Lawrence's Smith's book

[Albert18]

The Laurence Smith website has been updated and now has a December 1, 2007 release date for this book. I hope that date is written in ink.

If this is the case, it means we have two books to look forward to. The Laurence Smith book and the Tom Miller book.

The Last Christmas of JonBenet Ramsey

JonBenet Ramsey: Prostitution of Justice

 

[coloradokares]

The Laurence Smith website has been updated and now has a December 1, 2007 release date for this book. I hope that date is written in ink.

If this is the case, it means we have two books to look forward to. The Laurence Smith book and the Tom Miller book.

The Last Christmas of JonBenet Ramsey

JonBenet Ramsey: Prostitution of Justice

I for one plan to at least read it.

 

[lilywhite]

http://www.umaine.edu/psychology/homepages/Smith.html

That's my alma mater!

 

[Solace]

I for one plan to at least read it.

I will also. Why not? The Ramseys must have a lot of motions going around with all the books that they try to stop. How you doing Colorado?

 

[Cranberry]

The Crime and Justice forum has started a discussion on the first two chapters of this anticipated book.

 

[Brefie]

Where can I find these chapters? had a quick look but no joy...tia!

 

[Sophie]

He claims this is now out and will be available in bookshops from 1 December.

http://www.laurencelsmith.com/


There is no listing for it in any of the upcoming publications sections that I can find. I may, however, be being thick and missing it.

If it isn't really out and ready to go, what on earth does someone gain from making the claims he has made regarding his book over the past few years?

If it is out, and I am just being dim in being able to find a reference among publishers, will you buy it?

 

[Sophie]

I e-mailed Mr Smith about this, asking about whether it actually was available. He tells me there's a printer's strike and that the book won't be published until that is resolved. He also e-mailed me the contents page which was in some weird file form that my (admittedly decrepit) laptop couldn't open. Have copied the mail to Dave in case he can open it.

 

[cynic]

About The Case
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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

 

[Sophie]

The publication date has now been put back to December 2010.....


I am really curious about what this guy hopes to accomplish by endlessly claiming his book is going to be published.

 

[Tadpole12]

http://www.amazon.com/The-Last-Christmas-JonBenet-Ramsey-ebook/dp/B00VVN4060

The Last Christmas of JonBenet Ramsey: A Definitive Account of Who Killed JonBenet and Why. Kindle Edition Apr 8, 2015 | Kindle eBook by Laurence L. Smith (Author)

Look inside: LLS provides a fleshed out version of the IDI


*************************************************
http://news.yahoo.com/jonbenet-ramsey-book-just-published-202600700.html

"[Overcoming] years of Ramsey operatives to thwart this book's publication, and now updated, it is available in kindle edition at www.Amazon.com and at the author's website: http://www.laurencelsmith.com in PDF format"'

 

[BoldBear]

Why is this thread even active? "Let go, Luke."

 

[CorallaroC]

Hi BoldBear, the book is now published, I purchased my copy end of May. I expect to finish reading it this weekend. I think the book has merit, and certainly worth the time reading and any efforts to mull it over based on one's knowledge of the case as a whole. The author gives many examples of how his theory fits into many facts of the case and certainly fits toward many "inexplicable" behaviors of certain key persons, IMO. I noticed a few relatively minor factual errors in the book (was the front door truly left unlocked the night of the murder? I do not ever recall that being established as fact), and I didn't always appreciate the author's choice of words at times (such as "why in the hell (?)" this or that) - but again, I think the author's unique psychological premise is solid enough that I can overlook a few discrepancies.

I'm sure I will have more comments to make later.

 

[BoldBear]

Thanks for the correction. I was just reading parts of the thread on this and it showed endless delays to publish.

 

[CorallaroC]

It's ok BoldBear. I too read the thread about the lengthy delays for the book which I why I got curious. From what I can gather from multiple sources - the book was primarily delayed due to (proposed?) legal disputes with the Ramsey legal defense team? It appears the author won out (to what degree we might never know) but at least his book finally got published. I think the book release date was sometime (recent) in May 2015, not sure.

 

[CorallaroC]

Well, I finished the book and decided to mull it over for a while. Unfortunately, the last few chapters mostly ruined my impression. It is hard to explain why. Perhaps it was the general tone of meanness and condescension I sensed in the writing early on and which seemed to escalate toward the end of the book. Granted, there are a few short chapters pertaining to alternate theories (IDI/BDI) which the author makes it very clear he finds implausible to the point of being ridiculous, so it didn't surprise me that those scenarious are written with a big dose of sarcasm and disdain.

Or perhaps I mistook the author's emotional tone and it was meant to convey his "righteous indignation" about the brutality of the murder itself and complete lack of justice in this case. Totally understandable, but if that's what the author truly meant, he could have conveyed it better IMO.

The other problems I had with the book were several factual errors - which the author kept re-stating and continued to weave into his theory on an as-needed basis. For example: in various chapters, he states the front door had been carelessly left unlocked the night of the murder - which to the best of my knowledge is simply Not True. Then he weaves that error together with another error that the house alarm system had also been turned off that night. Partially true, but the R's stated publicly on several occasions that they had not been using the house alarm system for quite a long time because of its loud noise within the house and due to accidental tripping of the alarm. One story in particular they mentioned JBR accidentally tripping the alarm out in the garage when she tried to climb up and press the garage door button.

But then, to make matters worse, the author repeats both of those errors in tandem several times all the way to the end of the book when he summarizes how he believes all the pieces of the puzzle finally fit together with his theory.

Plus there are several other inaccuracies which I wont bother mentioning only because I don't have the patience to make a big list lol.

IIRC at the beginning of the book, the author says he spent 9 years studying the case. Even if his research was directed primarily toward the psychological components of the crime and the observed behaviors of key persons, it would have been wise for this author to find a research assistant to clean up the factual errors for him. I can think of several of our posters here at WS who could have done that just off the top of their heads!

Now, in an effort to find something positive to say about the book... I still agree with some of the author's interpretations of possible "hidden clues" in the ransom note as well as J's & P's observed behaviors on the morning of the 26th. Most of that is found in Chapter 4, iirc. That part, I do recommend reading.

But alas, if you go to the amazon site and read through the customer reviews (including "comments" to reviews) it appears the author could be participating. Who knows if it's really L.S. or an impersonator or troll. You can click on the profile to read that L.S. person's own reviews which include critical reviews (May 2015) of both PMPT and Kolar's FF, as well as positive reviews in previous years for a couple of other (seemingly unrelated) books and movies and misc. items. To each his own, of course. But if that profile really is the author, he might want to consider deleting some of his public comments and avoid getting into arguments with any of his readers.
ALL Just my opinion

 

[CorallaroC]

The book is being updated (with purportedly new "new corroborative information received) as of Aug 1 2015, but only on author's website????

Well, that's what his website says. IMO considering the fact that the amazon publication date was April 8 (I purchased mine on amazon kindle end of May) and NOW he wants to add startling new information without allowing previous purchasers his update for free thru normal amazon policies? I dont know what he is planning to do, but it sure seems insulting to those of us who purchased his book since April this year. Grrrrr. Wassup with this author? With the psychology background he claims to have, he should know this is not a good move and will make readers justifiably angry or feel like they've been scammed. I for one won't pay another book price for his update.

 

[Tadpole12]

Something new via topix (popup warning)
from poster candy, http://www.topix.com/forum/news/jonbenet-ramsey/TUHC1Q1NDEQ9I2UP1/p2

broadwayworld:
http://www.broadwayworld.com/bwwboo...he-Last-Christmas-of-JonBenet-Ramsey-20150730

"Psychotherapist Laurence L Smith states "A disillusioned Ramsey insider and investigative source revealed the unusual accident believed to have led to JonBenet's death, or possible homicide." This and another revelation confided to author Smith could lead to a determinate finding and dispelling of many popularly held theories in this case. The 2 major revelations presented in this book serve to solidify the conclusions reached in the original book."

 

[DeeDee249]

I haven't read the book. But just reading the author's comments about new information explaining the "accident" or possible murder" says to me that the book actually admits there was a coverup after an "accident". Which is what I believe as RDI anyway. I do not believe her murder was premeditated nor intended. But once it happened (head blow = accident) the coverup began. That in itself was illegal, as anyone knows. The only piece I cannot put in place is whether the ligature was applied not knowing she was still alive -as in a case where she was comatose and seemed to be already dead. We know from the autopsy that she was, in fact, alive when she was strangled.
An intruder bashing her to the point of coma (at the very least instant unconsciousness) would simply leave- no need to strangle. To me, the strangulation was part of a coverup meant to make it look like an intruder. Remember- the head bash was NOT visible to the observer. The coroner did not even know it was there until he peeled back JB's scalp (noted as reflection of the scalp in the autopsy) that he was stunned to see the huge crack in her skull. Dets Arndt and Trujillo were stunned to see it too- they were present at the autopsy as well. The bleeding from the vagina was wiped away, hiding to the observer any sexual assault- something a pedophile/intruder would not do either. No reason to wipe away the blood. The hiding of the sexual assault (confirmed in the autopsy by evidence of vaginal canal bruising, bleeding and hymeneal erosion) as well as the need to provide a VISIBLE cause of death (the ligature) screams "coverup of family involvement" in the death.

 

[OliviaG1996]

I haven't read the book. But just reading the author's comments about new information explaining the "accident" or possible murder" says to me that the book actually admits there was a coverup after an "accident". Which is what I believe as RDI anyway. I do not believe her murder was premeditated nor intended. But once it happened (head blow = accident) the coverup began. That in itself was illegal, as anyone knows. The only piece I cannot put in place is whether the ligature was applied not knowing she was still alive -as in a case where she was comatose and seemed to be already dead. We know from the autopsy that she was, in fact, alive when she was strangled.
An intruder bashing her to the point of coma (at the very least instant unconsciousness) would simply leave- no need to strangle. To me, the strangulation was part of a coverup meant to make it look like an intruder. Remember- the head bash was NOT visible to the observer. The coroner did not even know it was there until he peeled back JB's scalp (noted as reflection of the scalp in the autopsy) that he was stunned to see the huge crack in her skull. Dets Arndt and Trujillo were stunned to see it too- they were present at the autopsy as well. The bleeding from the vagina was wiped away, hiding to the observer any sexual assault- something a pedophile/intruder would not do either. No reason to wipe away the blood. The hiding of the sexual assault (confirmed in the autopsy by evidence of vaginal canal bruising, bleeding and hymeneal erosion) as well as the need to provide a VISIBLE cause of death (the ligature) screams "coverup of family involvement" in the death.

I agree. Chief Beckner has stated that the head blow came 45 minutes to 2 hours before the strangulation with cord. Why an intruder would wait this long is beyond me. Distraught parents trying to figure out what to do, on the other hand, makes sense. JMO.