

 

[DeeDee249]

I assume her concern for the condition in which JonBenet was found was of more importance.

I agree.
I am also leaning away from a sexual assault with the paintbrush while she was alive.
I think the only way a staged assault combined with her thighs being wiped clean of blood and changed underwear is if PR had been too vigorous with her douching that night (possibly done in anger after JBR had soiled herself yet again after refusing to go to the toilet after arriving home from the White's, too sleepy to be cooperative.
She screams, and to both their horror, PR has gone too far, JBR is bleeding profusely. PR blames JBR for squirming around and being difficult, and repsonds by gtabbing her by the shirt collar, twisting it violently, as she shook her- slamming her into whatever caused that fracture- the tub, sink, faucet, doorknob. All of this takes place in just a few moments and then it's too late- she's gone (as far as PR sees).

We have never been certain exactly what was the nature of the cellulose/wood splinter that was found in JBR's vagina.
I feel it was a splinter from the paintbrush. Not from having the paintbrush itself inserted, but the splinter was on the gloved (or bare) finger of whoever was wiping her down, inserting a finger to wipe away blood inside as well as on her thighs; this was done after the paintbrush was snapped, so at this point she had already been strangled with the garrotte, done to hide the fact that it was the twisting of the shirt collar that had originally strangled her. Blood would still be liquid in her vaginal area, even if the heart had stopped pumping. Dead bodies may not "bleed" but blood can ooze. And it remains liquid for some time after death, and the autopsy noted semi-liquid and liquid blood in the vaginal area.
I know there is still the possibilty that the broken missing piece of the paintbrush was actually found in her vagina at autopsy, and LE wished this to remain unknown. But I don't know how something like that could have been kept secret all this time- someone would have told someone over the years.

 

[UKGuy]

I agree.
I am also leaning away from a sexual assault with the paintbrush while she was alive.
I think the only way a staged assault combined with her thighs being wiped clean of blood and changed underwear is if PR had been too vigorous with her douching that night (possibly done in anger after JBR had soiled herself yet again after refusing to go to the toilet after arriving home from the White's, too sleepy to be cooperative.
She screams, and to both their horror, PR has gone too far, JBR is bleeding profusely. PR blames JBR for squirming around and being difficult, and repsonds by gtabbing her by the shirt collar, twisting it violently, as she shook her- slamming her into whatever caused that fracture- the tub, sink, faucet, doorknob. All of this takes place in just a few moments and then it's too late- she's gone (as far as PR sees).

We have never been certain exactly what was the nature of the cellulose/wood splinter that was found in JBR's vagina.
I feel it was a splinter from the paintbrush. Not from having the paintbrush itself inserted, but the splinter was on the gloved (or bare) finger of whoever was wiping her down, inserting a finger to wipe away blood inside as well as on her thighs; this was done after the paintbrush was snapped, so at this point she had already been strangled with the garrotte, done to hide the fact that it was the twisting of the shirt collar that had originally strangled her. Blood would still be liquid in her vaginal area, even if the heart had stopped pumping. Dead bodies may not "bleed" but blood can ooze. And it remains liquid for some time after death, and the autopsy noted semi-liquid and liquid blood in the vaginal area.
I know there is still the possibilty that the broken missing piece of the paintbrush was actually found in her vagina at autopsy, and LE wished this to remain unknown. But I don't know how something like that could have been kept secret all this time- someone would have told someone over the years.

DeeDee249,
The douching theory is consistent with most of the facts, but douching like garroting is ambiguous. How do you define douching was this effected using a proprietary product, what materials were employed, if none, what merits it the description douching?

What is more relevant regarding the missing piece of the paintbrush is that there is no report of nothing being discovered in JonBenet's vagina, other than the expected mucous, blood etc?

If JonBenet's death was staged a pedophile abduction, why remove the corroborating evidence of a pedophile sexual assault, why allow Lou Smit to promote the crazed pedophile abduction theory?

e.g. why not leave the blood to back up the wine-cellar staging, inference: the blood was removed at an earlier stage. The wine-cellar staging is a last resort staging, a means of distancing the residents from JonBenet's death.

The inconsistency in the toileting theory is why bother with all the wine-cellar staging, removing blood evidence etc, yet leave evidence of JonBenet's other toileting mishaps on her bathroom floor? e.g. allowing the direct inference that it was a toileting affair.

imo JonBenet was the victim of familial sexual abuse, this is what was being consealed, her toileting was a secondary issue with no evidence being removed.

Demonstrate that the sexual abuse is inconsistent with the known facts and then douching theory can rank with the bedwetting theory as worthy of consideration?

.

 

[BBB167893]

Not even Patsy?

RiverRat, my friend, she's in the hands of someone who can punish in ways we mortals cannot even imagine.

After all this time - 11 years next week- and now PR dead- what a way out for JR. Just say: "You were right, my wife DID do it. And in a state of panic I helped to stage the accident to look like a murder. My wife was dying of cancer. What else could I do? I had to help her- I had to keep her around for the sake of our son. I was temporarily insane."

And even now, I could find it easy to forgive him.