Websleuths
Go Back   Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community > Featured Case Discussion > JonBenet Ramsey

Notices

JonBenet Ramsey What really happened to 6 year old JonBenet? Someone is getting away with murder. All information posted on this site is gained through published documentation on this case. It is strictly opinion only.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-25-2004, 01:04 PM
Seeker Seeker is offline
Former Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 3,519
Hi-Tec sneakers or boots?

I just noticed something due to a link brought up on another thread.

Wasn't the Hi-Tec print said to be a bootprint??? Yet here is spinmeister Wood implying it was a sneaker print!!

From FFJ (thanks Tricia for reposting it!):
Charlie Brennan, Rocky Mountain NewsAugust 22, 2002 BOULDER -

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 Ramsey evidence is explained Hand, boot prints determined to be innocent occurrences 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.

L. 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.

Oh what a stupid statement there Woody-boy...your "student" has learned well...

From the Atlanta interviews it is obvious that Burke Ramsey told the Grand Jury that he indeed did own a pair of Hi Tec shoes/boots.

From the Atlanta Interviews. Mr. Levin for the United States. Mr.Wood for the Ramseys. This exchange is with Mr. Levin, Patsy Ramsey, and Lin Wood.

23 Q. (By Mr. Levin) Did you try, in
24 your mind, and perhaps to assist your
25 investigator, identify sources close to your
0122
1 family that might be the origin of the
2 Hi-Tec shoe impression?
3 A. I think, you know, I may have
4 asked Susan if she had ever seen any. I
5 mean, I didn't, I don't know what a Hi-Tec
6 boot looks like, per se. I have tried to
7 kind of, as I am in shoe stores, look around
8 trying to see what, what's the significance
9 and special about a Hi-Tec boot, and I
10 haven't, haven't even seen any yet. But I
11 may have asked Susan, did you know anybody
12 that looked like they wore Hi-Tec shoe,
13 boots, or whatever.
14 Q. Do you recall a period of time,
15 prior to 1996, when your son Burke purchased
16 a pair of hiking boots that had compasses on
17 the shoelaces? And if it helps to
18 remember --
19 A. I can't remember.
20 Q. Maybe this will help your
21 recollection. They were shoes that were
22 purchased while he was shopping with you in
23 Atlanta.
24 MR. WOOD: Are you stating that
25 as a fact?
0123
1 MR. LEVIN: I am stating that as
2 a fact.
3 Q. (By Mr. Levin) Does that help
4 refresh your recollection as to whether he
5 owned a pair of shoes that had compasses on
6 them?
7 A. I just can't remember. Bought so
8 many shoes for him.
9 Q. And again, I will provide, I'll
10 say, I'll say this as a fact to you, that,
11 and maybe this will help refresh your
12 recollection, he thought that -- the shoes
13 were special because they had a compass on
14 them, his only exposure for the most part to
15 compasses had been in the plane and he kind
16 of liked the idea of being able to point
17 them different directions. Do you remember
18 him doing that with the shoes?
19 A. I can't remember the shoes. I
20 remember he had a compass thing like a
21 watch, but I can't remember about the shoes.
22 Q. You don't remember him having
23 shoes that you purchased with compasses on
24 them?
25 MR. WOOD: She will tell you that
0124
1 one more time. Go ahead and tell him, and
2 this will be the third time.
3 THE WITNESS: I can't remember.
4 Q. (By Mr. Levin) Okay. Does it
5 jog your memory to know that the shoes with
6 compasses were made by Hi-Tec?
7 MR. WOOD: Are you stating that
8 as a fact?
9 MR. LEVIN: Yes. I am stating
10 that as a fact.
11 THE WITNESS: No, I didn't know
12 that.
13 Q. (By Mr. Levin) I will state this
14 as a fact. There are two people who have
15 provided us with information, including your
16 son, that he owned Hi-Tec shoes prior to the
17 murder of your daughter.
18 MR. WOOD: You are stating that
19 Burke Ramsey has told you he owned Hi-Tec
20 shoes?
21 MR. LEVIN: Yes.
22 MR. WOOD: He used the phrase
23 Hi-Tec?
24 MR. LEVIN: Yes.
25 MR. WOOD: When?
0125
1 MR. LEVIN: I can't, I can't give
2 you the source. I can tell you that I have
3 that information.

4 MR. WOOD: You said Burke told
5 you.
6 MR. LEVIN: I can't quote it to
7 you for reasons I am sure, as an attorney,
8 you are aware.
9 MR. WOOD: Just so it is clear,
10 there is a difference between you saying that
11 somebody said Burke told them and Burke
12 telling you because Burke has been
13 interviewed by you all December of 1996,
14 January of 1997, June of 1998.
15 Are you saying that it is within
16 those interviews?
17 MR. LEVIN: No.
[b]18 MR. WOOD: So he didn't tell you,
19 he told somebody else you are stating as a
20 fact because I don't think you all have
21 talked to him other than those occasions,
22 have you?
23 MR. KANE: Mr. Wood, we don't
24 want to get into grand jury information.
25 Okay?
0126
1 MR. WOOD: Okay.
2 MR. KANE: Fair enough?
3 MR. LEVIN: I am sorry, I should
4 have been more direct. I thought you would
5 understand --

LMAO! Wood tried to imply that the info about Burke's Hi-Tec boots was hearsay!
Burke testified for 5 hours!!! I'd be very interested to know just what some boy who "slept through it all" could possibly testify about for 5 whole hours...

So which is it folks? Boot prints or sneaker prints?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 10-25-2004, 01:54 PM
jasmine jasmine is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 170
I have never seen Hi-Tec shoes for kids. I have never Hi-Tec shoes with a compass built in. They may be out there but I have never found them.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 10-25-2004, 01:54 PM
sissi sissi is offline
Former Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: maryland
Posts: 1,832
Sorry, but I don't buy it.
It was stated as a fact that John Ramsey went out for mail ,and until Linda Arndt's deposition we believed it. She said herself that her report was "misunderstood", I bet a lot of this "factual" information is as "sketchy".
IMO no child knows the brand of shoes he wore at age 8, but if asked, "they sure were hi-tec..with compasses and all, a child will say..YEP" . Now try to say he wore an adult size ten, because Helgoth's were too small, Burke's children's shoe sure should match??
If any of this were credible do you think Keenan would agree that an intruder likely killed Jonbenet, or Carnes the same? Or do you just think smart women are unreliable? IMO
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 10-25-2004, 02:10 PM
sissi sissi is offline
Former Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: maryland
Posts: 1,832
Quote:
Originally Posted by jasmine
I have never seen Hi-Tec shoes for kids. I have never Hi-Tec shoes with a compass built in. They may be out there but I have never found them.
They do , I believe have kids shoes, but the logo on the bottom for the sneakers I believe is different than the hiking soles. They make them for women as well, (in case anyone is wondering about the elf)
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 10-25-2004, 02:16 PM
jasmine jasmine is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 170
Sissi

I really believe this shoe arguement is a waste of time! LE saw the logo in the mold in the room JBR was found in. They never mentioned that it looked like a child size print.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 10-25-2004, 02:29 PM
Seeker Seeker is offline
Former Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 3,519
jamsime, They didn't know what size the shoe print was because it was incomplete. I also provided a link to Hi-Tec's website where they list (mostly tennis type) shoes for women, men, and children.

sissi, I would imagine that if a child like Burke knew what a ROLEX was then he would have paid enough attention to brand names to know what type of boots or shoes he owned. Esp ones that were as unique as the ones he apparently told the Grand Jury he had! Kids are VERY aware of brand names...

Lin Wood has never said anything more about the Hi-Tec shoes or boots that Burke had. He hasn't denied Burke owned them after that deposition became public....

I don't believe Linda Arndt ever said John went out to get the mail, she simply stated she saw him going through some mail...she never specified (that I have seen) how he got it. Remeber she didn't know where he was, he was simply not within her view.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 10-25-2004, 02:50 PM
sissi sissi is offline
Former Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: maryland
Posts: 1,832
One year my son bought all of us shoes for Christmas, they were Salvatore Ferragamo's, and my, then, 12 yr old daughter thought they were ugly, however given a bit of information ....like the rolex..she then appreciated that she had the most expensive shoes on the block. Yes kids can name brand names, one's that impress them, but wearing hi-tecs is much like buying cherokees, nothing there to impress and nothing to remember. IMO
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 10-25-2004, 02:50 PM
jasmine jasmine is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 170
Do any of the Hi-Tec brand boots have a compass?
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 10-25-2004, 02:57 PM
sissi sissi is offline
Former Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: maryland
Posts: 1,832
Quote:
Originally Posted by jasmine
Do any of the Hi-Tec brand boots have a compass?
I've never seen that, however I have seen shoes with compartments for carrying such items. I don't know which brands have these but ya' know I will go look:-)
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 10-25-2004, 03:09 PM
jasmine jasmine is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 170
From the interviews it does sound like Hi-Tec made shoes/boots with a compass on the shoelaces. I wonder if Burke was thinking of High Tech shoes/boots because they had a compass. Investigators never found any shoes in the house that matched the boot print.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 10-25-2004, 04:56 PM
BlueCrab BlueCrab is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 3,053
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seeker
Burke, now 15, has repeatedly been cleared by authorities of any suspicion in the 1996 Christmas night slaying, and that has not changed.

Seeker.

Sorry, but Burke has NEVER been cleared by the authorities. Neither Alex Hunter, nor Mary Keenan, nor Mark Beckner, nor any judge, nor anyone else of authority, has cleared Burke Ramsey in the slaying of JonBenet.

Please provide your source who says Burke has been cleared. Thanks.

JMO
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 10-26-2004, 11:27 AM
Seeker Seeker is offline
Former Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 3,519
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueCrab
Seeker.

Sorry, but Burke has NEVER been cleared by the authorities. Neither Alex Hunter, nor Mary Keenan, nor Mark Beckner, nor any judge, nor anyone else of authority, has cleared Burke Ramsey in the slaying of JonBenet.

Please provide your source who says Burke has been cleared. Thanks.

JMO
Blue, perhaps you'd like to try reading that post again...

Those weren't my words.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 10-26-2004, 11:56 AM
BlueCrab BlueCrab is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 3,053
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seeker
Blue, perhaps you'd like to try reading that post again...

Those weren't my words.

Seeker,

You are right. I'm sorry. You were quoting Charlie Brennan, and not making that statement yourself about Burke supposedly being cleared.

It never ceases to amaze me how intelligent people, such as news reporters, defense attorneys, etc., have unwittingly translated Hunter's fraudulent affidavit stating that "Burke is a witness and not a suspect" into meaning "Burke has been cleared". They don't dig deep enough to realize there are no official suspects in the Ramsey case (because of the threat of a lawsuit) and the word "witness" really means "suspect". Neither Hunter, nor Keenan, nor anyone else of authority has ever cleared Burke.

My apologies again Seeker, and I take back all those bad things I've been spreading around about you. (JK)

JMO
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 10-26-2004, 12:23 PM
BrotherMoon BrotherMoon is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Denver
Posts: 753
Burke doesn't need to be cleared because it is ridiculous to consider him to be involved in the death.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 10-26-2004, 03:30 PM
BlueCrab BlueCrab is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 3,053
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrotherMoon
Burke doesn't need to be cleared because it is ridiculous to consider him to be involved in the death.

BrotherMoon,

Fantastic! And what is your published source for this exculpatory item of evidence in favor of Burke?

JMO
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 10-26-2004, 03:36 PM
BrotherMoon BrotherMoon is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Denver
Posts: 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueCrab
BrotherMoon,

Fantastic! And what is your published source for this exculpatory item of evidence in favor of Burke?

JMO
Your syntax is very poor. Whatever you tried to refer to I don't need.

I use common sense.

Last edited by BeeBee; 10-27-2004 at 04:43 PM. Reason: Insulting
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 10-26-2004, 06:04 PM
BlueCrab BlueCrab is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 3,053
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrotherMoon

I use common sense ...

BrotherMoon,

We all use common sense, except some are much better at using it than others.

Credible EVIDENCE is what solves murders, not just common sense. For instance, your suspect as the murderer is Patsy Ramsey. Please provide just one item of credible EVIDENCE against Patsy Ramsey that can be used as probable cause that she killed JonBenet. But forget it; the Ramsey grand jury tried for 18 months to come up with probable cause against Patsy, and failed.

That's because Patsy didn't do it. COMMON SENSE tells me so because the grand jury, with only a low level of evidence needed against her, couldn't even indict Patsy.

JMO
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 10-26-2004, 06:34 PM
BrotherMoon BrotherMoon is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Denver
Posts: 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueCrab
BrotherMoon,

We all use common sense, except some are much better at using it than others.

Credible EVIDENCE is what solves murders, not just common sense. For instance, your suspect as the murderer is Patsy Ramsey. Please provide just one item of credible EVIDENCE against Patsy Ramsey that can be used as probable cause that she killed JonBenet. But forget it; the Ramsey grand jury tried for 18 months to come up with probable cause against Patsy, and failed.

That's because Patsy didn't do it. COMMON SENSE tells me so because the grand jury, with only a low level of evidence needed against her, couldn't even indict Patsy.

JMO
The first bit of evidence is the dead body. The second bit of evidence is the three other people in the house. The third bit of evidence is the content of the note which has more to do with Patsy than the other two.

You, however have absolutely no reason to make the conclusions you do about the GJ.

Last edited by BeeBee; 10-27-2004 at 03:26 PM. Reason: Insulting
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 10-26-2004, 09:50 PM
BlueCrab BlueCrab is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 3,053
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrotherMoon
The first bit of evidence is the dead body. The second bit of evidence is the three other people in the house. The third bit of evidence is the content of the note which has more to do with Patsy than the other two.


BrotherMoon,

So that's the kind of evidence that tells you that Patsy killed JonBenet? Like I've said to you in the past, BM, you wouldn't know what an item of evidence looks like if it bit you in the ass.

JMO
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 10-26-2004, 10:50 PM
sissi sissi is offline
Former Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: maryland
Posts: 1,832
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueCrab
BrotherMoon,

So that's the kind of evidence that tells you that Patsy killed JonBenet? Like I've said to you in the past, BM, you wouldn't know what an item of evidence looks like if it bit you in the ass.

JMO
This is not a dna case until we find the guy who left it.
This dna will solve the case one day, as it is the only evidence leading to the killer's identity, to ignore dna in a murdered child's underwear IMO represents an inability to give up on a theory and is selfish. Clearly from the books and the tales of all LE involved, it is difficult to see this any other way. IMO these same LE advertised and promoted their theories to the public through selective leaks provided to the media . Quickly a frightened community sighed their collective sigh of relief, then a public who didn't want to accept the existence of boogie men, did the same, it was easy and comfortable to believe this family killed their child. They didn't! IMO
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 10-27-2004, 10:03 AM
BlueCrab BlueCrab is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 3,053
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrotherMoon
Punk.

BrotherMoon,

I don't believe you are a PDI theorist any more than I believe the "ManInTheMoon" is a PDI theorist. You apparently don't know of any evidence against Patsy. PDI is a red herring, isn't it? You seem to have a hidden agenda, and you are using "Patsy Did It" as a means to gain acceptance at this forum in order to carry out your real agenda.

You appear to me to have come to this forum with an intense personal desire to defend Burke and personally smear anyone who believes BDI. Defending Burke would be perfectly okay, and even welcome, if you would do it with facts and reasonable opinions -- but you have chosen to do it with personal and sometimes vile insults against me, and perhaps several other BDI posters. Please stop it.

JMO
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 10-27-2004, 10:59 AM
BrotherMoon BrotherMoon is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Denver
Posts: 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueCrab
BrotherMoon,

I don't believe you are a PDI theorist any more than I believe the "ManInTheMoon" is a PDI theorist. You apparently don't know of any evidence against Patsy. PDI is a red herring, isn't it? You seem to have a hidden agenda, and you are using "Patsy Did It" as a means to gain acceptance at this forum in order to carry out your real agenda.

You appear to me to have come to this forum with an intense personal desire to defend Burke and personally smear anyone who believes BDI. Defending Burke would be perfectly okay, and even welcome, if you would do it with facts and reasonable opinions -- but you have chosen to do it with personal and sometimes vile insults against me, and perhaps several other BDI posters. Please stop it.

JMO
That is so weak. Who do you think you will impress with that? Do you really think I wouldn't be able to see through that?

Last edited by BeeBee; 10-27-2004 at 03:27 PM. Reason: Insulting
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


© Copyright Websleuths 1999-2012 New To Site? Need Help?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:24 PM.

Advertisements

Pre-Order Imperfect Justice: Prosecuting Casey Anthony today!