About Thomas and the Ramsey suit....

I stick by my impression that Lou Smit is a wily old fox. Think about it, he joined the case late. He had already witnessed the Ramsey vs Media + BPD + world. If he had two brain cells, he would know that if he wanted to get near the ramseys, he had to play it carefully.

Now my guess is that he asked John Ramsey that question to gauge his reaction and not as a kind of "Christian handshake". John Ramsey claims to be a Christian and Lou is a Christian - maybe he asked him the question to watch his body language.

Ou Depute Headmaster is a wily fox. He is a fantastic PR guy - the kind of guy who is "everyone's friend". He's very approachable - but with the same token, he's tough and can very nicely put people in their place. When kids -up, he adopts a kindly uncle approach with them until he gets to the bottom of things ... and if it's justified, he slams them - very nicely.

I really don't think Lou Smit is on anyone's side but Jonbenet's.

OTOH, if I found out for sure that he leaked to jameson, I would change my opinion of him. THAT would have been very unprofessional.

 

Someone faxed that autopsy to jameson, Jayelles. Do you have ideas other than Smit who it would be?

 

He DOESN'T have two brain cells ... at least, not in a row.

Jay, you and I have been friends for a long time, and you are perfectly welcome to your opinion of Lou Smit. But just so you'll maybe understand why I feel the way I do about him ...

I know someone who personally sat down with Lou Smit and tried to talk about the evidence with him. Lou wouldn't even listen to another point of view. It was all intruder or nothing. He wouldn't even consider another plausible scenario.

The thing is ... the Ramseys weren't at that meeting for him to try to cozy up to, or play the "good cop" for ... but Smit was adamant that an intruder came through the basement window, that they stun gunned JonBenet leaving blue lines on her face, and that the Ramseys were the victims of a "witch hunt" that he personally had to rectify.

This happened about two years ago, seven years from the crime scene, and the Ramseys were (by that point) long gone and safe forever with no threat of indictment or arrest. How can Lou Smit keeping up a pretense of Ramsey innocence to anyone, and everyone, help him get closer to the Ramseys and solve the case now?

I might have believed your scenario if it was only a few months from JonBenet's death when there was still hope of someone being arrested and prosecuted for it ... but we're way past that now. All Smit has done with his "Ramsey coziness" in the past nine years is go to the media and extol their innocence while dragging absolutely innocent people through the mud.

I'm sorry, but there is no excuse for excoriating innocent people in public. If that's Smit's idea of being a wily old fox and getting close to the Ramseys, then he's more than delusional, he's deranged, because it makes no sense.

The damage Lou Smit has done in this country in regards to the Ramsey case is immeasurable. Because of him, and his one-man misinformation campaign to clear their name, many people in the US now think the Ramseys are totally innocent and that an intruder MUST have done it. They heard it from him so it must be true.

I cannot and I will not excuse his actions on any basis.

It's one thing to believe in the innocence of a suspect, it's entirely another to invent evidence and actively promote in public without thought to the ramifications of your actions.

 

Again, hear hear, Cherokee!

Sorry Jayelles, you just don't have the feel for the "Christian" sleuth we do. I can understand, too, because you invariably sound like you have lived long among people who are fairly sane. In this country, you cross a Christian with a low IQ and you get...Lou Smit. They think they are god's special people, and it's as Cherokee said, "magical thinking" appears, wherein whatever they believe was devined by god...it's a done deal. No common sense or science allowed.

So in that sense, Cherokee, your friend's experience with Lou sounds exactly like what I expected from Smit. He's just not that smart, so he covers for it by blocking out anything that might interfere with what he wants to believe. And he wants to believe he's special, that he alone can "solve" the case and "save" the Ramseys. That means never, ever letting anyone discuss the case evidence logically, or with true science...because Lou Smit does NOT know science or logic. That was clear when he did his tv propaganda. Nobody who knows anything about science or forensics could watch him and not be astonished at his sheer ignorance. He can't debate. He's just like jams, same tactics. They just deny what they don't want to be true...or refuse to allow it to be discussed--swamp style. It's ALL EGO: I'm right, because I'm smart, special, privileged--or as jams recently put it, "in a unique situation." So don't challenge my assertions, just believe what I say, because I have inside info, but I can't tell you what that is or who my sources are...just TRUST ME. hahaha Always what they say as they lead you astray, isn't it?

And that's Smit to the core: the people who praise him do so because he feeds them what they want to hear, or because it serves them in some way, like reinforcing their own illusions or denial. Or because it helps them become "consultants" and gets them on tv! With lawyers and contracts! Or gets them case interview tapes in the mail for which they make at least $40,000 by selling the Ramseys out. (And believe me, I'm very happy they did that, considering what we learned about the Ramseys in them.) Heady stuff for ordinary people so easily starstruck.

And that's what the Ramseys did for their loyal nobodies like Smit.

In that way, Smit is a fox: he knows how to play people who want to be played, for mutual gain. That's his pact with John Ramsey: Smit got his inside track with rich and elite lawyers, famous people, got himself on tv, met Katie Couric and Larry King, had Tracey and his jackals falling all over him...oh, it was lovely for an old man who was retired, his previous claim to fame nothing more than checking a database for a fingerprint and solving a cold case with a hit.

The price for Smit's "Legendary Detective" BS? Jonbenet's killer will never have to face justice.

No, Lou Smit gets no slack from me, either, but then, I'm sure he cries about it all the way to the bank.

 

Susan Stine?

 

Chero & KK

I am very happy to agree to disagree about Lou Smit. I don't claim to be a fantastic judge of character because I have gotten it wrong in the past (I was wrong about Imon for example). However, as a result of a traumatic experience my mother had, I was raised to reserve judgement on anything I didn't hear first-hand.

I am always willing to be proved wrong, but proof for me does not come in the form of "someone said".

 

That would be my guess, Jayelles.

And here's the thing: that means the Rams had it already. But John and Patsy both said they didn't want to know those things early on, didn't they? Don't tell me that's another lie...? :tsktsk:

Thomas had a right as an investigating detective to complain that the DA was giving away all the evidence, didn't he?

Don't worry about my opinion of Smit or anyone. I don't require people to have my opinion--that would be the swampsters who do that. But I'm not basing my judgment on what somebody said. I'm basing it on what I observed of Smit on TV, the evidence I have seen, not gossip, and my own experience in life: Smit is a misguided man, IMO, and I'm not falling for his dog and pony show.

But that's just me, and really, in the end, it's all moot. The child is murdered and the killer will not have to answer for it in a court of law on this earth.

:verdict:

 

I appreciate and respect that. Herein lies the difference between the Borg and the RST. I can never understand why the RST have to take a difference in opinion so personally.

Perhaps they find it too intellectually demanding to get along with others who have a difference of opinions? ;-)

 

Probably. It's easier for some people to try to shout down a person they disagree with than deal with a difference of opinion which they find it very threatening.

Like KK, I don't base my opinion of Lou Smit merely on what "someone said." I saw for myself, from Smit's own words and actions, what kind of person he was long before I ever heard about his meeting with my acquaintance.

But now you have my curiosity. How do you reconcile Smit's words and actions (especially in the past few years) with trying to win Ramsey confidence? In other words, how does his continued media broadcasting of every cockamamie intruder story and non-evidence further his secret goal of getting the Ramseys to trust him (or even confess) so the case can be solved?

 

Typical, Jayelles. It was an easy enough mistake to commit.

 

Sorry? You've lost me!

 

Well I can only base my opinion of Lou Smit on what I've seen of him on TV - because I've never met him and he hasn't taken me into his confidence.

1. He came to the case knowing that the Ramseys had closed ranks against investigators.

2. He knew that he really needed to speak with the ramseys and that there was no chance of that if he was seen to suspect them. The Ramseys are unique witnesses in this case - last people to see JonBenet alive - and John Ramsey was the person to find her body etc etc.

3. He earned himself a reputation for being approachable by showing a willingness to meet with jameson and by communicating with known RDIs in the case too (e.g. Ned Johnson - who said he respected Lou despite their differences of opinions). He has never mocked Internet sleuths or any other followers of the case.

4. Steve Thomas respects him - he said so in his book.

OK - the media. Lou Smit stuck his neck out and said he really believed an intruder did this and he offered some pretty weak evidence in favour of an intruder - packing peanut, scuff mark, undatable palmprint and bootprints.

He spoke of blue marks on her skin caused by blue electricity, he slid through basement windows and he really spread the word that he thought the ramseys were innocent. In the end, he resigned from his job saying he felt innocent people were being targeted - but he kept in touch with the Ramseys and continued to search for the killer. What age was he when he resigned? Was he at retiral age by any chance? What did he have to lose in terms of his career at that stage? I know he went into partnership with a PI firm.

I don't believe in conspiracies so I don't think all of the above is just a huge conspiracy. However, if I was an investigator in the ramsey case - I'd want the Ramseys on my side and if that meant going public and saying I believed in their innocence - I'd do it. Lou has achieved the best of both worlds. On the one hand, he has gained the Ramseys trust - and the trust of their friends and family. If they are involved in this, he's in an perfect position to catch them with their guards down. OTOH, if the killer is found to be an intruder - he has lost nothing.

IMO, if Lou Smit is playing a game of cunning fox, he's not going to reveal his cards to anyone - especially not an RDI case follower.

You may be right and he may just be a delusional old man but that isn't an opinion we share. :ducky:

 

Hey ... I've got a bonafide (slightly dented) tap-dancing Aussie chook I'll trade for your bonnie wee duck there.

_______ :chicken: ________

 

In other words, Jayelles, you can catch more fles with honey than you can with vinegar.

-Tea

 

Put it this way - the Ramseys, friends and family can never accuse him of not being fair with them. If Lou Smit asked the ramseys ANY question now - they'd have to have a pretty good reason not to answer it. They cannot use bias as a back-out clause.

 

I think Smitt being a mole is wishful thinking and I think the Rams would refuse to answer questions if Jesus himself asked them.

 

Sorry, Jayelles. I meant it was easy enough to say that it was Kane who interviewed Patsy instead of Haney.

 

You know, Jay, I may very well have been persuaded by Steve Thomas' account of Lou Smit, of how he had always been an admirer of Lou's work, and of how he respected him, but this case was different, and I believed everything Steve Thomas said. It's as simple as that. For Lou Smit to have condoned the intruder theory was absolutely ludicrous, Jay.

The cuffs on the wall could have been old marks, but he accepts those marks as being the intruder's (?). H-e-l-l-o-o-o-o! Lou doesn't concentrate enough on the ransom note, Jay, the most important piece of evidence. He's too hooked up into this intruder theory.

I personally feel, that anyone who had their eye on JonBenét Ramsey, could have picked a much better time and an easier way to kidnap her, than to go through that ridiculous scenario of the basement window with the grate at Christmas time, in her own home. So idiotic!

 

I'm goin g to do my Miss Marple here LOL. When I'm dealing with people, I always compare them to other people. I suppose that subconsciously I'm looking for patterns.

I KNOW Lou's packing peanut and scuff mark are weak - possibly even ludicrous evidence but his willingness to go on TV and present them as evidence reminded me of my late uncle who was a headmaster. I adored him - everyone adored him. I remember that he defended me once when I'd been really naughty. He did this thing where he kept his face absolutely straight and painted a black picture snowy white - making a naughty child seem like a good one who'd just made a perfectly understandable mistake. Kids took him seriously, adults probably struggled to keep their faces straight.

That's all. Maybe he is delusional (regarding the packing peanut and scuff mark etc) but I haven't written off the possibility that he might be doing something more clever in getting the Ramseys to co-operate and stay co-operating. As long as their door remains open to him, he's covering all bases.

 

Not suggesting he's a mole.