Lou Smit Deposition - Wolf Case - January 9, 2002

Discussion in 'Transcripts: Ramsey murder case' started by koldkase, Sep 26, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    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.
    Last edited: Sep 27, 2010
  2. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    This is the deposition of Lou Smit, for the case of Robert Christian Wolf versus John Bennett Ramsey and Patricia Paugh Ramsey, case number 00-CIV-1187, Atlanta County, U.S. District Court, State of Georgia.


    A. I am currently 66 years old.

    Q. And your place of birth?

    A. Denver, Colorado.

    Q. Where did you grow up?

    A. I spent my younger years in Denver, Colorado, and also in the Chicago area, and the Indiana area, also.

    Q. Did you ever have the opportunity to perform any military service or military duty?

    A. Yes. I spent almost four years in the Navy right at the end of the Korean War.

    Q. Did you receive an honorable discharge?

    A. Yes, I did.


    Q. The subpoena asked you to bring certain items with you. One of those items being a Microsoft PowerPoint presentation that you prepared with respect to the JonBenet Ramsey murder investigation. Did you obey the command of subpoena and bring that item with you today?

    A. Yes, I did.


    Q. Would you give us the benefit, Detective Smit, of your best approximation of how many homicide investigations you have been involved in over the course of your law enforcement career?

    A. I would say very close to 200.

    Q. Would you also give us the benefit,

    Page 15

    please, of your best estimate as to the percentage of those homicide cases which were successfully resolved, that is to say, where the perpetrator was identified and brought to justice?

    A. The solve rate for our homicides is 90 percent plus.


    Q. When you say that you let the case tell you what to do, elaborate on that for me, if you would, Detective Smit, in terms of what you mean. A. When a detective first gets a case, he really doesn't know who committed the crime. What you do is collect and record just vast amounts of information. And it is not only you; it is all of the people involved in the case. And you just have to sit down and let that case tell you, either through the photographs or through the evidence, or through the interviews, or through your own observations, you let the case tell you which direction to go.

    Page 22

    And that is where experience, I think, does come in. After a while, you get to know which direction to go.

    When I first was a detective, I am sure I would go from one path to another to another, but after a while, the case kind of lets you know the type of person you are looking for. And you just start sniffing down the right path. I don't know how else to explain it. It is just a knack that you develop, and I think that I have developed that over 30 years of being a detective.

    Q. You are a modest person. A. I think I am a modest person. I don't like the limelight.

    Q. But would you, since I have you here today under oath, at least have to concede for me that you do consider yourself a skilled and experienced homicide investigator?

    A. Yes, I do.

    Q. An expert in the area of homicide investigations?

    A. Yes.

    Q. An expert in the area of crime scene analysis?

    Page 23

    A. Yes.

    Q. Tell me, if you would, what that term means, "crime scene analysis."

    A. Well, it's -- when a detective is assigned to the crime scene, and I have been assigned to many of the crime scenes, when you go out to that scene, you have to leave your mind wide open. You make sure that that crime scene is very well secured. You make sure that people are removed from the crime scene if they are there. You make sure that you take your time in going through that crime scene.

    Everything is photographed. Everything is videotaped. All of your actions are recorded. You make sure that you don't step over all of the evidence. You have to be very careful in what you do. Every person that commits a crime always leaves a part of themselves at the crime scene. There is a rule in the homicide investigation. A person takes something in with them, leaves something, and takes something out. On, I would say, not every scene, but almost every scene that I have worked, this has been true. The person was there, and he

    Page 24

    left a piece of himself there. And that is what you look for at a crime scene. You are looking for that one little piece of evidence or that one little extra piece of evidence that is going to assist you in convicting the person that did that. And that is the goal of a homicide investigator. Make sure you get the person that did that, and make sure you get the right one.

    Q. Would I be correct in referring to, as you say, a little piece of evidence or a little piece of information, are those commonly referred to as clues?

    A. Yes. A detective will refer to them as clues. There are always little clues in a case. And big clues -- everything in a case that, if you really look at it closely, you are going to find clues in a case.

    Q. I think that the average person has a tendency to identify homicide detectives perhaps by their images of someone like Columbo, somebody we see on TV. It is not quite that easy; is it?

    A. No. The investigation business is a very, very demanding business, both on yourself

    Page 25

    and also on your family. But for some reason, there is also great satisfaction in getting a real bad killer off the street.

    Q. Does it, in real life, require a meticulous effort in terms of the carefulness and thoroughness of reviewing and analyzing every piece of evidence?

    A. Yes. On television, they normally do it in a half hour to 45 minutes. Many, many times, investigations take years. Going over case reports time and time and time again, going over photographs time and time and time again, recontacting witnesses many times. Always following that little, tiny bit of information that is going to lead you to the killer.

    Q. How do you preserve a crime scene? You can't -- you don't surround it with yellow tape from the date of the homicide to the trial and ultimate conviction of an accused or the perpetrator. So how do you, as a practical matter, preserve it so that it can be studied and analyzed and utilized? A. What you do is you, first of all, you do make sure that the crime scene is secured. And that is what we try to teach all

    Page 26

    of the young rookie officers and the young policemen. Make sure you preserve the scene. Do not damage the scene. And yellow tape is put up. And normally the scene is secured, I have seen it anywhere from days to weeks, and where no one is allowed in and no one was allowed out except proper personnel.

    But one of the most important parts of the crime scene is not only the collection of evidence, a bullet or a gun or something that relates directly to the crime, but photographs of the crime scene. Photographs record that crime scene just as it was. They are an extremely valuable part of crime scene investigation. And you have to look at these photographs and study them and make observations from them later on. So that is a very critical part of that.

    Also you have to make sure that you do keep unauthorized people out of that crime scene, and that the authorized people that are in a crime scene are properly gowned and protected so that they don't leave evidence at the scene which can contaminate that scene.

    So you have to pay particular

    Page 27

    attention to the crime scene. But afterwards -- again, your reports and everything you have are organized and placed into case files, and sometimes many, many detectives and many, many minds look at these particular files.

    And if you can't find the answer to it, many times they will assign another detective to again look at it with a fresh set of eyes. So investigating a major crime is not just a simple matter of saying, This person did it.

    You don't go in with the object already in mind. You let the case tell you what to do. Sometimes it changes a little bit. But you just don't make up your mind first when you go into a crime scene investigation. And you let that case, like we discussed, tell you what happened.

    Q. And follow that evidence?

    A. And follow that evidence.

    Q. Investigate the clues?

    A. Yes.

    Q. In terms of -- and I want to come back to the discussion of the crime scene photographs. But, first, you bring up a point that I want to pursue with you, Detective Smit,

    Page 28

    the idea of a homicide investigator adopting a theory of a case as to the suspect.

    There is a difference between the approach taken by a homicide investigator and, say, the approach taken by a narcotics investigator; isn't there?

    A. I would say there is.

    Q. How would you describe that difference? A. Usually, the narcotics investigator knows who he is looking for. A homicide investigator doesn't. You have to leave your mind open to anybody that could be involved in a case. Narcotics investigators, you are usually targeting a certain specific person, and you go for him. So you know who your suspect is at that time.

    Q. From your experience and your involvement in homicide investigations over the course of your 35 plus years in law enforcement, do you believe that it is a proper technique and procedure in homicide investigation to adopt a theory of the case and then investigate the case trying to find evidence to support that

    Page 29


    A. No. I don't believe you should let the theory dictate it. You let the evidence dictate it.

    Now, you will sometimes have various theories, and you will work on various theories, but you don't pick one out and put all your eggs in that basket and just investigate that one theory. You have to look at all aspects of it, because you never know where your killer is. Sometimes he can be someplace that you never even looked at before.

    So you cannot just say, I am going to target you as a suspect in this case, and then devote your time and efforts to just targeting that person.

    One of the things that I was taught, and maybe this is what should be passed on to other detectives, your job isn't only to convict somebody. It is also to prove their innocence.

    Q. Is that because that approach best ensures that you ultimately get the right person?

    A. Yes. You get the right person because your object is to get the bad guy off the street. You don't want him out there.

    Page 30

    Q. It may follow as night follows day, but let's cover it just to be sure. When you talk about it being improper to target an individual based on a theory and then pursue an investigation trying to find evidence to support your theory, would it also be improper for a homicide investigator to adopt a theory of the case and then refuse to attempt to explain or thoroughly investigate other clues in the case that might suggest that another path or another theory should be pursued?

    A. Yes. You should not focus in on that theory. You should always look at the other path and not just -- again, one person did it; you are going to prove he did it.

    Q. And you can't ignore any clues.

    A. No.

    Last edited: Sep 26, 2010
  3. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Q. Have you ever heard -- I think you have -- the phrase to build a bridge between a

    Page 33

    homicide investigator and a possible or potential suspect?

    A. Yes.

    Q. Do you use that phrase?

    A. Yes. That -- I use it, and I also use it in investigation.

    Q. What is that technique? What does it mean when you say to build a bridge with a possible suspect or someone under suspicion?

    A. What you do -- detectives, they have to -- like I say, you collect information. If you destroy the bridge between you and even a potential suspect, you don't get that information. I always try to build a bridge. I don't know if I am talking to the killer or not, but I do want to know what he knows. And I will attempt always to build a bridge.

    I will start off as a -- on a friendly basis. I will establish a rapport with a party, if I can. In fact, a detective, one of the best things they can do is, when they get a person in to interview them, is to make sure he talks to you. Let him talk. The minute he stops talking is when you lose very valuable information on a case.

    Page 34

    And you should develop a rapport with them, even if he is a killer. I have done it with many a killer. You develop a rapport with them. They get to trust you, even though they committed this terrible crime.

    So I always try to build a bridge. That is my style. Some people's styles are different, but I found that this is very effective, and it has worked for me in many cases.

    Q. And is it an accepted investigative approach and technique in homicide investigation?

    A. Yes, sir, it is.

    Q. From your experience, can you come up with a benefit that is derived from an investigator taking a hostile and adverse attitude toward a person under suspicion or possible suspect? A. I have rarely seen where, if you take the hostile aspect, that it helps you in that investigation.

    Q. Not going to get you --

    A. All it does is build walls. You build a great wall, and you can't get over it.

    Q. Can't get information?

    Page 35

    A. No.

    Q. Can't judge credibility, demeanor?

    A. Nor can you get a confession. Many times later down the line, the person who is denying it will trust you and will confess later.

    Q. Have you found that, in your years of experience as a homicide investigator, that you have been able to build that bridge with possible suspects, individuals under suspicion, and do so without losing your objectivity with respect to the investigation?

    A. Yes. Many times.


    Q. You have some experience with staging, you have indicated. Could you give me an example or -- an example, both -- more than one example of what you have seen in terms of staging of crime scenes in your career?

    A. Like I said, I have only seen two. One was involving -- it was a contract murder. One of the people that was involved in the contract murder wanted more money. The perpetrator, the murderer ended up killing the man that wanted more money. And then he took a gun and put it under the man's hand, and then he claimed self-defense that the man was going to try to kill him first. So that was one staging. But again, it was minimal staging. He just took the gun and put it under the man's hand.

    The second offense was where there is still an unsolved murder where some furniture was stacked up. We don't know for sure if it was a staged event or not; however, there was some furniture stacked up to make it appear as though there were a burglary. And that was the only staging.

    Page 38

    But, again, all of these cases -- staging is really a rare event because people just don't think clearly after an event. Now, if it is all planned out ahead of time, sure, you can stage something and you can plan to do it. But on the spur of the moment, panic normally sets in. There is a lot of emotion involved. And people just --

    Q. Adrenaline?

    A. Adrenaline. People just don't stage. It is very difficult to do that.

    Q. After the fact, considerably more difficult than a planned killing and staging before the fact of killing --

    A. Absolutely.

    Q. -- would that be right?

    A. That is correct.

    Q. The factors that make it difficult to successfully stage or stage a crime in detail after the fact would include what? You have said emotion, the adrenaline. Why don't you give those for me, what you found would prevent that from occurring after an individual has killed another person. A. Right. And the person's experience

    Page 39

    also in dealing with crime. Some people are criminals by nature, so they think that way. But if you take a person that is not a criminal and doesn't think that way, it is extremely hard to stage. You just don't know what to do.

    Q. Because normally of the panic, the adrenaline rush, the emotions --

    A. The lack of planning and experience.


    Q. How would you describe the state of the organization of the JonBenet Ramsey case file at the time that you first started there in March of 1997?

    A. When I started in March of 1997, Alex Hunter's office had no case reports at that time. I believe the only information they had was the ransom note itself. The Boulder Police Department had all of the case files at that time. I did not get involved in their organization; but as they produced copies of their reports, I organized them into the style that I am familiar with. And what that means is indexing every page, getting time lines and dates from every page, making an index, making a time line, checking out every little smidgen of evidence, organizing the case files where you can find anything. And it was a very demanding job because of the massive amounts of material that

    Page 52

    they had collected.

    So I know when I was there, that case was very, very well organized.

    Q. And in the process of organizing that case and indexing that case and time lining that case, did you, Detective Smit, become familiar with all aspects of the JonBenet Ramsey murder case?

    A. Yes. That is one advantage that I had. I initially had done a little bit of investigation into the case, but my main thrust and my main object was to organize all of the case files. But in doing so, you read every, every report.

    As a detective, you don't have that benefit. As a detective, you are assigned a certain job, you are assigned to interview someone, and you are assigned to collect this piece of evidence and you make your own little report, and you turn it in, and then you are assigned something else.

    But where I had the advantage in the JonBenet Ramsey case is I had the advantage of being able to look at all of the evidence and read every page of every report and every letter

    Page 53

    that was sent in and every tip that was phoned in. So I had the advantage of doing that because I had to organize all of the case files.

    So as far as a broad review of the case, I think I knew the case as well as anyone.

    Q. You had the opportunity and, in fact, did review all of the evidence in the JonBenet Ramsey case that had been obtained from the investigation, both police and by the D.A.'s office, from the date of the murder in December of 1996 literally through the date that you left the investigation in September of 1998; is that right?

    A. That is correct. And that also included information that had been obtained even before the murder.

    Q. The investigation of that information prior to the murder?

    A. Yes.

    Q. You had it all?

    A. Yes.

    Q. You studied it all?

    A. Yes.

    Page 54

    Q. You are familiar with all of it?

    A. Yes.

    Q. Well, let me ask you, Detective Smit, when you first came on board with the Boulder District Attorney's office, what were your initial thoughts about the case?

    A. Again, it was just things that I had heard on the news. I hadn't -- I had paid somewhat attention to it because it was a high-profile case in our state, but the very first thing that you heard on the news was that there was a little girl that was brutally murdered in her home, and that there were no footprints in the snow. I remember that as being part of the newspaper articles. And also that there were no signs of forced entry; that a ransom note had been written inside the house.

    And my initial impression was that, if I was going to initially look at the case, I would look at someone inside the house. That was my initial feelings on it. I didn't have any idea who killed JonBenet. And even if it was somebody in the house, I was thinking, How do you determine who it was in the house to do that? So these thoughts were in my mind

    Page 55

    initially when I came to work for Alex Hunter.

    Q. And those thoughts and impressions by your own candid admission were not based on any review of any evidence in the case; am I right?

    A. No. Only on the media.

    Q. Only on what you had heard in the media?

    A. Yes.

    Q. Without elaborating, at the moment, when you say you had heard in the media that there were no footprints in the snow around the Ramsey home, when you say that you had heard from the media that there were no signs of forced entry found in the Ramsey home, it was pretty compelling stuff if it is true; isn't it?

    A. It would be very compelling.

    Q. Didn't turn out to be true, did it, Detective Smit?

    A. No.

    Q. Both of those statements turned out to be absolutely false?

    A. That is correct.

    Q. The statement about no footprints in the snow turned out to be totally misleading because, in fact, as you discovered, there were

    Page 56

    many areas around the Ramsey home that did not have any snow on them that morning?

    A. That is correct. Photographs clearly depicted that.

    Q. And you ultimately found, through your review of the evidence, that there was strong and compelling physical evidence of entry into the Ramsey home?

    A. Very strong evidence of entry and perhaps exit from that home.

    Q. And again, without elaborating at the moment, am I accurate in stating that, after you had the opportunity over the course of many months to review all of the evidence, that your initial impressions about this case, based on media reports, dramatically changed? A. That is correct, they dramatically changed.

    Q. Did you, over the course of your time working for the Boulder District Attorney's office, seek to utilize the approach of building a bridge with John Ramsey and Patsy Ramsey?

    A. Yes. In fact, the very first day I asked permission of Alex Hunter and others in the office to actually even send a note to the

    Page 57

    Ramseys just to express my desire to let them know that I was the detective on the case. And even on the note, I remember saying that, I just want you to know I will do everything I can to find the killer of your daughter. And I will always try to treat your family with kindness and respect.

    Q. Did you lose your objectivity in terms of analyzing the Ramseys as individuals, as individuals under suspicion because of your efforts to build a bridge with them?

    A. No. In fact, just the opposite. I just wanted to build a bridge so that I could get to know them better.

    Q. Each and every time that you had any contact with John Ramsey or Patsy Ramsey during the time that you were employed with the Boulder District Attorney's office, did you prepare and file a written report on that contact?

    A. Every time. And not only that, but in every aspect, when you are investigating a case and you are working for someone, you just don't go off and do things on your own. You always get permission to do various things or you discuss it before you do it.


    Q. In June of 1998, John Ramsey and Patsy Ramsey voluntarily agreed to be interviewed at length by Boulder investigators, both with the police department and the District Attorney's office; is that right?

    A. Yes.

    Q. Did you participate in the June 1998 law enforcement interviews of the Ramseys?

    A. I did. I interviewed John Ramsey.

    Q. And that interview of Mr. Ramsey, in fact, lasted three days; did it not?

    A. Yes. It lasted three days, and they offered to stay two weeks if it was necessary.

    Q. Patsy Ramsey also lasted three days and made the same offer to stay, if necessary; right?

    A. That is correct.

    Q. You had had an occasion, through your time working with the Boulder District Attorney's office, to interview Patsy Ramsey on certain issues; had you not?

    A. I did.

    Q. Do you consider yourself, from your 35 plus years and your 200 homicide investigations, do you consider yourself to be an

    Page 59

    experienced individual in terms of law enforcement interrogations and interviews of witnesses and also individuals under suspicion?

    A. Yes. And I am glad that you separated that a little bit.

    Every interview is not an interrogation. And when you first meet somebody, you just talk to them to obtain information. Then you interview them. And if you have to, then you interrogate them. But there is different, separate distinct steps. Some people want to interrogate right away. That is not my style. So I interviewed John Ramsey. I did not interrogate him.

    Q. And who participated with you in the interview of Mr. Ramsey in June of 1998? A. Michael Kane, the special prosecutor hired by Alex Hunter.

    Q. He was actually hired as a special grand jury prosecutor?

    A. Yes.

    Q. Same Michael Kane I made reference to earlier, I think?

    A. Yes, sir.

    Page 60

    Q. Do you know who conducted the June 1998 interview or interrogation of Patsy Ramsey?

    A. Yes. It was a very fine detective named Tom Haney.

    Q. What was Tom Haney's reputation in terms of his abilities as a skilled police interrogator?

    A. He is probably one of the most skilled interrogators that I ever met. And also his reputation. He teaches it. He is a very accomplished, very good police interrogator.

    Q. Tough?

    A. Extremely tough.

    Q. A lot of people say, if someone is going to break, Tom Haney is the person to break them? A. Tom Haney is the person to break them.

    Q. He has done it before, and he knows how to do it?

    A. Yes.

    Q. He didn't break Patsy Ramsey; did he?

    A. No.

    Q. No incriminating information came out of Patsy Ramsey's three days of interrogation or

    Page 61

    interview by Mr. Haney; did it?

    A. No. I have not looked at her transcripts, but the way I understand it, Patsy was very strong in what she said.

    Q. Based on your experience with John Ramsey and also with your interviews with Patsy Ramsey, did you find Mr. and Mrs. Ramsey to be credible?

    A. I found them to be credible and truthful and also very devastated at the death of their daughter.

    Q. Michael Kane, who we just mentioned, Michael Kane, I will ask you to accept as true for purposes of this question, has recently made some public comments to the effect that he felt that, in the interviews with police and D.A. officials, that Mr. and Mrs. Ramsey were too careful, too scripted, that they were not telling law enforcement officials everything that they knew about their daughter's death. From your firsthand experience and knowledge and dealings with these individuals and your years of experience in homicide investigations and analysis of potential suspects, did you find that to be true with John Ramsey

    Page 62

    and Patsy Ramsey?

    A. Absolutely not. In fact, both John and Patsy Ramsey were being interviewed at exactly the same time. They had no idea which questions we were going to ask. My questions were even different than the questions of Detective Haney. It would have been very difficult for them to get together or to speak about any of the answers that were given because we were doing it simultaneously. It would be very difficult to do that. So my impression, definitely, is that, especially John Ramsey, who I interviewed, was not holding back.

    Q. When you say "especially John," because you spent the three days with him and did not have the opportunity to spend the time, three-day time period with Patsy?

    A. Yes.

    Q. Is that what you mean?

    A. That is correct.


    Q. Could you give us the benefit of an overview of the relationship that existed between the Boulder Police Department and the Boulder District Attorney's office as you observed it and experienced it over the approximate 18 months you

    Page 64

    were involved in the JonBenet Ramsey murder investigation?

    A. From my own personal experience, I have always worked within an atmosphere where the District Attorney's office and the police departments have always gotten along. You have to have that relationship in order to successfully prosecute many cases.

    When I went over to the Boulder office, however, I did notice that there was a great deal of animosity between the police department and the District Attorney's office. I learned later that this was a result of many, many years of misunderstandings between the two departments.

    There was a great deal of mistrust between them. And it was an atmosphere that was, to me, somewhat difficult to work in because I like to work with police agencies, and I have worked with many police agencies in my career. And it was difficult because there was great mistrust there, and I was hired by the District Attorney's office and not by the police department. I felt that I got along very well

    Page 65

    with the Boulder police officers. I think they are very dedicated and a fine group of individuals. And I feel the same way about the Boulder District Attorney's office. But between the two agencies, there was a great deal of friction and mistrust.

    Q. It was a nightmare at times; wasn't it?

    A. It got tense occasionally.

    Q. And it, many times, lacked the professionalism that one would have expected from the two organizations? A. You know, Mr. Wood, I always believe that both, both organizations were professional. But I think that, because of longstanding disagreements that they had, that they lacked the objectivity to successfully and freely exchange information between the two agencies, so that did hurt the case. Professionally-wise, I think they are good. But as far as them being able to work together, I think it was very poor.

    Q. In all candor, would you tell me, Detective Smit -- because while you were hired by the D.A.'s office, as you earlier mentioned,

    Page 66

    it was literally upon the recommendation of the member of the Boulder Police Department, Detective Trujillo --

    A. Yes.

    Q. -- who was involved as an investigator in the JonBenet Ramsey case; right?

    A. That is correct.

    Q. Did you ever have some concerns about the lack of homicide experience of some of the members of the Boulder Police Department who were involved in the JonBenet Ramsey investigation?

    A. What I found when I came into the District Attorney's office was the Boulder Police Department, their way of handling their detectives was that there was a rotation system within the detective bureau. And I am not sure of the exact years, but most detectives were rotated out of the detective bureau on a regular basis, probably every three years.

    And they have a terminology for that called "career enhancement," which I don't agree with at all, because I believe that you have to have experienced detectives over a long period of time in an organization, not only for historical background, but also just for plain experience.

    Page 67

    And that your sergeants and that your captains also should be experienced investigators. And a rotation I don't agree with because you do lose your experience. You never really get a chance to become a detective. And in Boulder, their theory of operation was to rotate detectives.

    I also found out that rarely were homicide cases brought to trial. This was probably a philosophy of the District Attorney's office. But like I said before, detectives gain their experience in trial. That is where you find out all of the mistakes that you made. And I don't think that very few detectives there had actually been involved in a murder trial where they were tested. So, yes, I believe that their lack of experience in homicide investigation was as a result of just the procedures that they had in place there.

    Q. When you say that they had a procedure of rotation, an example of that would literally be that a person who was assigned as a detective in the Boulder Police Department could thereafter be rotated out, back to, or to serving in the position of being a street patrol

    Page 68

    officer or traffic officer; right?

    A. Yes. Or it could be --

    Q. Or narcotics?

    A. -- narcotics, right.

    Q. But they rotated them through every area. That is the problem, as you perceived it, the lack of longevity to gain the experience to become a skilled homicide investigator.

    A. Yes.

    Q. Were you aware -- at the time that you became employed by the Boulder District Attorney's office, who was the commander in charge of the JonBenet Ramsey case with the Boulder Police Department? A. It was Commander John Eller.

    Q. Were you aware that the JonBenet Ramsey homicide investigation was Commander Eller's first homicide investigation?

    A. No, I did not know that at the time. I found out later that it, perhaps, was his first one. But again, I am not -- I am not really sure of that.

    Q. You also got to know another member of the Boulder Police Department, and that individual was Detective Steve Thomas?

    Page 69

    A. Yes, I did.

    Q. Were you aware, when you first went to work for the Boulder District Attorney's office, that the JonBenet Ramsey investigation was Detective Steve Thomas' first homicide investigation?

    A. Yes. I learned that later.

    If I might say something about Steve Thomas, my impression of him was a very sharp and competent officer. That was my impression. I think he did excellent work on his reports. And I believe that Steve Thomas had some experience in law enforcement before. But as far as a homicide detective, no, he did not have the experience.

    Q. Zero?

    A. Zero.


    Q. What happened to the individuals that were clearly known to be advocating a thorough investigation into the intruder path or the intruder theory?

    A. I think what happened -- again, I am not privy to all of the inside information, but I believe a decision was made by people very high in authority that we were not on the same page, we were conflicting as far as the direction we wanted to go. And I think a decision was made that everyone get on the same page. I, frankly, wasn't even in the same book, so that is why I left the investigation. I did it -- I resigned. I clearly did not want to be part of, perhaps, putting an innocent person in jail, and I felt that is the direction the case was going. So I left the investigation because I just didn't want to be a participant in allowing the procedure to continue and me aiding and

    Page 77

    abetting that on something that I felt was so basically wrong. So I left the investigation.

    Q. And submitted a letter of resignation in September of 1998 to Alex Hunter?

    A. Yes, I did.

    Q. Did you make your letter of resignation public at the time that you gave it to Alex Hunter?

    A. Yes.

    Q. And, Detective Smit, what happened to Mr. DeMuth and Mr. Hofstrom and homicide investigator Ainsworth?

    A. They were all removed from the investigative process.


    Q. Since you left the employment of the Boulder County District Attorney's office, have you ever been employed by John Ramsey or Patsy Ramsey in connection with this case?

    A. No. In fact, I have made it a point definitely not to be employed by them, and I told them that.

    Q. Have you ever received any money, any financial remuneration from the Ramsey family in connection with your ongoing private investigative efforts?

    A. Not one cent.

    Q. In fact, you and I still laugh a little bit about the first time I met you, when you tried to fight with me over allowing me to pay for your lunch when we first met. We had

    Page 80

    that fight; didn't we?

    A. Yes, we did.

    Q. I did win that one, so I did buy your lunch?

    A. That's correct. And I will buy yours next time.

    Q. Then we will be even.


    Q. (By Mr. Wood) Detective Smit, we spoke earlier in your deposition about the approach of a homicide investigator to a case where you have, I believe, used the term "let the case tell you what to do." You equate the case with the evidence; do you not?

    A. Yes, sir.

    Q. And having reviewed all of the evidence in this case while you were employed with the Boulder District Attorney's office, and, obviously, having continued to work on the case since that time up until the present time, what does the case, what does the evidence tell you in terms of how JonBenet Ramsey was murdered? A. The case tells me that this is a very, first of all, a very brutal and vicious murder. This is not a little doink on the head, Oops, I made a mistake and we are going to cover it up. This is a very brutal, vicious murder. The person who committed this is a very brutal, vicious person. That is generally what it tells me.

    The evidence also tells me that we are looking at our killer down the intruder path. It is not down the Ramsey path. The evidence tells me that our killer got into that house, took JonBenet from her bed, stun-gunned her, took her down into that basement, probably stun-gunned her again down there, had duct tape on her mouth, tied her hands, fashioned a garotte in the basement, sexually assaulted a little six-year-old girl, brutally bashed her head in, and then left her in a moldy basement. That is what the evidence tells me. Many portions of the evidence, the photographs, give us -- gave me clues as to how he did this. And that is what I was following while I was working this case and then still following in that today.

    Q. Did you find any credible evidence that would suggest that the death of JonBenet Ramsey was an accidental killing followed by acover-up or staging of the crime scene?

    A. No.

    Q. From your review of the evidence, what was the actual mechanism of death, in probability, to this child?

    A. From what I have seen in this case and the investigation that I have done into this case, JonBenet was strangled. It was a ligature strangulation with the form of a garotte. And then she was struck on the head last. The mechanism of death is the garotte. The manner of death is ligature strangulation. And the evidence shows that.

    Q. What is a "garotte"?

    A. A "garotte" is just a term that I have used and others have used to describe the ligature that was around JonBenet's death -- around her neck.

    A garotte is a device used to strangle a person, and it can be used to strangle them slowly or as a quick manner of death. Usually a garotte has a handle on it. In this case the garotte had a handle and also a noose with a slipknot that would allow it to be tightened around the neck of the victim. That is what I classify as a "garotte" in this case.

    Q. You indicated that, in describing the evidence in terms of the acts of violence that were perpetrated upon this child, that there was evidence that she had received a blow to the head; am I right?

    A. That is correct.

    Q. How would you describe the severity of the blow to this child's head?

    A. I would describe it as a very severe, brutal striking of the head with an object with great force.

    In this case, and I have talked with others, experts, it is almost like falling off of a three-story building and landing on your head. I also equate it to some of the motor vehicle accidents I have investigated where there are severe head injuries as a result of that. This was a severe, brutal bludgeoning of a little six-year-old girl.

    Q. Were you able, from the evidence, to determine the point in time during this murder when the blow to the head was received by JonBenet?

    A. Yes. The blow to the head was almost at death or shortly after death. And the reason I say that is because the ligature was applied first. There was definite indications of what is called petechiae, small little pinpoint hemorrhages of the eye that occur when strangulation is in process. It does not occur after death when you try to strangle someone. The petechiae is not present. So the strangulation has to be first.

    Another thing that really shows me the strangulation occurred first, before the vicious blow, was there evidence that JonBenet was trying to get the garotte off of her neck so that she could breathe. There is also evidence that she was struggling from the standpoint that the marks are very red and bright red in color. It shows blood flow in that portion of the neck. If you try to apply a garotte or ligature after death, it is white in color.

    Q. What is white?

    A. Red is before death, the mark that is left by the garotte. Red is before dead. White is after death.

    Q. In terms of the marks found on the body of the victim?

    A. That is correct.

    That, coupled with the photographic evidence that shows fingernail marks from JonBenet. She does have her own DNA under her fingernails; the primary source of DNA was hers; very good indication she was struggling with that garotte before she died.

    The head blow itself, it is very severe. I have seen injuries in the course of my career, many, many head injuries, when you are hit on the head, you have normally massive bleeding. Normally, it will even break the skin on the scalp. But inside, if you -- even inside, if the skull is fractured, especially with a large depressed skull fracture of this nature, you have massive bleeding. And a lot of times it does come through the nose and even through the ears. In this case, there was just very minimal bleeding with such a massive head wound. In fact, the autopsy report equates it to about two tablespoons of blood inside the head cavity. If the garotte is in place first and the head blow is after, the garotte will cut off the blood flow to the head. I believe that is very strong evidence; and even though I am not a medical expert, from my experience in dealing with all of the death homicides and death investigations I have conducted, the manner of death was ligature strangulation followed by the blow to the head.

    Q. And you indicated that other experts have concurred in your finding in that regard?

    A. That is correct.


    Q. The garotte, when it is sufficiently tightened around the victim's neck, what would happen to the flow of blood from the victim's heart to the victim's head?

    A. It would be severely restricted because of the arteries that run alongside the neck.

    Q. Do you believe that is what happened here in terms of being another explanation or indication of why there was a minimal amount of blood found in JonBenet's head cavity?

    A. Yes, I do.


    Q. If I could backtrack and go back to where we started in terms of your description of what the evidence tells you happened to JonBenet, you made reference to, I believe, the fact that you found that the evidence reflected that someone came into the house and used a stun gun on her?

    A. Yes, that is correct.

    Q. Do you have a stun gun here today, Detective Smit?

    A. Yes, I do.

    Q. Could we have someone hand that to the detective, please, after we first have it marked for purposes of identification.

    MR. WOOD: And I will have to jump ahead, because of the pre-numbered exhibits, and ask you to mark this, please, as Defendants' Exhibit No. 69.

    [Jams wrote:]
    MR. WOOD: Darnay, if we could agree that this exhibit will be retained by Detective Smit, but will be available in the event someone needs to look at it. MR. HOFFMAN: Yeah, that is fine. We can agree on that.

    Q. (By Mr. Wood) Let me hand you now, Detective Smit, what has been identified as Defendants' Exhibit No. 69 to your deposition and ask you if you would describe that for us.

    A. This is an AirTaser stun gun, and the mode that it is in now is with the head of the stun gun removed where the contacts are exposed, where you would have direct contact with the skin instead of using a projectile from the stun gun. And --

    Q. What is a stun gun designed or intended to do?

    A. It is intended to incapacitate a person either by knocking them out, knocking them down, or just driving them away.

    Q. Can it cause, in effect, a temporary paralysis?

    A. Yes. Disorientation.

    Q. Immobilization?

    A. Immobilization.

    Q. That can last how long?

    A. I would -- it would depend, I believe, on the person that it was used on. And it would probably depend on, you know, even if that person, the proximity to vital areas on a person, close to the brain or close to the heart, I think would make quite a bit of difference as far as the effectiveness. And that is why it is called a stun gun. It is used in defense. I have also seen videos with a stun gun where it has completely incapacitated people.

    Q. Some fairly large people? A. Yes. That is why it is -- that is what it is designed for.

    Q. Sure. And I believe you say it is designed to be used in one of two ways. It can either project out an electrical charge or it can be used to be applied directly to someone's body?

    A. Yes. There are two modes. You first fire the projectiles, and then the head is removed. And if the person continues to attack you or is able to attack you, then the direct contact with the person can be used.

    Q. Or you could just make direct contact initially?

    A. Yes, you sure could.

    Q. Could you demonstrate for us with that Exhibit 69 what that sounds like and looks like when it is actually used in terms of the sound --

    A. Yes.

    Q. -- and flip it on and show us?

    A. Yes. I have demonstrated this before.

    When you activate the AirTaser, with air as being the conductor, it does create a noise, a snapping noise. When you operate it, whereby it is up against something, and I have done this on other experiments, the noise is muted almost to the point where you can't hear it.

    And I can -- what I would like to do is just to do it in both --

    Q. Why don't you do it first not up against an object, and then we will move to where it is up against an object.

    A. Okay.

    (Stun gun demonstrated.)

    Q. I am not sure if we got that on the camera.

    I would like to be able to ask you, Detective Smit, to hold it in front of you so that we can demonstrate that for purposes of the deposition video. If you would now activate the stun gun. (Witness complies with request of counsel.)

    Q. Now, if you would, give us a demonstration of how that sound changes when the stun gun is directly applied to an object. (Witness complies with request of counsel.)

    Q. Are you applying it to a cushion?

    A. A cushion.

    Q. Would you expect to have the same muted effect of the sound if applied to a human being's body?

    A. Yes. In fact, on a pig experiment that we had, it sounded very muted. The conductivity then is through the flesh, not through the air.

    Q. Thank you.

    How long would you have to apply the stun gun to an individual's body before it would expect to be effective to stun the person or immobilize the person?

    A. I think just a touch would definitely get their attention; but if you apply it, and we have conducted various experiments of a different time period, it does make quite a bit of difference, because if you hold it directly against someone that cannot get away, the effect, I believe, is much greater than just touching a person with it.

    And again, the area of the body where a person would be stun-gunned has a lot to do with the effects of it.

    Q. The evidence indicates to you that JonBenet was stun-gunned, in probability, did you tell me, twice?

    A. Yes.


    Q. And are you aware of Dr. Doberson's prior work with stun gun crimes or crimes involving the use of a stun gun?

    A. Yes. Dr. Doberson was involved in the murder of Gerald Boggs, who was murdered. And prior to his death, he was stun-gunned numerous times -- or stun-gunned, I should say. And after the confession by the killers, the stun gun was recovered and matched up against his injuries.

    And as a result of that, Dr. Doberson did conduct, I believe, numerous pig experiments to show the effects of a stun gun and the marks that they do leave. And then, since the investigation has continued, I have, together with Dr. Doberson, also conducted experiments on a pig.

    Q. And you are familiar with Dr. Doberson's opinion?

    A. Yes.

    Q. And his opinion is what?

    A. His opinion is, within a medical degree of certainty, that JonBenet was stun-gunned.


    You also indicated that the evidence shows you that JonBenet was sexually assaulted.

    A. Yes.

    Q. Tell me what the evidence shows you in that regard, Detective Smit.

    A. The evidence shows me that JonBenet definitely was sexually assaulted the night of her death.

    Q. Was she alive when she was assaulted?

    A. She was alive when she was assaulted because she bled. Dead people don't bleed. It is an injury to her hymen that caused the bleeding.

    I believe it would be extremely painful for a little girl, and I believe it takes a certain, specific type of an individual

    Page 98

    to go between a little girl's legs with such force that would cause bleeding there. And that gives me a little -- a large clue as to the personality of our killer.

    Q. From your review of the evidence, did the evidence tell you where JonBenet was actually murdered in the Ramsey home in her home?

    A. Yes. It is very clear to me that the murder of JonBenet occurred in the basement area, very close to the door, to the wine cellar, or actually in the wine cellar itself is a continuation, perhaps, even of the head blow.

    I believe she was face down on the carpet right by the door of the wine cellar. There is evidence to show that. That is where the garotte was made and fashioned. And then JonBenet was placed into that moldy wine cellar.

    Q. And that is where her body was found?

    A. Yes.


    Q. And you have said earlier that JonBenet's body was actually found in what was referred to as the wine cellar?

    A. Yes.

    Q. The wine cellar may conjure up in the average person's mind a certain type of room where wine is stored in racks of some type. Is that what we are talking about here? A. No. It was always referred to as a wine cellar, but it really is just a room without windows. And it is a concrete room. And stored inside this room were things like screens and storm windows, paint cans, old lumber. It was a very, very cluttered room.

    Q. Dark?

    A. In fact, the composition of the

    Page 101

    cement and the age of the cement and the humidity of that particular room did cause mold to grow in various places on the walls and on the floor. It is just a -- really, it is a -- I considered it a very dank, musty area of that house.

    Q. Dark and dirty area?

    A. Yes.

    Q. That mold, as you described, has some significance in the investigation in terms of clues?

    A. Yes. In the mold were fresh footprints made by at least two different types of shoes. I also see in the mold what appears to be perhaps the barefoot print possibly of a little girl. The mold is not continuous on the floor. It grows in patches. So you don't have a lot of footprints in it. But, in certain areas, where it does grow, if you step in there, you can definitely tell that someone has stepped in that area. And you can also tell from the mold, the way it grows, whether it is fresh or not.


    Q. Detective Smit, having reviewed, as

    Page 102

    you did, all of the evidence over the 18 months that you were involved in the investigation, and in light of your ongoing efforts and information about the investigation since you left in September of 1998, have you ever found any credible evidence to suggest that John Ramsey killed his daughter?

    A. No.

    Q. Have you ever found any credible evidence to suggest that Patsy Ramsey killed her daughter?

    A. No.

    Q. Are you familiar with the use of the term by the Boulder Police Department "under the umbrella of suspicion"?

    A. Yes.

    Q. What is your understanding of the use of that term by the Boulder Police Department in terms of what the department means to convey about an individual who is "under the umbrella of suspicion"?

    A. Well, until this case, I had never heard that term before; but I believe it is a term that could be used to say that a person is not cleared of the crime. And that it is just

    Page 103

    not someone that you are looking into and recording information on, but someone they believe could have killed, in this case, JonBenet.

    Q. Possibly involved?

    A. Yes.

    Q. Based on your involvement, your knowledge of the case in its entirety, the evidence, has Burke Ramsey, JonBenet's brother, ever been under the umbrella of suspicion in this case?

    A. No.

    Q. Is there any evidence that would even remotely suggest that Burke Ramsey was involved in the murder or death of his sister?

    A. No. There is none.

    Q. The Ramsey path or the Ramsey theory, as you earlier told me, only included either John or Patsy or both; right?

    A. Yes.

    Q. Not Burke?

    A. Yes.

    Q. I don't want to oversimplify it, but would it be accurate to say that, if we are looking for a solution to this horrible crime,

    Page 104

    that we are going to find it either being a crime committed by one or both of the parents or an intruder?

    A. That is what it boils down to and has since the beginning. It is either the parents or an intruder. If there is evidence of an intruder, it is not the parents, period.

    Q. How would you describe the thoroughness of the investigation efforts into the backgrounds and prior histories of John Ramsey and Patsy Ramsey prior to the death of their daughter?

    A. I believe it is one of the most intense and complete investigations of any two individuals that I have ever seen, without question.

    Q. You think they covered every square inch? A. Everything. Every aspect of their life. Not only by the Boulder Police Department. By every other agency, including the media, as well.

    Q. Are you aware, in your 35-plus years of law enforcement experience and your homicide investigation experience, are you aware of any

    Page 105

    individual or individuals who have ever had their lives subjected to such a thorough and intense investigation by both law enforcement authorities and investigative efforts by the media as John and Patsy Ramsey have undergone?

    A. Not in my lifetime or anything that I have ever seen.

    Q. And you have seen the results of those investigative efforts; haven't you?

    A. Yes, I have.

    Q. Was there any evidence of any past behavior or history of any kind that would suggest that John Ramsey had a motive for killing his daughter?

    A. No. There is no motive for John Ramsey to kill his daughter.

    Q. Was there any evidence of any past behavior or history of any kind that would suggest that Patsy Ramsey had a motive for killing her daughter?

    A. There is none.

    Q. Is there any behavior or history of any kind prior to JonBenet's murder that would suggest that John Ramsey had the propensity to kill his daughter?

    Page 106

    A. Nothing in his background whatsoever.

    Q. Is there any behavior or history of any kind prior to JonBenet's murder that would suggest that Patsy Ramsey had the propensity to kill her daughter?

    A. Nothing. In fact, just the opposite.

    Q. How would you describe the sum total of the evidence that was developed in the investigation in terms of the type of relationship that this family had amongst themselves and with their children, including JonBenet?

    A. It was a very close, loving family. John Ramsey took great pains on keeping in contact with all of his children, even when he was travelling.

    The mother, Patsy Ramsey, there is only -- everybody that has talked with them or has known the Ramseys has described them as being a very loving relationship with her daughter and with the rest of her family.

    No one can come up with anything that is bad to say about the Ramseys as far as their relationship with the children. It is a loving, caring, religious family that is very close.


    A. Yes. John Ramsey is a wealthy man, or was a wealthy man.

    Q. And was there any evidence prior to the murder of JonBenet of any type of psychological problems in the family in the part of the children, on the part of John Ramsey or Patsy Ramsey?

    A. None. The children were happy and well adjusted. This family is not involved in any type of drugs or --

    Q. No drug abuse?

    A. -- or illegal activities or any type of even serious drinking problems at all. Maybe a social drink occasionally. But it is just a very nice, common family that happened to get rich.

    Q. Any evidence of child abuse of any type? A. Absolutely not. In fact, just the

    Page 108

    opposite. I don't think you can find -- we haven't found and I haven't found any evidence at all of even striking a child one time in their whole relationship with their children.

    I don't believe they -- no, they do not believe in corporal punishment.

    Q. Any evidence of sexual abuse of the parents --

    A. No evidence --

    Q. -- of any of their children?

    A. -- at all.

    Q. There is a media report or reports that John or Patsy Ramsey, or one of them, may have been involved in pornography. Any truth, any evidence whatsoever to support that charge?

    A. No evidence whatsoever. None. Zero.

    Q. There were media reports that John Ramsey had sexually abused his oldest daughter who died in a car wreck in 1992, Beth. Any evidence? Any evidence whatsoever to support that charge against this man?

    A. Not one iota. None. Zero. In fact, just the opposite. His daughter, surviving older daughter, loving father.

    Q. Allegations that this family might

    Page 109

    have been involved in some form of witchcraft, or some form of religious fanaticism, any evidence, any evidence to support that charge against this family?

    A. Absolutely not. None.


    Q. Charges made in the media that this family, John Ramsey, Patsy Ramsey, may have been drug abusers?

    A. None.

    Q. No evidence?

    A. No evidence.

    Q. Any whatsoever, Detective Smit?

    A. Not even a sniff, and there are a lot of people sniffing to try to find that out.

    Q. When you talk about the relationship with this family and the kind of family that the Ramseys were, is that your theory, or is that what the evidence has shown you? A. The evidence shows me that. The case shows me that. All of the interviews that were conducted shows me that.

    Q. There is a theory out there that I believe you are aware of that has been the subject matter of a book published by former Detective Steve Thomas. Are you familiar

    Page 110

    generally with Detective Thomas's theory?

    A. Yes, I am.

    Q. As I understand it, his theory is based on an allegation that JonBenet wet her bed the night of her murder, that Patsy Ramsey went into a rage because of it, that Patsy either struck or pushed JonBenet, causing a severe blow to her head, thought that she was dead, and then took her downstairs from her bedroom or bathroom and, in effect, staged a cover-up of the accidental killing by apparently sexually assaulting her daughter, taking a garotte and strangling her daughter.

    Have I accurately described the essential parts of Steve Thomas' theory, as you understand it?

    A. That is basically it, yes.

    Q. And that also, thereafter, sat down and composed and wrote an almost three-page ransom note to make the death of her daughter appear to be related to a kidnapping.

    A. Yes.

    Q. That is also part of it?

    A. Yes.

    Q. There was a ransom note found by

    Page 111

    Mrs. Ramsey?

    A. Yes, there was.

    Q. Did you find any evidence to support the theory that there was a struggle, an altercation between JonBenet and her mother in the bedroom of JonBenet or in the bathroom of JonBenet the night of her death?

    A. There is no basis for that theory. There is no evidence that shows that.

    Q. Did you find any evidence that would in any way support the allegation that Patsy Ramsey, the theory that Patsy Ramsey would have reacted to a bed-wetting incident by JonBenet by going into a rage?

    A. There is no basis for that whatsoever. There is no indication of that in her past at all.

    Q. Has there been any indication in the past that Patsy Ramsey emotionally responded, to whatever degree, to any incidents of bed-wetting by JonBenet or any of her other children?

    A. Absolutely not.

    Q. Can you find any evidence to support the theory that JonBenet wet her bed the night of her murder?

    Page 112

    A. There is none. In fact, the evidence shows me that she did not wet her bed that night.


    Q. Do you know what the conclusion of the Boulder Police Department experts was as to John Ramsey in terms of the authorship of the ransom note?

    A. That he did not write the note.

    Q. And I think, obviously, there was a conclusion drawn pretty quickly about Burke?

    A. Yes.

    Page 114

    Q. What was that conclusion?

    A. It is not Burke.

    Q. And what about with respect to Patsy Ramsey; are you familiar with the individual conclusions of, I believe, was it four police examiners?

    A. Yes. And two --

    Q. And two independent examiners, independent of the investigation, but hired by the Ramsey family.

    I want to ask you first about the four police examiners. Are you familiar with the conclusions drawn by those individuals about Patsy Ramsey?

    A. Yes.

    Q. How would you collectively describe the opinions reached, the conclusions reached, by the police handwriting examiners as to where on the scale of probabilities Patsy Ramsey would be placed in terms of being the author of the ransom note?

    A. Generally inconclusive and below. Inconclusive and below.

    I have heard and was told by Alex Hunter that, if Patsy Ramsey wrote the note, the


    score was five that she wrote it, or that -- on a scale. That she did not write it.

    Q. Five being that she did not write the note?

    A. Five being that she did not write the note. She would score a 4.5. Low on the scale.

    Q. The ransom note, though, is a valuable clue; isn't it?

    A. It is. It is a clue left behind by the killer. And it is something that we know that the killer left behind.

    Q. Does it give you, from your experience in homicide investigations, what you would believe to be a valuable and insightful look into the killer's mind? A. Definitely. The writing of that note tells us an awful lot about the killer.

    Q. In terms of its content? A. In terms of its content.

    Q. And you have studied the note carefully; have you not?

    A. Yes, I have.

    Q. Can you, in your mind's eye looking back over this case, find any credible evidence

    Page 116

    to support the theory of former Detective Steve Thomas?

    A. No, I cannot.

    Q. But you have found compelling evidence to support the theory that an intruder killed this child; am I right?

    A. Yes, that is correct.


    Q. Have you ever attempted, Detective Smit, to compile that evidence into a presentation of the intruder theory in the JonBenet Ramsey case?

    A. Yes. I have compiled it into a presentation, and it has been put on a disk.

    Q. What type of presentation is that?

    A. It, basically, is a collection of information that pertains to the intruder that shows photographs that -- actual photographs depicting various areas in the house and disturbances that are made, the stun gun, and the manner and death of JonBenet. It is all what I consider to be clues left behind by the killer.

    Q. Is it your theory or is it the evidence?

    A. It is the evidence.

    Q. Is it speculation?

    A. It is not speculation.

    Q. If you would, give me the background, just in brief terms, but give me the background into when you started putting together this presentation. Is it in a Microsoft PowerPoint form, format?

    A. Yes, it is.

    Q. Tell me about the background of when you started putting it together and how that developed.

    A. Well, it actually developed as the case was being worked right from the beginning. It started off with just the observations of the photographs. And then later on, when information was obtained in the form of reports, to show different lab reports on evidence, it was gradually collected, but it was never really put into the form of a presentation.

    We tried -- or I tried to do it verbally. It was very difficult to do. But a decision was made, I believe in March of 1998, to try to collect all of the evidence pertaining to the intruder and to have a multimedia firm create a presentation at that time which would accurately describe the evidence found pointing at an intruder.

    At that time, many photographs, almost all of the photographs, were brought to this firm. The videotapes, various lab reports, various items of evidence pointing at the intruder, and it was designed at that time to put onto a disk a presentation of the intruder evidence.

    Q. Let me stop --

    A. That never was completed.

    Q. Let me stop you there, if I might.

    The photographs, the videos, the reports, the information that was brought to the firm to try to put it into a disk with the presentation, were all of those items either originals or true and correct copies of photographs and videos and reports compiled and obtained by either Boulder police crime scene technicians or members of the Boulder Police Department?

    A. Yes.

    Q. And perhaps also, to some extent, members of the Boulder County District Attorney's office?

    A. Yes. Yes, sir.

    Q. You indicated that it was not finished. Why not?

    A. The project was still in progress when I left the investigation and when Trip DeMuth and other people were removed from the case.

    These items were still at the offices of the multimedia company, and it was after I left the investigation that the disk was brought to me because they could no longer work on it.

    At that time, I did make a decision that I would finish the project of putting together the presentation. I became very familiar with what they call a PowerPoint presentation and the way to take the information and put it onto a computer. And I spent quite a deal of time -- quite a bit of time putting this together.

    And the reason I put it together was to show the District Attorney's office and -- the D.A.'s office the final product of the intruder evidence, and then, also, to use it to show it to the grand jury, which was being put together at that time.

    Q. After you left the investigation in September of 1998, were any efforts made by Boulder authorities to try to prevent you from completing the presentation and to have you literally return the materials and even, perhaps, have those materials destroyed?

    A. Yes.

    Q. Tell us about that, please.

    A. Well, first of all, when I left the Boulder District Attorney's office, I took nothing with me. There was nothing in the form of any type of reports or any type of information. I did have some information on my computer at home relating to the index. That computer information was completely erased, and I had absolutely no information.

    Until that disk was brought to me by the multimedia company, I had no information at all pertaining to this case other than just my own recollection of what happened. When it was brought to me, I did put it together. I did contact the District Attorney's office and told them that I did have this and that I wanted to present that to them. In January of 1998 -- excuse me, 1999, I did present it on two different days to members of the District Attorney's office.

    At that time, I was asked to give it back. I mentioned at that time that I wanted to use it at the grand jury and was told that, perhaps, I wouldn't be able to speak before the grand jury.

    Q. They might not allow you to testify before the grand jury?

    A. That is correct. And they did ask for that disk back. At that time, I said: I think I should think about this for a little bit before I do return it because I am going to insist on speaking before the grand jury as I feel they have to see the other side of this case. I did not know if they were going to show it or not, but this was the best way that I could show that information. So at that time, shortly after that, I was called by Alex Hunter and was advised that there would be an injunction, and that the judge would tell me how I was going to have to return all of this material that was on this disk.
    And at that time, there was various legal paperwork. I obtained the services of two attorneys, Greg Walta and Bob Russel, because I felt that I had to stand up and show this project to the grand jury. And at that time, motions were, again, back and forth whereby they wanted this disk, to not only take it but also to destroy it.

    The lawyers were very incensed by that, and they fought in the court to allow me to keep that particular presentation.

    Q. Was that court proceeding ultimately resolved?

    A. Yes, it was resolved. I believe it was in March of 1999, and I was allowed to keep the presentation. And I was also allowed to testify before the grand jury.


    Q. (By Mr. Wood) I would like to ask you, for purposes of the record, to read verbatim from Defendants' 2, Detective Smit, paragraph 1, under the portion of the order titled "General Stipulation."

    A. Paragraph No. 1 says:

    "The parties stipulate that each of them has acted in good faith in performing the terms of the employment agreement in question, and that this stipulation is entered into in an effort to resolve misunderstanding which may have arisen between them.

    "Detective Smit has entered into these stipulations because he has never had an intention to release information to the public during the pending grand jury investigation.

    "Plaintiffs stipulate that they have no evidence that Detective Smit ever misused any information that was entrusted to him, nor do they have any evidence that he intended to misuse such information in the future."

    Q. Thank you.

    If a charge had been filed against any individual by the grand jury, or at or before the time the grand jury was discharged, what is your understanding as to your ability to share with anyone, including the individual's attorneys, the person charged, any information contained in your PowerPoint presentation?

    A. I couldn't share it with anyone.

    Q. After charges were filed, if charges had been filed.

    A. After charges were filed, I was free to release this information and discuss it with anyone I wanted to, as long as I had agreed not to discuss anything that lawyers had said between each other or with me.

    Q. And is that totally consistent with your understanding of what Colorado law permits?

    A. Yes.

    Q. If not required in terms of disclosure of information to individuals charged?

    A. That is correct.

    Q. And, if you would, in the event no charges were filed -- and that is the case here, the grand jury did not issue any indictment, to your knowledge; did they?

    A. That is correct.

    Q. Look at paragraph 9 of the order, and, if you would, read that into the record verbatim for me, please, Detective Smit.

    A. Yes. Paragraph 9:

    "If no charges are filed by October 1, 1999, Detective Smit shall be free to disclose any information to anyone, but Smit agrees that he shall not at any time in the future disclose any conversations he has had with any attorney working for the District Attorney, or consulted by the District Attorney, unless ordered to do so by a court of competent jurisdiction."

    Q. Thank you.

    Have you ever at any time disclosed any conversations that you have had with any attorney working for the District Attorney or consulted by the District Attorney?

    A. No.

    Q. But you are, in fact, from your understanding and from the clear language of this order, allowed to freely disclose your PowerPoint presentation and other information to anyone since no charges were filed by October 1, 1999; is that right?

    A. That is right.

    Q. I am going to hand you what has been marked for purposes of identification to your deposition as Defendants' Exhibit-3. And, if you would, Detective Smit, tell us what that item is.

    A. That is a computer disk. Exhibit 3 is a computer disk which contains the PowerPoint presentation.

    Q. Now, the PowerPoint presentation has been substantially completed since sometime in late 1998 or early 1999 but has also been a work in progress in that you have continued over time to refine it?

    A. Yes. That is correct.

    Q. Okay. And does Exhibit No. 3, Defendants' Exhibit No. 3, represent a true and correct copy of your PowerPoint presentation on the JonBenet Ramsey case in its current form?

    A. That is correct.

    Q. There are crime scene photographs that are utilized in that presentation; am I right?

    A. That is correct.

    Q. Are the Ramsey crime scene photographs utilized in the presentation derived from true and correct copies of the photographs taken by either members of the Boulder Police Department or Boulder police crime technicians?

    A. Yes.

    Q. There are some additional photographs in the presentation from other law enforcement jurisdictions or investigations, a few; am I right?

    A. I believe so, yes.

    Q. Are those, that portion of the PowerPoint presentation, to the extent you used other law enforcement photographs, did you do so with permission?

    A. Yes.

    Q. And any use of those photographs, would it be based on or derived from true and accurate copies of law enforcement photographs from other investigations?

    A. Yes.


    Last edited: Sep 27, 2010
  4. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Lou: "... it wasn't until others came forward accusing the Ramseys of murdering their daughter in the form of statements and in books and of various appearances that I thought that I had the responsibility of standing up and leveling that playing field, standing up and saying that there is another side to this story; and also to let people know that the killer is still out there, and that efforts should be made to find him. If you just remain quiet, then that killer is free to do anything he wants because nobody is looking for him. So I am trying to show by the presentation and by my presence that there is a very dangerous situation there, that the killer hasn't been caught, and, also, that I don't believe that efforts should be directed towards putting very potentially innocent people in jail and just charging them without a trial. I don't think it is right. There is something wrong inherently in our system with that.

    Q. Do you believe that the Boulder Police Department has participated in stigmatizing John and Patsy Ramsey as being guilty of the death of their daughter?

    A. Yes, I do. If by omission, if nothing else. If they are the only ones that are under the umbrella of suspicion, if they are the only ones that are in the house and there is no evidence of an intruder, and they make that public, I think that does stigmatize the Ramseys.

    I think that, when officials come out with statements that say the Ramseys killed their daughter, I think that that stigmatizes the Ramseys. And I think they have no relief when people do that unless others stand up and defend it. So, I am sure myself and others have stood up, and I probably will continue to stand.

    Q. Do you recall your best recollection as to when you first agreed to be interviewed on camera to discuss the JonBenet Ramsey case?

    A. I can't remember the exact time, but it was with Barbara Walters initially.

    Q. Were on you camera with her?

    A. No. I did not go on camera. I was just telling the story. When I went on camera, I believe it was with Katie Couric.

    Q. Would that be in May of 2001?

    A. Yes.

    Q. Between October 1, 1999, when you were first authorized to share the information you had, to disclose it, up until May of 2001, when you finally agreed to, yourself, publicly appear on camera to discuss the JonBenet Ramsey case, how would you describe the intensity of the efforts of the media, various members of the media, to get you to come out and talk about this case?

    A. It has been very intense right from the very beginning, right from the beginning of this investigation. I said nothing at all until after the grand jury, then spoke very rarely after that except to law enforcement personnel.

    There has been just a tremendous amount of media pressure to have me come forward.

    Q. When you met me, initially in 1999, and at various times thereafter, between that period and May of 2001, what did I try to urge you to do?

    A. You wanted me to come forward also with all the information.

    Q. But during that time period, you resisted?

    A. I did.

    Q. Of what I was urging you to do and what any number of members of the media were urging you to do; didn't you, Detective Smit?

    A. Yes.

    Q. Why?

    A. Because it is inherent, I think, in a detective or anyone in law enforcement not to release police files to the public. It is ingrained in you after a long period of time. It is very difficult to break that tradition of not sharing police information with the public.

    Q. But the time finally came?

    A. Yes, it did.

    Q. And, again, if you could just summarize for us why you made the decision to finally go public in this matter in May of 2001 with an actual appearance, yourself, to discuss the case.

    A. Well, there were various forms of media that were accusing the Ramseys of killing their daughter: radio, television; the tabloids were constantly accusing them of killing their daughter. Also, there were books written. Larry Schiller wrote a book. The parents were very strongly -- not accused of the murder. I thought that was a fairly fair book, but they were presented as killing their daughter. The book with Steve Thomas definitely accused Patsy Ramsey of murdering her child. There were various statements made by officials, including the governor, that the Ramseys killed their daughter, or very strong statements pointing in that direction.

    All of these things, coupled with the media pressure to come forward, made me do that. But the most important thing is that no one was looking for the killer, actively trying to identify him or trying to apprehend this person.

    So that was, I think, the main reason I came forward.

    Q. You appeared on NBC's air in the interview with Katie Couric; right?

    A. Yes.

    Q. And did you make any other media appearances other than the Katie Couric interviews?

    A. Yes. I appeared on Larry King.

    Q. One time?

    A. One time.

    Q. Subsequent to the NBC interview?

    A. Right. And I also appeared on Fox channel with Carol McKinley.

    Q. And did you participate in a documentary that has subsequently been aired in Great Britain?

    A. Yes, I did.

    Q. Who were the individuals who produced that documentary about the case?

    A. That was Mills and Tracey.

    Q. David Mills and Mike Tracey?

    A. Yes.

    Q. That has not aired in the United States; has it?

    A. No.

    Q. Just so the record is clear, Katie Couric, NBC, Larry King, CNN, Carol McKinley, Fox network, David Mills, Mike Tracey; anybody ever offer you one thin dime to talk about this case?

    A. No.

    Q. Have you ever received any money for talking about, being interviewed, preparing a presentation, giving a lecture, any money whatsoever --

    A. No.

    Q. -- for your efforts and your discussion of the JonBenet Ramsey case?

    A. The answer is definitely not.

    Q. Have you ever sought it?

    A. No.

    Q. Would you take it if offered?

    A. No.

    Q. Have you been approached by people that have said you ought to write a book, you can make a lot of money, Detective Smit?

    A. Yes.

    Q. Do you have any idea how much money could have been made by you had you decided to do some of the projects that have been offered to you?

    A. I am sure it would be a great deal of money.

    Q. In the hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not higher?

    A. I would say so, yes. That is not my motivation.


    Q. Would you be kind enough now, Detective Smit, to give us the benefit of going through that presentation subject to hopefully a minimal amount of clarification or elaboration?

    A. Yes, Mr. Wood.

    Q. Thank you very much. A. The first slide that you see here is really what this case is all about. It is about a little girl, JonBenet, who was six years old when she was murdered on Christmas day in 1996.

    What it is about is standing in her shoes; and every one of us, even in this room today, can stand in this little girl's shoes. It is our responsibility to find out who did this to her and to make every effort that we can to find the killer of this little girl so that he doesn't do it again.

    During the majority of my career, I was a working detective. I've spent a lifetime taking many vicious criminals off the street, and every one I have put in prison deserves to be there. I have no intention of changing that now.

    However, I still have a responsibility to the case, not only to try to find the killer of this little girl, but also to make sure we find the right killer.

    This case really boils down to two things: It is either going to be the parents or it is going to be an intruder. And it really is quite that simple. Even though it is a complex case, it boils down to these two things. If there is evidence of an intruder, then it is not the parents. For about the past, actually, five years now, I have looked at every scrap of information made available to me and have analyzed this case.

    I see clues pointing at an intruder, and that is the way the case tells me to go. Past experience has shown me, normally, the crime is what it seems to be. Don't make it complicated. This rule has guided me through many homicides. Almost every homicide I ever have worked, this is a rule that I followed, and I was told this by many experienced detectives: Don't make it complicated. And it has rarely been wrong.

    The Ramsey case initially is portrayed as a kidnapping and a murder. A ransom note was left and a little girl was murdered. On its face, kidnapping and murder. Perhaps it is a kidnapping and a murder. And there is evidence to support this.

    What a detective always looks at first when he looks at a case is motive. What is the motive for someone to kill someone else? You try to establish a motive. That is so important in a case involving homicide.

    Every case I have worked, there has been a motive. In this case, there is also a motive. But what would be the motive for the parents to kill their child?

    I can find no motive for the parents to kill their child. I can find no motive. If there is no motive, then it points strongly at an intruder. It is that simple. It gives you at least a clue of which direction to go. You have to establish motive. What would be the motive for the parents. Just pulling a motive out of the air such as bed-wetting, saying that the parents killed their child because of bed-wetting, and stating it as a fact without substantiation is not evidence. It is only a guess.

    Why would normal, loving parents, with no history of abuse or psychological problems brutally murder their daughter on Christmas night, one of the happiest days of the year for a child?

    I can find no motive. That in itself is a clue -- and I am going to talk a lot about clues -- that we should look at the possibility of an intruder. First of all, there is no history of prior criminal conduct on the part of the parents. Either John or Patsy. None. Zero.

    I don't think I have ever even seen a traffic ticket. These people are not criminals. And there is no evidence that they act or think like criminals. And this is very important. Whoever killed JonBenet Ramsey thinks and acts like a criminal. And I am going to show that to you in how this person does think.

    First of all, there is no bad character traits for either John or Patsy. None. There is a long history of loving family relationships. They are respected in their community. They are active in church and school activities.

    This in itself does not mean that they could not have done it. However, it is a strong indication of their character and stability.

    This is the most investigated family in the world today. If there were any real flaws, someone would have come up with something by now. That has not happened.

    The Ramseys, what is the motive for an intruder? What would be the motive for an intruder to kill JonBenet? This is portrayed as a kidnapping and a murder. The Ramseys were very highly visible at the time of the murder. A kidnapper would look for that.


    JonBenet, on the 6th of December, not three weeks before the murder, she was in the Lights of December Parade. She had her own float, was actually in a car. She had her little tiara on, and she was a little princess, Little Miss Colorado. Thousands of people had seen this. She was in the Boulder Mall, and it was a big event of the Christmas season.
    The Ramsey family themselves, on the 13th of December, not long before the murder, there was a large foyer party at the Ramsey home. Many, many people from their church, hundreds, came and attended the party at the Ramsey home.

    JonBenet herself, on the 20th, just six days before the murder, did a Rock Around the Clock performance at High Peaks Elementary School. Many people watched that. John and Patsy Ramsey, on the 20th, just six days before the murder, Access Graphics Christmas party. Access Graphics was a large company in Boulder. Over 300 employees attended that party at the Boulderado Hotel, and John Ramsey, at that time, thanked everyone for passing the one billion dollar mark in sales. This was a lot of money, and a lot of people were interested in John Ramsey, and he was actually known in some circles as "Billion Dollar John."

    On the 21st, the Daily Camera newspaper came out about Access Graphics passing the billion dollar mark in sales. John Ramsey is featured in this article.

    John Ramsey, Patsy Ramsey, and JonBenet were very highly visible at the time of the murder.

    Q. May I ask you a question, Detective Smit? Was there evidence developed that also showed that the Ramsey home had been in a prior Christmas on the Boulder Parade of Homes?

    A. Yes.

    Q. How many people would have gone through the house at that time? A. The Ramseys, on previous years, had been on the Parade of Homes, and literally hundreds, perhaps thousands of people, had gone through their home at that time.

    The Ramseys were well known in Boulder.

    In December, JonBenet participated in a beauty pageant, the AmeriKids on the Southwest Plaza Mall. Again, many people had a chance to observe her, and she did win an award.


    The Ramsey family, on the 23rd, they did have a Christmas party at their home. And even Santa Claus, Bill McReynolds, writes a letter referring to John Ramsey as "Billion Dollar John."

    Q. When you say Santa Claus, Bill McReynolds, can you elaborate on what you mean in terms of who he was and why he was there?

    A. Yes. The Ramseys almost every year had a large Christmas party for the children. They would actually employ the services of a Santa Claus to come. And by doing that, they had a lot of people over and a lot of children. And they had employed Bill McReynolds before as a Santa Claus, and he was there also on the Christmas that JonBenet died.

    Q. Thank you.

    A. On the 24th, just the day before the murder, there was a very suspicious party parked in a blue van directly across the street from the Ramsey residence. This was in a police report and included in the police files. It was reported by a neighbor. Also, on the 24th, the Ramseys visited the Kostinak family. JonBenet, while she was visiting the Kostinak family, was talking to her little friend Megan, and she said to Megan, in the presence of Megan's mother, that she was going to receive a special visit from Santa Claus after Christmas. And Mrs. Kostinak even replied to JonBenet: Are you sure it is after Christmas? And JonBenet was very insistent it was after Christmas.

    On the 25th, there was a Christmas party at the White's house, just before the murder, just before the Ramseys came home, and there was a suspicious Jaguar vehicle reported in police reports driving back and forth by the White's residence on numerous occasions.

    Q. Now, would you identify more precisely who the Whites are by name?

    A. Yes. It is Fleet and Priscilla White, who are good friends of the Ramseys, and who did attend various functions with the Ramseys.

    Q. And with respect to the Christmas party that you reference in this part of your presentation, what was your understanding from the evidence about the Ramseys' participation at that party?

    A. The Ramseys had just gone there for dinner, and it was just a gathering of friends of both the Whites and the Ramseys, and just where the children got together. And it was just mainly an evening party. It started at about 5:00 and it ended up about 9:00.

    Q. Thank you. A. This family was very visible. Their phone number and address were in the phone book. Anybody could look them up. It wasn't hard to find the Ramseys.

    What would be the motive for the intruder? Another reason, the movie Ransom was actually playing in Boulder, and it just started playing in Boulder in November of 1996. There are references to various ransom-type movies or techno-type movies in the ransom note, not direct quotes, but similarities in what statements are made in these some of these films. And the ones that I have referenced, and I don't have the exact quotes, are: Dirty Harry, Speed, Ransom, a movie called Nick of Time, and Ruthless People, and the movie Seven. And there may be more. I have done research before and after leaving the investigation that there are references or could be references to these type of movies in the -- on the ransom note. The Ramseys were highly visible at the time of the murder. JonBenet was a beautiful little girl. Pedophiles do go for beautiful little girls, and she was a pedophile's dream come true.

    Q. What is a pedophile?

    A. A pedophile is someone who sexually takes advantage of little children, whether male or female.

    And it was publicized Billionaire John Ramsey. I can find no motive for the parents to kill their child, but I can see motives for an intruder. Please allow me to show you some of the clues that I see which point at an intruder. One of the first things I heard that I stated before was that there were no footprints in the snow surrounding the house. And what I first noticed, when I started looking at the photographs -- one of the first things that surprised me was that there was no snow in the areas around the house that allowed access into and out of the house.

    The snow that was seen by the people in Boulder and on the media was a photograph from the front of the house whereby there was snow in the yard, but I am going to show you photographs that were taken before 9:00 in the morning when the Ramseys -- just after the Ramseys had called, they sent in a photographer. And they started taking photographs inside the house and outside the house. And these are photographs that were taken before 9:00 in the morning.

    This is a photograph taken of a door that is located on the north side of the Ramsey home. This is commonly referred to as "the butler door." This is not a usual access, but it is used in the case of a party or so, where a caterer can go through this door, and there is a small kitchen area there in an area where they can prepare the food. This is known as "the butler door." And it is on the north side of the house.

    But if you will notice the sidewalks at this location with this photograph, and it tells you a story, there is not only snow -- no snow on the sidewalks, but there is no snow even on the areas surrounding the sidewalks of that location. This is a photograph of the south

    Page 155

    entrance to the house. This leads into a small area just adjacent to the kitchen of the Ramsey residence. This area is an area that also leads into a play area where the children would often play. This area would be a perfect spot for a person to enter the residence undetected.

    This particular room here is the library, and it juts out just far enough whereby someone who stands near the door would not be observed either from the alley or from the front of the house because the dining area, right here, behind this cast grill, also blocks vision from the other side of the house, from the front. The only way that a person could be seen in this area is perhaps by a neighbor who would be looking towards the north. But even then, there are a lot of trees and bushes in that area. So it is a perfect spot for a guy -- or a person to go into the house. This is where I believe the killer entered the house through a grate. And this grate is located directly behind this gas grill. And there is a grate covering a window well. And that window well goes into a basement area known as "the train room."


    This is a photograph, again, taken before 9:00 in the morning. This photograph also depicts areas where egress or exit could be made from the alley directly adjacent to the garage, which is located on the back of the home. And you will notice here that the sidewalk areas, again, are clear of snow. There is some snow in the yard portion, but, actually, in an area where a person would walk there is no snow.
    This is a photograph that was taken that shows the alley to the back, and it also shows JonBenet's room, which is located up on the second floor. This area just outside of JonBenet's room is a small patio area where they have a couple chairs and a small table. And, actually, from the alley, it is a raised alley, you can almost look into the room of JonBenet from that alley. You can see into the patio area, and you can actually see the windows of JonBenet's room.

    Q. Is there also a door there leading out from her room to the patio, Detective Smit?

    A. Yes. There is a door there that does lead from her room onto the patio area.

    But, again, if you look real closely at this photograph, an early morning photograph, even before the body was found, you are going to see no snow. Even on the table here that is out in the patio area, there is no snow on that table.

    Again, this is another direction that a photograph was taken. This area that you are looking into here is what they more or less call "the sunroom" where it is located more on the front of the house. But even looking in this direction, you can see that the areas back here, where people would walk, is clear of snow. Again, the table is clear of snow.

    This is looking at the house, again, from the front and a small sidewalk area that runs from the front of the house back towards the rear and towards that south door. Again, the sidewalk is clear of snow. And even the areas around the sidewalk are clear of snow.

    The myth or the misconception that there was snow around the house and that there were no footprints in the snow is exactly that. A person can enter this house without leaving

    Page 158

    footprints in the snow, and a person could say, Well, there was a light dusting of snow and there should be footprints or so in there. Even the officers that walked around the house, there were no footprints from them. So just for the media to say that there was snow around the house, no entry could be gained, is not a true statement.

    The Boulder police have also said that there is no sign of intruder entry or exit, which is important. If there is no sign of intruder entry or exit, and there is no sign of an intruder in the house, then it has to be the Ramseys. And that is definitely what is being portrayed, that there is no entry into this house, when, indeed, there is evidence of entry into this house.

    This is observations of the north window of the house. That north door that I talked about is on the north end entry of this house, but also on the north side is a window, right where the pointer is pointed. Where the pointer is right now is actually the front door of the house. This is an area of the house which would be visible from the street. But this window caught my attention when I was first looking at the photographs.

    If you look very closely at this photograph -- and I will show it in more detail later on -- you are also going to see a baseball bat that is lying right directly adjacent to the wall in this area of the residence. This is not an area where children play. This is not an area where they would play ball, but, yet, there is a baseball bat there. And I am just pointing that out at this time. That is the window that first caught my attention, one of the windows.

    This is a basic diagram of the Ramsey residence that shows the basement. This diagram shows the train room, which I think the person came through eventually that got entry into the house, and it shows the wine cellar. But where the circle is at the top of this diagram is the window I am talking about.

    This window leads into a small bathroom area of the house. And that small bathroom area then would lead into various other areas of the basement and also upstairs. There is a stairwell that is located right directly adjacent to this window. A stairway that leads upstairs.

    This is a medium view, a photograph, taken of this particular window. And even from this viewpoint, right here, looking at that window, you can see areas of disturbance, not only on the windowsill, but also on the window frame itself.

    Q. What do you mean when you use the term "disturbance"?

    A. There is disturbance in the dirt and debris on the windowsill and on the window frame. In other words, something has disturbed the debris at that location.

    Q. Moved it?

    A. Pardon?

    Q. Moved it? Cleared it?

    A. It has been moved. It has been touched. And I will show you close-ups of that.

    This is a very close-up view of the windowsill, here below, and the window frame above. And if you look very closely, and that is what I am looking for when I am looking at a photograph, there are indications where there is debris, and then there are indications where there is no debris. Something has touched these areas in order to move the debris away from those areas.

    Also, right in this area where I am pointing at right now looks what appears to be perhaps a fingerprint. But something disturbed that there.

    Also, on the windowsill itself, you see areas where there is dirt and debris right up against the window, and yet there are areas where it is completely clear of debris. And you say to yourself, Well, do you know if this is fresh or if it has been there for a while?

    To me, I have looked at thousands and thousands of photographs, I am sure, in the course of my investigation. I have looked at many photographs. And that is why detectives look at photographs, is to point out these things.

    This looks to me like it is fresh, and it looks to me like it was recently done because of the complete lack of debris in the cleared areas here, especially on the windowsill and the window frame. That circle is where I am indicating.

    This is another view of that same particular area. Again, look very closely, and you are going to see that there is disturbance on the window frame. This is a frame that pushes into the bathroom. You have to push on that frame in order to get in there. Also, there is disturbance, what you can see is various marks right on the windowsill itself. These are very clear marks and are very recent.

    If you look right here in the dirt, you can almost see a cleared area that would indicate maybe even somebody's hand had been here or a couple fingers had been here.

    Q. Again, Detective Smit, this photograph was taken by Boulder police officials on December 26, 1996?

    A. This particular photograph I don't have the date on. It could have been taken --

    [Jams' comments:]
    Q. (By Mr. Wood) My question is, Detective Smit, do you know the time frame within which this photograph was taken and whether the crime scene area had been secure from the time of the crime up until the time of the photograph being taken?

    A. Yes. This photograph -- the crime scene was, was secure. There was tape put around the crime scene. Only authorized people were allowed into that crime scene. And this is the way it should have looked when the police came upon that crime scene. These photographs show us a story. It is telling us a story.

    This is the viewpoint of the inside of that basement bathroom. And it does show this same window. This is a window from the inside. This is also a crime scene photograph. And it does show that there is a latch in place in this window. Our killer did not come in this window, and I am not trying to say that. Our killer most likely didn't. There is also no dirt and debris at all on the ledge that is just below this window. So this photograph also tells us something.

    The train room window is a window that I would like to draw your attention to. This is a diagram of the basement, again, of that house. The train room window is located on the west portion of this diagram. Again, the wine cellar is also located in the basement of the house, but on the southeast portion of this particular diagram.

    When you look at this photograph, again, someone can easily come into this area undetected because of the location of the rooms of these -- of this house.

    The area I am going to draw your attention to is a grate that is right behind this particular gas grill.

    When the crime is reported, Patsy Ramsey reports this crime at approximately 6:52 in the morning -- or 5:52 in the morning. I am sorry. At that time, the police are called. The house is -- the police is called and they come to the house, and the house is searched. The body is found at approximately 1:00 in the afternoon. At that time, when the body is found, the parents should have been brought in and they should have been interviewed at that time, and that was not done. And that is a very critical time in the investigation that this should have occurred.

    Q. To your knowledge, was the family ever asked to be interviewed at that time?

    A. No, the family was not asked. In fact, arrangements were even made so that they could go someplace else.

    Q. Thank you.

    A. That is a very critical thing in this case, and it should have been done.

    The house is secured, and a search warrant is obtained. And the house is entered at 8:00. So what I am trying to say is that, from the time that the crime is reported until the body is found is approximately, let's say, seven hours. At 1:00 the house is secured, and the scene should be exactly like it was at 1:00 when they entered at 8:00.

    Q. Let me ask you a question here, Detective Smit. With respect to the crime scene technician's efforts to photograph, they are not out there to photograph every square inch of the house; are they?

    A. No.

    Q. They don't photograph every window. They generally will photograph anything that appears to them to be out of the ordinary; is that right?

    A. Well, I would say that, on the crime scenes that I have been involved in, we try to get as many photographs as we can, because you can't take enough photographs. I always try to take or have the photographs taken of every area of that house. Even the closets and opening the closets. I like everything photographed so that, just in case later on you have to check these photographs, that you will have them.

    So in this case, I think Boulder Police Department did a pretty good job of photographing this house. But you are right. Sometimes photographs are taken to show the condition of the house when you get there.

    But again, that is one of the very first things that you do when you come to the scene, you take video and you take still photographs of the house. Nobody goes in except the person that is operating the video camera and maybe a detective to make sure that nobody steps in the wrong place or that nobody goes in the wrong area.

    And this is extremely important because you want to record that crime scene exactly as it was when the body was found or when evidence could be developed. You have no other chance to do this. You have to do it right away. This is, this photograph coming up, is the very first photo and video that was taken of the train room basement window. Now, you might ask me what the train room means in a basement. The area in the basement that we are talking about has been referred to as a train room because this is an area where Burke Ramsey had a little train set at one time. And it was set up, basically, on a ping pong table. And it was just an area that he could go down in the basement and play with his trains. So we always referred to it as the train room in our particular reports.

    That is the very first photograph that was taken of that room. And this was a photograph that first drew my attention. I did not know when I looked at this photograph anything surrounding why this window was open. All I know is that the photographer that took this particular picture seen that image with the window wide open, a suitcase directly below that open window, and also a scuff mark down that wall. He photographed this. This is the very first photograph that was taken of that basement train room window.

    Also, on the floor, and I will show that a little bit later, is leaves and debris that came from that window well. If I was on that scene, the very first thing that I would think is that perhaps a person did come in that window. I would think that, perhaps, the first thing I should do is pay particular attention to that particular area so that evidence would not be destroyed.

    Again, this was very significant for me. Did I believe at that time that it was an intruder that came in? No, I didn't believe it was. But the picture is telling me a story. The photographs tell a story. You have an open window leading into a house. Perhaps there is more evidence outside this window which would give you a greater look at what happened that night. If a person came in that window, there should be disturbance outside that window. And that is what I looked for next. Again, that is the open window. A large suitcase on the floor directly below this window, a hard-sided suitcase that had not been there before. The Ramseys stated that it has never been there. It is the only suitcase in that room. It is directly up against the wall of that house.


    [Jams' wrote:]
    [My comment--koldkase: WOOHOOO! Go Chris Wolf! You were the best man in that room by a long shot!!]




    Q. (By Mr. Wood) Detective Smit, for reasons counsel have discussed and decided, we want to go back over some of the area you had discussed several minutes before we took our last break. And before we do that or by way of introduction into that, before, you left off your comments about the north window and moved into that portion of your presentation addressing evidence relating to what is referred to as "the train room window."
    I would like to ask you, if you would tell us, please, the significance to you from a homicide investigation standpoint to the disturbance that you observed in the crime scene photos in the north window and the north window windowsill.

    A. Yes, sir. The significance of these photographs is not necessarily to show entry. It is just to show disturbance.

    Could our killer have tried to get in this window prior to going to the other window? I think there is evidence strongly suggested in this photograph that someone tried to get in this window and did disturb the windowsill and the frame surrounding the window, the dirt.

    Q. And the disturbance that you observed on the photographs in the presentation of the north window, regardless of when that crime scene photo was actually taken, you would have expected that, if the Boulder police had properly sealed the crime scene, that that disturbance would appear in the photograph as it would have appeared on the very early morning hours of December 26, 1996, after this crime was reported. Is that right?

    A. That is correct.

    Q. Okay. Just to clarify that. I appreciate it. If you would now pick back up from your presentation with respect to observations on the north window or moving into the -- yes, please -- the train room window.
    Thank you.

    A. The next area I would like to cover is the train room window itself. And, again, the reason that it is known as the train room is because there was a table in this room where Burke would play with his train set at some time. So that was always just referred to as a train room. The wine cellar, even though it wasn't a wine cellar, it was always referred to as a wine cellar.

    But the train room window is located on the west portion of the basement, and there is a grate that covers a window well at that location. And if a person lifts the grate, you can go down into the window well and gain entry into the train room through that window well.

    Again, this portion of the residence -- again, this is looking at the south door. There is a gas grill that is located directly adjacent to the dining room area. And just behind this gas grill is a grate which covers the window well. And that is where I believe entry was gained into the house.

    Q. (By Mr. Wood) Just for orientation purposes, in which direction is the back side of the house from that view of the house; left or right?

    A. The back of the house is to my left.

    Q. Thank you.

    A. As you are looking at the photograph, it is to your left?

    Q. Thank you.

    A. The front of the house is to the right.

    Q. Thank you.

    A. This area, by the way, is hidden from view because of the design of the library portion and also because of the dining room area. A criminal, if he was going to go into that house, would find this a very good way to get in without being observed.

    The kidnap is reported at 5:53 in the morning by Patsy Ramsey. At that time, when the officers arrived, everyone should have been removed from the scene. And that did not happen. What happened, in fact, is just the opposite. People started to arrive at the scene called by the Ramseys.

    The police, instead of directing these people away and preserving the scene, allowed these people to go in there, and the scene was disrupted and disturbed. And I think it had a great bearing on the case later on.

    The house at that time was searched by officers that arrived at the scene; but, obviously, a thorough search was not conducted because the body of JonBenet was not found. This is the responsibility of the officers that arrived at the scene. They should have found the body. If that would have been found early on in the morning, this case would have taken an entirely different direction.

    The body is found at approximately 1:00 in the afternoon by John Ramsey and Fleet White. At that time, everybody is cleared from the house. It is a crime scene. At that time, evidence tape is put up around the house, the scene is secured, a search warrant is obtained.

    And the house then is reentered at 8:00 in the evening. At that time the coroner is there. A lot of different police officers are there. The crime scene technicians are there. Everybody is waiting to go into the house.

    The first thing that is always done at a crime scene, and what Boulder did in this case, and it was absolutely right, is that video was taken of the crime scene and video photos and also still photos were taken of the crime scene. This is necessary in order to preserve the crime scene so that later on you can go over these photographs, which I had the opportunity to do.

    This photograph that you are going to see is the very first photo and video taken of the basement train room window. And when I had first seen this photograph, it really interested me because the window leading into the basement from the window well under that grate was wide open.

    Now, this photograph, when it was taken by a crime scene technician, was very obvious that it was open. No other information had really been obtained at that time about this crime scene. If I was the officer at the crime scene, I would have definitely said, This could very well be the point of entry or exit from this scene.

    There was a suitcase that was directly underneath this window. There is a scuff mark down the wall, and there are leaves and debris on the floor. All of these things would have lead me to believe that someone came in the window.

    Later on, we did find information that both Fleet White and John Ramsey had been around this window earlier; but at the time this photograph was taken, nobody knew that. This area should have been thoroughly protected for any evidence at all that was left behind by our killer, because he, he came in that window, he would leave something there. And if he left by that window, he would leave something there.

    There is a large suitcase, again, directly below this window. This is a hard-sided suitcase. It was not there before. The Ramseys stated that it was not there before. The housekeeper that was at the Ramsey home and was later interviewed does not have that suitcase there. In fact, I believe Patsy Ramsey or John Ramsey had wanted the glass cleaned up from a window that was broken at that location. No one's seen the suitcase there. There was absolutely no evidence that that suitcase was there prior to that night. And this suitcase does play a very important role in this case.

    According to the police reports that I read, in Fleet White's statement, he said that this suitcase, when he first went down into the room, was located flat against this wall. In other words, right here it is perpendicular to the wall. It was flat, directly against the wall, and it would have been a perfect step for someone to step on that suitcase to go out. Again, there is no reason for that suitcase to be there.

    Q. Before you leave that photograph, Detective Smit, the suitcase in this photograph appears to be what I would describe as perpendicular to the wall.

    A. Yes.

    Q do you agree?

    A. Yes.

    Q. And when you have indicated that it was flat against the wall, is that something you learned from a report given to the police by Fleet White?

    A. Yes.

    Q. And would "flat," for purposes of orientation, mean that the suitcase was basically parallel to the wall and up against it?

    A. Yes, that is correct.

    Q. Okay. That is all I wanted to clarify. Thank you.

    A. Okay.

    Q. Where was it -- oh, one other question. Did you learn from the housekeeper or the Ramseys where that suitcase was normally kept?

    A. Normally, it had been kept upstairs in the guest bedroom, but I believe it had been moved down into the basement area but almost directly adjacent to the stairwell that goes upstairs. Not in this area here at all.

    Q. Thank you.

    A. No other suitcases were found in that room, and they, again, said that that is not where suitcases were kept. And I will talk more about the suitcase later.


    Leaves and debris -- I mentioned this just slightly before. Leaves and debris from the window well were observed on the floor directly below the open window. When that area is blown up -- and, again, there were very few photographs taken of this area. This is one of the very few that actually depicted the suitcase. I did blow this photograph up to show where there are potentially leaves and debris on the floor.
    And there are leaves and debris located around that suitcase. These leaves and debris were from the window well, according to an officer's report.

    There was a mark on the wall directly below this open window, and this is very significant, also. This mark on the wall is in an area where I have gone through that window many, many times, and gone both through it coming in and going through it going out. When I come into that basement area from the window well, that is just almost exactly where my foot goes down that wall.

    When we did it, we put a board in front of there so we wouldn't disturb that mark, but that is just where my foot went. And when I observed other officers going in there, that is where their foot went.

    So then we have to look outside the window. Is there a disturbance there? If there is disturbance inside the window, there should be disturbance outside the window. And here is what we find. There is a grate that covers that window well, and it is a metal grate. And when you -- this is the very first photograph that was taken of that grate. And when you look at this photograph, you can see under the leading edge -- this is the edge here that pivots here towards the rear, but this is the leading edge, and there is all kinds of foliage that was around that particular window well. This foliage is green.

    And what you observe by this photograph, by looking at this closely, is that there are leaves and debris trapped under this leading edge of this grate, leading me to believe that the grate was opened and closed, and it pinched the greenery right under the front portion of that grate. And it is shown very, very clearly here in this photograph.

    The window well. After the photograph was taken of the grate, then the grate is lifted up, and they take photographs of the window well. And this is the first photograph taken of the bottom portion of that window well that leads into the train room window.

    This photograph shows me that there is disturbance on the cement portion of the window well. It is very clear, something has been wiped across these particular areas. There is also what I call impression marks in the dirt on the windowsill itself. The dirt and debris in the window well is moved to the side on both sides of this center window. There are basically three windows here. There is a window to the right, which has a screen on it with a great deal of debris in front of it. There is a window to the left which also has debris in front of it. And I will show that a little later. But it is actually a combination of three windows.

    This center window had been the window that was open when the first photograph was taken. When this photograph is taken at this location at this time, someone had closed that window.

    This slide shows all three windows in a collage. And what it is is that it shows a pattern of disturbance in the bottom of this window well. The main disturbance is in front of the center window. If you will notice real closely, you will also see something else by this photograph. The grate rests on a frame. It is a metal frame that goes all the way around the window well. You will notice that there is green foliage right on top of this metal portion that the grate rests on. This is what the front portion of the grate was resting on. Someone, or somehow, the grate had been lifted and the foliage was then pinched underneath that grate.

    This is a close-up photograph of the left window. And when you really look at this photograph closely, it tells you a story. What you can see real clearly here is that there is disturbance, some disturbance on the cement right in front of that window. There is some disturbance there. But what you also see on this photograph is autumn leaves and debris on that windowsill.

    When I look at this photograph, I can say with certainty that no one went in that window that evening. The leaves and debris are still in front of the window. There is no disturbance on the windowsill. If someone would have entered that particular window, these leaves would have been gone and the debris would have been disturbed.

    This is a very close-up of that. And again, you can see all of the leaves, autumn leaves there. And I reason that I stress "autumn leaves" is because John Ramsey, in the early summer, had also gone in that window. And I am -- not in that window, but in the center window in order to get in his house one time. The way that I recall the reports reading was that John Ramsey had been locked out of the house and that he had actually removed his clothing, including his shoes, and had gone through that window in order to gain entry into the house. In so doing, he broke that window. That was a broken window. And, also, another reason why an intruder, if he came there, would see this, the window being broken, especially if had he any experience at all, would indicate that that was not alarmed, and that someone could gain entrance in there without an alarm. There were alarm stickers on various doors and windows of that house.

    But the autumn leaves, the importance of that is that autumn leaves are against this left window and also in the window well.

    Here is the right window. Again, there is a screen on the window. There is a lot of debris in front. Obviously, no one went in this particular window.

    You can see some area of disturbance just to the left towards the center window, and perhaps whoever went in that window also disturbed that area.

    Q. If I could ask you to go back to that last photograph, Detective Smit.

    A. (Complies).

    Q. The white debris or material depicted in the orange circle, what are those items of debris?

    A. Those are what are called popcorn packing peanuts.

    Q. Styrofoam?

    A. They were Styrofoam peanuts.

    Q. Like would fall out of a box when it has been packed sometimes?

    A. That is correct.

    Q. Thank you.

    A. They are very light in weight, and there was a large accumulation of those in this photograph. Here is, again, a picture of the center window. When you compare it against the other two, look at the absence of debris that is in front of this center window. Something or someone had gone through this window. Again, it had to be recent. These are fresh marks. There are no leaves and debris up against the bottom part, portion of that window frame. Leaves and debris in front of this window suggest very strongly that somebody went in that window and deposited those leaves and debris there.

    This is a close-up of the actual windowsill. Again, you see all kinds of impressions in the dirt and debris -- actually, the dirt on that windowsill. The debris is gone. If you will notice right here, and I am going to bring that up a little bit later, there is one popcorn packing peanut right there in that corner. But notice the impressions that are made on the windowsill.

    This, again, is a close-up photograph of the left windowsill. Compare that windowsill with the one we have just seen. No leaves and debris. No leaves and debris against the frame. A lot of leaves and debris. White marks on the center windowsill. No white marks on the left windowsill.

    Here is a comparison that was made. What happened was that, in June of 1997, members of the Boulder Police Department and the District Attorney's office had an opportunity to go back into the Ramsey residence. At that time, there was an experiment conducted whereby a person would go into the right window. The screen was taken off. And one of the members of the Boulder Police Department went through that window. And I would like to show that.

    This is what it looked like on the photographs taken right after the body was discovered and that the crime scene was being investigated.

    This is after an officer -- we took photographs of what it looked like after an officer went in that window.

    Q. The right window?

    A. Into the right window.

    Q. And this was part of a Boulder Police Department investigative effort here with respect to what you are describing here in 1997?

    A. Yes. That is true.

    Q. Okay. A. And what you will notice here again, look at the similarities to the impressions and marks on the windowsill.

    First of all, all of that debris, or a great majority of the debris that had been right up against that window was gone. It was deposited on the floor directly below that window when the officer went in. Also what you see is disturbance on the cement portion in front of that window, just a little bit of disturbance, but you see the actual impressions in the debris on the windowsill itself.

    Compare those with the ones taken at the crime scene right after the murder. This is the center window on December of 1996. This is when entry was gained in June of 1997. Again, look at the similarities in the impressions.

    Now, a question has been asked: If you just have impressions like that, how do you know that a person went in there? Usually, when a person slides across a window well, you are going to have a nice wipe mark, or any other purpose, by your butt going across that windowsill, and it is not here. You don't see a nice clear white mark there. But that is explained, and it is very easily explained by this. Directly inside of the window, right where it enters the basement, there is approximately a three-quarter inch lip right on the inside. And I will depict that with the pointer, and then we will get a closer look up of that. When you slide across that particular area, you cannot leave a nice little wipe mark there because you have to get your butt up over that particular obstruction. It is approximately three-quarters of an inch high, and it is a metal lip that is around all the window --

    Q. All three?

    A. -- all three windows.

    And this here is a picture that was taken, actually, in my presence on December of 1999. This shows that lip a lot better. In other words, when are you sliding yourself across that particular area, it is hard to make a nice complete wipe mark because of this particular lip there. Here is another little observation. It is an observation, but it is also a clue left by the killer. If you look very closely at the windowsill itself in the bottom -- or in the middle window, you are going to see where there is a lot of dirt and debris on the leading edge of that sill. This is the leading edge of the sill that is in the windowsill, on both sides. But, yet, in the middle, there are areas there that are shiny which appears as though something did go across that particular area disturbing the dirt in that area.

    Q. And that photograph is from the December '96 crime scene photos?

    A. That is from the December of '96 crime scene photos.

    Q. Let me ask you, Detective Smit, the disturbance that you see, the impressions, you have indicated you thought they were recent?

    A. Yes.

    Q. What do you base that conclusion on, that the impressions in the center window were recent?

    A. I base that on a couple of things. One is the lack of the autumn leaves and debris in front of that window. And another thing is, too, if you have an exposed area like a window well for any length of time, you are going to get an even distribution of dirt and debris on that windowsill. It is going to be black. It is going to have all kinds of small particles on it. You are going to have pine leaves on there from the trees surrounding the Ramsey house. What looks fresh to me -- and, again, I have observed many, many, probably thousands of photographs -- is the fact that there is even a shiny area like this in the center of that middle window that does show what I call very fresh disturbance.

    Q. And does it show any new accumulation of leaves or debris?

    A. No. There is no new accumulation of leaves or debris.

    Q. Thank you.

    A. Here is another observation. Is it a clue that the killer left behind? Again, when you look at photographs for a long period of time, every time you look at them, you see other areas interest. And in this case, there is a shard of glass. And I will point it out first with the pointer, and I will blow it up. This shard of glass is laying, actually, in the window well itself, but it is resting against the bottom portion of that windowsill area. And one important thing about this shard of glass is the shape. And if you will look, you will see that there is a very pointed end on this shape. And it will also, also on the windowsill in one of the lighter areas, there is that same pointed shape. The same configuration as on the glass is on the disturbed portion of that windowsill.

    Q. What significance does it have to you? A. The significance it has for me is that this piece of glass was, most likely, lying in the area that is depicted in the bare portion of that windowsill. You can see it better on the enlarged diagram.

    Again, look at the shape and look at the exposed area. If that piece of glass had been lying in that particular area and not disturbed, it would be covered with dirt and debris, and you would not have had that light area underneath it because the dirt and debris would have been on the shard of glass. It appears to me as though this shard of glass was moved from that location to this location rather recently. Because if it was a long time, then all of this area that seems clear of debris would have been covered with dirt.

    If you look at it very closely, and by the use of the computer, this is what or where the piece of glass most likely was prior to it being moved recently.

    And, again, does this mean that the killer went in there or out of there? I don't know. All I can say is what the photographs show me. It shows a disturbance. You can't -- you can't go against what photographs show you. It is a disturbance in the window well.

    These photographs are not manufactured. This is something that is taken at the crime scene. The photographs are trying to tell us a story, and we have to interpret them.

    Again, was this piece of glass disturbed when a person possibly went out the window? Or went in the window? It is just part of a story. And one of the many little things which point to me that a person did go in that window in a very close proximity of time to the murder. I can't say it was that night. No one can say that. But I can say it was very recent. But no one can also say that no one went in that window. That is the important part.

    Observed on the center window, the frame is taken out; this window frame is taken out and it is preserved as evidence.

    Q. By the Boulder Police Department?

    A. By the Boulder Police Department.

    Again, if you will notice, this is the window that John Ramsey broke in early summer. Notice how dirty these windows are. That is an observation. Notice how dirty the windows are. There are four panes of glass in this window.

    Q. Let me ask you, Detective Smit, would you highlight with your marker the pane that was broken by Mr. Ramsey when he went in that window back in the summer of 1996? A. Yes, sir. This is the glass that was broken. And there had been quite a bit of glass below this window at one time, but it had been picked up.

    Q. Would you have been able -- one would have been able to put their hand through that broken pane and unlatched that window from that area?

    A. Yes. In fact, it is very easy. You can unlatch it right from the right-hand side there and just unlatch that area very easily. That is how John Ramsey got in before.

    Page 210

    Q. After he broke the window pane, he reached in and unlatched it; is that your understanding?

    A. That is correct.

    Q. Thank you.

    A. But, again, I am just pointing out how dirty these windows are.

    I will have to back up here just a second.

    If you will notice, if a person went in that window, he would also have to touch it in order to push it open. So that is one of the things I looked for on the photograph in order to determine if someone may have disturbed any other area on the window. And at the top of the window, I do notice that there is a slight disturbance.

    And so, with the use of the computer, I can blow that area up. And you can see it a little more clearly right here in this photograph. And then, when that area is focussed in on, that is what it looks like as far as disturbance on the actual window frame itself. This is a window frame. Something disturbed the dust and debris on that window. It didn't happen by itself.

    Also, if you look very closely, you will see what appears to be perhaps a partial either a fingerprint or perhaps a glove print that is in that same area.

    If you change the focus just a little bit, the contrast, you can actually see this mark on the window just a little bit easier. It is more pronounced. There is another area that is seen on the window frame. Right in the area of where there is the disturbance that looks like it is perhaps a print of somebody trying to push on is another area where there is a pattern mark. And right where my pointer is pointed right now is the area that I am talking about. When that is blown up, you see a pattern mark in the debris and the dirt on that window.

    Again, this does not happen by itself. This is not a natural thing. Something had to be pressed against that area in order to make that pattern mark. Again, when did it occur? I can't say.

    But if it had been there for any length of time, that would have been filled in by dirt and debris.

    Here is one of the window panes. And I really had to look for this one. I didn't see it right away. But after looking at the photographs for a long time, this is a very dusty, dirty window. And, yet, if you look right in the -- if somebody touched this window, they should leave a mark on it. And right here on the window, if you look very closely, you will see a definite disturbance in the dust in the window at that location.

    If you blow it up, you can even see it clearer. Again, this is dust on a dirty window. This is a disturbance in that dust that looks like a finger mark. Is it a fingerprint? I can't tell. Were prints taken of that area? I can't tell, and I have never seen a report where fingerprints were taken. Could it be a glove mark? I don't know.

    Just above it, also, there is another one, if you look very closely. Just above it there is another print and disturbance on the window pane.

    Q. Is it a clue?

    A. It is a clue. All of these things you have to look at as clues.

    Q. And are these --

    A. Go ahead.

    Q. Are these the kinds of observations and clues that a trained and experienced homicide investigator would be expected to look for in reviewing, carefully and meticulously, crime scene photographs?

    A. Yes, especially --

    Q. This isn't just Lou Smit's way of approaching it; is it?

    A. No, it is not Lou Smit's way of approaching it. It is how you solve crimes. You have to look for the small, little, what would seemingly be an insignificant disturbance or something on a photograph that stands out that you have to, just by a trained eye, observe.

    Again, most of the time, it is done in whodunit type crimes, because you go over these photographs all the time. And again, I didn't see it right away; but, again, it is clear, something touched that window. And in my estimation, it was very recent.

    Again, with a little higher contrast, perhaps you can see it a little easier. This is a print in question. This is a print in question. Something touched that window and disturbed that dust on that window.

    And I guess I have said it before, but I can only say it. Can I say that a person went through that window that night? No, I can't say that night. But can a person tell me that nobody went through that window? Absolutely not. Something happened in order to disturb the dust and debris on that window.

    Q. What is suggested by that information?

    A. It is suggested very strongly that someone came in that window. And there are fresh leaves and debris right below that window, and there is a mark on that wall. It suggests very strongly. It is just not one little thing that suggests this to me. If it was just one little thing, I would say, Okay, maybe not. But when you have little clues after little clues after little clues, and they all show that somebody came in that window, you better pay attention to that. At least it tells a detective which way to go. It shows them a path to follow. If somebody came in that window, it is not somebody in the house.

    Items in the wine cellar which may have come from the window well. Again, observations, clues. This here is the train room window. This is the wine cellar. Items were -- from the window well, which could have come from the window well, are found in the wine cellar. The wind wouldn't blow these in, because it has to go through the whole room, through a door, through another door, and through another door. I doubt --

    Q. That --

    A. -- the wind would do that.

    Q. That window is below ground level, too; isn't it? A. And the window is below ground level. Again, these packing peanuts are seen all throughout the window well. There is even one in the center window. That is the only thing that is in there.

    Numerous pieces of popcorn-type material, Styrofoam. I have gone in and out of that window, other people have gone in and out of there in my presence. When I look at their clothing after they have gone in there, the popcorn peanuts, and on myself as well, adhere to your clothing. The static electricity will cause them to adhere. Many times I have had to wipe them off my pants.

    Q. And where was the popcorn Styrofoam packing material found in the basement?

    A. Okay. A lab report indicates a piece of popcorn-type material was found in the wine cellar.

    Q. That is where JonBenet's body was found? A. That is where JonBenet's body was found. Again, this is a photograph. There are not hundreds of pieces of popcorn in there. But what appears to me that could be the popcorn, and I don't know this for a fact, only by going by the lab report, but right in this area there is what appears to be perhaps a Styrofoam popcorn peanut.

    Q. And the lab report was a report prepared by the Boulder Police Department?

    A. Yes, sir.

    Q. And does that report the type of data or information that a homicide investigator would reasonably rely upon in the course of a homicide investigation?

    A. Yes.

    Q. Thank you.

    A. Again, how would it get in there unless it was carried in?

    A leaf may not mean much to a lot of people, but is it a clue left behind by the killer? Many leaves in this window well, autumn leaves. And you can see them very clearly in the photograph that you have.

    In the wine cellar right next to very fresh prints in that mold is a leaf. Again, does it mean anything? Don't just throw that leaf away and say it doesn't mean anything. Perhaps it means a lot. There is not a lot of leaves in this room, but there is one. It is autumn. Somebody tracked in an autumn leaf into that room. This is right on top, basically, of a print, a fresh print in the mold. Did somebody track something in there from the window well? Does that point back at that window well? Sure, it could very well point back at that window well. Just don't throw it away.


    Q. The white material in that photograph, is that the mold that you are referring to?

    A. Yes. All of this white material is the mold that actually almost grows from the floor of this damp basement by humidity and by just the actual chemical composition of the moldy material.

    Q. Is that the mold that you earlier in your testimony today referred to was found in various patches in the wine cellar both on the floor and even on the wall?

    A. Yes, it is.

    Q. Unique to that room in the basement?

    A. It was unique to that room in the basement.

    Q. Thank you.

    A. The suitcase -- again, I am going back to the suitcase. If someone would have stood on that suitcase, again, there should be some little clue that a person did this, some disturbance to that suitcase, something on that suitcase which
    would draw your eye to that.

    Again, if someone was going to go out that window, I would go and probably put a suitcase or something there to stand on. And one of the reasons is this. You can see the open window, but this window does not open all the way because it is blocked by a soffit up here on the top of the window. It just opens partially, and then you have the soffit on the window. This is not a big area. This is not a large area that you can go through. It is about a 20-inch area when that thing is opened all the way.

    To lever yourself up -- this is approximately five feet from the floor where that bottom part of that window is. To lever yourself up into that window takes some effort in order to get it just right so that you can lever yourself up there. By standing on a suitcase -- many times I have gone through there with ease; no problem. You stand on the suitcase, right into the window well, and right out of that area.

    Q. Detective Smit, you referenced the fact that the window in the middle is a small area, not a large area. But you have made the comment on several occasions in your testimony that you have on several occasions yourself gone both in and out of that window. Is that right?

    A. That is correct.

    Q. Was that done during the time that you were employed by the Boulder District Attorney's office as well as after the time you left the D.A.'s office?

    A. Yes. I have actually spent more time in there after.

    Q. There has been some media comment, tabloid or otherwise, that would indicate that someone would have to be a midget to get in or out of that window. Are you familiar with that statement that has been made about that window?

    A. Yes, I have. And that is just misinformation.

    Q. How tall are you?

    A. I am 5'9".

    Q. And your weight?

    A. Approximately 160.

    Q. Did you have any trouble getting into that window?

    A. No trouble at all getting in. And I have seen larger people, 6 foot and larger, 200, 221 pounds, go right in that window well.

    Q. People involved in the investigation?

    A. Yes.

    Q. Did you actually allow an NBC camera crew, as well as a film crew for producers Mills and Tracey, to film you coming through that window?

    A. Yes.

    Q. Thank you.

    A. I did. This is actually a picture of me standing on another suitcase afterwards, and just to show you the relationship of how a person would approach the window and step on a suitcase and go out.

    Q. And is that also an accurate depiction of the arrangement of the suitcase as described by Fleet White before it was turned by him perpendicular to the wall? A. Yes.

    Q. Thank you.

    A. That is just the way it would have been.

    Q. Thank you.

    A. There was no close-up photograph of the actual top of that suitcase, but there was a video taken which clearly showed the suitcase, a view inside the window well, and also the video camera panned down to the top of the suitcase. And the reason, I believe, that it panned down there is because there was something on the suitcase that drew the person that was taking the video's attention. And this was a very small piece of glass. So I took out a frame of the video and turned it into, basically, a still photograph. And that is what it depicts. This area right here, where the pointer is, in that area there is a very small, tiny piece of glass. It is almost the size of a pea, even a small pea. Now, that may not mean much when you first look at it, but it tells me a couple of things. No. 1 is that, if that suitcase would have been moved a lot during the course of the evening, that would have fallen off. So that suitcase was probably not moved too much before that piece of glass was put on there. The second thing it tells me is that many times, in working burglary scenes and where entry has been gained, even on homicides, we always have search warrants and searches for the shoes of the suspect because many times if a window is broken, they do walk in the glass, and glass is on their shoe. And many times a piece of glass, just like this, can come off the bottom of a shoe.

    If you look at that photograph for any length of time, you are going to see something else that is on that photograph, and I didn't see it right away either. If a person stood on there, there should be some disturbance on the top of that suitcase.

    If you look very closely with a higher setting -- I am going to back that up just one. If you look very closely, you are going to see an impression on the top of that suitcase. Something disturbed the dirt and debris on top of that suitcase. There wasn't much debris on it to begin with, but something caused these marks to be on the top of the suitcase.

    With a higher contrast setting, you can see it much clearer. Something disturbed that. Was it somebody standing on that suitcase for some reason? Did someone stand on that suitcase? All I can say is that the photographs tell a story. You just can't throw it away. Is it another little piece of evidence that is a part of this crime scene?


    There is another thing that I did after I left the official investigation. We left the window closed for a period of approximately six weeks.

    Q. This would be the center window?

    A. The center window. We went back in in December of 1999. We had left the window closed for approximately six weeks. When we opened the window, we took a picture of the bottom of this window frame, and what we observed was many little areas where there are cobwebs and little pieces of debris that were hanging down from the lower portion. This is usually because of spiders and things in that particular area. They will weave their webs anywhere that they can, and this is probably evidence of a spider that had a web there. This is a picture -- right after we took the picture of the spiderwebs hanging down, I went through that window to the outside as if a person had left through that window. And this is a picture taken after I went through, and you will notice that all of the leaves and the debris in small areas are gone.

    Q. Meaning the cobwebs?

    A. The cobwebs. And the reason they are gone is because they rubbed on my clothing as I went out. It was just small enough for my clothing to come in contact with the bottom portion.

    And you say, Well, what is the significance of that? In the first photograph that was taken at the scene -- this is the only photograph I have, but I see no cobwebs hanging down from that open window. Could that mean that a person did go out that window and did rub them off? I can't say positively, but it is just another clue that is left behind that shows me that someone very easily could have done this. You keep adding on these small clues continuously, and it makes a very big clue that a person came in that window. Now, are the footprint, the small piece of glass on the suitcase, the open window, the disturbance in the window well, no cobwebs, all of these things, every one of these little snapshots and every one of these little photographs, are they just clues that are left behind by the killer? Again, you can't just throw it away.

    I said before that one of the things that a police officer does and a detective does on a scene is not only say that a person did it, but also what a defense would say in case you did arrest somebody. They would come up with the same photographers. They would see the same things we did because they would be going over every piece of evidence, and they also would say a person came in the window. You have to be able to defend that.

    Q. Let me ask you, Detective Smit, based upon your 35-plus years of law enforcement experience and your experience in homicide investigations, and I take it, in actually burglary and other types of investigations where there is exit and entry, what do all these clues suggest to you? A. They suggest very strongly to me that someone gained entry into that house recently and that this very likely could have been the intruder that killed JonBenet.

    Also, another clue found in the suitcase. It had items in the suitcase. By the way, this particular suitcase was a Ramsey suitcase. It was used by John Andrew, the older son of John Ramsey. In this suitcase -- and, normally, he did keep it upstairs. In this suitcase was a sham, which is more or less like a pillow cover, a duvet, which is something similar to a cover on a bed, and a Dr. Seuss book, which is normally read by children. One of the lab examiners from CBI, Colorado Bureau of Investigation, issued reports which I have seen -- or which I had seen indicating the following: Fibers from the sham and duvet were found on the shirt of JonBenet that she was wearing when she was found. But they were on the outside of the shirt. Fibers from that sham and duvet were on the outside of the shirt. And that is significant. How would they get there on the outside of the shirt? Perhaps, did our killer try to put JonBenet in that suitcase at some time or that, or somehow the sham and duvet were outside the suitcase and she was lying on it? All I am saying is that those fibers tell a little -- tell a story.

    Q. And is that report by Ms. Murphy of the CBI the type of report, the type of data, the type of information that a homicide investigator would reasonably rely upon in the course of a homicide investigation?

    A. Yes, sir. It would.
    They were also on the body of JonBenet, in the vaginal area. Duct tape from her mouth on these fibers on it is. And on the hand ligature.

    Now, I also had seen another report from the FBI that said that these fibers were not from the sham and duvet, and I think it is important I put this in the presentation. But the fibers that were found on JonBenet, there was no source for these fibers. In other words, whatever left it there was not found in that house. And great care was taken to take every item from that house which could leave this type of a fiber.

    Q. Was the conflict between the CBI report and the FBI report with respect to those fibers, the fibers that are described here found on the front and back of JonBenet's shirt, on her body in the vaginal area, the duct tape on her mouth, and the hand ligature, to your knowledge, was that conflict ever resolved while you were involved in the investigation?

    A. No.


    A. The stun gun, I believe, the use of the stun gun is a very large, very important clue left behind by the killer. We cannot disregard this.
    If a stun gun is used on JonBenet, it is not the parents. There is absolutely no reason for the parents to use a stun gun on their daughter, even if it was staged. The stun gun is very important. A stun gun was used in this crime.

    The Boulder police have said that a stun gun was not used. Let's take a look at what the photographs show us. There are marks on the body and on the face of JonBenet. The marks that are on the screen now are the marks on the back of JonBenet. Two distinctive marks on her back that is on, actually, on the left side a little bit below midline but just above the buttocks area of the little girl.

    You will notice by this photograph that there is a ruler in there that shows that these marks are approximately 3.5 centimeter apart. You will also notice that there are some white lines on her body.

    Q. These are actual photographs from the autopsy?

    A. These are photographs from the autopsy. These white lines are a very good indication that she was lying on something after death, and after death, that there are impressions made on the body, they are white in color.

    The marks on JonBenet are red in color. Red, to a coroner -- and I worked for the coroner's office as an investigator -- and to a detective, red is before dead. In other words, these marks were placed on JonBenet before she died.

    We have to explain these marks. They didn't just happen. Something caused the marks on the back of JonBenet.

    Q. And, Detective Smit, why do you reach the statement that a red mark indicates a mark made before death? What is it about the color?

    A. The redness of the mark indicates that there was blood flow, some flow of blood in the body. After death, there is no flow of blood. The marks are white. This is a very clear indication that these marks were put on the body of JonBenet before she died.

    You will also notice a little bit of a redness there on the back of JonBenet. That redness, JonBenet was lying on her back, and there is a certain amount of what we call lividity. If a body is lying, let's say, on their back, the blood has a tendency to go to the bottom, down to the lowest level. So there is a redness caused by lavidity, by the blood settling. Even in the marks, there is a -- when a body is lying for any length of time, there is lividity. These marks are not lividity. These marks are a different color, even the lavidity on the bottom, of the back.

    These are the marks on the face of JonBenet. Again, these -- this photograph was taken as a part of the autopsy. Something made these marks on the face of JonBenet. And when -- when I was looking at these photographs, one of the first things that I tried to determine was, What could have made these marks? Was there anything in the basement that could have made these marks? Was there anything that she could have been pushed against that would have made these marks? I found absolutely nothing in the report at all that could have made those marks on the face of JonBenet. And at the time, I was unfamiliar with stun gun marks. I did not know what a stun gun mark looked like.

    One thing about the marks that I -- that I had finally seen and put together was that the marks are basically the same color as each other.

    For instance, the marks on the back of JonBenet are the same color as the marks on the face. The marks on the face of JonBenet do not bleed, either mark, or the marks on the back. There is no swelling associated with the marks. There is no bruising associated with the marks. Both of these sets of marks have the same characteristics. They are not blisters. They are very distinctive, and they look alike.

    And another thing that was brought to my attention when I was looking at these photographs, the marks are the same distance apart. Two marks on the face, two marks on the back. Same distance apart. Two sets of marks.

    When I had seen where there were two sets of marks, something would have to make two sets of marks, an object, an item, and that is when it was determined, Could it be a stun gun that left these marks? A stun gun would leave similar marks, marks that looked like almost electrical -- like something electrical had touched it. Almost like electrical burns. But with a burn, there is charring, and I had known that from working with the coroner's office. This isn't charring. So it wasn't a cigarette burn. It was something that was made with an object, like a stun gun. And that is when myself and others started looking very seriously at a stun gun.

    Q. The marks on the back of JonBenet were found, I believe you said, the left lower side below midline?

    A. Yes.

    Q. And the marks on her face were found on what side? A. On the right side of the face near the ear and near the jaw.

    Q. The marks on the face, Detective Smit, appear to be of a significantly different size. Is that size discrepancy something that you will address later in your presentation?

    A. Yes, I will address that, because --

    Q. Thank you.

    A. -- we dealt with that and could make similar type marks.

    The marks are the same distance apart. This is a very close-up view of the marks on the back of JonBenet.

    Detective Trujillo, one of the detectives working the case, noted in his report of the autopsy that they were rectangular in shape; and if you will look very closely, they are slightly rectangular in shape, both marks.

    Q. Was that report by Detective Trujillo the type of data or information that a homicide detective would routinely use in the course of a homicide investigation?

    A. Yes.

    Q. Use and rely upon?

    A. Yes, sir, it is.

    Q. Thank you.

    A. Again, reddish in color; before death.

    The marks are consistent with each other in size and shape, the marks on the back are. They are consistent with each other. On the face they are not consistent with each other. One is big, one is small, but the same distance apart. And I will explain later why this is.

    You will also notice that in the middle of the large mark, if you look very closely, there is an area that is even a little bit darker in color, a little bit difference in the coloring of the skin at that location.

    Again, looking at both of them, two sets of marks. So starting with the premise that a stun gun could be used, I conducted a stun gun follow-up. And the closest stun gun that we could find to the injuries, and it is very close, and I believe that it is the stun gun used, is an AirTaser stun gun.

    Q. Was the stun gun that we identified as Defendants' Exhibit No. 69 an AirTaser stun gun?

    A. Yes, sir, it is.

    Q. The type that you believe was used on JonBenet?

    A. Yes.

    Q. Thank you.

    A. The measurements between the contacts are approximately 3.5 centimeters, and the size of the contacts and the shape of the contacts are just like the injuries to the back of JonBenet.

    Different manufacturers of stun guns have different voltages and measurements between the contacts. The contacts of the AirTaser stun gun compare the closest to matching the injuries on JonBenet that we had found so far.

    When you activate the stun gun, this is what you see. It is an electrical charge that goes between the contacts. If it is held against the body, that electrical charge does go through the body. And like you heard with the prior experiment, when it goes through the body, it is very quiet.

    This is a photograph that shows a comparison between the marks on the back of JonBenet, blown up, and also the head of the stun gun, blown up. You will notice many things about this particular photograph.

    No. 1, take a look at the actual size of the stun gun mark on the back and the actual size of the contact. That is on both marks. Not exactly the same, but even in our experiments, we could not get them exactly the same because the conductivity of the skin and also perhaps even the clothing that would have been on JonBenet could have made it just a little bit off. But the marks are the same. They match up not only with the size of the contact, even the shape of the contact. And we will probably see more slides that show that. The shape of the contact is slightly -- and I will have to show this with a pointer -- slightly rectangular in shape. The marks, slightly rectangular in shape. The size, the same. The distance, the same.

    This is having a ruler on both areas so that you can see the distance between the two. Again, when you talk exactly the same, no. Very, very, very close to the same, yes. They are approximately 3.5 centimeters.

    These are the comparisons that I see with the stun gun and the marks on the back of JonBenet. They are within 1 millimeter of being the same distance apart.

    Q. Within 1 millimeter of being exactly the same?

    A. Exactly the same distance apart.

    The contacts of the stun gun compare with the size of the marks. That is two comparisons. The same shape, rectangular in shape. That is three comparisons. And another comparison is that the rectangles actually face the same way. You don't have one rectangle up vertically and one horizontally. Both of them are horizontal marks on the back. And I will show you a close-up of that. They face the same direction. Again, each mark faces the same direction as the contacts.

    All clues which point at a stun gun. The marks that are on the back of JonBenet were made by a stun gun. And you just can't stop there. You have to continue investigating in order to show that a stun gun was used because this is such an important clue left behind by our killer. If it is not a stun gun, what is it?

    Q. You indicated that the Boulder Police Department, Detective Smit, would not agree with the idea that these pairs of marks that were found on JonBenet were attributed to a stun gun.

    A. That is correct.

    Q. Was the Boulder Police Department, to your knowledge, ever able to come up with any plausible explanation for those matching pairs of marks?

    A. No. They were just classified as "unexplained abrasions."

    Q. Did the Boulder Police Department ever attempt to contact Dr. Michael Doberson to seek out his views on whether those marks were made by a stun gun?

    A. Yes.

    Q. And did you learn later that the Boulder Police Department, when they approached Dr. Doberson, had not given him the benefit of all of the information and photographs they had on the marks on JonBenet's body? A. That is correct. They didn't show them all of the photos.

    Q. Did you?

    A. Yes.

    Q. Did you and Dr. Doberson work together in analyzing the crime scene evidence and conducting additional experiments and tests in an effort to make the determination of whether, in likelihood, a stun gun was used on JonBenet?

    A. Yes.

    Q. Did Dr. Doberson, the medical examiner in Arapahoe County, to your knowledge, reach an opinion about the use of a stun gun on JonBenet?

    A. Yes.

    Q. And what was his opinion?

    A. With a reasonable degree of certainty, a stun gun was used. Medical certainty, a stun gun was used on JonBenet.

    Q. Are you familiar with the fact that Dr. Doberson equates a reasonable degree of medical certainty with the percentage equivalent of being 95 percent certain?

    A. That is correct.

    Q. Is that type of conclusion and opinion by Dr. Doberson the type of information or data that a homicide investigator reasonably relies upon in the course of a homicide investigation?

    A. Yes, sir, it is.


    Q. What is Dr. Doberson's reputation in the law enforcement and medical community in the state of Colorado, to your knowledge, Detective Smit?

    A. Yes, he is a forensic examiner. Not just a coroner. He has all of the medical degrees that go along with being a forensic examiner. And his reputation is outstanding.

    In fact, I believe he was even called down to the World Trade Center and worked there at the bombing.

    Q. To identify victims?

    A. Yes.

    Q. You are about to go into a portion of your presentation that addresses the case of Gerald Boggs, an individual who was a crime victim; right?

    A. Yes.

    Q. The case of Gerald Boggs, was that investigated by Dr. Michael Doberson?

    A. Yes. He was the coroner.

    Q. Were crime scene photographs in terms of Mr. Boggs, his condition after being exhumed, did you utilize some of those in your presentation?

    A. Yes, sir, I am.

    Q. The photographs that you utilized of Mr. Boggs' exhumation, were they derived from true and correct photographs taken by law enforcement authorities regarding that exhumation?

    A. Yes, they were.

    Q. All right. So, if you would proceed. Thank you.

    A. Just matching the stun gun with the marks isn't enough. So I went further and found that there was a case in Colorado involving a stun gun death involving a man named Gerald Boggs. It was known, I believe, as "the Black Widow case" in Colorado.

    A wife and another man murdered the husband; and when a confession was obtained later, it was determined that they had used a stun gun. They had observed injuries on the face of Mr. Boggs during the autopsy, but they conducted -- in order to see if the confession was true, they had recovered a stun gun; they wanted to match up the marks with the stun gun. And so they exhumed the body, and I believe it was approximately about nine months later after the death. After the exhumation, this is what Gerald Boggs looked like. It just so happens that Gerald Boggs, in the course of stun gunning him, the marks were right on the same side of the face as JonBenet. Again, a large mark and a small mark. How could a stun gun leave a large mark and a small mark? And the answer is in our experiments and also in Dr. Doberson's experiments.

    When a stun gun is placed against the skin, if it is in direct contact with an area of the skin and the contact is directly against it, it leaves a small mark.

    If the other contact is even slightly above the skin, there is an arc of electricity that dances around the skin, and it breaks the capillaries on the surface of the skin. It don't char it. It don't burn it. But it breaks the capillaries. And that is what makes stun gun injuries so significant and observable. They are very distinctive. Stun gun injuries are very distinctive once you get to know what you are looking for.

    Q. So if -- I am sorry. I interrupted you. Go ahead. A. Dr. Doberson knew what he was looking for. And he did conduct experiments as a result of exhuming the body of Mr. Boggs.

    Q. Just to make sure it is clear, direct contact from an electrode on a stun gun will result in a smaller mark?

    A. Yes.

    Q. And if the other electrode is not in direct contact but is above the skin, it will result in a larger mark?

    A. Yes.

    Q. And does that explain the discrepancy found in size with Mr. Boggs?

    A. Yes.

    Q. And do you believe, along with Dr. Doberson, it also explains the discrepancy in the size of the marks found on JonBenet's right side of her face?

    A. Yes, I do.

    Q. Would you proceed.

    A. This is more of a close-up view of Mr. Boggs. Again, you will notice the larger mark and the smaller mark. And notice, again, the defect in that larger mark. JonBenet had a defect in her larger mark, also. This is what Gerald Boggs looked like at the autopsy. And one thing that I noticed that was a little different was the coloring of the actual stun gun mark. It is more red and reddish in color, and the one on here, also. Over time, the marks do become darker.

    Just as this is the photograph after exhumation, you will notice that the marks did become darker.

    Q. You have your red pointer, Detective Smit; you can show us the two marks again very precisely on Mr. Boggs?

    A. Yes. The large mark and the small mark on the ear. Since the ear protrudes a little bit beyond the skin, I can see where that second mark was a direct contact mark.

    Another thing about marks like this. You say, Well, how come one mark is bigger than another? Like on JonBenet on her back. On JonBenet's back, the marks are the same size and they are small. There is no area where the electricity had danced around making a circular pattern and breaking the capillaries. The injuries on the back of JonBenet were direct contact. Later on, I will show you experiments with a pig where direct contact was made on the hide or the skin of the pig leaving the same type of marks that were on JonBenet. It is because the stun gun is held right directly in contact with the skin.

    If a person is defending themselves, many times, they will pull away just because of the stun gun and because it does hurt. And maybe -- and that is what causes that larger mark; it is not making a direct contact. When JonBenet was stun-gunned, I believe she was immobile, either lying on the bed on her stomach and the stun gun was placed directly against her back or possibly lying on the floor in the basement, suggesting very strongly she couldn't get away from the stun gun.

    At one point she did with her jaw. She moved her head a little bit in order to get away, and that is what left the larger mark.


    Dr. Michael Doberson and myself conducted experiments on pigs. The Ramseys had nothing to do with these experiments. This was between Dr. Doberson and myself. It wasn't paid for by the Ramseys, and it was paid for by Dr. Doberson because he wanted to see what an AirTaser stun gun would do in an experiment on pigs.

    And I might explain a little bit about this experiment on pigs. The pig was anesthetized. It was done in a veterinary hospital. There were actual attendants there attending to the pig. Also, pigs are used in Arapahoe County by a Necro Search project. Necro Search is a group of individuals that train dogs to find human bodies after they have been buried. Pigs are used in that experiment. The pig that we used in this experiment was also used in the Necro Search project.

    In this photograph, you can really see the dancing pattern on the skin. And, again, it did not char the skin. It just broke the capillaries on the surface of the skin.

    This is a comparison photograph between the marks on Gerald Boggs and the marks on JonBenet. Again, you have the larger mark and a large mark on JonBenet. You have the smaller mark on the ear of Boggs and a smaller mark on the jaw of JonBenet. This is a real close-up view of that.

    An expert was brought in by the Boulder Police Department to look at the stun gun marks. The expert came back with his report, and he had seen this particular photograph that shows the face of JonBenet and the large mark and the small mark. This was a picture that was taken at autopsy when JonBenet was autopsied.

    The expert said that the small mark was probably a scratch mark. The large mark could have possibly been made by a snap or a button. There were no snaps or buttons found even close to that on JonBenet. But this is what the expert said. A scratch mark was the lower mark.

    So in looking at the photographs, we found that it could not be a -- or I found out that it could not be a scratch mark. And I will show you why. This is a photograph of JonBenet taken inside the Ramsey house before the body was removed to the morgue. She is lying on the rug in the living room area of the home. These are the marks that are visible on the face of JonBenet. These are the marks that were shown to the expert taken at autopsy. And at first, they look the same, but if you really look at them closely -- and, again, that is the importance of looking at crime scene diagrams, I mean, crime scene photographs. Right there, on the smaller mark, if you look very, very closely, there is a white substance right on the mark. It is white in color.

    And by blowing this up, the mark -- there is no white substance on this mark right here. I will show it with the pointer. There is no white substance on that mark.

    Q. And that is the picture taken at autopsy?

    A. At autopsy. That white flake is missing. This is a more -- this is a blowup of JonBenet, that same photograph. Again, you can see the white mark and the white substance right on that small mark. When you really blow it up, you can see it even more distinctly. You have a large mark, and right here, without question, there is something adhering to that smaller mark.

    Q. And the significance of that in terms of whether that small mark could be a scratch is what?

    A. If she had scratched herself during the course of this, there would have not been a substance on that mark. That is the -- that is why it is so significant. And it also tells us something else. Something must have been between that contact of the stun gun and the mark on the chin of JonBenet.

    This is a photograph at autopsy. If you look very, very closely at this photograph -- and, again, that is the purpose of the photographs is they tell a story. And if you look very, very closely on this photograph, where the small mark is on the face of JonBenet, you are going to see a very light line that comes from the chin area towards the neck and ear, and then across to the neck area, a very light line there.

    Something's happening?

    MR. WOOD: Yes.

    Why don't we take a break, Darnay. We have got a computer glitch. So we are going to take break and see if we can get back on task.

    MR. HOFFMAN: Okay.

    THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 4:50. We are going off the record.

    (A recess was taken.)


    THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 4:58. We are back on the record.

    Q. (By Mr. Wood) Before we had the computer glitch, Detective Smit, you were talking about the marks on JonBenet's right side of her face, an area on the smaller mark that had a white covering over it from the scene at the house, the photo there. Would you pick back up now and go back over that area with us?

    A. Yes.

    If you observe this area of the face very closely, you are going to see a very light tracing of a white or light-colored mark and a rectangular right on top of the smaller mark.

    Q. Will you outline it carefully with your red marker, please?

    A. Right here, if you look very closely, down to about half way between the two marks, and then across, towards the neck.

    Q. What is the significance of the area of light?

    A. This is the area where the duct tape had been applied to JonBenet. And if you look real closely, I placed a line on the slide which will show that. I believe --

    Q. What is the significance --

    A. I believe that JonBenet, when she was stun-gunned through the face, was stun-gunned right through the duct tape. The duct tape was in place on her mouth at that time. Whoever did this, I don't believe did it to necessarily silence JonBenet, but just to stun gun her through that duct tape either to immobilize her or, perhaps, to do it strictly out of an aspect of torture.

    Q. What significance, if any, would the fact that that stun gun mark on the right side of her face, the fact that it was made through the duct tape, what significance, if any, would that have to the white flake found on that mark from the photo taken of her body at the house?

    A. I believe that that small piece of white material came from the duct tape, from the back of the duct tape, or through something else. I have seen no lab report on that. But that piece adhering right to that particular area shows me that one contact of the stun gun was in contact, perhaps with that duct tape when it was applied.

    This is our experiment that we had on the pig.

    Q. This is what you were talking about earlier, but a little bit out of place --

    A. Yes.

    Q. -- when you were describing it?

    A. Yes.

    Q. Okay. Well, let's go to it now.

    A. Yes. Dr. Doberson and I, on September 1 of the year 2000, conducted the -- an experiment on the pig.

    This is a photograph that shows the AirTaser and also shows the marks on the hide or skin of the pig.

    Q. Why did you select a pig for the experiment?

    A. Dr. Doberson thought it would be as close as we could get to approximating human skin, although there is quite a difference in the consistency because a pig is more of a hide-type skin than the human skin. The human skin is much more pliable than the pig's.

    Q. Which would indicate what in terms of the impact of the stun gun in terms of marking up a human skin versus the pig's?

    A. It would be similar, but it would just be that there would be more flexibility in the human skin.

    If you will notice on the measurements that were taken, that the contacts of the AirTaser stun gun are approximately 3.5 centimeters apart, and also the marks on the pig are approximately 3.5 centimeters apart. When I applied this to the pig, it was in direct contact with the skin of the pig. The burst where -- we timed the burst at different times. We had one second, two seconds, and three seconds. Almost all of them were the same as far as leaving the same type of marks. The effect on the pig was that the pig would react to the stun gun. It would shake violently when the stun gun was applied. The pig was anesthetized. I am sure that there was no, you know, no pain with the pig at that time.

    Another thing we did in our experiments is we even did it through cloth to approximate whether or not, if the stun gun was applied to JonBenet through her clothing, whether it would leave the same marks. The same marks -- the same marks are left on the back, whether you have clothing there or whether you don't have clothing there. The electrical contact goes right through -- right through the clothing, and it does not leave a mark on the clothing. Perhaps, if it was looked at through a very high-powered microscope, perhaps you would find some type of a mark on the clothing. I was unable to find that, however, when I observed it.

    These -- this is a picture of the pig just before the pig was buried for the Necro Search project. You will notice on this particular photograph that the marks had become much darker. The longer in time that occurs, the darker the marks get. This was approximately two days after the pig experiment is when this photograph was taken, just to show the darkness and how the change in color of the marks occurred.

    But you will notice that the marks are very distinctive and very visible. Sometimes it has been said that stun guns do not leave marks. That is absolutely not true. Stun guns do leave marks, and this is a picture that shows that very graphically.

    These are the marks on the back of JonBenet. On the bottom are the marks on the pig. Look at the similarities in the size, the distance between the marks, and the shape of the marks themselves. A very close-up of those same marks. Again, look at the size of the marks compared to the marks on the pig. Very close.

    JonBenet was stun-gunned. I am confident of that.

    Let's look, again, at the description of the marks on the face of Gerald Boggs. We know Gerald Boggs was stun-gunned. We know that. This is the description of the marks.

    They are not cuts. They are electrical-type burns. There is no blistering associated with those marks. There is no swelling associated with those marks. There is no blood. They are not scrapes. There is no bruising. They are reddish in color. We know those are stun gun marks.

    These are the marks on the body and face of JonBenet. This is the description of the marks on her face and body. They are not cuts. They are electrical-type burns. No blistering. No swelling. No blood. Not scrapes. No bruising. Reddish in color. This, again, is of the pig. We know that the stun gun was used on the pig. A description of the marks. Not cuts. Electrical-type burns. No blistering. No swelling. No blood. Not scrapes. No bruising. Reddish in color.

    We obtained a photograph of another stun gun victim in Douglas County where a stun gun was used on this victim. She did survive. She was not killed.

    Q. This is Douglas County, Colorado?

    A. Douglas County, Colorado.

    Q. And the photographs that you used for the next portion of your photograph were derived from true and correct copies of law enforcement photographs of the victim?

    A. Yes.

    Q. And this was a known stun gun victim?

    A. Yes. Just to show that stun guns do leave marks and they are distinctive.

    Q. In other words, it was acknowledged and admitted that a stun gun was used on this young lady?

    A. Yes.

    This is a picture on the face of the victim showing stun gun marks, two of them. Pattern marks.

    This is where the stun gun is actually held up against the skin that was used. Again, if you will look at these marks, the description of the marks, once you get to see stun gun marks, you get to be very familiar with them. There is no bruising. There is no blood. It is not a cut. There is no swelling. Again, it is not scrapes. It is not blistering. Very distinctive marks made by a stun gun.

    The autopsy report says "unexplained abrasions." Are these unexplained abrasions, or are they stun gun marks? I submit very strongly that these are stun gun marks. If a stun gun is used on JonBenet, it is an intruder. It is not the parents.

    Q. Was there any evidence that John or Patsy Ramsey had ever in their lifetime owned or operated a stun gun?

    A. There is no evidence whatsoever for that, that they owned or operated a stun gun. There is absolutely no evidence to show that.

    Q. Does one need a license to purchase a stun gun in the state of Colorado, to your knowledge, Detective Smit?

    A. No. Anyone can purchase one.

    Q. Are stun guns, including the AirTaser stun gun that you believe was used on JonBenet, are stun guns readily, easily available, to your knowledge?

    A. Yes, they are. In fact, on the particular stun gun with the AirTaser, there is a registration process that is gone through on normal gun sales. It don't have to be. It is not mandatory. But, normally, there is registration papers filled out.

    Q. Is there any chance that these marks found on JonBenet's face after her death were there prior to her death?

    A. No. Those marks were not on the face of JonBenet prior to her death. And we do have a photograph which shows that. And I am showing that on the screen.

    This photograph was taken Christmas morning. It is a photograph of two very happy children. There is a photograph of JonBenet that shows the right side of her face. And, also, this is a photograph of Burke, nine-year-old Burke.

    If you look real closely at the face of JonBenet and below that area up, there are no marks there. Those marks were put on JonBenet at the time of her murder.

    Q. Based on your 35 years of law enforcement experience and based on your homicide investigative background experience, have you reached an opinion as to whether or not a stun gun was used on JonBenet Ramsey at the time of the attack that ultimately led to her death?

    A. Yes. I believe, without reservation, that the stun gun was used on JonBenet.


    Also, there are other clues. The stun gun is a very big clue. The footprints that are in the basement are a very big clue. There are unidentified footprints in the basement in the mold on the floor.
    The photograph that I am showing here is an impression in the mold on the floor. If you read it, it says "Hi-Tec." There is a logo on the bottom of that shoe. It is a Hi-Tec shoe. This was left there. This is a very clear and distinct logo that is left in that mold.

    This is another footprint that was located right near where the body was lying, right almost at the part where the body was lying. In fact, if you look very closely at the photograph, you are going to see a disturbance in the mold from a fabric and also a ####### pattern, ############# [Jams wrote: "several notesdeleted by jameson as things I believe the police may still find useful during future investigation and interrogation."]##########. Right in that same area is a very distinct footprint. I believe this is a footprint of the killer. This is a very crisp, clear print. I have found from experiments with the mold that, if the mold is allowed to grow, and this mold does grow, that a footprint that is there for any length of time becomes fuzzy and very blurred and finally disappears. This footprint is very, very recent.

    This is a close-up of that print just to show all of the little ridges and all of the little lines that are so distinctive on this particular print. It also shows a partial logo. Myself and others have tried to find the source of that logo and have been unable to do it so far. This is, I believe, our killer's footprint for sure.

    That is the leaf. And you will notice it is on top of the print. There is a third footprint in the basement, and this hasn't been released too much to the public. And you have to look at the photograph in order to see it. But right in the area where the shoe print is is a print, a mark in the mold in the basement. What is it? I have looked at this many times. I have measured this particular footprint, because there is a ruler right next to it. And I have compared this print to the barefoot print of my granddaughter.

    Q. One of the nine grandchildren?

    A. Yes. Who was six years old at the time. The measurements of her foot, both in width and in length, are the same.

    JonBenet did have dirt and debris on the bottom of her feet. I don't know if that dirt and debris was collected. I don't believe it was, but there was mention of it in a police report.

    If, in fact, that is a child's footprint, she was not knocked out or incapacitated when she was brought down into that room. She had to be standing there. I believe this is a footprint of the little girl in the mold in that basement.

    Some experiments on the mold on the floor of the basement. This photograph shows clearly how that mold actually grows in little clumps and in little areas. That mold just grows in all little areas, all around the basement, various areas of the floor, on the walls. It is just one of the things because of the humidity and the type of chemical in the cement in that basement.

    This is where you step on the mold. This was done in my presence. And it leaves a definite impression. And you will see with this particular photograph all of the ridges in the clearly defined areas of that particular footprint. Obviously, a fresh print. Very close to the fresh print that is found near where the body was. Again, if this is allowed to grow and continue to grow over a period of time, it just becomes fuzzy; and all of a sudden, it just almost disappears. You can hardly see it.

    These are all of the photographs on a collage of the footprints in the basement. All of the shoes in the house were checked, and the sole and heel patterns were checked against those particular prints. There were no shoes in that house found that matches those.

    Q. Is there any evidence that any member of the Ramsey family had ever owned a logo Hi-Tec boot or shoe?

    A. There is no evidence that I know of that anyone in that family owned that type of shoe.

    Also, another clue that is found in the house, an unidentified palm print. This palm print -- by the way, this is a photograph that was taken very early on the morning of the 26th prior to the body being found. This photograph shows a door and the area leading into the wine cellar.

    A palm print was found on this door, an identifiable palm print was found on this door right at this area. If it is an identifiable palm print, it is the last print that is usually found.

    For instance, if you had 50 workmen come into that basement -- which there weren't that many, but let's say there were many people in there. If each one would close the door in approximately the same spot, the last print on that door would be the print that you would be able to recover because the other ones would not be there. There is an unidentifiable print on that door, and it does not belong to anyone in the Ramsey family. And I might add that behind this door was the body of JonBenet when this picture was taken. If someone would have opened that door, either the person taking that picture or the detectives at the scene, this case would have taken an entirely different direction, because at that time they would have known immediately that there was a murder, and that everyone would have been brought in, and all their clothing would have been checked, and there would have been interviews made at that time.

    Q. That picture was taken, to your knowledge and understanding, by a member of the Boulder Police Department?

    A. Yes, sir.

    Another area that is very, very important in this case, Where did the murder occur? Earlier I said that the murder occurred in the basement. And I would like to show you photographs now that show that the murder occurred in the basement. Very, very strong evidence of that.


    Last edited: Sep 27, 2010
  5. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Earlier I said that the murder occurred in the basement. And I would like to show you photographs now that show that the murder occurred in the basement. Very, very strong evidence of that.

    No. 1, the scream. A scream, according to a police report, was heard by Melody Stanton, a neighbor, who lives across the street from the Ramseys. This is approximately 150 feet to the southeast. She slept with her window partially open. She said in the report, "It was the most terrifying child's scream I have ever heard."

    This is a photograph of the boiler room area where I believe this murder occurred, just outside of the wine cellar. In this boiler room area, in a window that leads to the outside of a house, there is a vent. I believe it is an old dryer vent. It is open on the bottom. If you look very closely at the bottom, you are going to see where there is an opening.

    This is a paint tray that was by the door to the wine cellar. It is actually in the boiler room, but the wine cellar door, you can just see a small portion of it here that is open, is just a short distance away from this particular paint tray. The distance between this paint tray and that vent is approximately ten feet. A very short distance away.

    A scream by JonBenet could be transmitted through the opening of that vent to the outside of that house, and this vent would almost act as a megaphone.

    This is a diagram of the same area. That is the window where the vent is. This is where the paint tray is. And this is the door to the wine cellar.

    This is a photograph of the outside of the house taken that morning.

    Q. Is this the photograph you had earlier mentioned, Detective Smit, that the media uses so often, this angle, when they talk about snow and that there being no footprints in the snow?

    A. Yes. And it is this type of photograph that was shown in the news media that I had seen. It looked like a lot of snow.

    Q. Can you explain from that photograph how John and Patsy Ramsey might not have been able to hear the scream of JonBenet that Melody Stanton believes that she heard?

    A. Yes. And I -- and that is coming on a slide also, and I will just point that out here on this slide. It is a very good slide to point that out.

    First of all, the Ramseys' bedroom was on the third floor. There are no windows on that side of the residence. There are two dormer windows with very heavy, double pane glass, very well insulated windows.

    You would have a direct air contact 150 feet away with the Stanton residence. I experimented, along with detectives and with district attorneys from the Boulder Police Department, whereby I would yell and scream and whistle in the basement area. You could barely hear it upstairs. Someone sleeping upstairs would have a very difficult time hearing that. But, yet, you could clearly here it in the front yard of the Stanton residence.

    Again, that is the opening from the vent. No windows on that side on the third level. Strong evidence pointing towards the murder in the basement.


    Another reason. The paint tray and where the garotte was constructed. This is the paint tray. Inside that paint tray is a broken end of the paintbrush. And on this photograph, you can see it where you have a broken portion of the paintbrush there. What you can also see on this photograph is a small sliver of wood. Tests have been conducted that matches this sliver of wood with this paintbrush.

    Q. Tests conducted by the Boulder Police Department?

    A. Yes -- actually, by the Colorado Bureau of Investigation.

    Q. At the request of the Boulder Police Department?

    A. Yes.

    Q. The type of data and information, again, that a homicide investigator reasonably relies upon in the course of a homicide investigation?

    A. Yes, sir.

    Q. And the wooden -- as you marked it here on your slide, a wooden shard --

    A. Yes.

    Q. -- the report found that to be a match with the broken end of the brush. Is that what you are telling us?

    A. Yes.

    Q. Thank you.

    A. And what that also tells me is that brush was most likely broken right there.

    Q. At that location?

    A. At that location. And that, again, is in the boiler room just adjacent to the wine cellar.

    This is a very abbreviated photograph of the chin of JonBenet. On her chin and on her face were found a carpet fiber and a green strip of dried paint.

    That fiber on her chin is consistent with the fiber in the carpet here in the basement. The paint, the piece of green paint strip found on the face of JonBenet is consistent with another paint strip portion found in the paint tray.

    JonBenet, I believe, was lying face down on this carpet right by this paint tray when the garotte was fashioned on the back of her neck.

    That is one end of the paintbrush. There is also strong evidence pointing, reason No. 3, again, where the garotte was constructed and applied. This is a picture of the handle of the garotte.

    Q. This was the instrument that was used to strangle JonBenet?

    A. That is the instrument that was used to -- that came right off of JonBenet's neck.

    Q. How do --

    A. Pardon?

    Q. That was actually taken off of her neck?

    A. That was taken off of her neck. Actually, when it was removed from her neck, there was a loop. This is a handle on one end and a loop with a slipknot on the other. And when it was removed from her neck, they actually cut the cord on her neck in order to remove it.

    Q. Before we address the question of this photograph and how it relates to the area of the scene of the murder -- we have only got about four minutes left on this videotape -- if I might ask you, Detective Smit, could you explain briefly why this garotte has a handle in terms of how it actually works to effectuate a strangulation, and then we will take a break to change tapes.

    A. Yes. The garotte is such a significant clue left behind by the killer. Even in comparison with a stun gun, it is a much more significant clue. It tells us something about the killer. The killer had to make this in a basement. He took the material in the basement to make this garotte.

    It is a fantasy in the mind of this person that he has to have a handle, he has to have a loop, and he has to be able to use that on the neck of a small child. This is a very important part into the personality of the killer. He had to have a handle on there.

    If this was an act of staging, you wouldn't have to have a handle on nothing. All you have to do is put a rope around somebody's neck and make it look like it is staging. But it is the very act of not only knowing how to put the handle on, but the fact that he had to use a handle -- almost like a lawn mower starting cord, where you have the leverage in order to control somebody -- this suggests very, very strongly to me that this is a sexual-type criminal that enjoyed doing this and that had to do this to this child.

    Q. Pulling on the handle would do what?

    A. It would tighten the -- it would tighten the slipknot on the -- on the loop.

    Q. Around her neck?

    A. Around her neck. And you can control that. The more pressure you put on it, the tighter it gets. And there is evidence, which I will show you on other pictures, where that was tightened at some point at different portions of the neck.

    This was not just simply used to kill JonBenet; it was used to strangle her by degrees. This man tortured JonBenet. This is a brutal and vicious crime.

    MR. WOOD: Let's take a brief recess now to let the videographer change the tape.


    The garotte, the brush portion, was broken off in the basement. The middle portion was used as the handle on the garotte. You can see by looking at the handle even, this is a very carefully-constructed device. Someone knew what they were doing when they put this handle together.

    Just the way that the cord is wrapped around the handle, and it being almost directly in the center of this particular stick of wood, I believe somebody knew what they were doing. I personally have tried to make this garotte in that fashion, and I still have not been able to do it exactly like that. This garotte is fashioned where there is just a small little portion of the cord coming out of the winding, where the cord has been wound around the stick. Also, what you can see with this particular device, again, it has a handle on one end and a slip and a noose on the other hand. Somebody had to know what they were doing when they made this. It is in the mind of the killer.

    This is a very close-up view, and this close-up view of the handle clearly shows that wound inside of the windings of the garotte is hair, and this hair is the hair of JonBenet. This garotte was also constructed right on the back of the neck of JonBenet. JonBenet, I believe, was lying face down. The brush portion was broken. The handle was broken. The cord was wound on the broken portion of the paintbrush right on the neck of JonBenet catching her hair in there; and then, when the cord -- when the handle was pulled, it pulled this hair away from the neck of JonBenet.

    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.

    Again, it is broken on both ends. You have the brush portion. You have the middle portion. And there is another end towards my left that is also broken. It is clearly broken.

    One of the burnt ends is on this handle. This shows the noose portion of that particular garotte. Again, it was cut when it was taken off the neck of JonBenet, and her hair is in the noose portion. That slipknot that was constructed on the other end of the cord. You have hair also in the slipknot portion. This is the middle piece of the paintbrush.


    Detective Steve Thomas had mentioned in his book that JonBenet was killed out of anger over bed-wetting, and the crime scene was staged to make it look like a kidnapping. She was hit on the head first upstairs in her bathroom and then later strangled. The evidence does not show that.
    This is a very graphic picture of the neck of JonBenet. And this picture also tells us a story. Photographs tell a story. That is why we take them.

    This particular photograph tells us numerous things. This is of the right neck portion of JonBenet. It also shows the stun gun injuries to her jaw. You can see her lips and where the duct tape had been applied to JonBenet. You can also see that the -- that the cord around her neck, that is deeply embedded in her neck, has a slipknot to the back of her neck. JonBenet was probably face down or the killer was behind JonBenet when this was pulled tight. You will also see what appears to be a mark on the lower portion of her neck extending all the way from where the knot is in the back, the slipknot, all the way around the front, all the way to the left side where there is a large triangular reddish mark on her neck.

    Also, you are going to see a -- her chain, a chain, a golden chain that was around her neck, and it is embedded not only in the cord but it is also actually pulled into the furrow on her neck.

    What -- another thing you see on the photograph is what appears to be an abrasion, a scratch on the neck of JonBenet. I have shown this photograph to Dr. Doberson. Dr. Doberson also agrees with me on this, that this is most likely a scratch mark where someone was trying to get the garotte off of the neck, the cord from her neck when it was in that lower position.

    There is also a reddish delineation on this picture to show that the capillaries were broken in the skin from the pressure of that lower choking of the garotte, which indicates, again, red is before dead. This happened before JonBenet had died.

    This is a very close-up of that same area. Again, that scratch mark on her neck is JonBenet trying to get that off of her neck. This is a photograph of the front of the neck of JonBenet, very graphic photograph. It shows how deeply the garotte is embedded in the neck of JonBenet. It also shows this triangular-shaped mark extending from where the lower positioning of the garotte was all the way up and into the furrow where the garotte is placed.

    I believe this picture tells me that the garotte was pulled very tightly from the lower portion, and the chain and the garotte itself caused that abrasion ending up in the deep furrow in her neck.

    The most significant part of this photograph and what it tells me is the marks above the garotte. Petechiae that was found in the eyes are very tiny, tiny little pinpoint hemorrhages. These are larger abrasions.

    Dr. Doberson and I both agree that these marks that are above the garotte are fingernail marks made by JonBenet as she was struggling to get that garotte off of her neck. They are half moon in shape. JonBenet also, under her fingernails, the primary source of DNA, is JonBenet's.

    Q. On both hands?

    A. On both hands.

    [Jams wrote:]


    Q. Detective Smit, Steve Thomas' theory that you had up on the slide before is based on the idea that JonBenet was struck in the head and killed by her mother and then her body taken sometime thereafter, a plan made to stage the crime by use of the garotte, as well as other items of alleged staging. Am I right so far?

    A. Yes.

    Q. If JonBenet had died from the blow to the head, and then we would allow some reasonable time period for the parents to somehow come up with a plan to try to hide the accidental killing, when you take that cord off of this child's neck, what color would you find?

    A. You would find a very bright -- oh, no, after -- if she was killed upstairs?

    Q. Yes.

    A. It would be white. After the child is dead, there would be no blood flow whatsoever. When you try to put -- let's say, you would put a garotte around the neck of a dead child, the mark would be white.

    Q. Tell us what this photograph demonstrates.

    A. This photograph is a photograph of the neck of JonBenet after the cord was removed. And this photograph also tells a story.

    First of all, if you look very closely here, you are going to see some type of what appears to be skin right in the area above the abrasion. What I also see is a very bright red mark in her neck and very deeply embedded.

    Q. Underneath where the ligature was tightened around her neck --

    A. Yes. This is --

    Q. -- of the garotte? A. This is under where the ligature was around her neck.

    Q. Not white?

    A. It is not white. It is definitely bright red. This photograph shows the back of the neck of JonBenet. Again, very discolored. Reddish in color. It was made before death. This was not -- this was not staged after death where the cord was wrapped around her neck. JonBenet was strangled before she died. It wasn't a blow to the head that killed her.

    Q. Are you familiar with the fact that, once the heart stops, that you would expect, if this child had received a blow that killed her, that the blood stops flowing within 30 to 60 seconds after death?

    A. Yes.


    Q. So if you were to accept Steve Thomas' theory as having any possible credibility, the blow would have to have occurred upstairs, and then the parent would have had to somehow come up with a plan to stage, construct the garotte downstairs in the basement, tighten it around her neck all within approximately 30 to 60 seconds in order to have the autopsy finding of the red furrow in her neck when the cord was removed?

    A. That is correct.

    Q. Totally impossible, isn't it, Detective Smit?

    A. In my opinion, totally impossible. Again, these are the injuries to JonBenet. They are very vicious and brutal. This is not the act of a parent without any type of criminal conduct.

    I said earlier on, when I was talking, that whoever killed JonBenet is a criminal. This is the actions of a criminal. She was brutally murdered. There is no indication in the background of the Ramseys whatsoever that they could do something like this to their daughter. There is no reason for them to do that.

    Someone brutally murdered JonBenet. This is a first degree murder. This is not an accidental murder or an accidental killing.

    Q. "First degree" meaning with malice aforethought, intentional killing?

    A. An intentional killing. JonBenet was struggling with her garotte. She was alive. Whoever put that garotte on her neck, that rope on her neck, had to feel her struggling and gasping for breath. They had to feel her wiggling. They had to actually, perhaps, even hear a partial scream. JonBenet tried to save her own life. Everything she could do. She was a little child. This is a six-year-old girl, and a very tiny, little girl. And somebody did that to her, and it takes a very special, depraved person in order to do that. And I don't find that pathology whatsoever in the background of the parents.

    Petechiae, again, small pinpoint hemorrhages of the eye, another clue that the murder was by strangulation. It is seen in strangulation cases. The victim is alive when strangulation occurs, when you have petechiae. If you try to strangle someone after they are dead, you don't get petechiae.

    There are other abrasions on JonBenet showing some signs of a struggle. There is an abrasion on her right shoulder, on the top of her right shoulder. There is what appears to be finger marks, an abrasion on the front of her left shoulder with the lower picture.

    And on her ankle, there is what appears to be an abrasion on her ankle. These are also reddish in color, meaning before death. JonBenet was struggling before death. She wasn't knocked out. She wasn't just laying there. She was trying -- these were made before she died. She was struggling.

    The head injuries, that is such an important part of this crime. Again, the head injuries tell a story. When the coroner first inspected the body, and I have inspected many bodies because I worked for the Coroner's office, you look for any type of signs of injuries. The coroner in this case did not see any injuries at all. No one has seen these injuries.

    In fact, when JonBenet was brought even to the morgue and was lying on the table, no one had seen these injuries until they went into the skull of JonBenet.

    These injuries were not visible. When you have a severe head injury, you do have swelling and you do have bleeding. You have massive bleeding in the skull if it is a severe head injury.

    You have bleeding from the nose and from the mouth. I have seen it many times. I have investigated many traffic accidents, and I have investigated many homicides. Head injuries bleed. Head injuries are definitely a source where there is a lot of blood. In this --

    Q. What is this -- I am sorry. Go ahead.

    A. In this case, according to the autopsy report, there was approximately two tablespoons of blood in the head. Hardly any bleeding. And that leads me to believe that JonBenet had been strangled and was either dead or very close to dead when the head blow occurred.

    Also, the garotte around her neck was very tight and would cut off the blood flow from the arteries from the heart, and which would also severely restrict the flow of blood to the head.

    I believe very strongly, along with others, that JonBenet was strangled, and the last thing that was done to her was a severe blow to the head.

    Q. How severe?

    A. Pardon?

    Q. How severe?

    A. I have been told and I have also observed these type of injuries. It is like a fall from a three-story building and landing on your head. The picture you are going to see is a very severe fracture to her skull.

    This photograph shows that, during the autopsy, the skull cap is removed from the victim.

    Q. Is this, in fact, an autopsy photograph of JonBenet Ramsey's skull cap that was removed at the time of the autopsy?

    A. Yes. This is a photograph of the skull cap. And I, towards the front, I have marked that this would have been the front of the face of JonBenet. This is the rear where the larger portion is broken out of the skull.

    Between the front and even the broken portion is approximately eight and a half inches of a very severe fracture of the skull.

    Q. Almost the entire right side of her skull was fractured?

    A. Yes. And, also, there is even a very large displaced fracture where the bone was actually broken down into the brain. Whoever delivered this blow delivered it with a great deal of force. This was not an accidental doink on the head. Somebody really hit this child. And it had to be a very coordinated blow by a very strong person. Whoever killed JonBenet meant to kill her. Not only did he strangle her very viciously, but he crushed her skull and then threw her into that moldy room.

    Q. Based on the finding of two tablespoons of blood, which I believe you would describe as minimal, but yet blood, are you able, Detective Smit, to come up with some time range in relationship to when this blow to the head was delivered relating to the strangulation with the garotte?

    A. Yes. I believe that it was almost simultaneously. I believe that she had been choked and the garotte firmly placed deeply into her neck, and I believe the next action was the blow to her head, and all within that close proximity of time.

    Q. Looking, as you have done over the course of years in homicide investigations, into the mind of the killer, this type of massive fracture and blow to this child's head right at within seconds of the proximity in time to the strangulation, what does that tell you from your homicide experience had to be in the mind of this killer?

    A. This person had absolutely no regard at all for this child. This child was very brutally murdered. The person that did this wanted to kill JonBenet, and he wanted to do it the way he wanted to do it. It is not that -- it is, again, a fantasy in the mind of this killer that he wants to torture and kill a little girl. And that is what happened.

    There were also vaginal injuries to JonBenet. Again, the mind of the killer. This killer had to go between the legs of JonBenet. He had to sexually assault her. If it was just a regular murder and a kidnapping, he didn't have to do that. Or a parent would not have to do that in any form of staging. You don't have to do these things. You don't have to put duct tape on the mouth. You don't have to bind the wrists. You can make it look like a kidnapping very easily by just putting her in the basement and writing a note. You don't have to go through all of these other details of the case. You don't have to put a handle on the garotte. And, especially, you don't have to sexually assault a six-year-old girl.

    Q. Was she alive when she was sexually assaulted?

    A. She was alive when she was sexually assaulted because she bled from the vagina. Bleeding is before death. She was sexually assaulted before she died, and it was very painful to this little girl.

    Also, what is found, there was a tear or an abrasion to the hymen at the 7:00 position. There is bleeding from the vagina. And there was also material similar to the wooden shards found in the vagina.

    Q. The wooden shards from what?

    A. From the paintbrush. There is a --

    Q. What do you think was used by the killer to penetrate and sexually assault and tear JonBenet's hymen?

    A. I believe it was the portion of the paintbrush that was inserted.

    Q. And we saw the portion earlier, Detective Smit, of the paintbrush tip, the brush end in the paint tray; and you have shown us the portion of the paint tray that was broken at both ends, the middle brush, that was used for the -- the middle handle that was used for the handle in the garotte?

    A. Yes.

    Q. All right. Where is the other end of the paintbrush that you believe was used to sexually assault this child?

    A. This slide shows the various pieces of the paintbrush. There is a brush end, the middle portion, and the other end is missing. The other end of that paintbrush that was broken has never been found at the scene. This suggests to me very strongly that the killer took it out with him.

    Q. Why? Why would some -- why would, in the mind of a killer, someone take that item out of the crime scene?

    A. I believe it was for a souvenir. I believe he took it with him. There is no reason to leave the broken end, leave the middle end, and take the other portion. It has to be somewhere. It is not in the house. The killer took it with him.

    Now we are getting into an area of the duct tape. Again, why would a parent have to duct-tape their child? Just the very act of putting duct tape on your child, especially if the child is alive, just picture a mother or a father trying to do that. But the duct tape is, again, a very important clue.

    The duct tape depicted on this picture, you can see it actually on the blanket that was on the floor of the wine cellar. This is a photograph taken by the Boulder Police Department at the crime scene of the blanket, the white blanket lying on the floor of the wine cellar.

    Adhering to this blanket is a piece of duct tape. John Ramsey stated that, when he went down to the basement and found his daughter, that she had duct tape on her mouth. He said he took it, and he took it off of her mouth. He also said that he took the ligature that was on her wrist and removed it, and then he took her upstairs. And my question has always been, Why would a person, if he is involved in a staging event, take the time to stage this crime, where you would duct-tape as a part of the staging, where you would form the loops to make the wrist ligatures, where you would stage it to put the party in the basement, and then immediately, when the body is found, to unstage everything that was previously staged? It don't make sense.

    The killer brought in this duct tape because this duct tape is torn at both ends. First of all, that means a lot. Photographs tell a story.

    When you buy a role of duct tape, you always have a factory cut end on the duct tape. The factory cut end is not found here or anywhere in that house. No prior application of that duct tape is found.

    Q. When you say "no prior application," what does that mean in lay terms?

    A. That means that, if a person had duct tape in a house and used it, that there should be evidence of that tape being used in the house somewhere, or in a car or anywhere associated with the Ramseys. In this case, there is no duct tape at all of that nature found in the house.

    Also, the actual roll that the duct tape is on, the physical roll that this piece of duct tape would have been taken from, is missing from the house.

    Q. Thank you.

    A. Where is the roll of duct tape that this piece came from? None found. Where in the house is a prior application of this duct tape? None found. Both ends are torn. Where is the cut end from the original roll? That is not found.

    And now let's look at the ligatures. JonBenet was tied with ligatures on her hands and on her wrists. This a photograph that shows the ligature around the wrist of JonBenet. And one thing that you notice about this ligature is that it is a slipknot. Again, a designed ligature. It is not like somebody just ties it around there and ties a little granny knot. Someone has to know what they are doing in order to devise a slipknot on the wrist of JonBenet. This is a photograph of the actual ligature, and it shows two loops on the ligature. There are two loops. One was loosened by John Ramsey in the basement, and the other was taken off the wrist at the autopsy. But these loops were fashioned prior to putting them on the wrists of JonBenet. Somebody fashioned a bondage device for JonBenet. These were on her wrists. You have to take this device, and you have to make the loops, and you have to put them over the wrists and tighten them, and then put them over the other wrist and tighten them.

    JonBenet's hands weren't bound behind her back, like you would want to completely restrain a child. They were bound in the front. The appearance of bondage. The duct tape on the mouth, the appearance of bondage. There are perverts, many perverts out there that are into the bondage scene.

    JonBenet was bound and was strangled with a very suggestive sexual device, the garotte, and she was sexually assaulted in the basement of the house.


    Q. The use of the garotte to strangle this child, from your study of this case, including consultations with other law enforcement agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, were you ever able to find another case in the history of crime in America where a parent has utilized a garotte to murder a child?
    A. I haven't found any such report, and I don't believe one exists.

    Q. Do you find the assault and the torture and the method of killing JonBenet to be in any way consistent with child abuse?

    A. No.

    Q. With parental killings?

    A. No. In my experience as a homicide detective and also working many cases, parents do not garotte their children. Parents do not murder their children in this fashion. They may hit them. They may even hit them on the head. But they don't garotte them. They don't use a stun gun.

    This is not the actions of a parent with no pathology at all of violence or any type of psychological problems. No problems at all in that family. This is a brutal murder by someone that got into the house that night.

    Q. If you took out of the equation, just for the moment, Detective Smit, the fact that here there is no history or pathology with the Ramseys, but if you just looked at it in a vacuum in terms of how this child was tortured and assaulted and murdered, would those facts alone -- what would that tell you as between the probabilities of this being a parental killing versus a sexual killing?

    A. This would definitely point strongly, strongly, at someone that got into the house, strongly at a pedophile that got into that house, strongly at a very brutal and vicious pedophile that got into the house.

    Q. A sexual killing?

    A. A sexual killing.

    Q. And you, over the course of your years of experience in homicide investigations, are familiar with parental killings and also with sexual killings; are you not?

    A. Yes, I am.

    Q. Do you think you know the difference when you see them based on the evidence?

    A. I do, and especially in this case.

    Q. Any doubt in your mind about this case?

    A. I have no doubt in my mind about this case.

    Q. We were talking, back before I interrupted you, Detective Smit, about the items with respect to the ligature. And I would like you to go ahead and follow up on that because I had earlier listened to you talk about the fact that there was a burned end of the cord on the garotte. And I didn't follow up at that time, but I would like you to talk now about the cord itself and the significance of that burned end and also whether there was any cord found in the house similar to this.

    A. Yes.

    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.

    Q. All of which were items that the Boulder Police Department searched for in the house --

    A. That's correct.

    Q. -- but did not find?

    A. That is correct.

    Q. Not the broken end of the paintbrush, not any application or similar duct tape, not any cord similar to that found to use a -- to bind her hands or to strangle her with the garotte. They looked and it was not there?

    A. It was not there.

    There is also DNA, a very strong clue left behind by the killer. DNA is used in many cases to identify the killer.

    In this case, there is DNA found under the fingernails of both hands of JonBenet. And let me explain a little bit about DNA as to what I know about it.

    DNA has a certain amount of markers. A marker is like -- it is almost like a column. A marker is something that has to be very definite before it is called a marker. And I will explain that in another slide that I have. If it is not definite and clear, it is not defined as a marker.

    Now, you don't always find all of the markers in a sample. You may have, let's say, eight markers in a sample. You may only have four or three or two markers that are definite markers. But if you are testing against another person, and this person does not have those particular markers, it is not this other person. So the markers tell a story, even though all the markers are not there. In the case of JonBenet, there were markers found under her fingernails. The primary source of DNA was JonBenet. No question about that. But there is a secondary source, a foreign source of DNA markers under her fingernails, not only in her left hand or in her right hand, but also in her panties. A report submitted shows that the primary source is JonBenet, the secondary source is foreign, and that it is male under the left hand fingernails, left hand.

    Again, when you break that all down, the report, it is foreign, it is male, and it is not John or Patsy.

    Q. Is that a report prepared at the request of the Boulder Police Department?

    A. Yes, it is.

    Q. Is that report on the DNA the type of data or information that a homicide investigator reasonably relies upon in the course of a homicide investigation?

    A. Yes, it is.

    Again, the fingernails of the right hand, the report is almost identical. Primary source, JonBenet. Secondary source is foreign. And the secondary source of the DNA, again, is male. Again, just a breakdown of that report: Secondary source of DNA is foreign, it is male, it is not John or Patsy Ramsey. Again, markers have to be strong before they are classified as a marker. I hear the term "degraded" that would signify, perhaps, that nothing was worth anything. But before a marker could be classified as a marker, it is not degraded. The marker itself is very clear and very plain.

    I made up a little chart which will show basically if a sample, a DNA sample of blood or material has eight markers, in the case of JonBenet, from what I recall from the reports, is that there are at least four markers under the fingernails of the left hand.

    There are at least two markers, clear distinct markers under the fingernails of the right hand. And there is at least one marker in the panties of foreign DNA, a clear marker.

    The markers in the panties, in the right hand, and in the left hand are the same foreign markers. They match in the same area as the markers under her fingernails and in the panties. And also the same thing with the other markers in the right hand comparing with the left hand.

    Also what was found is that there are in the panties other markers which are foreign, but they are not as strong as the markers are under the fingernails, and they are not actually classified as a marker. But there are other indications that there is foreign DNA.

    The DNA is not the Ramseys. This is a very important clue. If we catch the killer, he will have those foreign markers in his blood.

    Q. You testified earlier, Detective Smit, that there were clear signs from the crime scene photographs and autopsy photographs that led you and I believe you also said Dr. Doberson concurred with the conclusion that it appeared that JonBenet struggled, attempted to pull the garotte that is fastened around her neck by virtue of the fingernail marks where she, as you described it, apparently was fighting her for life?

    A. Yes.

    Q. Do you remember that testimony?

    A. Yes.

    Q. Do you think that, in the process of fighting for her life, that JonBenet got a little piece of her killer?

    A. I believe she did get a piece of her killer, or the killer left a little piece of him on JonBenet or in her panties.

    Q. The DNA?

    A. The DNA, yes.

    Q. Any other evidence of any type of foreign material found that would point to the intruder leaving behind evidence?

    A. Yes. On the blanket that was covering JonBenet was found a hair. And it has been described as a pubic hair or axillary hair. A pubic hair comes from the pubic region. An axillary hair can come from the lower abdomen or from the chest, or even, I believe, the arm of a killer. That would suggest very strongly to me, if it is an axillary hair, that it probably is from a male. It is a Caucasian hair. This is a hair that is found on the blanket covering the body of a dead girl. The significance of this hair is, I think, tremendous, mainly because that hair could positively identify our killer. When our killer is caught, and I believe that he will be caught some day, that hair, if it's his hair, will conclusively show that that person was in that basement and murdered JonBenet. Some day they will be able to match that hair with someone because they are -- with microchondral DNA, the new testing procedures they have got, there are at least 27 markers, clear-cut markers in that hair.

    We will be able to positively identify the source of that hair. And if it belongs to our killer, that will be the most-- that will be the strongest piece of evidence. Just like the fingerprint in the Heather Dawn Church case, that could be the strongest piece of evidence in this case, one hair.

    Q. Does your presentation now turn, Detective Smit, to a discussion of the ransom note? A. Yes.

    [Jams wrote:]

    Q. (By Mr. Wood) Detective Smit, your presentation now turns to a discussion of the ransom note that Patsy Ramsey found in her home on the morning of December 26, 1996. Would you proceed with that discussion and that part of your presentation, please?

    A. Yes, sir, I will.

    The ransom note is actually three pages of handwritten notes. It is mainly printing on the note. But what the ransom note tells me, looking at the ransom note itself and photographs of the ransom note, is that it seems to be written in a very careful manner. There is not a lot of cross-outs. There is not a lot of wording, which is -- which shows signs of panic. It looked like it was written in a very calm and clear way. Even the flow of the handwriting, the way it looks on the paper, that looks like it is -- somebody had plenty of time to write this note.

    And I will quickly read the note.

    "Mr. Ramsey.

    "Listen carefully! We are a group of individuals that represent a small foreign faction. We respect your bussiness But not the country that it serves."

    Again, look at the killer and think of how this killer is thinking. Very clear, very calm in the way that this is written. Very reasonable. Everything shows a reason here. "At this time we have your daughter in our posession . She is safe and unharmed and if you want her to see 1997, you must follow our instructions to the letter."

    Very clear, concise directions.

    "You will withdraw $118,000.00 from your account. $100,000 will be in $100 bills and the remaining $18,000 in $20 bills."

    Very clear and concise.

    "Make sure that you bring an adequate size attache to the bank. When you get home you will put the money in a brown paper bag. I will call you between 8 and 10 am tomorrow to instruct you on delivery. The delivery will be exhausting..."

    Again, very clear and concise in advising the parents what to do. "...I advise you to be rested. If we monitor you getting the money early, we might call you early to arrange an earlier delivery of the money & hence, an earlier" --

    And that was crossed out.

    -- "pick-up of your daughter. "Any deviation of my instructions will result in the immediate execution of your daughter." Just think about what this killer -- or the writer of this note is doing. He is actually talking about "the immediate execution of your daughter."

    "You will...be denied her remains for proper burial. The two gentlemen watching over your daughter do not particularly like you so I advise you not to provoke them. Speaking to anyone about your situation, such as Police, FBI, etc., will result in your daughter being beheaded. If we catch you talking to a stray dog, she dies."

    Again, some of these phrases are out of movies. That "stray dog" is right out of a Dirty Harry movie. "To be arrested" is right out of a Dirty Harry movie.

    "If you alert bank authorities, she dies. If the money is an any way tampered or marked with, she dies. You will be scanned with electronic devices and if any are found, she dies. You can try to deceive us but be warned that we are familiar with law enforcement countermeasures and tactics."

    If, in fact, this is Patsy writing this note, can you imagine her using that type of terminology? "You stand a 99% chance of killing your daughter if you try to out smart Us. Follow our instructions and you stand a 100% chance of getting her back. You and your family are under constant scrutiny as well as the authorities. Don't try to grow a brain John."

    This is almost out of the movie Speed.

    "You are not the only fat cat around so don't think that killing will be difficult. Don't underestimate us John. Use that good southern common sense of yours. It is up to you now John!"

    And it is signed "Victory! SBTC."

    I don't know who wrote this note. But whoever wrote this note wrote it in a very clear, calm, deliberate, reasonable manner. This is not a note that is written in panic as if a parent would have killed their child and then sat down and calmly wrote this note. This is a very important part, a very important clue left behind by the killer. It shows us a lot about the killer.

    There are also pages missing. When this note was written, there is what is called a practice note. By the way, the note was written from a pad that was inside the house. And it is called "Patsy's pad." The Ramseys used to write notes back and forth to each other. This pad was not hidden in any way.

    This pad was in the open.

    Q. And when police asked Mr. Ramsey for examples of his handwriting and his wife's handwriting, did he voluntarily give the police the pad that, ultimately, it was learned was used to write the note?

    A. Yes. He immediately went to the table where this pad is kept, gave it to the police. But there is a portion of the note in the same basic handwriting that starts out "Dear Mr. and" -- almost like it was going to be Mrs., but it just started the "M." Then it stops.

    Then there are pages torn out of the pad between the practice note and the ransom note.

    Q. How many pages? Do you recall?

    A. I believe there are seven pages that are missing from that portion. Someone tore out those pages, then continued writing the ransom note. And then the three pages of the ransom note are taken out after these pages. And my question has always been, Where are these pages? Is that another thing that the killer took out of the house with him? These pages are missing. And there is bleed-through from these pages indicating that something had been written on these missing pages.

    Look at the content of the note. Look into the mind of the killer. This is so important in this crime. How was the killer thinking when he wrote this note? "If you want her to see 1997"; "will result in the immediate execution of your daughter"; "you will also be denied her remains for proper burial"; "will result in your daughter being beheaded"; "she dies"; "she dies"; "she dies"; "she dies"; "don't think that killing will be difficult"; "a 99% chance of killing your daughter." All references to death and dying. This was in the mind of the killer when he is writing that note. He knows what he is going to do. He knows that he is referring to death and dying in kidnapping JonBenet. The person who did all of these things as shown on the screen -- the garotte, the stun gun marks, the severe blow to the head, the ligatures on the neck, the deep embedded ligature marks on the neck -- the person who did these things, including sexually assaulting JonBenet, was the person who wrote that note. There is no doubt in my mind at all.

    This is a vicious and brutal crime. This is a crime of a criminal. John and Patsy Ramsey are not criminals. The person who did this is a criminal. And he is a very vicious and brutal criminal, and I believe that that person is still out there, and somebody has to try to catch him.

    Various experts, as we talked about before, were called in in order to analyze this note. Six very competent examiners evaluated the note; four, which were asked to examine it by the authorities, and two by the Ramseys. They were Chet Ubowski, who is a current CBI examiner; Leonard Speckin, a private examiner; Edwin Alford, a private examiner; Lloyd Cunningham, this is a Ramsey examiner, and he was the one who had certified Chet Ubowski; Richard Dusick was a Secret Service examiner that was employed by the authorities to look at the note; and Howard Ryle, a former CBI examiner, and one that I also know personally who did examine it for the Ramseys.

    Q. Let me stop you right there, if I could, for a moment, Detective Smit.

    I want to be clear on the roles of these six handwriting examiners. Chet Ubowski, Leonard Speckin, Edwin Alford, and Richard Dusick were employed by the Boulder Police Department to analyze the ransom note and, among others, Patsy Ramsey's handwriting and exemplars and historical writings?

    A. Yes.

    Q. Lloyd Cunningham and Howard Ryle were employed by the former Ramsey attorneys to analyze the ransom note and, among others, Patsy Ramsey's handwriting?

    A. Yes, that is correct.

    Q. Were all six of these individuals allowed access to the original ransom note?

    A. All of them were allowed access to the original note.

    Q. Were you aware of the fact that the former Ramsey attorneys voluntarily submitted Lloyd Cunningham and Howard Ryle to a lengthy session with Boulder authorities, including members of the police department and the District Attorney's office, to fully explain and discuss with the authorities their findings concerning Patsy Ramsey's handwriting analysis?

    A. Yes. I was at that meeting.

    Q. And were there any holds barred, or was it absolutely a situation where Mr. Cunningham and Mr. Ryle were there to answer any question posed to them?

    A. They answered any question posed to them.

    Q. Now, Lloyd Cunningham, you indicated, actually certified Chet Ubowski, the examiner who looked at the handwriting for -- employed by the CBI, Colorado Bureau of Investigation.

    A. That is correct.

    Q. And Howard Ryle was, in fact, a former Colorado Bureau of Investigation examiner?

    A. Yes.

    Q. Were you familiar with these individual examiner's reputations among law enforcement authorities in Colorado?

    A. Only Howard Ryle. I didn't know Mr. Cunningham.

    Q. What was Mr. Ryle's reputation, as you understood it to be?

    A. Extremely credible. I used him in cases of my own.

    Q. Mr. Ubowski, did you become familiar with his conclusion?

    A. Yes.

    Q. Did you become familiar with the conclusion of Leonard Speckin?

    A. Yes.

    Q. Did you become familiar with the conclusion of Edwin Alford?

    A. Yes.

    Q. Did you become familiar with the conclusion of the United States Secret Service examiner Richard Dusick?

    A. Yes.

    Q. And, obviously, since you were at the meeting, you were familiar with the conclusions drawn by Lloyd Cunningham and Howard Ryle?

    A. Yes.

    Q. You have earlier discussed with us your own personal reviews regarding handwriting analysis. But from the standpoint of a homicide investigation, are the reports rendered, the conclusions rendered by these six individuals, the type of information and data that homicide investigators reasonably rely upon in homicide investigations where handwriting is at issue?

    A. Yes.

    Q. Did any of the six examiners, the four hired by the Boulder Police Department, which included a Colorado Bureau of Investigation examiner and a former United -- or a United States Secret Service examiner, any of the six examiners reach the conclusion that Patsy Ramsey was the author of this three-page ransom note that you have been discussing?

    A. No.

    Q. Do you know of any other individual who was investigated in connection with this crime by the Boulder Police Department whose handwriting was analyzed by four police examiners?

    A. No.

    Q. Were there a number of individuals who were investigated in connection with this homicide whose handwriting was analyzed and who could not be eliminated as the author of the ransom note based on the handwriting analysis?

    A. Do I know of any?

    Q. Yes, sir.

    A. No, I don't.

    Q. Do you know of any that were actually not eliminated by handwriting is my question.
    In other words, Patsy was not eliminated; right?

    A. Right.

    Q. Were there other individuals whose handwriting was analyzed who also were not eliminated?

    A. I don't know of any at this time, and I can't say that I know of any.

    Q. You don't know one way or the other?

    A. No.

    Q. Was Mr. Ramsey eliminated?

    A. Yes. I am sorry, Mr. Ramsey was eliminated.

    Q. And I do think we talked about Burke Ramsey, who was quickly eliminated?

    A. Yes. He was quickly eliminated.

    Q. You are not aware of any other individual who was eliminated; are you?

    A. No.

    Q. But we know at least one person has told us that there were as many as 73 individuals who had their handwriting analyzed?

    A. I might clarify, also, what I said. I know that there were many, and there were many people whose handwriting were analyzed. None of the other people besides the Ramseys had more than one examiner look at the note. I did not see any of the other reports, so I can't say whether they were eliminated or not.

    If I could see the reports -- and I believe that if you have 74 people where four handwriting examiners look at those 74 people, you are going to find some indications that some of those people do match the handwriting of Patsy Ramsey and of the ransom note. That is just from past experience.

    I have rarely seen handwriting experts that come back that positively say that people are or are not eliminated. Most of them are inconclusive.


    Q. Alex Hunter has testified in this case, and he has stated under oath that there were many individuals whose handwriting was analyzed who could not be eliminated as the author of the note.

    A. Okay. I don't know that.

    Q. Do you have any information that would dispute that sworn statement by Alex Hunter?

    A. No. I have no information that would dispute that.

    Q. And, in fact, based on your knowledge of handwriting analysis, does that statement surprise you, that fact surprise you?

    A. Not at all.

    Q. Your understanding of handwriting analysis, such as it is, Detective Smit, it is very difficult to eliminate an individual and it is very difficult to make a positive identification that someone is the author of a note?

    A. Yes.

    Q. That is your experience?

    A. That is my experience.

    Q. And I think you believe, from your own personal experience, that this is a very inexact science and it is not thought by you to be very reliable?

    A. I don't believe it is a very reliable determination -- a determinator of

    Q. But a legitimate investigative tool?

    A. It is a tool. It shows you a direction to go. As an investigator, that is what I look for. I look for a direction to follow.

    Q. Would you go through -- and I think your presentation picks up on this. Would you go through and give us the benefit now of the conclusions that you were made aware of that each of these handwriting experts reached with respect to Patsy Ramsey's handwriting analysis? A. Yes. I am referring to the slide. Chet Ubowski, his results -- and this is a very brief rendition of his results. There were indications that Patsy Ramsey wrote the note. There is evidence which indicates that the ransom note may have been written by Patsy Ramsey. But the evidence falls short of that necessary to support a definite conclusion.

    Leonard Speckin, he is a police expert, private forensic document analyst. "Lack of indications. I can find no evidence that Patsy Ramsey disguised her handwriting exemplars. When I compared the handprinting habits of Patsy Ramsey with those presented in the questioned ransom note, there exists agreement to the extent that some of her individual letter formations and letter combinations do appear in the ransom note. When this agreement is weighed against the number, type, and consistencies of the differences present, I am unable to identify Patsy Ramsey as the author of the questioned ransom note with any degree of certainty. I am, however, unable to eliminate her as the author."

    Edwin Alford, Jr. "Lack of indications. Examination of the questioned handwriting and comparison of the handwriting specimens submitted has failed to provide a basis for identifying Patsy Ramsey as the writer of the letter."

    Lloyd Cunningham, Ramsey expert, he is the one that certified Chet Ubowski. "Lack of indications," that he cannot identify or eliminate Patsy Ramsey as the author of the ransom note. And he has spent 20 hours examining the samples and documents and has found that there were no significant individual characteristics but much significant difference between Patsy's writing and the note.

    Richard Dusick, he is the analyst for the United States Secret Service. These are the results of his specific report. "Lack of indications. A study and comparison of the questioned and specimen writings submitted has resulted in the conclusion that there is no evidence to indicate that Patsy Ramsey executed any of the questioned material appearing on the ransom note." Howard Ryle, the former CBI examiner, "probably not." His opinion in this case is between "probably not" and "elimination," elimination as Patsy Ramsey as the author of the ransom note. He believes that the writer could be identified if historical writings were found.

    The results, the general consensus is inconclusive and below that Patsy wrote the note.

    None of them say that John Ramsey wrote the note.

    Q. And if, in fact, Patsy Ramsey did not write the note -- And the consensus is close to that conclusion from your review; right?

    A. Yes.

    Q. -- then it wouldn't be Patsy and it wouldn't be John, it wasn't Burke, the Ramsey theory is over; isn't it?

    A. Yes.

    Q. And now we have nothing left but to look for the intruder?

    A. That is right. And that is what I have been trying to say.

    Q. So the ongoing pursuit of the Ramsey theory hangs on the thread of legitimate handwriting experts who think there is, at best, a very low probability that Patsy wrote the note?

    A. Yes.

    Q. Pretty thin; isn't it?

    A. It is very thin.

    Q. Have you concluded your discussion of the ransom note in your presentation?

    A. Yes, Mr. Wood, I have.

    [Jams wrote:]


    Q. If you would move to the next item, please.

    A. Again, I will go over this rather briefly.

    When a person does commit a crime, basic ABCs of being a homicide investigator, items are brought in, items are left at the scene, items are taken out.

    By an intruder planning a kidnapping, particularly this kidnapping: He took in rope, he took in duct tape, a stun gun, probably something to carry these items in, gloves, clothing and shoes, fibers and hair, probably a knife to cut the cords.

    Items left at the scene, and we know that certain items were left see scene: There is evidence of entry and exit that is a clue, pieces of the rope, a piece of the duct tape, stun gun marks on JonBenet, hair and fiber that can be traced back to him, a footprint or two footprints, actually, in the basement. One of them could be his or it could be two people. I have never ruled that out. A palm print unidentified on the door.

    And also left at the scene: a pubic or ancillary hair, and DNA, and the handwriting on the ransom note. Numerous unexplained hairs and fibers. Items removed from the scene: the rope is gone, the duct tape roll that it was on is gone in the prior application, the stun gun, pages from the pad, the broken end of the paintbrush, something probably to carry them in, gloves, fibers and hair from the scene, debris on the shoes possibly from the wine cellar, on the clothing and on the shoes various items of evidence, trace evidence, and broken glass which could have come from that broken window.

    The killer took something in, left something, and took something out. The killer left behind many clues. We have seen some of them. The killer is not going to get by with this. We can catch him. He did leave behind too much. I have investigated many cases with a lot less than this, but we have to look for the killer. I believe we will find that killer at the end of the intruder path, and that is why I am here today.

    I went into staging. We talked about that. I will briefly go over it.

    I found that staging is a rare occurrence. In 32 years that I was on the force, over 300 death investigations -- that also includes the investigations I have had as a coroner investigator -- I only recall two where staging occurred. Again, then only minimal.

    And I went into that before.

    Staging is normally done after the event. The victim is dead.

    In this case, the ransom note, written in a very calm and deliberate manner. No evidence of panic.

    Reference to calling between 8:00 and 10:00 tomorrow morning. Staging is after death.

    Stun gun marks. Again, reddish in color; was alive when this was applied. Staging is after death.

    Ligature marks on her neck, on the sides and on the front; reddish in color. Fingernail marks; alive and struggling when applied. Staging is after death.

    Petechiae; present when strangulation occurs prior to death. Staging is after death.


    And then we will look at JonBenet's bedroom and see if there is any evidence that the murder happened up there.
    This is a photograph of JonBenet's bed. This is the bed that she was taken out of that night prior to being murdered. When I look at this photograph, I see certain things. I do see that there is a pillow on the end of the bed; normally, the pillow should be on the other end of the bed. If the child just got up on her own, she would have probably left the pillow where it was.

    What I see on this photograph also is that the folds in the sheet in the area of the bottom sheet, you see definite folds in this sheet, and that they continue from one side of the bed all the way to the other where there is a small series of wrinkling of the sheets there. It appears to me that JonBenet was pulled across this area to the edge of the bed; not like she just hopped out of bed.

    What I also see on this, and you can see it partially in this particular photograph, that there is no sign of a struggle. In other words, if JonBenet was being chased around by, let's say, an irate mother, there is no evidence that she struggled or that she knocked anything over in the room. Items on the dresser, in fact, are in place and very clearly in place. Nothing was knocked over.

    The bed adjacent to JonBenet's bed; again, you can see that there was no struggle here. There are still items on that bed.

    JonBenet was not trying to get away from anyone.

    And this is a very, very important photograph. This shows the sheet, the bottom sheet, of JonBenet's bed. This is one of the very earliest photographs that were taken. I believe it was photograph 2 or photograph 3. The officer took great pains in photographing this particular part of the bed. It is very clear on this photograph that that bed is dry. There is no indication of a wet bed there.

    There are no stains that are visible on this bedding at all. I have had children, and many here have had children. When a child wets a bed, it is wet, and you know it the next morning. And you would see it on this sheet if JonBenet wet the bed that night. This is not true on this photograph.

    Also, the significance of this photograph is some people have said that perhaps the sheet was put on after JonBenet's murder. What I see here and what I have seen in lab reports is that fibers and other various other items, trace items, were taken from this sheet, on the top of the bottom sheet when a vacuuming occurred. This was not a sheet that was put on after JonBenet's death.

    Q. Was there any evidence of blood found on that sheet?

    A. No. And that is a very good question. There was no evidence of blood found on that sheet at all.

    Q. Was there any evidence of JonBenet's blood found anywhere in her bedroom or bathroom?

    A. No.

    Q. If the blow to her head had occurred in the bedroom or bathroom as speculated by former Detective Steve Thomas, would you have expected there to be blood evidence?

    A. Yes, I would.

    Q. In that area of the house?

    A. Yes. Either from the nose or the ears or the mouth. Yes.

    Q. The only blood evidence that was found, blood evidence of JonBenet, was found in the basement area on her clothing?

    A. Yes. Blood was found in the basement area on her clothing.

    Q. Please continue.

    A. This is a master bedroom. Again, why would the Ramseys have to kill their daughter in the basement in this filthy, dirty, cluttered basement?

    Take a look at the master bedroom. And, again, not many photographs were taken of this that I have available. But it does -- the photographs do tell a story. And when you look at them, it does tell a story. There is nothing knocked over in this room. There is no evidence of a struggle in this room. Also, if you look closely at the bed, the covers are pulled back, indicating that someone very likely slept in the bed that night. The pillows are messed up. Somebody was in the bed that night.

    This is Burke's bedroom. Again, there is nothing knocked off on the floor that -- a little bit of clutter in the room. But even his bed is made, and I understand that bed was made by Fleet White when he took Burke Ramsey out the next morning. And this is a guest bedroom. And I have seen some significant things in this guest bedroom by the photographs. First of all, the guest bedroom is located on the second floor of this home. It is right directly adjacent to JonBenet's room. In fact, this photograph was taken from the guest bedroom, and the door looks right directly into the door of JonBenet's room. It is just a very short distance away. It is within -- just within ten feet from that door.

    This is another photograph that is taken from the doorway looking out towards the alley. In fact, the window at this location looks right directly over the garage of the residence. In other words, the cars are parked directly underneath this room. You can see the alley, and you can also hear the garage door being operated from this particular area.

    This is a close-up picture of that same photograph, but something struck me when looking at this photograph. And again, it is something that detectives look for, observation of things that look out of place. In this particular photograph, there is a dust ruffle on the bed, on the foot of the bed, that appears to have been disturbed. This dust ruffle goes all the way around the bed; and in this particular photograph, you can see the dust ruffle where it is tucked under. And also, at the foot of the bed, you can see where the dust ruffle is tucked under. And yet, one portion of the dust ruffle on the foot of the bed is out. And this close-up shows it very clearly. Something disturbed that dust ruffle.

    Could someone have been under that bed? Sure. Could someone have crawled out from there? Sure. Do I know specifically? No. But I do know this, that that dust ruffle is disturbed and it shows on the photographs. The photographs tell a story.

    Also in this room, there are drawers which are open. None of the other rooms in the house have any drawers open, but in this particular room they are opened. Something has been disturbed in that room. Also in this room, a very significant clue left by our killer is a rope. The evidence invoice indicates that this rope was turned in, that it was found in a sack. I have no picture of the sack, but I have a picture of the rope.

    The Ramseys, when questioned, know nothing about this rope. They say that it was not in that bedroom. It is out of place also. There is no other rope found in that house, and yet in the guest bedroom, right directly adjacent to JonBenet's room, there is a rope that is found that is unexplained.

    Also, it said it was in a sack. And there are lab reports which indicate that small pieces of brown paper sack material were found in the vacuumings of JonBenet's bed and also in the body bag that was used to transport JonBenet's body.

    Q. And those lab reports were prepared at the request of the Boulder Police Department?

    A. Yes.

    Q. That indicated that brown paper sack materials were found in JonBenet's bed and in the body bag that transported her body?

    A. Yes.

    Q. Are those the type of reports that homicide investigators reasonably rely upon in the course of a homicide investigation?

    A. Yes. If you look real closely at the ends of that rope, someone has really properly prepared the ends of that so that they wouldn't unravel with -- by placing duct tape -- or, I am sorry, place tape on it. The tape is black. The duct tape was black. From this I cannot determine whether it is the same tape, but it is dark in color.

    Also, the baseball bat that I mentioned before. There were two baseball bats observed in the yard, or at the residence. One was in the yard in a play area where the children played. These two photographs are of the same bat. One of them is a close-up of the bat.

    Q. Was anyone able to identify that particular bat?

    A. No. John Ramsey said that his son had a bat, but he did not identify it specifically as his son's.

    Q. One bat?

    A. One bat.

    Q. Burke had one?

    A. This is the other bat that was pointed out near the north window where there was some disturbance. This bat had a fiber attached to it that -- that was consistent with the fibers in the carpet in the basement where the body was found.

    Q. Outside the wine cellar door?

    A. Yes. Outside the wine cellar door. And this is a close-up of that bat laying in that position. This is in an area where the children do not play, and yet there was a bat there.

    Q. And it is right there in the area of the north window where you found what you believe was evidence suggesting that someone may have attempted entry in that window?

    A. Yes. Attempted entry into there. And it is also in a close proximity of the butler door, and I will be getting into that very shortly. The butler door, and we will talk about that, the butler door in the Ramsey home -- and this is a diagram of the first floor. The butler door is located on the north side of the Ramsey home. The window that we described is located right directly below this powder room here. And the bat was located directly adjacent and north of this entryway on the outside. This is the butler door. The diagram also shows that there is a spiral staircase where the ransom note was found. And it is only a very short distance between that spiral staircase, down a short flight of stairs, to where the butler door is located.

    It was noted in a police report that John Fernie, one of the friends of John Ramsey and one of the friends that was called over, he arrived at the scene shortly after 6:00. The call was made perhaps ten minutes later. John Fernie immediately got in his car, went to the Ramsey home, and arrived there shortly after 6:00. When he arrived there, he told his wife that the door to the butler -- the butler door was open. This is a photograph, an early photograph that was taken of that butler door. The person who took this photograph took it for a reason. The door is open.

    Q. And was that taken by a Boulder Police Department crime scene technician? A. Yes.


    Again, if you look at the photographs inside the house, you see the spiral staircase where the note was sitting. And you see there is a hallway that links the spiral staircase to the butler kitchen. Again, just a short distance away from where the ransom note was left.
    When John Ramsey handed the pad to the officers at the scene with the writing on it, this pad was sitting right on this table, this small table. It is an open view. Just around the corner from this table is a small desk area where there is a telephone where the pen was found, also in the open. Again, both of these items are readily available for anyone.

    And now I will just go into some other evidence that was found at the scene later. And I call it "Barbie doll evidence." In the summer of 1997, two Barbie dolls were found on the lawn of the Ramsey residence. They were -- one of the dolls was put into a plastic bag, and this is a photograph of one of the dolls. And you will notice that it is bound, and there is actually, around the head of this Barbie doll, even what appears to be cellophane. Somebody put that in the Ramsey's yard. Also found in the Ramseys yard was another Barbie doll. This one was clothed. It had clothing on it. It was still duct taped or taped and tape over her eyes and over her mouth.

    Perhaps the significance of the Barbie dolls is, in the basement along with the blanket that was on JonBenet was also a Barbie doll nightgown. And it was JonBenet's nightgown. Is there some significance there? I don't know. But is this a clue that would point at a Barbie doll type killer?

    Q. And what was your impression from studying the photographs of the Barbie dolls that were left in the Ramsey's yard as to the degree of care and the meticulous handling given the knots and the tape and the bondage appearing on those dolls?

    A. Someone went into great lengths to do this very, very meticulously. Great care was taken on this. I believe the person who did this took a great deal of time in doing it. And I have also thought that perhaps he may have left a part of him on the tape, either in the form of DNA, possibly fingerprints. But could this be the killer? Yes.

    Q. Detective Smit, you stated that there was a Barbie doll nightgown found next to JonBenet's body in the wine cellar?

    A. Yes.

    Q. Was there any evidence found on that nightgown?

    A. Yes. And I have not made this public, ##################

    [Jams wrote:]


    Q. ... did the Boulder Police Department, to your knowledge, conduct a thorough search of the Ramsey home for blood evidence, including searching the drains, the pipes, areas where they might find any evidence of blood that was an attempt made to wash it away?

    A. No. Everything was really thoroughly checked. They even took the toilet bowls off and checked the -- down into the drains. All wall recesses were checked. There was a small crawl space. Great care was taken to go into this crawl space. They did a very, very good job of searching that home for any type of evidence.

    Q. So they did, in fact, do a thorough search for blood evidence, including drains, pipes, and areas where one might be expected to try to dispose of blood evidence through washing away?

    A. Yes.

    Q. Didn't find any; did they?

    A. There was no blood found.

    Q. No blood evidence found in this house except the blood evidence found on JonBenet's clothing and, of course, the blood that was found in her vagina, and, obviously, the blood, the minimal amount that was found on the brain. That is the sum total of the blood evidence?

    A. Yes.


    Q. In your presentation, you have a couple of examples of, I believe you would call them, leads. How do you use the term "lead"?

    A. In the course of an investigation, you see many ways to go, many paths to follow. And a lead is just following one of these paths. And all you are doing initially with a lead is you are just trying to find more information.

    You get in a tip, for instance, a tip that a man in the case of the boot man who I have on the screen, that he may have been wearing a cap with SBTC on it. It is just a tip at first, but it is a lead, and it is a lead that should be followed to determine if there is any basis for this lead at all.

    And during the course of the investigation, myself and also the Ramsey investigators, and also the police, have had many, many leads come in on this case. And many of these leads are still unexplored at this time.

    Q. Do you believe that the Boulder Police Department thoroughly investigated leads that related to the potential involvement with third parties other than the Ramseys?

    A. I believe they followed some of the leads, but not completely. I think there are many more leads that could be followed.

    Q. You have mentioned an individual referred to as "boot man." Is that individual still alive?

    A. No. Boot man is dead.

    Q. What is his name?

    Page 347

    A. His name is Michael Helgoth.

    Q. Would you please tell us about Mr. Helgoth and why he is an example of someone you believe that needs further investigation?

    A. The original -- the original information that was formed as a lead came early in the investigation, and it was from a tipster that said that a person named Michael Helgoth, who had committed suicide, had information with SBTC on the cap. And this was just a lead that was in the book. And it was turned over to the Boulder Police Department. It came in from the Ramsey -- I am sorry. It came in on a tip line, and this was a bonafide lead. But many hundreds and perhaps even thousands of leads have come in.

    This person committed suicide two months after the murder on the 14th of February. This was the day after Alex Hunter came out with an appearance on television where he said, "We know who the killer is" -- or where he actually said that "The hunt for the killer is narrowing, and that soon only the killer's name will be on our list."

    Q. A statement, by the way, Detective Smit, that was suggested be made by Mr. Hunter by members of the FBI in an effort to potentially evoke a reaction from the killer; right?

    A. Yes.

    Q. Continue on, please.

    A. As far as I know, very little work was done on that lead until I left the investigation, and then I followed it up further with the Ramsey investigator. And we obtained photographs of the suicide scene of Mr. Helgoth. And a stun gun was located in a very close proximity of the body. This is the coroner's report of the suicide and the date. And the date was February 14th, 1997. This is just a portion of the photograph that shows an apparent suicide. I have also looked at this report, and I also question whether it was a suicide.

    In a close proximity to the -- of the hand of this person is a stun gun. And you can see it in this photograph. And this is a blowup of that stun gun. This is another view into that room.

    And what we see in this photograph is a pair of boots near the door. These are Hi-Tec boots. We did obtain these boots.

    In the basement of the Ramsey residence, as I pointed out before, was a logo from the imprint of a Hi-Tec shoe. The soles and heels of the Hi-Tec boots found at the Helgoth crime scene were matched against that. This is the match. The logo is the same. In fact, not only is the logo the same, but also even there is a circular portion of the logo above the Hi-Tec symbol which also shows in the mold in the basement. There is also a logo, a circular logo on the Hi-Tec --

    Q. A trademark?

    A. A trademark.

    -- which also appears on the logo in the footprint in the basement. This matches very, very close. This is a very strong lead. This is a lead that should be followed all the way.

    Also, in Helgoth's apartment -- this apartment was not searched by the police, and, eventually, this house was torn down before anything could be done as far as looking at it.

    There was an opportunity where this house could have been searched thoroughly, but it was not taken.

    In the videotapes that were in this house -- we later received videotapes that were in this man's room -- all types of videotapes on techno-type crimes. This is a video, for instance, just a cut of David Koresh. There was also videotapes of a sniper on top of the tower in Texas. And there was even a video in there that showed a video, a child's video of Santa Claus visiting a child. All portions of the videos that were taken from this man's house.

    And another very significant observation in the videos was someone had taped -- whether it was Michael Helgoth or someone else -- had taped a portion of a Channel 4 news broadcast. And in this news broadcast, it was taken in 1993, of the murder of Alie Berrelez. This is an unsolved murder of a seven-year-old girl.

    Why did Helgoth have in his possession these particular type of movies? I don't know. Should it be investigated thoroughly?

    It should be investigated very thoroughly.

    This is a picture from one of the frames of the video of Alie Berrelez.


    The person we called "transient man." And I do hesitate, Mr. Wood, to name people. And the only reason I hesitate to do that is because, just like the Ramseys, when their name is put out in the public, they may become suspect and are captured under this umbrella of suspicion. I don't believe that is right.

    Q. I will ask you to identify "transient man" by name, but I will do so while at the same time assuring you that the protective order in place in this case allows for the individual's name to be, in effect, redacted and not disclosed.

    With that understanding, will you give us the benefit of the identity of the individual you refer to as "transient man"?

    A. Yes. "Transient man" is a transient in Boulder, and his name is Gary Oliva. This lead was obtained from the Ramsey attorneys and their investigators early in the investigation in the summer of 1997. And it was referred to a person that there was a very psychotic individual in Boulder at the time of the murder who was a transient. And that this tipster who called in said he could have been the killer because the tipster had known this man very well and that this man was very fixated on children. And when he was arrested in Oregon for child molestation, that on the walls was even written phrases which would indicate the killing of little children.

    Myself and the Ramsey investigator Ollie Gray have done more checking with the informant and have found out that this party did call from Boulder right after the murder. In fact, the murder occurred in December, and on January, the early part of January, the first week, that the party called from Boulder, and he was crying on the phone, stating that he would never be able to go to this individual's house again because he had children.

    The informant told us that he is fixated on little girls and also that he has been in the mental institution. This individual has violated his -- he is supposed to be a registered sex offender. He left Oregon without registering. He came to Boulder without registering.

    He also had sent the informant a tape at one time about the "Killing of Little D." This was an audiotape. And the informant related that this tape was sent either to the Boulder Police Department or to the District Attorney's office. When I was working there, I looked at all of the tapes. I didn't see anything there at all from this informant.

    Also, this particular individual, Gary Oliva, was arrested at the end of the year 2000 in Boulder. He was still a transient. He was caught breaking into one of the college buildings -- or he was in one of the college buildings unauthorized and supposedly sleeping there. He was arrested.

    When he was arrested, he had a backpack. In his backpack, he did have a stun gun. Also in the backpack, he did have writings and handwriting, by the way, that had been sent in, and there are similarities in that handwriting with the handwriting on the note, very much closer than anything that Patsy Ramsey wrote.

    Q. Did he have references to, in materials found, to JonBenet?

    A. Yes.

    Q. And also to Susannah Chase that was murdered a year after JonBenet?

    A. Yes. There was a note in his backpack that indicated -- that was a note written with both the name JonBenet and Susannah Chase on it. Susannah Chase was a murder victim almost a year to the day after JonBenet died. Also in Boulder, also an unsolved murder. Also about this individual, Gary Oliva, pictures were taken at a memorial service for JonBenet, which was right in front of the Ramsey residence. Gary Oliva's picture is in pictures taken by the Ramseys' investigators standing right in front of the house at this memorial service. It has been found out that Gary Oliva picked up his mail within a half a block, right down the alley, the same alley, the common alley between the Ramsey home and a church that he picked up his mail. This man was arrested and since has, to my knowledge, has left the area.

    Q. He is a lead that represents, in your view, based on your experience, unanswered questions?

    A. Yes. It is a lead that should be pursued.

    Q. Thoroughly?

    A. Thoroughly.

    Q. Does that conclude your formal presentation, Detective Smit?

    A. Yes, sir, it does.

    Q. Thank you very much.


    I want to ask you whether there were a number of fibers found at the crime scene -- being the house, JonBenet's body, her clothing, the blanket -- a number of fibers that were found that have never been identified or sourced to any item or individual.

    A. Yes. There are many fibers, unexplained fibers, without a source found not only on the body of JonBenet but on the duct tape, on the bindings, also on the broken piece of the paintbrush. There are many, numerous fibers found at the crime scene that have not been explained.

    Q. And does that include brown cotton fibers?

    A. Yes. Brown cotton fibers are found on the broken piece of the paintbrush. Brown cotton fibers are found on the duct tape, on the ligature, and on the body of JonBenet.

    There are also hairs found.

    Q. What type of hairs?

    A. There are animal hairs that are found. There is a supposed beaver hair that is on the duct tape. There are also animal hairs found on her hand.

    Q. On JonBenet's hand?

    A. On JonBenet's hand.

    Q. Sourced to any item in the house or any individual in the house?

    A. Sourced to no animal in the house or any item in the house.

    Q. Any effort made to try to ascertain whether there was any beaver hair or other type of animal hairs in the house since the initial days of investigation by the Boulder Police Department?

    A. Yes. When we were at the Ramsey residence in the summer of 1997, Detective Ainsworth did actually take tape and taped the floors and all of the closets of the Ramsey home to see if there was any source in the closets of any type of animal hair, and he found none. Also the animal hairs were dark in color, brown and dark in color.

    [Jams wrote:]

    Q. These were not white animal hairs?

    A. These were not white animal hairs. This is not also generally known to the public.


    Q. You are familiar with the plaintiff in this case, Chris Wolf?

    A. Yes, I am.

    Q. Are you aware that Chris Wolf was investigated by the Boulder Police Department and the Boulder District Attorney's office in connection with the JonBenet Ramsey case in terms of possibly being involved in her death?

    A. I know he was investigated.

    Q. Do you know how he came to be investigated by the Boulder Police Department?

    A. It was a tip initially from his girlfriend, Jackie Dilson, and that I believe came into the Boulder Police Department first. And there was an investigation conducted because of that tip.

    Q. Did the Ramseys have anything to do with instigating an investigation of Mr. Wolf by either the Boulder Police Department or the Boulder District Attorney's office, to your knowledge?

    A. No.

    Q. They did not; did they?

    A. They did not.

    Q. And are you aware, as you sit here today, Detective Smit, as to how thorough an investigation was or was not conducted of Mr. Wolf by the Boulder Police Department?

    A. I believe they looked at him very strongly.

    Q. Do you know how thorough they may have followed information about him, including whether they thoroughly ever interviewed him?

    A. I think there is more that can be done.

    Q. Before you could reach any opinion in that regard, would you need to have the benefit of the information on Chris Wolf and the investigative efforts conducted by the Boulder Police Department?

    A. I think it would be wise to further investigate some unanswered questions.

    Q. The fact is that there are a number of individuals who would fall into that category, and I won't go into names; but there are a number of individuals, some of whom are known to the public, others who are not, that you believe represent leads with unanswered questions that need to be thoroughly investigated. Is that true?

    A. That is true.

    Q. You have looked at all the evidence that was accumulated over the first 18 months of this investigation. You have described for us your homicide experience. Your job has been to find the bad guys and put them in jail.

    A. Yes.

    Q. And in the process of doing that, to make sure, as you said many hours ago today, to avoid the tragedy of charging or accusing the wrong person?

    A. Yes.

    Q. You left this investigation in September of 1998 and in your resignation letter stated very clearly that, based on the evidence you have seen and studied and analyzed, that you believed an effort to indict, or charge, prosecute the Ramseys was an effort designed, you felt, to go after innocent people?

    A. Yes.

    Q. That is your opinion based on your homicide experience, based on your review of the evidence in this case?

    A. Yes. It was my opinion then, and it is my opinion now.

    Q. That John and Patsy Ramsey are innocent in the involvement of the death of their daughter, JonBenet Ramsey?

    A. Yes, they are innocent of that.

    Q. One matter of housekeeping, and that is, Detective Smit, to ask you, and I know that this will hopefully be fairly quick, because you have looked at, earlier today, photographs that have been identified for purposes of your deposition as Defendants' Exhibits 4 through 68. My question is, are those true and correct copies of photographs taken in connection with the law enforcement investigation of JonBenet Ramsey?

    A. Yes, they are. Yes.

    Q. And, also, I think within those exhibits, as we earlier discussed, may be some exhibits relating to the law enforcement investigation of Mr. Boggs and his exhumation?

    A. Yes.

    Q. Again, all these photographs are, in fact, true and correct copies of law enforcement crime photographs; true?

    A. Yes.

    Q. You said several times today that this killer, you believe, can be identified and caught and brought to justice?

    A. I do believe that.

    Q. What is it going to take, Detective Smit, to accomplish that objective?

    A. It is going to take a complete and thorough investigation into the intruder side of the story. I believe that in order to find this killer, we have to have an objective look from the professional law enforcement people in order to follow up all of the leads that had to be followed up. I do believe that the Boulder Police Department, and perhaps myself, have got definite opinions on this case. I believe that there should be an independent agency that handles this that can take over the case.

    I have seen it happen before when you have got cold cases. Turn it over to somebody else and have them take a look at that. I believe that should be done in this case. And I believe that there should be people that are unbiased, one way or the other, that start over again and take a look at all of the evidence in this case.

    I believe that the killer is still out there. I believe we have to find him. And I believe we have to bring him in, because he is going to kill again.

    Q. Do you believe that these independent investigators, if a new investigation is to be successful, should be experienced homicide detectives?

    A. I believe that they should be experienced homicide detectives with the resources to follow this up. I would like to do even more on the investigation, but I don't have the resources that law enforcement has.

    But I would suggest very strongly that, if you are going to find the killer of JonBenet, that you have independent, experienced professional investigators investigate this crime.


    Q. In any of your involvement with Mr. Gray, any of your involvement in the investigations of JonBenet's death since you left the Boulder District Attorney's office, any of your involvement in meetings with me, any involvement that you have had in preparing for this deposition and attending this deposition, have you ever received any financial remuneration from the Ramseys?

    A. No.

    Q. And if offered, would you accept it?

    A. No.

    Q. Have you, throughout the course of time that you have been involved, standing in the shoes of the victim, JonBenet, focused your goal for her to find the killer?

    A. That is correct. No matter where the path leads.

    Q. Regardless of where the path leads?

    A. That's right.

    Q. For those efforts, and for your time today, and for your testimony, I appreciate it and I thank you.

    A. Okay. Thank you. MR. WOOD: The witness is yours, Mr. Hoffman.


    Last edited: Sep 27, 2010
  6. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Here the format of the transcription changes at times, as posted originally at Webbsleuths/the swamp. I don’t know why, except to say that you may notice, whereas Lin Wood asked his questions of Smit, unimpeded and uninterrupted by Darnay Hoffman, for many hours, here Wood now employs the legal tactics we’ve seen so often when his opponent is simply trying to ask questions in his turn: Wood is so often speaking and arguing that maybe the transcriber simply used the lawyers names at those times to identify who was speaking.

    Since I don’t know who transcribed any of this transcript, I can’t say what is accurate and what is not, either. I can say without question that I have perceived so many supporters, professional representatives, and the Ramseys themselves as obfuscating the truth, even telling flat out lies many times, I don’t trust them in any way, for any reason. But we’re not admitting evidence in a court of law, so with that in mind, proceed with caution.




    Q. ...would you object to my sending you material that I would like you to look at, since you are searching for the truth, and there are the questions that I have myself, and I would like to maybe be able to send you material, too? Would you be agreeable to that?

    A. I have no objection to that at all.

    [Jams wrote:]
    Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) And the question I have is, would you like to see copies of those reports? They are not conclusions. They are actually thorough reports with exhibits or whatever. Would you be interested in seeing that?

    A. Mr. Hoffman, my lawyer is here right now, Bob Russel, and he is indicating that I should not do that.

    Q. Now, is there a reason why?

    A. Mr. Russel would have to respond to that.

    MR. HOFFMAN: Would you respond, Mr. Russel?

    MR. RUSSEL: Well, I just think he needs to study this proposal, but I don't think it is a wise idea for him to get involved in the middle of litigation.

    MR. HOFFMAN: I see. But --

    MR. RUSSEL: And that is what that would cause. We are trying to be independent here, and we don't get involved with another party.

    MR. HOFFMAN: Yeah, but I -- Mr. Russel, I understand he accepts information from the Ramseys or from Ollie Gray, or whatever.

    MR. RUSSEL: I just answered the question. The answer is no.

    MR. HOFFMAN: The answer is no. Okay. But for no good reason except that there is this vague reason about litigation.

    MR. RUSSEL: For the reason I just told you, and so that ends it.

    MR. HOFFMAN: Okay.


    Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) Now, Mr. -- Detective Smit, should it be detective or mister? Which do you prefer?

    A. Detective Smit is fine.

    Q. Okay. Thank you. And I am very sorry. And I don't mean any disrespect if I revert back to the mister because I don't have much occasion to interview detectives. Detective Smit, one of the questions I think that you were asked earlier in this deposition was, in your 35 years of experience as a homicide detective, whether or not you knew of any occasion where a child had been murdered by a parent where a garotte was used. Do you remember that?

    A. Yes.

    Q. And do you remember what your answer was?

    A. My answer was that I have never seen any report or any evidence of a parent garotting their child with a garotte.

    Q. Now, the question I have for you is this. Do you know of any incident in your own personal experience, or have you even heard of a pedophile killer -- I believe this is how you described the criminal as you referred to this person that killed JonBenet -- have you ever heard of an instance where a pedophile child molester/killer left a ransom note for the parents?

    A. No, I haven't.

    Q. Okay. So to that degree, that is equally unusual, isn't it, as the garotting of a child by parents?

    A. Yes. I have heard, however, Mr. Hoffman, of a pedophile's using a garotte on a child.

    Q. Okay. But you never have heard of a pedophile that actually left a ransom note for the parents afterwards; is that correct?

    A. No.

    Q. Okay. Now, the question I have for you is this. You said earlier that you were leaving -- there were two paths, basically.

    Page 372

    There was a member of the Ramsey family involved path, and then there is the intruder path. Is that correct?

    A. Yes.

    Q. Okay. And -- well, did you also say that you were leaving both paths open, even though you were travelling down this intruder path?

    A. That is correct.

    Q. Okay. With respect to the Ramsey path, do you mind if we cover that a little bit since most of the time has been spent covering the intruder path?

    A. I don't mind at all, sir.

    Q. Okay. The question I have for you is this, and it is a hypothetical question because it is for the purposes of being able to answer what I am going to follow with.

    If a parent in the Ramsey household wanted to make the murder look like the work of an intruder, the questions I have for you is this: Is there any reason physically why that parent could not have lifted the grating, come through the basement, and then left the same way, as you described earlier on? Is there any reason why a parent couldn't do that?

    I am not asking why they would do it, but could they do that under the circumstances as you described them?

    A. I would say that would be very extremely remote.

    Q. Not remote with respect to motivation, but simply, could they physically? You said you are what, 5'9", that you could physically go through that grate and go through the window.

    Do you know, in your opinion, could Patsy Ramsey or John Ramsey have entered and left the basement the way you did through that window?

    A. Yes. Anybody could do that.

    Q. Okay. So at least with respect to that, you agree, then, that the parents, if they were trying, either one of them was trying to make the murder look like that of an intruder, in effect, could have entered and exited that area and left all of the clues that you claim are left there with respect to that entrance and exiting; is that correct?

    A. Yes.

    Q. Now, does that also mean that, with respect to your observations about the duct tape, is it possible, then, that a parent that wanted to make this look like an intruder could have used duct tape? Is that true?

    A. Yes.

    Q. Is it also true that, if a parent wanted to make this look like either a mad man, a criminal, or some sexual predator, that they could have used the stun gun on JonBenet? Is that possible?

    A. Yes.

    Q. Is it also possible that those, that individual, be it the mother or the father, could have also tied the slipknots around JonBenet's hands?

    A. Yes. Again, we are not looking into pathology or into criminal conduct.

    Q. Yes, precisely.

    So they can't be excluded at this point just purely on the conduct part of it. The criminal behavior element, the motivation, whatever, we will go into that separately.

    But so far, it seems that all of the areas that you have pointed out as being areas that point to an intruder in theory could also be accomplished by a parent trying to make what happened in that house look like the work of an intruder; is that correct?

    MR. WOOD: Darnay, I apologize, but I have to object to the form of the question because of your prefatory statements that appear to be more of a statement about questions of exclusion than a question. To that extent, I object to the form of the question.

    If you understand it, Detective Smit, certainly, you have the right and you should try to answer it.

    THE WITNESS: Yes. I am a little uncomfortable with the question.

    MR. WOOD: Could you restate it, perhaps, Darnay?

    MR. HOFFMAN: Certainly. I am very sorry.

    Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) Would it be fair to say, then, that the conduct that you have described, such as entering and exiting the basement through the basement window with the grate, the use of a stun gun, the application of duct tape, the use of a slipknot, all of those things could, in fact, be accomplished by a parent who was trying to make the events that occurred in that house look like that of an intruder?

    A. I will answer that question, it could be, but very, very unlikely.

    Q. I understand.

    Now let's go into the area of why it would be unlikely. Apparently, whenever you have discussed each one of these elements, such as, you say, Why would a parent use a stun gun in order to, like, silence their child or do whatever. I understand that that certainly would not make sense, but that really, basically, the question you ask, "Why would a parent do this?," well, couldn't the answer be that a parent was doing it because a parent was trying to make what was occurring in that house look like the work of an intruder? Couldn't that be an answer as to why a parent was doing that?

    MR. WOOD: Let me again, Darnay, I am a little bit concerned about when you say "a parent was trying to make what was occurring in that house look like the work of an intruder."

    Page 377

    I am not sure what you are talking about. Let me help. This will help clarify it.

    MR. HOFFMAN: Okay.

    MR. WOOD: Are you saying that a child is intentionally murdered by a parent, and then a parent could do these things such as use a stun gun, or a child is accidentally killed by a parent and then could have used a stun gun?

    MR. HOFFMAN: It could be either one of those events. The child could have been either accidentally killed or the child could have been intentionally killed. But in any case --

    MR. WOOD: But here are -- well, that answers my question.

    The stun gun marks here were made while the child was alive. So I think it is only fair that, when you ask him about these types of questions, you give him a full scenario in terms of the sequence of events.

    In other words, are you asking him: Is it possible here that John or Patsy Ramsey could have used a stun gun on JonBenet to try to cover-up an accidental killing? The physical evidence says that is not possible because the stun gun was used, clearly, while the child was alive.

    If you can try to be precise about the mechanism or the timing of the death, it would be helpful on these kinds of questions.

    MR. HOFFMAN: All right. The reason I am not trying to be that specific is that, actually, Detective Smit spent several hours going into very specific points. What I am trying to ascertain is whether or not, despite all this discussion on the PowerPoint as pointing to an intruder, could this same discussion apply to a parent who was trying to make the murder look like the work of an intruder?

    MR. WOOD: But that is exactly my point. I am not going to belabor it, but I am not sure what -- if you are talking about the staging to make it look like an intruder after they have accidentally or otherwise killed their daughter, then you are talking about stun gun, sexual assault, garotting and strangulation, physically things that clearly occurred here while JonBenet was alive.

    MR. HOFFMAN: Well, we don't really know that. I mean, there are differences of opinions as to when these things occurred.

    MR. WOOD: I am not aware --

    MR. HOFFMAN: I am trying to stay out of the -- well, like, for instance -- let me give you an example.

    MR. WOOD: I am not aware of any differences of opinion on the red marks being --

    MR. HOFFMAN: Maybe I ought to lay a foundation for that, and I will start by asking Detective Smit.

    Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) Detective Smit, do you know who Warner Spitz is?

    A. Yes, I do.

    Q. Could you identify him, please?

    A. I believe that Warner Spitz is the doctor that looked at the autopsy photos of JonBenet.

    Q. Now, are you aware of what Dr. Spitz' conclusions were?

    A. There was a report made. I am not sure of all of the report, but I do remember portions of it.

    Q. Do you know if his report agreed

    Q. Do you know if his report agreed with your theory of, or the sequencing of your theory as to whether there was a head injury and then a garotting or a garotting and then a head injury, the sequence? Do you know whether or not his sequencing of that agreed with yours?

    A. Yes. It did not agree with mine.

    Q. Okay. So would you consider Dr. Spitz to be an expert in his field of forensic pathology?

    A. Personally, no.

    Q. You don't. And could you tell me why?

    A. Because I think he came to the wrong conclusion.

    Q. But can't an expert that is well qualified reach the wrong conclusion occasionally?

    MR. WOOD: Are you asking him to comment on Dr. Spitz's qualifications?

    MR. HOFFMAN: Well, yeah, I asked him why he didn't feel he was qualified, and he said just because he came to the wrong conclusion. That doesn't necessarily mean he is not qualified.

    MR. WOOD: All I am saying is to the form of your question, your question assumes a well-qualified expert.

    MR. HOFFMAN: Okay. Then I am going to ask --

    Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) -- Detective Smit whether you think Warner Spitz is a well-qualified expert?

    A. Personally, no.

    Q. Okay. And the reasons for that?

    A. Mainly because I have seen his reports. I have also talked to other doctors and pathologists. They do not agree with Warner Spitz. I will also go by what they say.


    Q. Now, with respect to the issue of -- I believe you raised a question concerning the -- let's see what it is. Okay. the stun gun. Correct? You believe a stun gun was used in this case?

    A. I have no question about that.

    Q. Okay. Do you know who Steve Tuttle is?

    A. I do.

    Q. Can you identify him, please?

    A. He is, I believe, associated with AirTaser company.

    Q. Do you know what his association with AirTaser is?

    A. I believe that it is probably -- I don't think he is an actual member of the company, but I believe that he is employed by them as part of their advertising or as part of their promotions.

    Q. Do you know if he acts as a spokesperson for AirTaser?

    A. No, I don't know that.

    Q. Do you know if Steve Tuttle agrees with your theory that a stun gun, an AirTaser stun gun, was used on JonBenet?

    A. No, I don't know that.

    Q. You do or don't know that he agrees with you?

    A. No, I don't know that for a fact. I have heard certain things whereby he does not agree with some things, but I never have seen any type of report.

    Q. All right. Are you saying, in effect, then, that you have heard that Steve Tuttle may not agree with you?

    A. I have heard that.

    Q. Okay. Now, with respect to JonBenet being sexually molested, do you know who -- was it Ronald Krugman? Robert Krugman, I believe the name is. Have you ever heard of him?

    A. Yes, I believe his name does appear in the index in the Ramsey case.

    Q. Yes. Do you know who he is?

    A. I believe he is a -- he is a medical doctor.

    Q. Do you know what area he specializes in?

    A. I cannot recall.

    Q. Okay. Would it surprise you to note Dr. Krugman is considered an expert in sexual molestation with respect to children?

    A. I would agree that you know him better than I, and I would agree with that.

    Q. Okay. Do you know whether or not Dr. Krugman agrees with your opinion that JonBenet was sexually molested?

    A. No, I don't.

    Q. You don't know or do you know that he doesn't agree with you?

    A. No, I don't know that he does not agree with me.

    Q. Okay. Would you be surprised to know that he, in fact, doesn't agree with you?

    A. No.

    Q. You are not surprised?

    A. I am not surprised.

    Q. Okay. Why aren't you surprised?

    A. I am sure there are many people that don't agree with me, but there are also many people that do agree with me.

    Q. But Dr. Richard Krugman is the dean of the, I think, Colorado University Health Sciences Center, and is considered a nationally-known child abuse expert, and apparently doesn't agree with you.

    MR. WOOD: Are you talking about, when you say "sexually molested," are you representing that Dr. Krugman is taking the position that there was not a sexual assault as evidenced by the trauma to JonBenet Ramsey's vagina?

    MR. HOFFMAN: No. That simply that there wasn't sexual gratification as a motivation behind it; that there was some sort of an assault on the sex organs, but they weren't necessarily for the purposes of sexual gratification. That is the representation.

    MR. WOOD: So the representation is that Dr. Krugman acknowledges that she was physically assaulted with some type of instrument in her vaginal area, but Dr. Krugman, you represent, has some theory as to why that attack took place that would differ from --

    MR. HOFFMAN: No, I just want you --

    MR. WOOD: Excuse me.

    -- the idea that it was a sexual motivation?

    MR. HOFFMAN: I just wanted to ask Detective Smit whether or not he had heard that and whether he knew of it.

    MR. WOOD: I am just not sure what he is being asked to say that he heard of.

    Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) Simply -- well, have you heard that Dr. Krugman does not believe that this was a sexual assault involving gratification?

    A. No, I have not.


    Q. All right. Now, with respect to Dr. John Meyer, do you know who he is?

    A. Yes, I do.

    Q. Could you tell me who this person is?

    A. I believe Dr. John Meyer is the coroner who conducted the autopsy on JonBenet.

    Q. Now I think probably former coroner based on the last election, but I may be incorrect.

    Do you have any opinion with respect to Dr. John Meyer's ability as a coroner?

    A. I think he is a very good coroner.

    Q. Okay. Now, with respect to his autopsy, I believe you said that his autopsy identified the marks on JonBenet's body, the ones that you identify as being stun gun marks, as being unidentified abrasions; is that correct?

    A. Yes.

    MR. WOOD: I believe it was "unexplained abrasions," Darnay.

    MR. HOFFMAN: Oh, I am sorry. "Unexplained." "Unexplained abrasions."

    Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) Is it your understanding that Dr. Meyer actually physically looked at JonBenet's body --

    A. Yes.

    Q. -- in making his autopsy report?

    A. Yes.

    Q. Did you physically look at the body?

    A. No.

    Q. You relied on photographs instead; is that correct?

    A. That is correct.

    Q. Do you think that Dr. Meyer would have been qualified to determine whether or not those unexplained abrasions were, in fact, Air -- stun gun marks?

    A. No, I don't think he is qualified in that.

    Q. Now, with respect to the footprint that was found, or footprints, I guess -- that seems to be how you describe it, that there are several footprints in the basement; is that correct?

    A. I see three.

    Q. Three footprints. Have you been able to determine exactly when those footprints were made?

    A. No. But in my observations of the photographs, I believe that they were made very close to the time of the murder.

    Q. But conceivably before the murder; is that correct?

    A. Conceivably, yes.

    Q. And is it also conceivable that workmen who may have been working in that area could have made those marks, those footprints?

    A. My answer would be yes, but I don't think that that occurred.

    Q. Do you know whether or not Burke Ramsey had, I think, sneakers that were referred to as Hi-Tec sneakers?

    A. No, I don't.

    Q. Okay. In one of the interviews that the Ramseys agreed to, was one in August of the year 2000. I have had an opportunity to see the tape. And I believe that one of the interviewers, I believe it may have been Tom Haney, asked, I believe Patsy Ramsey, whether or not she was aware of the fact that at the grand jury Burke and I think maybe one of Burke's friends discussed the fact that he had something that they called Hi-Tec sneakers or something. Were you aware of that?

    MR. WOOD: Let me say, Darnay, I think you are referring to a question that was asked, as you say, in August of 2000. Tom Haney was not a participant.

    MR. HOFFMAN: Okay. Then one of the --

    MR. WOOD: One of the individuals did ask her a question about referencing someone's testimony before the grand jury. There was never a clarification as to whether the information alleged to have been presented to the grand jury dealt with the logo Hi-Tec sneakers or simply a reference generically to a high tech sneaker, not necessarily manufactured by Hi-Tec. That was not ever clarified at the deposition -- I mean, at the August 2000 interview.

    Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) Okay. I just wanted to know whether or not Detective Smit was aware of that --

    A. No.

    Q. -- that there is some issue or question around the whether or not Burke actually owned sneakers that may or may not have been Hi-Tec and whether he heard of that.

    A. No, I am not aware of that.


    Q. All right. Now, another question. With regard to Melody Stanton, do you know whether or not she still claims to have heard a scream the night JonBenet was supposed to have been murdered?

    A. I heard secondhand that she now says that it is not.

    Q. All right. Would that in any way change your scenario if it turned out that Melody Stanton, in fact, didn't hear screams that night?

    A. I would, you know, just say as a detective, the reports speak for themselves. I do believe that Melody Stanton at one point definitely stated that she heard a scream, and that it was the most terrifying child scream that she ever heard. That has been recorded.

    Q. But if she heard it another night, would that change your theory about what happened?

    A. The report that I read indicated that she heard it the night of the murder.

    Q. Yes. But I am not asking you that. I am asking you whether or not, if it turns out that is different, would you revise your scenario?

    MR. WOOD: Are you asking him to assume here that Melody Stanton has admitted that she misrepresented the truth to the police?

    MR. HOFFMAN: No, didn't not misrepresent. That simply that somebody was mistaken taking her report.

    Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) For whatever reason, it turns out she was either mistaken or the person that took her reports was mistaken in what she said. Would that affect your scenario?

    A. Yes, I would also include that as part of the report.

    Q. So is that a yes or a no?

    A. That is a yes.

    Q. You would revise your scenario?

    A. If it was positively ascertained that she did this and that she was questioned very carefully in regards to this, and there are many "ifs" in this particular answer --

    MR. WOOD: You mean revise his scenario by omitting the evidence about her hearing a scream?

    MR. HOFFMAN: Well, yes, with respect to this. It appears that the scream seems to be connected some way to the AirTaser stun-gunning, and somehow that seems to support Detective Smit's theory that there was definitely a stun gun used because of the scream.

    I am asking him, would he revise his scenario if it turned out that she, in fact, was incorrect or had been incorrectly reported as having said that.

    MR. WOOD: And let me say this, Darnay. It may be a matter of the unfortunate fact that you weren't here to actually see the presentation, but the scream of Melody Stanton was not in any way related to the use of a stun gun on JonBenet. I believe that that came out during the portion of the presentation where Detective Smit was discussing evidence of where the actual murder took place outside the area of the doorway to the wine cellar.

    MR. HOFFMAN: I appreciate that. But I am going to now ask Detective Smit.

    Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) Does he feel that the scream that has allegedly been reported by Melody Stanton is in any way connected to the use of a stun gun on JonBenet that night?

    A. I just don't know how to answer that question. JonBenet could have screamed any time that night, whether a stun gun was used at that time or not. So I couldn't say if it was the result of a stun gun or not.

    Q. All right. So you --

    A. I do believe that a scream was heard

    Page 393

    by Melody Stanton as she reported it. Now, if she wants to revise that, and things are stated in regards to that, and it has been thoroughly followed up on, sure, that is all part of the report. And it does probably reflect what would happen as far as the investigation is concerned.

    Q. In what respect?

    A. It may be a -- I would say that -- I am having a difficult time answering this question, and I am sorry. But I would still put --

    MR. WOOD: Are you asking him if he would change his theory of the intruder?

    MR. HOFFMAN: No, no. I am asking him, would it, in effect, change his idea as to whether or not a stun gun was used if it turned out there was no scream in the night?

    MR. WOOD: I understand.

    THE WITNESS: My answer is no.

    Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) Okay. Let's see here.

    Now, with respect to the Ramseys, I take it you have some personal opinions with respect to their guilt or innocent; is that correct?

    A. Yes.

    Q. Now, with respect to their involvement in this case, do you feel that they have been actively looking for the killer?

    A. Absolutely. Without question.

    Q. Can you state how long you feel they have been doing that?

    A. Every since their daughter died.

    Q. All right. Now, are you aware of who Ellis Armistead is?

    A. I am.

    Q. Could you tell me who he is?

    A. He is the -- he was the investigator for the Ramsey attorneys.

    Q. Can you ask me what he was hired to do, if you know?

    A. Probably to investigate this case.

    Q. Was part of his duty to try and find the killer?

    A. Yes.

    Q. All right. Now, I am going to quote something from a December 18, 2001, Rocky Mountain News article. It is by, I believe, our old friend Charlie Brennan. Quote: Armistead said his assignment working for the Ramsey lawyers was not to solve the crime. It was to keep the Ramseys from being arrested.

    Now Armistead is quoted: I was alert to the fact that there is no getting around the fact that many children who are killed are killed by their parents, he said. It was not like I was naive. I wouldn't have changed how I did anything. It didn't really matter to me whether they did it or didn't do it. I saw my mandate as being to protect the Ramseys. At some point in time, there was pressure to, quote, find the killer, but I was not in a position to do that. I didn't have access to the evidence. Are you surprised by that statement?

    MR. WOOD: Can you hold on one second, please? Bear with me, Darnay. I am trying to find something on my computer.

    MR. HOFFMAN: Sure.

    MR. WOOD: Okay.

    MR. HOFFMAN: I am sorry.

    MR. WOOD: Are you representing that Mr. Armistead, who, by the way, has already retracted a portion of that interview, are you representing that Mr. Armistead is stating as a matter of fact that he did not or that the Ramseys did not engage in private efforts to investigate their daughter's murder?

    MR. HOFFMAN: No, I am not making any representation. I simply read a section from a newspaper article, and I am asking Detective Smit's reaction to it.

    MR. WOOD: Well, just to be fair, I would like to read from the sworn affidavit of Bryan Morgan filed in the Ramsey litigation against the New York Post.

    MR. HOFFMAN: Lin, can I have my answer first? Because --

    MR. WOOD: Yes, as soon as --

    MR. HOFFMAN: -- I don't think this is fair. Look, look, look, I don't think you can go in and clean this up. First of all, I don't even know what you guys are talking about. I didn't know you were representing Lou Smit. I didn't realize --

    MR. WOOD: I don't represent Lou Smit.

    MR. HOFFMAN: Well, then, what is this colloquy out of my earshot? If you are discussing --

    MR. WOOD: There has been no col- -- whoa, whoa. There has been no colloquy out of your earshot.

    MR. HOFFMAN: Well, why was there a mute on this? Why was there a mute on this discussion?

    MR. LIN: There has been no mute on this discussion. I asked you to hang on while I have been sitting here scrolling through my computer to find an affidavit filed by Bryan Morgan in the New York Post litigation and an affidavit filed by Pat Burke. These are sworn affidavits filed --

    MR. HOFFMAN: Yeah, but, but why do I need this right now? Can't I just get a simple yes --

    MR. WOOD: You may.

    MR. HOFFMAN: -- or no answer to my question?

    MR. WOOD: You may. You can, but if you will bear with me, if I might simply perfect the record as I feel like I need --

    MR. HOFFMAN: No, no. I would like you to do that after my question is done. You know, like a redirect. You had hours, Lin. Could I please just have my little time and not have you sort of like -- sort of like emboss or simply elaborate on testimony? We don't --

    MR. WOOD: Darnay --

    MR. HOFFMAN: I don't need commentary here.

    MR. WOOD: -- calm down.

    MR. HOFFMAN: What I need is an answer to my question. That is all I am asking for.

    MR. WOOD: I will do this because I don't -- I am going to let -- obviously, I have no right not to -- I don't have any right to instruct Mr. Smit to answer or not answer a question. He has got very skilled counsel here to do that.

    I just -- with all due respect, Darnay, sometimes your questions may be unintentionally misrepresentative of the --

    MR. HOFFMAN: No, I am just asking for his reaction to --

    MR. WOOD: Truth of the matter. Well, wait a second. Wait, wait. Armistead, you are asking him a reaction to apparently some interpretation that you are placing on some --

    MR. HOFFMAN: No, I am not.

    MR. WOOD: Well, I am not --

    MR. HOFFMAN: I am not asking him to interpret it. I want him to tell me what his reaction is. He can interpret it for himself.

    MR. WOOD: His reaction to -- maybe if I just restate it. And what I want to ask him --

    MR. HOFFMAN: No, no, no. I just

    MR. WOOD: No. I am going to back -- I am not -- why don't you just wait a second, Darnay. I am going to let him answer the question. I am going to ask you to restate it, maybe make it --

    MR. HOFFMAN: No, I am not. I am going to have the reporter please read it back, and then have him answer it, which he should have been allowed to do early on.

    MR. WOOD: He has not been prevented from that. I simply -- I simply wanted to go back because you --

    MR. HOFFMAN: I don't want to restate the question.

    MR. WOOD: All right. Don't. We will have it read back. But let me just make it clear for the record.

    You are representing certain positions allegedly taken by Ellis Armistead in isolated quotes in the newspaper article, in an article that he has already publicly retracted in part, and I simply wanted to go back and verify what I know to be the truth, and I won't do it in this particular portion. I will do it on redirect, where I have sworn affidavits from Bryan Morgan and Pat Burke, who were the attorneys for the Ramseys who hired Ellis Armistead, who Ellis Armistead worked for, not the Ramseys, who have directly contradicted under oath the statements of Ellis Armistead as they appear to be published in this article. And I think that if this is a pursuit of the truth --

    MR. HOFFMAN: I just wanted --

    MR. WOOD: -- you would allow that information to be put before the witness.

    MR. HOFFMAN: I will allow it when it is in its proper context.

    MR. WOOD: I will ask it -- I will ask it on redirect.

    MR. HOFFMAN: Hey, look, Lin, what you have done, basically, is you have thrown up a five-minute, you know, barrage so that he can sit there and think of his answer. I would appreciate you not doing it. Okay?

    MR. WOOD: That is pure speculation on your part, and it is nonsense.

    MR. HOFFMAN: It is not pure speculation. It is a standard lawyer's trick to do this.

    MR. WOOD: Not my standard lawyer's trick.

    MR. HOFFMAN: You are giving the witness --

    MR. WOOD: I don't practice law by trickery and chicanery, Darnay.

    MR. HOFFMAN: Can I tell you something? You are interfering with my part of this question and answer. Please stop.

    MR. WOOD: I am not.

    MR. HOFFMAN: Please stop, Mr. Wood. Please. All right?

    MR. WOOD: Darnay, Darnay, get your question out there, but let me tell you this, you make any more statements about me doing
    tricks, and we are going to walk out of here. I am not going to be sitting here -- I am not going to sit here and have my professional skills questioned by you. Now, we have been that route before, Darnay. Don't do it. That is a mistake on your part, buddy.

    MR. HOFFMAN: Now, listen. Quite frankly --

    MR. WOOD: Look, I have the right to sit here and look --

    MR. HOFFMAN: No, listen.

    MR. WOOD: You listen to me now. I am getting tired of this. I have the right to sit here as I asked to look through my computer and scroll through here to try to find some information that I thought might be relevant to the question you asked. I had the right to do it, and I don't have to be accused of doing it for some ulterior motive to give a witness five minutes to think about it, a witness who has probably got a hell of a lot more sense than I do and can respond on his own and stand on his own two feet.

    I wanted to look at my computer to see the file, plain and simple. If you can't accept that as the truth, maybe it is because you do those types of tactics because you engage in trickery. I do not. Let's get your question answered before I lose my temper with you.

    MR. HOFFMAN: You have no right -- you have no right to direct him to wait to answer while you check on anything.

    MR. WOOD: I have the absolute right to ask for an opportunity to look at my file. MR. HOFFMAN: You have no right. You have no right to do it before he answers.

    MR. WOOD: Well, I am going to do it when I think I need to, whether you like it or not.

    MR. HOFFMAN: No, you have no right to direct this third-party witness, who you don't represent, to do or not do something which --

    MR. WOOD: I haven't --

    MR. HOFFMAN: -- directs his answer. MR. WOOD: I haven't directed him.

    MR. HOFFMAN: Oh, you certainly said you wanted the answer to wait --

    MR. WOOD: Darnay, this sounds like neener-neener-neener between a couple of kids. Go ahead and ask the question, and let's move on.


    MR. HOFFMAN: Well, could the court reporter please read back the question.

    MR. WOOD: Do you want him to read back the quote from the article?

    MR. HOFFMAN: Yes, actually.

    MR. WOOD: Okay.

    [Jams wrote:]
    "Question: All right. Now, I am going to quote something from a December 18, 2001, Rocky Mountain News article. It is by, I believe, our old friend Charlie Brennan. Quote: Armistead said his assignment working for the Ramsey lawyers was not to solve the crime. It was to keep the Ramseys from being arrested.

    "Now Armistead is quoted: I was alert to the fact there is no getting around the fact that many children who are killed are killed by their parents, he said. It was not like I was naive. I wouldn't have changed how I did anything. It didn't really matter to me whether they did it or didn't do it. I saw my mandate as being to protect the Ramseys. At some point in time, there was pressure to, quote, find the killer, but I was not in a position to do that. And I didn't have access to the evidence.

    "Question: Are you surprised by that statement?")

    Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) Yes or no?

    A. My answer is no.

    Q. Now, with respect to the garotte, the so-called knot that was made by the garotte, have you been able to identify it yet?

    A. No.

    Q. Do you know if anybody has been able to identify it?

    A. I believe that the knots were sent to a knot expert in Canada.

    Q. Do you know if there were any conclusions?

    A. I don't recall what those conclusions are. There was some conclusions, I believe, but I don't recall what they are.

    Q. All right. Let me ask you a question with respect to your involvement with the homicide. I understand that you were hired by the Boulder District Attorney's office; is that correct?

    A. That is correct.

    Q. Now, could you please describe exactly what it was that you were entrusted with doing?

    A. Actually, it was to try to assist in the investigation. Part of my duties was to collect and organize all of the case files that the police department had. And I spent a great deal of my time doing that.

    But, initially, I was also available to help any investigation and also to advise Alex Hunter as to what I found.

    Q. Did you actually at any time go out and interview witnesses?

    A. Yes.

    Q. Now, with respect to your organizing the -- What is it, the murder file, the case file?

    A. Yes.

    Q. -- did you look at every report that came sort of like into the District Attorney's office and organize it for them?

    A. Yes. I had to do that in order to index and time line the case.

    Q. All right. Now, with respect to the handwriting evidence that we talked about earlier, I believe -- I didn't have a chance to see the PowerPoint. The quotes from the different handwriting experts, did you actually reproduce the portions of the reports that had these conclusions, or did you just have that typed up on the screen?

    A. No. I actually made a chart for the District Attorney's office with this information.

    Q. But does the chart itself actually reproduce physically the typeface of the report, meaning that you just excerpt it and you put it up there, or did you have it retyped for the, you know, the D.A.?

    A. Yes, these excerpts were taken out of the experts' reports by the District Attorney and --

    Q. Did you ever see the complete reports?

    A. No.

    Q. So all you saw were the excerpts; is that correct?

    A. That is correct.

    Q. You have no basis to know whether or not the methodology that was used was correct or not correct; is that true?

    A. I don't know that, no.

    Q. Did you have any opportunity to see what exhibits they were using?

    A. No, I didn't.

    Q. Did you have any opportunity to read about any of the discussion involving the similarities and dissimilarities in those reports?

    A. Not that I recall, no.

    Q. So basically your belief that the handwriting does or doesn't match any individual is based on conclusions that you were shown by the District Attorney's office; is that correct?

    A. That is correct.


    Q. Now, are you aware that CBI removed sheets from JonBenet's bed that were urine-stained?

    MR. WOOD: CBI removed urine-stained sheets?

    MR. HOFFMAN: Yes. That in their custody are sheets from JonBenet's bed which, from what I understand, when you open the, I guess it is, the bag that they are in, the urine practically knocks you out in terms of the urine odor.

    Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) Were you aware of that?

    MR. WOOD: With all due respect, what are you referring to, Darnay?

    Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) I am referring to whether or not you know if CBI has physical evidence of urine-stained sheets that were taken from JonBenet's bed.

    MR. WOOD: Are you representing as a matter of fact that that is --

    MR. HOFFMAN: I am just asking him if he knows. I am not making that representation.

    MR. WOOD: Yes, but let's don't play that game. Are you asking him hypothetically or are you asking him and representing that is a true statement of fact?

    MR. HOFFMAN: No. I am asking him if, in fact, that is true --


    MR. HOFFMAN: -- that CBI has urine-stained sheets from this investigation in their lab.

    THE WITNESS: While I was at the District Attorney's office and all of the reports that I have seen, I have seen no reports to indicate that they were urine stained, or that there was any odor from that bag.


    Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) All right. Now, with respect to -- do you know how much money the Ramseys made from their book?

    A. I have no idea.

    Q. Do you know if they made money from their book?

    A. No, I don't know that.


    Q. Now, with respect to the statements that you made earlier, which is simply that whenever there was a discussion about certain things happening, such as why would a parent need an AirTaser to, you know, get their child to be subdued or be moved or whatever, or why would a parent use a garotte, or whatever, isn't that basically the key phrase for all of your observations, that this is an intruder that was doing all this because why would a parent dot-dot-dot? Isn't that, in effect, what you are saying?

    THE WITNESS: No. That is an observation that I made in regards to why would a parent have to do this. Yes, I did bring that up.

    Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) Okay. So --

    A. There is evidence, however, that does show that a stun gun was used --

    Q. Yes, but --

    A. -- and that a stun gun was used on JonBenet. The question in any detective's mind would be, Why would a parent have to do that?

    Q. Well, that goes back to this whole issue of motivation, which I think you said was critical in your evaluation of the evidence as to whether there was an intruder or somebody from the Ramsey family; is that correct?

    A. That is correct. There is no motive.

    Q. So motivation --

    MR. WOOD: Wait, wait, wait. Darnay, let him finish, please.

    MR. HOFFMAN: I am sorry.

    THE WITNESS: That is correct. There is no motive for the Ramseys to have killed their daughter in that manner.

    Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) I am going to refer you to the ransom note. I have a copy of it right here. And you were saying that you had looked over the ransom note, and you have made some observations about it. One of the things I wanted to ask you is whether or not you are aware that Patsy is fond of using what they in the French call "accent grave" and "accent aigu" over words like "attache," or whatever. Do you know that appears in Patsy Ramsey's handwriting?

    A. No, I am not aware of it.

    Q. Well, you know it appears in the ransom note?

    A. I don't know if that even appears in the ransom note.

    Q. Do you know whether or not Patsy Ramsey is fond of using initials in a lot of her correspondence?

    A. No, I don't know that.

    Q. Would it surprise you if I told you she does use a lot of initialing in her correspondence?

    A. It would not surprise me if you told me that.

    Q. Would it surprise you, also, if I told you she likes to use a lot of exclamation points in her handwriting?

    A. It would not surprise me if you told me that.

    Q. You are aware that there are exclamation points such as right after the word "victory"?

    A. Yes.

    Q. Okay. Now, I believe you said that Patsy Ramsey is at least one person who has had her handwriting analyzed who cannot be eliminated as the ransom note writer; is that correct?

    A. That is correct.

    Q. And I believe you also said that it is your understanding that her husband, John, is eliminated or can be eliminated; is that correct?

    A. That is correct.

    Q. And I believe you also said that you don't know of anybody else by name that can't be eliminated as the ransom note writer?

    A. I believe Burke has been eliminated. I have not -- Mr. Hoffman, I have not seen all of the reports that were submitted. In other words, there were numerous handwriting exemplars taken from many, many people, and those were turned into the Boulder Police Department evidence room. I didn't see any reports that came back, so I can't answer that question.

    Q. Okay. Now, with respect to the number of interviews that were done by the Boulder Police Department of potential suspects, do you have a rough idea of how many were conducted?

    A. From my recollection, during the first, I would say, six months, until Chief Beckner got involved in the investigation, there was very little done in regards to questioning potential suspects. The main focus of the investigation was on the Ramseys.

    Q. So --

    A. After Chief Beckner came aboard, he did attempt to interview more people.

    Q. Well, in the course of preparing this murder case file, how many interviews do you think you actually saw during the time you were
    there, if you can give me a rough approximation?

    MR. WOOD: Of witnesses or anyone?

    MR. HOFFMAN: Of anybody that they took statements of and then gave them to you to file or do whatever.

    THE WITNESS: There were literally hundreds of interviews.

    Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) All right. Now let me ask you this. Is it correct that you believe that there has been some sort of what is commonly called a rush to judgment with respect to the Ramseys being the perpetrators of this particular crime?

    A. Yes. I also referred to it as tunnel vision.

    Q. Okay. Now, with respect to that, is it possible that, if the parents cannot be eliminated as murder suspects, that it is prudent for a police department to continue investigating them until they can be eliminated? Would you agree with that statement?

    A. I believe that the way I can answer that question is that they had five years to look at the Ramseys. It is time, I think, that the Ramseys are taken off the front burner and put on the back burner. I don't say eliminate, not investigating them. I think that effort should be made to investigate everybody.

    Q. Now, you say they had five years to do it, but isn't it true that within only a much shorter period than five years you were saying that the Ramseys should be taken off of the front burner?

    A. I believe they should have been taken off of the front burner early in the investigation.

    Q. I want to ask you something. How much experience do you have in domestic homicides?


    A. Yes. Yes, I have had a lot of experience in domestic homicides, but domestic violence, and things of that nature, I was mainly in the homicide division.

    Q. Yes, that is what I am really inquiring, the actual domestic homicides.
    Let me ask you this. How useful is forensic evidence in domestic homicides where the suspects basically live at the scene of the crime?

    A. Forensic evidence is always important, no matter where it is.

    Q. But couldn't it be possible to make innocent explanations of almost any forensic evidence at the scene of the crime where the people in question have a right to be there, live there, and do all sorts of things there?

    A. Yes.

    Q. So wouldn't you say that forensic evidence at a domestic homicide might be a little less important than, say, forensic evidence in some other scene where the people really don't have any business there, and, therefore, the existence of their forensics would cause more comment?

    A. No. I --

    MR. WOOD: Are you talking about domestic homicide meaning it is known that one spouse killed another spouse?

    MR. HOFFMAN: No. Just very simply, a crime is committed on the premises of a home.
    It can be a -- one spouse killing other; it can be a spouse killing, or somebody killing a child, or whatever.

    Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) And the question is, how important is forensic evidence in that environment compared to forensic evidence where people are killing each other where they are in places where they are not necessarily supposed to be, like somebody breaking into a home, or whatever, and committing a crime and leaving a forensic there?

    Isn't it true that it would be more difficult to use forensic evidence to tie a parent or spouse to a crime in a home where they have a right to be there than in some environment where they are not supposed to be?

    MR. WOOD: I am going to object to the form of the question. But, certainly, go ahead and answer, Detective Smit.

    THE WITNESS: Mr. Hoffman, whether it is a domestic homicide in a house or outside the house, all forensic evidence is extremely important.

    Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) Well, let's say --

    A. Whether it is inside or not, it doesn't make any difference. You look at the evidence, and you let the evidence tell you what to do.

    Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) Well, if a stranger's forensics were on JonBenet, that would be more of something to cause comment than, say, her parents; is that correct?

    A. Absolutely. In this case, that is what happened.

    Q. So, basically, if the police were at a domestic homicide environment like this, and they didn't follow all the rules, it wouldn't necessarily mean that all of the important forensic evidence had been destroyed; is that correct?

    MR. WOOD: That -- that, boy, is mighty vague, Darnay. What rules did they not follow?

    MR. HOFFMAN: Oh, just simply crime scene preservation rules.

    MR. WOOD: Well, that might go directly to the question of forensic evidence being properly preserved.

    MR. HOFFMAN: Yeah. I have just simply -- how important is it in domestic homicide as against in some other homicide that is not in a domestic environment?

    THE WITNESS: Like I said before, Mr. Hoffman, is that I would treat it the same, if you are asking my opinion.

    Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) Yes.

    A. It don't make any difference.

    Q. Okay. Now, you say that you are very much a person that believes in walking in the victim's shoes. I believe the FBI now calls that victim profiling. Is that correct?

    MR. WOOD: What?

    THE WITNESS: I don't understand that, but I do believe in the term of "walking in the victim's shoes," yes, I do.

    Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) Well, a victim profiling is, in effect, trying to understand what it is like to be the victim in a crime and then trying to determine why this crime is committed and consequently who committed it. Wouldn't that be similar to "walking in the victim's shoes"?

    MR. WOOD: Are you representing that -- well, I will object to the form of the question in that I don't know that your statement about the definition of victim profiling is at all true.

    You can answer the question, Detective Smit.

    Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) Well, let me ask you this. Are you familiar with FBI behavioral profiling of criminals?

    A. Yes. I have dealt with it for 30 some years.

    MR. WOOD: Me, too, Darnay.

    MR. HOFFMAN: Yup. I'm sure, yeah.

    MR. WOOD: Me, too. That is just a light comment based on my opinion of the FBI and their profiling techniques.

    MR. HOFFMAN: I wonder if they profile lawyers, too.

    MR. WOOD: I will tell you what, they are probably just as wrong when they do as they are when they profile everybody else.

    MR. HOFFMAN: Yeah, like the list of IRS list of accountants they don't want to see practicing before them.

    Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) With respect to the profile that we are discussing here, the profile of whether it is a parent, meaning one of the Ramseys, or the profile of whether it is an intruder from the outside, so to speak, would handwriting that positively identified Patsy Ramsey as the ransom note writer change your theory with respect to whether or not an intruder was involved in this crime?

    A. No, it wouldn't. Not in this particular instance.

    Q. You believe that, if you were to convinced that Patsy Ramsey wrote the ransom note, that there was still an intruder involved?

    MR. WOOD: That is not what you asked him.

    THE WITNESS: First of all, Mr. Hoffman, I do not believe that Patsy Ramsey wrote that ransom note, and I am relying on experts, just like detectives always do. And it is a guide that experts are used as a guide. Not necessarily as the ultimate word as to who wrote that ransom note.

    You can get five experts on one side and you can get five experts on the other side. To me, that is a draw.

    Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) Well, let me ask --

    A. Physical evidence is what counts in the case.

    Q. Okay. Well, let me ask --

    A. You cannot compromise that.

    Q. Let me ask you this question. I understand that you are sort of continuing to investigate this crime on your own; is that correct?

    A. That is correct, as time and resources will allow.

    Q. All right. Now let me ask you, what is the criteria as a detective you are using to either include or eliminate people from your investigation?

    A. What I do when I investigate a crime is, when I get information, I try to follow up on it. And eventually, that will lead us to the killer.

    Q. Are you --

    A. And that is what I try to do.

    Q. Are you using handwriting as a basis to eliminate possible suspects or include them in your private investigation?

    A. Absolutely not. I don't personally believe in handwriting.

    Q. With respect to Chris Wolf, the question I would like to ask you, since he is not there, do you consider Chris Wolf a suspect?

    A. I have never considered anyone a suspect in this case. I always considered people to be a lead to be followed.

    Q. Do you consider Chris Wolf to be a lead to be followed?

    A. Yes, I do.

    Q. Do you still consider him to be a lead to be followed?

    A. I believe that somebody should follow that lead. I don't know if I am going to follow it or not, because I don't have the resources --

    Q. May I ask you --

    A. -- and the opportunity to do that.

    Q. May I ask you why you feel this is a lead that should be followed?

    A. Because it is information that was received from a credible source that Chris Wolf could possibly be involved in this crime. You take any, any statement from any tipster, and you do try to follow it out. And if there is more evidence that fits into that, you follow it further.

    And if he is under the examining glass, you put him on the front burner for a while and you look at him. And if he doesn't turn out to be anything, then you put it on the back burner and you look at something else. But you don't just throw away a witness and eyewitness statements.

    Q. Isn't it part of your job as a detective to determine the credibility of the witness giving you the information?

    A. Sometimes it is. Sometimes you are given information from very credible witnesses that have just a small portion of what you are looking for. You have to accept that.

    MR. WOOD: Let him finish.

    Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) do you consider Jackie Dilson a credible witness?

    A. I do.

    Q. Do you know that the Boulder Police Department have rejected her as a credible witness?

    A. No, I don't know that, but that would be foolish to do.

    Q. Okay. Now, do you know what probable cause is?

    A. Yes.

    Q. Do you know what a probable cause standard is?

    A. Yes.

    Q. Are you trying to determine whether or not somebody is a suspect or somebody that should be followed as a lead based on a probable cause standard?

    A. No. I am just looking at it strictly as an investigator following a lead. All I do is just follow it to its conclusion. If there is a question to be asked, I try to answer that question. If I don't have the resources to do it, I ask someone else to do it.

    All a lead is is just trying to find the truth of the matter. We are all seeking the truth in this case, and that is exactly what I am doing.

    Q. With respect to Commander Beckner, were you aware that Commander Beckner actually made a comment when he came out at the end, I believe, of the so-called police presentation, saying that, in effect, he believed that he knew who the killer was; it was just a matter of proving it? Do you remember him making that statement?

    MR. WOOD: I object to the form of the question because I think that does not correctly state what Chief Beckner said at that time.

    MR. HOFFMAN: Well, let's agree on what he did say then. Lin, do you have an idea of what he said, since are you objecting to it, meaning you have some idea of what he did say?

    MR. WOOD: I am going -- I am going to let you carry the burden of asking your question.

    MR. HOFFMAN: Well, no, that's -- well, as far as I am concerned --

    MR. WOOD: The last time I tried to interject some accurate information into the scenario, we got into a yelling situation --

    MR. HOFFMAN: Okay.

    MR. WOOD: -- so I am not going to do it this time.

    MR. HOFFMAN: I am going to let my question --

    MR. WOOD: You are on your own on that one.

    MR. HOFFMAN: All right. I am going to let my question stand.

    MR. WOOD: All right.

    Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) Are you aware of the fact that Mark Beckner made a public statement that he knew who the killer was?

    MR. WOOD: And you have my objection noted for the record.

    MR. HOFFMAN: Okay.

    THE WITNESS: Yes, I am aware of that. And to me, what it does is it shows the direction that the police department has taken in this case, that they are focusing on, more or less, one side of the case instead of focusing on both paths.

    Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) Do you believe that Mark Beckner's public statement indicates that the police were looking at the Ramseys?

    A. I believe that the police department has been looking at the Ramseys since day one.

    Q. Do you believe that statement by Mark Beckner indicates that that is his belief, that
    it is somebody in the Ramsey family?

    A. I can't say to his belief, but if he made that statement, he shouldn't be making that statement.

    Q. Do you believe that Governor Owens made a statement to the effect that he believes, or at least it is implied that he believes the Ramseys were somehow involved in the murder of their daughter?

    A. Yes. And what those statements mean to me, Darnay, is that they are trying the Ramseys outside of a regular criminal court. And that --

    Q. Were you asked to appear before Governor Owens when he was going through that process of sort of like looking at all the evidence before he made his decision as to whether or not he would appoint a special prosecutor?

    A. No, I was not asked that.

    Q. Are you aware that he claims that he, quote, virtually saw all the evidence that was presented to him over, I think, a two- or three-day period by Alex Hunter, Mark Beckner, police, CBI, whatever? Are you aware that he made that claim?

    MR. WOOD: Are you saying that he himself saw all the evidence that was presented to him or did he claim --

    MR. HOFFMAN: It is actually an exact quote, which you will find in the interrogatories. I am going to look for it right now.

    MR. WOOD: It may be in a quote, but the way you wrote -- the way you said it, I wasn't sure whether he was saying that he saw all the evidence that was shown to him during that meeting or whether he claimed to have seen all the evidence in the case. That is my only point. I wasn't clear.

    MR. HOFFMAN: Yes. This is the exact quote: Virtually all the evidence. That's how he describes it, that he had seen, virtually seen -- he had virtually -- he had seen virtually, quote, virtually all the evidence in this case.

    Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) Are you aware he said that?

    A. Yes, I am aware he said that.

    Q. Were you also aware Mark Beckner and Alex Hunter praised him for his, quote, thoroughness in reaching his decision?

    A. Yes, I am.

    Q. All right. Now, with respect to that, do you have any opinion as to whether or not Alex Hunter was in a position to inform the governor of Colorado properly with respect to this case?

    A. I don't know if he did it properly, but I believe that he informed the governor. I don't believe that the governor did hear everything.

    Q. All right. I only have a couple more questions, and then we will be out of here, and I want to thank you for your patience. Right. Okay. Now hold on here.

    MR. HOFFMAN: Lin, just a couple of minutes, and I will be able to let everybody go.

    Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) With respect to preparing for this deposition, did you refer to any notes outside of the PowerPoint presentation that you presented here?

    A. No, I didn't. That is all on a PowerPoint.

    Q. Did you have occasion to discuss your testimony with anybody besides your attorney prior to coming to this deposition?

    A. No. But I did supply Mr. Wood with the PowerPoint.


    Q. All right. I am going to ask you something. Do you think the nature of the injury of JonBenet's head could indicate that, that somebody was enraged, that the nature of the wound which seemed so severe was actually the product of a rage crime and not just a sexual, you know, deviance?

    A. I would say that the injury was done by somebody that wanted JonBenet dead. Whether he was enraged or not, I don't know. I believe that it was a very cruel way of killing JonBenet, finishing her off. And whether he was engaged, I don't know. Maybe he just wanted to do it strictly out of the thrill of killing her. I don't know if he was enraged or not.

    Q. But you do agree that, looking at the autopsy photo of that child's skull, that is a very severe wound; is that correct?

    A. I believe that if a person wanted -- was enraged, he would have sure hit her on the head more than once.

    Q. Okay. Do you know whether or not they can determine whether she was hit more than once on the head?

    A. I believe she was hit one time.

    Q. Now, one other question before we stop here.

    Is it your belief that the ransom note writer and the killer are one in the same person?

    A. I do.

    Q. Do you feel that the ransom note is a big clue or a small clue?

    A. It is a very -- it is a big clue.

    MR. HOFFMAN: Thank you very much, Detective Smit. And I appreciate you making yourself available today.

    THE WITNESS: And thank you, sir.

    MR. WOOD: Just for the record, Darnay, just since you asked me to do so, I did so, and I was scrolling through my computer. I want to direct you first to page 170 of the sworn testimony of Mark Beckner where he does address the quotes that you discussed earlier about his statements in a press conference that he had an idea who did it. And I will submit to you that when you review that sworn testimony, you will find that Chief Beckner testified contrary to the representations that you have made about his statement today.

    [Jams wrote:]
    MR. WOOD: I also want to direct you to page 110 of the sworn testimony of Alex Hunter wherein Alex Hunter stated unequivocally that Governor Owens, with respect to his remarks about the Ramseys following his decision not to appoint a special prosecutor, was not fully informed. And I want to make those corrections to what I think has been misrepresented questions by you in applying facts to the contrary. I also want to close, without a question, but since the controversy came up, I want to refer you, up there in New York, when you go by the courthouse, take a look in the Burke Ramsey v. New York Post litigation. Look at the sworn affidavits filed by Bryan Morgan, attorney for -- former attorney for John Ramsey who hired Ellis Armistead and who Ellis Armistead worked for, and look at the sworn affidavit filed by Pat Burke, who formerly represented Patsy Ramsey, who also had Ellis Armistead perform work as an investigator.

    And I submit you will find that those sworn affidavits speak directly to the fact that John and Patsy Ramsey were, in fact, engaged in private efforts to ascertain the killer of their daughter from the time shortly after their daughter was murdered up and through the time those lawyers resigned, including efforts that were made by the private investigators hired by the attorneys.

    And that is the sworn testimony of the lawyers. And I just want the record to reflect it so that no one is misled down the road. I don't know what Ellis Armistead said or how he may have been misquoted. I know he has corrected a portion of that article already. And all I want, to make the point is, I want to make it clear that there is sworn affidavit testimony, which I personally put a lot more stock in than I do some newspaper article, particularly one by Charlie Brennan. So I would just point that out to you in an effort for you to ascertain the truth about Armistead and others' efforts to find the killer of this child. I simply would refer you to those sworn affidavits filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. That is all.

    And with that clarification, I am done. I have no more questions.

    MR. HOFFMAN: No. I have one other clarification.

    MR. WOOD: Sure.

    MR. HOFFMAN: I am going to refer you to page 331 of "Death of Innocence," the paperback edition. This is actually from John and Patsy Ramsey themselves.

    MR. WOOD: Well, hang on a second. I mean, I will be glad to pull that up on my computer if you will give me a moment.

    MR. HOFFMAN: Right.

    MR. WOOD: Is this in the paperback edition?

    MR. HOFFMAN: Yeah, paperback, 331.

    MR. WOOD: Now, as you noticed already, it is going to take me a few minutes to scroll through this, so don't --

    MR. HOFFMAN: That is okay.

    MR. WOOD: -- don't accuse me of tricks here.

    MR. HOFFMAN: No, I won't.

    MR. WOOD: All right. Hang on.

    All right. Hang on, Darnay. I have got the paperback of Thomas.

    MR. HOFFMAN: Yeah. I just need you to go to the top page of 331. And it is a quote that begins with, "You need to recognize what is happening."

    MR. WOOD: Why don't you go ahead and read it to me in context while I try to search this.

    MR. HOFFMAN: Actually, I was going to have you read it.

    MR. WOOD: Well, you go ahead. Why don't you read it because I am trying to get -- I have got Thomas' book up here now on the screen, and I have got to try to get to the Ramsey book.

    MR. HOFFMAN: Okay.

    MR. WOOD: Why don't you read it for me, and maybe that will --

    MR. HOFFMAN: All right. Page 331, I believe John Ramsey is speaking to his wife Patsy, and he says, quote: "'You need to recognize what is happening,' I explained further."

    Quote: "The number one job of our attorneys and investigators has always been to keep the two of us out of jail."

    That is on page 331. That is out of their mouths.

    MR. WOOD: I don't think -- well, let me say this to you. I don't think that anyone would dispute that that is the No. 1 job of their former criminal attorneys. I don't think there is any dispute here.

    MR. HOFFMAN: And investigators. And investigators. Okay? So --

    MR. WOOD: I don't -- let me say, I don't think there is any dispute about that, but what I think you are missing, I think you ought to have a little heart-to-heart with Bryan Morgan, who is a skilled criminal lawyer, and he will tell you that the best defense in a criminal case against an unfounded charge is to find the killer.

    So what you are saying is not at all incompatible with the search for the killer. It may just be that, from the lawyer's perspective, the goal is defined differently. But the objective is the same. So, I mean, that is a word game.

    MR. HOFFMAN: But it is consistent with Armistead's theory that his job was to keep them out of jail, not look for the killer. Now, they don't say that it is not to look for the killer. They are saying it is to keep them out of jail.

    MR. WOOD: I have got to tell you something. I think if you ask Ellis Armistead, he will tell you, in an effort to try to keep this family out of jail on an unfounded, unjust charge, that part of that would have included finding the killer of this child. What better way to keep the innocent out of jail than to find the guilty?

    That is what Mr. Armistead will tell you and Mr. Morgan will tell you and any good criminal defense lawyer or investigator will tell you, if you want to hear the whole truth and not selective quotes from Charlie Brennan in a newspaper article. MR. HOFFMAN: And, Lin, what would be the second best way to keep your -- for a client to keep himself from going to jail if he can't find the killer? Frame someone else as the killer.

    MR. WOOD: I don't know of any lawyer or any investigator --

    MR. HOFFMAN: Not a lawyer. I am not talking about a lawyer. I am talking about a client.

    MR. WOOD: I don't know of any -- I don't know of any lawyer or investigator who is competent and ethical who would ever involve themselves in framing an innocent person for a crime. And I got to tell you something, John and Patsy Ramsey have not done that, and you have had every opportunity over the last many months to try to discover any effort on their part to frame your client, Chris Wolf, and you haven't found any. The decision to investigate Mr. Wolf was the decision of the Boulder Police Department and the Boulder District Attorney's office. You may want to blame the Ramseys. I think maybe you ought to blame your client for his sordid past and maybe the girlfriend that believes that he killed JonBenet and still does to this very day.

    MR. HOFFMAN: Well --

    MR. WOOD: Why didn't you sue that person, because they clearly, according to you, must have been trying to frame Chris Wolf? And why don't you sue the Boulder Police Department and the Boulder District Attorney's office? And why not go sue Chief Beckner who said under oath that your client to this day has not been cleared in this investigation?

    MR. HOFFMAN: Because they are not writing books and going on television claiming that people like Chris Wolf are murderers, are murder suspects.

    MR. WOOD: Let me say this to you. If you can find a passage in their book where they said that Chris Wolf was a murderer, I will buy you not only a steak dinner, I will buy you a steakhouse. They said truthfully that Chris Wolf was a suspect. He was a suspect. They said truthfully that, in their mind, he represented too many unanswered questions, and that is the truth. He still represents too many unanswered questions.

    And candidly, Darnay, if you thought that was so libelous, you didn't sue that case initially. You sued him for intentional infliction of emotional distress because you claim that they had gotten investigators to get the police to investigate him, which turned out to be totally false. And as an afterthought, you added in allegations of libel. Truth is a defense in a libel case.

    The comments made by the Ramseys in their book are truthful, period. We stand --

    MR. HOFFMAN: Unfortunately --

    MR. WOOD: We stand by them, and I have stated that since that time. We stand by the comments about Chris Wolf.

    But no one accused Chris Wolf of being a murderer. And I would submit to you that if you look at the book as, ultimately, the Court will in its full context, read the chapter on the profile of the murderer, and if you want to tell me that Chris Wolf fits the profile, then I will rethink my position about what allegations are being made against Mr. Wolf.

    But I think the profile of the murderer that John and Patsy Ramsey set forth in their book is very clear. And I don't take a position, and I don't think you do, that that necessarily fits Chris Wolf.

    MR. HOFFMAN: Well --

    MR. WOOD: So, I mean, look, we don't need to have this discussion. It has been a long day.

    MR. HOFFMAN: Yeah. Let's let everybody go. MR. WOOD: We can do this in front of the judge another time.

    MR. HOFFMAN: All right. Let's agree we disagree.

    And once again, Detective Smit, I was very impressed with your presentation. Thank you so much for being there. And, Lin, thanks for being a gracious host, despite any of our differences.

    MR. WOOD: Well, Darnay, we are on the opposite side of the fence in, obviously, a very emotional case in terms of accusations of murder with respect to a child. And I think we had our differences, we will continue to have them, but, you know, I always kind of look at things at the end of the day.

    At the end of the day, we are professionals, and while we may disagree and we sometimes may disagree vehemently, we still try to move forward as professionals. I intend to do that. You have shown the willingness and ability to do that. I hold nothing against you personally.

    So let's concede that we have had a long day. We have all worked hard. It is a job well done. And I look forward to speaking with you on Friday when we have the opportunity to cross-examine Fleet White.

    [Jams wrote:]
    Last edited: Sep 27, 2010
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  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