About Thomas and the Ramsey suit....

Someone asked her point blank about it.

Q: So who "leaked" you the autopsy if anybody?

A: "My lips are sealed on that one. Absolutely no good reason to share that information with anyone at this point."

 

Forgive this lengthy post, Jay, but I would rather let Steve Thomas speak for himself about Lou Smit. Just a refresher.

I did order a hardback copy of Steve's book, and in keeping with the situation of my lost Tom Miller CD, I never received it. I'm not a good advert for ordering from Canada. Judith (Cookie) did replace it for me. Amazon refunded my money. I will try for the hardback cover of Steve's one more time. My paperback is falling apart from constant use. I do agree with Steve Thomas' feelings about Lou Smit, from this chapter in his book.

I go along with Steve's thinking here. Lou was successful with this plan with Heather Dawn Church, and it's almost as if he was back into that case again, when he was speaking "at length" about this little girl. It's almost as if he couldn't shake it off.

 

These two were made for each other. Patsy reliving her glory days through JB's life and Smitt reliving his crowning moment through JB's death. They understood each other.

 

I think they bonded for a far more powerful reason- cancer. Smit's wife had it and so did Patsy.

-Tea

 

For whatever reasons, an impartial detective shouldn't 'bond' with murder suspects like smitt did.

 

Just about says it all

 

Legal strategies, it's as simple as that.

Linn Wood sued St. Martin's and Steve Thomas, not just for the deep pockets or the contract between Steve and his publisher. St. Martin's had to be sued because they bore legal liability for the contents of Steve's book. It's a matter of law and liability. The case was settled because it was cheaper for all parties to do so rather than litigate. And it's as simple as that.

Don't you guys remember who brought Lou Smit into this case? It wasn't the Ramseys, it was Alex Hunter. Doesn't that say something large? Lou swung to the other side immediately after meeting John Ramsey. Now think about it. Here's a once-famous (locally) detective living in sudden obscurity on PD retirement income and social security. I don't care how Christian this guy claims to be, cops have egos and tasting the famous life and its notoriety, then plunging into nobody-ness, is a powerful motivator. He was being paid a nominal wage while on the City of Boulder's payroll under Hunter to investigate this case. John Ramsey, extremely desperate fat cat CEO oozing money, and a Christian no less, likely made ole Lou an offer he couldn't resist. John Ramsey knows what every wealthy person knows; that anybody can be bought for the right price. And suddenly Lou swings like a hooker at a gang bang. The rest is history and the name Lou Smit will be forever in the anals of history.

Legal strategy...Lou Smit's ONLY purpose in this case is, was and always shall be to create reasonable doubt in the minds of any prospective jury pool that may ever sit in judgment on his benefactors. That's it, that's all. Lou doesn't have to prove anything and that is why his theories, all of them over the years, have been so transparent and easily disproved. His goal is not proof, his goal is reasonable doubt. There's a huge chasm between the two.

Legal strategies...that's what this entire case has always been about. Back up legal strategies with a pile of money and a junkyard dog lawyer running around threatening to sue, or filing sham suits like the ST/St. Martin suit and you've got THE winning combination that allows guilty perps to run free.

Don't personalize your analyses, folks, it's ALL about legal strategies and nothing more, including one precious, innocent, defenseless dead child.

 

Great post, Deja!

Lou is probably not doing a great deal of investigating these days. He's already played his part. He achieved his reasonable doubt, although it's far fetched, it worked! I could bop him like that little penguin. I think I will!
:rs:

 

Well, Elle, whether he succeeded in creating reasonable doubt has yet to be tested where it counts most...to a jury. But if public opinion is any measure, there aren't many he's convinced. Damn pesky thing, that guilt.

But you go get him! :viking:

 

Yeah, I gotta' go with this POV, myself. I cannot imagine anything more ineffective to "trap" a killer than giving prime suspects 9 years of unqualified support publicly and at the Grand Jury, leaking evidence and intruder theories left and right to the media.

Because you see, Jayelles, there just isn't going to be any trial. Ever. And Smit did his part to ensure this, IMO.

By the way, Smit was already retired when Hunter hired him as a contract detective for the DA. I thought the final tally for Smit's little year and a half with the DA was about $60 thou. I'm not sure where I got that idea, but I know I read it...maybe in Thomas book? It should be public information, as most states put all employees' salaries in easily accessible sources every year.

Or am I confused again...? :yow:

 

Yeah, and if Smit is planning on asking Patsy any questions, he'd better hurry up and do it soon. His nine year window of opportunity is about to close.

 

Well...I did think about that, Chero...but then I remembered that Patsy is going to outlive us all....

 

They better just hope they don't get a juror like me!

 

Or me, Punisher! Actually, I should retract my former statement. Smit's chit was tested on the Grand Jury, wasn't it. I've never seen such a thing as to allow a potential defendant's investigator to address a GJ, but this is just another quirk in this bizarre case. It's a shame all the forensic evidence wasn't in hand at that time. Perhaps AH was right; that convening the GJ was premature..... :2cents:

 

We'll go get him together, Deja. I'll hide behind you! You're my strength!

 

I'm with you too! That would be the opportunity of a lifetime!