Let's deal with the Cord and Duct Tape

OMG!!! Please say that isn't who he's dippin with!!! :yow:
That makes me nauseous. :sick:

 

Sounds like this relationship could have started with consolation for each other, tylin, with both of them having lost their daughters. Probably this will suit John Ramsey. How on earth could he have a normal relationship with someone who hasn't suffered in this capacity?

I still think it would be very difficult to have a relationship with a man who was still under the umbrella of suspicion for the death of his own daughter. Difficult to put any trust in someone like that. Know what I mean?

 

Elle,
You're probably right but lausey mercy I thought Mrs. H was smarter than to trust someone like that.

 

Let him stay there and rot.

 

Reading Lou Smit's deposition today I notice that he refers to the ligature cord as "olefin." I looked up olefin and it's polypropylene.

The cord used in the crime turned out to be nylon and not polypropylene, didn't it? I guess Smit didn't get the memo.

From Smit's depo:

"If you look very closely on this, I point it out later, you are going to see the end of that cord. It is less than an inch long. But you are going to see something about that end of that cord. It is not unraveled. What happens when you buy that particular type of cord -- it is made of olefin. It is like a plastic material. When they purchase that cord, it is burnt on the ends to keep from unraveling, and when you buy a length of that cord, it is burnt on both ends. And that is significant."

 

The two materials can look similar. They are obviously synthetic and not cotton. The cord has been described as nylon, but we have no evidence it was analyzed chemically to see if that is actually what it was. It is possible that, though it was olefin, it was described as nylon. Or it may have really been nylon.
What LS says is simply more babble. I have seen that synthetic cord sold many places. I have seen thicker lengths sold as clothesline (doesn't rot like cotton). But I have NEVER seen any place that sells it BURN the edges when you buy it to keep it from unraveling. That is something the buyer might do, but hardly when they intended to strangle someone with it.
An exact match to the cord and tape was sold at McGuckin's hardware (where a receipt was produced showing a R used a credit card to purchase items identical to the cord and tape (in price and department) shortly before the murder. These items were also available at a local Army-Navy store. I would think that it would be easy enough to see on the packaging what the cord was made of. Even if it was sold in cut lengths and not in a package, there would still be information on the material.

 

There was a big problem with Trujillo insisting the cord was polypropylene when Thomas thought it was nylon. The cord was inspected by John Van Tassell (good name for a cord and knot expert!) of the RCMP who said it was nylon. I won't go into the ramifications of finding out belatedly that it was nylon. Thomas describes that on pgs. 260 and 261 of the JonBenet paperback.

I thought Smit's comment about burnt edges was strange. Are any of the ends of the cord from the crime scene melted or burnt? Just not being unraveled isn't the same thing as being melted. I didn't see anything that looked melted to me, but maybe I missed it.

 

Nothing was melted or burnt. The coroner had to cut the cord from JB's neck because he was not supposed to untie the knot. Not because he couldn't untie it, but because the knot itself would be a clue. The coroner noted where he cut it, by placing dots with a magic marker or pen, notating where he made the marks. In addition to the cord being visible in crime photos, where it can be seen that the ends are NOT burnt, the coroner would have noted any burnt or melted area. I maintain that whoever made the garrote was not concerned with the ends unraveling.

 

Smit says that the end of the cord on the paintbrush is the one that's burnt. He's right that it's not frayed. It doesn't look melted to me in the photograph [not included], but I guess it could be. (When I melt the ends of synthetic cord, it really looks burnt.) The autopsy report mentions the frayed ends.

I think this is the first time I've heard of "olefin" in JonBenet's bed.

"This particular cord is made out of the same material that is found around the neck of JonBenet. By the way, if this cord is made of olefin, there is a small, small fibers of olefin found in JonBenet's bed. And it is very possible that this ligature for her hands were constructed in that bed.

If you look very closely, you are going to see the frayed ends. When this type of material is cut, there is a frayed end. When you cut it, it gets very frayed. And the longer you leave it, the more frayed it appears.

On this particular cord, there are two frayed ends. And when you look at the combination of all of the cords, you will notice that there is a burned end on the cord located on the handle and that there are three frayed ends. When you have a piece of this cord, you have to -- when you buy it, there are two burnt ends. Somewhere there is another burnt end of this cord. There is another piece of cord that matches this cord found on the wrist and on the neck ligature of JonBenet. It is not found in the house. There is no cord at all like that found in the house. It is gone, along with the duct tape and the broken piece from the paintbrush."

 

The ends are not burnt. I don't believe anything LS says about anything to do with this case. He has absolutely no credibility as far as I am concerned.

 

I think the murder cord actually came from a package. That explains the nicely finished end. It's not going to look like someone held a match to it.

It appears Smit was wrong about two things: the cord isn't olefin and it didn't come off a roll in a store.

Smit's point is that there is an unaccounted for finished end, but he presents to the court as if he really knows the ins and outs of this cord. The type of cord and its packaging was identified before Smit quit and it was written about in the newspapers so it's unclear why he should be unaware.

 

Smit ingnores evidence that doesn't fit with his theory, IMO. And sometimes he makes stuff up. Remember on TV when he was making the rounds and he was showing the "stun gun" marks and he pointed to a blue line between the marks and said it was part of it from the electrical current> While I watched that I had the sudden thought he just noticed that and pointed it out and made it up at the time. I'm a layperson but it looked like a blood vein to me. Even the hosts of the show sounded a bit doubtful but didn't want to challenge him on air. Sad.

 

You've heard of frozen electricity, haven't you? I'm got some in the refrigerator.

Yesterday I read Smit's deposition before Carnes because I wanted to see how he fit his intruder theory together. Was the intruder going to cart in books and leave them around? How does the pineapple fit in? Not surprisingly, Smit left the books out. But something else he left out astonished me. I went to Carnes decision to see if I'd just overlooked it. I hadn't.

Smit left out the pineapple in a bowl bearing Patsy's and Burke's fingerprints. Patsy and John both deny putting the pineapple on the table so who put it there?

Instead of presenting this important fact to Carnes, Smit and Wood leave Carnes with the impression that JonBenet ate the pineapple at the Whites', something that Smit knew was untrue.

 

Yeah, I used to think Smit was just dumb, but I've since begun to think he knew full well he was making stuff up to defend his precious Ramseys. A packing peanut is evidence of an intruder, but Patsy's clearly writing the note is somehow easily dismissed by him? The "scuff mark" under the basement window is evidence of an intruder said Smit, yet he completely dismissed that John Ramsey told Smit FACE TO FACE in the 98 interview that John climbed in that window months before the murder--WITH HIS SHOES ON (minus his pants, oddly enough).

I could go on and on--like how Smit ran around telling everyone over and over, including under oath in his Wolf suit deposition, that the paperbag fibers found in the body bag and therefore on JB's clothes came from THE PAPERBAG WITH THE ROPE FOUND IN JAR'S ROOM WHICH THE INTRUDER BROUGHT IN. Yet we can read in the LE interview transcripts where Smit actually POINTED OUT that the paperbag associated with the rope was A LE COLLECTION BAG!

Smit knew full well he was ignoring important evidence to come up with an intruder, IMO. Not until I read Smit's "response" to Hunter's complaint filed in court to force Smit to return all the copies of evidentiary materials HE STOLE when he left the employ of the DA's Office did I realize Smit was by no means some misled, aging detective who got it wrong. Smit, through his lawyer, pretty much blackmailed Hunter with the judge watching: drop it or I'll tell everyone what I saw and heard in your office during this investigation, Smit threatened. Hunter caved.

I believe Smit made up his mind to help the Ramseys, for whatever reason, evidence be damned.

Smit did work for Hunter, after all, hired along with OLLIE AND SAN AGUSTIN to actually WORK THE INTRUDER THEORY. We know full well Hunter did all he could to bury the case from DAY ONE, and the three detectives he hired to do just that got the job done. With Smit as the point man, they fleshed out the intruder and publicized him as fact in the eyes of the gullible public.

Too bad they didn't actually CATCH HIM. Nor actually NAME HIM. But for a few fragmented cells of DNA, they'd probably have convicted PERV Karr by now.

 

For those who haven't see it, a recap:

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

[Thanks again to ACR for use of her invaluable website where these records are documented. ]

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 investigation”) 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

 

Whoa! Took me forever to find this, but here is the article which was published in the Daily-Times Call, by B. J. Plaskett, which documents Smit's little legal ploy which scared Hunter and good.

In my next post I'll copy Hunter's final agreement with Smit, when you can see how Hunter not only capitulated, but gave Smit, A PRIVATE CITIZEN, sole control over the crime scene photos and videos of the LE interviews with the Ramseys--pictures and videos which Boulder LE will not allow you or me to see, much less own copies. (Yet those are the very same ones jams ended up selling to the tabs for at least $40K that we know of.... These are the same ones that Smit has spun forever as propaganda for the Ramseys. Too bad when jams got greedy and sold them, we got to see the rest--which show the Ramseys avoiding, evading, lying, and basically obstructing the investigation as per usual, IMO. But I digress....)

 

And notice how the ONE THING that Smit was required to do is NOT reveal what he heard or saw in the DA's Office. Does that tell you anything?

It tells me that the DA was as crooked as a dog's hind leg. It tells me that there is no search for justice in Boulder, no desire to find the killer of JonBenet, just a dishonest and obstructive effort to make sure that killer is never identified while so many associated with the DA's Office played the case like some poker game, winner gets a VICTORY! lap and a chance at the big lottery.

Bastids!

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

 

Now, just to put the icing on the birthday cakes that JonBenet never got to have, here is a copy of LOU SMIT'S ORIGINAL CONTRACT WITH HUNTER AND THE DA OFFICE. You'll see in this why Hunter took Smit to court orginally, AS WELL AS HOW SMIT BROKE HIS LEGAL CONTRACT AND NOT ONLY SUFFERED NO CONSEQUENCES, BUT WAS REWARDED WITH TOTAL AND SOLE CONTROL OF THE COPIES OF CRIME SCENE IMAGES AND OTHER EVIDENCE HE TOOK WITH HIM FROM THE INVESTIGATION THROUGH HIS EMPLOYMENT IN THE DA OFFCE.

[Special thanks to ACR for her so generous website where we can still access these. ]

http://thewebsafe.tripod.com/03171997smitcontract.htm

 

I know I sort of went off on this Smit/Hunter tangent, but I do sometimes want to review relevant historical events in this case, for those who might have missed it, and this one almost didn't even get publicized, it was so well hidden by Hunter and his cronies.

I think the Smit/Hunter partnership was one made in legal hell. Their tug of war over Smit's actions is one of the more important legal events in the investigative record of this case, because it reveals how badly things were done by both Hunter and Smit, resulting in a child killer walking away from facing justice in a court of law forever, IMO.

Which is exactly what I think they both wanted.

 

Thank You, KK...it is soooo easy to see the complete corruption that these legal co-conspirators to a child's MURDER accomplished all the $ave the Ramseys from being held accountable. It makes me just as ill today as it has all along and the only comfort I have is knowing that such EVIL will burn in Hell as they should since they sold their souls to Satan. ALL of them - Smit - you old evil fool...your clock is ticking everyday that your bag of bones body is allowed to take up space on this planet....I will NEVER forget the morning that YOU breached all rules and took your show on the road to give me and my children our first look at a dead body of a sweet baby girl on the Today Show. You hide behind the Bible while proving that you are nothing less than the Devil in Disguise while I watch the Clock...eagerly.

RR