Since: Sep 11

Germiston, South Africa

#66 Oct 19, 2012
Steve Eller wrote:
<quoted text>
The Police interviewed almost 200 'suspects' in this case. Non testimonial evidence was collected from anyone who could have theoretically been involved. Even from a lunatic in Thailand.
The police never exhaustively investigated anyone but the Ramseys. They took blood, hair and handwriting samples from other suspects and they may have asked a few questions regarding alibi, etc, but these "investigations" were cursory, they were just going through the motions. Plenty of useful tips and leads were ignored and many very viable suspects were never investigated at all. They had made up their minds that the Ramseys were guilty and were clearly not prepared to invest too much time and effort investigating anyone else. Stephen Singular gives a good example in the following interview:

Q: You were responsible for focusing Alex Hunter and his team on another suspect weren't you?

Yes, I told Hunter that a photographer (Randy Simons) who'd taken JonBenet's picture and who, according to some pageant moms in the Denver-Boulder area, had asked if he could photograph their girls nude or semi-nude, had freaked out following the murder and had acted very suspiciously ever since. I was not suggesting that Simons participated in the death of JonBenet but that he might well have knowledge of the kinds of activities and subculture I was telling Hunter about. At the time I told the DA this, he'd never heard of Simons, which indicates just how much the Boulder police resisted investigating the murder outside of the family and how little they knew about the world JonBenet had been exposed to through her pageant connections.

Q: What was the result of those investigations?

The police never truly investigated Simons or anyone else who raised the possibility of a different scenario for this homicide. They were, to use Hunter's word, "fixated" on the Ramseys and still are.

Q: So when police chief Mark Beckner told the press that his detectives had "intensively investigated" numerous other suspects, apart from the Ramseys, he wasn't telling the truth?

He was telling the truth as he saw it. They did devote a little time to this or that person but never with any conviction or genuine curiosity. From firsthand observations of the police behavior in this case, I can tell you that they have not deeply investigated a number of credible leads. They haven't acted this way out of malice, but because they hold only one view of the case. The murder can't be solved, I believe, because that view doesn't fit the evidence.

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#67 Oct 19, 2012
Steve Eller wrote:
<quoted text>Here you are:
'The investigators were retained by our attorneys, and they stated to me that the principal purpose of those investigators was to prepare a defense in the case that the police might bring a charge against me. I hoped that they would also follow up on leads that came to us, but I was frequently reminded by our attorneys that their principal role was to prepare a defense should that be necessary.'
Deposition of John Ramsey, December 12, 2001 )
Hope that helps.
Thank you. This comes from the Chris Wolf libel suit in 2001. It's important to keep in mind the latter statement by John Ramsey:

"I hoped that they would also follow up on leads that came to us, but I was frequently reminded by our attorneys that their principal role was to prepare a defense should that be necessary."

IIRC, Lou Smit was not one of the PIs retained by the Ramsey lawyers as he did not work for the Rs. He led an independent investigation into the murder of JonBenet and received no payment.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#68 Oct 19, 2012
Lou Smit was hired and on the payroll of the Boulder DA.

Since: Sep 11

Germiston, South Africa

#69 Oct 19, 2012
Steve Eller wrote:
<quoted text> The only suspects who refused to speak to the Polce insulated themselves behind a phalanx of lawyers and public relations professionals. The Ramseys either coerced Lou Smit through emotional or other means.
Absolutely untrue. They answered all police questions without attorneys present all through the day on the 26th. It was on the advice of their friend Mike Bynum that the attorneys became involved and made the decision on behalf of the Ramseys that no interviews would be granted at that time. The Ramseys simply followed their attorneys' advice as it had become evident to the attorneys that the BPD was hostile to the Ramseys. They were trying to keep the Ramseys out of jail because there was a very real danger they'd be arrested. Understandably, the Ramseys did not want to be arrested for a crime they did not commit. That would have been counterproductive in finding their daughter's killer as all further police investigations would then have come to an end.

Lou Smit was far too professional to allow himself to be coerced by any means. His commitment was always to finding justice for the victim. There is no way he'd have covered for two killers, no way at all.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#70 Oct 19, 2012
Lou Smit had no professional training in the social sciences, he went to school to be an engineer.

He had no understanding of the complex issues involved with the Ramsey children's encopresis.

It was the history of abuse he failed to consider.

Since: Sep 11

Germiston, South Africa

#71 Oct 19, 2012
Steve Eller wrote:
<quoted text> Smit had to have realized that a stun gun was not used after doing further research and conducting his own experiments.
He conducted those experiments in an attempt to prove that a stun gun WAS used. He did his research and consulted with experts, one of whom was Dr Michael Dobersen for further advice and confirmation of his suspicions that a stun gun caused those marks.

DOI (HB) Page 194:

"We also learned why Smit had asked us these questions. Back in April 11, Lou Smit, Trip DeMuth, and Steve Ainsworth had gone to John Meyer, the Boulder county coroner, with a single question. "could the marks on JonBenet's body have come from a stun gun?" The investigators felt they had discovered a significant clue, and Meyer evidently agreed that the small red marks he observed on JonBenet's body could have come from such a weapon."

"Following this conversation, Smit had spoken to Peter Mang and Sue Kitchen of the Colorado Bureau of Investigation about a stun gun causing the same marks. Could a stun gun leave the red welts found on our daughter? Both Mang and Kitchen believed it was possible. In turn, they suggested that Lou pursue the issue with Araphahoe County Coroner Mike Doberson. In the past, Dobersen had dealt with a crime involving a stun gun. His experience was first-hand and practical, and he should be able to offer some insight."

"During Lou's talk with Doberson, the autopsy photos were studied from every possible angle. After a careful examination, Dr. Dobersen believed that the marks in the pictures did appear to have come from a stun gun. However, Doberson wasn't ready to make a definite public statement unless the body was exhumed. Because the exhumation didn't occur, Smit couldn't obtain the conclusive statement he was seeking."

Obviously, Dr Dobersen wasn't prepared to state with a 100% certainty that the marks were from a stun gun as he hadn't seen the body for himself. But he felt the evidence of a stun gun was "compelling".

The coroner's own investigator believed it could have been a stun gun and the police obviously seriously considered the possibility as well, because they canvassed the neighbourhood enquiring whether people owned stun guns. When they were investigating Michael McElroy, they took his stun gun into evidence, even going so far as to buy him a new one using a police credit card. They wouldn't have done all that unless they too believed a stun gun was used. They rejected the idea later because it didn't fit with their belief that the Ramseys were guilty.

We'll probably never definitely know whether or not a stun gun was used on JonBenet, but it's still the only explanation that makes any sense and the credit goes to Lou Smit for suggesting it in the first place.

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#72 Oct 19, 2012
moonjack wrote:
Lou Smit had no professional training in the social sciences, he went to school to be an engineer.
He had no understanding of the complex issues involved with the Ramsey children's encopresis.
It was the history of abuse he failed to consider.
He failed to consider much of what the real evidence is. Now that I know better, as do the rest of the public, he realized everything but chose to cover it up, making him as complicit as the Ramseys.

He knew all the things that we NOW know and he just wasn't allowed IMO to give JBR any justice. It was all planned out as it has been revealed as of late.

It's a shame. This case will forever be UNsolved without a confession and it's little comfort that the Ramsey "name" will forever be associated with murderers, but at least they were able to stay out of prison. Burke will suffer forever due to this, but again, by their own choosing

It's unfortunate for everyone, but especially for the VICTIM, a little girl who died way too young at the hands of those who were supposed to protect her. Even if you believe the Ramseys innocent, her family didn't choose to protect her rights, even after her death

That says a lot, and none of it positive

Since: Sep 11

Germiston, South Africa

#73 Oct 19, 2012
Henri McPhee wrote:
Lou Smit and Detective Steve Ainsworth were hired by Boulder DA Alex Hunter as experienced homicide detectives to advise the DA's office on the high profile murder case of JonBenet.
Lou Smit then astonished the Boulder police a bit later on by saying at a Boulder police meeting that he didn't think the Ramseys did it. John Douglas the FBI profiler then horrified the Boulder police by saying Fleet White should be investigated.
Both Ainsworth and Smit honestly believed in the intruder theory and their prime suspects in 1998 were Fleet White, Santa Bill McReynolds and Chris Wolf.
Lou Smit was never the senior officer in charge of the JonBenet investigation and it was never his job or responsibility to solve the case. If that had been so, Lou Smit would have thoroughly investigated the Nancy Krebs information and interviewed Nancy's niece, who might have witnessed the murder as a little girl.
Steve Thomas maintained in his deposition that he investigated the hell out of Santa Bill. That is not a view shared by several posters on the JonBenet forums.
The prime suspects like Fleet White were only given a cursory investigation by the Boulder police with no curiosity at all in order to legally eliminate them from thir inquiries, and so to fixate on the Ramseys.
Mary Lacy became the Boulder DA in 2000 and she was a 'Santa Bill did it' person. Santa Bill died a couple of years later, and so any further investigation of Fleet White, or Santa Bill, then stopped.
Kolar then took over the investigation and he can't see beyond his nose, or beyond Burke.
Great post, Henri. If Thomas had indeed investigated Bill McReynolds that thoroughly, I'd like to know whether McReynolds' Santa suit was taken into evidence, because there is no documented proof this was ever done. Those red fibres at the crime scene could have come from a Santa suit. Far more likely that, than Patsy's red, black and grey sweater. Sweaters are not selective in which colour fibres they shed.

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#74 Oct 19, 2012
moonjack wrote:
Lou Smit was hired and on the payroll of the Boulder DA.
Yes, he was....until he resigned 18 months after being hired. His resignation came as a result of being "locked out", refusals by the BPD and Michael Kane to consider the evidence an experienced and highly regarded Lou Smit had uncovered.

I will post more information, from the CourtTV documentary, regarding Smit's findings in the JBR case, expert opinions on the crimes committed agains JonBenet, and former opponents of Lou Smit who respected his intellect and skill aside from their opposing viewpoints involving past cases:

"Stopped from pursuing other suspects and expected to support the indictment of the Ramseys, Lou Smit finally resigned, 18 months after taking on the case." ~Narrator

"I resigned because I thought there was something drastically wrong and that there was a gross injustice in this case. I had seen evidence of an intruder in the house that night, and I wasn't alone, there were other people that had seen that too, and that, all of us that wanted to pursue the intruder part of this equation were being removed from the case."
~Lou Smit
...
"Even after his resignation from the Ramsey murder case, DA investigator Lou Smit continued to hunt on his own for the intruder he was now sure had killed JonBenét. To help her parents, he also sought permission to give his evidence to the Grand Jury. He was stunned by the response.

In February, 1999, Michael Kane, now running the Grand Jury, wrote to Smit. He told him that his request to give evidence to the Grand Jury 'is denied'. At the same time, Kane issued an injunction against Smit. It demanded the surrender of all his evidence and sought court permission to 'permanently erase' it.

A shocked Smit once more turned to former DA Bob Russel for advice." ~Narrator

"Once I saw that they had, in fact, gone to court and got an injunction, it really made me mad. The evidence was too strong that the Ramsey's didn't do this. And, so, to see that anybody is trying to really get the Ramseys indicted when I had already seen the evidence that showed they probably didn't do it, really bothered me." ~Bob Russel, former CO Springs' DA

"To help him protect Smit, Russel turned to Greg Walta, a man he often faced in court." ~Narrator

"I was stunned. I frankly had never seen anything like it. The prosecutor's job is to make sure that a Grand Jury hears all the evidence - not just some of the evidence. And a prosecutor's job is to protect evidence - not destroy it. So I was stunned and I was determined to fight it."
~Greg Walta, CO's Chief Public Defender

"The two men who had so often faced each other across a court room now forged an alliance to ensure Smit's evidence was heard. They won a striking victory. They obtained a court injunction allowing Smit not only to keep his evidence, and also to use it in any way he saw fit. Smit was also allowed to testify to the Grand Jury." ~Narrator

Since: Sep 11

Germiston, South Africa

#75 Oct 19, 2012
Mama2JML wrote:
<quoted text>
Have you read Whitson's book? The book provides insight into the psychology of psychopathic and/or sadistic criminals and serial offenders. Whitson also details the type of suspect he believes LE should be looking for, and one anon. convicted perp that he believes LE should be investigating. Whitson did not have access access to all of Lou's notes, files, etc. Lou was simply a "contributor" as he was compelled to believe the perp was sexually sadistic and Whitson has a Ph.D. in psychology with vast knowledge of psychopathy and sadism. Whitson and Smit collaborated, but were not completely in unison with regard to many elements of the crime(s).
P.s. Certainly not a "coffee table" book. That's a really creepy notion...
I was going to respond to Seuss' post, Mama, but you've said it so well, there is nothing further for me to add.

Lovely to see you posting, BTW. Your knowledge, intelligence and common sense are invaluable to the IDI and very much appreciated. Thank you.:)

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#76 Oct 19, 2012
(cont'd)
...
"By now, at the DA's office, there was a growing belief in the Ramseys' innocence. One reason was they now believed they knew how JonBenét had been killed." ~Narrator

"This is not a simple little blow to the head followed by massive staging. This is brutal first degree murder."
~Lou Smit

"The killer first placed the garrotte low on JonBenét's neck - throttling but not killing her. As the garrotte was pulled tighter, it rode higher up her neck." ~Narrator
...
"After just three days of intensive interrogation, Lou Smit and the DA investigators challenged the Ramseys by telling them there was evidence linking them to the murder" ~Narrator

Tom Haney: "I'm talking about scientific evidence."

Patsy Ramsey: "I don't give a flying flip how scientific it is - go back to the damn drawing board! I didn't do it! John Ramsey didn't do it and we don't have a clue of anybody who did. So we all got to start working together from this day forward to try to figure out who the Hell DID it! I mean I appreciate being here. I appreciate it. It's very hard to be here but it is a damn sight harder being at home in Atlanta, Georgia wondering every second of every day what you guys are doing out here. You know, have you found anything? Are we any closer? Is the guy out here watching my house? You know, is my son safe? My life has been Hell from that day forward and I want nothing more than to find out who is responsible for this. OK? I mean, I want to work with you, not against you. OK? This child was the most precious thing in my life. I can't stand the thought.... thinking somebody's out here, walking on the streets. God knows, he might do it again to some other child!"

"The Ramseys' responses convinced many in the DA's office that they were innocent and that there was an urgent need to launch a manhunt for a killer who was running free. Just as they were about to act, there was an extraordinary development. The Governor of Colorado held an emergency press conference - and stopped them.

His decision followed the resignation of lead detective Steve Thomas who accused the DA's office of protecting JonBenét's parents. The resignation fueled more public hysteria - and new demands that the Ramseys be indicted for murder.

Bowing to this pressure, the Governor of Colorado ordered that Alex Hunter should appoint a grand jury to hear the case against them.

Hunter appointed Attorney Michael Kane to run it. Kane, it was widely believed, wanted the Ramseys indicted.

Smit feared jurors would only be given the police theory about the killing - that one of the parents first hit JonBenét and then staged the garroting to cover it up. For Smit, this simply could not be true." ~Narrator
...
"As Prosecutor Michael Kane took over the case and prepared to argue differently, the DA staff members who believed the parents were innocent were moved to other duties. Only Smit remained until he too was locked out of the homicide office and prevented from pursuing a number of other suspects - any one of which, he says, could be the killer.

As the focus moved back to the Ramseys, Smit was appalled that vital evidence left at the crime scene, including mystery DNA, was being ignored." ~Narrator

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#77 Oct 19, 2012
(cont'd)...
"Smit knew that the local police had said they'd found no evidence of an intruder. Although his evidence so far was inconclusive, he felt it should, at least, be kept in mind.

The Boulder police rejected his advice. Lead detective Steve Thomas, later publicly described the idea of an intruder as 'far fetched' and 'ridiculous'.
...
Ignoring Smit's advice, police set out to intensify media pressure on the Ramseys. Lacking evidence to justify their arrest, they hoped this might break the couple, forcing a confession.

The fact that Patsy Ramsey, a former beauty queen, had entered JonBenét in children's pageants, fueled accusations of sexual abuse. Now it was leaked that police had warrants to search the Ramsey home for pornography. It led to a media frenzy.
...
No link with pornography or sex abuse was ever found. But when the Ramseys talked to journalists in an attempt to plead their innocence, no one believed them. Yet by the time of that press conference, Smit had found more compelling evidence of an intruder." ~Narrator
...
"My experiments, and the observations that we made and all the work that's been done, I feel that I can testify to a reasonably degree of medical certainty that these are stun gun injuries."
~Dr. Michael Doberson, Medical Examiner and Stun Gun Expert

"With a growing conviction that the killer was a violent sexual offender who had broken in to the Ramseys home, Smit again returned to Colorado Springs to seek advice. This time from Bob Russell, the City's former district attorney." ~Narrator

"We spent five or six hours going through some of the evidence and the pictures he has and at that time I became convinced that the Ramseys didn't do this." ~Bob Russel, former CO Springs DA

"Russell's view is widely respected. He's an expert on violent crimes against children. He was spokesman for the US National District Attorney's Association on the subject." ~Narrator

"Garroting requires a deliberation, you have to think about it, you have to throw the rope around the neck. In this particular case you had to create an exact kind of knot, he had to twist the knot, all while that child is still alive. Most of the time that's a sexual kind of killing."
~Bob Russel, former CO Springs' DA

"Russel also believes that the evidence of a violent sexual assault on JonBenét points to someone other than her parents.

Ignoring Smit's findings, Boulder police took prosecutors to the Ramsey home as part of a presentation of the case against the parents - that they had killed their daughter and then staged the garrotting and kidnapping to cover it up. But prosecutors did not find this convincing as District Attorney Alex Hunter made clear." ~Narrator

"We don't have enough to file a case. We have more work to do. This is a tough case, you all know that."
~Alex Hunter, past Boulder County DA

"In fact, the DA's office believed local police had gotten nowhere and now prepared to take over the entire investigation themselves."~Narrator
Steve Eller

United States

#78 Oct 19, 2012
Ole South wrote:
<quoted text>
While I don't dispute Candy's sincerity in her belief about who Mama2 is, I believe she is dead wrong. I know Mama personally, her real name and am a Facebook friend. I am familiar with her family and know where she teaches school. I know where she went to college and what her major was. In short, she is a very real person and NOT the person Candy believes her to be. She is one of the kindest, sweetest, and compassionate people I know. And I DO know her as other friends do also.
In fact, if more of the posters on Topix had her intelligence as well as her integrity, you wouldn't see all the foul-mouthed, ignorant posts that permeate the majority of threads here.
Now, how can we know who YOU really are and what brought you here? I would not ordinarily inquire into a poster's personal life but there has been some controversy since you came here to Topix, especially with your having or using a name associated with one of the players in the case. Or, there has also been speculation regarding your "hat" being the same as a published mystery writer. So while I'm not really concerned with knowing anything about your private life, I do wonder (as well as others do) if you are using your real name and if there is any connection between it and the names mentioned. Thanks.
I have never done anything that would present a conflict of interest in posting on this case. My background has absolutely nothing to do with investigations or mysteries. I am a lay person who is very interested in this case because it is such a unique tragedy that cheapened the meaning of life having value. My personal life is private and off limits.

Since: Sep 11

Germiston, South Africa

#79 Oct 19, 2012
Ole South wrote:
<quoted text>
While I don't dispute Candy's sincerity in her belief about who Mama2 is, I believe she is dead wrong. I know Mama personally, her real name and am a Facebook friend. I am familiar with her family and know where she teaches school. I know where she went to college and what her major was. In short, she is a very real person and NOT the person Candy believes her to be. She is one of the kindest, sweetest, and compassionate people I know. And I DO know her as other friends do also.
Thank you very much for setting the record straight about Mama2, Ole South. I don't believe Candy acted out of malice, but she's very much mistaken. Mama is a lovely person, always respectful and polite, and doesn't deserve to be discredited by having untrue things said about her.

“WAX ON”

Since: Jul 10

WAX OFF

#80 Oct 19, 2012
Good for YOU!
I hope it stays that way. You have brought a ton of great discussion to this board and you shouldn't have to be bothered or have your privacy threatened by nosiness from posters who are just here to disrupt.
Steve Eller wrote:
<quoted text>
I have never done anything that would present a conflict of interest in posting on this case. My background has absolutely nothing to do with investigations or mysteries. I am a lay person who is very interested in this case because it is such a unique tragedy that cheapened the meaning of life having value. My personal life is private and off limits.
Steve Eller

United States

#81 Oct 19, 2012
Lynette 22 wrote:
<quoted text> The police never exhaustively investigated anyone but the Ramseys. They took blood, hair and handwriting samples from other suspects and they may have asked a few questions regarding alibi, etc, but these "investigations" were cursory, they were just going through the motions. Plenty of useful tips and leads were ignored and many very viable suspects were never investigated at all. They had made up their minds that the Ramseys were guilty and were clearly not prepared to invest too much time and effort investigating anyone else. Stephen Singular gives a good example in the following interview:
Q: You were responsible for focusing Alex Hunter and his team on another suspect weren't you?
Yes, I told Hunter that a photographer (Randy Simons) who'd taken JonBenet's picture and who, according to some pageant moms in the Denver-Boulder area, had asked if he could photograph their girls nude or semi-nude, had freaked out following the murder and had acted very suspiciously ever since. I was not suggesting that Simons participated in the death of JonBenet but that he might well have knowledge of the kinds of activities and subculture I was telling Hunter about. At the time I told the DA this, he'd never heard of Simons, which indicates just how much the Boulder police resisted investigating the murder outside of the family and how little they knew about the world JonBenet had been exposed to through her pageant connections.
Q: What was the result of those investigations?
The police never truly investigated Simons or anyone else who raised the possibility of a different scenario for this homicide. They were, to use Hunter's word, "fixated" on the Ramseys and still are.
Q: So when police chief Mark Beckner told the press that his detectives had "intensively investigated" numerous other suspects, apart from the Ramseys, he wasn't telling the truth?
He was telling the truth as he saw it. They did devote a little time to this or that person but never with any conviction or genuine curiosity. From firsthand observations of the police behavior in this case, I can tell you that they have not deeply investigated a number of credible leads. They haven't acted this way out of malice, but because they hold only one view of the case. The murder can't be solved, I believe, because that view doesn't fit the evidence.
Randy Simons was interviewed and gave hair blood samples lived 100 miles from Boulder. The Police actively pursued all leads. If these were cursory investigations, I guess a rubber hose and a dark room would have been the step after 'cursory'. The Police pursued all of the far fetched 'suspects' and the the evidence kept coming back to the people being protected by the Colorado Establishment. NEXT!

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#82 Oct 19, 2012
Lynette 22 wrote:
<quoted text>I was going to respond to Seuss' post, Mama, but you've said it so well, there is nothing further for me to add.

Lovely to see you posting, BTW. Your knowledge, intelligence and common sense are invaluable to the IDI and very much appreciated. Thank you.:)
Thank you, as well, for starting this thread. Lou Smit was an incredible investigator and an EVEN better man....with such integrity. Truly, Lou, was a man of admirable character.(It's difficult to find time to post, but life has slowed down a bit. KNOCK ON WOOD!) <3
Steve Eller

United States

#83 Oct 19, 2012
Mama2JML wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you. This comes from the Chris Wolf libel suit in 2001. It's important to keep in mind the latter statement by John Ramsey:
"I hoped that they would also follow up on leads that came to us, but I was frequently reminded by our attorneys that their principal role was to prepare a defense should that be necessary."
IIRC, Lou Smit was not one of the PIs retained by the Ramsey lawyers as he did not work for the Rs. He led an independent investigation into the murder of JonBenet and received no payment.
John Ramsey 'HOPED'' that they would follow up on leads? Are you bleeping kidding me? This is the man with enormous financial resources, who moved earth wind and fire to prevent being questioned by the Police, a man who spent countless money on the best criminal defense attorneys and public relations executives that money could buy, did not have the means or foresight to throw some extra dollars into --oh yea--into finding who slaughtered his daughter? The jig is up has been for a long time.
Steve Eller

United States

#84 Oct 19, 2012
Lynette 22 wrote:
<quoted text> He conducted those experiments in an attempt to prove that a stun gun WAS used. He did his research and consulted with experts, one of whom was Dr Michael Dobersen for further advice and confirmation of his suspicions that a stun gun caused those marks.
DOI (HB) Page 194:
"We also learned why Smit had asked us these questions. Back in April 11, Lou Smit, Trip DeMuth, and Steve Ainsworth had gone to John Meyer, the Boulder county coroner, with a single question. "could the marks on JonBenet's body have come from a stun gun?" The investigators felt they had discovered a significant clue, and Meyer evidently agreed that the small red marks he observed on JonBenet's body could have come from such a weapon."
"Following this conversation, Smit had spoken to Peter Mang and Sue Kitchen of the Colorado Bureau of Investigation about a stun gun causing the same marks. Could a stun gun leave the red welts found on our daughter? Both Mang and Kitchen believed it was possible. In turn, they suggested that Lou pursue the issue with Araphahoe County Coroner Mike Doberson. In the past, Dobersen had dealt with a crime involving a stun gun. His experience was first-hand and practical, and he should be able to offer some insight."
"During Lou's talk with Doberson, the autopsy photos were studied from every possible angle. After a careful examination, Dr. Dobersen believed that the marks in the pictures did appear to have come from a stun gun. However, Doberson wasn't ready to make a definite public statement unless the body was exhumed. Because the exhumation didn't occur, Smit couldn't obtain the conclusive statement he was seeking."
Obviously, Dr Dobersen wasn't prepared to state with a 100% certainty that the marks were from a stun gun as he hadn't seen the body for himself. But he felt the evidence of a stun gun was "compelling".
The coroner's own investigator believed it could have been a stun gun and the police obviously seriously considered the possibility as well, because they canvassed the neighbourhood enquiring whether people owned stun guns. When they were investigating Michael McElroy, they took his stun gun into evidence, even going so far as to buy him a new one using a police credit card. They wouldn't have done all that unless they too believed a stun gun was used. They rejected the idea later because it didn't fit with their belief that the Ramseys were guilty.
We'll probably never definitely know whether or not a stun gun was used on JonBenet, but it's still the only explanation that makes any sense and the credit goes to Lou Smit for suggesting it in the first place.
We know that a stun gun was not used. Theoretically you will always find people affirming that something is 'Possible'. A higher threshhold of proof is needed as a bare minimum in forming an alternative theory on what happened to JonBenet. The test on the pigs failed miserably,making marks that were nothing like what was found on JonBenet. The makers of the only device made that could come even remotely come close to thinly resembling the marks on JonBenet's Body pubilcly confirmed that those marks could not have been made by their device. The coroner noted that there were abrasions and not burns. Unfortunately Lou Smit was following his heart or his wallet but not the facts of the case.

“WAX ON”

Since: Jul 10

WAX OFF

#85 Oct 19, 2012
Stellar post, BRAVO!

There are times with the IDIs incessant need to defend each breath a Ramsey takes, that they should sit back and read through what they are about to post before selecting <Post Comment>.

I would have to think at least part of the time they would be able to see how ludicrous it sounds.

John Ramsey BOUGHT everything he believed he needed - and in the order he felt he needed it. He didn't need anyone to solve this crime for him - he already knew THAT answer.
Steve Eller wrote:
<quoted text>
John Ramsey 'HOPED'' that they would follow up on leads? Are you bleeping kidding me? This is the man with enormous financial resources, who moved earth wind and fire to prevent being questioned by the Police, a man who spent countless money on the best criminal defense attorneys and public relations executives that money could buy, did not have the means or foresight to throw some extra dollars into --oh yea--into finding who slaughtered his daughter? The jig is up has been for a long time.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

JonBenet Ramsey Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News SLIDESHOW: JonBenet murder still a mystery 15 y... (Dec '11) 35 min robert 3
News GLOBE: JonBenet Ramsey Murder Was Inside Job - ... (Apr '15) 3 hr BrotherMoon 53
2.5 Pages of RN 3 hr BrotherMoon 18
Evidence that Burke Was Involved (Oct '09) 3 hr Texxy 2,300
FOREIGN FACTION, byJames Kolar: Falsehoods, Fa... (Aug '12) 3 hr Texxy 561
Burke's Emotional Load (Jun '15) 3 hr Texxy 67
the box of candy 6 hr KCinNYC 9
More from around the web