Lou Smit Untruths

Judged:

1

1

1

Henri McPhee wrote:

<quoted text>
I agree that it looks like there was some kind of negotiations between the Ramsey lawyers at the time, Haddons, and the Boulder DA's office, and Boulder cops with regard to Ramsey police interviews in 1998.
I don't know about all the office politics about the matter or exactly why the Rasmeys were interviewed at that time. It could be something to do with the fact that the Grand Jury was about to happen.
Similarly, I don't know exactly why there was a Ramsey interview in Atlanta in 2000. All those police interviews were hostile interrogations, and must have been very long and stressful for the Ramseys.
It looks as though it was agreed for Patsy to be interviewed by the anti-Ramsey Denver detective, Tom Haney, to grill Patsy about things like the pineapple and flashlight, while the the intruder theory lawyer, Trip DeMuth, asked more sympathetic questions to Patsy.
John Ramsey was interviewed by Lou Smit and the 'Grand Jury specialist' Ramsey prosecutor Mike Kane in 1998, to balance it up.
I have always thought that Fleet White's pal, Spade, was one of Tom Haney's Denver police informants. Tom Haney seemed to be involved in the Ramsey case from the start for some reason. Lou Smit seemed to think Tom Haney is to be admired for some reason. Haney seemed pretty keen to get the innocent Ramseys convicted.
This is a reference to Tom Haney from Patsy on TV:
BARBARA WALTERS: Did either of you for a moment suspect .... each other?
JOHN RAMSEY: No.
PATSY RAMSEY: Not for a minute.
JOHN RAMSEY: Absolutely not for a microsecond.
PATSY RAMSEY: Tom Haney, who is the detective, homicide detective from Denver, asked me that very question in my three-day interrogation. After three days of listening to him hammer me, I said, don't even go there. If I thought for one moment that JonBenet Ramsey was murdered by her father, we wouldn't be having this interview right now.

Judged:

1

1

1

Capricorn wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't know about the legality of only being allowed "one" interview. Is that a fact? In any event, he had plenty of access to Patsy and I am skeptical about the "one" interview allowed
If the reason for Smit questioning John was for what you have suggested, I would imagine it would be just as important for a lawyer to interview John, rather than a detective. After all, if they really believed it to be Patsy, John would be their #1 star witness and I don't think they would want to take chances on messing around with his testimony either.
Just my thoughts about that

Judged:

1

1

1

DrSeussMd wrote:

<quoted text>Agreed, I don't think the boots point to BR or Helgoth anymore than they point to anyone else, they were too common a footwear, from hiking, to boating to just plain tennis shoes, and made for all ages and both male and female.

Judged:

1

1

1

Mama2JML wrote:

<quoted text>
...and LE. The print comparison at Crimeshots leads me to agree with ST's assumption, accidental LE contamination...

Judged:

2

2

2

aussiesheila wrote:

<quoted text>I don't see why it has to be LE contamination Mama. If that type of boot was common at the time of the murder and it seems that it was, then it COULD have come from an intruder. Either way, it isn't a particularly useful piece of evidence. It identifies no-one, neither does it even point away from or towards an intruder. Why waste the time?

Judged:

1

1

1

aussiesheila wrote:

<quoted text>It does bother me a bit, that Spade - Haney link, because i have to say that Haney does seem to be OK but Spade doesn't. Isn't Spade supposed to be RichardTalfey Jones and related to Nancy Krebs and said to have helped trash her?

Judged:

2

2

2

Legal__Eagle wrote:

For those who seems to be hooked on BR's 'boots', perhaps you could go look at the variety of Hi-Tek shoes that are available and were available then. They don't make just hiking boots, they even make boating shoes, anyone you know connected to the case have a boat?

Also take into consideration the room it was found in, which held window screen, old paint cans, cigars, a case of wine, Christmas decorations, storage for Christmas decorations - a lot of traffic was in and out of that room, so Boot=moot is the real moot point. It could be any print from any person at any time.

I will agree it has nothing to do with the crime, and I believe some of you came up with the right answer but your process of getting there was wrong.