Why_Nut, ACR, and everyone...Need help with a Lou Smit situation.

I started a thread about this a while ago, I hope it gets clearer this time. These are the docs re the legal battle I found:

http://thewebsafe.tripod.com/02011999huntervssmit.htm


IN THE DISTRICT COURT, BOULDER COUNTY, COLORADO
Case No. 99CV169-2

Complaint for Injunctive Relief (FILED UNDER SEAL)

Alexander M. Hunter
District Attorney in and for
the 20th. Judicial District,
Plaintiff

vs.

Andrew Louis (Lou) Smit
Defendant


First Claim for Relief: Conversion

1. Plaintiff Alexander M. Hunter is the District Attorney for the Twentieth Judicial District, State of
Colorado, and maintains his offices in Boulder County Colorado;

2. Plaintiff Hunter is charged with the responsibility of investigating and prosecuting criminal offenses
committed against the people of the state of Colorado within Boulder County;

3. The Boulder Police Department is the primary investigating agency for crimes committed against
the People of the State of Colorado within the City of Boulder;

4. The Boulder District Attorney and the Boulder Police Department are conducting a joint criminal
investigation (hereinafter “the investigationâ€) into the death of Jonbenet Ramsey, which occurred in
the City of Boulder on or about December 26, 1996;

5. Defendant, Andrew Louis Smit, was formerly employed as an investigator by the Office of the
District Attorney for the Twentieth Judicial District. He performed his duties in an office in the Boulder
Criminal Justice Center, in Boulder County Colorado;

6. Defendant, while employed by the Office of the District Attorney, was assigned to the
investigation of the death of JonBenet Ramsey;

7. As part of the investigation into the death of JonBenet Ramsey, personnel from the Boulder Police
Department took photographs of the crime scene, autopsy and related evidence. In addition, the
crime scene was video taped on the night of 12-26-96;

8.Copies if all photographs and video tapes taken by Boulder Police Department personnel were given
to the District Attorneys Office for use in the official investigation into the homicide;

9.Said photographs and video tape, and the images they depict are the property of the Boulder Police
Department and the Boulder District Attorney;

10. As part of the investigation into the death of JonBenet Ramsey, personnel from the Boulder Police
Department and the District Attorney’s Office generated reports and transcriptions of interviews with
witnesses;

11. In his capacity as in investigator in the Ramsey case, Defendant had access to all evidence
generated in the case, including, reports, transcripts, video tapes and photographs taken by
members of the Boulder Police Department;

12. In September, 1998, Defendant resigned from his position with the District Attorney’s Office. He
was requested by Plaintiff to return all property of the Boulder District Attorney that was in his
possession at that time;

13. On September 30, 1998, Defendant was given a letter by Plaintiff (exhibit A) which directed
Defendant to confirm, in writing that he had returned all materials and information connected with the
Ramsey investigation;

14. Defendant was also provided a letter to return to Plaintiff, certifying that he had complied with
his obligation to return all property of the District Attorney that he had in his possession. (exhibit B);

15. At the present time, Defendant has in his possession a compact disc which contains digital copies
of many, if not all, of the photographs previously described. This compact disc was produced by
digitally scanning the original photographs or authorized copies of the original photographs with a
digitizer. The digital images were then transferred to the compact disc;

16. On January 22, 1999 and January 26, 1999, defendant admitted that he took the disc with him
when he resigned from his employment.

17. On the same dates, Defendant admitted to Plaintiff that he has transferred images from the
compact disc to his personal computer and to other compact discs;

18. On the same dates, Defendant acknowledged to Plaintiff that he also has in his possession or
control a copy of the video tape of the crime scene;

19. Upon learning that Defendant had materials and photographs in his possession, Plaintiff drew
Defendant’s attention to Exhibit B. Defendant stated that he had not signed it.

20. Plaintiff avers on information and belief that Defendant has in his possession or control digital or
paper copies of reports and transcriptions of witness interviews generated in the investigation.

21. Defendant’s receipt of or removal of the compact disc and the video tape from the Office of the
District Attorney was without the authorization of Plaintiff;

22. Defendant’s copying of the digital images and/or video images onto other media was done without
the authorization of Plaintiff;

23 Defendant’s receipt of , removal or copying of digital or paper copies of reports and transcriptions
of witness interviews generated in the investigation was done without Plaintiff's Authorization;

24. Plaintiff has requested defendant to return the compact disc and any copies of it. Plaintiff offered
to back up and preserve any data on Defendant’s personal computer for use by Defendant if and
when Defendant may appear in any official proceeding . Defendant has refused to surrender the discs
and erase unauthorized material from his computer;


WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that this Honorable Court

1.Enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant and award Plaintiff the following relief:

2.Order that Defendant provide an accounting to Plaintiff of all reports, transcriptions of witness
interviews stored by whatever means, and copies of any complete or partial photographs previously
described that are in his possession or control;

3.Order that Defendant surrender to Plaintiff all reports, transcripts of witness interviews, storage
devices on which any photographic or video images are stored, including., but not limited to, compact
discs, fixed discs, zip discs, floppy discs or magnetic tapes which are in his possession or control;

4.Order that all discs be reviewed by Plaintiff or his designee(s) and that plaintiff be permitted to
permanently erase any of the above described images that are stored on said media;

5.Order that Plaintiff be permitted to retain any disc which can not be permanently erased and;

6.Order such other relief that the court deems appropriate.


Second Claim for Relief; Breach of Contract

1.Plaintiff incorporates averments 1-24 of his first claim for relief as if restated here in full.

2.Defendant was bound by a written contract of employment (Exhibit C) which specifically prohibits
him from disclosing, during the course of his employment or thereafter,, any information that he
learned in connection with his official duties with the District Attorney’s Office;

3.That Defendant has breached his contract by disclosing to unauthorized persons material
information which he learned of or came into possession of during the course of his employment;
Defendant has publicly stated that he will continue to investigate the death of JonBenet Ramsey as a
private citizen.

4.On information and belief, Defendant’s investigation will disclose information which he learned of or
came into possession of during the course of his employment;

5.The disclosure of investigative information during the pendency of the official investigation will
produce irreparable harm to Plaintiff and impair his ability to perform his official duties in the
investigation;

6.Plaintiff has no plain, speedy and adequate remedy at law to redress Defendant’s breach and
anticipated future breaches of his contract of employment.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that the Honorable Court:

1.Enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant;

2.Enjoin Defendant from disclosing through any means any information which Defendant learned of or
came into possession of during the course of his employment with the District Attorney’s Office
unless authorized in writing by the District Attorney or by order of this court;

3.Order such other relief that the court deems appropriate.


Dated February 1, 1999 Michael J. Kane
Deputy District Attorney (Reg. No. 9790)
District Attorney’s Office
1777 6th. St.
Boulder CO, 80306


http://thewebsafe.tripod.com/03301999huntervssmit.htm

IN THE DISTRICT COURT, BOULDER COUNTY, COLORADO
Case No. 99 Division 2

STIPULATED COURT ORDER

Alexander M. Hunter,
District Attorney in and for
the 20th Judicial District
Plaintiff,
v.
Andrew Louis (Lou) Smit
Defendant

THE COURT, based upon a stipulation of the parties, hereby enters the following order which replaces all previous orders entered into this case.

GENERAL STIPULATION

1. The parties stipulate that each of them has acted in good faith in performing the terms of the employement agreement in question, and that this stipulation is entered into in an effort to resolve misunderstanding which have arisen between them. Detective Smit has entered into these stipulations because he has never had an intention to release information to the public during the pending grand jury investigation. Plaintiffs stipulate that they have no evidence that Detective Smit ever misused any information that was entrusted to him, nor do they have any evidence that he intended to misuse such information in the future.

POSSESSION OF INVESTIGATIVE DOCUMENTS AND THINGS

2. Detective Smit shall be allowed to retain one copy of the Powerpoint demonstration, and shall turn over a second copy to the Plaintiff.

3. Detective Smit has shredded all of his paper copies of the case time line, lead sheets and index, and shall turn over all databases containing these documents to the Plaintiff. Since Plaintiff contends that these items are privileged work product, Smit shall not retain a copy of these items.

4. Smit shall retain a copy of the Powerpoint demonstration in his own home or in some other safe and secure place.

5. The Plaintiff shall maintain and will not erase or destroy the Powerpoint demonstration, the case time line, lead sheets and index.

DISCLOSURE BEFORE CHARGES FILED

6. Until charges are filed in the Ramsey case, Detective Smit shall not show the Powerpoint demonstration or any of the photographs contained therein to anyone, nor shall he disclose confidential information that he has learned during the course of his employmentunless such information is already in the public domain.

7. During the time period set forth in paragraph 6 above, Detective Smit may continue to investigate the murder of JonBenét Ramsey bu in doing so will make it clear that he is investigating on his ownand not as a representative of the police, district attorney or grand jury. Furthermore, during any such investigation, Smit shall not intentionally interfere with the police, district attorney, or grand jury investigation.

DISCLOSURE AFTER CHARGES FILED/TIME LIMIT

8. After charges are filed in the Ramsey case, Detective Smit shall be free to disclose any information to anyone, including any person who may be charged with the death of JonBenét Ramsey; PROVIDED HOWEVER, Smit agrees that he shall not disclose to anyone conversations he has had with any attorney working for the district attorney, or consulted by the district attorney, unless ordered to do so by a court of competant jurisdiction.

9. If no charges are filed by October 1, 1999, Detective Smit shall be free to disclose any information to anyone, but Smit agrees that he shall not at any time in the future disclose any conversations he has had with any attorney working for the district attorney, or consulted by the district attorney, unless ordered to do so by a court of competant jurisdiction.

PROCEDURE FOR EXTENSION OF THIS ORDER

10. If no charges are filed by September 1, 1999, the Plaintiff may seek consecutive 30 day extensions of the provisions set forth in paragraphs 4, 6 and 7 above, but in doing so, the Plaintiff will be required to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that a continuing prior restraint on Detective Smit's freedom of expression is necessary.

Dated the 30th of March, 1999
By the Court

Also signed by Alex Hunter, Lou Smit, Michael Kane and J Gregory Walta (attorney for Smit)

 

<TABLE borderColor=#ff0000 borderColorDark=#ffffff cellPadding=1 width="100%" borderColorLight=#ff0000 border=0><TBODY><TR align=middle><TD width="70%">Larry King Live - May 28, 2001
Lou Smit and his Power Point Presentation

http://www.acandyrose.com/05282001lklsmit.htm

</TD><TD width="20%"></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

 

05112003secondlook-pic5.htm

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=j>jonbenet index archive. ... 237-Lou Smit, [Lou Smit's Power Point Presentation Crime Scene Photos] 238-Smit's PPP, [Lou Smit's Power Point Presentation ...
www.[b]jonbenet[/b]indexguide.com/05112003secondlook-pic5.htm - 20k - Supplemental Result</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/05112003secondlook-pic5.htm

 

http://www.longmontfyi.com/ramsey/storyDetail01.asp?ID=31

4/27/2001

Investigator to release Ramsey pictures

 

Lou Smit's Contract
EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made as of this 17th day of March, 1997, by and between Andrew Louis Smit, (hereinafter "Smit"), and Alexander M. Hunter, the Boulder County District Attorney, whose legal address is P.O. Box 471, Boulder, Co 80306, (hereinafter the "District Attorney").

WHEREAS, Smit desires to accept employment as a Special Senior Investigator for the District Attorney; and WHEREAS, the District Attorney has determined what a reasonable compensation will be for a Special Senior Investigator, and has offered Smit employment for such compensation and on the terms as hereinafter set forth, and Smit is willing to accept employment on such terms, NOW THEREFORE in consideration of the promises and of the mutual covenants and agreement hereinafter contained, the parties hereto agree as follows:

1. Employment. The district Attorney hereby employs Smit and Smit hereby accepts employment with the District Attorney upon the terms and conditions set forth below.

2. Term. The term of this Agreement (the "Term") shall be from the date of the execution of this Agreement by both parties until December 31, 1997, subject to the termination provision contained herein.

3. Duties. During the Term of this Agreement, the Employee shall assume and discharge the responsibilities of Special Senior Investigator on the JonBenet Ramsey homicide investigation and prosecution, and such other responsibilities as may be prescribed by Smit's supervisors. Smit shall devote his best efforts, knowledge and skill on a full-time basis o the performance of his duties as aforesaid.

4. Compensation. In consideration of the services rendered by Smit to the District Attorney under the terms of this Agreement, the District Attorney shall pay or cause to be paid to Smit a salary at the rate of $5,000 per month, payable on the last day of each month. The parties agree that Smit shall not be entitled to, or compensated for, any overtime pay. Smit shall not be compensated for any mileage he puts on his personal vehicle - but Smit shall issued a Boulder Country driver number and a personal identification number and is allowed to unrestricted use of Boulder County fuel for his personal automobile during the term of the Agreement.

5. Benefits. This Agreement sets forth all of the terms, conditions and benefits of Smit's employment with the District Attorney and Smit agrees that the Boulder County Personnel Manual shall not apply in any way to Smit's employment with the District Attorney and Smit waives all rights and benefits under the Boulder County Personnel Manual. Thus, by way of example, but not as an exhaustive list, Smit shall not be entitled to participate in any Boulder county insurance or retirement plans or be eligible for standard Boulder County vacation or medical leave, or any disciplinary procedures set forth in the Boulder County Personnel Manual.

6. Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, Withholding Taxes and Workers' Compensation. The District Attorney shall cause the County of Boulder to make contributions through payroll, make matching contributions, fund, pay premiums or withhold from any payments made under this Agreement, any amounts that may be necessary, appropriate or required under applicable provisions of the laws concerning Social Security, unemployment insurance, FICA and local taxes, and Workers' Compensation.

7. Termination. The District Attorney, in his discretion, with or without cause, may terminate Smit's employment with the District Attorney at any time during the Term of this Agreement. Smit may terminate his employment with the District Attorney at any time during the Term of this Agreement. Said termination shall be effective immediately upon the receipt of written notice of either parties' intention to terminate the employment relationship. Upon receiving said written notice of termination, all rights, duties and obligations of both parties, except those which are are expressly stated to survive this Agreement, shall cease.

8. Nondisclosure of Information. Smit agrees that he will not, either during the Term of this Agreement or at any time thereafter, disclose to anyone (except to the extent authorized in writing by the District Attorney) any confidential or proprietary information concerning the business or affairs of the District Attorney and/or the County of Boulder or the Ramsey homicide investigation and/or prosecution which he may have acquired in the course of or as incident to his employment or prior dealings with the District Attorney and/or the County of Boulder.

9. Representation and Warranty. Smit represents and warrants to the District Attorney that he is not now under any obligation to any person, form or corporation which is inconsistent or in conflict with this Agreement, or which would prevent, limit or impair in any way the performance by him of his obligations hereunder.

10. Notices. Any and all notices referred to shall be sufficiently given if in writing and upon mailing by registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, to either party at the address of such party or such other address as shall have been designated by written notice by such party to the other party. For purposes of notice, the District Attorney's address shall be and remain:Boulder District Attorney's OfficeP.O. Box 471 Boulder, Colorado 80306

11. Assignment. This Agreement is personal to each of the parties hereto, and neither party may assign nor delegate any of the rights or obligations hereunder without first obtaining written consent of the other party.

12. Entire Agreement and Future Modifications. This Agreement supersedes any and all prior written or oral agreements between the District Attoney and or the County of Boulder and Smit and may be amended, modified or superseded only by a written Agreement signed by both the parties.

13. Severability. If any one or more provisions of this Agreement shall be found to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable in any respect, the validity and enforceability of the remaining provisions contained herein shall not be in any way affected or impaired thereby.

14. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado, U.S.A.
15. Appropriation. This Agreement is subject to the appropriation of funds for the fiscal year 1997 by the County of Boulder. If such funds are not appropriated, the District Attorney has the right to terminate this Agreement and be released from all obligations under this Agreement, and both parties shall be released herefrom.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement that day and year first above written.
Alexander M. Hunter,Boulder County District Attorney
Andrew Louis Smit
http://thewebsafe.tripod.com/03171997smitcontract.htm

 

Previously, Boulder officials have said that Smit agreed in his contract with the county not to reveal details of the case to third parties.

 

Memo
TO: Mark R. Beckner, Chief of Police

FROM: Joseph Pura, Director Financial Services

DATE: December 17, 2001

SUBJ: Expenses related to Ramsey Homicide


1996 expenditures related to Ramsey Homicide Investigation:
Overtime Expenses (604.75 Hrs.) $ 20,340.80
Travel Expenses $ 248.38
Investigative Expense $ 788.55
Total Expenditures for 1966 $ 21,377.73

1997 Expenditures related to Ramsey Homicide Investigation:
On-duty Salary Expense $308,630.81
Overtime Expense (3,929.5 Hours) $134,621.66
Travel Expenses through 12-31-97 $ 57,392.46
Investigative Expense through 12-31-97 $ 30,830.08
Total Expenditures for 1997 $531,475.01


1998 Expenditures related to Ramsey Homicide Investigation:
On-duty Salary Expense - P.P.#26 $562,149.72
Overtime Expense 954 Hours $ 37,541.46
Travel Expenses through 12-31-98 $ 11,319.01
Investigative Expense through 12-31-98 $ 19,946.74
Total Expenditures for 1998 $630,956.93



1999 Expenditures related to Ramsey Homicide Investigation:
On-duty Salary Expense - P.P.#25 $220,780.26
Overtime Expense (218.75 Hours) $ 10,554.11
Travel Expenses through 12-30-99 $ 3,842.91
Investigative Expense through 12-30-99 $ 3,010.70
Total Expenditures for 1999 $238,187.98


2000 Expenditures related to Ramsey Homicide Investigation:
On-duty Salary Expense - P.P.#26 $133,648.28
Overtime Expense $ 4,898.78
Travel Expenses through 12-31-2000 $ 3,157.00
Investigative Expense $ 4,369.25
Total Expenditures for 2000 $ 146,073.31

2001 Expenditures related to Ramsey Homicide Investigation:
On-duty Salary Expense (through 12/17/01) $133,624.66
Overtime Expense (through 12/17/01)
I $ 3,005.59
Investigative Expense $ 550.00
Total Expenditures for 2001 $ 137,180.25






Total expenditures related to Ramsey Homicide Investigation for 1996, 97, 98, 99, 2000, & 2001.
$1,705,251.21


(Does not include on duty costs of investigation for Management Exempt employees, such
as Chief, Commander and Legal Advisor)



News Releases

http://www.ci.boulder.co.us/comm/pressrelease/RAMSEY/pr011217a.html

 

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=7383&page=8

 

http://web.dailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/2001/11aarndt.html

It's interesting that Arndt was forced to hand over her notes, but Smit was allowed to keep his cache.

 

Smit has privileged work product? Since when is he a lawyer?

Alex Hunter was such an idiot.

 

Smit has violated every single part of this agreement, out in the open, blatantly, and with "facts" and "details" that are not official by LE, but in his own imagination and with input from the likes of Susan Bennett, Tracey, and others NOT affiliated with the BPD or any official LE agency.

He obviously did NOT file for any "extensions", etc. I just love the "restraint on Detective Smit's freedom of expression" clause. Yet, he and the RST spent the last ten years restraining everyone else.

But this is Boulder where the rules don't apply if you believe in Ramsey innocence.

Alex Hunter is not just an idiot. He is corrupt. He got out, Lacy got in......same thing. He retired with full benefits and kept his end of the bargain with Haddon, et al.

Hunter is a criminal! :justice: :-( :no:

 

Add to this the fact that Smit took evidence with him when he resigned in a snit (would that be a “Smit snit?).

 

If you need my emails with Nagel, I'll be happy to send them to you, Tricia. Those would be the ones where he stated that Smit OWNS the PowerPoint, personally, as a private citizen, and therefore the DA will not release it to the public for OTHER private citizens to view, as Smit owns it, and he and only he is then able to use it for propaganda, to show to whomever HE chooses, including various TV PRODUCERS, TRACEY, JAMS, ETC., as HE OWNS IT, NOT THE DA....

You know...PROPAGANDA FOR PRO-RAMS SHOWS.

See, here's how it works: the state pays Smit to use the state's evidence in an open murder case to create a PowerPoint presentation for the DA, and he does so while he's on the DA's payroll. Then Smit quit the DA's office, with his infamous resignation letter, remember, while the PowerPoint was allegedly at the company which was processing it for him. Then Smit went and picked UP the PowerPoint and it was his forever. According to what jams has said about this, allegedly getting her info from "inside sources." And according to what the legal documents say that Hunter himself originally filed with the court.

However, the DA did manage to get the so-called original copy of the PowerPoint back, via court order, but Smit got to keep HIS OWN COPY, with the SIGNED LEGAL AGREEMENT that Smit could do anything he wanted with it after the grand jury finished, if they came back with no indictment....

Heh. Kinda' makes you wonder if Hunter knew all along the grand jury was not going to bring back an indictment...like maybe he wasn't going to ask them for a vote.... Heh. But I digress....

So, the taxpayers in fact DID pay Lou Smit to create the PowerPoint for the DA's office, and then Smit was gifted with it as a private citizen to show around to...oh...ANYBODY...and now the DA's office has stated...TO ME...in writing...after making me jump through quite a few hoops, I might add...that in fact NO OTHER PRIVATE CITIZEN MAY HAVE ACCESS TO THE POWERPOINT BECAUSE SMIT OWNS IT.

I am no lawyer...but I have never understood why the free press allowed THIS legal injustice to stand...but that's just me. I hate...and when I say "hate" I mean HATE...censorship and propaganda, especially when it is used TO SUBVERT JUSTICE.

But I'm funny that way. Old school Constitution. I know I'm about to pass, along with my generation, into history, going the way of manners and decent public education. sigh It was great while it lasted. Before corruption and laziness set in, putting a stake through the heart of intelligence and fighting the good fight....

 

IMO this is the most important part of the document. What was Hunter scared of?
That sentence says, "Sure...feel free to give the Ramsey case away--but don't you DARE tell anyone what I've been doing!"

 

This is my favorite part of Smit's contractual agreement with Hunter, which HE BROKE, as stated BY THE DA in a court document:

Smit was given these documents in the end by Hunter because Smit had his lawyer, that decrepit old crone who shows up in the crocs talking about how innocent the Ramseys are in his opinion, ONCE HE SAW THE EVIDENCE--you know, THE EVIDENCE Smit SHOWED HIM, which Smit signed a contract stating HE WOULDN'T DO...oh, what the heck...anywhooooo...this old friend of Smit's wrote up a response Smit filed with the court which stated that Smit would bascially tell the world about Hunter's leaks to tabs, and other things...and Hunter realized that the old FOX did have him over a barrel.

I call it legal blackmail. It was a ballsy thing to do, and it worked. Remember, at that time, which was in 1999 before the grand jury finished, nobody yet KNEW that Hunter had been leaking to the Globe and Jeff Shapiro. And apparently, there were other things Hunter didn't want the world to know about. And that is what Smit threatened to reveal if Hunter didn't back off.

So...if you NOTICE, in the final agreement signed by Hunter and Smit, Hunter did a 180 turnaround and gave Smit the farm. All Smit had to do was promise NOT TO TELL on Hunter and what Smit heard/saw in the DA's office. Isn't that droll? Then the grand jury finished, no indictment...and Smit was on his way. Couric did her week long series with Smit about six months later, I think it was, when Smit got to do his intruder spin to his deluded heart's content.

This same PowerPoint has been the basis for Tracey's crocs, for Schiller's own recent CTV program, for Couric's Today Show series with Smit, used in "48 Hours" programs on the case, has been shown to hand-picked reporters by Smit, and jams has stated she has a copy, herself. All the general public has ever seen of it is what the RST wants them to see.

I call that THE WORST case of exclusive, state-supported propaganda I have ever seen myself.

Don't misunderstand me. I wondered what I would do if I did actually get a copy of the PowerPoint. I don't really know that I actually want to look at it. What I have seen is gruesome enough. But what I have asked myself, and the reason I have brought this up about a hundred times to everyone who reads or listens, is why the RST gets to use it, show it exclusively, all while claiming that OUR CHILDREN ARE IN DANGER, naming innocent people as SUSPECTED CHILD MURDERERS and themselves innocent, to the public not only in our country, but internationally, as well.

You see, no one has been charged with this murder. That means a child murderer IS out there...or was, at least. (You know...unless "he" is now dead, as the RST loves to say.) Since the Ramseys made this a public case early on, with their first appearance on TV the day after the buried JonBenet, and since the DA leaked to the press for his own reasons, and since Smit uses the actual case evidence for his own agenda...I hardly think it's Constitutional for the public to be subjected to PERSONAL AGENDAS in an open CHILD MURDER CASE without having equal access under the FOIA to information that those who would have us looking under our beds for child killers have at their fingertips, which they manipulate at will.

There was an article in a Colorado newspaper/online site at one time, which reported the Hunter/Smit brouhaha. In that particular article, it quoted from Smit's response to Hunter in court. That's the document wherein Smit more or less blackmailed Hunter into giving up the PowerPoint to Smit. That would be the document that we need to see. Guess it's time to get a copy of that, huh?

 

Precisely, BlueStrat....

This is the key to how Smit blackmailed Hunter...legally, of course, it's Colorado!

 

KK, You mean like this?
http://www.longmontfyi.com/ramsey/storyDetail00.asp?ID=38
4/5/2000
Alex Hunter answers critics of Ramsey case

by B.J.Plasket
Daily Times-Call


BOULDER — In the first 39 months following the slaying of 6-year-old JonBenet Ramsey , District Attorney Alex Hunter said little publicly, even in the face of massive criticism.

But that seems to be changing for Hunter, who began granting interviews last week and has since gone on the offensive.

In a Tuesday interview with the Times-Call, Hunter angrily lashed out at his critics — especially former Boulder detective Steve Thomas, whose highly critical book about the Ramsey case will be released this month.

"I would say to my critics," the normally soft-spoken Hunter said, "If it is all that bad (here), then head on down the road somewhere."

Hunter, who is completing his seventh and last term in office, said his administration has won "a ton of plaques" during his nearly 28-year tenure in office.

He added the majority of the public has shown it agrees with him by re-electing him six times.

Hunter also bristled when asked why Gov. Bill Owens was not told of a secret agreement made with former detective Lou Smit when Owens was pondering the appointment of a special prosecutor last year. That agreement allowed Smit — now an employee of John and Patsy Ramsey — to keep photographs, videotapes and other evidence items gathered while he worked on the case.

"It was old stuff," Hunter said of the material Smit was allowed to take. Smit's agreement now allows him to do anything he pleases with the material.

When asked why Owens wasn't told of the deal, Hunter snapped back, "What does that have to with it?"

He said Owens was "not privy to anything from the grand jury."

He refused to comment, however, on how Smit got his wish to address the grand jury that investigated the case for 18 months but did not return indictments.

Prosecutors at first wrote Smit a letter turning down his request to testify, but changed their minds weeks later after Smit's lawyers made allegations that Hunter's office was responsible for leaks in the case.
Hunter's harshest criticism was aimed at Thomas, who quit his job in disgust and publicly accused Hunter of sharing case information with the Ramseys .

Hunter, when asked about the ethical ramifications of his attempt to use tabloid reporter Jeff Shapiro to discredit Det. John Eller, turned the tables and pointed at Thomas, who equipped Shapiro with a body microphone in an attempt to snare Hunter.

"I have an ethical problem with putting a wire on someone (to discredit the DA)," he said.

"It gives you an insight into a zealot," he said of Thomas.

Hunter also reiterated his earlier statement that neither Thomas nor Eller — his two harshest critics among the Boulder police — had ever investigated a homicide.

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."

Smit quit the case because he thought police and prosecutors were unfairly targeting the Ramseys and has vowed to find the intruder he believes is the killer.

When asked if he thinks police mistakes have critically wounded the investigation, Hunter said, "Look at me — no."

He also claimed there were no ethical violations committed by anyone in his office.

Prosecutors and police are scheduled to meet on the case sometime soon, but a date has not been set for the Boulder meeting.

Hunter said the meeting will not determine the future of the case.

"A smoking gun won't come out of it," he said

 

Please send them to Tricia, KK. I don't know if she will have time to be on the forum today, so she may not see your post. Those e-mails are important documentation in this absolute travesty of justice.

The Ramseys got away with murder, and Lou Smit got away with ownership of evidence in an on-going investigation.

Only in Boulder.