info on his book
(02-08-2017, 01:20 PM)jameson245 Wrote:

This guy is a total nutcase!!! When I challenged some of his accuracy he actually said I must have a sexual fantasy for him. lol. I heard he implied the same thing to others who contacted him. I said nothing to lead him to believe such a thing. He is totally demented and actually scary!!!!!
My comments on his book sample posted Apr 11, 2016

Spent my morning reading the sample of Laurence Smith's book on the Internet and have an opinion. More than that, I have a list of the errors found in just the little sample he has made available. I quoted very little so the posts should not be removed due to copyright.

After these notes, I have a true story to tell about an email I got last night from someone saying they were Laurence's research assistant. That I know will not be allowed to remain here so I will post it elsewhere, easy to find.

But here's my notes on the sample for those who may have considered buying that ebook.

Laurence Smith's book is "The Last Christmas of JonBenet Ramsey". In his author's notes, found on page 6 of the 31 page sample, he says, "It is my sole intent to simply lay out the known facts about her death..." Let's see how well he does in this free sample. Not a lot of the book is available but I think there's enough to show the true intent of the author and the value of his book.

On that same page, he makes his position clear. There was no intruder. But I am not going to be concerned with his opinion here, everyone is entitled to one, he has the right to be wrong. I am just going to go through the sample looking for obvious misinformation - facts any good research assistant would never have permitted to go to press. I will also permit myself to make my opinion known on his spin - and painful writing.

Error #1
On page 13 of the 31, he states that there is a "lack of any DNA left by any intruder". The fact is, there was foreign DNA found under her nails, mixed with her blood in her panties and later found on the outside of the longjohns JonBenet was wearing when her body was found. This DNA has been the subject of many media programs and documented in legal documents released by Boulder authorities.

Error #2 found on same page
He says there was "no sign of forced entry and no footprints found in the snow surrounding the Ramsey home." Actually, police did find pry marks on one door but don't feel that was the point of entry. The window in the bassement had been broken months before so there really was no need to break in another way. As for no footprints in the snow, please go to this link and look at how much snow actually SURROUNDED the house. While there was snow in the front yard, the back alley, driveway and walkway on the side of the house (where the broken window was) was clear.

48 Hours 10_4_2002

Error #3 found on same page
"There is virtually no reason whatsoever to believe that this crime was perpetrated by a pedophile or child molester." Really? The autopsy tells us that without a doubt, she was sexually assaulted that night, someone put his hands down her pants and assaulted her. That is hardly necessary if all you want is to rob a house or take a child -- or even to kill that child. His fantasies were played out and included a stun gun, duct tape, cord, a garotte, and sexual assault. I would say he was a child molester, a pedophile. But that IS just MY opinion.

Error #4
He writes, "..we have to conclude that the staging and the ransom letter were nothing more than a diversionary ruse to cover up an aborted kidnapping attempt or whatever his actual mission was." I don't think staging has been proven but there is no logic at all in aborting the kidnapping attempt and then writing that note to leave with a body. The first thing Lou Smit told DA Alex Hunter was that the note was written BEFORE the crime. Was it ever a serious ransom note? I don't think so, that's my opinion based largely on the small ransom amount. But experts have agreed that it was most probably written before - even a career criminal would have a hard time writing that note under pressure with his adrenolin high. Dismissing the letter as a ruse rather than a clue to the killer's fantasies is a big mistake to make. You'd think a psychologist would know better.

Post #2 Apr 11, 2016
Error #5 found on page 15 of 31
"John Ramsey rarely invited anyone outside of his close friends into the home. Business associates were rarely invited...." Simply not true. The Ramseys remodeled that home and it was a showplace -- and they loved to show it off. THere were tours of the house and the Ramseys let church groups they didn't belong to into the house for large dinners. They had parties, plenty of them. When being questioned about visitors to the house, Patsy spoke of several business connections being guests there. Add to that the fact that the teenage son, John Andrew, had a room there (as well as a dorm room nearby) and was in and out with friends, it was a very busy house.
By the way, some of these errors could be described as out and out lies since all the information I am sharing is public knowledge, well documented.
Errors found on page 20 of the 31
1. Smith has the killer hanging out in the neighborhood starting in the early afternoon, there is no evidence of that and if we used Mr. Smith's hypothesis (or fantasy) as truth, we would eliminate all suspects who ate dinner at home late that afternoon - a big mistake.
2. He has the killer joining carolers - there is no mention of caolers in that neighborhood. The carolers we know of were in the Whites' neighborhood.
3. He has the killer watching John lead his family from the house, on foot, to go to the Whites'. Fact is, the Ramseys parked in the back of the house, either in the driveway or garage. Not visible from the front of the house. I wonder if Mr. Smith or his research assistants looked at images of the house and crime scene. Lots wrong here on those details. But on we go.
4. "He strides up the walk leading to the Ramsey front door, allowing himself a short but hard glance at the street-level basement window down and to his left. The window's glass is still partially broken..." Well, he really blows it there. The window in that position was not broken but did have a vent pipe running from it. The broken basement window that was probably the way the killer entered and retreated was not in the front of the house at all but on the side, halfway down the side of the house, in an alcove, protected from view from either the front or back of the house.
5. Smith has the killer using a perloined key to get into the Ramsey house through the front door. No evidence of that at all, but I will give him him a bit of space here since it is his theory, one he says he has no faith in. This is a real special book, this one. Rather sickening, if you really want to know.

Post #3 Apr 11, 2016
Errors from page 21 of 31 -

1. The window with the grate is described as being 3 to 4 feet across, it is longer than that. He says the killer would have had to reach in through the broken glass and undo a latch 2 feet to the side. That is simply not so. We don't know if the window was latched to begin with, but even if it was, the latch is easily reached. I know because I have gone in and out that window myself.

2. He insists more than once in the book that the killer had to be in the house for 8-10 hours, starting before the sun set. That is not necessarily so. He could have been in there for a far shorter time. The killer could have had a nice Christmas dinner at home and left after dark to go into this house where there were always lights on in the bathrooms, stairwells, over the sink. Since the Ramseys left lights on and did not draw drapes, there's no reason to believe he had to enter during the day, he could have had a very good idea what the layout of the house was. This misguided theory could have cost a few good suspects to miss being investigated. Glad Mr. Smith wasn't in charge of the investigation.

3. His description of the house is TERRIBLE! He has the kitchen to the left of the main entry - it is, in fact, on the right and that is documented all over the Internet.

4. He has the killer go up the front staircase where he goes directly into John Andrew's room. But the front stairs went to Burke's room. John Andrew's room was at the top of the stairwell found in the BACK of the house, beyond the kitchen. Again, a simple mistake Mr. Smith's research assistant should certainly have corrected before this book was published.

5. Next the intruder leaves that room, John Andrew's, and going to the bedroom next door which, according to this book, belonged to Burke. Well, he is right that Burke's room is near the front staircase, but it was not near John Andrews. So wrong again.

Errors from page 24

1. He has the killer locating JonBenet's room and incorrectly states that the room next door is feminine, belonging to Melinda. No, that room belonged to John Andrew and there was a bag and rope found in it that case followers know about. Putting that in the front of the house isn't very good when telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

2. Besides his shock that parents may sleep on a different floor from their kids, he has the placement of the parents' room wrong. He has their bedroom in the back of the house, over JonBenet's room. In fact, that space is occupied by John and Patsy's dressing rooms and separate bathrooms. Their bedroom is in the FRONT of the house.

3. His description of the house so far, is clearly off. Now he comes to that pad of paper and the words he says are visible on the top sheet are "Mr. and Mrs. Ramsey" . He is wrong again. The so-called 'practice note' did not include the word Ramsey but just the first downstroke of the first letter of that word. And it was not found on the top sheet. According to police files, the practice note was on page 26 with other pages still intact on top of it. Please see the page at A careful research assistant would have found that information. Maybe if Smith had used a research assistant with credentials he would have avoided this error.

Post #4 Apr 11, 2016
Errors from page 26 of the 31

1. His placement of the rooms in the basement is wrong. Not even going to correct that mess.

2. Besides the incorrect placement of the rooms, he has the broken window in the trainroom (which really is not at the front of the house). The train room had no window in it - the broken window was in a room beyond the train room.

3. Not sure where he has placed the windowless wine room but he still doesn't understand the nature of that room. The tall wine cabinets he describes never existed. The wine room was not used to store wine. That was rather a joke.

Again, there's a lot wrong with the theory, I am not going to correct everything he wrote when he says himself it is ludicrous.

Errors from page 28 of 31

1. Smith has the killer using Patsy's art bench to copy the ransom note he carried in with him. First, there is no artist's bench down there, the place was a cluttered mess with no artist's bench. And - well, I guess if Smith wants the killer to copy a note he can. His theory, afterall.

Not an error but a very interesting quote to share. Smith wrote, "Only an improbable thrill killer would have been immune to feeling empathy for killing JonBenet." But this man easily accusing her family of the same crime, is so sure they could live with it later, never cracking, never confessing. Just moving on. This author, and his friends, are people I hope never to meet, wouldn't want them in my circle of friends.

2. Smith puts a Subic Bay Military Naval Base plaque right there in the basement and says that is the meaning of SBTC. But there is no evidence of a plaque like that in the basement. That is a theory turned urban myth as far as I know.

3. At this point he has put the killer in the house at 4:42 and the time is now 7:15. Smith says the killer is in total darkness. Not so. The Ramseys left lights on all over the house, inside and out. In the basement, there were rooms where the killer could shut the door and turn a light on and be free to sit and wait because even the little light seeping out from around the door would not be visible from outside. He really should have read up on the house.

Page 30 - I actually found no great errors to report, but there's not much there, it's the end of the sample.
This question was found on another Internet page - Is Laurence Smith a Fraud? continues

Some posters have questioned whether Smith is a fraud: his site states that he is a member of American Psychology Association, but there is no such association; moreover, he is not a member of the American Psychological Association according to Internet poster Princess ((Post#: 202055). Internet poster lowcrawl (Post#: 202114) asserts that The State of Illinois Division of Professional Regulation License Lookup "does not show or indicate, any record of Laurence Smith, being a licensed Clinical Psychologist in the State of Illinois." Strictly speaking, Smith only claims: "with a Masters degree in clinical psychology from the University of Chicago, and as a member of the American Psychology Association, he has spent nearly 28 years in various areas of the psychology milieu including clinician, counselor, therapist, and staff consultant for various major corporations." Thus, technically he never claimed to be licensed, nor did he explicitly claim to have practiced in Illinois. That said, as Internet poster Jayelles has pointed out, Smith has been unusually vague about his specific credentials: "NO academic worth his/her salt will expect to be taken at face value - that is why they list their credentials in such detail." A detailed critique by Jayelles is here. Along the same lines, Smith sent Internet poster Athena a very unprofessional personal attack in response to her queries about his book. 

I didn't list second releases of books but apparently he released an update in 2016.  The Last Christmas of JonBenet Ramsey II: A Freakish Accident, Murderous Cover-Up, And a Shameless Plea-Bargain.  

 According to Smith, "Two major new revelations in this updated version include a  concealed plea-bargain agreement made in 2003, and an admission  that a freak accident occurred involving JonBenet that was  allegedly fatal, though police investigators chose not to determine if the  stated accident was in fact fatal, or if her death resulted in  the cover-up . Other than the accident and  confession details  everything else stays the same as in the original  version of this  book. Another chapter has been added detailing the cover-up by  Boulder law enforcement." 

I didn't buy or read his first and will take a pass on the second.

Smith 2016. Laurence Smith. The Last Christmas of JonBenet Ramsey II: A Freakish Accident, Murderous Cover-Up, And a Shameless Plea-Bargain. PDF version available for purchase at author's web page. According to the author, "Two major new revelations in this updated version include a concealed plea-bargain agreement made in 2003, and an admission that a freak accident occurred involving JonBenet that was allegedly fatal, though police investigators chose not to determine if the stated accident was in fact fatal, or if her death resulted in the cover-up . Other than the accident and confession details everything else stays the same as in the original version of this book. Another chapter has been added detailing the cover-up by Boulder law enforcement." See Webbsleuths forum chat on The Last Christmas of JonBenét Ramsey.

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)