Lou Smit

Expensive to maintain, too.

 

An oldie but still goodie, since we're on the subject of Lou Smit. I hauled this out of my secret stash.
******

"The Saga of Lou Smit"
Posted by Watching you on 11:01:31 4/22/2001

Let’s talk about Lou Smit
Okay, I know y’all think I despise the man. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, I respect his right to his opinions and his tenacity in holding onto them in the face of continued criticism. I see absolutely nothing wrong with Lou Smit’s trying to help the Ramseys, if he believes they are truly innocent. That is his choice.

What I do have a huge problem with is his continued insistence that he can be unbiased in this case. We have all heard that he is not working for the Ramseys, but he is, even if he is doing so without payment. We have heard he is still following the evidence, and if the evidence led to the Ramseys, well, so be it.

One can make all kinds of statements, but if their own actions and their own words do not back up those words, then all credibility is lost. Lou Smit has been hopelessly compromised in this investigation. This is significant, because Lou Smit has had and still has access to all the evidence in the BPD’s case, taking some of it with him when he resigned to join the Ramseys’ own investigation.

How can one put any faith in this man’s objectivity? I say we can’t. He’s working for the Ramseys. Period. With so much talk about accountability by our public officials, how about some accountability from Lou Smit?


[ ALERT ] [ EDIT ]
[ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. "The Resignation Letter"
Posted by Watching you on 11:03:34 4/22/2001


September 20, 1998

Dear Alex:
It is with great reluctance and regret that I submit this letter of resignation. Even though I want to continue to participate in the official investigation and assist in finding the killer of JonBenet, I find that I cannot in good conscience be a part of the persecution of innocent people. It would be highly improper and unethical for me to stay when I so strongly believe this.

It has been almost 19 months since we talked that day in your office and you asked me to assist you in this investigation. It has turned out to be more of a challenge than either one of us anticipated. When we first met I told you that my style of approaching an investigation is from the concept of not working a particular theory, but working the case. Detectives collect and record information from many sources, analyze it, couple that with their experience and training and let "the case" tell them where to go. This process may take days, weeks or years, depending on the direction the case tells you to go. Sometimes you must investigate "many paths" in order to find the killer. It is not a political speed contest where expediency should outweigh justice, where "resolving" the case is solving the case.

Alex, even though I have been unable to actively investigate, I have been in a position to collect, record and analyze every piece of information given to your office in the course of this investigation. I believe that I know this case better than anyone does. I know what has been investigated and what hasn't, what evidence exists and what doesn't, what information has been leaked and what hasn't. I am a detective with a proven record of successful investigations. I have looked at the murder of JonBenet Ramsey through the eyes and experience and a thorough knowledge of the case.

At this point of the investigation “the case†tells me that John and Patsy Ramsey did not kill their daughter, that a very dangerous killer is still out there and no one is actively looking for him….

Detective Lou Smit


[ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ]
[ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. "About the Resignation Letter"
Posted by Watching you on 11:04:39 4/22/2001

From DOI: ( p. 300): “The press obtained this letter, although that was not Smit’s intention, and it was published in some newspapers about a week later.
From PMPT: (p. 564-565) … “(Smit) knew it wouldn’t be long before the media got word of it, but it surprised him that Hunter didn’t call him until three days later – to say that The Denver Post knew he’d resigned and wanted a copy of his letter. Hunter was calling to ask Smit’s permission to release it to the press. Smit first said yes, then called Hunter back and asked him to wait a few days.

Smit has already received a phone call from Sherry Kenne-Osborn of Newsweek. She also asked for permission to print his letter. Smit said no. Keene-Ostorn then drove all the way from Denver to Colorado Springs, where Smit lived on the west side of town….†…â€Keene-Osborn talked the retired detective into giving her an unsigned copy of his resignation letter….â€

So, although it may not have been Smit’s original intention, he is the one who gave the letter to the press.


[ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ]
[ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. "Smitisms"
Posted by Watching you on 11:06:22 4/22/2001

"I cannot, in good conscience, participate in the persecution of innocent people."

“Alex, even though I have been unable to actively investigate…â€

"I believe that I know this case better than anyone does. I know what has been investigated and what hasn't, what evidence exists and what doesn't, what information has been leaked and what hasn't...."

" In this case, however, I believe …, that innocent people are being targeted, and could be charged with a murder they did not commit."

“At this point of the investigation “the case†tells me that John and Patsy Ramsey did not kill their daughter.â€

The late Ruth Gerstenkorn’s site provides further insight into Lou Smit:

“The following is an excerpt of law officers’ code of ethics written by Lou Smit for a law enforcement publication some time ago:

Excerpt From the Law Officers’ Code of Ethics:
“Whatever I see or hear of a confidential nature or that is confided to me in my official capacity will be kept ever secret unless revelation is necessary in the performance of my duty. “

**From DOI, p. 193 , the Ramseys quote Lou Smit:

"I need to be able to know that this important information is kept in a limited circle†…. .When we find the killer or killers, it's important that certain facts be known only to us and the killer. That's how we will know we've got our man."
Detective Lou Smit has just shared what he believes is the biggest piece of evidence in the JBR case with the number one suspects in the murder.

From IRMI, p.
"In the following days and weeks, Lou Smit admitted that he talked to Jameson "a lot" because "she has good information."


[ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ]
[ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. "The beginning of the love affair"
Posted by Watching you on 11:08:26 4/22/2001

By Karen Auge
Denver Post Staff Writer
April 11
John Ramsey said the only experienced investigator on the case, retired Detective Lou Smit, shares their view that an intruder killed their daughter.

***It is important that one looks at the people Smit continues to get information from. Susan Bennett/ aka Jameson is a citizen living on the east coast who has inserted herself into the case. She has no official authority to investigate, but she collects DNA evidence from who knows where and demands the BPD look at her evidence. Lou Smit admits talking to Susan Bennett.

From the Law Officers’ Code of Ethics written by Smit:
“I will never act officiously or permit personal feelings, prejudices, animosities, or friendships to influence my decisions.â€

From DOI, p. 180-181:
…Patsy and I learned that every morning, Lou Smit drove by our house on Fifteenth Street and sat out in front…. We had to let Lou know how much we appreciated his dedication…

A few days later, Patsy and I drove over to our old house early one morning, and sure enough, Lou Smit’s van was parked out front.

“I’m happy to see you,†he said…

Then he said, “Maybe we could pray together. We want God’s blessing on this investigation.â€
We held hands and Lou said a short prayer.
· * * * * * *


[ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ]
[ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. "The plot thickens"
Posted by Watching you on 11:11:00 4/22/2001

JonBenet probe to shrink in 2000
by B.J.Plasket
Daily Times-Call

BOULDER — A scaled-down version of the JonBenet Ramsey murder investigation will continue into next year — whether or not the county comes up with additional funding for the case.
Meanwhile, prosecutors on Wednesday said they don't think former Ramsey -case Detective Lou Smit violated his employment contract by allegedly working with John and Patsy Ramsey , the only named suspects in the case. ..

… The troubled three-year-old case took another embarrassing turn for prosecutors on Tuesday when a Denver newspaper reported that Lou Smit, the retired Colorado Springs detective who previously worked on the case for Hunter's office before resigning and declaring his belief that John and Patsy Ramsey are innocent, is now working for the Ramseys .

Smit's contract contained a clause prohibiting him from ever disclosing "any confidential or proprietary information" gained while he worked on the case. ..

Smit had access to the "war room" from which the probe was conducted and had access to more than 30,000 pages of evidence and reports.

Wise said that Smit, before he resigned his job, expressed his belief that an intruder killed JonBenet and said that he is free to explore that belief as a private citizen.

"I find no violation of (the contract)," Wise said. "I don't know if he's working for the Ramseys ."

According to Wise, Smit would be in violation of his contract if he shared inside knowledge of the case with anyone, including the Ramseys , their investigators or their lawyers.

Wise said the DA's office would have civil recourse against Smit if he violates that provision, but added he didn't know if it would constitute a criminal offense.

Wise admitted, however, that it would be difficult to determine if Smit has shared confidential information with the Ramsey camp.â€


[ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ]
[ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. "Conflict of interest?"
Posted by Watching you on 11:12:44 4/22/2001

by B.J.Plasket
Daily Times-Call
…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."

Associated Press
March 17, 2000
Ramseys Launch Controlled Book Tour

…They also refer to a theory by retired Colorado Springs Police Detective Lou Smit that a stun gun was used on the 6-year-old beauty queen.

Smit was a prosecution consultant for 18 months before resigning in 1998, contending the Ramseys were innocent. Since then, he has worked with them

Note: Who can tell if Smit has shared confidential knowledge with the Ramseys? They have knowledge of evidence he had knowledge of, so how did they come by that knowledge? In reading DOI, it is amazing how many Smitisms are there – the theory of the intruder, the stun gun, all Smitisms. It is possible the Ramseys picked these Smitisms up by reading about Smit’s theory, but taking the account of the private meeting between Smit and the Ramseys regarding the stun gun evidence, one surely has to wonder about his judgment.


[ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ]
[ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. "The Fox Speaks"
Posted by Watching you on 11:14:02 4/22/2001

A former homicide investigator on the JonBenét Ramsey investigation says police should pay more attention to evidence that the 6-year-old beauty contestant was killed by an intruder.
…. But retired Colorado Springs detective Lou Smit, speaking extensively for the first time on his role in the stalled investigation, says the Ramseys did not kill their daughter, according to today’s editions of the Denver Rocky Mountain News and The Denver Post and the March 20 issue of Newsweek.

Smit was called out of retirement in March 1997 to help the Ramsey investigation but resigned from the case in September 1998, saying he could not, “in good conscience, be a part of the persecution of innocent people.â€

“I believe there’s evidence of an intruder, and I believe people should still be looking for him. There’s a dangerous guy out there,†he said.

Newspaper reports late last year said Smit was working with the Ramseys on the case but was not being paid by them.

OVERLOOKED EVIDENCE?

According to Smit, that evidence includes:

A metal baseball bat found outside the Ramseys’ home. Fibers on the bat matched a carpet found in the basement near the storage room, where JonBenét’s body was found on Dec. 26, 1996. The bat was found “in a place where kids normally wouldn’t play,†Smit said, refusing to elaborate.

DNA evidence from JonBenét’s fingernails and underpants that indicates her attacker was a male. It has previously been reported that the DNA does not match John Ramsey’s.

Peanut-shaped foam packing material and leaves found in the basement that Smit thinks might have been tracked inside by someone entering through a broken basement window.

“It would have been something that would not have been blown in there,†Smit said.

He said he chose to speak out, in part, to keep pressure on police to take his theory seriously.

* * * * * * * * *


[ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ]
[ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. "Smit/Ramsey Myths:"
Posted by Watching you on 11:15:36 4/22/2001

“Smit believes the police were right to focus on the family at first. But he's dismayed at their reluctance to investigate alternatives

Other quotes:

Police Chief Mark Beckner said the department already has done that.
“We have spent an incredible amount of time following up on leads in this case and a significant amount on the leads put forth by Lou Smit,†Beckner said.

INRI, Page 297:
"We had interviewed 590 people,
consulted 64 outside experts,
investigated and cleared more than 100 possible suspects,
collected 1,058 pieces of evidence,
tested over 500 items at federal, state, and private laboratories,
gathered handwriting and nontestimonial evidence from 215 people,
built a case file that now bulged to 30,000 pages,
reviewed more than 3,400 letters and 700 telephone tips, and contacted seventeen states and two foreign countries.
AND IT ALL KEPT LEADING US IN ONE DIRECTION.
The detective team believed that John and Patsy Ramsey had knowledge of, and were involved in, the death of their daughter, JonBenet."
* * * * * * *
Associated Press
March 17, 2000
Police Chief Mark Beckner estimated police spent half their time looking at suspects outside the family.

From Ruthie’s site:
Smit and Beckner have expressed strongly opposed opinions about evidence in the case.
"The problem with it is he ignores the other evidence in the case," said Beckner, who believes Smit may have grown too close to the Ramseys. "Some of the information he is using is not accurate."


[ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ]
[ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. "More Myths"
Posted by Watching you on 11:17:19 4/22/2001

Myth: Steve Thomas is a media whore because he wrote a book. Lou Smit is a professional who has never gone public with his story.
Truth:
Loyal to the cop's code never to talk about an ongoing investigation, Smit refused to publicly share the evidence that led him to his "intruder theory."

But now Smit is breaking his silence. In an extensive interview with NEWSWEEK, the 64-year-old investigator laid out his theory, which raises questions about the police's handling of the case and points away from the parents.

Even so, Smit's theory doesn't solve the case. He still can't answer the key question: who killed JonBenet? And his theory can't disprove the police case against the Ramseys, who officially remain under an "umbrella of suspicion."

The Ramseys, who have always denied involvement in the murder, will come out with their own book, "The Death of Innocence," this week and appear in television interviews. Smit says he has no relationship with the Ramseys, but it's probably no coincidence that his revelations are timed to take full advantage of the latest publicity blitz for him."

Lou Smit has also been seen on news programs and has taped an interview with Katie Couric which is slated to air during the May sweeps.


[ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ]
[ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. "From Ruthie's Website"
Posted by Watching you on 11:21:14 4/22/2001

Thank you Ruthie:
My personal message to Detective Lou Smit:
I quote from
CRIME CLASSIFICATION MANUAL
John E. Douglas, Ann W. Burgess, Allen G. Brugess, Robert K. Ressler:
THE ASSESSMENT PHASE
"Another pitfall that obscures these important details is the inablilty of the investigator to achieve a comfortable distance from the crime.
Identification with the victim, perhaps relating the victim to a family member, prevents detachment from the crime, and judgment may become clouded by emotion."

From DOI:

In the Ramseys' Book, Death Of Innocence, Detective Lou Smit is quoted as saying the following to John Ramsey.

"I need to be able to know that this important information is kept in a limited circle.
"........When we find the killer or killers, it's important that certain facts be known only to us and the killer. That's how we will know we've got our man."

"....Do you know what a stun gun is?"
"A stun Gun?" I frowned"
"You understand what I'm talking about,?" Lou asked."
"Sort of, I said.............I don't have any idea what one looks like."
(p. 193, DOI) closeted meeting with the two main suspects, the Ramseys.


[ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ]
[ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. "More from Ruthie"
Posted by Watching you on 11:23:35 4/22/2001

Be careful the company you keep:
"In the following days and weeks, Lou Smit admitted that he talked to Jameson "a lot" because "she has good information."

I would have to let Lou Smit respond to this. I was asked to contact him as a suspect in June of 1997... obviously I learned to respect and trust him and I admit passing him information later.
He did NOT reciproccate - and I would swear to that under oath. (Jameson)

I question anything Susan Bennett says, "under oath" means nothing to her. She has her own definition of the "the truth." She has told me that "She lies well." Not well enough for me Susan! (Ruthie)

" Smit said Jameson claimed to have secret information about the Whites, their Christmas party, and what the children did. "

An absolute lie. THIS is the kind of thing that makes Thomas' book fiction. (Jameson)

Susan is Smit telling an "absolute lie" or were you telling Smit an "absolute lie?" (Ruthie)

"She passed Smit a tip about another Internet junkie who had found a Web site for child pornography and thought one of the children shown in an explicit sexual pose looked like the daughter of Ramsey housekeeper Linda-Hoffmann-Pugh.

The DA's office began an investigation." (Ruthie)

This is true. Not complete, but true. I did pass such a tip to the authorities and the CBI investigation lasted 8 weeks.
(That should tell you how close a match the images were.) (Jameson)

I would note that the investigation was not shared on the forums, it was done quietly as it should have been.
It should NEVER have become public,
(it really still isn't - the whole story is not known to anyone but me, actually)
and, indeed, the fact that it DID get posted about later - MUCH later - well, that was not MY doing. (Jameson)

For further reading at the late Ruth Gerstenkorn’s site regarding the credibility of Smit’s informant, Jameson, go here:

http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Nebula/9337/jameson.html


[ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ]
[ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. "Steve Thomas on Lou Smit"
Posted by Watching you on 11:25:01 4/22/2001

Steve Thomas on Lou Smit:
“Lou Smit is a gentle man and a gentleman. He has a gregarious personality, never has a bad word to say about anyone, and unfailingly shook my hand each time we met, no matter how upset we might be with each other. That unassuming manner and soft voice puts people off guard, and his easy smile, with a country boy toothpick at the side of his mouth, gets their trust. He is a family man and a devout Christian but can turn confrontational sometimes. Then the smile vanishes and sharp retort replaces politeness. A term was coined for such moments: “You’ve just been Smit on.â€
…Soon after Smit was hired…he told me…â€Murders are usually wht they seem. Rarely are they perfectly planned…â€

“He was cautious and noncommittal, which I considered prudent, since he had not yet had a chance to read the thousands of pages in the file. ..â€

“Three days later at a detective briefing, Smit made his first appearance…He had been around only about 72 hours, not anywhere near long enough to devour the case material…â€

…He said, ‘I don’t think it was the Ramseys.’

He never budged from that position.†(IRMI, p. 148.)

IRMI, p. 327: “Lou Smit, so emotional that he shed tears, was immovable in declaring John Ramsey innocent of any wrongdoing.â€


[ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ]
[ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. "In conclusion, sort of"
Posted by Watching you on 11:25:50 4/22/2001

Bottom Line: While Lou Smit may be a very nice man and a good detective, by his own actions and his own words, he has proven himself to be hopelessly biased in the JBR case. If he wishes to work on behalf of the Ramseys, no one can fault him for that, as long as he does not share confidential information with them.

However, one cannot dismiss the fact that he is in possession of confidential information, both physical and stored in his brain, concerning the case and it is not acceptable to expect others to believe he will not use those materials to further the Ramseys’ case. This does not in any way accuse Mr. Smit of wrong doing but only says that information can and most likely does affect the way he conducts his investigations for the Ramseys. It requires that others take Mr. Smit at his word, and while Smit may swear he has not revealed information, he has no way of proving that to other interested parties and it is unfair and irrational to expect others to merely accept his word without question, especially in light of the fact he already shared evidence with the Ramseys as admitted by the Ramseys in their book.

And, while is it perfectly within Mr. Smit’s rights to pursue whatever he feels is right, it is clear that Mr. Smit cannot be and is not objective in this case. The fact is, the parents have not been cleared in the death of their child. Mr. Smit works entirely (by his own words) from the premise the Ramseys are not involved and in fact he shares evidence with them, as shown in the passage in DOI regarding the stun gun meeting – and this while he was allegedly working for the DA.

All one hopes for is honesty. If Mr. Smit wants to pursue the intruder theory, fine. But, he should no longer expect others to subscribe to the myth that he is objective and would arrest the parents if evidence led to them. He has proved by his own actions and his own words that he will never participate in their arrest.


[ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ]
[ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ]

 

"What I do have a huge problem with is his continued insistence that he can be unbiased in this case. We have all heard that he is not working for the Ramseys, but he is, even if he is doing so without payment. We have heard he is still following the evidence, and if the evidence led to the Ramseys, well, so be it.

One can make all kinds of statements, but if their own actions and their own words do not back up those words, then all credibility is lost. Lou Smit has been hopelessly compromised in this investigation. This is significant, because Lou Smit has had and still has access to all the evidence in the BPD's case, taking some of it with him when he resigned to join the Ramseys' own investigation.

How can one put any faith in this man's objectivity? I say we can't. He's working for the Ramseys. Period. With so much talk about accountability by our public officials, how about some accountability from Lou Smit?"

Where I'm from, if there's even the APPEARANCE of impropriety, a cop will be yanked. There's a lesson there.

 

He seemed to think the JBR case was like the Heather Dawn Church case and he never moved from that position. I lived near Colorado Springs when Heather went missing, it was terrible, and everyone thought it was someone in her family. Eventually, before Smit solved the case, I realized no one in her family had a reason to want her dead, so I rethought my position.

Lou Smit was compromised from Day 1, when he said yes to Hunter. Hunter had his pet theory and I am sure Lou listened to it. Smit has absolutely no business sharing information with the Ramsey family, but we all know he probably is. I mean the guy was on the case for three whole days and had the epiphany that the Ramsey's weren't involved. No one can read 30,000 pages of reports and evidence in three days, not even Lou. The killer for me was the praying in the van. I believe in prayer, but I don't believe you should be praying with murder suspects when you are trying to solve a case.

The business with Jameson should have gotten him and Alex fired. There is no excuse for them sharing info with her. And that business with Foster still has me seeing red. They set him up, no question about it. However, if he would have said FW wrote the note, they would have used him.

This case has been so damaged by Jameson and Smit. And I bet they don't even feel bad about it. A little girl is dead, but that's just a side note to them. Being on TV and selling out their "friends" was much more important.

Well, I'm outta here for awhile. I gotta go pick out a granite stone to put out at the river where Tom's brother died. I could think of a million other things I would rather do, but he thinks I need to do this. So, off I go.

 

I just want to know if Lou has finished squeezing through that window yet? My lord he looked like a pretzel. Yep, real easy for someone to come in here.

 

ABSOLUTELY!

Here in NYC, you can bet that "someone" would have been on trial for this murder..........and at least 8-9 years ago!....and the people who tried to do what Hunter, Smit et al tried to do would have been called on what they had done, besides Smit being laughed right out of here

The Haddon, Smit, Hunter, Ramsey conspiracy/corruption would never have been tolerated. I don't care what people want to think about NYC, but this could not and would not have happened here.

Just sayin............

 

I don't think this would have happened anywhere in New York, Barbara - not even in the small towns and cities. What happened in Boulder is so bizarre as to be unthinkable in these parts. Is Boulder really so far removed from the law that they make their own laws? I guess the way this case was handled by the DA's office pretty much answers that question.

 

Can you imagine what NYPD would have done with these two? Here in North Jersey the cops would have had the bracelets on John and Patsy at 10 am Dec. 26.

Nobody would have been allowed in the house other than LE. Anyone trying to get in would have been arrested. The body would have been found in the first 15 minutes by an officer. John and Patsy would have been removed from the house right after that, questioned, and the truth obtained. No real cops would have fallen for Patsy's crap. And as for Lou Smit - maybe they would let him do the filing back at headquarters.

Oh well.

 

Not only is WY right in that this could not have happened anywhere in NY, but likely couldn't and wouldn't have happened in the vast majority of places here in the US and probably in the world.

Lou Smit probably would have been voted, for those of you who watch Countdown with Keith Olbermann, (love him), the WORST PERSON IN THE WORLD!

 

And hindsight has 20/20 vision...

According to Michael Tracey, Lou Smit:-

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/magazine/story/0,,1803742,00.html

 

I love this statement. Think about it. EVERYTHING THE RST HAS SAID about the BPD is how awful they were to the family, how they considered them suspects and never got past them. I saw the "48 Whores" so-called reporter running her Pity Patsy Party on TV for CBS last night, and there was John, saying the BPD NEVER INVESTIGATED THIS CASE BEYOND THE RAMSEYS. That's such a lie. Another in a great long list of lies the Ramseys have told year in and year out for 9+ years.

But the TRUTH is that the BPD DID treat the Ramseys different, according to their status in the community, from the minute they went to the house. They treated them like VICTIMS rather than SUSPECTS, right up until John found the body. Then the Ramseys AGAIN got special treatment, allowed to march out the door, didn't frisk them, didn't stop them, knowing John was trying to plan an immediate flight to Atlanta. Instead of doing what Smit has the balls to say HE WOULD HAVE DONE. And the Ramseys were allowed to NEVER GO TO THE BPD TO THIS DAY.

So...why didn't Smit arrest them WHEN HE COULD HAVE? How long did it take before he changed his mind? He can criticize the BPD all he wants, but HE HIMSELF BROKE PROTOCOL MANY, MANY TIMES. And still does.

Lou has one thing right. If those standard procedures had been taken from the beginning, this case would have been solved in a week.

Y'all do know that the Ramsey's phone records, INCLUDING THEIR CELL PHONE RECORDS, were and perhaps are in the BPD evidence room to this day, right? This could include the cell phone record that the Ramseys "turned over" to LE, with NO CALLS for the month of December ONLY, a year later. Remember, Thomas stated that the Ramsey phone records were obtained as evidence in the case of that PI who was arrested because he got them illegally, along with credit card records, etc., from a company that does that sort of thing. I was reading John's depo recently, and there it was: John stated that man got their HOME AND CELL PHONE RECORDS. Thomas said because Hunter refused point blank to get a warrant for the SAME RECORDS, the detectives investigating the murder case had to just watch them locked up without any access to them...TO THIS DAY--as far as we know.

See, of Keenan really wanted to investigate this case...AND LOU SMIT, AS WELL...they'd subpoena those records OUT OF THE EVIDENCE THEY MIGHT STILL HAVE. NOW NOW NOW NOW NOW

Of course, they have probably disappeared. Long ago.

 

Personally, Barbara, I have no use for Olbermann, but there is something else: I'm waiting to see what Nancy Grace and Wendy Murphy will say, if anything!

 

Just one more of the infuriating situations in this case, KK. and we have many more.