LouSmit First of all, Lou Smit has been applauded and held up as a hero for solving the Heather Dawn Church case for years - mostly by Jameson. The fact is, Lou did not "investigate" crap. He sent fingerprints to LE around the US to see if he could get a match, and he did...in Louisiana. Here's the rub, in 1991-92, Louisian did not have a modernized AFIS computer system...all fingerprints had to be analyzed manually. In 1995 Louisiana received their modernized AFIS computer system and a match was found for the fingerprints from the Heather Dawn Church case - 1995 was the same year that Lou Smit took the case. What did he investigate? Nothing. He got lucky, period. As for the DNA - The autopsy report indicated her pelvic area was swabbed for potential DNA. There has never been any report that those swabs yielded any foreign genetic material. Why would there be foreign DNA in her panties, and not on her or in her? Where did the DNA come from, I mean PHYSICALLY come from that was found in her panties? From the intruder? How? And just for grins, let's visit Smit's initial theory on this case - notes he made in a notebook. Interesting that he SO believed the evidence must fit the theory, not the other way around. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/notebook/0,9485,1101991025,00.html Crime Did an Intruder Kill JonBenet Ramsey? Although no suspects other than JOHN and PATSY RAMSEY have been named in the 1996 murder of their daughter JonBenet, a key figure in the investigation remains convinced that the killer was a pedophile bent on kidnapping who broke into the Boulder, Colo., home and assaulted the six-year-old while her family slept. LOU SMIT, a retired Colorado Springs homicide detective, worked on the case for 18 months before quitting in protest over the direction the probe was going. Smit formed another theory using key pieces of evidence. He believes the killer may have spotted JonBenet as she glided by in a convertible in Boulder's holiday Parade of Lights. ~in a convertible?? wtf - where did he pull this from?~ On Christmas night, while the family was out, he entered through a basement window, roamed the house and penned a ransom note, using a legal pad and black Sharpie marker he found near the kitchen. Around midnight, after the family's return, he slipped upstairs to JonBenet's room and, using a stun gun, temporarily immobilized her. He carried the youngster to the basement and sexually assaulted her while simultaneously choking her, apparently for the thrill, with a garrote--a favored tool of pedophiles, ~please reference for me ALL the cases involving this favored tool in the commission of crimes by pedophiles against their victims~ Smit says--fashioned from the handle of one of Patsy Ramsey's paintbrushes. When JonBenet woke, ~when JonBenet woke? Was she asleep? According to his notes above, the intruder only "temporarily immobilized her." ~ tore the duct tape from her mouth and began screaming, Smit theorizes that the killer panicked and struck her, perhaps with a heavy flashlight. With no time to retrieve his note from upstairs, the killer broke a window and fled. Later, police found a scuff mark from what appeared to be a boot on the nearby wall as well as unidentified boot and palm prints. ~She tore the tape from her own mouth?? What about the fact that her hands were bound? And the intruder did not have time to run upstairs and get his note? Who spread it out on the stairwell? The Border Patrol? And WHY THE HELL would the killer have to break a window to get out? Would it not have been easier, not to mention safer, to simply unlock and open the window??~ From his experience with more than 200 murder and fantasy-stalker cases, Smit believes the killer intended to go to Mexico--that is why he demanded the odd sum of $118,000, ~the exchange rate in 1996 was 7.5994 per American $1.00, $118,000 = 896789.20. Close? Why close? Why not $130,000, which is still not a million pesos, but a lot closer and not such an odd number?~ which at the time was close to a million pesos, and some of it in $20 bills, for easy exchanging. "I believe the Ramseys are innocent," says Smit. "If it's an intruder, it's not the parents, and I think it's that simple." He adds, "The theory doesn't determine the evidence. The evidence should determine the theory." ~Ya think?~ RED font and bold emphasis mine.