Clues in the case

Go to the mobile version of this Web site. Here are the key points of evidence that retired detective Lou Smit presents in making his case that an intruder killed JonBenet Ramsey.

[cyber]

Smit knows 100% more about murderers than I do. I give him that and a lot more. But I have questions for him that have to be answered if he believes an outsider killedJB Ramsey. Why, Mr. Smit, did the Ramseys lawyer up separately, right away? Why did they set all kinds of limitations on their interviews? Why did they not at least pretend to be outraged and furious about what happened to their child?

[jameson]

I can't speak for Lou but have discussed this case with him for hours and feel I can try.

The Ramseys were given good advice by their friend Mike Bynum when Mike asked them to trust him and to let him get them lawyers. Innocent people... especially people who have never had any experience with investigations, interrogations, possibly "opinionated" investigators.... should never go through that kind of situation without a lawyer. Just as it is unadvisabe for a woman to have a baby with no medical support.

Why separate lawyers? That was not their choice but standard operating procedure by the lawyers who don't want to risk representing two people and finding their interests are not the same.(like, what if one really WAS guilty?)

Limitations on interviews? What limitations? They refused to go in at the end of a full day to start interviews with no time limit. I do not think that was unreasonable at all. Tired to start, for how long? I don't think it is the best way to get at the truth, do you? Really?

They were ALWAYS available to the DA's office - they didn't trust the cops -- and would you if one told you they were going to nail you???

As for outraged and furious, I think you have to remember they were medicated almost from the beginning. Both of them. But I will tell you I got to know them both personally and they were not without anger or any desire for real justice. They just didn't rant and rave -- because it isn't in either of them to do that. They are both very calm, nice people who had their heart ripped out that night. They were upset, angry, griefstricken, and not putting on a show for anyone.

Having spent time with them, I assure you that is the truth.

[Capricorn]

"...Limitations on interviews? What limitations? "

How about the limitations on being interviewed individually???? That's a pretty big limitation in a murder investigation, especially when they EACH have lawyers, yet refused to be interviewed separately

And...what pray tell, was their "official" reason for separate interviews when they have lawyers and supposedly nothing to hide?

Does anyone else know of a murder investigation where the prime suspects are interviewed TOGETHER?

UNLIKELY

[cyber]

jameson wrote:

I can't speak for Lou but have discussed this case with him for hours and feel I can try.
The Ramseys were given good advice by their friend Mike Bynum when Mike asked them to trust him and to let him get them lawyers. Innocent people... especially people who have never had any experience with investigations, interrogations, possibly "opinionated" investigators.... should never go through that kind of situation without a lawyer. Just as it is unadvisabe for a woman to have a baby with no medical support.
Why separate lawyers? That was not their choice but standard operating procedure by the lawyers who don't want to risk representing two people and finding their interests are not the same.(like, what if one really WAS guilty?)
Limitations on interviews? What limitations? They refused to go in at the end of a full day to start interviews with no time limit. I do not think that was unreasonable at all. Tired to start, for how long? I don't think it is the best way to get at the truth, do you? Really?
They were ALWAYS available to the DA's office - they didn't trust the cops -- and would you if one told you they were going to nail you???
As for outraged and furious, I think you have to remember they were medicated almost from the beginning. Both of them. But I will tell you I got to know them both personally and they were not without anger or any desire for real justice. They just didn't rant and rave -- because it isn't in either of them to do that. They are both very calm, nice people who had their heart ripped out that night. They were upset, angry, griefstricken, and not putting on a show for anyone.
Having spent time with them, I assure you that is the truth.

I never said they shouldn't have had a lawyer. Of COURSE they needed a lawyer to be present at interviews. But they still wouldn't "grant" interviews without putting a stranglehold on what the interrogators could and couldn't do. NO INNOCENT PARENT WOULD DO THIS. Pure and simple.
The Ramseys refused to grant anything like an interview that had a snowball's chance in hell of being productive UNTIL they were faced with being called on the carpet in a grand jury.
Know what happened next, folks? John Ramsey hurry, hurry, hurried to OFFER not only interviews with Patsy, Burke and himself, but with most of his friends! All of a sudden it was "Mr. Hunter...oh Mr. HUNter...please lets do these interviews right quick".(See how cooperative I'm being? Because I don't want to face the grand jury and that's the Next Stop in this Twilight Zone) Why didn't you tell us about that, Jameson?

[sunshine]

jameson wrote:

I can't speak for Lou but have discussed this case with him for hours and feel I can try.
The Ramseys were given good advice by their friend Mike Bynum when Mike asked them to trust him and to let him get them lawyers. Innocent people... especially people who have never had any experience with investigations, interrogations, possibly "opinionated" investigators.... should never go through that kind of situation without a lawyer. Just as it is unadvisabe for a woman to have a baby with no medical support.
Why separate lawyers? That was not their choice but standard operating procedure by the lawyers who don't want to risk representing two people and finding their interests are not the same.(like, what if one really WAS guilty?)
Limitations on interviews? What limitations? They refused to go in at the end of a full day to start interviews with no time limit. I do not think that was unreasonable at all. Tired to start, for how long? I don't think it is the best way to get at the truth, do you? Really?
They were ALWAYS available to the DA's office - they didn't trust the cops -- and would you if one told you they were going to nail you???
As for outraged and furious, I think you have to remember they were medicated almost from the beginning. Both of them. But I will tell you I got to know them both personally and they were not without anger or any desire for real justice. They just didn't rant and rave -- because it isn't in either of them to do that. They are both very calm, nice people who had their heart ripped out that night. They were upset, angry, griefstricken, and not putting on a show for anyone.
Having spent time with them, I assure you that is the truth.

I know that you can't speak for the Ramsey's, but "having spent time with them", could you try? There is a question that I would like for you to answer for John Ramsey if you don't mind. This defense that you are providing for the Ramsey is outdated. A few years ago it would have worked. But now in 2009 things have changed. The investigation has changed. Here is what we now know in 2009. We now know that the killer was either one of the Ramseys' or a very close friend of John Ramsey. We now know this because of the intimate knowledge this killer had of the home and John Ramsey. We now know John Ramsey was the only focus of the ransom note. We now know this killer is an intimate friend that John Ramsey once trusted enough to show the hidden wine cellar to. We now know that John Ramsey would have to know by now which one of his intimate friends he was having this big of a dispute with to get his daughter killed,
"Hence" covering up for the killer. So I'm sorry to hear that you spent time with a person who is hiding the truth because either way you look at it the killer was either John Ramsey or someone who was intimate with John Ramsey. Either he did it or he knows who did it. So the question I hope you can answer for me is why is it that everytime John Ramsey it interviewed on tv he says "he doesn't know anyone this evil", that could have killed his daughter? Maybe you can send him a text and he can answer that question for himself.

Jameson, before it's all said and done, this killer will turn out to be someone who was very intimate with John Ramsey at the time of the murder. It is a fact that it wasn't a stranger!
And when this happens no one should believe John Ramsey when he says that he had no idea it was this person.

Your perpetuating a myth that the Ramsey's are totally innocent. I believe Patsy may be totally innocent. But I know that John Ramsey's isn't!

[jameson]

Capricorn wrote:

"...Limitations on interviews? What limitations? "
How about the limitations on being interviewed individually????
UNLIKELY

That didn't happen. They were interviewed separately on the 26th and after. You are talking about a specific time and not looking at the larger picture. There was more to it -- check it out.

[cyber]

Like I said, jameson, John Ramsey didn't cooperate regarding interviews until he felt the pressure of a grand jury proceeding. Why don't you respond to that?

[Limaes]

jameson wrote:

<quoted text>
They were interviewed separately on the 26th and after.

BEFORE their daughter was found dead.

At what time on the 26th, AFTER she was found dead were they interviewed separately?

[koldkase]

Limaes wrote:

<quoted text>
BEFORE their daughter was found dead.
At what time on the 26th, AFTER she was found dead were they interviewed separately?

4 months later.

2 hours each.

Then bye bye, for another year.

[why_nut]

jameson wrote:

<quoted text>
That didn't happen. They were interviewed separately on the 26th and after. You are talking about a specific time and not looking at the larger picture. There was more to it -- check it out.

They were not "interviewed" on the 26th. They may have been asked questions, but those questions and most particularly those ANSWERS were not recorded officially. Yeah, good luck with trying to present that kind of impeachable evidence to a trial jury. You can stop saying the Ramseys were "interviewed." What the police had with them were "casual conversations inadmissible in a court of law."

[Rashomon]

jameson wrote:

<quoted text>
That didn't happen. They were interviewed separately on the 26th and after. You are talking about a specific time and not looking at the larger picture. There was more to it -- check it out.

Your bald-faced lie won't fly.
You know exactly that they were not "interviewed separately" on the 26th. Who do you think you are going to fool?

[cyber]

why_nut wrote:

<quoted text>
They were not "interviewed" on the 26th. They may have been asked questions, but those questions and most particularly those ANSWERS were not recorded officially. Yeah, good luck with trying to present that kind of impeachable evidence to a trial jury. You can stop saying the Ramseys were "interviewed." What the police had with them were "casual conversations inadmissible in a court of law."

Thank you. Those who defend the R's can get you spinning in knots trying to locate interviews from the 26th etc. when all it was was standing-around conversation. Is that in fact inadmissible in a courtroom? Why?

[LI_Mom]

Why would lawyers of INNOCENT CLIENTS insist from the get go that investigators only treat their clients as if they are officially named suspects?

The ONLY purpose this served was to cast an umbrella of suspicion onto their clients that they will never be able to shed unless someone else is finally tried AND convicted for JB's murder.

What kind of faith does ANYONE have in the Ramsey's answers to questions when we know their attorneys received copies of the questions IN ADVANCE?

While I agree it's smart to hire a lawyer to protect yourself.... I do believe the Ramsey team of lawyers outsmarted themselves & did their clients NO FAVOR.

[Limaes]

LI_Mom wrote:

While I agree it's smart to hire a lawyer to protect yourself....

Its not just that they hired lawyers, its that they immediately started their own "investigation".

The R's complain that LE didn't interview enough of their neighbours but their own "investigators" NEVER interviewed them either. If JR thought that interviewing his neighbours would help find his daughter's killer, why didn't he get his goons to do it?

[cody]

jameson wrote:

I can't speak for Lou but have discussed this case with him for hours and feel I can try.
The Ramseys were given good advice by their friend Mike Bynum when Mike asked them to trust him and to let him get them lawyers. Innocent people... especially people who have never had any experience with investigations, interrogations, possibly "opinionated" investigators.... should never go through that kind of situation without a lawyer. Just as it is unadvisabe for a woman to have a baby with no medical support.
Why separate lawyers? That was not their choice but standard operating procedure by the lawyers who don't want to risk representing two people and finding their interests are not the same.(like, what if one really WAS guilty?)
Limitations on interviews? What limitations? They refused to go in at the end of a full day to start interviews with no time limit. I do not think that was unreasonable at all. Tired to start, for how long? I don't think it is the best way to get at the truth, do you? Really?
They were ALWAYS available to the DA's office - they didn't trust the cops -- and would you if one told you they were going to nail you???
As for outraged and furious, I think you have to remember they were medicated almost from the beginning. Both of them. But I will tell you I got to know them both personally and they were not without anger or any desire for real justice. They just didn't rant and rave -- because it isn't in either of them to do that. They are both very calm, nice people who had their heart ripped out that night. They were upset, angry, griefstricken, and not putting on a show for anyone.
Having spent time with them, I assure you that is the truth.

THAT was very interesting. Makes sense to me, who doesn't know much about the case. Wow. Ya, makes sense for any parent in that situation.

[cody]

I do think the killer knew her. Not a stranger, yet he did sneak in and out.
Of course things have changed over the years.
New facts, old ones died off, people have died.
John is a different person after all these years.
He lost two children and his wife. Wouldn't you be ?
He doesn't know who killer his child or he'd be choking them out right now.

[jameson]

cyber wrote:

Like I said, jameson, John Ramsey didn't cooperate regarding interviews until he felt the pressure of a grand jury proceeding. Why don't you respond to that?

The grand jury didn't take place until years after the murder.

The Ramseys called 911, invited the police into their home and answeredd all questions they were asked. They didn't shut the door or leave to avoid talking -- they left when FORCED to by the police because they finally decided to protect the crime scene.

At that point the cops could have and should have taken them in for questioning and to have pictures taken, their clothing taken, stc. But they did not.

Blame the cops there, not the Ramseys.

the Ramseys and Fernies had cops with them 24/7 when the Ramseys first went to stay at their friends' house. The cops made notes of everything they said and did. Nothing indicated guilt at all -- but the Ramseys were devaststed, exhausted and, yes, incapacitated a bit via medication and a few drinks. But the cops were welcome to ask questions at that house - and did.

It was only after attorney Mike Bynum saw for himself how the cards were being stacked -- and HE insisted the Ramseys get a lawyer and listen to him - and they changed their positions. To avoid being railroaded while the killer went free.

The Ramseys offered to speak to the prosecutor's investigators -- you know, the prosecutor who works for the state? Because they didn't trust the Boulder police -- but that wasn't acceptable to certain egos in Boulder so the interviews got put off.

One even said the Ramseys really had nothing to offer at that late date -- if not a confession, they didn't want to hear from the Ramseys.

The Ramseys did go in for several interviews - but not interviews starting at 9 at night with a bright spotlight and delayed toilet privileges. Not a crime (unless you are part of the BORG and want it to be.)

The Ramseys were looking forward to talking to the Grand Jury but were not called --because the BORG prosecutors didn't want the whole story being presented.

Lou Smit had to fight in court to be allowed to address the group -- can you explain that??? Where was the search for truth? Not in that room when it was controlled by Mike Kane, that's for sure. Hello, if i hadn't discredited Don Foster on 48 Hours, Kane would have used that charlatan for his "key witness" -- what a nasty bit of play that would have been.

[BrotherMoon]

jameson wrote:

<quoted text>
The grand jury didn't take place until years after the murder.
The Ramseys called 911, invited the police into their home and answeredd all questions they were asked. They didn't shut the door or leave to avoid talking -- they left when FORCED to by the police because they finally decided to protect the crime scene.
At that point the cops could have and should have taken them in for questioning and to have pictures taken, their clothing taken, stc. But they did not.
Blame the cops there, not the Ramseys.
the Ramseys and Fernies had cops with them 24/7 when the Ramseys first went to stay at their friends' house. The cops made notes of everything they said and did. Nothing indicated guilt at all -- but the Ramseys were devaststed, exhausted and, yes, incapacitated a bit via medication and a few drinks. But the cops were welcome to ask questions at that house - and did.
It was only after attorney Mike Bynum saw for himself how the cards were being stacked -- and HE insisted the Ramseys get a lawyer and listen to him - and they changed their positions. To avoid being railroaded while the killer went free.
The Ramseys offered to speak to the prosecutor's investigators -- you know, the prosecutor who works for the state? Because they didn't trust the Boulder police -- but that wasn't acceptable to certain egos in Boulder so the interviews got put off.
One even said the Ramseys really had nothing to offer at that late date -- if not a confession, they didn't want to hear from the Ramseys.
The Ramseys did go in for several interviews - but not interviews starting at 9 at night with a bright spotlight and delayed toilet privileges. Not a crime (unless you are part of the BORG and want it to be.)
The Ramseys were looking forward to talking to the Grand Jury but were not called --because the BORG prosecutors didn't want the whole story being presented.
Lou Smit had to fight in court to be allowed to address the group -- can you explain that??? Where was the search for truth? Not in that room when it was controlled by Mike Kane, that's for sure. Hello, if i hadn't discredited Don Foster on 48 Hours, Kane would have used that charlatan for his "key witness" -- what a nasty bit of play that would have been.

Patsy killed JonBenet deliberately.

[jameson]

Typical BORG response. But not supported by the evidence or the findings of two DA's and one federal judge.

The Ramseys were cleared based on the DNA evidence.

The BORG lives on but clearly can't make their case.

[BrotherMoon]

jameson wrote:

Typical BORG response. But not supported by the evidence or the findings of two DA's and one federal judge.
The Ramseys were cleared based on the DNA evidence.
The BORG lives on but clearly can't make their case.

Patsy killed JonBenet deliberately.