Another new JonBenet Book?

Discussion in 'Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum' started by Tricia, Aug 28, 2005.

  1. Deja Nu

    Deja Nu Banned

    “Q. If Patsy Ramsey killed Jon Benet, did she confide this to John Ramsey prior to the discovery of Jon Benet’s body.

    A. Patsy’s decision not to tell her husband was one of the three smart decisions that she made during the night of Jon Benet’s death, it allowed John to act completely natural, when being questioned by Police investigators.â€

    Now this really bothers me, Dr. Smith. Did you not read the 2000 Atlanta interviews, conducted by attorneys, not law enforcement, wherein the Ramseys were confronted with hard forensic evidence that John Ramsey’s sweater fibers were found in JonBenet’s crotch itself? Oh I know, there are some, probably including the good Mr. Ramsey himself, who offer "logic" to explain that these sweater fibers were deposited in JB's vaginal area earlier and innocently that evening when he wiped her bottom in some bathroom somewhere. But wait, would they have survived the wiping down of her entire body as duly noted in Meyers' autopsy report? If someone had molested her wouldn't that be the first place to wipe down to eliminate evidence?

    To suggest that John Ramsey was duped by his wife in the light of this evidence is shocking. Oh, I know, there are some who still want to believe that this was just a lie told to lead the Ramseys into confession, an acceptable standard of questioning in criminal cases. But I have long posted that while it is acceptable for law enforcement personnel to carry out this strategy, to the contrary, it is not for attorneys.

    That forensic evidence alone completely eradicates John Ramsey’s ignorance of, and non-participation in, at least the staging aspect of these crimes. Unless of course someone wants to suggest that Patsy Ramsey donned her husband’s sweater to conduct the staging, but of course, this would not explain how her sweater fibers came to be entwined in the phony garrote, unless of course she stopped after strangling her daughter to change clothes. Oh yes, some say that fiber transferrence occurred upstairs when Patsy threw her bereaved self on her dead daughter's body. BUT those who claim so conveniently ignore the fact that those same exact sweater fibers were also found on the white blanket, the duct tape and paintbrush tote, the source for the paintbrush used in these crimes that night, all components of the very crime scene that were left in the basement by John when he carried his daughter's "ironing board" body upstairs for Patsy to grieve. According to Patsy's own testimony, she was not even in the basement at any time recently prior to the murder of her daughter.

    Ok, so someone else could suggest that the crazed, homicidal pedophile who broke into the home with the specific intent of molesting and killing this child stopped, amidst everything else he did that night in the Ramsey home, to put on John’s discarded Israeli sweater after molesting, bashing and strangling JB in Patsy's sweater to spend hours cleaning the body and staging the crime scene. But of course to do so, according to John's own testimony, this would mean that this insane malicious pedophile would have had to enter the Ramseys' bedroom on the 3rd floor to get both sweaters twice and at the same time this insane pedophile had only one thing on his mind-to cover up his crimes to avoid detection. Someone that intent on avoiding discovery would NOT spend hours at the scene covering it up with 3 sleeping people right above him, NOR have the audacity to creep into the very room where two were allegedly asleep to get a friggin' sweater!

    The only explanation for both the Ramseys' sweater fibers to be on the body at the actual crime scene would be a theory that their vast wealth afforded them the great chance of buying two sweaters that could grow legs and take themselves to the basement with criminal intent to cover up a crime scene against their own daughter. Bloomies should be more cautious in what merchandise they offer for sale. A theory equally as stupid as any intruder theory posed over the years.

    Dr. Smith, it would appear your theory has at least one loophole but I will refrain further until I've read your entire book.

    “Patsy has spit on JonBenet's memory, defiled her body then covered her actions with lies, abandoning an innocent child in her hour of greatest need. Patsy Ramsey is going to her grave thinking she did the right thing, hiding the hideous truth. But she's wrong. JonBenet died a terrible death, and nothing but the truth will bring the light of redemption to all of them.â€

    Pasty Ramsey molested her daughter? Not to minimize such a horrid thing, but, according to hard forensic evidence, she could have done far worse than that before spitting, defiling, covering, etc. She could have taken her mortally wounded daughter, fashioned a phony garrote, wrapped it around the poor thing’s neck then tightened it, intentionally strangling her to finish off her life instead of running to a phone and dialing 911! Certainly there had to have been a phone in that basement, but of course Patsy was not in the basement, was she? Talk about premeditation! Anything after THAT act pales into obscurity! And THAT's what hard evidence in this case more likely proves! As for who molested JB and when, other than the acute vaginal injury, it is still unsupported by sufficient evidence to name names, as is being able to prove that any Ramsey had any actual knowledge of it. I know, KK, there are a host of experts who have spoken on this issue, but at trial, defense would also put on a host of experts who refute the theory. Without hard evidence to back up either side, it would be a toss up and a total crap shoot that any jury would be persuaded beyond a reasonable doubt. I have never doubted JB was sexually assaulted the night she was murdered, or that she was assaulted on prior occasions. Any good attorney could make compelling argument with solid evidence backing it that John Ramsey committed the acute sexual assault noted in the autopsy report that, I believe, would fly with any jury. But proving who any prior perpetrator was, at least with what we know at this point, would be impossible.

    KK, welcome back!
     
    Last edited: Sep 1, 2005
  2. RiverRat

    RiverRat FFJ Sr. Member Extraordinaire (Pictured at Lef

    There is a link on the webpage for contacting the author, please use it, all of you smart, reasonable people............I can ASSure you that Susan Bennett can't keep her finger off it.

    RR
     
  3. Deja Nu

    Deja Nu Banned

    RR, you totally know me, I WILL use that link! But I want to wait until I've read the whole book so that if there is anything else I can take exception to, I can provide the good author with the full monty as it were. Thanks!

    As for Susan Bennett, by now she has this poor man's home phone, office phone, tax returns and bio, to say the least, and is flagrantly violating his civil rights using it! :nono: The mere fact that he has the misfortune of living in Michigan makes me fear for a Candy-attack as well! :hypno:
     
  4. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Hahaha Y'all are so funny!

    Hey, DejaNu, thanks for the welcome.

    Good news and bad news.

    Good news first: I have always believed that a male made the garrote. Maybe I'm sexist on this, but it just strikes me as a guy way to murder. Since it was made on JonBenet's neck, it stands to reason that male pulled it until JonBenet died. I also feel that John is logically the most likely to know how to make such an effective instrument of death post haste. I know others have other theories about this, and so do I, but that's the most logical to me. John was in the home, was her father, had training in combat in navy boot camp, knows knots, in spite of his insistence that he sails without a clue, and as you put it so well, has sweater fibers on her body from his clothing, as well as Patsy's.

    I have to tell you, I have this image in my mind of Patsy holding JonBenet down by the shoulders from the "head" end of her body while John pulled the garrote handle straddling her from behind. JonBenet was already unconscious from the head blow in this theory, as well. Someone had to hold her body stable to create the counterforce needed to keep her from flying off the floor when the garrote was pulled, didn't they? There's no bruise on her back or arms from a knee or anything. It's just a theory, and I KNOW there are others, but this is just an image that sticks in my head, purely imagined. Not a psychic thing, that I know of, anyhow.

    The bad news: I only was discussing possibilities about the prior molestation because--it's an unsolved mystery. I don't really believe anything can be proven in this case anymore, because I believe none of the evidence will ever see the inside of a courtroom to be tested by a judge or jury. It's been years since I have believed anyone is capable of being convicted of this murder. My point is that no matter who was doing the prior molestation, nobody will ever answer for it in court, IMO, nor the death, as well.

    I see you are thinking like a lawyer making an argument, DejaNU. Of course you would. But here's the argument I would make before a jury about the prior molestation, as motive:

    It's not that hard--the child was indisputedly molested on the night she was murdered, and the child indisputedly had chronic vaginal injuries in the days before her murder. Anyone can ARGUE those prior chronic injuries were NOT PROVEN to be from sexual molestataion, as they COULD have come from other sources. But the fact she was indisputedly molested the night she was murdered brings immense correlative weight to the chronic vaginal injuries suffered in the days prior to the murder. Any reasonable person must conclude that JONBENET'S CHRONIC VAGINAL INJURIES WERE EITHER CAUSED BY THE SAME SEXUAL PREDATOR WHO MOLESTED HER THE NIGHT SHE WAS MURDERED or WERE KNOWN TO THE MURDERER AND BECAME THE MOTIVE for the final strangulation. Fear of discovery, being arrested and convicted for child molestation was a powerful motive TO STAGE A STRANGULATION, effectively ending her life while creating a "scenario" to point the finger at "an intruder." The ransom note, WRITTEN ENTIRELY from materials WITHIN THE HOME, taking as much as 30 minutes to compose, bear this out, because THERE WAS NO KIDNAPPING. The only materials EVER identified at the crime scene, including those ON THE BODY, all CAME FROM WITHIN THE HOME.

    blahblahblah

    The jury will never hear it. Or any argument, IMO. Sorry, it's not possible to convict anyone in this case, because it's too costly, it's too tainted, and nobody in Boulder even wants to hear the name JonBenet, much less stake their careers on what would be an even bigger media fiasco than it was 9 years ago.

    And some other reasons I won't mention right now....

    Sour grapes? You betcha'! When a child killer gets off without so much as breaking a sweat over it, I'm always going to get ill. It's how I'm made. Wish I could be as careless as "some parents," because I know it's an easier life, forgetting unpleasantries like a dead kid in the basement. I can't do it. I'll always remember a little girl, alone in her coffin, abandoned by the very people she belonged to, with no one to witness for her. :survivor:
     
  5. Texan

    Texan FFJ Senior Member

    hey

    From JBR's autopsy-
    "Several linear aggregates of petechial hemorrhages are present in the anterior left shoulder just above the deltopectoral groove. These measure up to one inch in length by one-sixteenth to one-eighth of an inch in width"

    Somehow I always thought these were left when someone tightly held her with their hand over her shoulder. Petechiae can be like a bruise area and these seem to me like they could be marks left by someone's fingers or maybe where the skin pinched up between fingers.
     
  6. Deja Nu

    Deja Nu Banned

    KK, I really like your scenario of John's participation in the strangulation. You are of course correct that some counterforce would need to be applied to a limp body to keep in place during the strangulation. I would though defer to EasyWriter on the counterforce aspect since he is far more knowledgeable on this than I. Your scenario would also explain why none of JR's sweater fibers were found on the upper portion of the body.

    You make a very passionate argument too regarding prior sexual assaults as correlative to the acute vaginal injury from obvious and documented penetration of a sharp object, presumably the paint brush handle. But if I were to play devil's advocate which a good defense attorney would, I would lead the jury down the path of evidence on the prior abuse. I would show them that, while there may be credible evidence to prove it did happen, the prosecution presented absolutely no evidence to substantiate the identity of the perpetrator. I would spin a very large illusory leap between assumption of the prior perpetrator and the very proveable identity of the acute perp. I would call several experts to offer supportive testimony that while the assaults may have occurred, there is no physical evidence to substantiate what you would call an obvious pattern of conduct serving as motive for the homicide. It would be tatamount to the ridiculous "if the glove don't fit, you must acquit" defense strategy and, while heinously offensive, would, I'd bet, do the trick in the jury's mind. Bear in mind also that prior to deliberation, the judge instructs the jury with the very grave responsibility of determining the fate of another human being. Natural human conscience shies away from the very thought of being responsible for the demise of another human being and this is a most persuasive measure to reign in any jury's lust for revenge. Put it all together and all the passion in the world, and I do share it make no mistake, wouldn't be sufficient to carry them beyond a reasonable doubt that just because A might be B then B must be C.

    There have been those on the other side of the fence who continually claim that this case has been reviewed by a battery of prosecutors and deemed by them all as insufficient to win a verdict. I disagree, and that's my passion speaking.

    I can only encourage you and everyone else in the same fashion I encourage myself when faced with mountains of impossibilities. There really IS a higher justice than what mankind has fashioned, and it always gets its man...and woman...in the end. And frankly, with the public scorn and condemnation the Ramseys have had to live with these last 9 years, that is a hell I'd rather avoid by parking my butt in a jail cell the rest of my life. Like OJ, for those who REQUIRE public adoration, to live without it must be a living nightmare.

    Texan, I have always been intrigued by those injuries myself. JustinCase did post some very interesting info and pics on them a while back that might be worth revisiting!
     
  7. RiverRat

    RiverRat FFJ Sr. Member Extraordinaire (Pictured at Lef

    DejaNu

    "As for Susan Bennett, by now she has this poor man's home phone, office phone, tax returns and bio, to say the least, and is flagrantly violating his civil rights using it! The mere fact that he has the misfortune of living in Michigan makes me fear for a Candy-attack as well!"
    __________________

    You said it. But how do you say it to some poor unknowingly soul that has not followed the internet activity surrounding this case?! LOL.....and then have to follow up with Candy?! "Oh yeah, one more thing, there is this person at MSU that is in charge of the case now and if you don't follow her drunken swerves of opinion, you won't be worthy of breathing."

    I think that I'll let you handle this one.

    RR
     
  8. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    That is very possible, IMO.

    I think very strong evidence that the head wound came first is the lack of defensive marks on her extremities. Also, she had dried saliva from her mouth across her cheek, gravity pulling it down towards her upraised arms, on the same side her head was turned, cheek down, while lying on her back in the cellar. That would be the mouth that had duct tape on it when her body was discovered. The only way that can possibly be explained is that the saliva ran from her mouth, down her cheek while her head was turned to the side, then dripped onto her upper sleeve of her raised arm, all while she was lying on her back, BEFORE her mouth was taped. IOW, she was on her back, face turned to the side, drooling, with her arms raised, before her mouth was taped. Not fighting. Not being restrained. Simply...dead.

    Remember, she was strangled from behind. So she was dead when she was put on her back and drooled, then the duct tape applied. Staging. Not put there to shut her up during some attack. Not put there for any practical reason because she was dead and would never utter another sound.

    Terrible.

    DejaNu, you can play devil's advocate all you want, but I do not think all the lawyers in the world could make a jury forget what they saw in those autopsy pictures and crime scene photos. And they would never be so gullible as to buy that it was some COINCIDENCE that she was molested within days BEFORE her murder, and it wasn't related. It may be that the original molester is not the killer. I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that THAT PRIOR MOLESTATION WAS THE CATALYST for the murder. Maybe the killer only wanted to protect that molester from being found out. It's been done before.

    But that would never make a jury sympathetic to the killer, IMO. If that is the argument, then I have to ask the jury, DID THE KILLER HAVE THE RIGHT TO MURDER JONBENET TO LET A CHILD MOLESTER GO FREE?

    I don't think any decent person would answer that question yes.

    And one thing the defense wouldn't have that OJ did: you can't blame the murdered child. No character assassination of the victim here.

    I do agree that there is criminal justice...and there is ultimate justice. It's not important to me to think I have to know what that is, either. This is not about me. It is about JonBenet and her killer. Whatever dance of death they are locked in, I actually hope somewhere in the universe Patsy Ramsey finds her soul before it's lost forever.
     
  9. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    More good news: the guy is in psychology, right? He may actually have a clue when the gutter queen shows up. He may even want to do a study of her. She's certainly worthy of a book! I believe she's one of a kind!

    When Stalkers Go Bad.
     
  10. Elle

    Elle Member

    KK,

    According to Delmar England who is not online at the moment.

     
  11. Deja Nu

    Deja Nu Banned

    "DejaNu, you can play devil's advocate all you want, but I do not think all the lawyers in the world could make a jury forget what they saw in those autopsy pictures and crime scene photos. And they would never be so gullible as to buy that it was some COINCIDENCE that she was molested within days BEFORE her murder, and it wasn't related. It may be that the original molester is not the killer. I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that THAT PRIOR MOLESTATION WAS THE CATALYST for the murder. Maybe the killer only wanted to protect that molester from being found out. It's been done before.

    But that would never make a jury sympathetic to the killer, IMO. If that is the argument, then I have to ask the jury, DID THE KILLER HAVE THE RIGHT TO MURDER JONBENET TO LET A CHILD MOLESTER GO FREE?"

    I would not argue that prior molestation was coincidental. I would simply defuse a prosecution argument that whomever committed it had to be the same person who assaulted then killed JB that night. Disconnect. There's no evidence to tie them together. It's pivotal to any prosecution strategy to use it as motive. And THAT is one of the reasons why this case hasn't seen charges and a trial. While there is excellent logic to tie it all together, there is little evidence to support it, at least that has been publicly disclosed.

    Neither would I ever tell a jury that her killer had any right to murder her just to let a molester go free. The ridiculous glove defense worked in the OJ case, didn't it? The job of a good prosecutor is to consider all angles of defense against his case before it goes to trial and prepare impeachments of those defenses. Same holds true from the defense side-know the prosecution's case and prepare impeachment strategies against it. Shift the burden of proof knowing there is none. While we all hate defense attorneys, it is their job to vigorously defend their client(s)' presumptive innocence. Outrage at it is usually not a successful impeachment; logic is.

    KK, it's all good, Babe. I've said it before and it bears repeating. I'd have you on my team any day of the week.

    Elle, thanks for posting some of Delmar's excellent analysis! How utterly relevant it is time and time again, eh?
     
  12. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    I understand what you're saying, DejaNu, about defense attornies. I also do not hate them. There are some I enjoy imagining roasting in hell, like Haddon and his firm, so glutted with money and power that they have long lost their moral compass and thrown their loyalty to the Court and the Constitution to the devil, winning at all costs, truth and justice be damned.

    But I appreciate that most defense attornies work very hard, defending the damned, often, and yeah, innocent people as well. They have the toughest, most thankless job in court, after the guards. What courage they have to do what they do. Yet it takes both sides to have a hope of justice. Too much power on either hand reduces the chance of it, because one thing we know is we all have feet of clay.

    So you're right, it's all good, and I'd be happy to carry your briefcase.

    Hey, I spent today with our DA and his staff in court, training new police officers how to testify. Oh, did I have fun or what?! I kept looking at these mere babies, working so hard to grow, to begin, to understand, to get the job done. I wanted to hug each one, thinking of the dangers and frustrations that lie ahead for them. How brave they are. How brave we all are, to face another day in a world of forces so awesome, we have no idea what they can do until they do it.

    Elle, the term "garrote" has various meanings to various people. I've heard a number of arguments about which is what. Once at the old CS someone brought in a supposed professional in methods of murder to post--he was very scary. I am using "garrote" in a very general meaning. The cord and handle around JonBenet's neck were not a "true" garrote, I know, but it's easier for me to say garrote because it's what has been used by LE and the media.

    All I know is that the autopsy states that JonBenet was strangled to death. The cord and handle were embedded in her neck, she had petechial hemorrhaging and ligature bruising that was consistent with strangulation. Of course it's possible for any of the usual suspects to have made it. And it's also possible that any of a number of theories are as plausible and arguable as many others.

    But what I find overwhelming is that the Ramseys' are the only owners of all identifiable crime scene evidence, and about a hundred other things point directly at one or more of them, IMO, with Patsy and John leading the pack.

    After that, we're all just pushing around the same facts we've had for years. Without a DA who has the guts to pursue this killer, all we do is keep the killer on notice: we know.
     
  13. Deja Nu

    Deja Nu Banned

    “I understand what you're saying, DejaNu, about defense attornies. I also do not hate them. There are some I enjoy imagining roasting in hell, like Haddon and his firm, so glutted with money and power that they have long lost their moral compass and thrown their loyalty to the Court and the Constitution to the devil, winning at all costs, truth and justice be damned. But I appreciate that most defense attornies work very hard, defending the damned, often, and yeah, innocent people as well. They have the toughest, most thankless job in court, after the guards. What courage they have to do what they do. Yet it takes both sides to have a hope of justice. Too much power on either hand reduces the chance of it, because one thing we know is we all have feet of clay.â€

    I like the roasting in hell image, KK! :devil: But want to know my opinion? Ok, I’ll give it to you anyway. It was not the Ramseys’ money, or the “ferocity†of LinWoody that dissuaded prosecutors from pursuing this case. They are just the vehicles. It was the power behind it all; the political power. Attorneys are not immune to it and neither are the judges on American benches. The Ramseys were very well connected (maybe still are) and used those connections to “influence†those grunts who could have, should have, taken this case to a jury; not when the GJ convened, but later when ALL the evidence had come in.

    “So you're right, it's all good, and I'd be happy to carry your briefcase.â€

    You’d do more than that, KK. I admire independent, analytical thinkers and you are one without doubt. In fact, I admire most of the posters who’ve hung in there all these years; without passion for justice we’d all be in a BAD way!

    â€Hey, I spent today with our DA and his staff in court, training new police officers how to testify. Oh, did I have fun or what?! I kept looking at these mere babies, working so hard to grow, to begin, to understand, to get the job done. I wanted to hug each one, thinking of the dangers and frustrations that lie ahead for them. How brave they are. How brave we all are, to face another day in a world of forces so awesome, we have no idea what they can do until they do it.â€

    Ha! That takes me back just thinking about it. If you get to follow those rookies, mark how their own survival instincts kick in in a few years to turn them rather hard and bitter. It’s the only way to survive when your job is in the gutters of life. That made me so sad to see the naive yet well-intentioned young 'uns turn sour just from constant exposure.

    â€Elle, the term "garrote" has various meanings to various people. I've heard a number of arguments about which is what. Once at the old CS someone brought in a supposed professional in methods of murder to post--he was very scary. I am using "garrote" in a very general meaning. The cord and handle around JonBenet's neck were not a "true" garrote, I know, but it's easier for me to say garrote because it's what has been used by LE and the media.â€

    Most of us here at FFJ defer to Delmar aka EasyWriter on the subject of the “garotte†and its strangulation, KK. His analysis is precise, clear and very accurate!

    â€All I know is that the autopsy states that JonBenet was strangled to death. The cord and handle were embedded in her neck, she had petechial hemorrhaging and ligature bruising that was consistent with strangulation. Of course it's possible for any of the usual suspects to have made it. And it's also possible that any of a number of theories are as plausible and arguable as many others.â€

    Yeah, this is an aspect that has intrigued me all these years. There is no doubt JB was strangled in my mind because of this kind of evidence. But I also agree with Delmar that the “garotte,†at least in the fashion it was “found†in, could not have been used to strangle JB. It is possible the same cords were used to do the job then refashioned into the more dramatic “garotte†as part of the staging. Or its possible something else, like a scarf as some have suggested, could have done the actual strangling with the “garotte†fashioned to cover that evidence. What is MOST salient is that Patsy Ramsey’s sweater fibers were entwined in the “garotte†making her the most likely suspect to have made it and applied it to JB’s neck.

    â€But what I find overwhelming is that the Ramseys' are the only owners of all identifiable crime scene evidence, and about a hundred other things point directly at one or more of them, IMO, with Patsy and John leading the pack.â€

    Yep, thanks to Lou Smit and his crafty deal with chickenshit Alex Hunter. And that is exactly WHY they acquired it, my dear!

    â€After that, we're all just pushing around the same facts we've had for years. Without a DA who has the guts to pursue this killer, all we do is keep the killer on notice: we know.â€

    This case was a career maker…and breaker (perhaps life breaker for all we know), just on the DA level. Add to that enormous influence from someone much higher up the food chain and you have the perfect recipe for a “cold case.†As long as it remains in the exclusive jurisdiction of the Boulder DA’s office, it will remain so. Perhaps in time when all the original players have retired to safer pastures, the case will be concluded as it should have been years ago.
     
  14. Elle

    Elle Member

    Deja and KK, I'm thoroughly enjoying this exchange between two pros. How I envy your expertise. I would like to have been a criminal lawyer, but you two are doing it for me.

    It's so good to be reading your posts again, Deja. I'll be away for the next 3 weeks. If I have access to a pc, I'll check in for a Deja and KK update. :)

    Delmar's analysis changed my thinking a great deal, Deja. He also took time to help me through them.
     
  15. Jayelles

    Jayelles Alert Viewer in Scotland

    elsewhere, someone who seems upset at not being able to join FFJ appears to be criticising this forum for having a thread about this book and for even referring to Laurence Smith as Dr Smith. This is despite the fact that the poster who referred to him as "Dr" Smith did so in a post which was less than complimentary about his theory!

    Anyway, at the request of SuperDave at WS, I had a look at this website and did a bit of digging about the author.

    1. He claims to be a member of the "American Psychology Association". However, no such organisation exists. There is the prestigious "American Psychological Association" and sure enough, there is a Laurence Smith listed amongst their members. However....

    2. It is not the same Laurence Smith! The author of the ramsey book is Lawrence L Smith and we have seen his photo. The other Laurence Smith who IS a member of the APA is Laurence D Smith - aka Larry Smith of UMaine.edu. Larry Smith appeares to be a distinguished academic who has written numerous papers/books and who is regularly referenced by other academics.

    3. Laurence Smith, author claims vaguely on his website to have worked as a clinical psychologist and an expert witness but give no further details. This is a complete contrast from most academics/experts who will list their publications as well as the trials they took part in.

    4. I can find no reference to Laurence Smith, author other than his own website and a literary agency which mentions his book. This literary agency appears to be a vanity press and there are a substantial number of Google hits criticising it and warning people about it.

    5. Laurence Smith, author has a record of attacking people who question his credentials. At Crimelibrary, one poster received an e-mail from him which dripped with sarcasm and trumped the "fact" that he has a mensa intellect. The e-mail which was typed entirely in capital letters, contained words like "monstor" (monser) and "rathar" (rather) which are not the usual kind of typos one might excuse in a hastily written communication. I happen to know for a fact that...

    6. Academics of standing are always happy to provide their credentials. When you work in research (as I have), you know how important it is not only to provide references, but to check out the credibility of those references. This is a crucial component of any piece of research as it facilitates peer review and evaluation. A real academic expects to be questioned and is happy to provide their credentials as they KNOW their credibility depends upon being able to do so.

    The fact that this man has been talking about the imminent release of his book since 2005 also speaks volumes. He also doesn't appear to have written anything else - quite unusual for someone with the credentials he claims to have.
     
    Last edited: Apr 1, 2007
  16. Barbara

    Barbara FFJ Senior Member

    Jay,

    The APA is known as the American Psychological Association.

    I'm not sure if one can access the membership list without member status

    While in graduate school I was a member, but not anymore and that was way before the internet
     
  17. Jayelles

    Jayelles Alert Viewer in Scotland

  18. Jayelles

    Jayelles Alert Viewer in Scotland

    It would seem that Laurence L Smith (author) can claim he's a member of APA:-

    http://www.authorsandpublishers.org/members.html

    However, it's not APA as in the American Psychological Association!
     
  19. Kangatruth

    Kangatruth Member

    is it just me ?? why is there NO link to buy the book, whether direct or from some publisher/book house etc. Just seems odd to me :abnormal:

    carry on...
     
  20. Kangatruth

    Kangatruth Member

    perhaps another parasite attempting to make a buck ..

    maybe we can organise a face off between this bloke and that other Boulder fellow ( on known disrepute ) ...all funds going towards some real effort at justice.
     
    Last edited: Apr 1, 2007
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice