Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 12 of 13

Thread: Here's to ya!

  1. #1

    Default Here's to ya!

    Oh, my friends. Jammy sue has given me (and by extension, the rest of you) a real parting gift. That's right: she's released parts of Smitty's depo. Most of the really juicy bits confirm what many of us have suspected, that he thinks he knows more than the actual experts. Let's take a look:

    A. Because I think he came to the wrong conclusion.

    Q. But can't an expert that is well qualified reach the wrong conclusion occasionally?

    MR. WOOD: Are you asking him to comment on Dr. Spitz's qualifications?

    MR. HOFFMAN: Well, yeah, I asked him why he didn't feel he was qualified, and he said just because he came to the wrong conclusion. That doesn't necessarily mean he is not qualified.

    MR. WOOD: All I am saying is to the form of your question, your question assumes a well-qualified expert.

    MR. HOFFMAN: Okay. Then I am going to ask --

    Q.(By Mr. Hoffman)-- Detective Smit whether you think Warner Spitz is a well-qualified expert?

    A. Personally, no.

    Q. Okay. And the reasons for that?

    A. Mainly because I have seen his reports. I have also talked to other doctors and pathologists. They do not agree with Warner Spitz. I will also go by what they say.


    Gee, Lou, did you ever think of TALKING to Werner Spitz?!

    Oh, but it gets better!

    Q. But Dr. Richard Krugman is the dean of the, I think, Colorado University Health Sciences Center, and is considered a nationally-known child abuse expert, and apparently doesn't agree with you.

    MR. WOOD: Are you talking about, when you say "sexually molested," are you representing that Dr. Krugman is taking the position that there was not a sexual assault as evidenced by the trauma to JonBenet Ramsey's vagina?

    MR. HOFFMAN: No. That simply that there wasn't sexual gratification as a motivation behind it; that there was some sort of an assault on the sex organs, but they weren't necessarily for the purposes of sexual gratification. That is the representation.

    MR. WOOD: So the representation is that Dr. Krugman acknowledges that she was physically assaulted with some type of instrument in her vaginal area, but Dr. Krugman, you represent, has some theory as to why that attack took place that would differ from --

    MR. HOFFMAN: No, I just want you --

    MR. WOOD: Excuse me.

    -- the idea that it was a sexual motivation?

    MR. HOFFMAN: I just wanted to ask Detective Smit whether or not he had heard that and whether he knew of it.

    MR. WOOD: I am just not sure what he is being asked to say that he heard of.

    Q.(By Mr. Hoffman) Simply -- well, have you heard that Dr. Krugman does not believe that this was a sexual assault involving gratification?

    A. No, I have not.


    Folks, this little nugget is going in the book!

    It was exactly six years ago today that I told Jammy to take their theory and shove it. Now on this glorious anniversary, I have been given a gift from the most unexpected source.

    I would have waited an eternity for this.

    I am going to teach that crowd (I'm talking to YOU, Bucky) that turnabout IS indeed fair play.
    They should all drown in lakes of blood. Now they will know why they are afraid of the dark. Now they will learn why they fear the night.

  2. #2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Punisher View Post
    Oh, my friends. Jammy sue has given me (and by extension, the rest of you) a real parting gift. That's right: she's released parts of Smitty's depo. Most of the really juicy bits confirm what many of us have suspected, that he thinks he knows more than the actual experts. Let's take a look:

    A. Because I think he came to the wrong conclusion.

    Q. But can't an expert that is well qualified reach the wrong conclusion occasionally?

    MR. WOOD: Are you asking him to comment on Dr. Spitz's qualifications?

    MR. HOFFMAN: Well, yeah, I asked him why he didn't feel he was qualified, and he said just because he came to the wrong conclusion. That doesn't necessarily mean he is not qualified.

    MR. WOOD: All I am saying is to the form of your question, your question assumes a well-qualified expert.

    MR. HOFFMAN: Okay. Then I am going to ask --

    Q.(By Mr. Hoffman)-- Detective Smit whether you think Warner Spitz is a well-qualified expert?

    A. Personally, no.

    Q. Okay. And the reasons for that?

    A. Mainly because I have seen his reports. I have also talked to other doctors and pathologists. They do not agree with Warner Spitz. I will also go by what they say.


    Gee, Lou, did you ever think of TALKING to Werner Spitz?!

    Oh, but it gets better!

    Q. But Dr. Richard Krugman is the dean of the, I think, Colorado University Health Sciences Center, and is considered a nationally-known child abuse expert, and apparently doesn't agree with you.

    MR. WOOD: Are you talking about, when you say "sexually molested," are you representing that Dr. Krugman is taking the position that there was not a sexual assault as evidenced by the trauma to JonBenet Ramsey's vagina?

    MR. HOFFMAN: No. That simply that there wasn't sexual gratification as a motivation behind it; that there was some sort of an assault on the sex organs, but they weren't necessarily for the purposes of sexual gratification. That is the representation.

    MR. WOOD: So the representation is that Dr. Krugman acknowledges that she was physically assaulted with some type of instrument in her vaginal area, but Dr. Krugman, you represent, has some theory as to why that attack took place that would differ from --

    MR. HOFFMAN: No, I just want you --

    MR. WOOD: Excuse me.

    -- the idea that it was a sexual motivation?

    MR. HOFFMAN: I just wanted to ask Detective Smit whether or not he had heard that and whether he knew of it.

    MR. WOOD: I am just not sure what he is being asked to say that he heard of.

    Q.(By Mr. Hoffman) Simply -- well, have you heard that Dr. Krugman does not believe that this was a sexual assault involving gratification?

    A. No, I have not.


    Folks, this little nugget is going in the book!

    It was exactly six years ago today that I told Jammy to take their theory and shove it. Now on this glorious anniversary, I have been given a gift from the most unexpected source.

    I would have waited an eternity for this.

    I am going to teach that crowd (I'm talking to YOU, Bucky) that turnabout IS indeed fair play.
    Looks Smit probably never heard of what Krugman said because he did not bother to study any detailed reports. On the third day of his stay in Boulder, he waltzed into the conference room, telling the stunned detectives he didn't think it was the Ramseys and from then on, consistently blocked out any evidence pointing to their involvement. Reading his interviews with J. Ramsey, one would think he was his defense attorney working out a strategy together with his client.
    Lou Smit about suspects:
    "And if he is under the examining glass, you put him on the front burner for a while and you look at him."
    It borders on the comical that Smit completely abanoned his own principles when it came to scrutinizung the Ramseys. He ignored Patsy's jacket fibers in the ligature, he ignored the evidence tying her to the writing of the ransom note, and compleletly ignored the staged ligature scene by claiming some cord wrappped around a stick was an "elaborate sexual device". Priceless.
    And Smit 'seeing' a blue arc from a stun gun on the victim's skin is the icing on the cake of delusion that idiot eagerly swallowed.

  3. #3
    RiverRat's Avatar
    RiverRat is offline FFJ Sr. Member Extraordinaire (Pictured at Left is Patsy Ramsey)
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    NoneYa Beessness
    Posts
    7,824

    Exclamation

    OMG - you have this effect of keeping me on the edge of my seat! Enough already - Sic 'em, Tiger!!! Congrats on the anniversary Confirmation that you came to the correct conclusions.....those are always sweet!
    "Don't play dumb with me, RR! You're no good at it." The Punisher

    "Although no one is anticipating a prompt resolution to this long and much-detoured case, perhaps - just perhaps - might we see one of those moments “when a chance arrow of history scores a perfect bullseye on a deserving target”? Steve Thomas 2009

    "Justice hasn't had a chance so far. Anyone who doesn't have this as their prime goal, we'll have a falling out with." Fleet White - Time Magazine

    "What happens is that evil comes in," Fleet says. "If you don't have truth, all you have are lies, then what comes in is evil. And evil just does its thing. In the Ramsey case, it just did its thing, and it's eaten up so many people."

  4. #4

    Default

    I know, Punisher, it's absolutely insane that Lou Smit is so arrogant and stupid at the same time.

    Speaking of Lou "psychic" Smit's depo, I haven't had time to start a serious reading of it but did catch this little gemstone:

    Q. Any other evidence of any type of foreign material found that would point to the intruder leaving behind evidence?

    A. Yes. On the blanket that was covering JonBenet was found a hair. And it has been described as a pubic hair or axillary hair. A pubic hair comes from the pubic region. An axillary hair can come from the lower abdomen or from the chest, or even, I believe, the arm of a killer. That would suggest very strongly to me, if it is an axillary hair, that it probably is from a male. It is a Caucasian hair. This is a hair that is found on the blanket covering the body of a dead girl. The significance of this hair is, I think, tremendous, mainly because that hair could positively identify our killer. When our killer is caught, and I believe that he will be caught some day, that hair, if it's his hair, will conclusively show that that person was in that basement and murdered JonBenet. Some day they will be able to match that hair with someone because they are -- with microchondral DNA, the new testing procedures they have got, there are at least 27 markers, clear-cut markers in that hair.

    We will be able to positively identify the source of that hair. And if it belongs to our killer, that will be the most-- that will be the strongest piece of evidence. Just like the fingerprint in the Heather Dawn Church case, that could be the strongest piece of evidence in this case, one hair.



    Did he say that the "axillary hair" DNA has 27 markers?

    And and and...does he say that if THAT is matched to the "intruder", he's the killer?

    And and and...DOES THAT AXILLARY HAIR DNA MATCH THE "TOUCH" DNA?

    Seem like it ought to, if it belongs to the killer, PER THE RST INTRUDER THEORY AND THE EXONERATION OF THE RAMSEYS LACY BASED ON THAT "TOUCH" DNA, but I haven't heard one word about that axillary hair DNA matching the "touch" DNA....

    If these two DNA sources do not match, is Smit now of the mind that there was MORE than ONE INTRUDER? ARE WE BACK TO THE FOREIGN FACTION?

    Or...does this mean that the RST will have to admit that THERE IS DNA PRESENT NOT BELONGING TO THE KILLER NOR THE RAMSEYS?

    Or are they going to have to admit that Patsy matched the hair DNA? Or did she match the ancillary hair DNA, as was reported in one of the CO newspaper long ago?

    "Psychic" Smit sure does use a lot of "IF's" for someone who is so darned SURE he knows there was an intruder!

    Confused, like me?

    Anyone?

    "University of Colorado Law Professor Paul Campos declared the letter a 'reckless exoneration.' He went on to state, 'Everyone knows that relative immunity from criminal conviction is something money can buy.
    Apparently another thing it can buy is an apology for even being suspected of a crime you probably already would have been convicted of committing if you happened to be poor.'"
    FF: WRKJB?

    ~~~~~~~
    Bloomies underwear model:
    3 Dimensional

    ~~~~~~
    My opinions, nothing more.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Brooklyn, New York
    Posts
    2,632

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Punisher View Post
    Oh, my friends. Jammy sue has given me (and by extension, the rest of you) a real parting gift. That's right: she's released parts of Smitty's depo. Most of the really juicy bits confirm what many of us have suspected, that he thinks he knows more than the actual experts. Let's take a look:

    A. Because I think he came to the wrong conclusion.

    Q. But can't an expert that is well qualified reach the wrong conclusion occasionally?

    MR. WOOD: Are you asking him to comment on Dr. Spitz's qualifications?

    MR. HOFFMAN: Well, yeah, I asked him why he didn't feel he was qualified, and he said just because he came to the wrong conclusion. That doesn't necessarily mean he is not qualified.

    MR. WOOD: All I am saying is to the form of your question, your question assumes a well-qualified expert.

    MR. HOFFMAN: Okay. Then I am going to ask --

    Q.(By Mr. Hoffman)-- Detective Smit whether you think Warner Spitz is a well-qualified expert?

    A. Personally, no.

    Q. Okay. And the reasons for that?

    A. Mainly because I have seen his reports. I have also talked to other doctors and pathologists. They do not agree with Warner Spitz. I will also go by what they say.


    Gee, Lou, did you ever think of TALKING to Werner Spitz?!

    Oh, but it gets better!

    Q. But Dr. Richard Krugman is the dean of the, I think, Colorado University Health Sciences Center, and is considered a nationally-known child abuse expert, and apparently doesn't agree with you.

    MR. WOOD: Are you talking about, when you say "sexually molested," are you representing that Dr. Krugman is taking the position that there was not a sexual assault as evidenced by the trauma to JonBenet Ramsey's vagina?

    MR. HOFFMAN: No. That simply that there wasn't sexual gratification as a motivation behind it; that there was some sort of an assault on the sex organs, but they weren't necessarily for the purposes of sexual gratification. That is the representation.

    MR. WOOD: So the representation is that Dr. Krugman acknowledges that she was physically assaulted with some type of instrument in her vaginal area, but Dr. Krugman, you represent, has some theory as to why that attack took place that would differ from --

    MR. HOFFMAN: No, I just want you --

    MR. WOOD: Excuse me.

    -- the idea that it was a sexual motivation?

    MR. HOFFMAN: I just wanted to ask Detective Smit whether or not he had heard that and whether he knew of it.

    MR. WOOD: I am just not sure what he is being asked to say that he heard of.

    Q.(By Mr. Hoffman) Simply -- well, have you heard that Dr. Krugman does not believe that this was a sexual assault involving gratification?

    A. No, I have not.


    Folks, this little nugget is going in the book!

    It was exactly six years ago today that I told Jammy to take their theory and shove it. Now on this glorious anniversary, I have been given a gift from the most unexpected source.

    I would have waited an eternity for this.

    I am going to teach that crowd (I'm talking to YOU, Bucky) that turnabout IS indeed fair play.
    I'm so glad this gift came your way Punisher. Please, please, please just promise us that your book will not only be in English, but that we can buy it right here in the USA

    PATSY RAMSEY WROTE THE RANSOM NOTE
    SHE WOULDN'T DO THAT FOR AN INTRUDER.
    PLEASE READ CHEROKEE'S ANALYSIS

    http://66.98.176.96/~tricia/forums/s...ead.php?t=6404

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    The Lone Star State
    Posts
    827

    Default axillary hair

    What an idiot - axillary hair comes from the arm pit. Ancillary hair from the abdomen or another part of the body. Anybody who wants to use that hair as evidence of an intruder should know that the term axillary definitely refers to the arm pit.

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Texan View Post
    What an idiot - axillary hair comes from the arm pit. Ancillary hair from the abdomen or another part of the body. Anybody who wants to use that hair as evidence of an intruder should know that the term axillary definitely refers to the arm pit.
    I might be wrong, but I vaguely remember reading somewhere that either an armpit hair (or an arm hair) could be sourced to Patsy. Does anyone know more about it?

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rashomon View Post
    I might be wrong, but I vaguely remember reading somewhere that either an armpit hair (or an arm hair) could be sourced to Patsy. Does anyone know more about it?
    Yeah, I was about to get to that. In fairness to Smit (not that he deserves it), it wasn't until AFTER he was deposed that it was reported that mitochondrial DNA testing had matched the hair to Patsy. I remember because I was watching FOX News that day, and Carol McKinley came on with the story. August of 2002, if my memory's not too crummy.
    They should all drown in lakes of blood. Now they will know why they are afraid of the dark. Now they will learn why they fear the night.

  9. #9

    Default

    Thanks for reminding me of that, Texan, because when I first posted my post, I had put "ancillary hair" in the part I wrote. Then I read for editing and noticed Smit said "axillary hair". So I looked it up and yeah, "axillary" is armpit. But I edited and changed my referral because I couldn't find "ancillary" except in "hair removal" ads, and I didn't have time to chase down what the heck "Psychic" Smit meant.

    At any rate, Punisher, I remember when that news report came out that said Patsy was the match for the "ancillary hair". Of course, the RST denied that was true. NOW we have "Psychic" Smit saying it was an UNMATCHED "axillary hair". So I ask AGAIN if there were 27 markers profiled in the DNA of that hair, DID IT MATCH THE "TOUCH" DNA? Seems important, when one considers HOW LACY SAYS THE "TOUCH" DNA BELONGS TO THE KILLER. If the "axillary/ancillary/whatevah hair" doesn't match the "touch DNA", THEN EITHER THERE WAS MORE THAN ONE INTRUDER, according to the RST, OR ONE IS ARTIFACT, OR BOTH ARE ARTIFACT. heh

    When I get a bit more time, I'll go through my old files and see if I can find the "match to Patsy" article.

    "University of Colorado Law Professor Paul Campos declared the letter a 'reckless exoneration.' He went on to state, 'Everyone knows that relative immunity from criminal conviction is something money can buy.
    Apparently another thing it can buy is an apology for even being suspected of a crime you probably already would have been convicted of committing if you happened to be poor.'"
    FF: WRKJB?

    ~~~~~~~
    Bloomies underwear model:
    3 Dimensional

    ~~~~~~
    My opinions, nothing more.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    1,311

    Default

    Smit said axcillary (armpit) hair. He was wrong, and we all know not just about this. That hair was later found to be an ANCILLARY hair from PR's forearm.
    The misconception (LIE, actually) about the "pubic hair" fits in with the whole Smit denial theme. It goes hand in hand with the "mystery palm print" on the basement door that was FOUND TO BELONG to JR's daughter Melinda.
    What drives me crazy about these so-called "mysteries" is that when they are solved, as these two were, you don't hear much about it at all. That's because the RST wants to leave as many threads untied as they can- the cloudier this case is, the harder to see the truth.
    This is my Constitutionally protected OPINION. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Brooklyn, New York
    Posts
    2,632

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by koldkase View Post
    Thanks for reminding me of that, Texan, because when I first posted my post, I had put "ancillary hair" in the part I wrote. Then I read for editing and noticed Smit said "axillary hair". So I looked it up and yeah, "axillary" is armpit. But I edited and changed my referral because I couldn't find "ancillary" except in "hair removal" ads, and I didn't have time to chase down what the heck "Psychic" Smit meant.

    At any rate, Punisher, I remember when that news report came out that said Patsy was the match for the "ancillary hair". Of course, the RST denied that was true. NOW we have "Psychic" Smit saying it was an UNMATCHED "axillary hair". So I ask AGAIN if there were 27 markers profiled in the DNA of that hair, DID IT MATCH THE "TOUCH" DNA? Seems important, when one considers HOW LACY SAYS THE "TOUCH" DNA BELONGS TO THE KILLER. If the "axillary/ancillary/whatevah hair" doesn't match the "touch DNA", THEN EITHER THERE WAS MORE THAN ONE INTRUDER, according to the RST, OR ONE IS ARTIFACT, OR BOTH ARE ARTIFACT. heh

    When I get a bit more time, I'll go through my old files and see if I can find the "match to Patsy" article.
    KK,

    If memory serves, the "article" about Patsy's hair came from Charlie Brennan along with the palm print belonging to Melinda. It went undisputed by Smit or Wood, but the RST "stupid groupies" continued to state the "unmatched" scenario. I don't think you'll find the match statement anywhere else but Brennan, because they have bashed Brennan for writing it for years without explaining why Smit or Wood refused to dispute it.

    But then again, it's MY memory I'm basing this on and that is not an unimpeachable source
    PATSY RAMSEY WROTE THE RANSOM NOTE
    SHE WOULDN'T DO THAT FOR AN INTRUDER.
    PLEASE READ CHEROKEE'S ANALYSIS

    http://66.98.176.96/~tricia/forums/s...ead.php?t=6404

  12. #12

    Default

    It gets worse.

    Apparently, he never saw the video or read the transcript of Haney's interview of Patsy.

    Good God. At this rate, he'll need a book of his OWN by the time I'm through.
    They should all drown in lakes of blood. Now they will know why they are afraid of the dark. Now they will learn why they fear the night.



Posting Permissions

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