Start here
In May of 2001, the Rocky Mountain News published a story that they have since removed from the Internet - a great loss to those students of the case who are seeking the truth.   I have a copy of that story and will share it in sections on this thread.

Lou made his case for the papers and while neither the police nor DA would make comments, the article also offered the responses BORG had made earlier.  In this thread I may add more recent observations and I will let you know those are MY comments.

Moving on....
#2 - - On May 2, 1997 John and Patsy Ramsey gave an interview - I post the link here so you might see it for yourselves.

The first "clue" was headed "NATURE OF THE PARENTS".

Lou said,  ....... I apologize if anyone is offended by my using his first name but I considered him a dear friend and find myself calling him Lou in my mind so it will be on paper.

Lou asked why normally loving, caring parents with no criminal history, or any history of abuse or psychological problems, kill their daughter on Christmas night.  They had "a long history of loving family relationships", were respected in the community, active in church and school activities and they had no character traits to suggest they would do this.  Lou said, "This in itself does not mean that they could not have done it.  However, it is a strong indication of their character and stability."

He went on and pointed out that there is no EVIDENCE that the Ramseys acted or thought like criminals.  Lou noted. "Whoever killed JonBenet thinks and acts like a criminal."

NO MOTIVE - The fact that the police could find no motive for the parents to kill the child    (MY NOTE - no insurance settlement, no overwhelming health issues the parents might want to release her from, no custody dispute)  Lou said no motive for the parents is, in itself, a clue to the possibility of an intruder.

THE BORG RESPONSE - The usual BORG response is that Patsy was jealous of JonBenet, overwhelmed by the Christmas season and the upcoming celebrations for both the holidays and her birthday, angry over a wet bed (which was not wet).  They point out her angry response to her interrogator, on the third day of her 1998 interview, shows she had a temper and they feel that slightly raised voice and reprimand proves she was capable of a brutal murder.

MY COMMENTS - After this interview, at least one of the reporters present left the room SURE the parents were totally innocent - but she found herself ostracized by the majority of journalists and her relationship with the police was clearly in jeopardy - - she soon went back to following the BORG script.  I remember that well, though now she downplays the situation, I remember at the time she was suffering and confused by the emotions she felt.      So I post the link here in order for people to watch it themselves.  If they really think the way they sat, looked, spoke, didn't speak....  if that appears to be guilt, what would an INNOCENT person have said?  How would they have sat?  What words would they have used differently?  And THEN, having answered those questions - - how would the BORG have turned all THAT against the focus of this lynch mob?

Next Clue - The Ramseys as likely targets.  Lou felt that the Ramseys, because they were rich and publicly active, may have gotten the attention of JonBenet's killer.

Someone inclined to criminal behavior may have been looking for a victim and he may have seen JonBenet late in December of 1996.  He could have seen her anywhere, but how much more attention she would get singing in the mall to promote pageants, or sitting on top of a car in the Christmas parade, or even performing for her entire school on December 20th?

She was at home when a church group held a dinner at her house.  That was attended by more than 150 people.  And her own family held a party on December 23rd.  (My note - Remember, we have no idea where the killer came from - he may have attended some of these events, or just one, or he could have learned about little JonBenet by simply TALKING to someone who was there.  So we aren't looking necessarily for someone who was in the house before, but someone who had the character needed to do this, the freedom that night to go to the Ramsey house and do this terrible deed.)

Add to that the fact that John's business had reached a BILLION dollars in sales, had made that public (it was announced in the papers) and had a big party at the Boulderado Hotel to celebrate that milestone.  That took place just 5 days before Christmas.

The BORG response is to ignore all this since they already know the parents did it - - all this is irrelevant. *sigh*

Attached Files Thumbnail(s)

Lou listed three suspicious events or clues

1. a blue van was parked across the street from the Ramsey house on Christmas Eve and no one knows who that was or what they were doing there. Was someone watching the family?

2. A Jaguar was seen near the Whites' house during their Christmas dinner party.

3. Megan Kostinak and her mother told police little JonBenet told them she was getting a "special visit from Santa" after Christmas.

Could any of those things be important? The BORG simply pointed out that Patsy didn't know anything about a secret visit from Santa.


From the RMN -
"Early in the case, leaks from law enforcement said there were no footprints in the snow around the Ramsey house, seemingly discounting the possibility of an intruder.  In fact, police photographs taken before 9 am the morning of JonBenet's death show much of the perimeter of the house, including walkways, free of snow."
Lou's quote - "You can't have footprints in something that's not there."

Police were making no comment at the time but some later defended the "no prints in snow" statement.  (Kolar and others)  

My comment - John Fernie described parking in the rear and walking to the red door, looking through the window and then walking to the front to gain entrance to the house.  If there had to be prints left by an intruder, why not by John Fernie?


This subject has it's own area on this forum so I will not fill this up with too much, just what was in the RMN story.

Lou Smit felt the broken basement window could well have been a point of entry or exit for an intruder.  

Broken, unlocked, tucked into a recess in the foundation, out of sight from the front street or back alley and shielded some from the neighbor to the south, the intruder may have felt that was a safe place to go in - - and he was right.  In the last post, there is a view of that side of the house - the window grate can not be seen, it is behind the covered grill.

While there was a security system in place, unused but in place, it was clear this window was not hooked up to any alarm.

The police photographs showed clear disturbance at that window that could have been done by an intruder going in.

Green foliage was caught under the heavy grate to the window and Lou felt that was evidence someone had used that as a way in or out.

Leaves and debris from the window well was on the floor of the room but more important, some of the debris, packing popcorn, was found at the other end of the basement where the body was found.

On the window - Police let media know only a midget could have gone in or out of that window but Lou Smit went through it and that went out to the media so that lie was exposed.

The BORG argues about a spider web that would have been destroyed if anyone went through - and they note some web left in the window frame - - at the same time ignoring the rest of the web that could be seen in a crime scene video released years later - there is some clearly hanging from the open window.  When challenged with that, they simply have no answer.

But the stock answer is that the spider web would have been totally eliminated if someone entered through the window.

My comment - I am not so sure - - this was not a fresh and delicate cob web but an old, thick, sticky and stubborn type of web.  Depending on how the man entered or exited, some of the web may well have remained.  The images show Lou and a larger man, note the differences in how they filled the window area.  When I went in, I was more on my side, preparing to touch the floor facing the window.
More on the window - this story in the Rocky Mountainnews prints out at 16 pages and that window was a big part of it.

Lou explained that there was a "lip" on the window sill so a person would not leave a clean wipe mark as they slid in.  The disturbance at that window was consistant with someone going in OVER that lip.

The window was broken months before by John Ramsey but was never fixed - shards of glass remained in the window ferame.  Linda Hoffmann and Patsy agreed they had cleaned up from that break but neither addressed the glass left in the frame.  Mervin Pugh was supposed to replace the glass but didn't get to it.  The fact that there was a shard of glass displaced and found in the house could be proof of someone going in or out through that window.

Lou found what he thought might be a thumbprint on the glass, grime on the window frame seemed to be disturbed as well.  another sign someone was tampering with the window from the outside.

There was a scuff mark on the wall that could have come from a shoe.  Lou - "That's exactly where your foot goes and you're trying to climb in that window and lever yourself down."

There is a lot of discussion on the cobwebs - please go to those threads for that discussion.
Police and other BORG responses as reported in the RMN

1. The foliage may have grown down into the grate.
2. A detective pulled up the grate and dropped it on the foliage before the photos were taken.
3. The window had been broken for a long time and the debris was carried in by the wind.
4. Steve Thomas says the window was "Undisturbed.
5. The scuff mark could have been caused by anything in that cluttered basement.
6. An expert said the spider web found was not new, not rebuilt.

My note: Confused? I hope so. But let's add to that. The first spider web evidence against the Ramseys was a spidereweb that was at the TOP of the window well, not att the bottom. It ran from the grate to the brick wall and police said there was no way the grate was removed and the web left intact - - which is true if the killer REMOVED the grate and didn't just lift the front and lean it against the house (as Lou and I both did automatically when we went through the window.) I was unaware of the web controversy when I went in and it was hard enough to open the grate MY way without lifting the heavy item to move to a side, onto the grass.


Lou pointed out debris (foam packing peanuts and leaves) from the window well were found in the windowless room (60 feet away around several corners) where the body was found, likely carried there by the killer.  When Lou went through that window, he also found he was carrying those materials.  "Static electricity just sticks it right to you."

A fall leaf, like those in the window well, was found in the windowless room next to the body.  BORG have re-identified that as vomit but in the RNMN story they published a photo of the leaf material, circled it and identified it as a leaf.

BORG response - the wind could have carried it to the windowless room  -  or someone could have tracked it in later.        (This from people who judge the Ramseys guilty because John finished a sentence for her and she said "that child" instead of using JonBenet's name.  Using that level of insight, I can understand their )

My comment - - Just recently I have seen the leaf identified by BORG on the internet forums as vomit.  This is the kind of misinformation I hope to clear up with this site.  In Lou Smit's powerpoint presentation, he circled the leaf to the right of the footprint and clearly said it is a LEAF.  There is no evidence of vomit in this case.

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)