Lou and Jonbenét: A Legendary Lawman's Quest To Solve A Child Beauty Queen's Murder Book by John Wesley Anderson

[UKGuy]

The facts point to an intruder. Burke was in his own house, with no reason to put on boots to go into the basement. An intruder, especially one coming in through the basement window, would have every reason to wear boots and keep them on. I mention size, because the boot print was an adult size, and Burke was not an adult and did not have large enough feet. They also tested all the shoes in the house, and found no match.

FergusMcDuck,
Can you give us your reference, for your claim that the boot print was an ADULT size, e.g. BDI, CSI, FBI Investigator, etc?

Also some background material:

Perfect Murder Perfect Town, Part Three, Chapter Three

BPD Smit, Hofstrom Interview the parents:

Lou Smit showed Patsy and John many of the crime-scene photographs taken by the police in the days after the murder.

...

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. Five days later, Smit asked John Andrew about the same items. Like his father, he said he knew nothing about stun guns and didn’t own Hi-Tec brand shoes.

Listen Carefully Truth and Evidence in the JonBenet Ramsey Case, Excerpt

What Judge Carnes said using information from the Ramsey defense team:

“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.

Defendants do not own any ‘HI-TEC’ brand shoes and none of their shoes match the shoeprint marks.

Likewise, another similar partial shoeprint was found near where JonBenét's body was found.

The owner of the ‘HI-TEC’ shoe that made the footprints at the murder scene has never been identified.

Listen Carefully Truth and Evidence in the JonBenet Ramsey Case, Excerpt

The Truth and the Evidence:

Burke Ramsey stated to investigators he owned a pair of Hi-Tec boots prior to his sister’s death.

Investigator Bruce Levin mentions this during a law enforcement interview on June 23-25, 1998, five years before Judge Carnes issued her decision in 2003 in which she says the owner of the “HI-TEC” shoes had never been identified.

BRUCE LEVIN: Okay. Does it jog your memory to know that the shoes with compasses were made by Hi-Tec?

LIN WOOD: Are you stating that as a fact?

BRUCE LEVIN: Yes. I am stating that as a fact.

PATSY RAMSEY: No, I didn't know that.

BRUCE 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.

LIN WOOD: You are stating that Burke Ramsey has told you he owned Hi-Tec shoes?

BRUCE LEVIN: Yes.


...

“Boulder Police Department investigators had been contacted by a store clerk in Vail who believed Patsy Ramsey had purchased a set of Hi-Tec brand hiking boots before the murder. They had also been told by one of Burke’s playmates that he owned a pair of this brand of boot.”

Hitec Footprint in the WC belongs to BR.

Atlanta 2000 Patsy Interview excerpt

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.

...

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.

For your delectation, James Kolar in his book suggests the Hi-Tec boot print might have originated from an Investigator, CSI, etc. As Hi-Tec boots were a favorite of LE Investigators.

.

 

[FergusMcDuck]

FergusMcDuck,
Can you give us your reference, for your claim that the boot print was an ADULT size, e.g. BDI, CSI, FBI Investigator, etc?

Paula Woodward, We Have Your Daughter, ch 19

A shoe imprint from a Hi-Tec brand of work boot was found in the basement storage room imprinted in mold growing on the floor. It did not trace back to the Ramsey family. All investigators who had been in the room had their shoes tested. There was no match to that size of Hi-Tec boot to the Ramseys or the police investigators (BPD Reports #1-1576, #1-1594.)

Paula Woodward, We Have Your Daughter, ch 26

In Helgoth's bedroom, detectives found a pair of Hi-Tec shoes similar in size to the footprint that had been left in the basement where JonBenét's body was found.

 

[UKGuy]

Paula Woodward, We Have Your Daughter, ch 19

A shoe imprint from a Hi-Tec brand of work boot was found in the basement storage room imprinted in mold growing on the floor. It did not trace back to the Ramsey family. All investigators who had been in the room had their shoes tested. There was no match to that size of Hi-Tec boot to the Ramseys or the police investigators (BPD Reports #1-1576, #1-1594.)

Paula Woodward, We Have Your Daughter, ch 26

In Helgoth's bedroom, detectives found a pair of Hi-Tec shoes similar in size to the footprint that had been left in the basement where JonBenét's body was found.

FergusMcDuck,
Paula Woodward is not an investigator, she simply authors titles sympathetic to the Ramsey IDI.

AFAIK no LEO has stated that the Hi-Tec boot prints were adult, they might be, but i've never seen it stated officially.

.

 

[Tower]

FergusMcDuck,
Paula Woodward is not an investigator, she simply authors titles sympathetic to the Ramsey IDI.

AFAIK no LEO has stated that the Hi-Tec boot prints were adult, they might be, but i've never seen it stated officially.

.

I apologize for “replying,” as my comment is general and not directly in response to you. I lean toward “family did it” for many reasons, but when looking at all the evidence and trying to come to the simplest conclusion, I find it shocking that people are trying to blame this death on BR. Why is a 9-year-old child continually blamed as the most likely to kill JBR? If he contributed to her death, it could only be accidental, as a 9-year-old is not legally capable of murder. An adult obviously has to be involved (ransom note, likely death by garrote even if a head injury happened first).

Again, I’m not directing this comment at you, but if “BDI,” the responsibility of the murder lies with one or both of the parents due to Burke’s age and the response of the parents not to call 911, let her die, accidentally murder her, or hasten her inevitable death during staging.

As a healthcare professional who works with children, it always feels very wrong to me to blame Burke for anything. If he were involved, it would be accidental or not legally defined as murder no matter how it happened. So legally and ethically, Burke cannot have murdered JBR. All responsibility lies with the parent(s).

All jmo

 

[FergusMcDuck]

FergusMcDuck,
Paula Woodward is not an investigator, she simply authors titles sympathetic to the Ramsey IDI.

AFAIK no LEO has stated that the Hi-Tec boot prints were adult, they might be, but i've never seen it stated officially.

.

She's an investigative reporter, and she had access to the DAO's report index, which summarized the contents of the reports. Based on the picture of the shoeprint, I find it hard to believe that they were somehow unable to conclude the size - or at the very least that it was a child's shoe. Certainly, had they been able to do that, they wouldn't have checked all those adult sized Hi-Tecs (and as far as we know, no child sized ones).

 

[UKGuy]

I apologize for “replying,” as my comment is general and not directly in response to you. I lean toward “family did it” for many reasons, but when looking at all the evidence and trying to come to the simplest conclusion, I find it shocking that people are trying to blame this death on BR. Why is a 9-year-old child continually blamed as the most likely to kill JBR? If he contributed to her death, it could only be accidental, as a 9-year-old is not legally capable of murder. An adult obviously has to be involved (ransom note, likely death by garrote even if a head injury happened first).

Again, I’m not directing this comment at you, but if “BDI,” the responsibility of the murder lies with one or both of the parents due to Burke’s age and the response of the parents not to call 911, let her die, accidentally murder her, or hasten her inevitable death during staging.

As a healthcare professional who works with children, it always feels very wrong to me to blame Burke for anything. If he were involved, it would be accidental or not legally defined as murder no matter how it happened. So legally and ethically, Burke cannot have murdered JBR. All responsibility lies with the parent(s).

All jmo

Tower,

As a healthcare professional who works with children, it always feels very wrong to me to blame Burke for anything. If he were involved, it would be accidental or not legally defined as murder no matter how it happened. So legally and ethically, Burke cannot have murdered JBR. All responsibility lies with the parent(s).

If BDI, it might be accidental, it might be premeditated, there is circumstantial evidence to suggest that both perspectives hold. The parents were hit with Grand Jury Child Abuse and Assisting an Offender charges.

Why is a 9-year-old child continually blamed as the most likely to kill JBR? If he contributed to her death, it could only be accidental, as a 9-year-old is not legally capable of murder.

Basically the case is RDI as there is zero evidence linking to anyone outside the Ramsey house, so not many waste their time on an IDI theory that has next to no forensic evidence to support it.

That leaves three main RDI theories up for grabs along with their constituent combinations. Both PDI and JDI are credible theories, but they do not explain away the same amount of evidence as BDI does.

To date BDI is the most consistent theory, the other two and their variations have so many holes, they look like Swiss cheese.

Yes, BDI might have been accidental, yes BR was likely covered by Colorado State Child Protection Statutes, yes the parents and BPD and/or Hunter's office were possibly involved in some kind of benign conspiracy to invoke Child Protection Statutes to protect BR, yes Hunter failed to file the True Bills knowing it could avoid the production of forensic evidence in court, which might reveal BR as being complicit. BR's voice on the 911 call and the parents admission he was awake, points to all three Ramsey's engaging in postmortem staging.

So it's nothing personal about a 9-year old boy, it's simply that BDI acts as an umbrella term for all the evidence it explains, which is more than the other two.

Once JR leaves us, if BR was to do a TV Confessional and tell us the case was really JDI along with some valid evidential insights, then we would all focus on JDI.

Similarly for PDI.

Whatever your legal and/or ethical framework, e.g. BR cannot be prosecuted, in some countries, he could be charged but not prosecuted, and his identity hidden.

In some others he could be charged and prosecuted with no penalty levied as he was beneath the age of criminal intent, etc.

In many countries he would be charged and not prosecuted along with his identity being hidden, but for legal completeness this is all recorded, so to explain the private outcome.

BR is no longer a child and has given interviews where he backs up his fathers version of events, and offers his personal opinion, e.g. his Dr. Phil Interviews.

I reckon most members would like to know which RDI is correct, even if we know it will never reach court possibly as a result of Colorado State Child Protection Statutes.

.

 

[UKGuy]

She's an investigative reporter, and she had access to the DAO's report index, which summarized the contents of the reports. Based on the picture of the shoeprint, I find it hard to believe that they were somehow unable to conclude the size - or at the very least that it was a child's shoe. Certainly, had they been able to do that, they wouldn't have checked all those adult sized Hi-Tecs (and as far as we know, no child sized ones).

Certainly, had they been able to do that, they wouldn't have checked all those adult sized Hi-Tecs (and as far as we know, no child sized ones).

No that is incorrect. If the Hi-Tec boot prints were not child sized we would have heard about this a long time ago.

Checkout Patsy's BPD interview where the investigators tell her BR has admitted he owned a pair of Hi-Tec boots.

Both John and Patsy initially denied BR owned a pair of Hi-Tec boots when questioned in interview by Lou Smit.

(and as far as we know, no child sized ones).

That is as Far As You Know, which represents a constitutionally protected opinion.

It is possible nobody can say the Hi-Tec boot prints are child-sized as Burke Ramsey is covered by Colorado State Child Protection Statutes?

.

 

[TeaTime]

Smit was pro-Ramsey. He made the facts fit his conclusion.

RIP Lou.

 

[UKGuy]

Smit was pro-Ramsey. He made the facts fit his conclusion.

RIP Lou.

TeaTime,
Yes, he may have done. I'm guilty of the same behavour in the past.

Apparently Lou Smit kneeled with John and Patsy to pray for guidance and a conclusion to the case.

.

 

[FergusMcDuck]

No that is incorrect. If the Hi-Tec boot prints were not child sized we would have heard about this a long time ago.

Would we? We didn't find out that the tested material from JonBenet's duodenum contained grapes and cherries in addition to the pineapple until Paula Woodward scanned and reproduced the report summary twenty years later. What else hasn't been leaked by the BPD leaking machine?

Checkout Patsy's BPD interview where the investigators tell her BR has admitted he owned a pair of Hi-Tec boots.

Both John and Patsy initially denied BR owned a pair of Hi-Tec boots when questioned in interview by Lou Smit.

He supposedly said he owned a shoe with a compass on it, right? Which was matched to the Hi-Tec Columbus shoe, which did indeed have compasses on their shoelaces. Here's a picture of such a shoe. What's interesting to me is that the pattern doesn't seem to match the print. Specifically, the logo is in a box, which it is on other Hi-Tec boots.

EDIT: though the box around the logo may be an optical illusion here. I've seen other images where the logo on the print appears without it.

That is as Far As You Know, which represents a constitutionally protected opinion.

Do you know differently?

It is possible nobody can say the Hi-Tec boot prints are child-sized as Burke Ramsey is covered by Colorado State Child Protection Statutes?

If the prints are child-sized, why would they look for adult Hi-Tec boots, which we know they did?

 

[UKGuy]

Would we? We didn't find out that the tested material from JonBenet's duodenum contained grapes and cherries in addition to the pineapple until Paula Woodward scanned and reproduced the report summary twenty years later. What else hasn't been leaked by the BPD leaking machine?



He supposedly said he owned a shoe with a compass on it, right? Which was matched to the Hi-Tec Columbus shoe, which did indeed have compasses on their shoelaces. Here's a picture of such a shoe. What's interesting to me is that the pattern doesn't seem to match the print. Specifically, the logo is in a box, which it is on other Hi-Tec boots.

EDIT: though the box around the logo may be an optical illusion here. I've seen other images where the logo on the print appears without it.



Do you know differently?



If the prints are child-sized, why would they look for adult Hi-Tec boots, which we know they did?

FergusMcDuck,
BPD did a lot of strange things, e.g. conduct interviews with the parents and fail to ask follow up questions.

They have never made public the full details regarding the contents of JonBenet's underwear drawer.

CSI fail to bag evidence relating to the Fecally Soiled Pajama Bottoms left lying on JonBenet's bedroom floor.

They allow Patsy's sister into the postmortem crime-scene to remove who knows what, hey it's murder case not a McDonalds drive through.

There is an endless list of non-comittal by the investigators, as if they know not to be too zealous, because the case was never going anywhere, checkout Hunter's failure to file the True Bills.

Was Hunter and the BPD Investigators protecting the Intruder?

.

 

[FergusMcDuck]

FergusMcDuck,
BPD did a lot of strange things, e.g. conduct interviews with the parents and fail to ask follow up questions.

They have never made public the full details regarding the contents of JonBenet's underwear drawer.

CSI fail to bag evidence relating to the Fecally Soiled Pajama Bottoms left lying on JonBenet's bedroom floor.

They allow Patsy's sister into the postmortem crime-scene to remove who knows what, hey it's murder case not a McDonalds drive through.

There is an endless list of non-comittal by the investigators, as if they know not to be too zealous, because the case was never going anywhere, checkout Hunter's failure to file the True Bills.

Was Hunter and the BPD Investigators protecting the Intruder?

.

To me the latter follows from the former. The initial response was botched, the investigation was done by inexperienced and arrogant BPD officers (who refused assistance) who were nowhere near as thorough and urgent as they needed to be. JonBenet's duodenum contents wasn't tested until nearly a year after her murder. Ramsey clothes weren't requested until many months had passed. And once the investigators had quickly settled on a theory, they sidelined and ignored anything that could point elsewhere. Not to mention the political pressure - the new governor pushing for a Grand Jury complete with a special prosecutor, while publicly slamming the Ramseys. After all that, and all they got was indictments for endangering a child, one for each parent.

If Alex Hunter had taken the indictments to trial, he would have lost, and lost badly. And while it would be the fault of the BPD and others, he would be the one who'd get all the blame. Hunter not charging the Ramseys is perhaps the easiest thing to understand in this whole sordid saga.

 

[Thewood]

To me the latter follows from the former. The initial response was botched, the investigation was done by inexperienced and arrogant BPD officers (who refused assistance) who were nowhere near as thorough and urgent as they needed to be. JonBenet's duodenum contents wasn't tested until nearly a year after her murder. Ramsey clothes weren't requested until many months had passed. And once the investigators had quickly settled on a theory, they sidelined and ignored anything that could point elsewhere. Not to mention the political pressure - the new governor pushing for a Grand Jury complete with a special prosecutor, while publicly slamming the Ramseys. After all that, and all they got was indictments for endangering a child, one for each parent.

If Alex Hunter had taken the indictments to trial, he would have lost, and lost badly. And while it would be the fault of the BPD and others, he would be the one who'd get all the blame. Hunter not charging the Ramseys is perhaps the easiest thing to understand in this whole sordid saga.

I agree whole heartedly. They never recovered the other half of the paintbrush that was used to assault her, the the duct tape roll that was used on her, or the remainder of the rope. The dna evidence didn’t match the parents. There were so many holes. Whoever killed that baby did it on purpose. Not an accidental head blow. She tried to pull the rope from her neck. The killer watched that and kept pull it tighter. Bolder needs to retest dna.

 

[scruffydog]

I apologize for “replying,” as my comment is general and not directly in response to you. I lean toward “family did it” for many reasons, but when looking at all the evidence and trying to come to the simplest conclusion, I find it shocking that people are trying to blame this death on BR. Why is a 9-year-old child continually blamed as the most likely to kill JBR? If he contributed to her death, it could only be accidental, as a 9-year-old is not legally capable of murder. An adult obviously has to be involved (ransom note, likely death by garrote even if a head injury happened first).

Again, I’m not directing this comment at you, but if “BDI,” the responsibility of the murder lies with one or both of the parents due to Burke’s age and the response of the parents not to call 911, let her die, accidentally murder her, or hasten her inevitable death during staging.

As a healthcare professional who works with children, it always feels very wrong to me to blame Burke for anything. If he were involved, it would be accidental or not legally defined as murder no matter how it happened. So legally and ethically, Burke cannot have murdered JBR. All responsibility lies with the parent(s).

All jmo

You rock! I agree with all you said.

 

[Dandy2]

I'm lost-why would Burke have no reason to put on his boots to go into the basement? My son is 24, and I've never seen him go into our basement without shoes on. The floor is cold, and not the cleanest. I don't think its abnormal at all.

Agreed, when my kids got new, special shoes, boots or slippers for Christmas, they would wear them all day long.

 

[MartinDupuis]

To me the latter follows from the former. The initial response was botched, the investigation was done by inexperienced and arrogant BPD officers (who refused assistance) who were nowhere near as thorough and urgent as they needed to be. JonBenet's duodenum contents wasn't tested until nearly a year after her murder. Ramsey clothes weren't requested until many months had passed. And once the investigators had quickly settled on a theory, they sidelined and ignored anything that could point elsewhere. Not to mention the political pressure - the new governor pushing for a Grand Jury complete with a special prosecutor, while publicly slamming the Ramseys. After all that, and all they got was indictments for endangering a child, one for each parent.

If Alex Hunter had taken the indictments to trial, he would have lost, and lost badly. And while it would be the fault of the BPD and others, he would be the one who'd get all the blame. Hunter not charging the Ramseys is perhaps the easiest thing to understand in this whole sordid saga.

Ask yourself one question about this case....
if the Ramseys had called 911 after finding Jonbenet themselves in the house at the very beginning in the morning without the kidnapping story and the ransom note??? Where would the Ramseys be today....

 

[Nikkisterling]

I truly believe that Lou Smit was railroaded after all the hard work he put into this case! I believe he was closes to solving this case.

For a long time I believed it was her brother because he really had a hatred for JonBonet. Watching his Therapy tapes & then the neighbor said he hit her with a gulf club because he was jealous of her… I never thought the parents did it. I never thought it was a stranger. Someone she knew & trusted. Because of the pineapple that was found in her stomach. I believe this case is solvable. What are your thoughts on it?

 

[MartinDupuis]

I truly believe that Lou Smit was railroaded after all the hard work he put into this case! I believe he was closes to solving this case.

For a long time I believed it was her brother because he really had a hatred for JonBonet. Watching his Therapy tapes & then the neighbor said he hit her with a gulf club because he was jealous of her… I never thought the parents did it. I never thought it was a stranger. Someone she knew & trusted. Because of the pineapple that was found in her stomach. I believe this case is solvable. What are your thoughts on it?

We all know that if Burke was responsible for what happened to Jonbenet either by accident or done intentionally it was impossible for Burke to write that ransom note by himself he was too young to write that and trying to cover it up by himself unbeknownst to the parents is impossible....the parents would have to be involved in this either way. John Ramsey conveniently find her once the house is full of people with only one police officer Linda Arndt on the scene. From the beginning this case was based on a lie....it never was a kidnapping....can you imagine if the Ramseys would have called 911 after finding her in the house at the very beginning without the kidnapping story and the ransom note?? It would have looked very bad for them....the parents were involved in this either way!!

 

[MartinDupuis]

 

[UKGuy]

Is there already a thread wrt JWA's book? Book expected on March 28, 2023.
Amazon, Amazon.ca

JWA on TrueMurderPodcast

JWA had access to LS spreadsheets and 632 slides,

Gallery From Lou Smit's Investigation | LOU AND JONBENÉT: A Legendary Lawman's Quest To Solve A Child Beauty Queen's Murder by John Wesley Anderson • WildBlue Press True Crime Website

EXCLUSIVE SLIDES USED IN THE INVESTIGATION Excerpts from Lou Smit's slideshow presentation are being published with the consent of his family and released

wildbluepress.com

In the above wildbluepress gallery page, the cord tied around JBR's wrists is described as parachute cord.


"Is parachute cord the same as paracord?

Parachute cord (also paracord or 550 cord when referring to type-III paracord) is a lightweight nylon kernmantle rope originally used in the suspension lines of parachutes. This cord is now used as a general purpose utility cord."

Old Post With Some Detail:

JonBenét Ramsey: Newly-unveiled Documents Reveal Family Members’ DNA Was NOT Found on Slain Colorado Girl

JonBenét Ramsey: Newly-unveiled Documents Reveal Family Members’ DNA Was NOT Found on Slain Colorado Girl

Excerpt, relating to the forensic evidence

Unveiled documents in the murder investigation into slain Colorado girl, JonBenét Ramsey, show DNA evidence recovered from her clothes and fingernails did not match any members of her family or anyone close to the case.

Anyone know what the "Unveiled documents" are? Is the Colorado Bureau of Investigation Laboratory Report referenced old news?

.