I was looking for something else and found this along the way. Way back in 2001, I went on a rant about Lou Smit. It's a little flip in some places, but it's still true today. "The Saga of Lou Smit" Posted by Watching you on 11:01:31 4/22/2001 Let’s talk about Lou Smit Okay, I know y’all think I despise the man. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, I respect his right to his opinions and his tenacity in holding onto them in the face of continued criticism. I see absolutely nothing wrong with Lou Smit’s trying to help the Ramseys, if he believes they are truly innocent. That is his choice. What I do have a huge problem with is his continued insistence that he can be unbiased in this case. We have all heard that he is not working for the Ramseys, but he is, even if he is doing so without payment. We have heard he is still following the evidence, and if the evidence led to the Ramseys, well, so be it. One can make all kinds of statements, but if their own actions and their own words do not back up those words, then all credibility is lost. Lou Smit has been hopelessly compromised in this investigation. This is significant, because Lou Smit has had and still has access to all the evidence in the BPD’s case, taking some of it with him when he resigned to join the Ramseys’ own investigation. How can one put any faith in this man’s objectivity? I say we can’t. He’s working for the Ramseys. Period. With so much talk about accountability by our public officials, how about some accountability from Lou Smit? [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. "The Resignation Letter" Posted by Watching you on 11:03:34 4/22/2001 September 20, 1998 Dear Alex: It is with great reluctance and regret that I submit this letter of resignation. Even though I want to continue to participate in the official investigation and assist in finding the killer of JonBenet, I find that I cannot in good conscience be a part of the persecution of innocent people. It would be highly improper and unethical for me to stay when I so strongly believe this. It has been almost 19 months since we talked that day in your office and you asked me to assist you in this investigation. It has turned out to be more of a challenge than either one of us anticipated. When we first met I told you that my style of approaching an investigation is from the concept of not working a particular theory, but working the case. Detectives collect and record information from many sources, analyze it, couple that with their experience and training and let "the case" tell them where to go. This process may take days, weeks or years, depending on the direction the case tells you to go. Sometimes you must investigate "many paths" in order to find the killer. It is not a political speed contest where expediency should outweigh justice, where "resolving" the case is solving the case. Alex, even though I have been unable to actively investigate, I have been in a position to collect, record and analyze every piece of information given to your office in the course of this investigation. I believe that I know this case better than anyone does. I know what has been investigated and what hasn't, what evidence exists and what doesn't, what information has been leaked and what hasn't. I am a detective with a proven record of successful investigations. I have looked at the murder of JonBenet Ramsey through the eyes and experience and a thorough knowledge of the case. At this point of the investigation “the case†tells me that John and Patsy Ramsey did not kill their daughter, that a very dangerous killer is still out there and no one is actively looking for him…. Detective Lou Smit [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. "About the Resignation Letter" Posted by Watching you on 11:04:39 4/22/2001 From DOI: ( p. 300): “The press obtained this letter, although that was not Smit’s intention, and it was published in some newspapers about a week later. From PMPT: (p. 564-565) … “(Smit) knew it wouldn’t be long before the media got word of it, but it surprised him that Hunter didn’t call him until three days later – to say that The Denver Post knew he’d resigned and wanted a copy of his letter. Hunter was calling to ask Smit’s permission to release it to the press. Smit first said yes, then called Hunter back and asked him to wait a few days. Smit has already received a phone call from Sherry Kenne-Osborn of Newsweek. She also asked for permission to print his letter. Smit said no. Keene-Ostorn then drove all the way from Denver to Colorado Springs, where Smit lived on the west side of town….†…â€Keene-Osborn talked the retired detective into giving her an unsigned copy of his resignation letter….†So, although it may not have been Smit’s original intention, he is the one who gave the letter to the press. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. "Smitisms" Posted by Watching you on 11:06:22 4/22/2001 "I cannot, in good conscience, participate in the persecution of innocent people." “Alex, even though I have been unable to actively investigate…†"I believe that I know this case better than anyone does. I know what has been investigated and what hasn't, what evidence exists and what doesn't, what information has been leaked and what hasn't...." " In this case, however, I believe …, that innocent people are being targeted, and could be charged with a murder they did not commit." “At this point of the investigation “the case†tells me that John and Patsy Ramsey did not kill their daughter.†The late Ruth Gerstenkorn’s site provides further insight into Lou Smit: “The following is an excerpt of law officers’ code of ethics written by Lou Smit for a law enforcement publication some time ago: Excerpt From the Law Officers’ Code of Ethics: “Whatever I see or hear of a confidential nature or that is confided to me in my official capacity will be kept ever secret unless revelation is necessary in the performance of my duty. “ **From DOI, p. 193 , the Ramseys quote Lou Smit: "I need to be able to know that this important information is kept in a limited circle†…. .When we find the killer or killers, it's important that certain facts be known only to us and the killer. That's how we will know we've got our man." Detective Lou Smit has just shared what he believes is the biggest piece of evidence in the JBR case with the number one suspects in the murder. From IRMI, p. "In the following days and weeks, Lou Smit admitted that he talked to Jameson "a lot" because "she has good information." [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4. "The beginning of the love affair" Posted by Watching you on 11:08:26 4/22/2001 By Karen Auge Denver Post Staff Writer April 11 John Ramsey said the only experienced investigator on the case, retired Detective Lou Smit, shares their view that an intruder killed their daughter. ***It is important that one looks at the people Smit continues to get information from. Susan Bennett/ aka Jameson is a citizen living on the east coast who has inserted herself into the case. She has no official authority to investigate, but she collects DNA evidence from who knows where and demands the BPD look at her evidence. Lou Smit admits talking to Susan Bennett. From the Law Officers’ Code of Ethics written by Smit: “I will never act officiously or permit personal feelings, prejudices, animosities, or friendships to influence my decisions.†From DOI, p. 180-181: …Patsy and I learned that every morning, Lou Smit drove by our house on Fifteenth Street and sat out in front…. We had to let Lou know how much we appreciated his dedication… A few days later, Patsy and I drove over to our old house early one morning, and sure enough, Lou Smit’s van was parked out front. “I’m happy to see you,†he said… Then he said, “Maybe we could pray together. We want God’s blessing on this investigation.†We held hands and Lou said a short prayer. · * * * * * * [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5. "The plot thickens" Posted by Watching you on 11:11:00 4/22/2001 JonBenet probe to shrink in 2000 by B.J.Plasket Daily Times-Call BOULDER — A scaled-down version of the JonBenet Ramsey murder investigation will continue into next year — whether or not the county comes up with additional funding for the case. Meanwhile, prosecutors on Wednesday said they don't think former Ramsey -case Detective Lou Smit violated his employment contract by allegedly working with John and Patsy Ramsey , the only named suspects in the case. .. … The troubled three-year-old case took another embarrassing turn for prosecutors on Tuesday when a Denver newspaper reported that Lou Smit, the retired Colorado Springs detective who previously worked on the case for Hunter's office before resigning and declaring his belief that John and Patsy Ramsey are innocent, is now working for the Ramseys . Smit's contract contained a clause prohibiting him from ever disclosing "any confidential or proprietary information" gained while he worked on the case. .. Smit had access to the "war room" from which the probe was conducted and had access to more than 30,000 pages of evidence and reports. Wise said that Smit, before he resigned his job, expressed his belief that an intruder killed JonBenet and said that he is free to explore that belief as a private citizen. "I find no violation of (the contract)," Wise said. "I don't know if he's working for the Ramseys ." According to Wise, Smit would be in violation of his contract if he shared inside knowledge of the case with anyone, including the Ramseys , their investigators or their lawyers. Wise said the DA's office would have civil recourse against Smit if he violates that provision, but added he didn't know if it would constitute a criminal offense. Wise admitted, however, that it would be difficult to determine if Smit has shared confidential information with the Ramsey camp.†[ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6. "Conflict of interest?" Posted by Watching you on 11:12:44 4/22/2001 by B.J.Plasket Daily Times-Call …Hunter, while saying he "doesn't think" Smit will share his grand-jury knowledge with the Ramseys , did take the detective to task. "Lou's out of line in doing what he's doing," Hunter said. "He got off track." Associated Press March 17, 2000 Ramseys Launch Controlled Book Tour …They also refer to a theory by retired Colorado Springs Police Detective Lou Smit that a stun gun was used on the 6-year-old beauty queen. Smit was a prosecution consultant for 18 months before resigning in 1998, contending the Ramseys were innocent. Since then, he has worked with them Note: Who can tell if Smit has shared confidential knowledge with the Ramseys? They have knowledge of evidence he had knowledge of, so how did they come by that knowledge? In reading DOI, it is amazing how many Smitisms are there – the theory of the intruder, the stun gun, all Smitisms. It is possible the Ramseys picked these Smitisms up by reading about Smit’s theory, but taking the account of the private meeting between Smit and the Ramseys regarding the stun gun evidence, one surely has to wonder about his judgment. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7. "The Fox Speaks" Posted by Watching you on 11:14:02 4/22/2001 A former homicide investigator on the JonBenét Ramsey investigation says police should pay more attention to evidence that the 6-year-old beauty contestant was killed by an intruder. …. But retired Colorado Springs detective Lou Smit, speaking extensively for the first time on his role in the stalled investigation, says the Ramseys did not kill their daughter, according to today’s editions of the Denver Rocky Mountain News and The Denver Post and the March 20 issue of Newsweek. Smit was called out of retirement in March 1997 to help the Ramsey investigation but resigned from the case in September 1998, saying he could not, “in good conscience, be a part of the persecution of innocent people.†“I believe there’s evidence of an intruder, and I believe people should still be looking for him. There’s a dangerous guy out there,†he said. Newspaper reports late last year said Smit was working with the Ramseys on the case but was not being paid by them. OVERLOOKED EVIDENCE? According to Smit, that evidence includes: A metal baseball bat found outside the Ramseys’ home. Fibers on the bat matched a carpet found in the basement near the storage room, where JonBenét’s body was found on Dec. 26, 1996. The bat was found “in a place where kids normally wouldn’t play,†Smit said, refusing to elaborate. DNA evidence from JonBenét’s fingernails and underpants that indicates her attacker was a male. It has previously been reported that the DNA does not match John Ramsey’s. Peanut-shaped foam packing material and leaves found in the basement that Smit thinks might have been tracked inside by someone entering through a broken basement window. “It would have been something that would not have been blown in there,†Smit said. He said he chose to speak out, in part, to keep pressure on police to take his theory seriously. * * * * * * * * * [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8. "Smit/Ramsey Myths:" Posted by Watching you on 11:15:36 4/22/2001 “Smit believes the police were right to focus on the family at first. But he's dismayed at their reluctance to investigate alternatives Other quotes: Police Chief Mark Beckner said the department already has done that. “We have spent an incredible amount of time following up on leads in this case and a significant amount on the leads put forth by Lou Smit,†Beckner said. INRI, Page 297: "We had interviewed 590 people, consulted 64 outside experts, investigated and cleared more than 100 possible suspects, collected 1,058 pieces of evidence, tested over 500 items at federal, state, and private laboratories, gathered handwriting and nontestimonial evidence from 215 people, built a case file that now bulged to 30,000 pages, reviewed more than 3,400 letters and 700 telephone tips, and contacted seventeen states and two foreign countries. AND IT ALL KEPT LEADING US IN ONE DIRECTION. The detective team believed that John and Patsy Ramsey had knowledge of, and were involved in, the death of their daughter, JonBenet." * * * * * * * Associated Press March 17, 2000 Police Chief Mark Beckner estimated police spent half their time looking at suspects outside the family. From Ruthie’s site: Smit and Beckner have expressed strongly opposed opinions about evidence in the case. "The problem with it is he ignores the other evidence in the case," said Beckner, who believes Smit may have grown too close to the Ramseys. "Some of the information he is using is not accurate." [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9. "More Myths" Posted by Watching you on 11:17:19 4/22/2001 Myth: Steve Thomas is a media whore because he wrote a book. Lou Smit is a professional who has never gone public with his story. Truth: Loyal to the cop's code never to talk about an ongoing investigation, Smit refused to publicly share the evidence that led him to his "intruder theory." But now Smit is breaking his silence. In an extensive interview with NEWSWEEK, the 64-year-old investigator laid out his theory, which raises questions about the police's handling of the case and points away from the parents. Even so, Smit's theory doesn't solve the case. He still can't answer the key question: who killed JonBenet? And his theory can't disprove the police case against the Ramseys, who officially remain under an "umbrella of suspicion." The Ramseys, who have always denied involvement in the murder, will come out with their own book, "The Death of Innocence," this week and appear in television interviews. Smit says he has no relationship with the Ramseys, but it's probably no coincidence that his revelations are timed to take full advantage of the latest publicity blitz for him." Lou Smit has also been seen on news programs and has taped an interview with Katie Couric which is slated to air during the May sweeps. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10. "From Ruthie's Website" Posted by Watching you on 11:21:14 4/22/2001 Thank you Ruthie: My personal message to Detective Lou Smit: I quote from CRIME CLASSIFICATION MANUAL John E. Douglas, Ann W. Burgess, Allen G. Brugess, Robert K. Ressler: THE ASSESSMENT PHASE "Another pitfall that obscures these important details is the inablilty of the investigator to achieve a comfortable distance from the crime. Identification with the victim, perhaps relating the victim to a family member, prevents detachment from the crime, and judgment may become clouded by emotion." From DOI: The meeting between Lou Smit and the chief suspects in the murder of JBR (p.193 DOI) "....Do you know what a stun gun is?" "A stun Gun?" I frowned" "You understand what I'm talking about,?" Lou asked." "Sort of, I said.............I don't have any idea what one looks like." In the Ramseys' Book, Death Of Innocence, Detective Lou Smit is quoted as saying the following to John Ramsey. "I need to be able to know that this important information is kept in a limited circle. "........When we find the killer or killers, it's important that certain facts be known only to us and the killer. That's how we will know we've got our man." "....Do you know what a stun gun is?" "A stun Gun?" I frowned" "You understand what I'm talking about,?" Lou asked." "Sort of, I said.............I don't have any idea what one looks like." (p. 193, DOI) closeted meeting with the two main suspects, the Ramseys. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11. "More from Ruthie" Posted by Watching you on 11:23:35 4/22/2001 Be careful the company you keep: "In the following days and weeks, Lou Smit admitted that he talked to Jameson "a lot" because "she has good information." I would have to let Lou Smit respond to this. I was asked to contact him as a suspect in June of 1997... obviously I learned to respect and trust him and I admit passing him information later. He did NOT reciproccate - and I would swear to that under oath. (Jameson) I question anything Susan Bennett says, "under oath" means nothing to her. She has her own definition of the "the truth." She has told me that "She lies well." Not well enough for me Susan! (Ruthie) " Smit said Jameson claimed to have secret information about the Whites, their Christmas party, and what the children did. " An absolute lie. THIS is the kind of thing that makes Thomas' book fiction. (Jameson) Susan is Smit telling an "absolute lie" or were you telling Smit an "absolute lie?" (Ruthie) "She passed Smit a tip about another Internet junkie who had found a Web site for child pornography and thought one of the children shown in an explicit sexual pose looked like the daughter of Ramsey housekeeper Linda-Hoffmann-Pugh. The DA's office began an investigation." (Ruthie) This is true. Not complete, but true. I did pass such a tip to the authorities and the CBI investigation lasted 8 weeks. (That should tell you how close a match the images were.) (Jameson) I would note that the investigation was not shared on the forums, it was done quietly as it should have been. It should NEVER have become public, (it really still isn't - the whole story is not known to anyone but me, actually) and, indeed, the fact that it DID get posted about later - MUCH later - well, that was not MY doing. (Jameson) For further reading at the late Ruth Gerstenkorn’s site regarding the credibility of Smit’s informant, Jameson, go here: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Nebula/9337/jameson.html [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12. "Steve Thomas on Lou Smit" Posted by Watching you on 11:25:01 4/22/2001 Steve Thomas on Lou Smit: “Lou Smit is a gentle man and a gentleman. He has a gregarious personality, never has a bad word to say about anyone, and unfailingly shook my hand each time we met, no matter how upset we might be with each other. That unassuming manner and soft voice puts people off guard, and his easy smile, with a country boy toothpick at the side of his mouth, gets their trust. He is a family man and a devout Christian but can turn confrontational sometimes. Then the smile vanishes and sharp retort replaces politeness. A term was coined for such moments: “You’ve just been Smit on.†…Soon after Smit was hired…he told me…â€Murders are usually wht they seem. Rarely are they perfectly planned…†“He was cautious and noncommittal, which I considered prudent, since he had not yet had a chance to read the thousands of pages in the file. ..†“Three days later at a detective briefing, Smit made his first appearance…He had been around only about 72 hours, not anywhere near long enough to devour the case material…†…He said, ‘I don’t think it was the Ramseys.’ He never budged from that position.†(IRMI, p. 148.) IRMI, p. 327: “Lou Smit, so emotional that he shed tears, was immovable in declaring John Ramsey innocent of any wrongdoing.†[ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13. "In conclusion, sort of" Posted by Watching you on 11:25:50 4/22/2001 Bottom Line: While Lou Smit may be a very nice man and a good detective, by his own actions and his own words, he has proven himself to be hopelessly biased in the JBR case. If he wishes to work on behalf of the Ramseys, no one can fault him for that, as long as he does not share confidential information with them. However, one cannot dismiss the fact that he is in possession of confidential information, both physical and stored in his brain, concerning the case and it is not acceptable to expect others to believe he will not use those materials to further the Ramseys’ case. This does not in any way accuse Mr. Smit of wrong doing but only says that information can and most likely does affect the way he conducts his investigations for the Ramseys. It requires that others take Mr. Smit at his word, and while Smit may swear he has not revealed information, he has no way of proving that to other interested parties and it is unfair and irrational to expect others to merely accept his word without question, especially in light of the fact he already shared evidence with the Ramseys as admitted by the Ramseys in their book. And, while is it perfectly within Mr. Smit’s rights to pursue whatever he feels is right, it is clear that Mr. Smit cannot be and is not objective in this case. The fact is, the parents have not been cleared in the death of their child. Mr. Smit works entirely (by his own words) from the premise the Ramseys are not involved and in fact he shares evidence with them, as shown in the passage in DOI regarding the stun gun meeting – and this while he was allegedly working for the DA. All one hopes for is honesty. If Mr. Smit wants to pursue the intruder theory, fine. But, he should no longer expect others to subscribe to the myth that he is objective and would arrest the parents if evidence led to them. He has proved by his own actions and his own words that he will never participate in their arrest. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ]
The preceding is from the early Smit years. We need to pick up from here and post facts on things that have happened since I documented these things, like the powerpoint presentations Smit has given on TV programs and --- everyone knows the drill. Quotes and links are good.
Cutter on Lou Smit: Cutter 2/15/01 03:42 PM Lou Smit - The failure. [Post#: 2928 ] Lou Smit is best known for cracking a 2-year-old homicide in 1995. Smit worked as a detective in the Colorado Springs Police Department for 18 years. In 1991, Heather Dawn Church, a 13-year-old El Paso County girl, disappeared from her rural, secluded home northeast of Colorado Springs. Some of her remains were found Sept. 17, 1993, on a hill west of the city. Smit takes credit for solving the crime in 1995, "by simply opening the file and checking details," he said. A disregarded teletype from a Florida policeman led Smit to an imprisoned suspect, a former neighbor, Robert Charles Browne who confessed and was charged with her murder. Browne is currently serving a life sentence. Not only did Smit and the other Colorado Springs detectives overlook a teletype-letter that pointed them right at the murderer, but at the time of the abduction, crucial evidence was missed that may have actually saved the girl's life. When questioned by police immediately after the victim disappeared, Browne refused to allow police to search a shed located on his property. Browne's wife had also informed police that he would leave their home at odd hours of the night, a clue they failed to pick up on, that could have told them Browne was sneaking out to molest the captive girl. Additionally, the police also had lifted Browne's fingerprints from the Church home which they never checked out. They eventually confirmed the fingerprints belonged to Browne by matching them to prints on file with Louisiana authorities, where Brown was serving time on other charges. Judge Edwin Ruland who heard Browne's appeal, said there was evidence that Browne may have held Church captive for several days. He also noted that other evidence suggested that Browne is a pedophile, and expert testimony indicated that some pedophiles keep their victims "captive for a significant period after abduction." Browne plead guilty in exchange for the non-prosecution of the death penalty and the dismissal of other charges, including a sexual assault case on another child. Browne's lawyer at the time told prosecutors that he wanted to plead guilty in order to ensure he wouldn't be imprisoned in Louisiana. (Apparently the Colorado country club prison system is more suitable to a pedophile than that in Louisiana.) While taking credit for solving the Church case, Smit would later say, "It's all those little details that will lead you. - It's that tickle you get in the back of your neck." Tickle on the neck? Maybe Smit should be feeling "fire in the face" from embarrassment, since it was "those little details" that his own police department initially missed that could have saved the life of Heather Dawn Church. (A missing girl and a neighbor who refuses to let the police search his shed?!) Is it any wonder, how when a member of the same incompetent Colorado Springs police force joined the Ramsey case, Smit would proclaim the Ramseys innocent only 72 hours after being on the case? Smit made this statement when he joined the JonBenet case: "I'm just going in with a completely open mind, and we'll see what happens down the line. Normally the answers are in the case someplace, it just takes a lot of work to dig them out is all. It's just like anything else, you take it a little bit at a time." Yeah..."a lot of work". -- 72 hours. -- The same amount of work that failed Heather Dawn Church, now fails JonBenet Patricia Ramsey. [References:] Jeremy Meyer/The Gazette http://www.thedailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/1997/03/13-2.html http://venus.soci.niu.edu/~archives/ABOLISH/rick-halperin/oct98/0390.html
Smit stealing Karr's words Since your saving stuff relating to Lou Smit, I will put this here. I'm still reading over this arrest warrant (as though I have nothing else to do), and I'm going to stick this posting of my thoughts here on this thread because this includes a section from an e-mail from Karr to Tracy and it intrigues me. Karr made a strong point to tell Tracy NOT to steal any of his words or thoughts and he follows that saying that Lou Smit and others have done that to him. From reading Karr's e-mails you can tell when he was extremely adamant about something, and stealing his words was one them. Rewinding thoughts... So Sabreena and I were talking on the phone right after we watched the video of Wendy Hutchens, the Petaluma, California woman who was on KRON.com telling the story of how John Karr confessed the killing. The subject of him hiding under JAR's bed came up and of course at that time of the video we were not sure if Karr was the killer or not so we were brainstorming how he came up with that same "hiding under the bed" comment (or theory) as Lou Smit came up with when he hit the media circuits by the end of April 2001. We both thought how strange that the confession story Hutchens said Karr told her followed much of the same theory of Lou Smit without the stun gun but especially the "hiding under the bed" theory. So now my brain is in overdrive.... Wendy's dealings with Karr was between March 3, 2001 and April 2, 2001 so that had to be when he told her the story claiming he went to the Ramsey house the night of the murder and that he claims he hid under the bed in the room across from JonBenet's bedroom. So I started digging through my off line archive files for anything dated PRIOR to April 2, 2001, and I could find no reference to anybody suggesting or having a theory that the killer hid under the bed in the room across from JonBenet's bedroom. The first time I recall hearing that theory was when Lou Smit hit the media circuit the end of April 2001 but that was AFTER John Karr told that story to Hutchens. So then I asked myself who came up with the theory first, John Karr or Lou Smit? I mean out everybody on the forums telling theories, these two non-forum people (we assume) came up with almost the exact scenario of how the perp entered the house and hid under John Andrews bed with the exception of Smit throwing in the stun gun theory. How strange is that? So I looked over the times Lou Smit was interviewed or on media shows etc. to try and determine when he came up with that "under the bed" theory. In Smit's "October 25, 1999 - Time Magazine, "Did an Intruder Kill JonBenet Ramsey?" he didn't mention it. In Smit's "March 20, 2000 Newsweek Interview (by Daniel Glick)" he didn't mention it. On the May 4, 2001 Rocky Mountain News article titled, "Clues in the case" there is Lou Smit's theory that the perp hid under the bed. By the end of May 2001 Smit is on LKL and pushing the "under the bed" theory as well as in the "July 11, 2001 UK Documentary "Who Killed the Pageant Queen?" documentary. So then I go back to the John Karr, "Lou smit and others have done that to me" quote and I ask myself if John Karr ever sent e-mail to Lou Smit with this "under the bed" story and if that is where Smit got it. Why would Karr accuse Lou Smit of stealing his words? Smit can't steal his words if Karr didn't tell him the words first. Wendy Hutchens also said on LKL of August 24, 2006 that she did notify Boulder in 2001 about Karr's confession including sending an e-mail of the information which had to be around the end of April 2001. She didn't exactly state WHO she notified, was it the BPD or Lou Smit or any of the Ramsey investigators. So it is possible that Karr's WORDS were part of her story in that e-mail and I'm wondering if that might be where Smit got the idea. It might mean nothing, but I just wanted to put it here on this thread since I plan on saving this thread for future reference on my brain storming. ==================================== E-mail reference from: AFFIDAVIT FOR ARREST WARRANT JOHN MARK KARR, Pg9,10) 2006-01-06 04:17:14 From: December1996@Hushmail.com To: Michael Tracy SUBJECT: "My Heart is with Her" "I am a busy person as well. I am a teacher at a catholic school for girls." "Michael, please do not even joke about stealing things from me. NO you may not "steal" any words or thoughts I have shared. Lou smit and others have done that to me and it is wrong, it prompts me to keep silent." ====================================
Hi ACandyRose, Lou Smit brought up the dust ruffle in the 6/98 JR interview (I am copying it from your wonderful site, hope that's ok.) Maybe Karr read this Lou bite and got ideas from it. When were the interviews first published online? LOU SMIT: I am going to show 5 you a picture of John Andrew's room and 6 it's picture 29. That's this picture 7 right here and your head might be in the 8 way there. Picture 29. And what it is, 9 you tell me which room that is, and see if 10 you can make any observations of that room 11 and then I will touch on something a 12 little bit later. This was taken during 13 the kidnapping phase. 14 JOHN RAMSEY: It's John 15 Andrew's room. There are some clothes piled on 16 the chair, which isn't unusual. Maybe it's a 17 backpack. Some red thing with a black and white 18 looks like it might be one of JonBenet's 19 outfits. Clothes stacked. 20 LOU SMIT: Do you remember 21 looking under the bed? 22 JOHN RAMSEY: (Shaking head). 23 LOU SMIT: Take a look at 24 the ruffle on the bed. 25 JOHN RAMSEY: It's 0503 1 disturbed. And I didn't look under the 2 bed. It's pulled out. 3 LOU SMIT: Is that something 4 that would be usual or unusual? 5 JOHN RAMSEY: Well, it may be a 6 bit unusual. That room didn't get used much and 7 the cleaning ladies would clean it and make it 8 neat and Patsy used it to fold laundry, on top 9 of the bed, but it didn't get used. So you 10 know, somebody would have straightened that out 11 when they cleaned the room, I am sure. It's a 12 little unusual I would say.
Thank you so much. Hmm, that's interesting and does show Smit was thinking of that theory back in June of '98. But Karr couldn't have got the idea from that transcript because they were not available until after the "JonBenet, The Police Files" book came out and that was in the early part of 2003.
Were there photos released prior to the transcripts? When was DOI released? I think there's Smit in that. ha
WatchingYou, Thank you for bumping that up. You definately had ole Lou's number, imo. And you were right on about this too. I will never, ever understand her involvement in this case and with Smit. :burnedup:
ACR, I my jaw is still hanging on the floor after reading the reference to compensation by Karr in the Tracey e-mails. I don't for one minute believe that Tracey, with the assistance of Smit, didn't feed Karr little bits of information or suggestions in order to get him talking. Some people think Lou Smit is a straight shooter. I think he's anything but a straight shooter.
Thanks for a great read down memory lane. I have given up on trying to read everything I missed yesterday, but I'll try to get to it piecemeal. But this is a worthy read Smit was dirty then, and dirty now. They all are
