Lou Smit
First Prev
of 7
Next Last
Henri McPhee

Bristol, UK

#1 Oct 30, 2008
There are some bits of that Detective Lou Smit deposition, which has recently been put on the internet by Jameson, that I find very interesting, and even amusing.

It doesn't look as though Lou Smit has much of a high regard for the abilities of pathologists in murder cases. I think that's relevant information to the Molly Midyette wrongful conviction in Boulder.

This is Lou Smit being cross-examined by Darnay Hoffman:

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.



Henri McPhee

Bristol, UK

#2 Oct 30, 2008
Detective Smit also seems to be in disagreement with another 'God-like' doctor, Krugman. That reminds me of the Midyette case as well. Again this is Darnay Hoffman asking the questions:

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.
Henri McPhee

Bristol, UK

#3 Oct 30, 2008
Lou Smit seems to be in disagreement with the ludicrous Steve Thomas rage over bedwetting by Patsy hypothetical scenario:

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 --

THE WITNESS: No.

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.
Henri McPhee

Bristol, UK

#4 Oct 30, 2008
This is an intereting bit involving Chris Wolf. Lou Smit seemed to be much more interested in Chris Wolf as a a suspect than the Boulder cops ever were.

Lou Smit may still be interested in Chris Wolf in connection to JonBenet's murder now, even if Chris Wolf wasn't the actual murderer:

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.
candy

East Lansing, MI

#5 Oct 30, 2008
Thank you for this thread Henri. I'm appreciate that you have the diligence to read all information on this case as soon as it's available.

First of all, Jameson is slicing and dicing, and putting out selected excerpts, like she did in Fleet White's, so it's not the whole transcript. What will the gutter do now that some of this is out? They could never figure out how to get it, even thought it was never sealed, and I posted step by step directions on how to do it. And they never wanted to know why Carnes found Lou so much more believable than Thomas.

I've only had time to read the first thread, and it's important to note some key strategic points.

Thanks to Steve Thomas (who had just gotten off in the Miller subpoena case, and had been served here by the Ramseys PI, Dave Williams, who swore in an affidavit that Thomas refused to pick up his subpoena, Thomas had to be ORDERED by a COURT ORDER by Judge Carnes to appear within 30 days of her order. This bumped the scheduled depo off the Ramseys to make way for Thomas, and gave the Ramseys the enormous strategic advantage of deposing Thomas before the Ramseys, and before Lou. So Lin Wood knew all about where Thomas was weak, and he could showcase Lou's strengths.

First of all, Lou says he's never accepted a nickle in this case. Unlike profiteer Steve, who hurried up and settled with the Ramseys and then tried to cover up his depo forever in this case. Carnes knew all about that. Then she sees where Thomas said he didn't even record in notes all his meetings with the Whites. Lin can show off that Lou recorded EVERY meeting with EVERY witness, including the Ramseys. Lou also NEVER tried to cover up his depo like Thomas and NEVER had to be forced to testify by a court order like Thomas did. This is only in the first thread, you are seeing the enormous advantages Lin Wood had by the actions of Steve Thomas in this case. I'll read more and comment more this weekend when I have time.
Rashomon

Germany

#6 Oct 30, 2008
Henri McPhee wrote:
This is an intereting bit involving Chris Wolf. Lou Smit seemed to be much more interested in Chris Wolf as a a suspect than the Boulder cops ever were.

[LS]: "And if he is under the examining glass, you put him on the front burner for a while and you look at him."
It borders on the comical that Smit completely abanoned his own principles when it came to scrutinizung the Ramseys. He ignored Patsy's jacket fibers in the ligature, he ignored the evidence tying her to the writing of the ransom note, and compleletly ignored the staged ligature scene by claiming some cord wrappped around a stick was an "elaborate sexual device". Priceless.
And Smit 'seeing' a blue arc from a stun gun on the victim's skin is the icing on the cake of delusion he eagerly swallowed.

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#7 Oct 30, 2008
Rashomon wrote:
<quoted text>
It borders on the comical that Smit completely abanoned his own principles when it came to scrutinizung the Ramseys. He ignored Patsy's jacket fibers in the ligature, he ignored the evidence tying her to the writing of the ransom note, and compleletly ignored the staged ligature scene by claiming some cord wrappped around a stick was an "elaborate sexual device". Priceless.
And Smit 'seeing' a blue arc from a stun gun on the victim's skin is the icing on the cake of delusion he eagerly swallowed.
Apparently Lou Smit thinks he knows more than anybody, from the sounds of it. He believes he is so right about this intruder that he just sweeps any evidence against the Ramseys under the rug and ignores it. For example; the "bugaboo" pineapple...why has he just chosen to dismiss it? I think Smit is an egocentric and borders on senility. It's hard to believe he ever looked at this case objectively. I think the Ramseys had him at "Hello."
why_nut

Holbrook, NY

#8 Oct 30, 2008
Henri McPhee wrote:
This is Lou Smit being cross-examined by Darnay Hoffman:
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.
By the same standard, then, Lou Smit is not well qualified to be a detective. After all, he came to the wrong conclusion that Robert Browne, convicted of killing Heather Church, was also a serial killer of more than forty other people, and that has been demonstrably proven wrong.
jahazafat

Portage, MI

#9 Oct 31, 2008
I don't think Lou Smit belives the Ramseys are innocent anymore. He hasn't made a peep in years has he?
candy

East Lansing, MI

#10 Oct 31, 2008
Oh yes he does pinker. He was in the latest Tru-tv trashumentary, and blasted the cops during the Karr debacle for ever suspecting the Rams.

His statement about Dilson being a credible source, when the cops and everyone else didn't is what will come back to haunt him big time. There's some fierce impeachment for Smit with a statement like that. As Beckner said under oath, she's one that kept adding to her story whenever the latest leaks hit the tabs, among other things. She's just one of the many extremely dubious "sources" the Scams have used in throwing people under the bus. And I don't have to tell you that time has completely exonorated Chris Wolf, his DNA doesn't match, he was trashed and libeled like so many other innocent people in this case.
candy

East Lansing, MI

#11 Oct 31, 2008
Notice how Lou said he didn't even bother to read the transcript or watch the video of Patsy's interview with Tom Haney? He also said on Larry King Live in 2001 that he never has interviewed Burke. The two other people alive in the house. That will also be used against him as impeachment.
candy

East Lansing, MI

#13 Nov 1, 2008
No "long, indepth interview with Burke by Smit:

KING: Can you learn a lot from talking to the son?

SMIT: You know, I have never really had a long, in-depth interview with the son.

AND it looks like he didn't review Dan Schuler's interview with Burke either:

KING: But, I mean, he would be helpful in talking about temperament of his parents.

SMIT: Yes, and I'm sure that that was gone to in every detail when Dan Schuler talked to him.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0105/2...
Capricorn

Southampton, NY

#14 Nov 2, 2008
SMIT: You know, I have never really had a long, in-depth interview with the son.

THIS from the man that everyone thinks is a God in this case. He doesn't interview one of the ONLY three other people known to be in the house that night, and admittedly was NOT sleeping

Yeah, Smit is all that...is it any wonder why he was/is the Ramsey's BFF?

“If life gives you melons”

Since: Nov 06

You might be dyslexic

#15 Nov 2, 2008
Capricorn wrote:
SMIT: You know, I have never really had a long, in-depth interview with the son.
THIS from the man that everyone thinks is a God in this case. He doesn't interview one of the ONLY three other people known to be in the house that night, and admittedly was NOT sleeping
Yeah, Smit is all that...is it any wonder why he was/is the Ramsey's BFF?
What investigator, worth his salt, would A$$UME another investigator had asked all the necessary questions? NO ONE, that's who! And yet the Mame-ites swear he is is the best there is - sad really, because JBR deserved so much more than Smit.
koldkase

Athens, GA

#16 Nov 2, 2008
Are y'all talking about Lou "psychic" Smit? Oh, he's really sharp! He asks the HARD questions of THE PEOPLE THAT MATTER:

Smit: Was the intruder carrying something?

Psychic: Yes...now that you mention it.... He was carrying...ahhh...he was carrying...

Smit: A bag?

Psychic: Why yes...HE WAS CARRYING A BAG! With STUFF in it!!

Smit: We believe that, too!
Limaes

Sydney, Australia

#17 Nov 13, 2008
<<<<<

"First of all, Lou says he's never accepted a nickle in this case."

>>>>>

Smit's career was resurrected because of this case. What "Lou says" and what Lou does are never the same thing.

He says that the DNA under JB's fingernails belongs to her killer. He also says that the petechial haemorhages above the ligature are defensive marks from JB's fingernails from when she was fighting for her life and clutching at the ligature around her neck.

If this is the case, then why isn't Lou demanding that the neck ligature be tested for the same DNA that was under her fingernails. I mean, if she really were clutching at the ligature, couldn't there be a chance his intruder's DNA is on the ligature?
Limaes

Sydney, Australia

#18 Nov 13, 2008
The last part should read - couldn't there be a chance his intruder's DNA was transferred onto the ligature by JB?
Shill

Sherman Oaks, CA

#19 Nov 13, 2008
Rashomon wrote:
<quoted text>
It borders on the comical that Smit completely abanoned his own principles when it came to scrutinizung the Ramseys. He ignored Patsy's jacket fibers in the ligature, he ignored the evidence tying her to the writing of the ransom note, and compleletly ignored the staged ligature scene by claiming some cord wrappped around a stick was an "elaborate sexual device". Priceless.
There are reasons that Smit ignored all those things you think add up to something.
But you're not capable of seeing that, being that you are blind to the facts.
Shill

Sherman Oaks, CA

#20 Nov 13, 2008
thewhitewitchone wrote:
<quoted text>
Apparently Lou Smit thinks he knows more than anybody, from the sounds of it. He believes he is so right about this intruder that he just sweeps any evidence against the Ramseys under the rug and ignores it. For example; the "bugaboo" pineapple...why has he just chosen to dismiss it?
The pineapple proves nothing and unlike the fanatics that study the JonBenet case, Smit knows better then to waste his time on something that ultimately has proved nothing and can not prove anything as evidence.
Shill

Sherman Oaks, CA

#21 Nov 14, 2008
jahazafat wrote:
I don't think Lou Smit belives the Ramseys are innocent anymore. He hasn't made a peep in years has he?
Hello, earth to jahazzisfat.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 7
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
Laurence Smith book on JonBenet's murder 1 hr Mr Jameson 109
Jeffrey MacDonald Is Guilty (Sep '08) 2 hr JTF 7,556
Any IDI's out there want to help assist? 5 hr rainbow 25
Jonbenet's Law #2 5 hr rainbow 38
Patsy to Priscilla "Call the FBI" 6 hr Anonymous 96
ICU2 's Child Trafficking (Dec '14) 12 hr ICU2 229
Burke's Emotional Load 15 hr berrytea333 8
buRKe DiD It oh yeah 16 hr Just Wondering 45
More from around the web