Part 1 of 3: Boulder detectives still...

Part 1 of 3: Boulder detectives still seek answers in JonBenet Ramsey case

There are 61 comments on the Denver Post story from Nov 12, 2013, titled Part 1 of 3: Boulder detectives still seek answers in JonBenet Ramsey case. In it, Denver Post reports that:

On his death bed in August of 2010, famed Colorado Springs Det. Lou Smit could have spoken about the 200 murder cases he'd solved during a storied career going back three decades.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Denver Post.

First Prev
of 4
Next Last
Just Wondering

Sophia, WV

#1 Nov 13, 2013
As a fellow Christian, I hate to think the Ramseys were guilty of the cover-up or murder of their daughter. But the majority of the evidence points in that direction. I, indeed, do not think they committed the murder, but do feel one may be guilty of the cover-up. Leaving the other totally innocent except perhaps for some suspicions. I do not think a stun gun was used, so Patsy's ignorance of a stun gun would be completely understandable. These two components could very well explain why Lou Smit thought them to be innocent. Neither guilty of murder, one guilty of covering up, no stun gun was used.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#4 Nov 13, 2013
Christians are just as good at murder as Muslims, Jews, Hindus, and any other members of oragnized religion BUT I'm not convinced Lou Smit believed they were innocent.

He was retired so had plenty of time to develop alliances and relationships worthy of blackamil. He was not an honorable man from the start. His entry onto the force was predictaed on a lie, he was too short and had his cousin bop him on the head to produce a swelling.

The probate of his estate will reflect his integrity.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#5 Nov 13, 2013
............not to mention his gloating and being given undue credit for solving the murder of Heather Dawn Church when it was a fingerprint match by a computer that closed the case............
Steve Eller

Bronx, NY

#6 Nov 13, 2013
moonjack wrote:
Christians are just as good at murder as Muslims, Jews, Hindus, and any other members of oragnized religion BUT I'm not convinced Lou Smit believed they were innocent.
He was retired so had plenty of time to develop alliances and relationships worthy of blackamil. He was not an honorable man from the start. His entry onto the force was predictaed on a lie, he was too short and had his cousin bop him on the head to produce a swelling.
The probate of his estate will reflect his integrity.
I'm still undecided about whether or not he was on the take. I still have a lot of variables to consider before making up my mind...with Alex Hunter...not so much.

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#7 Nov 14, 2013
Steve Eller wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm still undecided about whether or not he was on the take. I still have a lot of variables to consider before making up my mind...with Alex Hunter...not so much.
I am also undecided Steve. For many years, I truly believed that Smit was just misguided and really did believe that they were innocent; then I believed he was just giving them the benefit of the doubt, but as time went on, and he was just as intentionally deceitful as the Ramseys, I had to wonder if he was really that stupid or if he was somehow as corrupt as the others.

I still haven't made up my mind totally on which avenue to believe but I'm leaning toward corrupt, given the information we have uncovered over the years and the Tracey incident along with the Karr fiasco, leads me to believe even more that he was just in with the good ol' boys of Boulder and "assigned" to keep the Ramseys INNOCENT

Either way, it was par for the course. Smit did his damndest to convince a GJ that the Ramseys were innocent and FAILED, which is a small bright light in the overall scheme of things

Since: Feb 12

San Diego, CA

#8 Nov 15, 2013
Capricorn wrote:
<quoted text>
I am also undecided Steve. For many years, I truly believed that Smit was just misguided and really did believe that they were innocent; then I believed he was just giving them the benefit of the doubt, but as time went on, and he was just as intentionally deceitful as the Ramseys, I had to wonder if he was really that stupid or if he was somehow as corrupt as the others.
I still haven't made up my mind totally on which avenue to believe but I'm leaning toward corrupt, given the information we have uncovered over the years and the Tracey incident along with the Karr fiasco, leads me to believe even more that he was just in with the good ol' boys of Boulder and "assigned" to keep the Ramseys INNOCENT
Either way, it was par for the course. Smit did his damndest to convince a GJ that the Ramseys were innocent and FAILED, which is a small bright light in the overall scheme of things
Hi Cap,
I think Lou Smit was on the take.
He ignored the evidence and the reports made by the initial police at the crime scene, and tried to creat "reasonable doubt" instead.
The fact that he made statements like: "The garrote is a favorite tool or weapon used by pedophiles. Looked at photos and disputed the observation of "no footprints in the snow". Theorized that the phantom intruder went through the basement window that was broken for months, and the mark on the body came from a stun gun, makes me believe that he wasn't honest and stubborn, but either very stupid, or on the take. Being that he had over 200 cases of experience, I don't think he was very stupid.
CC

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#9 Nov 15, 2013
Bakatari wrote:
<quoted text>
Hi Cap,
I think Lou Smit was on the take.
He ignored the evidence and the reports made by the initial police at the crime scene, and tried to creat "reasonable doubt" instead.
The fact that he made statements like: "The garrote is a favorite tool or weapon used by pedophiles. Looked at photos and disputed the observation of "no footprints in the snow". Theorized that the phantom intruder went through the basement window that was broken for months, and the mark on the body came from a stun gun, makes me believe that he wasn't honest and stubborn, but either very stupid, or on the take. Being that he had over 200 cases of experience, I don't think he was very stupid.
CC
Hi there CC

To be honest, it doesn't matter to me whether Smit was paid for his status of the Ramsey THOR LOL or not. Once I realized that it wasn't just a misguided train of thought, he was corrupt, period, regardless of whether his motive was money or something else, given the power of those requesting his service

He INTENTIONALLY deceived others and the public, which negates anything else that could have been seen as a positive spin on Smit IMO

Either way, he turned out to be a bad guy and the rest is just speculation as to his motive/s

Since: Sep 11

Alberton, South Africa

#10 Nov 15, 2013
Bakatari wrote:
<quoted text>
Hi Cap,
I think Lou Smit was on the take.
He ignored the evidence and the reports made by the initial police at the crime scene, and tried to creat "reasonable doubt" instead.
The fact that he made statements like: "The garrote is a favorite tool or weapon used by pedophiles. Looked at photos and disputed the observation of "no footprints in the snow". Theorized that the phantom intruder went through the basement window that was broken for months, and the mark on the body came from a stun gun, makes me believe that he wasn't honest and stubborn, but either very stupid, or on the take. Being that he had over 200 cases of experience, I don't think he was very stupid.
CC
I believe you are very wrong about Lou Smit, Bakatari. He was an honourable man and a well-respected detective who was highly thought of in law enforcement circles. Those who knew him had only good things to say about him. His primary concern was always the VICTIM. He dedicated his life to getting justice for the victims and I think it's very wrong to accuse someone with his outstanding reputation of being "on the take". He was already retired by the time he was called into the case and after a lifetime of honesty and integrity, it's highly doubtful he'd suddenly turn corrupt. After studying thousands of pages of evidence and using the 32 years of experience he'd gained, he concluded that an intruder was responsible. You may not agree with him, but to accuse him of being a crook is going a bit far.

“WAX ON”

Since: Jul 10

WAX OFF

#11 Nov 15, 2013
EVERYONE is honest and respected until they are CAUGHT being dishonest, LOL.

Blah blah blah on Smit. He mass-produced red herrings faster than the speed of light, and at the end of the day, he couldn't back up even a single one of his theories with anything substantial.

I believe he was misguided and dishonest.

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#12 Nov 15, 2013
DrSeussMd wrote:
EVERYONE is honest and respected until they are CAUGHT being dishonest, LOL.
Blah blah blah on Smit. He mass-produced red herrings faster than the speed of light, and at the end of the day, he couldn't back up even a single one of his theories with anything substantial.
I believe he was misguided and dishonest.
LOL, you beat me to it Seuss

Exactly right about everyone being good until they are caught.

Once someone is known to be dishonest and deceitful, one now has to wonder what else over the years wasn't quite "honest" Years ago, indiscretions were handled differently and not made quite so public and certainly not put in the official records

Nobody knows what is behind the closet door of anyone and it's times like this, with Smit and others, that all previous wonderful things are called into question.........as it should be

Smit gleefully explained how he got into police work, and while it was a humorous story, not unlike Patsy lying to John's girlfriend years ago while John hid like a little boy, but while entertaining stories, they tell deeper tales.

Also not unlike the Patsy and Susan Stine story that Patsy also was so gleeful about when they tormented a reporter's wife with tales of infidelity. That story, all by itself tells the character flaws of Patsy and Susan and the Smit story also speaks to character and shows that it's all about ME ME ME

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#13 Nov 15, 2013
Does anyone know anything about his probate?

Since: Feb 12

San Diego, CA

#14 Nov 15, 2013
Capricorn wrote:
<quoted text>
Hi there CC
To be honest, it doesn't matter to me whether Smit was paid for his status of the Ramsey THOR LOL or not. Once I realized that it wasn't just a misguided train of thought, he was corrupt, period, regardless of whether his motive was money or something else, given the power of those requesting his service
He INTENTIONALLY deceived others and the public, which negates anything else that could have been seen as a positive spin on Smit IMO
Either way, he turned out to be a bad guy and the rest is just speculation as to his motive/s
This is my assessment on Lou Smit.
Of course, we all sometimes, go by our "gut feelings" with whatever we do. In LS case, he gets assigned to the JBR case more than a month after the murder, and he has a "LOT OF EXPERIENCE" in investigations. Any investigator getting into a case like this will first look at the evidence, and the possible suspects. From there, you try to positively eliminate each suspect until you find the culprit.

Lou Smit did not do this. Before saying that he didn't suspect anyone in the Ramsey family, he, with his experience, should have positively eliminate each and every one, which he could not do.

Instead, he tried to create an intruder, when there was no evidence to support one. I see this as obvious dishonesty. Lou Smit was on the take.
CC

Since: Apr 10

Location hidden

#15 Nov 15, 2013
Great article.

Only I wonder which one was on top, which on bottom?

[Yeah, I went there. Pathetic excuse for a journalist is almost as bad as the pathetic excuse of an ex-detective.]
BrotherMoon

Arvada, CO

#16 Nov 15, 2013
Pathetic garbage dog puke article

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#17 Nov 16, 2013
Bakatari wrote:
<quoted text>
This is my assessment on Lou Smit.
Of course, we all sometimes, go by our "gut feelings" with whatever we do. In LS case, he gets assigned to the JBR case more than a month after the murder, and he has a "LOT OF EXPERIENCE" in investigations. Any investigator getting into a case like this will first look at the evidence, and the possible suspects. From there, you try to positively eliminate each suspect until you find the culprit.
Lou Smit did not do this. Before saying that he didn't suspect anyone in the Ramsey family, he, with his experience, should have positively eliminate each and every one, which he could not do.
Instead, he tried to create an intruder, when there was no evidence to support one. I see this as obvious dishonesty. Lou Smit was on the take.
CC
It is in fact, obvious dishonesty once we realized how he purposely lied to the public, which is a shame

You are right in that he could not eliminate any of the Ramseys based on hard evidence and only eliminated them in much the same way some of our posters have, basing it on the want and desire to proclaim them innocent

As a "seasoned homicide investigator", he did not do his profession any favors and surely to this day has become an embarrassment to his peers in the field

Since: Feb 12

San Diego, CA

#18 Nov 16, 2013
Capricorn wrote:
<quoted text>
It is in fact, obvious dishonesty once we realized how he purposely lied to the public, which is a shame
You are right in that he could not eliminate any of the Ramseys based on hard evidence and only eliminated them in much the same way some of our posters have, basing it on the want and desire to proclaim them innocent
As a "seasoned homicide investigator", he did not do his profession any favors and surely to this day has become an embarrassment to his peers in the field
Hi Cap,
Lou Smit claims that initially, he thought the Ramseys were the culprits, but changed his mind after meeting with them. He "prayed with them" and then he claimed that the investigators were "fixed" on the Ramseys. This was weeks after the murder.

The Ramseys, through their powerful attorneys, dictated the way the investigations were done. which tied the hands of Steve Thomas.

Lou Smit tried to create an intruder, with his "theory" that the crime was a "kidnapping for ransom" claiming that $118,000 was a million Mexican pesos. Why would a person want an equivalent in a million Mexican pesos??? Even MOST IDIs concede that the ransom note was a fake, but obviously Lou Smit did not. Remember, he had over 200 cases of experience!

I give people a benefit of doubt, but in Lou Smit's case, I see no reasonable doubt at all.
He was on the take.

Since: Feb 12

San Diego, CA

#19 Nov 16, 2013
Lynette 22 wrote:
<quoted text> I believe you are very wrong about Lou Smit, Bakatari. He was an honourable man and a well-respected detective who was highly thought of in law enforcement circles. Those who knew him had only good things to say about him. His primary concern was always the VICTIM. He dedicated his life to getting justice for the victims and I think it's very wrong to accuse someone with his outstanding reputation of being "on the take". He was already retired by the time he was called into the case and after a lifetime of honesty and integrity, it's highly doubtful he'd suddenly turn corrupt. After studying thousands of pages of evidence and using the 32 years of experience he'd gained, he concluded that an intruder was responsible. You may not agree with him, but to accuse him of being a crook is going a bit far.
Hi Lynette,
I have some homework for you.
Lou Smit claimed that the garrote was a favorite weapon for pedophiles. Please find us a source on that? I looked for it all over the WEB, but could not, EXCEPT for Lou Smit's claim.

Lou Smit believed that the phantom intruder came in through the basement window, while most will agree that even IF there was an intruder, that was NOT his point of entry OR exit. The spider webs on the grate above that window were undisturbed, and it was claimed that spiders will re-spin their webs in freezing weather. This is TRUE in the arctics, but find a species of spider that does not hibernate in the winters in Colorado?

Do you actually believe that the ransom note was NOT a phony? Lou Smit believed it was authentic, and he had over 200 cases of experience!

How about the "stun gun"? Do you agree, that the marks on JBR was NOT from a stun gun? Lou Smit claimed that is where the marks most likely came from.

Lou Smit might have been an "honorable man" prior to the JBR case. BUT, he was NOT one when he did his investigation on THIS murder. I don't think ANY investigator with 200 cases of experience would buy the ransom note as an "authentic" means to extort money from a "kidnapping". Lou Smit did! Was Lou Smit on the take? Stupid? Or dishonest? I don't think Lou Smit was stupid.
CC
CC
candy

East Lansing, MI

#20 Nov 16, 2013
Serial Killer BTK was voted by his CHRISTIAN CHURCH congregation to be the President of the congregation. They all they knew him too.

Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel and RELIGION is the second last refuge of a whole lot of criminals.
BrotherMoon

Arvada, CO

#21 Nov 16, 2013
Devotion does not guarantee salvation.
Just Wondering

Sophia, WV

#22 Nov 16, 2013
candy wrote:
Serial Killer BTK was voted by his CHRISTIAN CHURCH congregation to be the President of the congregation. They all they knew him too.
Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel and RELIGION is the second last refuge of a whole lot of criminals.
You are right, Candy. As Christians, we know that we are all sinners--liars, thieves, adulterers, murderers-- saved only by the Grace of God through the blood of Christ.

And Brother Moon, you also are correct. Devotion does not equal salvation.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 4
Next Last

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
Lou Smit wants details about Christmas bikes. (Nov '16) 42 min Non-state Actor 35
"Factual Allegations" 45 min KCinNYC 11
Emerging Child Sex-Ring Allegations (Jun '11) 1 hr Tex- 19
Nancy Krebs police report, re: allegations aga... (Apr '10) 1 hr Tex- 218
Dean Ryan Investigation: The Letter 1 hr KCinNYC 17
Didn't the Ramseys recognize the note pad paper? (Jul '09) 4 hr cottonstar 854
John Ramsey and Child Pornography (Nov '14) 7 hr Tex- 56
More from around the web