Lou Smit's "credentials"

Since: Feb 12

San Diego, CA

#1 Nov 27, 2013
Hi folks,
In the beginning, I thought that Lou Smit retired from his detective job in El Paso, TX, where there is a LOT of crime, being on the border of Mexico.

No! Re retired from El Paso County, CO! Population of 644,000 in 2012, and worked also, in Colorado Springs, with a population of 431,000 in 2012.

With that kind of population in the towns that he worked in, I truly doubt that he had over 200 investigations of experience even if he worked on the police force or sheriff's office for 30 years. Remember, he had to start as a rookie, and work his way up to detective. Me thinks something is wrong here!
CC

Since: Feb 12

San Diego, CA

#3 Nov 27, 2013
BrotherMoon wrote:
But he knew the difference between one stick and two.
Is that something like calling a garrote a gibbet? LOL!

“If life gives you melons”

Since: Nov 06

You might be dyslexic

#4 Nov 28, 2013
Bakatari wrote:
Hi folks,
In the beginning, I thought that Lou Smit retired from his detective job in El Paso, TX, where there is a LOT of crime, being on the border of Mexico.
No! Re retired from El Paso County, CO! Population of 644,000 in 2012, and worked also, in Colorado Springs, with a population of 431,000 in 2012.
With that kind of population in the towns that he worked in, I truly doubt that he had over 200 investigations of experience even if he worked on the police force or sheriff's office for 30 years. Remember, he had to start as a rookie, and work his way up to detective. Me thinks something is wrong here!
CC
The best description of Smit was posted a long time ago on this board. "He was a legend in his own mind!"

I know you believe he must have been on the take, but I don't think he was smart enough to be. He was an average 'gumshoe' when he ended his career still barking up the wrong tree. He didn't even know when to quit when if he had, he would have saved face. I think he was probably pretty average throughout his whole career. That doesn't make him a bad person at all, but it also doesn't make him spectacular either.

He started his career on a lie, and he concluded his career chasing his own tail.

Since: Dec 09

Location hidden

#5 Nov 28, 2013
Colorado Springs is far smaller than the demographics imply as the Air Force Academy is counted yet like any Military Installation they do their own policing and law enforcement.

Since: Feb 12

San Diego, CA

#6 Nov 28, 2013
nerma wrote:
Colorado Springs is far smaller than the demographics imply as the Air Force Academy is counted yet like any Military Installation they do their own policing and law enforcement.
I didn't know that. Thanks! That means he hardly did any detective work there, and in El Paso, they had a relatively low crime rate. In his 200+ investigations, he might have had some truancy cases.
CC

Since: Feb 12

San Diego, CA

#7 Nov 28, 2013
Legal__Eagle wrote:
<quoted text>
The best description of Smit was posted a long time ago on this board. "He was a legend in his own mind!"
I know you believe he must have been on the take, but I don't think he was smart enough to be. He was an average 'gumshoe' when he ended his career still barking up the wrong tree. He didn't even know when to quit when if he had, he would have saved face. I think he was probably pretty average throughout his whole career. That doesn't make him a bad person at all, but it also doesn't make him spectacular either.
He started his career on a lie, and he concluded his career chasing his own tail.
Hi LE,
I concede that you might be correct, although I still think Smit was on the take.

The reason I think you could be correct, is is lack of experience, which seemed to be hidden by either fictitious credentials, or simple exaggerations.

CC
Heloise

UK

#8 Dec 3, 2013
Hi LE and CC,
I must say that I agree with you. At some point, a poster over at FFJ found a list of crimes that Smit failed to solve and, if memory serves, it was pretty extensive. Certainly, it gave the impression that he was far from infallible.
Some of his observations on the JBR case also suggested that he hadn't fully read or understood the forensics, especially around the autopsy. For example, he ignored Dr Meyer's description of the marks on JBR's body as 'abrasions' and continued to call them stun gun burns even when he couldn't find a stun gun that matched the marks on JBR. The murder itself wasn't consistent with sexual sadism or paedophilia but, as recently as last year, his name was attached to a book positing that a sexual sadist killed JonBenet so we can assume he went to the grave believing his theory.
I don't know about his being on the take but I do believe he was overly impressed with the Ramseys.

Since: Feb 12

San Diego, CA

#9 Dec 3, 2013
Heloise wrote:
Hi LE and CC,
I must say that I agree with you. At some point, a poster over at FFJ found a list of crimes that Smit failed to solve and, if memory serves, it was pretty extensive. Certainly, it gave the impression that he was far from infallible.
Some of his observations on the JBR case also suggested that he hadn't fully read or understood the forensics, especially around the autopsy. For example, he ignored Dr Meyer's description of the marks on JBR's body as 'abrasions' and continued to call them stun gun burns even when he couldn't find a stun gun that matched the marks on JBR. The murder itself wasn't consistent with sexual sadism or paedophilia but, as recently as last year, his name was attached to a book positing that a sexual sadist killed JonBenet so we can assume he went to the grave believing his theory.
I don't know about his being on the take but I do believe he was overly impressed with the Ramseys.
Hi H,
I really don't think that Smit was honest. He went by his theory, and even against proven errors he made, he stuck by them. For instance, the "stun gun marks", the entrance of the phantom intruder being the basement window, the ransom note being "authentic", the rebuttal he had about "no footprints in the snow" going by photographs obviously taken during daylight.

He also made statements like "The garrote is a favored weapon of pedophiles." which seems to be only by his own personal accounts, supported by nothing.

Now, you mention is failures in investigating. I didn't know about them, but I see it as very believable, being that both of the places where he worked had a smaller population and a relatively low crime rate.

Either Smit was extremely incredibly stupid and stubborn, or he was on the take. OR both.

It is my personal opinion that Smit was on the take.
CC

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#10 Dec 4, 2013
Bakatari wrote:
<quoted text>
Hi H,
I really don't think that Smit was honest. He went by his theory, and even against proven errors he made, he stuck by them. For instance, the "stun gun marks", the entrance of the phantom intruder being the basement window, the ransom note being "authentic", the rebuttal he had about "no footprints in the snow" going by photographs obviously taken during daylight.
He also made statements like "The garrote is a favored weapon of pedophiles." which seems to be only by his own personal accounts, supported by nothing.
Now, you mention is failures in investigating. I didn't know about them, but I see it as very believable, being that both of the places where he worked had a smaller population and a relatively low crime rate.
Either Smit was extremely incredibly stupid and stubborn, or he was on the take. OR both.
It is my personal opinion that Smit was on the take.
CC
You could certainly be right CC about him being on the take. He was either on the take or had some other "interest" to play ball with Hunter and Haddon, et al

Of course he had failures as a detective. I don't think any person in any profession has not had failures and I would think that nobody pretends to ALWAYS get it right.

We have heard about all the cases that he "solved" whether they were traffic tickets or murders LOL, but what is more important are the cases he did not solve and the ratio

People remember you for the last thing you did; and for Smit, this case has ruined any reputation he might have had prior to JBR. His "handling" of this case has shown that he was just a flunky, hired Hunter, et al to make this case SPIN.

He did what he was told, outright and INTENTIONALLY LYING about the case and that is unforgiveable whether he was on the take or not. Once it is realized that he purposefully LIED about the case, GAME OVER

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
OJ Simpson and JonBenet Ramsey cases 2 hr stoned luck aka ... 14
Today Show: JonBenet Ramsey case lies 4 hr stoned luck aka ... 213
Identity Problems 4 hr stoned luck aka ... 97
Sig 9 hr stoned luck aka ... 13
Think family...helter skelter type of family 12 hr stoned luck aka ... 7
Why were the Ramseys afraid of the polygraph test? (Mar '12) 14 hr moonjack 127
ICU2 's Child Trafficking (Dec '14) 14 hr moonjack 429
More from around the web