Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 13 to 24 of 33
  1. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    8,381

    Default

    Lora,

    This article published in April, 2003 gives a good account of the JonBenét case.

    http://crimemagazine.com/solvingjbr-main.htm


    Crime Magazine April 14, 2003 Solving the JonBenet Case
    by Ryan Ross
    Following a briefing about a year after JonBenet's death, members of the FBI's Child Abduction and Serial Killer Unit (the Silence of the Lambs unit) said they believed there had never been any kidnapping. "These guys, who do it everyday," Boulder police detective Steve Thomas told John Ramsey when he interviewed him in 1997, "say ... there were clearly steps taken in this case to make this look like something it wasn't. (They said) 'This is how it happens in the movies. It is not how it happens in real life.' And they said all that was done... was made to make this look like something that wasn't there."

    "They had the gut feeling," Thomas writes in his book on the case, "that 'no one intended to kill this child.'"
    elle: The RST can't handle the truth!
    Just my opinion.

  2. #14

    Lightbulb Stun Gun

    Quote Originally Posted by Texan
    What makes you think a stun gun was used on her? The post mortem pictures that show small marks on her have been studied and compared. The marks don't match any stun gun. At least that is what the stun gun manufacturers have said.
    OK, here is my thing with the stun gun... The marks are about the same distance apart as an Air Teaser stun gun. My question is... Was there any sign of burning or unexplained markings on her clothes. If there were then that could explain why the marks on her looked different. In fact from the pictures I have seen there is a difference between the two marks found on her body. The her neck/side of face area, the top point is almost a brownish black color. Could this mark look different because the gun was applied to directly to her skin rather than through her clothing? Or was it just black because she lived for awhile after that she recieved it. I believe she died a few minutes after the second one was given to her. Meaning the marks may have not had time to develope into burn-like marks.

    Of course, all of this could be way off the mark, because I do not know much about stun guns. All I know is what I have read. And I have asked myself a hundred times... If it's not a stun gun then what in the heck left those marks on her body. The one on her back is in a spot that doesn't raise to many questions becuase it is somewhere where you might expect for a victim to have marks. But the one on her neck is the one that gets me. It's in an odd place where any amout of pressure of any kind with a sharp or pointed object would have drawn blood. You can tell by the color of that injury that it was applied when she was still alive, because its all red and even appears to be bruised. That takes time! The ones on her back, however, are just pink. Meaning that she lived long enough after that for blood to rush to the area of injury, but she didn't live long enough for it to bruise or begin to change colors as most bruises or other injuries would have...

    From what I have read in this forum it appears that most of you have made up your mind as far as the Ramseys are concerned, which is fine. I am just asking about evidence... Not matter how you put the pieces together it just doesn't fit right.

    If Patsy Ramsey got angry with JonBenet over bedwetting it would make sense for her to hit JonBenet over the head... But several books written by expert medical examiners say that the strangulation came first then the blow to the head. So what doesn't make sense is that Patsy Ramsey lost it and went looking for rope to strangle JonBenet... I believe that whoever killed didn't mean to kill her. Maybe Cyril Wecht is right... Maybe John was playing some kind of twisted sex game with JonBenet. Patsy caught him and swong to hit John in the head but John moved and Patsy hit JonBenet instead. Who knows. I am just trying to find a way that all of the evidence fits together.
    Lora

    "Shoes, shoes, the victims shoes, who is going to stand in the victims shoes? -Lou Smit

  3. #15

    Default

    Expert unsure what killed JonBenet
    Answer is crucial to case, prominent criminologist says
    By Charlie Brennan, Rocky Mountain News
    April 26, 2003
    BOULDER - The most prominent criminologist to work on the JonBenet Ramsey case remains unsure whether the child was murdered or died in what started as an accident.

    Dr. Henry Lee also said Boulder District Attorney Mary Keenan didn't consult him before saying she agreed with a recent federal judge's ruling that evidence in the case is more consistent with the theory that JonBenet was killed by an intruder than by a family member.
    "As I have indicated before in this case, the manner of this death is still a questionable issue," Lee said Friday. "Is it really a homicide or an accidental death? We really don't know." End Quote Source:http://insidedenver.com/drmn/state/a...916867,00.html
    Pathologist: No doubt of JonBenet sex assault
    Girl was hit on head before she was strangled, expert says
    By Charlie Brennan
    %%byline%%By Charlie Brennan
    Rocky Mountain News Staff Writer

    BOULDER -- JonBenet Ramsey was sexually assaulted, suffered a tremendous blow to the head and was strangled as much as an hour later, a respected forensic pathologist said Tuesday.

    Dr. Ronald Wright, director of the forensic pathology department at the University of Miami School of Medicine, reviewed JonBenet's autopsy report Tuesday at the request of the Rocky Mountain News.

    ''She's been sexually assaulted,'' said Wright, who served as the medical examiner in Broward County, Fla., 13 years. End Quote. Source: http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/...ey/0716jon.htm
    Lee said he considers the question of whether there was an intruder unresolved.

    “Is it really a homicide or an accidental death? We really don’t know,” he said Friday. End quote. Source: http://www.longmontfyi.com/ramsey/st...il03.asp?ID=29
    Evidence vs. non evidence:

    The ransom note:


    Detectives quickly determined that the note had been written on a pad of paper found in the Ramsey’s house, with a Sharpie pen also found in the home.

    Handwriting experts from CBI eliminated John Ramsey as the note's author, but they couldn't do the same for Patsy. Although they collected at least five handwriting samples from Patsy, along with "historic'' samples of things she wrote before JonBenét's death, they could neither eliminate her as the writer, nor say definitively that she was.

    Chet Ubowski of CBI wrote of one of her samples that "This handwriting showed indications that the writer was Patsy Ramsey.'' Ubowski told investigators that the samples she gave "do not suggest the full range of her handwriting.''
    http://uss001.infi.net/denver/post/news/ram1014k.htm

    Fibers:
    Broken paint brush:
    - The broken paintbrush used to fashion a crude "garrote'' was linked to Patsy Ramsey's art supplies
    http://uss001.infi.net/denver/post/news/ram1014k.htm

    Broken window:
    - A broken window in the basement. Investigators don't know how long the window had been broken, but John Ramsey told investigators he had broken the window once when he locked himself out of the house. Investigators found a spider web was found outside on the window-well grate.
    http://uss001.infi.net/denver/post/news/ram1014k.htm

    bedtime & pineapple:
    - Contradictions. John and Patsy Ramsey repeatedly told reporters and police that they put their sleeping daughter to bed as soon as they arrived home from visiting friends on Christmas night. But Coroner John Meyer found pineapple in her stomach, and a bowl of pineapple was sitting in the family's kitchen. The coroner's findings suggest JonBenét had eaten after the family returned home that night. And, the Ramseys both said their son, Burke, was asleep the morning of Dec. 26 until his father awakened him to take him to the Whites' house after police were called. But an enhanced version of the tape of Patsy's 911 call seems to reveal Burke's voice in the background, asking what's going on.
    http://uss001.infi.net/denver/post/news/ram1014k.htm

    - More than a year after JonBenét's death, her parents gave police the clothing they were wearing the night they put her to bed around 10 p.m.
    http://uss001.infi.net/denver/post/news/ram1014k.htm

    Palm print:
    Evidence in JonBenet's slaying case appears to discount intruder theory

    DENVER (AP) -- Investigators have reportedly concluded that a palm print and footprint found in the home of JonBenet Ramsey were made by family members, not an intruder as some have suggested.

    Investigators believe the prints found in the basement of the home were not related to the unsolved killing of the 6-year-old girl whose body was found Dec. 26, 1996, the Rocky Mountain News reported Friday.

    Authorities have known the answers for some time, the newspaper reported.
    A footprint found in mold on the floor of the Ramseys' wine cellar, near where the girl's body was found, was linked by investigators to her then-9-year-old brother, Burke. Burke, now 15, has long since been cleared by authorities.
    Investigators also said a palm print on the door leading to the wine cellar is that of Melinda Ramsey, JonBenet's adult half sister, who was in Georgia at the time of the girl's death. The technician who originally ruled her out as the source of the print erred, the newspaper said.

    Attorney Lin Wood of Atlanta, who represents JonBenet's parents, John and Patsy Ramsey, said his clients do not dispute the palm-print findings, but he said the family disagrees that the footprint came from Burke.
    http://www.yorknewstimes.com/stories...24020017.shtml

    Duct tape:

    - Duct tape, taken from JonBenét's mouth by her father when he found the body. The tape was analyzed by FBI and detectives purchased identical tape from McGuckin Hardware in Boulder. An Atlanta-area hardware store clerk told investigators that she had helped Patsy Ramsey find duct tape in the store sometime in December 1996, according to a book on the case, "Perfect Murder, Perfect Town.'' But a search of the store's receipts turned up no record of a duct-tape purchase by Patsy Ramsey, the book's author, Lawrence Schiller wrote.
    http://uss001.infi.net/denver/post/news/ram1014k.htm

    Flashlight:

    A flashlight, found on a counter in the Ramseys' kitchen. Sources say investigators believe it could have cause a wound like JonBenét's skull fracture? It was wiped clean of any prints, according to sources.
    http://uss001.infi.net/denver/post/news/ram1014k.htm

  4. #16
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    The Lone Star State
    Posts
    827

    Default Lora

    You are right to look closely at the evidence and decide for yourself. Please consider the autopsy report. The so-called stun gun marks are described as abrasions - not burns. Even Lou Smit, who authored the stun gun idea, changed his initial story and admitted that the marks don't match an air taser stun gun. I believe he is still searching to find exactly what stun gun they do match. Wouldn't you say that is trying to make the evidence fit into his theory rather than his theory fitting the evidence?

  5. #17

    Post This is true Texan but...

    Quote Originally Posted by Texan
    You are right to look closely at the evidence and decide for yourself. Please consider the autopsy report. The so-called stun gun marks are described as abrasions - not burns. Even Lou Smit, who authored the stun gun idea, changed his initial story and admitted that the marks don't match an air taser stun gun. I believe he is still searching to find exactly what stun gun they do match. Wouldn't you say that is trying to make the evidence fit into his theory rather than his theory fitting the evidence?
    I think that Lou Smit is like many of us... When he saw the marks on JonBenet, he brainstormed. What could have possibly left those marks? Were the marks applied after or before JonBenet died? Were they even relevant to the investigation? All of these are questions we all ask ourselves. When Lou saw that the marks were similar to what a stun gun might leave, he followed that lead, like any good dective would. Now he claims that it may have not been a stun gun after all, or that if it had been, it hasn't matched one that he could find. I think that an important thing to remember with Lou Smit is that he believes in his work. If he is wrong, he is wrong, and is usually the first one to admit it. He actually came into the investigation with a feeling that the Ramsey's were responsible, but after he reviewed the evidence he had more questions than he did answers. I feel the same way about this case. The more reading and research I do, the more questions I have.

    I personally have a lot of respect for Lou Smit... He is one of the only dectives on the Ramsey case to stick with the evidence. Yes, the other dectives followed evidence too... But when push came to shove they all quit because there was to much pressure on them and the department. Lou Smit has lost a lot of credit with the public because of how he has dealt with this case. But unlike other dectives on the case he didn't quit on JonBenet even when the whole world was watching and discrediting everything that he was doing. To this day he is still working on the Ramsey case idependantly.

    So even if you don't agree with his theory, I think we should all respect him for work he has put into the Ramsey case.
    Lora

    "Shoes, shoes, the victims shoes, who is going to stand in the victims shoes? -Lou Smit

  6. #18
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    The "Beehive State" It's true. Look it up
    Posts
    5,176

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lora13
    I think that Lou Smit is like many of us... When he saw the marks on JonBenet, he brainstormed. What could have possibly left those marks? Were the marks applied after or before JonBenet died? Were they even relevant to the investigation? All of these are questions we all ask ourselves. When Lou saw that the marks were similar to what a stun gun might leave, he followed that lead, like any good dective would. Now he claims that it may have not been a stun gun after all, or that if it had been, it hasn't matched one that he could find. I think that an important thing to remember with Lou Smit is that he believes in his work. If he is wrong, he is wrong, and is usually the first one to admit it. He actually came into the investigation with a feeling that the Ramsey's were responsible, but after he reviewed the evidence he had more questions than he did answers. I feel the same way about this case. The more reading and research I do, the more questions I have.

    I personally have a lot of respect for Lou Smit... He is one of the only dectives on the Ramsey case to stick with the evidence. Yes, the other dectives followed evidence too... But when push came to shove they all quit because there was to much pressure on them and the department. Lou Smit has lost a lot of credit with the public because of how he has dealt with this case. But unlike other dectives on the case he didn't quit on JonBenet even when the whole world was watching and discrediting everything that he was doing. To this day he is still working on the Ramsey case idependantly.

    So even if you don't agree with his theory, I think we should all respect him for work he has put into the Ramsey case.
    Oh Lora131 I couldn't disagree more.

    This is a man who took the evidence with him when he left and gave it to Lin Wood for the Ramseys to use in a civil suit.

    Some of the evidence Lou Smit gave Lin Wood to use to protect the Ramseys against a civil suit include:

    *Mysterious Palm Print on the celler door. Yet by the time Lin Wood and Lou Smit used this in their civil case the palm print had been identified as belonging to John Ramsey's older daughter.

    The truth never stopped Lin Wood or Smit from using the palm print to bolster their intruder theory. It belongs to Ramsey's daugher yet Wood and Smit continue to use this evidence.

    *Lou Smit has worked with Professor Michael Tracey.

    Professor Michael Tracey is one of the most unethical people I have ever have the displeasure of knowing. Tracey produces "documentaries" on the Ramsey case. With Lou Smit's help. Despite the evidence Tracey and Smit continue to point fingers at an innocent person. Case in point. Read this forum right here for the Tracey/Smit crappola..
    http://www.forumsforjustice.org/foru...play.php?f=249

    In Tracey's latest crock he states that the P.I's he is working with worked with Lou Smit and Mary Keenan on the case and therefore the evidence in the crock is correct. Which is the furthest thing from the truth.

    Lou Smit does not have my respect. He refuses to see anyone but an intruder.

    Someone help me out here because I have to run. Maybe someone can link up to ACR's site the pictures of Smit coming in through the window without "disturbing" the sill. Just like the "intruder." Yeah right.
    tgrif@xmission.com
    FFJ C/O Tricia Griffith
    6300 N Sage Wood Drive
    Suite H #214
    Park City UT
    84098




    I am unaware of anyone who's profited from exploiting the Ramsey murder over a longer period of time, with a greater disregard for the principles of accuracy and fairness, than the production team of Mills and Tracey.They truly do inhabit a different moral universe from real journalists. It's the difference between journalism and propaganda.
    Alan Prendergast,reporter for Westword

  7. #19
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    The Lone Star State
    Posts
    827

    Default respect for Lou

    I think Lou Smit may have been a good detective at one time and I can respect that. I can understand his desire to solve the case and the possibility of those marks helping to solve the case.

    I do not think it was wise or even ethical for him, a law enforcement officer, to develop a relationship with the Ramseys when they were suspects - whether he thought they did it or not. It was not ethical to change the evidence books in the war room as alleged in Steve Thomas' book. It wasn't morally right to take the pictures and reports when he resigned. I wonder what his motive is when he goes on national T.V. and gives his presentation. Is it an attempt to find the "intruder"?
    I don't think it is. I think it shows his lack of objectivity and he is "trying the case in the media" just as much or more than the people who feel the Ramseys are culpable.

  8. #20
    BobC is offline Poster of the EON - Fabulous Inimitable Transcript and Book Reviewer
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    4,435

    Default

    Actually "Lora," nobody has been asking "what could possibly have made those marks" other than Lou Smit (and you, apparently). I would go into why, for the 10,000th time, but the whole issue bores me into a coma at this point. Now let's pretend for a minute you are someone new to this case, and I do mean pretend--ask yourself what intruder "could possibly" want to stage a crime scene in someone else's home? The answer is clear: nobody.

    "This is an inside job." John Ramsey 1997

  9. #21

    Default LouSmit

    First of all, Lou Smit has been applauded and held up as a hero for solving the Heather Dawn Church case for years - mostly by Jameson. The fact is, Lou did not "investigate" crap. He sent fingerprints to LE around the US to see if he could get a match, and he did...in Louisiana. Here's the rub, in 1991-92, Louisian did not have a modernized AFIS computer system...all fingerprints had to be analyzed manually. In 1995 Louisiana received their modernized AFIS computer system and a match was found for the fingerprints from the Heather Dawn Church case - 1995 was the same year that Lou Smit took the case. What did he investigate? Nothing. He got lucky, period.

    As for the DNA - The autopsy report indicated her pelvic area was swabbed for potential DNA. There has never been any report that those swabs yielded any foreign genetic material. Why would there be foreign DNA in her panties, and not on her or in her? Where did the DNA come from, I mean PHYSICALLY come from that was found in her panties? From the intruder? How?

    And just for grins, let's visit Smit's initial theory on this case - notes he made in a notebook. Interesting that he SO believed the evidence must fit the theory, not the other way around.

    http://www.time.com/time/magazine/no...991025,00.html

    Crime
    Did an Intruder Kill JonBenet Ramsey?
    Although no suspects other than JOHN and PATSY RAMSEY have been named in the 1996 murder of their daughter JonBenet, a key figure in the investigation remains convinced that the killer was a pedophile bent on kidnapping who broke into the Boulder, Colo., home and assaulted the six-year-old while her family slept.

    LOU SMIT, a retired Colorado Springs homicide detective, worked on the case for 18 months before quitting in protest over the direction the probe was going. Smit formed another theory using key pieces of evidence. He believes the killer may have spotted JonBenet as she glided by in a convertible in Boulder's holiday Parade of Lights. ~in a convertible?? wtf - where did he pull this from?~ On Christmas night, while the family was out, he entered through a basement window, roamed the house and penned a ransom note, using a legal pad and black Sharpie marker he found near the kitchen.

    Around midnight, after the family's return, he slipped upstairs to JonBenet's room and, using a stun gun, temporarily immobilized her. He carried the youngster to the basement and sexually assaulted her while simultaneously choking her, apparently for the thrill, with a garrote--a favored tool of pedophiles, ~please reference for me ALL the cases involving this favored tool in the commission of crimes by pedophiles against their victims~ Smit says--fashioned from the handle of one of Patsy Ramsey's paintbrushes.

    When JonBenet woke, ~when JonBenet woke? Was she asleep? According to his notes above, the intruder only "temporarily immobilized her." ~ tore the duct tape from her mouth and began screaming, Smit theorizes that the killer panicked and struck her, perhaps with a heavy flashlight. With no time to retrieve his note from upstairs, the killer broke a window and fled. Later, police found a scuff mark from what appeared to be a boot on the nearby wall as well as unidentified boot and palm prints.

    ~She tore the tape from her own mouth?? What about the fact that her hands were bound? And the intruder did not have time to run upstairs and get his note? Who spread it out on the stairwell? The Border Patrol? And WHY THE HELL would the killer have to break a window to get out? Would it not have been easier, not to mention safer, to simply unlock and open 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, ~the exchange rate in 1996 was 7.5994 per American $1.00, $118,000 = 896789.20. Close? Why close? Why not $130,000, which is still not a million pesos, but a lot closer and not such an odd number?~ which at the time was close to a million pesos, and some of it in $20 bills, for easy exchanging. "I believe the Ramseys are innocent," says Smit. "If it's an intruder, it's not the parents, and I think it's that simple." He adds, "The theory doesn't determine the evidence. The evidence should determine the theory." ~Ya think?~

    RED font and bold emphasis mine.
    "The pedigree of honey
    Does not concern the bee,
    A clover, at any time, to him,
    is aristocracy."
    Emily Dickinson.

  10. #22
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    The Lone Star State
    Posts
    827

    Default yea

    not only all that but what about the ransom note this guy wrote. It happened to mention John's good southern common sense, which was something the family said occasionally.

  11. #23

    Angry

    Quote Originally Posted by BobC
    Actually "Lora," nobody has been asking "what could possibly have made those marks" other than Lou Smit (and you, apparently). I would go into why, for the 10,000th time, but the whole issue bores me into a coma at this point. Now let's pretend for a minute you are someone new to this case, and I do mean pretend--ask yourself what intruder "could possibly" want to stage a crime scene in someone else's home? The answer is clear: nobody.

    "This is an inside job." John Ramsey 1997
    O.K. so you have absolutely no interest in what made those marks on JonBenet's body? Don't be a fool. That is exactly why this case has not been solved. Marks on her body could lead you straight to the Ramseys! Which I believe is who you all want behind bars anyway. It has been said by others that Patsy has a habit of wearing her rings upside down, and the marks on JonBenet's body where left by her rings as she held JonBenet down and strangled her. There are other theories too. But I would sure hate to put you in a coma.

    And by the way, yes, people do stage crime scenes. I have experienced this first hand. My Mother and younger Sister were murdered in our home in December 2001. The police ruled it as murder suicide and closed the case. After fighting the police department for nearly a year and hiring my own detectives I managed to get the case reopened. It didn't take long for the truth to come out. The killer placed the gun in my Mother's hand after he killed her and my Sister. He also wet a towel in order to clean up his bloody foot prints that surrounded my Mother's body. He may have gotten away with it too, had he have not placed the gun in her right hand. She was left handed. The killer was one of my Mother's business partners. He was tried and convicted early this fall. He received the death penalty.

    So don't say that staging doesn't happen. Because it absolutely does... Does it mean that this applies to Ramsey case? No. But don't say that it doesn't happen.
    Lora

    "Shoes, shoes, the victims shoes, who is going to stand in the victims shoes? -Lou Smit

  12. #24
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    8,381

    Default

    Oh, Lora, I am absolutely stunned after reading this post. It was the first
    e-mail I opened this moring. I am very sorry your mother and young sister were murdered.

    I'm glad you are a young strong woman who had the courage to hire a detective and get the case opened again, and nail the killer. It is also good you are here posting to help solve the JonBenét case.
    elle: The RST can't handle the truth!
    Just my opinion.



Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •