Aphrodite Jones Interview on Websleuths Radio 10/15/17

New Posts

Tricia

Tricia

Manager Websleuths.com
Staff member
Administrator
Moderator
Joined
Sep 13, 2003
Messages
28,799
Reaction score
43,519
I would like to thank everyone who tuned in live last night to hear my interview with Aphrodite Jones.

In case you missed it: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/websle...hs-radio-sunday-oct-15th-2017-waphrodite-jone

Remember the rebuttal we did when Aphrodite Jones had a show featuring the JonBenet Ramsey case on ID in 2011?

The rebuttal was many threads long and it had amazing work. I was very proud of the rebuttal. The person who did 99.9999 percent of the work was our good friend.
Cynic did the most thorough and right on point rebuttals to everything in the show. Thank you for your incredible work Cynic. It stands the test of time.

We had those rebuttals posted here since 2011 but I removed them when I knew I was going to interview Ms. Jones. I only removed them because every single link in all those threads was bad. When we had a software update in 2014 for some reason it made all the links inoperable.

I've been going through those posts and replacing the bad links with the good. It's a bit of a job but it will be done soon.

In the meantime, I am going to post one of the rebuttals here. It is about the High Tech Boot which we discussed on the show.

Please listen to the show and post your thoughts.

How many people with the status of Aphrodite Jones is willing to go on a talk show and admit to their mistakes? I don't know of anyone else that would have the class to do something like this other than Aphrodite Jones

Tricia
 
Here is Part 1 of the rebuttal Cynic provided in regards to the Hi-Tech boots discussed in regards to the JonBenet Ramsey episode on ID.
Aphrodite Jones discussed the Hi-Tech Boot issue during our interview.
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/websle...s-radio-sunday-oct-15th-2017-waphrodite-jones

(This is a repeat of the information from my thread, but I thought it would be good to have it here as well.)

  • Open window
Could have been left open by the Ramseys:
JOHN RAMSEY: I don't really remember. I mean, part of what is going on you're in such a state of disbelief this can even happen. And the, you know, the window had been broken out. And you say hah, that's it. But it was a window that I had used to get into the house before. It was cracked and open a little bit. It wasn't terribly unusual for me. Sometimes it would get opened to let cool air in because that basement could get real hot in winter. So it was like, you know, after I thought about it, I thought it was more of an alarming situation how it struck me at the time. It was still sort of explainable to me that it could have been left open.
John Ramsey, 1998 interview


  • Scuff mark on wall
Could have been left by John when he “broke in” in the summer of 1996.

TT: OK. But on the outside you’ve got that kind of skinny narrow window well. Did you have an difficulty sliding into that or sliding down the wall?
JR: Yeah, well, as I recall, I did it at night and I had a suit on, and I took my suit off and did it in my underwear. But, it’s not easy, I mean you can get in that way, you get dirty, but.
TT: It’s not a graceful way to get in.
JR: No, no.
TT: It’s difficult because of the angles.
JR: Right.
TT: All right.
ST: Tom, let me just ask John this. Do you sit down and slide through, buttocks first if you will, through a window like that or, do you recall how you went through the actual window, John?
JR: I don’t I mean, I don’t remember. Seems like, I mean, I don’t remember, but I think I would probably gone in feet first.
ST: Feet first, backwards?
JR: Yeah.
ST: And when you went through in your underwear, were you wearing shoes or?
JR: I still had my shoes on, yeah.
ST: And were those with a suit, were they business shoes.
John Ramsey, 1997 interview


  • Suitcase with glass on it
JR or FW may have put the glass on the suitcase.

JR: Ah, well, I remember they took me aside, and we sat in John Andrew’s room which is the one next to JonBenet’s and she went through what I should do when we talked to the caller and I must insist that I talk to JonBenet and that we need until 5 o’clock to raise the money. I’d actually called my (inaudible) and arranged for the money. Ah, and I think we had by that time started to wonder if one of the housekeepers might be involved. And there was some activity around that direction. We waited until past 11 and then we, and then I think we were in the living room and Linda said why don’t you take someone and look through the house and see if there’s anything you notice that’s unusual. And Fleet and I, Fleet was standing there and said he’d go with me. And we went down to the basement, went into the train room, which is, you know, the train set is, and that’s really the only window that’s, would let in entrance into he basement. And actually I’d gone down there earlier that morning, into that room, and the window was broken, but I didn’t see any glass around, so I assumed it was broken last summer. I used that window to get into the house when (inaudible) I didn’t have a key. But the window was open, about an eighth of an inch, and just kind latched it. So I went back down with Fleet, we looked around for some glass again, still didn’t see any glass. And I told him that I thought that the break came from when I did that last summer and then, then I went from there into the cellar.
John Ramsey, 1997 interview

So I went down to the basement. I went into this room with Fleet. I explained to him that this window had been cracked open and I closed it. That the window was broken, but I think it was broken by me once before. We got down on our hands and knees looking for some glass just to see.
LOU SMIT: What did you find?
JOHN RAMSEY: I think we found a few fragments of glass not enough to indicate that it was a fresh break.
LOU SMIT: What did you do with those fragments?
JOHN RAMSEY: We might have put them on the ledge, if I remember. It really wasn't much. We had only found one or two. We might have put them up here on the ledge.
LOU SMIT: Could you have put them on the suitcase?
JOHN RAMSEY: Ahhhh, it's possible but I don't remember doing that.
LOU SMIT: Was the suitcase, when you came back, in the same spot it was when you had been?
JOHN RAMSEY: I think I moved it to see or to look for glass then. But I think it was where I left it, where it was when I was down there before.
John Ramsey, 1998 interview


  • Fibers inside suitcase consistent with fibers on JonBenet
Not necessarily.

While AJ is content to talk about fiber evidence which is questionable enough to cause a dispute between two labs, there is no mention of other fiber evidence, such as the following:
Q. (By Mr. Levin) Mr. Ramsey, it is our belief based on forensic evidence that there are hairs that are associated, that the source is the collared black shirt that you sent us that are found in your daughter's underpants, and I wondered if you –
A. B******t. I don't believe that. I don't buy it. If you are trying to disgrace my relationship with my daughter --
John Ramsey, 2000 Interview

Q. And CBI had at one point come up with a conclusion that there was a consistency between fibers found on a blanket in the suitcase that matched fibers on JonBenet's body or were consistent with, is that the right term?
A. I heard Mr. Smit and Mr. DeMuth refer to that but I didn't hear Trujillo ever offer a report or an explanation concerning that.
Q. But the FBI disagreed with the CBI, didn't they?
Steve Thomas Deposition (Wolf civil case)

Q. Was the conflict between the CBI report and the FBI report with respect to those fibers, the fibers that are described here found on the front and back of JonBenet's shirt, on her body in the vaginal area, the duct tape on her mouth, and the hand ligature, to your knowledge, was that conflict ever resolved while you were involved in the investigation?
A. No.
Lou Smit Deposition (Wolf civil case)

FBI analysis: FBI examiners said the fibers on JonBenet came from a source other than the pillow sham and comforter
Rocky Mountain News, May 4, 2001


  • Unexplained footprints made by a little known brand of boot.
Hi-Tec is a popular brand in the hiking community and according to Steve Thomas, it is popular in law enforcement circles as well.

The company currently employs approximately 500 employees and generates global sales of more than US $250 million. Hi-Tec Specializes in light weight hiking footwear and has some of the best technology in the industry. Founded in 1974.

BTW, I know where I’ve heard this “line” about the rare and exotic Hi-Tec footwear before:
It has never been made public, but in the Ramsey home in the small cellar where JonBenét’s body was left, two different footprints were found. They were made at or near the time of the killing and strengthened suspicions that two people might have been involved. One of the footprints was made by a rare Hi-Tec boot.
"Who Killed the Beauty Queen, Prime Suspect." Documentary, 2004, Michael Tracey


  • Two different sets of footprints were found in the basement.
  • This unidentified footwear impression is not linked to anyone in the Ramsey family.
This is meaningless, as the footprints could have been innocently left by any number of people who were in the wine cellar prior to the crime.

Moreover, the Ramseys could have simply walked out of the home with the footwear that left the impressions in the wine cellar, or the footwear could have been removed by Pam Paugh during her “raid” on the home.

The Hi-Tec boot print became one of the biggest questions of the investigation. Since Hi- Tecs are popular among cops, a year after the murder I became convinced that a sight-seeing law enforcement officer stepped somewhere he or she shouldn't have on December 26 and didn't want to admit it.
Detective Ron Gosage had the impossible job of trying to identify the origin of the boot print, a nightmare assignment if there ever was one. He contacted more than four hundred people, even construction workers who had been in the house five years ago, but did not find the matching print.
I doubted that any member of the Ramsey family would admit to owning a pair of Hi-Tecs, whether they did or not, but Detective Gosage had to ask them. That alerted Team Ramsey, and the defense lawyers and our DA's office soon began insisting that the unknown boot print was left behind by the intruder.
What they didn't know was that lab technicians had found not just one but three different unidentified shoe prints in that little room-the main print and two less pronounced impressions that overlapped each other. We considered that a positive development, for how likely would it be that three intruders carried the body into the room? And the
possibilities were great that the print was totally unrelated to the murder. Just because something is found at the site of a murder doesn't mean it is part of the crime.
JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation, Steve Thomas, page 265


  • The Hi-Tec boot is not linked to anyone in the family.
Burke owned Hi-Tec footwear.
“Fleet White came in to talk to me and Beckner,” Koby told Hunter. “White wants you off the case. He says you leaked stuff to one of the tabloids after you met with him last year.” Hunter remained silent. “He’s on the warpath, and he’s threatening to see the attorney general.” Koby said that White refused to cooperate with the police as long as Hunter was still on the case. In one conversation with detectives, White had even teased the officers: “What would you say if I told you the Ramseys owned Hi-Tec shoes?”
Perfect Murder, Perfect Town, Lawrence Schiller, page 593

The shoe imprint found near JonBenét’s body was the second piece of evidence. Ron Gosage had compiled a list of more than six hundred people who had been in the Ramseys’ house during the six months prior to JonBenét’s death. He had gotten in touch with more than four hundred of those people, and not one of them had ever worn or owned that kind of Hi-Tec hiking shoe. The imprint was of the “poon”—the area on the sole at the heel where the brand name is stamped. The size of shoe couldn’t be determined from the imprint, since the poon is the same size in all shoes, the better to advertise brands.
Perfect Murder, Perfect Town, Lawrence Schiller, page 746

Q. We have been provided, and again, one of the sources of this information is confidential grand jury material I can tell you in the question, but we have been provided information from two sources that your son Burke, prior to the murder of your daughter, owned and wore Hi-Tec boots that had a compass on them, which makes them distinctive. Do you recall -- if you don't recall that they actually were Hi-Tec, do you remember Burke having boots that had a compass on the laces?
A. Vaguely. I don't know if they were boots or tennis shoes. My memory is they were tennis shoes, but that is very vague. He had boots that had lights on them and all sorts of different things.
Q. But you do have some recollection that he had some type of footwear that had compasses attached to them?
A. I don't, I don't specifically remember them, but my impression is that he did, in my mind, yeah. But my impression was that they were tennis shoes.
Q. Sneakers?
A. Sneakers. Yeah. Ask Burke if he remembers it. I said, ask Burke, perhaps he -- well, we could certainly ask Burke.
John Ramsey, 2000 Interview

Q. Have you, whether it was before the interview in 1998 or subsequent to the interview in 1998, have you personally made attempts to find possible sources for the Hi-Tec shoe impression?
A. You mean like ask around if anybody had –
Q. Pick up the phone and call some friends, for example.
A. I didn't, no.
Q. Had you at any time, for example, some of the kids, like the Colby kids ever come over, did you ever go and just pick up the phone or walk across the alley and say, do you guys have Hi-Tec shoes? Did you ever do anything like that?
MR. WOOD: You are assuming she may have learned about it at the time she still lived there. She told you she wasn't sure when she first learned that.
THE WITNESS: No, I did not call the Colbys to ask if their children had –
Q. (By Mr. Levin) Whether it was from Boulder or Atlanta?
A. Right.
Q. Okay. Did you sit down and discuss with Burke at any length whether or not he ever had Hi-Tec shoes?
A. No.
Q. Did it cross your mind that he might be the source of that, for the Hi-Tec shoes?
A. No. Because my understanding was that it was an adult footprint. He was nine years old at the time.
Q. Do you know the source of your belief that it was an adult's foot, footprint?
A. Whoever told me about it or wherever I learned it in the first place.
Q. Did you get any details concerning how much of a shoe impression was present?
A. No. It was just a footprint.
Q. Did you take that to, to be a full footprint, and by that I mean like a shoe, a complete shoe impression?
A. That is what I imagined, yes.
Q. And that, whether you were told that directly or you just assumed that, you believe is the source of your belief that it was an adult's shoe?
A. Yes.
Q. You have been asked about whether or not anyone in your family owns Hi-Tec shoes or ever owned Hi-Tec shoes?
A. Yes.
Q. And I am not restating a question, Mr. Wood. And do you recall you said no one ever did?
A. Yes.
…
Q. Do you recall a period of time, prior to 1996, when your son Burke purchased a pair of hiking boots that had compasses on the shoelaces? And if it helps to remember –
A. I can't remember.
Q. Maybe this will help your recollection. They were shoes that were purchased while he was shopping with you in Atlanta.
MR. WOOD: Are you stating that as a fact?
MR. LEVIN: I am stating that as a fact.
Q. (By Mr. Levin) Does that help refresh your recollection as to whether he owned a pair of shoes that had compasses on them?
A. I just can't remember, I bought so many shoes for him.
Q. And again, I will provide, I'll say, I'll say this as a fact to you, that, and maybe this will help refresh your recollection, he thought that -- the shoes were special because they had a compass on them, his only exposure for the most part to compasses had been in the plane and he kind of liked the idea of being able to point them different directions. Do you remember him doing that with the shoes?
A. I can't remember the shoes. I remember he had a compass thing like a watch, but I can't remember about the shoes.
Q. You don't remember him having shoes that you purchased with compasses on them?
MR. WOOD: She will tell you that one more time. Go ahead and tell him, and this will be the third time.
THE WITNESS: I can't remember.
Q. (By Mr. Levin) Okay. Does it jog your memory to know that the shoes with compasses were made by Hi-Tec?
MR. WOOD: Are you stating that as a fact?
MR. LEVIN: Yes. I am stating that as a fact.
THE WITNESS: No, I didn't know that.
Q. (By Mr. Levin) I will state this as a fact. There are two people who have provided us with information, including your son, that he owned Hi-Tec shoes prior to the murder of your daughter.
MR. WOOD: You are stating that Burke Ramsey has told you he owned Hi-Tec shoes?
21 MR. LEVIN: Yes.
MR. WOOD: He used the phrase Hi-Tec?
MR. LEVIN: Yes.
MR. WOOD: When?
MR. LEVIN: I can't, I can't give you the source. I can tell you that I have that information.
MR. WOOD: You said Burke told you.
MR. LEVIN: I can't quote it to you for reasons I am sure, as an attorney, you are aware.
MR. WOOD: Just so it is clear, there is a difference between you saying that somebody said Burke told them and Burke telling you because Burke has been interviewed by you all December of 1996, January of 1997, June of 1998.
Are you saying that it is within those interviews?
MR. LEVIN: No.
MR. WOOD: So he didn't tell you, he told somebody else you are stating as a fact because I don't think you all have talked to him other than those occasions, have you?
MR. KANE: Mr. Wood, we don't want to get into grand jury information.
Okay?
MR. WOOD: Okay.
MR. KANE: Fair enough?
MR. LEVIN: I am sorry, I should have been more direct. I thought you would understand --
Q. (By Mr. Levin) Fleet Junior also says that he (Burke) had Hi-Tec shoes.
…
Q. Okay. Is this the first time that you've heard that Burke says that he had Hi-Tec?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. This is the very first time?
A. Yes.
Q. When you said in your book and then you said at other times too that you didn't own either brand –
MR. WOOD: Hold on. If you have got a reference of the book.
MR. KANE: I'm sorry. Page 232.
MR. WOOD: And then you said at other times, too. Be more specific to it.
MR. KANE: Okay. Well, I will stick to the book.
Q. (By Mr. Kane) But I don't think it is any big secret that you've said that a bunch of times.
16 A. I don't remember –
MR. WOOD: Okay. What is the question?
Q. (By Mr. Kane) When you made that statement in your book -- I mean, maybe I ought to authenticate. You wrote this book, is that –
A. Sure.
MR. WOOD: We are not asking you to authenticate it. We are just asking you to refer us to the page.
Patsy Ramsey, 2000 Interview

Hi-Tec Sports will launch hikers promo
MODESTO, Calif. - Hi-Tec Sports USA will step up the marketing of its new children's outdoor hiking boot with an incentive campaign centered around the 500th anniversary of Columbus' voyage to the New World.
The company plans to offer posters, stickers and other amenities as part of a Navigators' Club that children can join when they purchase an item in the new Navigators' series.
Hi-Tec unveiled an outdoor boot called the Columbus as part of the series. The shoe features a compass tied to the laces. It comes in mochaspruce and navy, priced to retail at $44.95.
Hi-Tec will coordinate the club membership in Modesto and will send promotional posters with new orders. Details of the promotion will be offered to children in product boxes.
David Pompel, marketing manager, said he expects the promotion to spur children's sales. He reported company-wide sales for Hi-Tec should grow by 60 percent this year.
"When the kids get something in the box, they get excited," he said. Pompel added that Hi-Tec's rugged outdoor look is growing more popular as children focus on the environment.
"We're getting into department stores where the athletic look is dying. We try to make ties to positive values like recycling and the environment."
Footwear News, July 29, 1991

The Ramseys denied any connection to Hi-Tec footwear until Grand Jury testimony proved otherwise.

Then Smit asked the Ramseys about the stun gun. John Ramsey said that they never owned one. Ramsey thought he remembered being given a videotape on self-defense by Spy World, a high-tech security outlet in southern Florida, which might have included a segment on the use of stun guns. The family didn’t wear or own Hi-Tec shoes, he said.
Perfect Murder, Perfect Town, Lawrence Schiller, page 466

Notice, however, that years after the Grand Jury concluded, the myth that the Ramseys were not connected to Hi-Tec footwear persisted and was even presented as fact in the Wolf v Ramsey civil case.

Q. Is there any evidence that any member of the Ramsey family had ever owned a logo Hi-Tec boot or shoe?
A. There is no evidence that I know of that anyone in that family owned that type of shoe.
Lou Smit, Deposition (Wolf civil case)

“Plaintiff, of course, argues that any evidence suggesting an intruder was staged by defendants. Even assuming that all the above evidence could have been staged, however, defendants point to other evidence for which a theory of contrivance by them seems either impossible or highly implausible. First, defendants note the existence of several recently-made unidentified shoeprints containing a "HI-TEC" brand mark were found in the basement imprinted in mold growing on the basement floor. (SMF 151-152; PSMF 151-152.) Defendants do not own any "HI-TEC" brand shoes and none of their shoes match the shoeprint marks. (SMF 153; PSMF 153.) Likewise, another similar partial shoeprint was found near where JonBenet's body was found. (SMF 155; PSMF 155.) The owner of the "HI-TEC" shoe that made the footprints at the murder scene has never been identified. (SMF 154, 155; PSMF 154, 155 n addition, on the wine-cellar door, there is a palm print that does not match either of defendants' palm prints. (SMF 156; PSMF 156.) The individual to whom it belongs has never been identified. (SMF 156; PSMF 156.)
Of course, the existence of these shoeprints and palm print is not dispositive, as they could have been made prior to the time of the murder, but they are clearly consistent with an argument that an intruder was in the basement
Carnes - Wolf vs Ramsey Civil Case, 2003

It’s unfortunate that Jones has also chosen to perpetuate old IDI tenets that have been debunked publically many years ago.

Investigators have answered two vexing questions in the JonBenet Ramsey case that have long helped support the theory that an intruder killed her, according to sources close to the case.
The answers, which have been known to investigators for some time but never publicly revealed, could be seen to weaken the intruder theory.
The two clues are:
* A mysterious Hi-Tec boot print in the mold on the floor of the Ramseys' wine cellar near JonBenet's body has been linked by investigators to Burke, her brother, who was 9 at the time. It is believed to have been left there under circumstances unrelated to JonBenet's murder.
Burke, now 15, has repeatedly been cleared by authorities of any suspicion in the 1996 Christmas night slaying, and that has not changed.
* A palm print on the door leading to that same wine cellar, long unidentified, is that of Melinda Ramsey, JonBenet's adult half-sister. She was in Georgia at the time of the murder.
``They were certainly some things that had to be answered, one way or the other, and we feel satisfied that they are both answered,'' said a source close to the case, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
Lin Wood, the attorney representing the Ramseys, who now live in Atlanta, doesn't debate the palm print findings. But he contends the police have not answered the Hi-Tec print mystery.
``Burke Ramsey does not and has never owned a pair of quote, unquote, trademarked Hi-Tec sneakers that the Ramseys are aware of,'' Wood said. ``I would think they know what shoes he has owned.''
Wood said the two most important pieces of forensic evidence in the case are unidentified male DNA found in the girl's underwear and the bizarre 2 1/2-page ransom note, whose author has never been determined.
``I represent innocent clients,'' Wood said. ``There has been a history since December of 1996 of anonymous law enforcement officials in Boulder, Colorado, leaking information to the media, which, in most cases, turns out to be either false or grossly distorted.
``So I would put no weight, whatsoever, on anonymous information coming out of the Boulder Police Department. Zero.''
But the source said that connecting the palm print to Melinda Ramsey was something that occurred belatedly, only because the first time her print sample was compared with the questioned print, the person making the comparison didn't properly see the match.
As for the footprint in the wine cellar, the source said, ``We know Burke had a pair of Hi-Tec shoes.''
JonBenet, a 6-year-old star of child beauty pageants and the youngest of John and Patsy Ramsey's two children, was found murdered in the basement of her family's Boulder home Dec. 26, 1996, about seven hours after her mother reported finding a ransom note demanding $118,000 for her safe return.
Boulder Police Chief Mark Beckner refused Thursday to discuss any single piece of evidence in the beating and strangling death of JonBenet.
But he said in the 5 1/2 years since the murder, police have continued to seek solutions to ``a number of evidentiary items'' that represented questions in need of answers.
``We have been able to answer questions about many of the pieces of evidence, and we hope that, over time, as we continue to go over them piece by piece, that we will be able to solve the puzzle,'' Beckner said.
In their book about their daughter's murder, The Death of Innocence, the Ramseys list seven pieces of evidence they consider significant to the case - the palm print and the Hi-Tec print are numbers six and seven. In that book, John Ramsey wrote, ``Next to JonBenet's body, the killer, I believe, left a clear footprint made by the sole of a Hi-Tec hiking shoe, from the area at the heel where the brand name was stamped.''
Writing about the palm print, John Ramsey concedes it might prove to belong to someone with a benign reason for being in the basement. ``At the same time,'' he adds, ``it could be an important clue.''
Meanwhile, Wood said that Patsy Ramsey is making progress in her treatment for a recurrence of cancer, diagnosed Feb. 12.
``She completed her six-month course of chemotherapy in June, and obviously is still recovering from the side effects of that treatment,'' Wood said.
``But all in all, she's doing well. I just saw her today. She looks good. She looks very strong and optimistic, and so far, everything looks good on the follow-up exams.''
Charlie Brennan, Rocky Mountain News, August 23, 2002

Carol McKinley, Fox News confirming investigators telling her the shoe print, palm print and unidentified hair are all solved. The shoe print is Burke's, the palm print is Melinda's and the hair found on blanket is Patsy's.
Fox News, August 23, 2002

​

Last edited by cynic; 04-05-2011 at 05:22 PM.​


 
It still amazes me that most of the public doesn’t know that BR owned Hi-Tec boots/shoes. BR was a scout for 3-plus years. His brother JAR was an advanced Eagle Scout. Does this mean BR is the killer? No. Why did the parents need to hide the fact that he did own them?

KANE: We have been provided, and again, one of the sources of this information is confidential grand jury material I can tell you in the question, but we have been provided information from two sources that your son Burke, prior to the murder of your daughter, owned and wore Hi-Tec boots that had a compass on them, which makes them distinctive. Do you recall-if you don’t recall that they actually were Hi-Tec, do you remember Burke having boots that had a compass on the laces?

JR:Vaguely. I don’t know if they were boots or tennis shoes. My memory is they were tennis shoes, but that is very vague. He had boots that had lights on them and all sorts of different things.

Ryan Ross; April 14, 2003 in Crime Magazine:

"And the mystery of the Hi-Tec boot imprint was solved in grand jury testimony. Prosecutors disclosed in the 2000 interviews of the Ramseys that Burke and one of his friends had told jurors that Burke owned a pair of Hi-Tec boots- something his parents said they somehow overlooked or forgot when they told authorities no one in the family owned such a boot, even though there is a distinctive compass on the boot."


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Ms. Jones mentions how she believes she was taken for a ride by the Ramsey investigators and such. One of the things she mentions is how they try and make you believe that a 1,000 people walked through their home a couple of days before the murder. We know this is wrong. We know the last home tour they did was in 1994.

Last year on Dr. Phil, BR passively tries to do the same thing:

DP: Now, two days before JonBenet was murdered that is when the party was at your house right?

BR: Yeah

DP: You had people tour the house?

BR: I think it was like a Boulder home tour thing. Like we weren't the only people that did it

DP: Right, they went house to house to look at all the decorations.

BR: Yeah.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Below is part 2 of the Hi-Tech Boots rebuttal along with the link to the show with Ms. Jones.
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/websleuths/2017/09/11/websleuths-radio-september-10th-2017


The name of Michael Helgoth was brought up in the documentary.
Generally, the Ramsey spin regarding Helgoth goes something like this:
There is a mysterious footprint in the wine cellar near where JonBenet’s body was found and this print was made by Hi-Tec footwear.
No mention is made of the fact that Burke Ramsey did own at least one pair of Hi-Tec’s.
Mention is made of Michael Helgoth, from whom a pair of Hi-Tec boots was stolen by a so called friend, (John Edward Kenady,) and eventually turned over to the BPD.
Usually, it’s also noted that he committed suicide a day after Alex Hunter announced that, "The list of suspects narrows. Soon there will be no one on the list but you."
Mention is not made of the fact that friends and family of Michael Helgoth believe he committed suicide because his girlfriend broke up with him. (The day that he committed suicide was Valentine’s Day.)

The cornerstone of the case against Helgoth as depicted by Team Ramsey is definitely the Hi-Tec footprint, and below we see that the boots were tested by CBI. The tests revealed that Helgoth’s boots did not match the footprint in the wine cellar.

Ramseys give police Hi-Tec boots.
Among information John and Patsy Ramsey provided to police this month are a pair of Hi-Tec boots obtained by one of the couple's private investigators.
Colorado Springs private detective Ollie Gray said Wednesday he believes the size 8½ leather and nylon boots could be the ones that JonBenét's killer wore inside the Ramsey home where the little girl was found dead.
Gray, who was present during police questioning of the Ramseys this week, said he turned the boots over to police on Aug. 4. He said police asked him questions about the boots in the interviews. Gray said he wants police to compare the soles of the boots to the footprint at the crime scene.
"There is a good possibility they could match," Gray said.
Boulder Police Chief Mark Beckner said he ordered the boots to be analyzed at the Colorado Bureau of Investigation lab.
"If you look at them, they look pretty close," he said. "You really can't tell."
But Beckner said he is waiting for the lab results before he gets too excited about the possible lead.
"We've had other boots that looked like they matched as well," he said. The footprint remains one of the mysteries of the unsolved December 1996 beating and strangulation death of JonBenét Ramsey.
Police found a partial footprint with the words "Hi Tec" in the basement of the Ramsey home.
Police cannot say whom it belongs to or when it was left. The Ramseys did not own a similar shoe.
Some say the footprint could have been left behind by a construction worker or plumber when the house was under renovation, or inadvertently by a police officer who worked the crime scene. Others, including the Ramseys, have said they believe it could have been from an intruder who killed their daughter.
Gray said he obtained the boots in the Boulder area in about mid- to late July "in the course of the investigation."
He said they belong to an individual, whom he would not identify publicly because he said he doesn't want the person to be labeled a suspect until the lead has been investigated. But he said he did give police the full information about where and how he obtained the boots.
"We don't have the slightest idea of what they have done with it," Gray said.
In fact, Gray said, the Ramseys have provided police with several pages of reports and possible leads for them to follow up, including information given to them in May. Gray said he evaluates the information first so he doesn't hand over "superfluous" information.
But he said police never give him feedback on what they have done with the information he provides them.
Beckner said he shares general information with the Ramseys' private investigators from time to time, but never specifics about evidence.
"We don't share case information with them because they work for people under suspicion who could be involved in this crime," Beckner said.
…
By Christopher Anderson, Daily Camera Staff Writer, August 31, 2000


Boots not connected to Ramsey case.
A pair of Hi-Tec boots given to Boulder police in August are not connected to the unsolved 1996 JonBenét Ramsey case, Chief Mark Beckner said Monday.
A private investigator for the girl's parents, John and Patsy Ramsey, gave the boots to police in August believing they could match a partial Hi-Tec footprint found on a basement floor next to 6-year-old JonBenét's beaten and strangled body.
Beckner ordered the boots to be tested at the Colorado Bureau of Investigation. The results came back about two weeks ago.
"The boots do not match," Beckner said Monday.
The chief also said DNA tests and interviews with friends and family of the man who owned the boots led police to conclude the man was not involved in the little girl's mysterious killing.
"There is nothing that ties this guy into the case," Beckner said.
Ollie Gray, the private investigator who gave the boots to police, said he discussed the test results with Beckner but is not convinced.
Gray said Beckner did not give him specifics about how the boots were compared to the partial print, what tests were run or who police interviewed.
"What did they do with the hairs and fiber that were in the boots? Did they compare them?" Gray asked. "I am just not satisfied with what Beckner said."
Police have repeatedly said they are limited in how much information about the investigation can be released.
The boots tested at CBI originally belonged to a Boulder County man who committed suicide Feb. 14, 1997, the day after District Attorney Alex Hunter declared at a press conference that investigators were narrowing the list of suspects in the Ramsey case.
Gray believes the stress of a possible arrest may have caused JonBenét's killer to commit suicide. In July, John Edward Kenady, 47, a friend of the dead man, gave the boots to Gray, saying he suspected his friend may have been involved in the killing. Kenady is facing theft and burglary charges relating to other items found in his possession that belonged to his former friend.
On Dec. 26, 1996, JonBenét Ramsey's slain body was found in the basement of her family's home. Her parents remain under police suspicion. Hunter signed an affidavit last month for the Ramseys' attorney stating that JonBenét's brother, Burke, was never a suspect in the case.
The Ramseys have repeatedly denied any involvement in their daughter's death and believe an intruder killed the young girl.
They point to the unexplained partial Hi-Tec boot print as possible proof of an intruder. Others have said the partial print could have been left behind by a law enforcement officer or someone else working on the crime scene that day.
By Christopher Anderson, Daily Camera Staff Writer, November 21, 2000​

 
Cottonstar said:
It still amazes me that most of the public doesn’t know that BR owned Hi-Tec boots/shoes. BR was a scout for 3-plus years. His brother JAR was an advanced Eagle Scout. Does this mean BR is the killer? No. Why did the parents need to hide the fact that he did own them?
Click to expand...

WHY indeed!!!!! BR said on Dr. Phil he said that he didn't remember the brand of the shoes but that they had a compass on the shoelaces or something. This is also discussed in the police interview from 2000.

As for the home tour, evertime someone brings up the home tour from 1996, I know they're a Ramsey shill basically. RDI knows it was 1994 as you said!

http://www.acandyrose.com/s-tour-boulderhouse1994.htm
 
Ms. Jones explains how the mistake was made in regards to the 1994 home tour becoming the 1996 home tour.

She said it was her fault. I'm writing this from memory so it may not be exact. The explanation is in the last 30 minutes of the interview I believe.

Ms. Jones said she was presented with an interview the Ramsey's did in England. In that interview, she said the Ramseys made it sound like the home tour was very
recent, therefore, Jones made the assumption it was in 1996.

I don't know what exactly was said in the Ramsey interview but I have no doubt they made no effort to let people know the home tour was from two years before, not a few weeks before the murder.
 
AJ Segment on JBR case begins @53:19

@58:10
AJ: For me, after having seen the CBS special
and also seeing the BR interview on Dr Phil,
I had serious questions about any kind
of intruder at all.
In fact, the more I studied the case, in my own way
I came to understand that there's no way
that anybody else, outside of the family,
did this.
It had to be an inside job.
And if it was an inside job that leaves
three people that we're talking about.
And with that in mind,
when I went on Dr. Oz
with JSA, he knew that I was
not on the same page as him
but he had his own agenda.


@ 1:04:15
AJ: That's why I cite the CBS documentary,
because clearly that's where my eyes were wide open.
TJ: I'm glad you have had your eyes opened and you admit it...
... Aphrodite is admitting it, she's changed her mind...

.......


@1:20:35
AJ: I said, the only thing that's really really wrong,
is sticking to a story that's false.
And I think the false narrative
that has been paraded amongst people around the
Ramseys
and the JBR murder, needs to be rectified.
and this is why I wanted to come on with you tonight
to say that
Look I was presented with a story and the people
who presented it to me still believe that story
I just don't believe it any more.


.......


@1:24:02
AJ: Well actually
I'm quite, I'm quite angry about it,
if nothing else.
At first I was embarrassed about it.
But now, the more I've thought about it,
I'm angry about it.
Because I feel that I was taken for a ride.

........
 
Cottonstar said:
Ms. Jones mentions how she believes she was taken for a ride by the Ramsey investigators and such. One of the things she mentions is how they try and make you believe that a 1,000 people walked through their home a couple of days before the murder. We know this is wrong. We know the last home tour they did was in 1994.
Click to expand...

It is important to understand context.

There are two questions:

How many people know the house = a lot

How many people could leave their footsteps in their house = 1994 != 1996

The problem with the answer is that 1996 is against intruder theory.

If Ramsey wanted to mislead people with a tour = staging with all evidence not necessarily pointing to the killer.

I like clear situations and it is always possible I understand the situation incorrectly.

I would like to see the original interview with the question asked.


[edit] sorry but I am not used to hearing spoken English and without subtitles I have problems with understanding it.

[edit2] Regarding "HI-TEC" they probably have not seen the picture of the footprint = trouble in understanding the question. As far as I know, they have no "HI-TEC" boots in their house. Believe me. I know how these interviews look when "medics" are asking something to prove things they are thinking about. It is not possible to guess what they really want.
 
archieil said:
It is important to understand context.

There are two questions:

How many people know the house = a lot

How many people could leave their footsteps in their house = 1994 != 1996

The problem with the answer is that 1996 is against intruder theory.

If Ramsey wanted to mislead people with a tour = staging with all evidence not necessarily pointing to the killer.

I like clear situations and it is always possible I understand the situation incorrectly.

I would like to see the original interview with the question asked.


[edit] sorry but I am not used to hearing spoken English and without subtitles I have problems with understanding it.

[edit2] Regarding "HI-TEC" they probably have not seen the picture of the footprint = trouble in understanding the question. As far as I know, they have no "HI-TEC" boots in their house. Believe me. I know how these interviews look when "medics" are asking something to prove things they are thinking about. It is not possible to guess what they really want.
Click to expand...
archeil
the point Aphrodite is making to tricia is the ramseys and their defence eluded to in some instances or allowed false narratives in others. when clarification could have and should have been made.
innocent people do not muddy the waters when trying to get to the bottom of who killed their daughter.

the issue with misleading Aphrodite and anybody else by not clarifying the walk through Christmas stuff being two years before implied that it was that Christmas and thousands of strangers could have been the elusive intruder who got a fixation with jonbenet or the ramseys in general. creating suspects without creating suspects...you see?

the hi tec boots saga.....
as far as I know the hi tec boots have compasses on them.
the ramseys deny burke owned any....however burke and john both admit he had boots that had compasses on them. hmmmmm
so denied but admitted all at the same time.

on the hi tecs....why deny owning them?
burkes prints anywhere within his own home one would think be perfectly explainable......but they went missing along with the other missing items. but patsy was still wearing same clothes.
this is a strong bdi point I don't know why it isn't thrashed around here!
its a justifiable point to my pdi/jdi self lol
 
He had 2 years earlier.

Is it so hard to understand being native English speaker?

Is it so hard to understand how media is working?

I have a testimony of a friend whose mother was working for one of the major newspaper here. She said: They are writing text "signed" by a politician and wait for them to react it was wrong and against their thinking. It is not words of a politician but guessing what he could say. One of a reason we had a moron as a president.

AJ said: "It was based on interview". It was not a show authorized by anyone.

Correct me if I am wrong.

[edit] btw. I think that someone could check their basement when they were calling the police using the basement window as an entry. Keeping in mind my idea that John was searching for JoniB outside crying her name.

[edit2] I think it is very probable someone was directly in the basement and heard talking of Ramseys. This person was a source for "enhanced 911". It is only an idea and probably CBS proof of BDI.
 
k-mac said:
archeil
the point Aphrodite is making to tricia is the ramseys and their defence eluded to in some instances or allowed false narratives in others. when clarification could have and should have been made.
innocent people do not muddy the waters when trying to get to the bottom of who killed their daughter.

the issue with misleading Aphrodite and anybody else by not clarifying the walk through Christmas stuff being two years before implied that it was that Christmas and thousands of strangers could have been the elusive intruder who got a fixation with jonbenet or the ramseys in general. creating suspects without creating suspects...you see?

the hi tec boots saga.....
as far as I know the hi tec boots have compasses on them.
the ramseys deny burke owned any....however burke and john both admit he had boots that had compasses on them. hmmmmm
so denied but admitted all at the same time.

on the hi tecs....why deny owning them?
burkes prints anywhere within his own home one would think be perfectly explainable......but they went missing along with the other missing items. but patsy was still wearing same clothes.
this is a strong bdi point I don't know why it isn't thrashed around here!
its a justifiable point to my pdi/jdi self lol
Click to expand...

k-mac,
The hi tecs are an example of the parents removing BR from the script period. The Tour story simply allows for plausible deniability, standard Ramsey Spin, e.g. JR: I used the flashlight to put BR to bed, on Dr Phil.

Now Kolar says in his book that BR visited the basement Christmas Afternoon and opened some/all the gifts. Now alike the hi tecs and the flashlight, I think that is Ramsey spin, straight from BR's mouth to cover for his footprint in the wine-cellar?

What everyone should ask is: did BR wear hi tecs to the White's party? BPD have photographs of BR taken at the party so will know what he is wearing similar for JonBenet, i.e. ponytail or pigtails, whatever?

If the case is not BDI why are the parents covering for him?

.
 
Because they don't want BR to be questioned, since he's a child and can accidentally let something he does know about that night/morning slip.
 
Userid said:
Because they don't want BR to be questioned, since he's a child and can accidentally let something he does know about that night/morning slip.
Click to expand...


Userid,
Sure like he was responsible for the flashlight moving about the house, that he left the footprint in the wine-cellar Christmas Night, on and on?

Looks more like the case is BDI with BR hiding behind his parents !
 
^ I didn't suggest anything of the sort and my last post had literally nothing to do with the flashlight or the footprint. I simply answered your very easily-answerable question as to why the parents would have protected BR. Cute try though.
 
there is quite the probability that burke was in the basement with his parents during the staging.....participated in it.
no matter which ramsey did it.
it doesn't prove anything. but it is worthy of noting.
yes definitely like to see what shoes he wore to the whites.
 
k-mac said:
there is quite the probability that burke was in the basement with his parents during the staging.....participated in it.
no matter which ramsey did it.
it doesn't prove anything. but it is worthy of noting.
yes definitely like to see what shoes he wore to the whites.
Click to expand...

k-mac,
I agree its no smoking gun. The footprint could have arrived at any point in time, yet Kolar's questions to BR elicited he was in the wine-cellar Christmas Afternoon. Well thats exactly what I might expect to hear as an explanation, since we all know footprints dont come with timestamps.

Why is JR's or PR's footprints not recorded in the wine-cellar, luck?

BR in on the staging, present in the wine-cellar, could be especially if like Kolar you assume BDI All. Then BR could have moved JonBenet down to the basement and the parents simply applied minimal staging then placed her in the wine-cellar, maybe it was BR who dumped the nightgown in the wine-cellar?

This might relate to his alleged query on the 911 call What did you find?

.
 
why aren't PR and JR footprints in the cellar you ask?
well maybe they are? we don't know.
but likely I think the hi tec boot has a strong deep tread pattern easy footprints that normal tread shoes don't have.
the more formal the shoe the smoother the base.(less grip) don't imagine either of them would be wearing shoes from kmart lol
 
UKGuy said:
k-mac,
I agree its no smoking gun. The footprint could have arrived at any point in time, yet Kolar's questions to BR elicited he was in the wine-cellar Christmas Afternoon. Well thats exactly what I might expect to hear as an explanation, since we all know footprints dont come with timestamps.

Why is JR's or PR's footprints not recorded in the wine-cellar, luck?

BR in on the staging, present in the wine-cellar, could be especially if like Kolar you assume BDI All. Then BR could have moved JonBenet down to the basement and the parents simply applied minimal staging then placed her in the wine-cellar, maybe it was BR who dumped the nightgown in the wine-cellar?

This might relate to his alleged query on the 911 call What did you find?

.
Click to expand...

If you put this much relevance in the Hi-Tec imprint (which we don't know when it was made), do you put as much stock in the fact that the only print recovered from the cellar door belonged to the R's eldest remaining daughter? Or are you just picking and choosing between the two?
 
k-mac said:
why aren't PR and JR footprints in the cellar you ask?
well maybe they are? we don't know.
but likely I think the hi tec boot has a strong deep tread pattern easy footprints that normal tread shoes don't have.
the more formal the shoe the smoother the base.(less grip) don't imagine either of them would be wearing shoes from kmart lol
Click to expand...

Hey K-mac,

Couldn't the imprint have been made at another time by BR? It didn't necessarily have to be made that very night?

Also, why would BR have his shoes on that night? He was inside the entire night (from when they returned from the party) and if it occurred sometime in the middle of the night, there'd be no need for him to put them on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 75 more.
Total: 3,390 (members: 76, guests: 3,314)

Online statistics

Members online
76
Guests online
3,314
Total visitors
3,390
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,284
Messages
17,966,658
Members
228,735
Latest member
dil2288
Back
Top