About Thomas and the Ramsey suit....

Discussion in 'Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum' started by koldkase, Jan 3, 2006.

  1. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    I'm a little bit behind...oh, heck, I'm waaaaaaay behind...as I've been offline for most of the last two months for various reasons, but I was reading this thread at the swamp and wanted to mention something about Thomas' lawyer Petrocelli. This is the url, if you want to know what the heck I'm talking about:

    http://www.webbsleuths.org/dcforum/DCForumID61/996.html

    Also, I know others here have more experience with Thomas and this issue, so may want to add in their knowledge to straighten out this mess that is getting all twisted up at the swamp.

    As for me, I have had about 2 emails back and forth with Thomas many years ago, and got one snail mail "thank you" from him. That's it. I'd never have presumed to interject myself any further into his life, as I know he had enough fallout from being a whistle-blower. (Also, certain wackos stalking him must have been quite disconcerting, I'm sure; But who can blame her? She gave out THOUSANDS of fliers? Knowing her as we now do, she was clocking payback with every handout.... Poor Steve....)

    But on the day that the news was leaking out on the forums that St. Martin's had settled with the Ramseys, I made a few phone calls. I called Petrocelli's office a couple of times. I wrote about this on the forums, though it's been so long ago, I can't even remember which one, and I must qualify my memory here about the whole thing, as well. It was just a few minutes in my life. So here is what I remember:

    I believe the first call to Petrocelli's office was answered by his secretary...or a woman, I THINK I REMEMBER, at any rate. She said he was in a conference...or unavailable...? But what I'm sure about is that I got no information regarding any settlement or anything. Probably, I gave my number and was told they'd get back to me. (Right.) So I waited about an hour and called back.

    Now, it was impatient of me, I admit, but I decided I didn't think they were going to call me back, anyhow. Who am I? Nobody, that's who, so...I called again. This time a man answered. It could have been Petrocelli, it could have been anyone. I have heard Petrocelli on tape, reading his book about the Goldman lawsuit he won, but really, all I can say is it was a man, and this time I'm sure because I wondered if it might be him.

    Of course, why would he be answering his own phone? He's a big shot, so maybe it was someone else. Anyway, it was lunchtime there, so I thought maybe the woman had gone to lunch or wasn't at her desk for some reason, so whoever was nearby answered the phone.

    So I spoke with the man, and told him about the rumor that the suit had been settled. He didn't say "I'm not involved in this suit, so I don't know." He didn't say "We're not allowed to give out that information." Which I mention because I expected those. What he did say is relevant to the discussion about whether Thomas paid out any money or not: the man said they didn't know anything about a settlement in the suit. He also sounded like he was surprised.

    So I bring this up in the context of the argument that Thomas paid blahblahblah. I don't know what it cost Thomas in that suit. But I do know that any publisher requires an ironclad contract with any writer before they publish a book guaranteed to bring the sharks like Wood out to get their bite at the big "settlement" apple.

    A few other observations: jams once said if the Rams settled that suit, she'd be greatly disappointed and have to rethink some things. Didn't happen. She was up front hawking the "the Rams won!" crap.

    Next, the Rams were NEVER going to take that case to trial, not in a million years. They'd have been forced to give depositions to a REAL EXPERT LAWYER from Petrocelli's firm, answering questions they'd never answered before, and Wood would have met his match when it came to obstructing the depositions. The Rams certainly were NEVER going to get on the stand in court and be questioned in public by a lawyer who got a $30 million judgment against OJ after turning his story into swiss cheese on the stand.

    So that settlement was inevitable, and I said so many, many times long before it was made, and anyone who knows anything about civil law or has followed the Rams' many "settlements" can figure out it was ALL about the money and more Ram lies--"They won! They won!" Just more BS from the RST, because the end result was a done deal the minute the suit was filed. Period.

    "Nuisance suits" and "slap suits" are as common as white bread. There is a whole industry of ambulance chasers who make a good living off of them. They are ALMOST ALWAYS settled, because going to trial for the defendant is very costly, even if they win. Period. Lawyers like Wood go for DEEP POCKETS, as all his suits and their dispositions prove. What Wood could have gotten out of Thomas if they'd taken him to trial and won wouldn't have paid for Wood or the Rams' costs to bring and execute the suit. They went after St. Martin's Press because any large publisher has lawyers on staff at all times for this very reason--settling for some amount less than what it would cost them to go to trial is STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE. It happens every day in this country. Therefore, every author has a contract with the publisher, and I guarantee you that that contract requires the author to tow the publisher's line when legal issues are dealt with. I am speculating, but I'd bet that Thomas had no choice but to sign off on the "settlement," whatever it was, as per his original contract with his publisher. He probably hired Petrocelli to ensure that his interests, outside of the publishers, were expertly guarded in whatever issues arose and whatever deals were struck. Makes sense to me.

    Anyway, it's all history, and but for one very crazy poster who thinks the world revolves around her histrionics, it would be long forgotten. This murder is no more about Thomas than it is about Smit. Both detectives did what they thought was right. If either was wrong in their fervent public exposure, if their motives were suspect, if they furthered or damaged the case...it's a done deal.

    But JonBenet is still dead, still murdered, and her murderer is still "out there." That's what this case is about. Period. The rest is just...theatre, at this point.
     
  2. Barbara

    Barbara FFJ Senior Member

    Bravo

    As always WELL SAID!!
     
  3. Freebird

    Freebird Active Member

    Actually I'd have to disagree with this. Smit did not decide to follow the evidense, he tried to create evidence to divert attention away from the proper suspects. Just one of a long list of intentional improper actions by Smit.
     
  4. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    I'm no fan of Smit. I believe he did many things that aided a child killer and subverted justice. But I do not believe he thought that was what he was doing. I think he's an old man who had found retirement boring and was happy to have the attention and money he received when he joined this case. I think he, like many people we have seen through the years, wants to hang onto his image of the Ramseys as Christian parents who couldn't possibly have done this awful thing.

    I also believe Smit's ego got the best of him very quickly. Imagine finding himself in the middle of the biggest murder mystery in the country, in the heart of the case. He loves the "legendary" status the RST keep bestowing on him, gravy on a very misguided train. Otherwise, he couldn't possibly ask a prime suspect at the end of an interrogation to swear to god he didn't do it and then go on a national campaign to "clear" the only suspects in this case to whom the evidence has EVER led.

    But I still don't believe he thought the Rams are guilty and did it anyway.

    And to be fair, I think it can be argued that Thomas hurt the case by quitting the BPD, then writing his book, as well. But I think Thomas had decided that nobody was ever going to try the case, saw the corruption and obstruction going on, and did what he thought was right, as well, exposing all of it.

    Me...I don't think it made a difference what Thomas or Smit did, really, because I believe that Hunter knew very early on he was never going to bring a case against anyone. The missing phone records Hunter refused to subpoena from the beginning tell me Hunter was in on the fix all along, IMO. No DA or PD would ever neglect or deliberately refuse to subpoena such records immediately in a case where a murdered child was found in the home under these conditions. It's pure obstruction of justice. Even if you think there's an intruder, how could LE know that some intruder hadn't called the Rams on their phones, maybe repeatedly hung up or said "wrong number." How could LE know they wouldn't find some connection to the murder with someone doing business with the Rams that would show up on a phone log? LE sure weren't getting that information from the Ramseys, WERE THEY? How could Hunter POSSIBLY justify NOT getting those phone records?

    If the RST wants to argue that the phone with "no calls" during the month of December was "lost" (absurd, at best, since there is no record it was ever reported as lost during that month, only Patsy's vague and disconnected story about a "lost" phone at some point), how could LE possibly know that the killer hadn't STOLEN the phone? Maybe LE could have found records that led to the killer USING this "lost phone." How could any investigator POSSIBLY know this WITHOUT THE PHONE RECORDS EARLY ON? How bad of an investigator do you have to be not to do the simplest, most BASIC INVESTIGATIVE STEPS to find a child killer?

    It wasn't incompetence. That would involved every single person on this case, in the BPD and the DA's Office, being downright idiots. Including Smit, who should have spotted this, as well. Not to mention THE RAMSEYS OWN WORLD-CLASS INVESTIGATORS. Surely nobody is dumb enough to actually believe that LE, the DA, and the PIs working for the powerful, first rate firm of Haddon, would not KNOW this as experienced investigators. If Hunter hadn't known right up front that damning evidence was on those phone records, why on earth would he have stalled LEGALLY getting them until...NEVER? As far as I know, to this day, no one has ever subpoenaed the Ramseys' phone records. Not one. Does anyone really believe that is SOP in a murder case involving a murdered child found in the home with the family present at the TOD and considered prime suspects, as anyone known to be in the home that night would be?

    But like Smit, some people are determined to ignore the truth, find any and every excuse to pity the poor Ramseys, declare they're innocent, and so deny the obvious steps that were taken by the Rams, their lawyers, and even the DA's Office to keep this investigation running in circles for eternity.

    All because it's too hard to believe that a lovely child from a wealthy "Christian" family could have been murdered by her own family under such circumstances. Denial is so much easier. Only poor, ignorant, bad people have such things happen to their children. Only those who "deserve" it....

    Well, they should all feel very good. Their illusions are safe. The Ramseys will never be arrested, indicted, tried, or found guilty of anything. They can hang their hopes on that intruder DNA from now until forever...click their heels together and they're back in Oz.

    So if Smit knew the Rams are child murderers and protected them for some reason I've missed, I'd be surprised. Having seen him in action interrogating John and on so many tv shows, I personally think he's just a very ignorant, foolish man who doesn't know nearly what he thinks he knows.

    But I could be wrong. Maybe I'm the one who is naive. I know I sure was before this case came down the pike.
     
  5. The Punisher

    The Punisher Member

    Hardline as I am, I'm with koldkase.

    What they judged to be right.

    That about says it all. It's all that can be done.
     
  6. Cherokee

    Cherokee FFJ Senior Member

    I agree, but I'll take it one step further. Smit is more than just an ignorant, foolish old man. He is certifiably delusional.

    His feel-good "Christian" naivete is the result of his inner distress at seeing a world he doesn't want to believe in, let alone engage in rational thinking.

    The very idea that you could ask a suspect to "swear to God" that they didn't do something, and they would give you an honest answer just because you were a Christian and they CLAIMED to be Christian, is beyond ludicrous. It is what psychologists call "magical thinking." It's wanting something to be true so badly, that you will negate the laws of physics, rational thought (or any other fact of life) in order to believe in the reality you've created.

    Smit is also a victim of his own ego. He wants to believe John Ramsey RESPECTS him enough not to lie to him. And that takes a heap of magical thinking.

    I think it's interesting Smit never asked Patsy to swear to God she was innocent. What was he afraid of? That she'd refuse?

    Which brings me to my next point.

    Smit wasn't really asking John a question because the answer was a given. Of COURSE, John was going to swear to God that he was innocent because that was what Smit wanted. Basically, Smit was asking John to join him in his delusional world, and affirm Smit's magical thinking.

    But why was that so important to Smit?

    Because Smit was coming face to face with a reality he didn't want to acknowledge or deal with ... and that was the truth of Ramsey involvement in JonBenet's death, whether intentional or accidental.

    Smit's request was an act of desperation intended to help him hold on to the irrational idea of Ramsey innocence.

    No detective worth their salt would ever have made such a worthless and unbelievably stupid request. The fact that Smit not only made that request, but subsequently based his entire case efforts on that delusional foundation, is more than irrational, it's abhorrent to those of us who value objective and thorough investigation.

    Smit is a dangerous man because he believes he is right no matter the evidence to the contrary. He believes the end justifies the means (witness his leaking to Susan Bennett), and he believes his good intentions outweigh any other moral factors.

    Except for Alex Hunter, Lou Smit has probably done more to damage this case than just about anyone else involved. I swear.
     
  7. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Hunter and Smit...every child killer's dream team....

    But I understand Freebird's POV. I can clearly see Smit as deliberately coersive with the misinformation he has paraded around to make a case for an intruder: how about the "blue line" from the stun gun, "proving" a stun gun was used; his window-well histrionics to "demonstrate" to the public how the "intruder" dragged his butt in that window. If that were how an intruder entered, any fool can see that fibers from the intruder's pants or backside would have been shed all over the window sill and floor. Or maybe he vacuumed thoroughly before the Rams got home.... But there's Smit, barely getting through that window, grabbing the overhead heating/ac duct, trying to keep from falling on his face in the limited space between the duct and the window. Yet his next revelation is the intruder put a suitcase he found in the home under the same window to get back out, WITH JONBENET IN A SUITCASE, no less.... All while the many doors upstairs are unlocked, the RST claims, with no alarm on, windows open for Christmas decoration cords.... Really sharp. Brilliant. If that intruder weren't so lucky, Smit would have caught him, no sweat, seeing as how he was cleverly planning his getaway up until the last minute when...what? He gave up taking the body for ransom and went up the chimney?

    So...speaking of the comfort of denial...do we believe Smit, a man given access and opportunity to blow a murder conviction out of the water forever, is this pathetically inept? Or do we believe he is deliberately misleading everyone to help a child molester/killer go free--for whatever reason?

    It's frightening, isn't it? No comfort here, either way.
     
  8. The Punisher

    The Punisher Member

     
  9. Freebird

    Freebird Active Member

    I still don't see them as two sides of the same coin. By the time Thomas quit, the case was screwed beyond repair, with the help and interference of Smit. Also I can't remember a thing in ST book that I didn't already know long before it hit the shelves. I still fail to see how the actions of Steve adversely affected this case. But I can certainly see where Smit enabled possible murderers to slip through some tight squeezes as he played point man.
     
  10. Jayelles

    Jayelles Alert Viewer in Scotland

    I don't think Smit interviewed Patsy. Wasn't it Kane?

    See I disagree about Smit being delusional. Everyone I know who has had personal dealings with him likes him a lot. I think it's part of his MO to keep people on his side - no matter what he really thinks of them and I think if he found evidence that the Ramseys were involved, that he'd arrest them in a heartbeat ("with regret").

    He's been wrong on some stuff, but he's never ever come across as being arrogant. I think there is more to Smit than meets the eye.
     
  11. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    Boy, do I ever disagree with you on this, Jayelles. I do believe that Smit is beyond arrogant, and he didn't just keep the Ramseys on his side, he fell in with them, defended them on national TV, dismissed factual evidence and tried to reinvent the real and obvious evidence. He failed utterly with people who saw through his ridiculous charade, but he managed to muck the case up enough that the killer and his/her accomplice will never see a day behind bars.

    No matter what anyone says, evidence doesn't change. The evidence has not changed in this case - only the spin on the interpretation of the evidence has changed. Powerful forces have been at work in the Ramsey case, make no mistake about that. Anyone who can get his wife into an experimental cancer treatment program in Maryland in a matter of days, or even weeks, knows powerful people.

    I truly believe that if the murder of JBR had happened anywhere else but Boulder, Colorado, her killer and accomplice would be serving life terms right now.

    As for Lou Smit - he made sure the killers walked. There are a lot of stupid people in this world.
     
  12. wombat

    wombat Member

    I'm with Watching You on this Jayelles, sorry. Lou Smit is a vampire that sucked the life out of this case.
     
  13. Cherokee

    Cherokee FFJ Senior Member

    Exactly. Why DIDN'T Smit interview Patsy? That was my point. What was he afraid of?

    If he was a decent detective, he would have interviewed them both. And to be fair (according to his standards) he should have asked Patsy the same ridiculous question ... after all, she also CLAIMS to be a Christian.

    Well, my friend, we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

    IMHO, Smit IS delusional.

    Anyone who could honestly believe an intruder came through that basement window leaving no fiber evidence, no prints, no anything is deluding themselves.

    Anyone who could cooperate with Michael Tracey in spreading accusations about innocent people in order to publicly exhonerate the Ramseys is deluding themselves regarding the known evidence which clearly does not incriminate any other suspects, nor clear the Ramseys.

    Anyone who believes, as he publicly stated, that there's a blue line on JonBenet's face from the contact points of a stun gun is not only deluding themselves, they're seeing things that aren't there.

    The list goes on and on.


    The question isn't whether people like him or not. A delusional person can be well loved. And I don't mean Smit is living in an alternate reality like that of a schizophrenic. I'm saying he only believes what he wants to believe because he cannot face the truth. Many people use that same coping mechanism in their every day lives in order to continue to function in their abusive marriages, bad jobs and difficult family dynamics.

    Smit has no power to arrest the Ramseys, and even if he went to the BPD and wanted THEM to arrest the Ramseys, it would never happen. The DA would make sure the arrest warrant was never issued. The Ramseys are untouchable, and Smit has helped to make that happen with his one-man "The Ramseys Are Innocent" campaign. What he has done has gone way beyond keeping the Ramseys "on his side."

    I didn't say Smit was arrogant, although he may well be. I said he was a victim of his own ego. There's a difference between being arrogant and having an ego that won't let you believe someone could lie to you, or that you could be wrong.

    My late father-in-law is a good example. He was not an obviously arrogant man, but he couldn't believe someone would lie to him or be dishonest because he always thought everyone respected him too much to do that.

    For this reason, he was taken advantage of by a lot of people ... from used car salesmen he thought he personally knew who sold him "lemons" to his own parasitic daughter who drained away all his money and left him bankrupt. And like Smit, he wouldn't listen to others who tried to show him the reality of the situation. The protection of his fragile ego was more important to him than facing the truth.

    I wish I could think "there is more to Smit than meets the eye," but from everything I've seen and heard him say, he's not that clever or intuitive. His continued schlepping of false "intruder" evidence to the news media shows he is actively pursuing an agenda, and not merely investigating a dead case with objectivity.

    I do think Smit honestly believes the Ramseys are innocent, and that he sees himself as their Don Quixote ... on a mission to tilt at the monster windmills who would dare sully the Ramsey name.

    And just like Don Quixote, Smit is a victim of his own delusions.
     
    Last edited: Jan 5, 2006
  14. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    Amen.

    And Amen again.
     
  15. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Hear, hear!! Are we clear? CRYSTAL!

    I see Smit's public play for what it is: a game that gives each player something they need.

    That's how I see Smit and the Rams. The Rams gave Smit fame like he never had. National. International. Smit found himself working with the most powerful law firm in Colorado, if only in a convoluted way. How many times has Smit been featured on RST shows? And the Ramseys sure needed him, didn't they?

    Come on! This man lives in a trailer and drives a Delorean? I imply no shame in living in a trailer, don't get me wrong, but the image of him driving that car in the Tracey croc just struck me as a man desperate to create an image: he is truly a legend in his own mind.

    Have y'all read some of the press spin on this old coot? I remember something about an author who based a novel detective on him! Oh, the exaggerations of Smit's accomplishments would make a reasonable man blush. Not Smit. He eats it up.

    And do not think for one minute he'd give this up now to arrest John and/or Patsy Ramsey for murdering JonBenet, not if they confessed to him. After all, he's staked his professional rep on them being innocent, hasn't he?

    No, Smit isn't going to ever admit he's been dead wrong about just about everything in this case. That would amount to admitting he isn't the man he has pretended to be this last 9 years. If there is one thing age does, it impedes your ability to adapt and change. Smit can't let go of his self-image anymore than he can understand DNA or stun gun burns.
     
  16. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    I agree with you, Freebird. I also don't think Steve told us much about the evidence that wasn't already known. And I think, as I've said many times, Hunter was in on the fix from the beginning and no case was ever going to be brought, regardless of evidence or anything LE could ever do. I believe Thomas figured that out and that's when he lost heart and decided the least he could do is blow the whistle on Hunter's corruption, perhaps hoping that somehow, a special prosecutor would be brought in by the governor if public pressure was brought to bear.

    But it didn't work, and it never would have. The Ramseys got personal phone calls from the husband of the Attorney General of Colorado within days of the murder. (That same husband is himself now the Attorney General of Colorado himself, I believe I recently read--but I'd have to check to make sure I'm not confused on this.)

    So Thomas did what he thought was all he could do. And I for one am grateful, because at least we know how this child killer got away with it. At least Hunter will go down in history as the crooked *** he is.

    But the downside is this: let's say the governor did decide to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate and try this murder. Any defendant, from the Rams to an intruder, forevermore has Thomas' book to quote and throw at the prosecutor to create reasonable doubt.

    And you can also say the same thing about the Rams' book. They do their best to discredit Boulder LE. It's what their book is all about. What "intruder" defense team isn't going to use all of these books and tv interviews and tabloid analyses and depositions and yes, all they can glean from the many "suspects" paraded before Tracey's camera...and the Ramseys themselves as the prime suspects never cleared by LE.

    I could go on...but the point is this: it's now said by every expert who consulted on the case that only a confession will ever solve this case. Period. Not even a DNA match would do so, as the DNA is NOT SEMEN and it can't be dated. Too much evidence leads to the Ramseys to convict any intruder without a confession and inside info that would prove he was really there that night and knows things only the killer knows. The Ramseys are never going to face a jury because Lou Smit made sure of that.

    And any defendant can use Thomas' inside look at the discord of the BPD as Hunter blocked them and undermined their investigation at every turn. All of which can be brought out in trial.

    So that's the argument that can and will be made if there ever is an arrest.

    But don't worry. It won't happen.
     
  17. Jayelles

    Jayelles Alert Viewer in Scotland

    The second interviews were different from the first ones. In the first interviews, they were only interviewed for half a day each - Patsy was interviewed first and in the morning, John in the afternoon. Thomas & Trujillo interviewed them both. In the second set of interviews. they were interviewed simultaneously by different investigators over a period of three days. Patsy by Haney, John by Smit. Now I absolutely agree that there are untold advantages in having the same detective interview both parents - for reasons of consistency and in developing particular lines of questioning. However, it may have been a payoff between interviewing them both for longer and at the same time vs having the same person doing the interviews.

    Patsy was the focus of their suspicions and Haney was the tougher investigator - perhaps that was intentional?
     
  18. Elle

    Elle Member

    Cherokee, wasn't this the most ridiculous question for any detective to ask suspects, regardless of what religion they are? Oh brother! Lou Smit was admired by Steve Thomas for all his previous efforts, but he was way past it when he was asked by Alex Hunter to investigate this case. He might as well have handed them a plastic card stamped "INNOCENT."

     
  19. The Punisher

    The Punisher Member

    I don't think I have this straight:

    I can see how the Rs would create reasonable doubt in the case of someone else. But I'm a little confused as to how ST's book could hurt a case against them.
     
  20. Jayelles

    Jayelles Alert Viewer in Scotland

    Hmph

    jameson is so busy looking for "BORG" misinformation that she jumped straight on the fact that I mistakenly posted that Kane had interviewed Patsy when Lou was interviewing John.

    So gleeful was she to find an error that she just had to report it before reading on to see that I did in fact correct my own error in my next post.

    Typical. ROFL.
     
  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