Do you guys know of any good mini series that follow football teams on YouTube? Looking to download stuff to watch on my flight.

2021.11.29 06:06 GeminiDavid Do you guys know of any good mini series that follow football teams on YouTube? Looking to download stuff to watch on my flight.

Something similar to "THE CUT: BYU" or "This is...the swamp:Florida Gators" that's on YouTube. Thanks
submitted by GeminiDavid to CFB [link] [comments]


2021.11.29 06:06 That_Championship402 Join Kodai no Kamakura!

This clan is new and is willing to accept new players! This clan is Diciplined and Elite!
Requirements:
Must have a Mic Discord is required. PS4 ONLY! Age 14+
Discord link: https://discord.gg/ACbzX66Z
submitted by That_Championship402 to RedDeadPosses [link] [comments]


2021.11.29 06:06 jplant91 Beyond A Steel Sky Review • PS5

submitted by jplant91 to PS5 [link] [comments]


2021.11.29 06:06 arcanine999 Asian Lantern Festival - Sandford Zoo

I went to the festival and it's worth it. The only thing is it does get sold out, so you have to buy the tickets online. For $20 is worth it.
https://www.centralfloridazoo.org/lanterns/
submitted by arcanine999 to orlando [link] [comments]


2021.11.29 06:06 BuddhistFirst Nov 30 - One Mind, One Heart: Unified Consciousness (Dalai Lama & Fr Freeman) Catholic & Buddhist Dialogue (in 12 languages)

submitted by BuddhistFirst to Buddhism [link] [comments]


2021.11.29 06:06 SpecOp_ Trail riding

So I just have a completely stock 2015 grand Cherokee limited with the 3.6 Now that I’m out of the army and back home and have both the time and the space to do so I’d like to start upgrading so I can go off road and trail ride. What are some things that you’d consider adding to the Jeep if you were doing the project. I know I need wheels, tires, sliders, winch, etc. you know the basic stuff. But id like to hear your opinions on what you personally would do it
submitted by SpecOp_ to Jeep [link] [comments]


2021.11.29 06:06 Syed46 Al Safa Lake one of the most beautiful place in Oman

submitted by Syed46 to Oman [link] [comments]


2021.11.29 06:06 CMCosMic anyone know how airports are rn

title basically i got a flight at 6 lol
submitted by CMCosMic to tampa [link] [comments]


2021.11.29 06:06 acroporaguardian Dead and dried halimeda algae. It builds a “skeleton” of calcium as it grows. It is green when alive (in salt water)

Dead and dried halimeda algae. It builds a “skeleton” of calcium as it grows. It is green when alive (in salt water) submitted by acroporaguardian to mildlyinteresting [link] [comments]


2021.11.29 06:06 CressHairy1439 Stretching

Hi again, idk i think mb is just me paying to much attention to it but do you feel like you need to stretch throughout the day? I've noticed i keep getting that feeling like i have to stretch my arms or my legs especially in the car or idk ....anyone noticed this
submitted by CressHairy1439 to BFS [link] [comments]


2021.11.29 06:06 net_loc 🐕 $BCI 🐕 Insane Growth in 5 hours!! 🚀 😮 Rugproof contract! Safe Devs! Absolutely 🌕ing right now!! Known and trusted team. This thing is absolutely exploding!! 💥

🐕 Welcome to Baby Cheems Inu 🐕

The first legitimate Baby Cheems Inu project! No rugs or scams here.

All liquidity has been locked until Thanksgiving 2099. Contract ownership has been renounced forever. Baby Cheems Inu is rug-proof and permanently unchangeable.

Baby Cheems Inu has a 14% tax which can be categorized as 6% into marketing, 4% into LP, 2% dev fee and 2% reflections. Everyone loves seconds on Thanksgiving, and just by holding Baby Cheems Inu you’ll receive a helping of each transaction to go with your pumpkin pie!

All early holders will be extremely rewarded! Reflections alone will make holding this coin worth the investment! Get in now while the market cap is sub 100k, and I'm sure it wont be for long. The team behind this coin knows what they are doing, and as soon marketing goes into full effect this things will be primed to blast off. 🚀

⚖️ =====TOKENOMICS===== ⚖️

Total Supply: 1,000,000,000,000,000 BCI

14% Total Tax per transaction

-- 4% liquidity

-- 6% Marketing

-- 2% Development

-- 2% Reflections

✅ SAFE DEV

✅ CRAZY MARKETING PLANNED

✅ LP LOCKED UNTIL 2099

✅ CA VERIFIED

Telegram 💬: https://t.me/BABYCHEEMSINUOFFICAL

Website 🌐: https://babycheemsinu.com/

Chart 📈: https://www.dextools.io/app/bsc/pair-explore0xeaa6a5acb77347f8d1820a6a08c315ca96777b9f
submitted by net_loc to CryptoMoonShots [link] [comments]


2021.11.29 06:06 Aortasudo What's the darndest thing your kid has said?

submitted by Aortasudo to AskReddit [link] [comments]


2021.11.29 06:06 somerando9996 What you think I'm gonna love myself because "society" tells me to? Live a good life and be happy like all the other brainwashed sheep?

Depression and self hate is enlightenment and the government and Obamba and bill gates and doesn't want you to see that but I know the truth I discovered it after an out of body experience from huffing deodorant for 7 days straight. Did you know you can go through an entire stick of deodorant just by inhaling it in only two days? That's pretty neat.
submitted by somerando9996 to teenagers [link] [comments]


2021.11.29 06:06 Proper-Bag4182 We Need To Talk About Lou

Would Lou Smit Cover For A Kid?
We need to speak with Lou, but we can’t. Rest in Peace Lou. I’d speak with his daughters/ nieces, but I can’t get around the ransom note. The anonymous BPD Officer (see previous post) did not dismiss the intruder theory, neither did DeMuth and some FBI profilers (who may have their own motivations). I usually put this in the paid off/ corruption pile. But Lou Smit can not be such an idiot or a crook. I won’t believe it. You don’t have a history of doing good police work for decades and suddenly lose all of your skills. If you know cops, this never sat right with me.
What soul searching did he have to do? What were his motivations to pursue the IDI theory so aggressively?
How retired was he, how truly religious was he, how delusional and stubborn was he?
Did he know for a fact someone was there and hunt for evidence, whatever stuck, to bring this “reality” to the case?
Would he have covered for the Ramseys because their handling and staging of their daughters passing would have resulted in their social persecution AND loss of freedom? Would he have known they would go to jail, after losing two children and fighting cancer, would this have influenced his behavior and judgement?
He can’t have been so stupid regarding ransom note authorship…Douglas too but that’s a whole other show.
Would he have played judge, jury, and God, biased cop, and devils advocate all to protect the unprosecutable? Children.
I welcome your thoughts about Lou, bonus points if you’ve met him.
A discussion of this is not complete without this great post by straydog, who basically wrote the Ramsey Case syllabus, and who I have been following down the dark alley for weeks. (We miss you and your podcast is great, I assume it’s the same straydog)
It’s almost December again, did Lou have some wisdom to share, or was he also the Fool?
The Legendary Lou Smit
Andrew Louis Smit has been variously described as “a legend”, an “ace”, “superhuman”, an “American hero”, and a “delusional old man”. Everyone who met him seemed to consider him the consummate gentleman. Here is a photo of Smit with a couple of red herrings. Who was this guy who showed up three months after the crime, in a three-piece-suit, with a toothpick in his teeth, and re-investigated the entire casefile? How the hell did that happen in the first place, and how did he reach such a wildly different conclusion to the police?
The Myth
The Lou Smit myth is best encapsulated in this obsequious documentary from 2002. Here is the basic narrative (with a few quotes taken from that documentary):

It was three months after the crime. The District Attorney, Alex Hunter “feared the police investigation was getting nowhere. To help, he decided to bring in the best homicide detective he could find.” Legendary Colorado detective Lou Smit was pulled out of retirement. Though he thought that the Ramseys were probably involved (based on what he had seen in the media), Smit kept an open mind. When he began studying the crime scene photographs, he noticed a few things that made him start questioning the media’s narrative. Gradually, he found more and more evidence of an intruder that police had overlooked. “The police were angered at Smit's increasing suspicion that they were wrong - and angered, too, that prosecutors in the District Attorney's office were beginning to listen to him.” Smit’s objective consideration of all the evidence eventually led him to conclude that an intruder must have committed this crime, leading him to openly support the Ramseys, resign from the case in protest, and make all his evidence public.
This narrative is repeated in countless TV interviews and books by the Ramseys and others. As you can see from some of the comments made on this subreddit (1, 2, 3) a lot of people genuinely believe this is what happened. The key message is that Lou Smit was extremely experienced, and therefore trustworthy. The police did not have homicide experience, but Smit did. Unlike the Ramsey-hating cops, he was a “seasoned investigator” who “knew his stuff”. Even Lawrence Schiller, the most respected historian of this case, is open about his personal admiration and affection for Lou Smit.
The fact is, Smit was experienced, there is no denying that. But that doesn’t explain his involvement in this case. The trouble with the Glorification of Smit is that it hugely simplifies the circumstances of Smit’s hiring, it misrepresents the actual status of the case at that time, it misstates what his role really was, and tells us absolutely zero about how he actually approached this case.
Smit did not just identify “new evidence”--he removed a huge amount of evidence from consideration, with little or no good reason for doing so. He changed the entire conversation, he treated the Ramsey case as though it was a totally different case, and succeeded in changing the definition of what could and could not be considered “relevant evidence”. He did all this at a time when the two most credible suspects in the case had not even been formally interviewed. It was a devastating sleight-of-hand trick played on the American justice system.
This post is an attempt to show exactly how that happened, to separate the facts about Lou Smit’s involvement from the mythology.
The District Attorney’s Office
The myth tells us “the DA feared the police investigation was getting nowhere. So he brought in Smit to solve the case.”
In fact, the Boulder District Attorney’s office had been attempting to steer the police investigation away from the Ramseys for three months before Smit was hired. Their behavior was highly unusual: In the real world, the police’s job is to investigate, then the DA’s job is to prosecute. Once a suspect is charged, the DA can start plea bargaining and negotiating with the suspect. But in this case, the negotiations began the day after the crime, long before the Ramseys had even been formally interviewed. During those first three months, the DA’s office handed over police reports, the autopsy report, and crime scene photographs to the Ramseys. The DA’s office invited the Ramseys’ defense team to inspect key pieces of evidence. The DA’s office refused to provide police with search warrants for basic pieces of evidence such as clothing items and phone records. When evidence testing began at the CBI, Pete Hoffstrom from the DA’s office immediately informed the Ramseys, and then actually attempted to halt testing until “arrangements [could] be made to allow a representative from the Ramsey family to be present”. When Patsy gave handwriting samples, she did so at an informal meeting at Hoffstrom’s home. By February 1997, the DA’s office was meeting regularly with the Ramseys’ lawyers to “build and maintain trust”, while aggressively urging police to investigate “intruder suspects” like Bill McReynolds.
The behavior of the DA’s office only makes sense if they were working on the assumption that the Rameys were innocent from day one. They simply would not have done the things they did, if they were not working on that assumption. We know for a fact that Pete Hoffstrom was speaking with John Ramsey’s lawyer Mike Bynum on December 27th, the day after the body was found, and that Hofstrom immediately called police to lobby on behalf of the Ramseys that very same day. Mike Bynum was a former employee of the District Attorney’s office, and close with many in the office. Another one of John’s lawyers, Bryan Morgan, was a close personal friend of Hofstrom. At one point in the investigation Hoffstrom remarked:
”I’m not stopping my breakfasts with Bryan. I’ve known him for 20 years.”
There is no way that the involvement of several friends and respected colleagues in the Ramsey legal team did not influence their approach to this case. It is also difficult to imagine, based on the number of mutual friends they had, that Hofstrom did not know or at least know of John Ramsey and his family prior to the crime. Let me be clear - I am not suggesting any kind of coverup. I think Pete Hoffstrom and the others in the DA’s office, who had received a biased, emotionally-charged picture of the “brutality” of this crime from the Ramseys’ lawyers, genuinely believed the Ramseys were not capable of the crime. Therefore they believed that by trusting the Ramseys, they would eventually uncover the evidence that led to the intruder. They would then catch that intruder, the police would be humiliated, and the DA’s office would ultimately be vindicated for their early vote of confidence in the parents.
By February 1997, the DA’s office was clearly frustrated at the lack of “intruder evidence” being produced by the police. None of the DA’s favorite suspects could be connected in any way to the crime scene, or had anything like a coherent motive--Linda Hoffmann Pugh, Bill McReynolds, Jeff Merrick, Joe Barnill, etc.--nobody known to the family had turned out to be a credible suspect. Police were just not finding anything to connect a single “intruder” to the crime. Though they were finding a significant amount of evidence connecting the Ramsey family to the crime--fiber evidence, physical evidence like the pineapple, handwriting similarities between Patsy and the note, indicators of a dysfunctional family environment--these and other details were slowly building up to a picture of the reality of that night. In the real world, successfully eliminating some suspects and zeroing in on others would be viewed as progress. But the DA’s office did not view it that way. When that documentary says “the DA was unhappy police were getting nowhere”, what it means is, the police investigation against an intruder was getting nowhere. The DA was unhappy that the police were getting somewhere he didn’t want them to be, and weren’t finding the intruder evidence the DA had expected them to find.
The DA’s bright idea: “Cataloging” the casefile
In February 1997, after their repeated attempts to interfere in the investigation, the DA’s office did not have access to the full casefile. They (and the Ramseys’ attorneys) believed the Boulder police were wrongly focusing on the family, and wanted access to that casefile. The DA, Alex Hunter, approached police about gaining access to the complete casefile. Hunter made out that his reasons were purely administrative. He proposed hiring somebody to “catalogue and index” that casefile as a way of “preparing the files for eventual transfer to a prosecutorial team”. As Schiller tells us:
Hunter told [Police Chief] Koby his plan, and the chief agreed, as long as the DA’s personnel did not interfere, second-guess, or reinvestigate.
When testifying under oath in a later case, Alex Hunter was asked what Lou Smit’s job actually was, and he again repeated this idea of “compiling” and “indexing” information, clarifying that Smit was not hired as a “field investigator”.
I advised the police department that I was going to hire an investigator to help me compile information coming into my department from the Boulder police department and from the various labs that were working the case and from other areas that were involved in the investigation … I hired Lou Smit to be “my” investigator in the sense of fulfilling the DA’s job, which would be … getting a case sort of ready for trial. Um. Lou set up I thought a sophisticated indexing system … He was not hired to go out into the field to do field investigation. [Hunter adds in passing that he also hired another investigator, Steve Ainsworth, at the same time “to look at the evidence coming into us with a defense attorney’s eye”.]
The Smit myth does not really line up with Hunter’s stated purpose here. If he really hired Smit because he thought “the police investigation was getting nowhere” and he wanted an experienced homicide detective to crack the case, he never actually said that was what he was doing. In fact, he pretended that it was all part of the administrative function of his office, “getting the case ready for trial”, and specifically assured police he would not be second-guessing or reinvestigating anything. The way Hunter describes it, Smit was hired as a kind of filing clerk.
Smit’s background
If, theoretically, you wanted to hire somebody to catch an “intruder”--if you wanted to look at kidnappers, drifters, serial killers, psychopaths and social outcasts--Lou Smit was the ideal candidate. Smit prided himself on his ability to “profile” psychopathic killers, his past cases included abductions, spree killings, and kidnappings.
At the time he was hired, Lou Smit was widely known because of one case, a case that he completed in 1995, just a year before Jonbenet’s death. This was the case of Heather Dawn Church. It was Smit’s greatest claim to fame, and he had solved it in a heroic fashion. The Church case had been unsolved for three years when he was hired by the El Paso Sheriff's department to reinvestigate. From a Denver Post article:
El Paso Sheriff's Detective Tim Shull worked under Smit on Heather's murder and recalled Smit's focus on the casebooks. "Lou prides himself in the organization of the casebooks, and that's how he gets a lot of his cases solved. He would take all those case books - and there were 18 of them - home and read them at night. He reorganized the case, and labeled it a "burglary gone bad.”
Eventually Smit discovered “a crime scene photograph showing a window screen slightly out of alignment and a set of fingerprints taken off the window that had never been identified”. Smit suggested running those fingerprints again--a wild gamble, since they had already been tested unsuccessfully years before--but this time, the prints were traced to the killer--a disturbed serial killer who Smit characterized as a “violent sexual predator, pedophile and psychopath”. One article notes that “The conviction exonerated the father, Mike Church, who had been under suspicion in the case.” The killer’s confession aligned exactly with Lou Smit’s prediction that it was a “burglary gone bad”:
[The killer confessed that] he had entered the home through a window, and Heather had surprised him. He strangled her there in the house and took her body out to dump it in a remote location.
What a coincidence! That’s what supporters of Smit say about this--what a coincidence that there was this other child homicide five years earlier, that also involved an intruder who left very few traces, that also involved a window in the home that police had overlooked which contained crucial evidence, that also involved an intruder who didn’t originally plan to kill the child, that also involved a thorough “reorganization” of the casefiles by Lou Smit. What an incredible coincidence that this case happened so soon before the Ramsey case, and was similar in so many ways!
Here is my whole point. It’s not a coincidence that we view these crimes as “similar”. If you take a step back and look at it rationally, it is easy to see that the “similarities” between the two cases are not coincidental at all. This is a very clear example of an investigator trying to fit the later crime into the mold of the earlier crime. If you stop trying to do that, if you take Smit’s theories out of the equation--you will see there are several obvious differences: Heather’s body was found thirty miles from her home. In Heather’s case the motive was straightforward--burglary, followed by murder to protect the killer’s identity. There was no carefully-hidden sexual assault. There was no redressing of the victim. There was no ransom note pointing to a fake terrorist-ransom-kidnapping that never happened. There was no use of household items to create elaborate weapons. In Heather’s case the parents were cooperative, even though they were suspects. There was a reasonable indication of forced entry--a bent window screen--with an unidentified fingerprint directly on top of it. The circumstances of the reporting of the kidnapping and the discovery of the body were totally different.
The only real, proven similarity between the two cases is totally superficial: they are both cases of a young girl murdered in her home. The idea that there is any more meaningful resemblance between the two crimes only makes sense if you accept several of Lou Smit’s unproven theories as fact.
This is what Lou Smit did in this case. He stopped us from looking at the Ramsey case on its own terms. He made us look at it according to a formula--according to a set of assumptions predicated on its perceived resemblance to Lou Smit’s “experience”. In order to do that, we have to be extremely selective, we have to filter out all the suspicious circumstances in which the body was found, and all the evidence pointing to the family, and simply pretend that Jonbenet’s death was a straightforward kidnapping case.
Smit’s initial view of the case
A big part of the Lou Smit legend is the idea that when he first joined the Ramsey case, he thought the Ramseys Did It. He has said this in multiple interviews, and his story is always the same. Here’s the version he gave when testifying under oath in 2003:
Q: When you first came on board with the Boulder District Attorney's office, what were your initial thoughts about the case?
Smit: It was just things that I had heard on the news. I hadn't -- I had paid somewhat attention to it because it was a high-profile case in our state, but the very first thing that you heard on the news was that there was a little girl that was brutally murdered in her home, and that there were no footprints in the snow. I remember that as being part of the newspaper articles. And also that there were no signs of forced entry; that a ransom note had been written inside the house.
And my initial impression was that, if I was going to initially look at the case, I would look at someone inside the house. That was my initial feelings on it. I didn't have any idea who killed JonBenet. And even if it was somebody in the house, I was thinking, How do you determine who it was in the house to do that? So these thoughts were in my mind initially when I came to work for Alex Hunter.
Read carefully: “I didn't have any idea who killed JonBenet [...] If I was going to initially look at the case, I would look at someone inside the house.” This is carefully qualified, conditional language. He puts himself in the position of a detective on the scene on day one (though that is not exactly the situation he was in in March 1997) and says in that situation he hypothetically would look at a resident of the home. But if you look for his actual answer to the question he was asked, he carefully avoids saying what his opinion was. “I didn’t have any idea who killed Jonbenet”. Its a non-answer. Dodging the question.
This would, of course, be a perfectly acceptable answer if Lou Smit really had been totally undecided at the time of his hiring.
What he consistently fails to mention (and what Alex Hunter also fails to mention) is that Lou Smit had already expressed at least one firm opinion on the case to Alex Hunter before he was hired. And that opinion ran strongly against the theory of the Boulder police. From a 2001 Rocky Mountain News interview:
[DA Alex Hunter] wanted [Smit] on his team. First though, Hunter asked for Smit's take on the now-infamous ransom note found in the Ramsey home. "I told Alex, 'Look, I don't know if you're going to hire me, but I'll give you a freebie," Smit recounted. "Whoever wrote this note did not do it after the murder."
The notion that the ransom note definitely could not have been written after the murder obviously contradicts any theory that the parents were involved. It obviously contradicts any theory that the note was “staging”. It obviously contradicts any theory that the killing was not premeditated. This is an opinion Smit and Alex Hunter specifically discussed before he was hired.
We also know that Lou Smit was already at this early period, comparing the Ramsey case to the Heather Dawn Church case. Detective Steve Thomas met Smit before Smit was introduced to the other officers, and notes, “[Smit] spoke at length about Heather Dawn Church, as if the murder of that little girl might be the blueprint for this case too”. In an article from the Denver Post, entitled New Detective Joins Case, published March 14, 1997, the day after Hunter asked Smit to work for him on Ramsey, and three days before he actually starting work at the DA’s office, Smit is again commenting on the Church case:
”The answers [to the Church case] were in the case books, when you went through them and really analyzed the case file."
So while Smit may claim he was thinking about the case the way the media told him to--the historical record indicates he was already at odds with the RDI theory, he had already made up his mind about certain key details--he had made up his mind it was an especially “brutal” crime, that the note could not have been staged after the killing, and that the Church case could be his blueprint--he had made up his mind on all of these things, before having reviewed a single police report, before having seen a single photograph.
And he and DA Alex Hunter specifically discussed this before his hiring.
What Work Did Smit Actually Do?
Katie Couric: You went into this case thinking the parents had committed this crime, or think there was a good chance they had.
Lou Smit: Yes, but I still had an open mind the other way too, Katie.
Couric: What was the first thing that you observed or saw in your investigation that lead you to believe, “Hey, maybe there’s somebody else who did this?”
Smit: You know Katie, it was the second day I was on the case. The very first photograph that I’d seen of that basement window—the window was wide open. And I said, “Wait a minute, take a look at that.” That was one of the light bulbs that went off, and one of the red flags that I’d seen.
So, according to the Smit myth, as he settled down to begin his indexing and cataloging, he first considered that the intruder theory may be true on his second day of the case after viewing a crime scene photo.
Lawrence Schiller’s book Perfect Murder, Perfect Town tells us what actually happened:
On March 13, Smit agreed to work for Hunter. That same day the DA walked upstairs to the sheriff’s office and asked Epp to lend him Steve Ainsworth for his investigation [this is the person Hunter says he specifically hired to look at the case from the point of view of the Ramseys’ defense]… Lou Smit and Steve Ainsworth formally joined Hunter’s team on March 17 ... That same afternoon, Smit and Ainsworth began examining a list of suspects the police might not have investigated fully.
Smit and Ainsworth were hired on the same day, started work on the same day, and immediately started working together investigating intruder suspects.
One of these “suspects” was Kevin Raburn. Schiller goes on to describe Smit (who Hunter tells us was “was not hired to go out into the field to do field investigation”) visiting jails, bars, clubs and restaurants, to investigate Raburn. This is how he spent the first weeks and months of his involvement on this case.
Smit was also promptly introduced to the Boulder Police Department. He announced to them, in this very first meeting: “I don’t think it was the Ramseys”.
In the summer of that year Smit investigated an unnamed “transient man”, a lead which he says “was obtained from the Ramsey attorneys and their investigators”. Later that year Smit, who “was not hired to go out into the field to do field investigation”, flew to Tennessee, arrested Kevin Raburn, and brought him on a private plane to Colorado, in handcuffs. (Raburn was eventually cleared. As were many other “intruders” nabbed by Smit that year, such as this suspected intruder from California). The police (the same police who supposedly were on a "witch hunt" against John Ramsey) faithfully investigated all of Lou Smit's new "suspects" - not one was remotely credible.
Note just how different this is from the Smit Myth. The myth paints Smit as completely undecided, “open minded”, patiently investigating the photos and gradually beginning to doubt his own beliefs in the Ramseys’ guilt. In reality, he was investigating “intruder suspects” on the first afternoon he was hired, and when first introduced to the cops he was informing them of the Ramseys’ innocence.
Smit himself has admitted that his “indexing and cataloguing work” did not take place until later. Under oath he clarified that when he first arrived at the DA’s office “the only information they had was the ransom note itself”, and that “initially” his work consisted in “help[ing] any investigation”. When he finally did get around to his indexing, the result was a highly selective compilation of “intruder evidence”. He did not simply “compile, catalogue and index” the files. In fact, he reorganized and shifted the emphasis of the casefile toward an “intruder”, adding significantly to the casefile with several entirely new theories that he himself came up with.
Smit was obviously applying the exact method he had used to solve Heather Dawn Church--picking out random details from crime scene photographs and taking a gamble on the assumption that they were the clue that would break the case. The intruder’s footprint (actually Burke’s), the intruder’s pubic hair (actually from Patsy’s maternal line), the intruder’s scarf (John’s), the intruder’s bike tracks (Burke’s), the intruder’s flashlight (John’s), the “scuff mark”, the “ruffled bedcover”, the “stun gun burns” (actually abrasions)--all these things and many more were inserted by Smit into the case as “important pieces of evidence” [See my posts on the Carnes ruling for specific rebuttals of Smit’s various theories].
Actions speak louder than words. No matter what Smit says (or carefully implies), no matter what Hunter says, no matter what his defenders say, Smit’s actions speak for themselves. Smit was hired to “sort of prepare the case for trial”, and that’s what he did - prepared the case for the trial against an intruder. It is very clear, from day one, he was building a case against a hypothetical intruder. He never once pursued or identified a single “lead” that did not point to the “intruder theory”. This is not something that emerged gradually over time - this is something that he worked on religiously from the very first day he was hired. And it is exactly what the DA’s office hired him to do.
Why was Smit so Biased?
The obvious question is why? Why was he so committed to the intruder theory? How could a supposedly diligent, respected investigator be so profoundly wrong in so many different ways, and also so confident in his own errors?
A common answer is “Smit was paid off”. I disagree. Though Smit was, obviously, hired on the assumption that he would find “intruder evidence”, I don’t think he ever took part knowingly in any conspiracy to cover up the truth. There are four factors, in my opinion, that influenced Smit’s misguided approach to this case.
1) The first is obviously his background, particularly the Heather Dawn Church case. Catching lone-wolf psychopathic killers was Smit’s speciality. This was his job. Smit caught the bad guys. He had been through the experience on more than one occasion of bringing closure to a grieving family--and this would have to influence him. We know Smit was discussing Heather Dawn Church in relation to the Ramsey case before he started work, and he was still discussing Heather Dawn Church in relation to the Ramsey case years after his resignation. Just look at Smit’s enthusiasm, his genuine optimism, when he said, in 2002:
Smit: We will be able to positively identify the source of that hair. And if it belongs to our killer, that will be the most-- that will be the strongest piece of evidence. Just like the fingerprint in the Heather Dawn Church case, that could be the strongest piece of evidence in this case. One hair.”
The hair has been identified as belonging to Patsy ramsey’s maternal line.
2) The second reason was that Lou Smit had personal reasons to sympathize with the Ramseys. Patsy Ramsey was a cancer survivor. When Smit became involved in the case his wife Barbara had recently been diagnosed with cancer. A man like Lou Smit would not have missed such a coincidence. He spoke on more than one occasion of the Ramseys’ religious faith, and said repeatedly that God had guided him onto the case. On June 6, 1997, he met privately with the Ramseys and invited them into his camper van to pray with him “that someday this nightmare will end and we will find the killer of our daughter.” John Ramsey said many times in interviews that he believed Lou Smit had been sent by God, and I am sure John Ramsey made a point of saying that to Lou Smit. As police chief Mark Beckner said, “Lou was a nice man and very religious. I believe he became emotionally involved with the family and in my opinion this clouded his judgement to the point where he could not accept the possibility that the family was involved.”
3) The third factor is the environment of the DA’s office, whose employees were also, for their own reasons, vehement supporters of the Ramseys. This created a dangerous dynamic--the DA’s office was not a place of rational discussion, but a group of “yes men”, encouraging each other’s hunches and intuitions, no matter what. That sort of environment is not at all conducive to a murder investigation.
4) The fourth factor, which may seem counterintuitive, is Smit’s intelligence. Lou Smit was, by all accounts, even according to his enemies, a smart guy--a good, solid investigator, not an impressionable person and not a person who could be hoodwinked easily. Though that helped him in earlier cases, it harmed him here.
Let me give an example: a man called Linus Pauling. Pauling was one of the most intelligent and best scientists of the 20th century - without question. A founder of the fields of quantum chemistry and molecular biology. A Nobel Prize winner. New Scientist ranked him as one of the 20 greatest scientists of all time. Yet late in his life, Pauling chose to aggressively endorse a theory of Vitamin C as the cure for all kinds of ailments, including cancer, the common cold, AIDS, cardiovascular disease, etc.
Though his views were thoroughly discredited by clinical trials, Pauling continued to come up with ways of disputing those who disagreed with his theories. It reached the point where Pauling was advocating highly-questionable studies, while turning a blind eye to more sensible ones, dismissing them as some sort of conspiracy by the medical establishment against his theory. This well-respected, talented, charismatic scientist was ignoring the hallmarks of his own profession, due to his devotion to this specific cause. A theory--that he obviously considered to be extremely compelling--led him to abandon the objectivity and restraint that his profession demanded. He even wrote very persuasive books like How To Live Longer and Feel Better, though countless medical experiments have conclusively proven that there is no actual evidence to support his claims.
This is simply something that can happen with people who are mavericks, who build a reputation on being right when everybody else is wrong. Someone very bright becomes fixated on an idea, and precisely because they are bright, they are able to constantly rationalize their own position. Their confirmation bias feeds on itself, and everywhere they look they see confirmation that they are, indeed, correct. This is not a rare phenomenon. It’s something we see in politics every day. Whatever side of the political spectrum you are on--look at the people on the other side, look at how profoundly they hold their beliefs. We can recognize, I think, that there are perfectly intelligent people who just happened to get it really wrong.
The Ramseys were Lou Smit’s Vitamin C. I dont think Smit was “paid off” by the Ramseys any more than Pauling was paid off by Vitamin C companies - a combination of factors in his background simply made him view the Ramseys in a specific way from the very beginning, and they encouraged and supported him, until it developed into a cycle in which they encouraged each other because of mutual interests. How to live longer and feel better? Find a good cause, and fight for it. That’s what Lou Smit tried to do.
I confess that I am always very hard on Lou Smit. Though I doubt it would bother him that I, and so many others, criticize him so strongly. In a way, it is a testament to Smit’s intellect that he was able to be so creatively wrong in so many different ways. He had so little to go on--a leaf, a “scuff mark”, a couple of tiny abrasions--and he worked his magic. Lou Smit was a guy who made something out of nothing. A less intelligent, less courageous person would not have been able to do that. And like Linus Pauling, he did it because it was something he profoundly believed was right. So you have to credit Lou Smit for his guts and his commitment to this case. But please do not confuse that with thinking he was right.
submitted by Proper-Bag4182 to JonBenetRamsey [link] [comments]


2021.11.29 06:06 coljavskiyi ⚡ Wanamoon BSC Token | ⚡ Launching Now on BSC | $40k Jackpot Draw Today | Unique Tokenomics | Active Community in Telegram | Don't Miss This x100 Potential Gem



WELCOME TO A NEW BSC MOONSHOT EXPERIENCE… WANAOON? THEN MOON WITH US! ⚡

☘︎ JACKPOT DRAW TODAY OVER $40K ☘︎
WANAMOON is a new token that rewards holders and new buyers with the opportunity to be entered in to a weekly JACKPOT draws! 50% of the jackpot goes to one holder paid in BUSD. The other 50% will be used to buy one of the hottest meme token of the week and distributed proportionately to qualified holders. You goto be in it to win it! Initially launching on BSC Blockchain, Wana Moon will then rapidly expand to other blockchains including ETH very soon!

Contract Address: 0x460042aF78f77f44A39c2b0378A35D95fEb9FD7C

TL;DR ⚙️
⁃ Weekly Jackpot Token, first draw takes place
⁃ WanaMoon Contract Fully Audited by SolidProof
⁃ Team Fully Doxxed & KYC Verified
⁃ Liquidity will be locked
⁃ Full Dapp Release on Launch to track Jackpot Entires and Total Worth
⁃ Full Detailed aggressive marketing plan
⁃ BIG Token Partnerships in talks
⁃ Team with a detailed roadmap plan of execution

⚔️ TOKENOMICS - 10% TAX ON ALL TRANSACTIONS
⁃ 1% reflection to all holders
⁃ 2% Weekly jackpot
⁃ 3% Buyback and auto liquify
⁃ 4% Marketing

Contract Address: 0x460042aF78f77f44A39c2b0378A35D95fEb9FD7C
✨Pinksale Locked
https://www.pinksale.finance/#/pinklock/record/4097?chain=BSC

✨ PANCAKESWAP
https://pancakeswap.finance/swap?outputCurrency=0x460042aF78f77f44A39c2b0378A35D95fEb9FD7C


LINKS TO OFFICIAL CHANNELS
⛓️ Website: https://wanamoon.in/
✉️ Telegram: https://t.me/WanaMoonOfficial
⚽ Twitter: https://twitter.com/WanaMoonOffical
submitted by coljavskiyi to CryptocurrencyICO [link] [comments]


2021.11.29 06:06 mango_milkshakes Boss woman pose

Boss woman pose submitted by mango_milkshakes to ToriKeeth [link] [comments]


2021.11.29 06:06 lotapatas Soo sexy and hot SelenaGomez

Soo sexy and hot SelenaGomez submitted by lotapatas to SelenaGomezHot [link] [comments]


2021.11.29 06:06 pluto_N Merch

winter merch is here COD available check it out: https://www.merchit.in/mememandir
submitted by pluto_N to MandirGang [link] [comments]


2021.11.29 06:06 Suspicious-Camera-76 Please rate me

submitted by Suspicious-Camera-76 to truerateme [link] [comments]


2021.11.29 06:06 Possible_Abrocoma_22 Are US-led sanctions worsening Afghanistan’s humanitarian crisis?

Are US-led sanctions worsening Afghanistan’s humanitarian crisis? submitted by Possible_Abrocoma_22 to rawuncutnewss [link] [comments]


2021.11.29 06:06 alpha_madness How to get dedicated IP?

Please don't bully me, I'm noob. Basically, this is just theoretical question.
Let's say I've done built my machine, and how to get dedicated static IP to host website?
submitted by alpha_madness to selfhosted [link] [comments]


2021.11.29 06:06 StillAliveHere2021 Character constantly hungry/famished and underweight

Help, my character always goes very hungry (sometimes even famished) shortly after he eats. There are also messages like ''despite having a full stomach, you still feel like you haven't eaten in days''. Is it parasites? Am I not getting enough calories?
submitted by StillAliveHere2021 to cataclysmdda [link] [comments]


2021.11.29 06:06 Possible_Abrocoma_22 Asia tightens borders as Omicron clouds region’s return to travel

Asia tightens borders as Omicron clouds region’s return to travel submitted by Possible_Abrocoma_22 to rawuncutnewss [link] [comments]


2021.11.29 06:06 Litkid_05 All-New Toshiba 43-inch 43C350KU C350 Series LED 4K UHD Smart Fire TV, Released 2021 - SAVE:$80.00 (22%) PRICE:$290

All-New Toshiba 43-inch 43C350KU C350 Series LED 4K UHD Smart Fire TV, Released 2021 - SAVE:$80.00 (22%) PRICE:$290 submitted by Litkid_05 to AllElectronicsDeals [link] [comments]


2021.11.29 06:06 Llasht Crit ratio & stat comparison

Crit ratio & stat comparison Which has a better crit ratio & overall stats? kinda torn between the two.
Both are running homa & 4pc crimson.
https://preview.redd.it/gspk7e6k2i281.png?width=1920&format=png&auto=webp&s=a4bd9cabb21be1c18afd07c50e0a7e0d9f1fd6e9

https://preview.redd.it/4pdxhoot2i281.png?width=1920&format=png&auto=webp&s=31ee8ab547310f102dbf30659a91bd3f824ddafb
submitted by Llasht to HuTao_Mains [link] [comments]


http://murguk.ru