A shocked Smit once more turned to former DA Bob Russel for advice.

BOB RUSSEL - Once I saw that they had, in fact, gone to court and got an injunction, it really made
me mad. The evidence was
too strong that the Ramsey's didn't do this. And so to see that anybody is trying to really get the
Ramseys indicted when I had
already seen the evidence that showed they probably didn't do it, really bothered me.

NARRATOR - To help him protect Smit, Russel turned to Greg Walta, a man he often faced in court.

GREG WALTA - I was stunned. I frankly had never seen anything like it. The prosecutor's job is to
make sure that a Grand
Jury hears all the evidence - not just some of the evidence. And a prosecutor's job is to protect
evidence - not destroy it. So I
was stunned and I was determined to fight it.

NARRATOR - The two men who had so often faced each other across a court room now forged an
alliance to ensure Smit's
evidence was heard. They won a striking victory. They obtained a court injunction allowing Smit not
only to keep his evidence, and
also to use it in any way he saw fit. Smit was also allowed to testify to the Grand Jury.

Makes me sick!

I also have letters from Kane to myself when he denied me access to the grand jury. I didn't have the attorneys and means Lou did to get in, but I did make a friend at CBS and went on 48 Hours.

Poor Michael Kane - - he had all kinds of problems with people who just wouldn't accept his word as law.

And in Atlanta - - remember his temper tantrum? Well, Lin Wood has said that he is going to release the transcripts from that Atlanta meeting and I think everyone is going to flip when they see the truth.

The meeting was arranged so the BPD could talk to the Ramseys about evidence that they wanted to go over - tips that had been called in - - they wanted help on the investigation. They were supposedto be sitting down to try to work on answering the question "who killed this child?" Instead the cops were asking about things that happened after the murder - like how Susan Stine drove Burke to school - - why did they trust her? And how much money was in the JonBenét Foundation. And what experts had they hired?

Explain to me how any of that information could solve this crime,

They should have been asking about any homeless people walking up and down the back alley - - didn't happen. They asked about people by name, but did not show the Ramseys photos of Helgoth, Oliva, Gardiner and others. The 7 man (and woman) team was there lookingto lynch, not to solve a murder. (And they INSISTED that Kane participate. If Kane wasn't invited, no one would go. Reminded me of some kids' slumber party. Geesh - - grow up!)

I think the point isn't to sue for financial gain but to get the case reopened - - something innocent parents certainly WOULD want done (and guilty parents would NOT be pushing.)

they asked Patsy if the name Oliva meant anything to her - - that was done in a list - - quick, yes or no - - does this name ring a bell? Did NOT show her a photo of the man and tell her that he was a homeless guy who traveled through the alley that went behind her house. WHY???

I know the odd character in MY city - - always wears black and a head covering, walks all over the place, must lift weights to get the muscled in his arms. But I have NO idea what his name is. NONE.

Kane and company were NOT asking the questions in the right way.

So they skimmed over Oliva - - just enough so they could say they asked Patsy about him - - then they spent a half hour on how Burke got to school after the murder - what security was in place.

THAT is the mentality of Kane and company.

Not the way to solve this murder.

Maybe to ensure that Patsy wasn't provided with enough information which could possibly be used to devise a defense story?

There's always more to a story than readily meets the eye!

Cheers,
Orphan

If they wanted to find the killer, they should have treated the parents as potential witnesses during that interview - especially when covering intruder suspects. But they didn't - - they treated them as suspects, asked useless questions and lost a GOOD chance to find out information that might have led to a resolution.

As detectives, I think they really blew it that day. A shame - - and clear evidence that they really are not going to be able to solve this - - a new team of experienced homicide investigators should be brought in.

Cheers,
Orphan

Lou Smit has evidence, the BPD has evidence, the Ramsey investigators have evidence, and others have held on to evidence because they feel this investigation is biased and incompetent.

If a special investigator was brought on now, if people learned he could be trusted to do it right, I think he might find a LOT of cooperation and evidence right on his front step.

Michael Kane - - will you tell us what you think now?

Serious question - - email me.

edited to add this note - - 3 months after the police turned the case over to the DA's office... Mr. Kane is very quiet. I understand he is not involved with the investigation and is so invested in his BORG position that he will never be able to help find the killer in this case. I am glad he is gone.

While you're selfgrandizing, Mr Kane is probably playing racketball, and planning a late supper with his wife. I'd bet he doesn't read fiction, he's a busy man.

Kane isn't part of this anymore.

(Youse guys are EASY!)

Complaint for Injunctive Relief (FILED UNDER SEAL)

Alexander M. Hunter
District Attorney in and for
the 20th. Judicial District,
Plaintiff

vs.

Andrew Louis (Lou) Smit
Defendant

First Claim for Relief: Conversion

1. Plaintiff Alexander M. Hunter is the District Attorney for the Twentieth Judicial District, State of
Colorado, and maintains his offices in Boulder County Colorado;

2. Plaintiff Hunter is charged with the responsibility of investigating and prosecuting criminal offenses
committed against the people of the state of Colorado within Boulder County;

3. The Boulder Police Department is the primary investigating agency for crimes committed against
the People of the State of Colorado within the City of Boulder;

4. The Boulder District Attorney and the Boulder Police Department are conducting a joint criminal
investigation (hereinafter “the investigation”) into the death of Jonbenet Ramsey, which occurred in
the City of Boulder on or about December 26, 1996;

5. Defendant, Andrew Louis Smit, was formerly employed as an investigator by the Office of the
District Attorney for the Twentieth Judicial District. He performed his duties in an office in the Boulder
Criminal Justice Center, in Boulder County Colorado;

6. Defendant, while employed by the Office of the District Attorney, was assigned to the
investigation of the death of JonBenet Ramsey;

7. As part of the investigation into the death of JonBenet Ramsey, personnel from the Boulder Police
Department took photographs of the crime scene, autopsy and related evidence. In addition, the
crime scene was video taped on the night of 12-26-96;

8.Copies if all photographs and video tapes taken by Boulder Police Department personnel were given
to the District Attorneys Office for use in the official investigation into the homicide;

9.Said photographs and video tape, and the images they depict are the property of the Boulder Police
Department and the Boulder District Attorney;

10. As part of the investigation into the death of JonBenet Ramsey, personnel from the Boulder Police
Department and the District Attorney’s Office generated reports and transcriptions of interviews with
witnesses;

11. In his capacity as in investigator in the Ramsey case, Defendant had access to all evidence
generated in the case, including, reports, transcripts, video tapes and photographs taken by
members of the Boulder Police Department;

12. In September, 1998, Defendant resigned from his position with the District Attorney’s Office. He
was requested by Plaintiff to return all property of the Boulder District Attorney that was in his
possession at that time;

13. On September 30, 1998, Defendant was given a letter by Plaintiff (exhibit A) which directed
Defendant to confirm, in writing that he had returned all materials and information connected with the
Ramsey investigation;

14. Defendant was also provided a letter to return to Plaintiff, certifying that he had complied with
his obligation to return all property of the District Attorney that he had in his possession. (exhibit B);

15. At the present time, Defendant has in his possession a compact disc which contains digital copies
of many, if not all, of the photographs previously described. This compact disc was produced by
digitally scanning the original photographs or authorized copies of the original photographs with a
digitizer. The digital images were then transferred to the compact disc;

16. On January 22, 1999 and January 26, 1999, defendant admitted that he took the disc with him
when he resigned from his employment.

17. On the same dates, Defendant admitted to Plaintiff that he has transferred images from the
compact disc to his personal computer and to other compact discs;

18. On the same dates, Defendant acknowledged to Plaintiff that he also has in his possession or
control a copy of the video tape of the crime scene;

19. Upon learning that Defendant had materials and photographs in his possession, Plaintiff drew
Defendant’s attention to Exhibit B. Defendant stated that he had not signed it.

20. Plaintiff avers on information and belief that Defendant has in his possession or control digital or
paper copies of reports and transcriptions of witness interviews generated in the investigation.

21. Defendant’s receipt of or removal of the compact disc and the video tape from the Office of the
District Attorney was without the authorization of Plaintiff;

22. Defendant’s copying of the digital images and/or video images onto other media was done without
the authorization of Plaintiff;

23 Defendant’s receipt of , removal or copying of digital or paper copies of reports and transcriptions
of witness interviews generated in the investigation was done without Plaintiff's Authorization;

24. Plaintiff has requested defendant to return the compact disc and any copies of it. Plaintiff offered
to back up and preserve any data on Defendant’s personal computer for use by Defendant if and
when Defendant may appear in any official proceeding . Defendant has refused to surrender the discs
and erase unauthorized material from his computer;

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that this Honorable Court

1.Enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant and award Plaintiff the following relief:

2.Order that Defendant provide an accounting to Plaintiff of all reports, transcriptions of witness
interviews stored by whatever means, and copies of any complete or partial photographs previously
described that are in his possession or control;

3.Order that Defendant surrender to Plaintiff all reports, transcripts of witness interviews, storage
devices on which any photographic or video images are stored, including., but not limited to, compact
discs, fixed discs, zip discs, floppy discs or magnetic tapes which are in his possession or control;

4.Order that all discs be reviewed by Plaintiff or his designee(s) and that plaintiff be permitted to
permanently erase any of the above described images that are stored on said media;

5.Order that Plaintiff be permitted to retain any disc which can not be permanently erased and;

6.Order such other relief that the court deems appropriate.

Second Claim for Relief; Breach of Contract

1.Plaintiff incorporates averments 1-24 of his first claim for relief as if restated here in full.

2.Defendant was bound by a written contract of employment (Exhibit C) which specifically prohibits
him from disclosing, during the course of his employment or thereafter,, any information that he
learned in connection with his official duties with the District Attorney’s Office;

3.That Defendant has breached his contract by disclosing to unauthorized persons material
information which he learned of or came into possession of during the course of his employment;
Defendant has publicly stated that he will continue to investigate the death of JonBenet Ramsey as a
private citizen.

4.On information and belief, Defendant’s investigation will disclose information which he learned of or
came into possession of during the course of his employment;

5.The disclosure of investigative information during the pendency of the official investigation will
produce irreparable harm to Plaintiff and impair his ability to perform his official duties in the
investigation;

6.Plaintiff has no plain, speedy and adequate remedy at law to redress Defendant’s breach and
anticipated future breaches of his contract of employment.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that the Honorable Court:

1.Enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant;

2.Enjoin Defendant from disclosing through any means any information which Defendant learned of or
came into possession of during the course of his employment with the District Attorney’s Office
unless authorized in writing by the District Attorney or by order of this court;

3.Order such other relief that the court deems appropriate.

Dated February 1, 1999 Michael J. Kane
Deputy District Attorney (Reg. No. 9790)
District Attorney’s Office
1777 6th. St.
Boulder CO, 80306

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The Court's response"

IN THE DISTRICT COURT, BOULDER COUNTY, COLORADO
Case No. 99 Division 2

STIPULATED COURT ORDER

Alexander M. Hunter,
District Attorney in and for
the 20th Judicial District
Plaintiff,
v.
Andrew Louis (Lou) Smit
Defendant

THE COURT, based upon a stipulation of the parties, hereby enters the following order which replaces
all previous orders entered into this case.

GENERAL STIPULATION

1. The parties stipulate that each of them has acted in good faith in performing the terms of the
employeement agreement in question, and that this stipulation is entered into in an effort to resolve
misunderstanding which have arisen between them. Detective Smit has entered into these
stipulations because he has never had an intention to release information to the public during the
pending grand jury investigation. Plaintiffs stipulate that they have no evidence that Detective Smit
ever misused any information that was entrusted to him, nor do they have any evidence that he
intended to misuse such information in the future.

POSSESSION OF INVESTIGATIVE DOCUMENTS AND THINGS

2. Detective Smit shall be allowed to retain one copy of the Powerpoint demonstration, and shall turn
over a second copy to the Plaintiff.

3. Detective Smit has shredded all of his paper copies of the case time line, lead sheets and index,
and shall turn over all databases containing these documents to the Plaintiff. Since Plaintiff contends
that these items are privileged work product, Smit shall not retain a copy of these items.

4. Smit shall retain a copy of the Powerpoint demonstration in his own home or in some other safe and
secure place.

5. The Plaintiff shall maintain and will not erase or destroy the Powerpoint demonstration, the case
time line, lead sheets and index.

DISCLOSURE BEFORE CHARGES FILED

6. Until charges are filed in the Ramsey case, Detective Smit shall not show the Powerpoint
demonstration or any of the photographs contained therein to anyone, nor shall he disclose
confidential information that he has learned during the course of his employmentunless such
information is already in the public domain.

7. During the time period set forth in paragraph 6 above, Detective Smit may continue to investigate
the murder of JonBenét Ramsey bu in doing so will make it clear that he is investigating on his
ownand not as a representative of the police, district attorney or grand jury. Furthermore, during any
such investigation, Smit shall not intentionally interfere with the police, district attorney, or grand
jury investigation.

DISCLOSURE AFTER CHARGES FILED/TIME LIMIT

8. After charges are filed in the Ramsey case, Detective Smit shall be free to disclose any information
to anyone, including any person who may be charged with the death of JonBenét Ramsey; PROVIDED
HOWEVER, Smit agrees that he shall not disclose to anyone conversations he has had with any
attorney working for the district attorney, or consulted by the district attorney, unless ordered to do
so by a court of competant jurisdiction.

9. If no charges are filed by October 1, 1999, Detective Smit shall be free to disclose any information
to anyone, but Smit agrees that he shall not at any time in the future disclose any conversations he
has had with any attorney working for the district attorney, or consulted by the district attorney,
unless ordered to do so by a court of competant jurisdiction.

PROCEDURE FOR EXTENSION OF THIS ORDER

10. If no charges are filed by September 1, 1999, the Plaintiff may seek consecutive 30 day
extensions of the provisions set forth in paragraphs 4, 6 and 7 above, but in doing so, the Plaintiff will
be required to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that a continuing prior restraint on
Detective Smit's freedom of expression is necessary.

Dated the 30th of March, 1999
By the Court
(Can't read the signature or I would note the judge's name)

Also signed by Alex Hunter, Lou Smit, Michael Kane and J Gregory Walta (attorney for Smit)

Lou Smit did it - he released the powerpoint presentation -

- and more was released this fall (and for the record - Lou Smit was NOT involved with the release of the tapes)

6 years after the murder,lots of evidence available to the investigators, and the investigation is taking a new direction with new investigators.

I hope more information is released soon - - I think releasing the depositions - exposing the TRUTH - may get people reinvolved - - get someone to call in that little suspicion.

Remember - if you suspect something, you can not get in trouble for turning in a tip! It is the right thing to do - - if you think you know who did this - - it is RIGHT to turn that information in to investigators.

Kane's attempts to stamp out all vestiges of a competing theory are nothing but an illustration of his desire to win. Not investigate, not even present the prosecution's case in a zealous manner, but to win. To utterly vanquish an opponent and destroy all traces of any "The Ramseys didn't do it" theory.

It seems the BPD's "investigation" has similar overtones to it:
You know the different types of scent-trained dogs and the circumstances in which each type should be used because you were selected to attend the FBI Academy? Well, I'm the boss and I'm telling you 'no dogs'. They want an interrogation in a relaxing conference room instead of a stark-walled police interrogation room where we can rant and rave? Well, then we won't talk to them at all.

Lou Smit is a very experienced and able investigator on the DA's staff? Well, he ain't on OUR TEAM, so ban him from the war room and restrict his access to any information we might ever turn up.

Those Samurai are willing to serve their master unto the death, but they don't consider things like 'truth' or 'justice', they just consider things like winning. Is it any wonder this case has not been solved?

There is no doubt that DA-Hunter hired Kane to conduct a campaign to get the grand jury to indict the Ramseys or atleast one of them. Personnel who were leaning toward the parents being innocent were transferred to other duties in the DA's office. DA Hunter would not let Lou Smit testify before the grand jury whose sole purpose was supposed to be to investigate the case rather than indict a particular suspect.

Kane was a hired gun and he had a mission. It didn't involve investigating anything. It didn't involve truth. It sure didn't involve justice.

I know what you mean by feeling he was an advocate, but I really think, all along, Hunter was appearing to be the advocate because of the inability of his office to prosecute a case against ONE of them. I think he also recognized the severe damage done by the alienation between the Ramseys and the BPD and was trying to be the "good guy" in the RST's eyes so that communication lines would stay open. Someone needed to undo Eller's idiotic tactics! I also believe that - at least initially - Lou Smit was doing the same.