Everything you always wanted to know about Lou Smit......

Discussion in 'Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum' started by Tricia, May 30, 2003.

  1. Tricia

    Tricia Administrator Staff Member

  2. RiverRat

    RiverRat FFJ Sr. Member Extraordinaire (Pictured at Lef

    Another Award Winning Moment!

    I never realized just how many media blitzes Smit went on until now. With his "Crime Scene Photo - Not for Publication" slideshow, labeling JonBenet as a pedophiles dream come true, as he let us all see her little dead body over breakfast with our alive children as the cheery Katie Couric softened the blow.

    RR
     
  3. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    He's a cornball, all right

    his time is coming.
     
  4. BobC

    BobC Poster of the EON - Fabulous Inimitable Transcript

    Unfortunately for the pedophile theory we have a ransom note which clearly asks fdr money!
     
  5. Greenleaf

    Greenleaf FFJ Senior Member

    thank you, candy rose...

    What a wonderful, informative site. Thank you, dear Candy Rose.
    Please check your email.
    Greenleaf
     
  6. EasyWriter

    EasyWriter FFJ Senior Member

    SMIT: (RELUCTANT) WITNESS FOR THE PROSECUTION

    Smit: "If it's not the Ramseys, then it's an intruder.
    If there is no intruder, then it has to be the Ramseys."

    I have no disagreement with this, nor know of anyone who does.
    The issue is not just which way Smit goes on this question, but
    HOW he reaches and presents his conclusions.

    Whether by a cursory glance or an indept examination of the
    "ransom note", it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the
    note is bogus. When the body of JonBenet was "found" on the
    premises with the amateurish "garrote" and all materials whose
    source is known is found to be local as well, the question of
    perpetrator(s) is logically laid to rest.

    There is not a single evidentiary reason to go outside of the
    Ramsey household in search of cause. It is a no brainer to
    conclude that cause lay within the Ramsey household. It takes a
    bit more thinking to come up with a scenario of who did what to
    explain the known facts without contradiction.

    Nevertheless, choice to accept truth or deny truth is within the
    nature of each volitional human individual. The choice to deny
    truth is much in evidence in the case. Lou Smit's denial is the
    focus of this examination.

    The selection of Smit's declarations are by no means exhaustive,
    but more than sufficient to make the point. Let's begin with a
    minor point; not conclusive within itself, but in conjunction
    with other facts does tend to corroborate:

    Smit: That’s a very important part of this too. And that, I
    think, shows that the person who was writing this note had plenty
    of time to do it. And it starts off with Dear Mr. And - and it
    starts the word M on Mrs..."

    The phrase Mr. or Mr. and Mrs. so and so, is a standard
    salutation in most letters. In the practice and final draft of
    the "ransom note", this salutation indicates the writer was
    thinking of the "ransom note" in terms of a "letter."

    I have no idea how many times I have read the phrase, ransom
    note. I can think of only one time I have seen the "ransom note"
    referred to as "ransom letter." You guessed it. The phrase,
    "ransom letter" was uttered by Patsy Ramsey. (See page 168, NE
    Police Files.)

    Granted, its a minor point, but thought you might find it of some
    interest. Let's move on to the concrete stuff.

    Lou Smit: "I know you're a Christian, John. Would you swear to
    God you didn't do this?"

    John Ramsey: "I swear to God I didn't do it. I swear to God.

    Smit's thinking here is very easy to follow. Smit has in mind
    what he consider "Christian values" and "Christian actions." The
    values exclude an accident and staged crime scene.

    When John states he is a Christian and says "I swear to God I
    didn't do it", Smit accepts John as a Christian, hence, accepts
    his declaration of innocence. Since this declaration of innocence
    is in direct contradiction of the facts, Smit has to necessarily
    go against the facts to "prove" John's innocence as declared as a
    Christian.

    Time Magazine: "Around midnight, after the family's return, he
    slipped upstairs to JonBenet's room and, using a stun gun,....

    (Another time and place)
    This is what it sounds like (demonstrates stun gun noise).
    There’s an arc between the two contacts. If you look very closely
    at the photographs of the injuries on JonBenet, there’s a similar
    blue line that appears between the two contact marks on
    JonBenet.

    This if false, and easily proven to be false. Smit either know
    this and is deliberately lying, or else he is lying in that he is
    pretending to know. If he is not consciously aware of this, he
    has a different kind of problem.

    Smit: "With no time to retrieve his note from upstairs, the
    killer broke a window and fled."

    Another lie. I guess that Smit did not take John's "Christian
    word" when John said he (not an intruder) broke the window.

    "From his experience with more than 200 murder and
    fantasy-stalker cases, Smit believes the killer intended to go to
    Mexico--that is why he demanded the odd sum of $118,000, which
    at the time was close to a million pesos, and some of it in $20
    bills, for easy exchanging."

    A wild story without any evidentiary basis whatsoever. The
    $118,000 can be easily explained in the context of the facts of
    the crime scene, but to get away from this Smit simply makes up a
    ridiculous story as to what was in the mind of the "intruder."
    Since the "intruder" exists only in the mind of Smit, said
    "intruder" will be whatever Smit desires, and will think whatever
    Smit wants his "intruder" to think.

    Smit: You know Katie it was the second day I was on the case.
    The very first photograph that I’d seen of that basement window -
    the window was wide open. And I said ‘Wait a minute take a look
    at that.’ That was one of the light bulbs that went off, and one
    of the red flags that I seen.

    Smit knows the open window was not part of the crime scene, yet
    deliberately misrepresents the reality of the crime scene
    situation to go along with his mentally created "intruder."

    The foregoing is only a small part of Mr. Smit's mental
    inventions claimed to be fact over the last six years plus. All
    can be shown to be false. This make Mr. Smit WITNESS FOR THE
    PROSECUTION.

    By all the direct lies, misrepresentations and arbitrary
    declarations without basis in fact to support his intruder
    theory, Mr. Smit inadvertently admits that the fallacies are
    necessary to his intruder theory. This in turn is an inadvertent
    admission that the facts point to Ramsey culpability, hence are
    of no use to him in "proving" Ramsey innocence. All this, of
    course, means that Smit by choosing to depend on fallacies,
    affirms the conclusion of Ramsey guilt by the facts.

    It is unfortunate and regrettable that those who have had the
    opportunity to expose "evidence of an intruder" as a fraud have
    not done so. You know what happened in the Wolf case when Carnes
    bought the fallacy package. I suspect something very similar to
    this happened with the grand jury as well.

    There is not a whole lot I can do about the situation as long as
    the intruder theorists run and hide to avoid confrontation and
    exposure of the fallacies. What I have done, can do and am doing
    is challenging in arenas open to me.

    In all the written material I have submitted in the JonBenet
    case, not a single line has been challenged? To be sure, the
    conclusions are not liked by all. This prompts overall denial and
    denouncement accompanied by name calling and absurd repeats of
    that which has been disproved.

    This cacophony of nonsensical rhetoric is but the drone of
    zombies whistling past the grave yard. It is of no consequence
    except to announce their fear of truth. This fear is evidenced by
    the fact that none have dared to quote a single line in
    disagreement and try to refute by showing a fact or facts in
    contradiction of my position.

    This is not to say it is not possible that my presentations can
    hold no errors. It is to say that I state what I believe and why
    I believe it. Unless and until I discover error in my thinking or
    am shown error in my thinking, I am obliged to hold as true the
    conclusions as stated. It is obvious that the intruder theorist
    fear to challenge, thus, inadvertently admit they cannot refute,
    hence, also by default point to Ramsey guilt.

    Those that propagate and promote fallacies in support of an
    alleged intruder are all WITNESSES FOR THE PROSECUTION. We can
    pursue this agenda and hope that this truth will one day be
    confirmed in court.

    Delmar
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice