Newcomers to this blog are advised to begin with the first two posts, Just the Facts, Ma'am and Case Solved, which explain in very general terms why I believe I've solved this case. Some important questions are answered in the following post, Misunderstandings, Misconceptions, Misdirections. After that feel free to browse whatever topics might interest you (see blog archive).

NB: If anyone has trouble posting a comment, email it to doktorgosh (at) live.com, and I'll post it for you.

Notice to readers of my Kindle book: I recently noticed that, on certain devices (though not all), the Table of Contents begins with Chapter One and omits the Introduction and Preface. Since the Introduction is especially important, I urge everyone to make sure to begin reading at the very beginning of the book, not the first chapter in the Table of Contents. Thank you.

Monday, July 30, 2012

The Lou Smit Show

"Master Detective" Lou Smit is known for a Powerpoint presentation in which he claimed to refute certain evidence collected by the police, and presented what he regarded as strong evidence for the intruder theory. I found some serious holes in Smit's presentation, and reported my findings on Jameson's Webbsleuths Forum. Here are some excerpts:



"No footprints" report

The photos displayed, entitled "The Sidewalk and Surrounding Area," [purporting to demonstrate that police reports of "no footprints" were misleadeing] are an excellent example of the way in which Smit tosses all objectivity aside, bending the evidence to the advantage of his "clients." The police arrived at 6AM, well before sunrise. The photos shown were obviously taken in clear sunlight. The police report emphasized the presence of frost, not just snow, on the ground. If any frost had survived after sunrise, it would probably not show up in such photos anyhow. Thus the photos are completely irrelevant. Yet Smit, referring only to snow and NOT frost, presents them as evidence of police incompetence and/or bias. Smit himself was not at the scene at that time and had only photographs to work by. Yet he questions the observations of an experienced policeman at the scene that morning.

Window debris

The photo entitled "Window well showing three windows"


reveals an undisturbed, thick layer of grime across the entire length of the central window sill. Yet Smit ignores this evidence, which clearly demonstrates that no one could possibly have passed through that window. He directs our attention instead to the window well beside it, a good portion of which is relatively free of debris. The condition of the well means nothing if no one actually passed through the window itself, but Smit ignores this inconvenient fact. Moreover the absence of debris in the well is NOT in fact consistent with an intruder's presence since such a person would have crushed the debris in the well rather than move it to the side. Again Smit shows a photo which has no bearing at all on his argument, ignoring, moreover, evidence in the same photo which contradicts that argument.

[Here's a close-up of the central portion of the above photo. Note the considerable amount of undisturbed debris on the window sill]:


[And here's a picture of Smit squeezing through that tight space]:


[Obviously no one could have gone through that window without visibly smearing the thick layer of dirt and dust we see in the closeup of the sill, but Smit ignores that inconvenient truth. Someone could have passed through that window, sure, but not without leaving very clear signs of his presence all over the place. None were found.]

Foliage under grate

From the report of Smit's presentation: "Grate over foliage: A grate over the window well appears to have been moved, leaving green foliage caught under its edge."

From the Police interrogation of John:

"LOU SMIT: And I don't want to mislead you. Because, obviously all of us have seen that. And at first we didn't know exactly why that was. But we think a perhaps an officer may have moved that grate. So I just wanted you to know that. Because it's very easy to make the conclusion that it was done. But we have had some real discussion on this and did find out that an officer had moved that grate. I usually don't tell you whether we know about that. But otherwise that's misleading."

At the time of this presentation, Smit had no way of knowing that his interrogation of John would ever be released to the public. If it had never been released then the full extent of his duplicity would have remained a secret.

Stun gun 

Smit's attempt to concoct a stun gun scenario is highly misleading. There was NO evidence of any kind that a stun gun was used in this crime. Smit simply found some photos showing marks on JonBenet's body and then went shopping until he found a type of stun gun with measurements that, very roughly, seemed to fit. Again, he was working exclusively from photos, not the body itself, so his stun gun theory is extremely speculative, to say the least. If a stun gun with those exact measurements had been found discarded at or near the crime scene, then Smit's theory would have to be taken seriously. In the absence of such evidence the stun gun theory is pure speculation with no clear bearing on the case.

The open "butler door"

From the report of Smit's presentation: "The butler door: A police report noted that a Ramsey friend who arrived at the home shortly after 6 a.m., one of the first people there, said a door on the first floor -- called the butler door -- was ajar. Smit believes it's possible the door was an escape route for the intruder."

Smit's butler door story, which gave rise to a major "urban myth" on the internet, is particularly disturbing, as once again he is very clearly stretching the truth to suit his "clients." Here's a more complete picture from reporter and insider Frank Coffman, known on the forums as "Masked Man." Coffman is by no means a member of the BORG persuasion, and has enthusiastically defended both Ramseys. Hopefully this will put that particular urban myth to rest forever: 
There was NO open door at the Ramseys' house on the morning of Dec. 26, 1996. John Ramsey himself found all the doors closed and locked that morning. Here are the FACTS:
* According to John Ramsey, ALL the doors were LOCKED. John Ramsey told the police that "I looked around the house that morning and... and all the doors were locked and I checked every door on the first floor... and they appeared to be locked." (Thomas, p. 172)
* Sgt. Paul Reichenbach checked all the doors at the Ramsey house in the early morning of Dec. 26, 1996. He found no open doors and no signs of a break-in.
* In June 2001, Linda Arndt testified at her civil trial that there were no signs of a break-in or other identifiable points of entry for an intruder into the Ramsey home.
* Patsy Ramsey told a guest at the memorial service on Dec. 29, 1996 that all the doors were closed and locked.
* Police chief Mark Beckner told me that the northside door (the so-called "butler's pantry door") was opened by a crime scene technician early that morining. The police technicians went to work at the Ramsey house by 6:50 a.m. on Dec. 26, 1996.
* Lou Smit himself told me a few months ago that he agreed that the "butler's pantry door" was probably left open by a police technician, just as Beckner said.
I have to admit: at one time, I was taken in by the myth of the "open door" because it was reported in a newspaper story and it was touted by others. Since then, I have learned that there were no open or unlocked doors. Neither the police nor John Ramsey found any open doors. The mistaken notion about an "open door" got started after John Fernie noticed that the northside "butler's pantry door" was ajar. Fernie didn't know that the door was left open by a police technician." ( From a Websleuths post by Masked Man dated August 20, 2001)

52 comments:

  1. I wonder how much he was paid?

    ReplyDelete
  2. John certainly has a knack for persuading law enforcement people to take his side. The handwriting "experts" ruled him out; Lou Smit took his Powerpoint presentation to the Grand Jury and the Today show; and Mary Lacy exonerated him based only on some very shaky DNA "evidence." So, yeah, makes you wonder.

    But no, I don't think Lou did it for money. Like so many following the case, he got to the point where he could see only one side of the paradox. If John was ruled out and there was no intruder, then it must be Patsy. But Patsy doesn't fit. I'm sure Smit saw that aspect of the case more or less as I do. So in his mind it HAD to be an intruder. And he bent the evidence to fit his conviction, which imo was very real. Prosecuting Patsy would have been a travesty, so he fought tooth and nail to prevent that. Of course, it occurred to none of them that John could have written the note after all. Steve Thomas went nuts in the other direction, insisting on Patsy's guilt, according to the same cracked logic.

    Round and round they went and round and round they are still going. Simply because they can't get it into their heads that a simple mistake might have been made.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They did not rule him out! They refused to even investigate his theory. They never even acknowledged that he could be right. Other investigators Ollie Gray and John Saint Augustine abd a few others agreed with Smit's theory. Smit’s had no choice but to resign from the case solely because the police were focusing only on the Ramsey's and not investigated that the Intruder theory was possible.

      Delete
  3. I like the envelope theory better. Smit was a well respected detective. Smit could not really have believed the intruder theory. I think during the prayer meeting in the van someone slipped someone an envelope.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Why does it matter if all the doors were locked that morning? That doesn't prove that an intruder didn't exit the house and lock the door behind himself. It seems what would matter would be if it could be proved that all the doors were locked when the family came home Christmas night, that would suggest no intruder.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, first of all, it's important to expose Smit for the fraud he was. Whether or not he collected any money under the table, he was certainly a member of the Ramsey spin team and nothing in the "Lou Smit Show" can be taken seriously as intruder evidence. This tells us a lot about both Smit and team Ramsey, i.e., that they are NOT to be trusted.

      As far as the doors being locked the next morning, no that doesn't prove an intruder couldn't have entered via an unlocked door while the Ramseys were out partying. But that person could not have locked the door behind him unless he had a key. So why would it matter whether any doors had been left unlocked at that time? The only intruder consistent with the evidence would have to be an intruder with a key.

      Bottom line: The deeper we look into the evidence the less likely it is that an intruder could have been present. We can rule out forced entry, so we are left with someone with a key; but why would someone with a key bother to lock the door behind him when he left? and someone with a key is likely to have been someone known to the family -- so why would that person want to leave a hand written note behind? and if the DNA is that of JonBenet's attacker, why was a match never found?

      So then we are forced to think in terms of an intruder with a key who is out of the family loop, and got that key through deception. And so it goes, each time we learn more about the evidence the likelihood of an intruder becomes less and less. Until finally, when we put it all together, the preponderance of evidence tells us there is little likelihood of an intruder, beyond reasonable doubt.

      Delete
    2. I have read on several forums, that the Ramsey's had given out sets of keys to staff, friends, workmen. Its possible that someone had made a copy of the key, whilst they had it, then returned the original, months in advance, and just waited for the right time to strike. Just a thought.

      Delete
    3. Yes, we have to take all such possibilities into account. But we also have to consider:

      Why such an intruder would bother to lock the door behind him after leaving?

      Why a would-be kidnapper wouldn't have bothered to write a ransom note before entering the home?

      Why such a person would take the time to write such a long note while inside the house?

      Why anyone would leave such a note without having taken his victim with him, dead or alive?

      We also have to explain the strange circumstances surrounding the broken basement window. If this wasn't an entry or exit point for an intruder with a key, then why was the Samsonite suitcase placed under the window? How did that piece of glass get on it? Why did John claim he found it unlatched? Also, John's story about breaking the window earlier is clearly a lie, as I've demonstrated elsewhere on this blog.

      So yes, an intruder with a key could have entered the house without any sign of forced entry. But such a theory can't account for all the many other aspects of the case that make any intruder unlikely. This was definitely an "inside job."

      Delete
    4. Why such an intruder would bother to lock the door behind him after leaving?

      Answer-might've been a standard lock wherein you turn the locking mechanism close the door and it locks. Better yet JR is mistaken about a locked door. It's a big house.

      Why such a person would take the time to write such a long note while inside the house?

      Answer-note was written beforehand. Transcribed to family pad to avoid detection. Intruder came prepared,
      wore gloves, brought duct tape, etc.

      Why anyone would leave such a note without having taken his victim with him, dead or alive?

      Answer-what is gained by taking a dead body? Nothing, plus they risk being seen. The intruder may have been on foot and had no car. May live in the area and felt the dead body can not be traced to them.

      As for the broken window, that area was so contaminated by the BPD (people coming and going) who knows what to make of that. I don't believe that was a point of entry. Either a door was left open or they had a key.

      Delete
    5. "Answer-might've been a standard lock wherein you turn the locking mechanism close the door and it locks."

      Why would an intruder bother to turn the locking mechanism before closing the door?

      "Better yet JR is mistaken about a locked door. It's a big house." John reported all exterior doors were locked. A policemen checked those doors and he too found all locked. Imo John at that time wanted the police to see this as a window breakin.

      "Answer-note was written beforehand. Transcribed to family pad to avoid detection."

      Sorry, but I don't get it. If he wanted to avoid detection he could have printed or typed the note on standard paper. Writing it by hand makes detection much easier. And also takes precious time.

      "Answer-what is gained by taking a dead body? Nothing, plus they risk being seen. The intruder may have been on foot and had no car. May live in the area and felt the dead body can not be traced to them."

      If you don't take the body you haven't kidnapped anyone, so what's the point of the note? Unless, as in my "improved intruder theory," the intruder hid the body to make it look like she'd been kidnapped. That's possible, in theory. But under such circumstances, the "kidnapper" would want to collect his ransom as soon as possible, before the body was found. But the note says the kidnapper will call "tomorrow," i.e., the following day, over 24 hours after the victim's death. By then the odor would have been overpowering.

      "As for the broken window, that area was so contaminated by the BPD (people coming and going) who knows what to make of that."

      The broken window was in the basement. None of the people coming and going in the house went down to the basement. The police examined the window very carefully and concluded: "no forced breakin."

      "Either a door was left open or they had a key."

      If a door had been left open, why were all the doors found to be locked the next morning? Why would an intruder, with or without a key, bother to lock the door behind him? And if the intruder had a key, how do you explain the suitcase propped against the wall or the debris from the window well strewn on the floor?

      Delete
  5. This case is an enigma because if you believe the intruder theory, you are left trying to explain the ransom note that was definitely written by an inept, inexperienced author who had an obviously familial relationship to John--just judging from the personal remarks and the amount of ransom requested.

    If you believe someone in the family killed the child necessitating one of the parents staging a crime, you are left explaining the garrote. I don't know any mother or father who could use a garrote on their child even if to cover for someone else they love. Unless, the only other alternative--dropping their beloved child's body off in a cold dumpster or woods--was even more repulsive to them than fashioning the garrote.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are approaching the case from a very different perspective than mine. I like to stick with the hard facts, and strict logical inference from those facts. As I see it, speculations regarding whether or not the note writer was inept or inexperienced, whether the note tells us the writer was close to the family, whether a loving parent would use a garrote to kill his or her child, whether or not a parent would want to dump his or her child's body in the cold woods, all that is very subjective. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but opinions don't solve cases, evidence does.

      Delete
    2. But you turn around and don't apply any facts to the Kercher case. You say well it was possible for Guede to climb through the window. And, Guede could have had accomplices. And, why would Knox place herself at the scene of the crime? And, only Guede would have reason to lock Meredith's door. None of these are facts or logical inferences but you argue them anyway.

      Delete
    3. No, I apply the same method to the Kercher case. Only this time the relevant fact is the complete absence of any conclusive evidence of either AK's or RS's presence at the scene of the assault, the bedroom -- in contrast to the many signs of Guede's presence. That to me is the central fact. Everything else must be thought of in relation to that central fact. Now if there is some fact that contradicts the central fact, then there is a real dilemma. But I fail to see any such fact, just a large number of inconclusive speculations and assumptions. And when we examine these speculations, we see that some of the most important ones, such as the "staged breakin" appear unlikely.

      Delete
    4. I'm sorry but it's laughable that you claim to to be objective when your posts are riddled with speculation and opinion based on inferences that are cherry-picked to support your foregone conclusion. It ended up on this site looking for objective and credible evidence-based fact to help me understand this case better--unfortunately I found the opposite. You are doing a disservice to those of us interested in resolving this case.

      Delete
    5. It's impossible for me to respond to an accusation of this sort unless you provide examples. What evidence have I cherry picked? What evidence have I failed to consider?

      Delete
  6. If you want to frame the family, Lock the door as you leave.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, and leave a note that looks exactly like the handwriting of John or Patsy. But that is not the case with this note. Imo some of the letter formations do resemble John's hand, and in the opinion of some others, they resemble Patsy's, but clearly the note is not a forgery. If it was at least some of these "experts" would have noticed that. So by leaving such a note the intruder actually undoes any framing of the family he might have intended. And if that was the intention why leave a note at all?

      Delete
  7. Why do you think JR may have gone to all the trouble of the note, but not bothered to make it look more like there was an intruder? His reporting that all the doors were locked seems in contradiction with his trying to invent a kidnapper.

    ReplyDelete
  8. That's what he reported at first, yes. But imo that's because he was probably still hoping the police would buy his staging at the basement window. After all, that's what Lou Smit eventually concluded.

    But when he was finally interviewed by the police, months later, he changed his tune -- and claimed that the "Butler" pantry door had been left open.

    I think he initially made a point of reporting all the doors were locked because it would have looked VERY suspicious, at that time, if he just happened to notice that one of the doors had been left open. The police would have had no reason to believe him. Which is why he staged the breakin at the window, which in his mind probably looked more convincing. Until he realized the police weren't buying it, which is why he concocted his story about breaking in earlier. Things were happening very quickly that morning and John must have been in a state of complete confusion and desperation. I think he was just improvising -- and got lucky.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. One other thing that just occurred to me. As I see it, Patsy was completely innocent. So if John had reported that he'd left a door unlocked and she'd reported that all the doors in the house were always routinely locked every night, that would definitely look like John was pulling a fast one. So it's possible he felt he had no choice but to hope the police would buy his window staging, even though it wasn't complete.

      Delete
  9. how do you explain the stun gun marks ??

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There were no such marks. Smit made that up.

      Delete
    2. Really? Smit made that up you say? My eyes must be failing me!

      Delete
    3. There was absolutely no evidence that a stun gun was used on JonBenet. There were any number of reasons why those marks got onto her face. She was ASSAULTED for Pete's sake, so why wouldn't there be abrasions on her body? Smit went on a fishing expedition, found a type of stun gun that, very roughly, matched those marks and turned it into a huge red herring.

      Even if the marks fit perfectly, which they did not, that would not be considered evidence in a court of law or in any rational consideration of this case. Correlation does not imply causation.

      Delete
  10. ok not a stun gun but what it is from your point of view ??

    ReplyDelete
  11. i think if you are serious with facts , it would be appreciated to give at least a short answer about the black spots on her face ! yyy

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Those spots could have gotten there any number of ways. She was clubbed over the head, which would have caused her to fall hard. If she fell on some object lying on the floor it could have produced those abrasions. Or possibly her face might have been forced down onto the floor while the "garotte" was being applied to her neck, so the marks could have been produced by whatever happened to be on the floor of that very messy basement.

      Delete
  12. There is evidence of coming through the window. Such as the obvious scuff mark on the wall where they placed their foot coming through. Most home owners, especially with kids, recognize these things quickly. Talk about disregard for logic...how disappointing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The scuff mark could easily have been placed there by whoever did the staging. Same with the suitcase. There was NO evidence that any of the thick layer of dust and dirt on the window sill had been disturbed. Which is why the investigators concluded that there was no evidence of forced entry.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  13. Has anyone considered that perhaps the perpetrator used one of the missing keys to the house and that he was already in the house when the Ramseys returned from the Christmas party? I never heard anything about the neighbors. My theory is that if the Ramseys didn't do it--perhaps a beauty pageant rival's Mom or a neighbor. I never heard anything about the neighbors being ruled out.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. An intruder with a key would not have locked the door behind him when he left. Nor would he have broken the basement window or placed the suitcase under it. Nor would he have strewn packing peanuts from the window well on the basement floor.

      More important, it makes no sense for a would-be kidnapper to write a ransom note while in the house. If he'd planned the kidnapping ahead of time he'd have brought his note with him. And if it was a spur of the moment decision, he would not have written a two and a half page letter, with every i dotted and every t crossed. And someone out to frame John or Patsy would not have written the note in his own hand.

      There was no conclusive evidence of an intruder's presence. No intruder theory makes sense.

      Delete
  14. Nice to see you are still around, DocG. I remember you from JBR forums waybackwhen.. . (days of Jameson et. al.!!) You were always the voice of reason. Fascinating to see the Ramsey PR spin machine has powered up again; what's up with that? CBS mini-series, tabloid stories full of holes, Burke on Dr.Phil?!?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry, but even DocG can't always identify everyone from his or her writing style. :-) I'm assuming you're someone I'd remember from the old days?

      Yes, I'm still at it, I'm embarrassed to admit. I do have a life. And I've been involved in many other projects. But this case just won't let go of me, not sure why.

      Delete
  15. I think it was a stun gun. Lou is right about that. The telephone operator, This could be major. Really waiting for that on this new series. I really don't think the son is going to give that much information I can't see it. It is very brutal murder especially the choking, not sure if the parents had that in them. Also the skull fraction. That's huge. Again not sure if the parents had that in them. The DNA evidence is really unclear to me. Someone cleaned her off, what about touch evidence all over the pad and pen. Jumping around here but couldn't the killer have put the stun gun in his pocket when he left. I mean he or she not going to leave it there come on now and why would he. I get your points on the staging with the suit case. As this is the first time I heard of that. Though I did here JR say in interview that he did break a window in the basement. No one heard a car pulling away in the middle of the night. They heard screams, no car, or anything of that nature, no shadow of a person walking ect. The garrote had no touch dna. I find it hard to believe PR or JR made that garrote. I can't see it. Everyone was pissed at them for hiding at the time. Everyone was even more pissed with them and there high society attitude. To top it not one person in USA was liking them for the pageant pictures and what they made of there daughter. I mean white picket fence beautiful family, But come on. ewwwww
    Getting back I have read a lot on this recently. I like lou Smit I think he had great points. But I think your point on the staging sheds light in a different way. But I still insist that it was a stun gun. Every one wants to believe its that parents at the time for those above reasons. True point abut the snow or frost . It was daylight when those pictures where taken. What about the dna on the garrote. I don't understand the dna evidence, Was she sexually molested that night buy the killer I think she was right? Was she molested before the killing. I have heard different stories with at.
    Why was the parents cleared. Whos dna was on those clothes?
    under her finger nails. Whos dna foot print. Whos dna semi palm print. Not the JR or PR.. Hopefully maybe we can get more information Soon.. Thanks.. Enjoy your posts

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sounds like you are new to this case. If you root around on this blog long enough you'll see that many of your questions will be answered. I suggest using the search tool on the upper right border.

      Delete
  16. Did you watch the show last night.
    Seems like there pushing like I said. To much for the parents to do in that amount of time to brutal. As I thought as well, I actually think they are innocent . Lou has more suspects on his list before death and worked on the case up till his death. honorable. It is a tasser that I really believe. Not train tracks. hehehehehe.. that's totally silly. Remember what they said about the vaginal swelling needed microscope to see it and its normal in most children now. Different light and different day.. innocent. Lets find the killer now.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Last post. I think I was correct about BR, absolutely no new info he basically stayed in her room end of story.
    I would like to know what you thoughts are about the dna evidence the was found on the long johns was the same dna round in her underpants. Basically wouldn't that clear the Ramsey's? Wouldn't that be enough evidence for you? Can you kindy give a response?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you do a search here on "DNA" you'll learn many of the details associated with that evidence. You can also google the JonBenet Ramsey Encyclopedia online.

      Delete
  18. I kind of think he had a key and knew her.either he was obsessed or came to burglarize and she was up eating and caught him. He might have tazed her twice bc she came to as he was writing note. He didn't seem prepared to kill or kidnap her unless he was trying to cast blame on parents. He could have written that letter before hand and gotten the paper and paintbrush on a previous occasion. This would explain why he didn't disturb any dirt..He didn't want to...and he might have known about the broke window. This was definitely either a hate crime or a crime of obsession. John is shady but?? I really hope they solve this mystery.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I kind of think he had a key and knew her.either he was obsessed or came to burglarize and she was up eating and caught him. He might have tazed her twice bc she came to as he was writing note. He didn't seem prepared to kill or kidnap her unless he was trying to cast blame on parents. He could have written that letter before hand and gotten the paper and paintbrush on a previous occasion. This would explain why he didn't disturb any dirt..He didn't want to...and he might have known about the broke window. This was definitely either a hate crime or a crime of obsession. John is shady but?? I really hope they solve this mystery.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Fantastic blog. Following much of your logic, my gut tells me JR did it, however , PR caught on, early on, but refused to turn on JR, for a number of reasons , some noble some not. I think some of those fibers found are from JBR being INSIDE THAT ATTACHE’ near the basement window , where JR couldn't get it to fit out, so he had to leave her body right there. His body removal plan was foiled. Hence, how super tense he was.

    ReplyDelete
  21. You always see JonBenet competeing. Did anyone think to see cameras of the audience to if I man attended all her pagents. John Ramsey completely destroyed the crime scene. I wish Amy Allen of the Dead Files would go in that house. She lives in Denver Co. Holmes. Warmest Wishes.

    ReplyDelete
  22. You always see JonBenet competeing. Did anyone think to see cameras of the audience to see if I man attended all her pagents. John Ramsey completely destroyed the crime scene. I wish Amy Allen of the Dead Files would go in that house. She lives in Denver Co. Holmes. Warmest Wishes.

    ReplyDelete
  23. On one of the tv broadcasts, I seen an actual crime seen photo of the back entrance and there was snow covering all around the grate area that leads to the 3 basement windows. Wouldn't there be footprints in the snow if someone entered there? What time did it snow? When did the snow melt? There can't really be snow AND footprints of a high tech boot in the dry dirt. Why don't they address this so the "intruder through the grate theory" can possibly be ruled out? Or at least explain it to the viewers?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Excellent point. Police reported NO sign of disturbance in the area around the grate. No footprints in the frost, the snow or the dirt, no sign of ANY disturbance in that area or anywhere on the lawn for that matter. Also there was an undisturbed spider web linking the grate to the lawn.

      Delete
    2. I just read your "no footprints" report above in your blog. I didn't read that before I posted earlier today. It sure is nice to read that somewhere. I have watched episode after episode of this case and it is really frustrating having to listen to Lou Smit act like he knows everything, while he tries to prove it by pointing at the crime scene photos. Like you said, WHO KNOWS HOW MANY HOURS LATER THOSE PICTURES WERE TAKEN?! AND WHO KNOWS HOW MANY PEOPLE HAVE BEEN THROUGH THERE BY THEN?! It would be nice if the ACTUAL first responders would come forward on one of these episodes and clear that up. They could at least explain if they did or did not thoroughly search the surrounding area for footprints or not. Or they could maybe argue that there was a thick enough layer of snow or frost on the walkways to determine whether or not any prints were present. There was snow in the yard on some of those photos so there was snow and not just frost. What time did it snow? When did it quit snowing. That would be a factor too. All of that should have been noted. And where exactly did they say that they found the footprints outside? Why does it look like dry dirt or dust in the photos? I wouldn't think it would appear dry/dusty like that if there is melting snow/frost everywhere. I wish I could just sit down with all of the evidence myself haha. They don't give you enough info in these tv episodes.

      Delete
    3. NO footprints were found by the policemen who first responded. They arrived prior to the Ramsey friends. According to one policeman there was a layer of frost covering the entire area. That frost would not have shown up in the photos and may well have melted by the time they were taken, in full sunlight. Smit's photos mean nothing and his attempt to turn them into meaningful evidence was shameful.

      Delete
  24. Hi Docg. I don't believe in intruder but since there are no concrete evidence pointing to the family, I keep open to the possibility of intruder. With regard to locking door from behind when leaving, why not? If one has the time while everyone was asleep, why is that not possible.

    ReplyDelete