Lou Smit's deposition in the Wolf v. Ramsey lawsuit, taken under oath, was critical to getting the civil suit thrown out by Judge Carnes, as well as providing the basis for a huge portion of her stupendously arrogant and erroneous 90+ page "opinion" on the Ramsey murder; written by Carnes with no civil trial held, not to mention no criminal trial, no expert testimony presented at any trial, and without direct access to the actual BPD evidence from the murder case files to submit for exhibits in the civil trial. Why Judge Carnes decided to put her very ignorant and uninformed "opinion" from the civil suit, which she dismissed before trial upon a defense motion to do so, into the legal books as regards an unsolved, untried, infamous national murder case, only she can say. But it's not hard to imagine she was seduced, as so many have been, into getting her name elevated by association, as no one else in a court is ever going to have that opportunity, it appears. Once Carnes threw out all the plaintiff's evidence (primarily handwriting analysis) and took Lou Smit's blatantly erroneous and histrionic speculation of intruder evidence as fact, which by Georgia civil law she had to do when it went unchallenged by the plaintiff (represented by Darnay Hoffman), it was pretty much over. But to write 90+ pages of her "opinion", which is not in any way considered a legal judgment of fact-finding when even the standard of civil law was never applied in a trial, was pure vanity, in my opinion. Oh well, she still got it wrong; not that she cares how easily she handed a child killer yet another facade behind which injustice smiles. In fairness, all Carnes had as rebuttal was Darnay Hoffman lazily stipulating anything Wood and Smit said, no argument made. I believe Darnay thought he had an ace in the hole with his witnesses' expert testimony that Patsy wrote the ransom note--it was the whole premise he used to get the case to pre-trial. Including Tom Miller, Cina Wong, and Gideon Epstein, with significant credentials, experience, charts, diagrams, and extensive comparisons, they were prepared to testify to that. Their opinions and testimony were thrown out by Carnes, one and all, because either they didn't meet her standard for "expert" (all have testified as experts in other courts nationwide) or, even more stringently, because they didn't have access to the original ransom note for analysis (it was destroyed by the CBI in testing.) Which just goes to show it was a lost cause from the start, as Boulder LE would not allow a lawyer outside of a criminal trial of the case have direct access to evidence anyway--other than Team Ramsey lawyers, civil and criminal, who in fact were repeatedly given access to evidence from the case, including the original ransom note before it was destroyed from testing for analysis within months of the murder. So again the Ramseys prevailed, with their money and influence stacked against the truth. The depositions were sealed unless you have the money to challenge that or are a "party" to the suit and can afford a copy of the transcription through the court--a couple of thousand dollars EACH DEPOSITION, no less. Wood was literally asked for permission by the transcription service to sell a copy of Smit's deposition to Tricia, and he denied that permission. It's true Team Ramsey paid for the depositions to be taken by a professional transcription service, as Darnay didn't have the money, so I guess that's what money can buy for you. So though Tricia and I tried very hard to get a copy of Smit's deposition, Lin Wood blocked us from doing so...no surprise there. We wanted it because it is important to see where Carnes got so much wrong information on the evidence in this case, thereby reaching her (much publicized and often lauded by Team Ramsey) "opinion" that it was more likely an intruder than the Ramseys. If you read Carnes' "opinion" and you know anything about the evidence--through books, articles, and, ironicially, the crime scene photos shared with the media by Smit and the transcripts Team Ramsey let out when jams sold them for $40K to the National Enquirer, you know how much Carnes got very, very wrong. Speaking of irony, enter jams' last attempt at case relevance: "someone" allowed jams to have access to Smit's Wolf deposition at some point. I guess she couldn't sell it, so she waited until her parting days on her currently inactive forum to put it up, edited to her satisfaction, of course. I'll give her this: she said everyone could have it. A caveat: consider the source we have been forced to use to post this alleged transcript of Smit's deposition. I won't swear in a court of law that it's anything but alleged excerpts from an alleged copy of a deposition given under oath by Lou Smit in the Wolf v. Ramsey lawsuit--allegedly--which I found on the internet at Webbsleuths website. I have made no edits, grammatical or contextual, to this posting except to edit out comments made by that forum's members. I've hobbled this together out of so many cuts and jumps, it's certainly not as complete or cohesive as we would wish, and what jams left out as a bit too incriminating for the Ramseys or too revealing of Smit's lack of professionalism and common sense, not to mention actual competence in detective skills we may never know. But I've done my best with the material at hand, so for what it's worth, continue. About depositions, evidence, hearsay, speculation, and civil law: don't be fooled into thinking just because Smit was under oath and he said it, that makes it true. Most of what Smit presents while once again parading the infamous PowerPoint presentation he put together while working for D.A. Hunter is speculation, imagination, and plain old nonsense. He seems to have been suffering from the delusion that he was some kind of FBI profiler or something. Not so. He was guessing, dancing, and making it up as he went quite a lot in his stories about the evidence, the "intruder," and what he knew about what the Ramseys could have done, why they might have or might not have done it, and what the evidence as he misremembers it actually proves. Warning: you may need to take a nerve relaxer or have a drink, because you won't be able to read this incredible spin without the urge to throw up, scream a lot, and think very bad thoughts about how people who will go to unbelievable lengths to deny the truth.