[ACandyRose Logo] A Personal view of the Internet Subculture
Surrounding the JonBenet Ramsey Murder case

[IMAGE] [IMAGE]
[IMAGE]
[IMAGE]
This web page is part of a series covering found materials regarding individuals, items or events that apparently became part of what is commonly known as the vortex of the JonBenet Ramsey murder case Christmas night 1996. The webmaster of this site claims no inside official Boulder police information as to who has been interviewed, investigated, the outcome or what information is actually considered official evidence. These pages outline found material which can include but not limited to materials found in books, articles, the Internet, transcripts, depositions, legal documents, Internet discussion forums, graphics or photos, media reports, TV/Radio shows about the JonBenet Ramsey murder case. Found materials are here for historical archive purposes. (www.acandyrose.com - acandyrose@aol.com)
This webpage series is for historical archive and educational purposes on found materials



Evidence - Prints (Hand or Foot)

PALM PRINTS:
12/26/96 Three Palm prints found on the wine cellar door. - Two palm prints identified as belonging to Patsy Ramsey (STpg237). - Third palm print later reportedly identified as belonging to Melinda Ramsey (RMN-08/23/2002)
FOOT PRINTS:
12/26/96 Two unidentifed shoe prints found on wine cellar floor - 12/26/96 One Hi-Tec boot print found on the wine cellar floor - 08/28/2000 Atlanta Interviews, Patsy Ramsey, Lin Wood, and PI Ollie Gray were all told that Burke Ramsey and Fleet White Jr both said they had owned Hi-Tec brand shoes
UNIDENTIFIED HAIR
12/26/96 One pubic or auxiliary hair found on the white blanket in wine cellar - Pubic hair reportedly belonged to Patsy Ramsey via mitochondrial dna testing (FoxNews2002)

During the Atlanta 2000 Interviews, a statement was made as FACT that prior to 1996 that Burke Ramsey said he owned a pair of Hi-Tec boots. The boots were apparently were purchases while shopping with his parents in Atlanta, Georgia. During the same interview it was stated that "Fleet Junior also says that he had Hi-Tec shoes." Patsy Ramsey stated she can't remember Burke ever having any shoes or boots with compasses on them. When asked if this interview was the first time she heard Burke said he owned Hi-Tec shoes with compasses and Patsy said yes.



(Found by Why_Nut) - Footwear News, July 29, 1991 (Author: McAllister, Robert): 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."




CHAIN OF EVENTS 1998


[Joshua-7 Forum]1998-01-30: Joshua-7 Forum, "Subject: JonBenet Ramsey Case Thread"

Subject: Pam Griffin also
Name: Questioner
Time/Date: 02:26:12 1/30/98

Message: In the interview with Vanity Fair, Pam Griffin was insinuating stuff about Fleet White. Here's the quote from that article: In the ensuing weeks, the Ramsey team spread the word that the Whites were not to be trusted. PamGriffin was among those who carried the message. "This man has a dark side," she told me over the phone.Pressed to explain how Fleet White could have possibly killed JonBenet, she said, "I don't think FleetWhite with his two hands murdered that child. I just think he knows something." (The Whites declined tocomment for this story.) (end quote) I was being generous earlier and thinking that Pam Griffin was just accepting what the Ramseys said at face value, not knowing they were lying to her.
But it's interesting how she's been the conduit for info like that about the police being interested in SAS and Hi-Tek. Somehow or other Lisa Ryckman got that story straight from her.


[John Ramsey, June 1998 Interviews]1998-06-23: John Ramsey Interrogation by Lou Smit and Mike Kane (Screen Capture on left is from "CBS 48 Hours Investigates - Searching for a Killer" 10/04/2002)

John Ramsey Interrogation by Lou Smit and Mike Kane
Present also were Bryan Morgan, PI David Williams
June 23, 24, 25, 1998 - Boulder, Colorado


http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/1998BPD-John-Interview-Complete.htm

June 1998 John Ramsey Interrogation by Lou Smit and Mike Kane (Wine Cellar, Prints, Hi-Tec Boots)

0716
25 LOU SMIT: What have you heard

0717
1 about Hi-Tech shoes?
2 JOHN RAMSEY: Just that there was
3 a print found, a Hi-Tech boot, and that's all.
4 LOU SMIT: Do you own a Hi-Tech
5 type shoe, or have you ever owned one?
6 JOHN RAMSEY: Well, I don't -- not
7 that I know of. I mean, I never have been -- I
8 never paid much attention to brands of boots I
9 had. I had some -- I had some running -- not
10 running shoes. Hiking boots. I think I looked
11 at those and they were -- they weren't Hi-Tech
12 or anything.
13 LOU SMIT: You have already looked
14 at those?
15 JOHN RAMSEY: Yeah. I had some
16 kind of dress boots that were more for -- but
17 they weren't Hi-Tech boots. So I mean, I don't
18 think we had anything like that. We had -- I
19 had some of these felt-lined like duck boots.
20 LOU SMIT: If we ever ask you to
21 bring these items in, would you do that to make
22 sure that we got them?
23 JOHN RAMSEY: Sure.
24 LOU SMIT: And there is a reason
25 for that, of course. How about Patsy?

0718
1 JOHN RAMSEY: I don't -- I am sure
2 she doesn't. I mean we were aware that that was
3 an issue, I think we looked and thought about
4 it. But to my knowledge, she didn't or doesn't.
5 LOU SMIT: Mike, what was that shop
6 in Vail or something?
7 MIKE KANE: Pepe's. I think that
8 was the name of it.
9 LOU SMIT: Pepe's, is that in Vail?
10 VOICE: Yeah.
11 LOU SMIT: Did she ever shop --
12 JOHN RAMSEY: I don't --
13 Patsy's -- I don't remember the last time she
14 was even in Vail. Pepe's doesn't ring a bell.
15 LOU SMIT: I am going to show you a
16 series of photographs, okay. And see if you
17 recognize a print of the photographs, they are
18 foot prints or shoe prints, and I would just
19 like to show that to you if I can, and see if
20 you might recognize maybe by looking at shoe
21 prints, sometimes you know what the bottom of a
22 sole looks like, if you have something similar
23 to that or even maybe one of your friends?
24 JOHN RAMSEY: Where was the print
25 found?

0719
1 LOU SMIT: In the wine cellar.
2 JOHN RAMSEY: In the wine cellar?
3 LOU SMIT: Yes. So I would like to
4 show you a series of prints and it's starting
5 with -- it's 257, 258, 259, 260, 261 and 262.
6 This is the front, this is the back (indicating)
7 and just start with 259. If you will do that,
8 Mr. Ramsey.
9 JOHN RAMSEY: (INAUDIBLE).
10 LOU SMIT: What do you see?
11 JOHN RAMSEY: I see high, looks
12 like high something you see in a square block
13 with, I can't tell if it's raised or lettering.
14 LOU SMIT: If you look at a
15 photograph, see something to make a comment on
16 just --
17 (MULTIPLE SPEAKERS.)
18 JOHN RAMSEY: Yeah. I think what
19 would be -- I can't tell what that is. I don't
20 know if that's sand or is that mildewy stuff
21 that was in the basement. Looks like there is
22 some -- some of the Christmas tree --
23 LOU SMIT: Needles?
24 JOHN RAMSEY: -- needles, yeah,
25 that were laying in there. It almost looks like

0720
1 the wall to me rather than the floor. Is it the
2 floor?
3 LOU SMIT: Yes.
4 JOHN RAMSEY: Okay.
5 LOU SMIT: If that's your
6 impression?
7 JOHN RAMSEY: Well, it looks
8 rough. I don't remember the floor being that
9 rough, unless it was back in the corner. Back
10 in the --
11 LOU SMIT: Pointing.
12 JOHN RAMSEY: Back in this corner.
13 There was a lot of moisture that came in there.
14 We had, in fact at one time we had a leak and I
15 extended the drainpipe. The down spout that
16 came in, probably right there and I extended it
17 out, which stopped the leaking, but the down
18 spout just emptied out in the ground and ended
19 up in this part of the basement and this kind of
20 looks like that was kind of a nasty end to the
21 wine cellar.
22 LOU SMIT: When did you do that?
23 JOHN RAMSEY: A year or two ago.
24 LOU SMIT: I mean, was it, how long
25 before Christmas?

0721
1 JOHN RAMSEY: Oh, I am sorry, a
2 year or two before Christmas. I did it some
3 time ago.
4 LOU SMIT: Did you ever clean or
5 sweep that wine cellar for any reason or know
6 that it had been?
7 JOHN RAMSEY: Well, it was
8 absolutely full of junk when we bought the house
9 and lumber and old windows and we had all this
10 stuff hauled away. I think I had swept it out,
11 yeah.
12 LOU SMIT: Do you know when?
13 JOHN RAMSEY: Well, it would have
14 been in early -- early in the ownership of the
15 house, as we --
16 LOU SMIT: Okay?
17 JOHN RAMSEY: -- cleaned up the
18 basement.
19 LOU SMIT: And that would have been
20 when, what year?
21 JOHN RAMSEY: Oh, '92, probably
22 '93 maybe. '92 most likely. Because the room
23 was just nasty. I had to get all this stuff out
24 and then I discovered a little safe that was
25 down there. And I cleaned it out.
.

June 1998 John Ramsey Interrogation by Lou Smit and Mike Kane (Wine Cellar, Prints, Hi-Tec Boots)

0722
1 So I think I cleaned it up. I
2 don't know whether I did it after that but I am
3 sure it was cleaned at one point. The painter
4 stored his paint cans in there. (INAUDIBLE) was
5 in that room. Generally, where was this, in
6 that back corner, that area?
7 LOU SMIT: It was just right there
8 in the room. I would say that it's more not
9 right close to the wall
. 10 JOHN RAMSEY: As I say, it, things
11 tended to kind of get stuck in here, if you put
12 anything in there, because --
13 LOU SMIT: That would be towards
14 the west wall there?
15 JOHN RAMSEY: Right. There were
16 some screens stored in there, a door.
17 LOU SMIT: It would have been more
18 in the open area?
19 JOHN RAMSEY: Right. That he I
20 didn't -- (INAUDIBLE) was in and out of that
21 room and was in and out of here, you know, he
22 didn't ever go back. I think -- well, I will go
23 make a list, but --
24 LOU SMIT: Yes, try to make a list
25 of everyone you can think of that's been in

0723
1 there.
2 JOHN RAMSEY: Okay.
3 LOU SMIT: Because I know the
4 police have really done some work on collecting
5 shoes. That was a tremendous, tremendous
6 undertaking that they did, because they, you
7 know, all of the contractors and everything, did
8 -- a lot of work went into that, just a
9 tremendous amount. But maybe you can think of
10 other people that went in there, or Patsy.
11 And would people normally go in
12 there or would they --
13 JOHN RAMSEY: There's no reason to
14 go in there. It was -- I don't know if it used
15 to be a coal storage or something that just was
16 a deed end room. It was, I think there was one
17 light, and it was -- that was it. There was no
18 reason to be -- the types of people that would
19 have known that we know that was there would
20 have been say the painter, because he put his
21 stuff in there. Whoever helped Patsy get the
22 Christmas stuff out, whether it was Linda
23 Hoffman or Rob or Father Rol or whoever it was,
24 but --
25 LOU SMIT: (INAUDIBLE QUESTION.)

0724
1 JOHN RAMSEY: In that room. I
2 don't know for sure. They were in the house for
3 over Thanksgiving for several days and we went
4 home, so it's, it's not out of the question.
5 They certainly could have been in there.
6 LOU SMIT: Make a list, that would
7 be a helpful thing.
8 JOHN RAMSEY: We had the water
9 faucet worked on, they had to have gone down to
10 the basement to turn the water off.
11 LOU SMIT: Those were the plumbers?
12 JOHN RAMSEY: The plumbers. That
13 valve was right there by the steam unit, which
14 is right by that room.
15 LOU SMIT: Where would that be if
16 you can could point that out to me?
17 JOHN RAMSEY: Well, the cut off
18 valve for the water is right there.
19 LOU SMIT: That's by the window
20 leading out to the boiler room?
21 JOHN RAMSEY: Right, that's the
22 window going out to the front of the house.
23 LOU SMIT: What used to be
24 connected to that opening vent at that window?
25 JOHN RAMSEY: I don't know if it

0725
1 ever was or that vent -- that room gets very
2 hot, that boiler sitting. I would assume they
3 just put that vent in there to allow some air to
4 get out of that window.
5 LOU SMIT: And that leads outside
6 and to the east; is that correct?
7 Okay, which is the front of the
8 house?
9 JOHN RAMSEY: Right. We had a
10 psychic call us and say that she had this image
11 that there was something significant about a gas
12 meter or electrical meter, and there is a gas
13 meter that sits right by that window. Yeah.
14 It's either gas or water. But -- I figured that
15 (INAUDIBLE) that window would be very difficult
16 to get in. Nobody even very far (INAUDIBLE.)
17 LOU SMIT: There is one photograph
18 here, some kind of fancy type technology or --
19 VOICE: I believe the flash just
20 didn't come off.
21 VOICE: Is there more than one that
22 we are looking at?
23 VOICE: One last question, do you
24 have any photographs of what a Hi-Tech boot
25 looks like?

0726
1 LOU SMIT: I do, but I don't have
2 it here with me.
3 MIKE KANE: There is all different
4 kinds.
5 (MULTIPLE SPEAKERS.)
6 (INAUDIBLE.).
7 LOU SMIT: Many different styles.
8 LOU SMIT: I don't know, if you
9 could take a look at, there is another print
10 there. You picked up a Hi-Tech print. I was
11 just wondering if the sole pattern on that may
12 look familiar to you. It would be on the
13 photograph, let's see, 262, you might look at
14 that.
15 JOHN RAMSEY: Is that this pattern
16 here?
17 LOU SMIT: Yes.
18 JOHN RAMSEY: Well, no, it doesn't
19 look like anything that we had or would have
20 had. I don't -- this doesn't mean anything to
21 me.


[www.justicewatch.com]1998-12-08: Justice Watch Forum, "Interesting discovery re: Hi-Tec Boot Print"

"Interesting discovery re: Hi-Tec Boot Print"
Posted by deanner on 14:53:14 12/08/98
Include Original Message on Reply

I don't know if this has been discovered already, and if it has, please forgive me for starting another thread. I just found it very interesting.

My son has a Gall's Inc. catalog. Gall's is the largest American supplier to public safety professionals. Gall's is the industry standard. Every police officer I have ever known has a copy of this catalog. And I know quite a few cops.

In the footwear section, there are three main brands of shoes for law enforcement and emergency professionals. One of those brands is Hi-Tec.

It seems now even MORE likely to me that the unknown Hi-Tec footprint belongs to an officer that now does not want to admit that he/she stepped right in the middle of the crime scene. Those boots are probably long gone.



7. "A little more research"
Posted by deanner on 15:36:34 12/08/98
Include Original Message on Reply

I went back and took another look at the Colorado search warrant, and it states that after JR came upstairs with JBR's body, Detective Michael Everett went into the basement to make sure that the "kidnapper" was not down there. I am positive that he would not have gone down there alone, so I am going to assume that officers Veitch and French went down there with him to check, even though the warrant does not state that as fact. I would bet that footprint belongs to one of the uniformed officers, rather than the detective, as the detectives are usually dressed plain clothes and the Hi-Tec boots are more of a uniform type shoe. But the BPD should have collected the footwear of every person that stepped in the basement that day.

I truly beleive that whatever officer left that footprint has destroyed those boots to protect his career.

Just another shining example of incompetence.

CHAIN OF EVENTS 1999


[Perfect Murder, Perfect Town]1999-02-18: "Perfect Murder, Perfect Town, JonBenet and the City of Boulder"
Written by Lawrence Schiller, February 18, 1999


PMPT Page 239sb

"By mid-February the FBI and the CBI forensics technicians had concluded part of their fingerprint typing and fiber analysis.
CBI told the Boulder police that no prints had been found on the black duct tape that John Ramsey said he removed from his daughter's mouth and none were found on the broken artist's paintbrush used to make the "garrote" found around JonBenet's neck. The CBI had been able to identify two fingerprints found on a white bowl on the dining room table that contained uneaten pineapple. One print belonged to Burke and the other to Patsy. Since partly digested pineapple had been found in JonBenet's small intestine at the autopsy, the police wondered if the Ramseys had been less than candid about JonBenet's bedtime activities and what time she fell asleep. Patsy and John had never mentioned with whom, where, or when their daughter had eaten pineapple.

A palm print on the wine cellar door was identified as belonging to Patsy, and another of Patsy's prints was found on the door to Burke's train room, the room with the broken window. A print on the west patio door on the main floor belonged to John. The location of the prints meant very little, since Patsy and John, living in the house, often visited these rooms and fingerprints are almost impossible to date. Another fingerprint on the west patio door was later identified as belonging to Barbara Fernie. Eventually the CBI told the police that they had been able to match & almost all the fingerprints the detectives had collected to

PMPT Page 240sb

people from whom the police had collected physical evidence.
However, another palm print found on the wine cellar door still remained unidentified."


(SNIP)


PMPT Page 579sb

On December 8, Hal Haddon learned that Lisa Ryckman of the Rocky Mountain News was about to break a story about the unidentified Hi-Tec shoe imprint that had been found next to JonBenet's body. Within an hour, he faxed her a letter

PMPT Page 580sb

HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN, PC
ATTORNEYS- AT - LAW
December 8, 1997
Ms Lisa Ryckman
Rocky Mountain News
400 W. Colfax Avenue
Denver, Colorado 80204
Re: Ramsey Stories

Dear Ms Ryckman:
Pat Furman [another Ramsey attorney advises me that the Rocky Mountain News, under your byline, intends to print a story tomorrow which will identify a key item of evidence in the Ramsey investigation. One other news organization has known about this evidence for several months but did not print it because publication of the information would likely cause the killer to dispose of that evidence. It would be irresponsible in the extreme for the News to publish this information. We beg you not to do so.
Sincerely,
[signed]
Harold A. Haddon

PMPT Page 581sb

* * *
Ryckman called Furman and told him that Haddon's request had been rejected and that her story would be published as written originally.

When Alex Hunter heard that Ryckman was going to break the story about the shoe imprint he also worried about the release of this information. The police had so far been unable to date the imprint. They didn't know whether the owner of the shoe was aware that the print had been left behind or, indeed, if it was even connected to the murder. Now, with the public revelation, the owner or the Hi-Tec shoes might destroy them--even if he or she wasn't the killer. If that happened, investigators might never understand this piece of the puzzle."


(SNIP)


PMPT Page 593sb

"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?"


(SNIP)


PMPT Page 746sb

"The shoe imprint found near JonBenet'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 JonBenet'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. Unless the detectives could match the shoe to someone who had been cleared of the crime by other means, the possibility existed that it was the killer who had left the shoe imprint.


[Webbsleuths Community Forum at www.munitrading.com]1999-04-14: Webbsleuths Community Forum (http://munitrading.com)
on thread titled, "Hi-Tec Shoes"


5. "one print"
Posted by jameson on 16:50:05 4/14/99
Include Original Message on Reply

When I was in that basement room, I got on the floor and really checked it out. The floor is cement, and there are places where there is this "mold" or "chemical reaction" that leaves ptches of some build up. Looks like tiny dried bubbles.

Would be VERY possible to leave one partial print in that room. The "mold" is not all over the floor, just here and there.

There is evidence that the killer wore hi-tech boots - but the print is partial.


[www.justicewatch.com]1999-10-17: Justice Watch Forum thread, "Hi Tech Shoes- Ramsey Pictures"

26 . "A Shoe Picture"
Posted by Redd Herring on Oct-17-99 at 06:49 PM (EDT)

A detail of a pair of Burke's shoes from a photo by Ellen Jaskol/Rocky Mountain News/Sygma published in People Magazine December 14, 1998. Redd seldom wears shoes, is not a shoe expert, and has no idea what brand these shoes are. Photos needed from shortly before the murder.

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/6502/burkeshoes.jpg

[People Magazine December 14, 1998][Shoes Closeup from Redd Herring's Site of People Magazine December 14, 1998 Burke's Shoes]

CHAIN OF EVENTS 2000


[Death of Innocence]2000-03-18: “Death of Innocence” written by John and Patsy Ramsey

DOI Page 145

"The nurse quickly snipped off more samples, which she placed in the small envelope to give to the two female police officers. The two cops had stood at the side, observing every detail, saying nothing. Totally humiliated by the procedure, I was grateful when the job was finished. I was told to put my clothes on, as I could now go home.

Taking a long, deep breath, I hurried out of the hospital, trying to be inconspicuous so no one would see me.

I don't know how anyone could have thought that we weren't cooperating with the police. Through the pubic hair sampling was a difficult and embarrassing task, I gladly complied to try and help the investigation. John was also put through the same embarrassing procedure. Detective Tom Trujillo supervised his sampling. We had already given our fingerprints, palm prints, and hand prints, as well as blood, hair, and handwriting samples. John Andrew and his roommate were also asked to give similar DNA evidence. This didn't seem to satisfy the cops; they continued to say were being uncooperative.

A good example of our struggle to get evidence properly pursued was the announcement on February 15 that an unidentified palm print had been discovered on the basement door - and still remains unidentified. To this day, we are not confident that the police actually did a thorough comparison of palm print samples."


(SNIP)


DOI Page 232

"A few days later, another telling story hit the newspapers, reporting that the police had been asking our friends if they owned shoes or boots with the brand SAS or Hi-Tec. We did not own either brand, and the police were trying to explain away the footprint they had found in the cellar near JonBenet's body. Obviously, the SAS or Hi-Tech footprint could be an important piece of evidence.

The police also began the task of collecting palm prints and mouth swabs to follow up on the prints and genetic material found in the basement and on JonBenet's body. Our friends and their children were approached by the cops and asked to give samples. It had certainly taken the BPD a long time to get around to gathering this important evidence, Patsy and I thought. Yet we felt sorry for our friends. Many of them had to submit to this kind of examination, which obviously was an annoyance. (We wondered if the police were doing the same sampling on the suspects we had given them.) The police, we were later to learn, were mostly trying to explain away the evidence they had found that contradicted their theory that "the Ramseys did it"," in order to eliminate any defense strategy."


(SNIP)


DOI Page 373

"6. The palmprint. A palmprint was found on the cellar door where I found JonBenet. We know the print did not match Patsy's or my palmprints and remains unidentified, as far as we know. It is still possible that this print could match someone who had a reasonable explanation for being in the basement and means nothing. At the same time, it could be an important due.

7. The footprint by JonBenet's body. In the basement room where I found JonBenet, a funguslike mildew grew on the floors and walls due to the moist climate of the room. This room had no windows and was concrete on four sides
and on the ceiling. 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. The markings are clear and should further help identify the killer."


[JonBenet, Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation]2000-04-11: “JonBenet, Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation”
by Steve Thomas and Don Davis, April 11, 2000


ST Page 36

"The blanket was removed from the upper torso and the sweatshirt from the feet. The child wore a white long-sleeved shirt with a star of silver sequins on the chest, and long-john pants that appeared urine stained. When the body was turned over, police saw that a garrote was knotted tight around her neck. It had been fashioned from a thin cord tied to a narrow wooden stick about four inches long and splotched " with colors, broken at one end, which had been used as a handle. A gold necklace and cross-a Christmas present-were entwined in the garrote. Abrasions were noted below the right earlobe and right jawline, and there was a small amount of blood around the nasal passages. White cord similar to the garrote was still tied around the right wrist.
Small bits of lint and dust were on her bare feet, and her blond hair was done in two ponytails. The little body was zippered inside two plastic bags and taken away by the coroner's wagon. Meyer stayed only seven min- utes, not taking the time to perform two routine procedures that would have helped establish the time of death-taking vitreous fluid from the eye and obtaining the internal body temperature. Determining the time frame in which death occurred is extraordinarily important in a murder investigation and would present a problem for months to come."


(SNIP)


ST Page 236

"We spent a long day going over every possible weak point. A Hi-Tec boot print found on the wine cellar floor where the body was discovered had not been identified. Neither had one of the palm prints on the cellar door. The DA's office still refused to allow testing of the

ST Page 237

confusing pubic hair found on the white blanket wrapped around JonBenet. The FBI had been asked to do those tests but would not allow Team Ramsey to watch. Therefore it remained in limbo. We felt the DNA could be argued either way, but without resolving other core problems, it was unlikely the case would ever see the inside of a courtroom."



"The unidentified palm print on the door was more of a riddle than a mystery. There were actually three palm prints on that door, which the killer had to close in order to lock. We had already determined that two of those prints belonged to Patsy Ramsey. Arguing that the third could only be that of an intruder was a stretch.

We needed to identify the print to eliminate it but discovered that even some law enforcement officers were reluctant to cooperate with us. Detective Jane Harmer was unable to get sheriff's investigators who had been in the Ramsey house during the crime scene search to even return her calls when she sought their palm prints. Complicating matters was the problem of Detective Trujillo not having submitted numerous prints, including those of some police, for comparison.

Even if and when we got all the cops' prints out of the way, we still had to deal with the other two or three thousand people who had passed through the house.

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

ST Page 238

workers who had been in the house five years ago, but did not fmd 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."


(SNIP)


ST Page 324

"Smit appeared to telegraph his questions, giving Ramsey plenty of information before asking for an answer, therefore allowing him plenty of time to consider what he was about to say. Smit even suggested that the cellar room had been recently swept and thus the Hi-Tec print was new. Yes, John Ramsey confirmed-indeed it had been recently swept.

Lou was full of unorthodox tactics, such as dropping in idle thoughts like "maybe the intruder took Patsy's bike." Patsy's bike? What did that have to do with anything? His interview, of course, was predicated on the idea that the Ramseys were innocent, and his bias was obvious.

Smit slowly leafed through notebooks filled with evidence pictures, asking Ramsey if he noticed anything different, unusual, or out of place. The common theme was that plenty of things were strange. A box of tissues did not belong there, a pillow missing here, dust and dirt disturbed elsewhere. To Ramsey it looked as though the Tupperware container in JonBenet's bedroom had something in it (the same thing Lou Smit believed). Ramsey's testimony seemed very well rehearsed. Ramsey almost seemed to know the answers before the questions were asked. A cigar box was out of place, as was his golf bag. He pointed out marks on a keyhole and noted that an Easter basket had been moved.

When Smit showed Ramsey a photo of the unidentified boot print in the cellar, Ramsey's private investigator was allowed to lean over and draw the pattern. When the detectives reviewed the videotape, Gosage threw a can of Skoal tobacco at the television screen and stormed from the room, cursing that a year's worth of work had just been handed to a prime suspect and his lawyer. Importantly, Ramsey said the "dirty"

ST Page 325

flashlight found at the scene did not belong to the family. We knew that he owned one just like it."


[ABC News 20/20]2000-04-13: Steve Thomas Chat on ABC Good Morning America

Steve Thomas at 12:04pm ET:

"Let me address the Hi-Tec first. What people had not known previously is that I don't believe that everyone who was in the house on the 26th of December was properly identified. There were firemen, paramedics, rescue personnel, uniformed police officers, detectives, undercover narcs, sergeants, FBI and others that the year after the fact, we were still unsure as to who all was in the house that day. There is a strong argument to suggest that the Hi-Tec boot print may have been left by a sightseeing police officer who later did not come forward. Additionally, Hi-Tec is one of the most popular brands of footwear worn by cops."


[Old APBnews.com message board 2000]2000-05-05: APBnews.com message board Internet chat with former Boulder Detective Steve Thomas from 5/5/2000 to 5/15/2000

APBnews.com message board - May 10, 2000
Thread: "Initial Comments from Steve Thomas"

topcat (May. 10, 2000 05:23 PM)
SteveThomas (read)

I find the HI-TECH foot print found in the basement a problem. If delivery people were placing gifts and Christmas trees in that storage location, the footprint may have been left by them and not related to the crime. I have heard you say that perhaps a policeman may have caused the print and was too embarrassed to tell about it. That implies that the print was found later rather than earlier. If the first investigator that came in right after John picked up JonBenet, found the print, it would have more meaning than if found later in the afternoon. If the print was found some time later it may mean that someone after John could have left the print. My question is: When was the print found? Who found it?



SteveThomas (May. 11, 2000 12:35 AM)
topcat (read)

hi topcat (I watch your posts when I have time on the other forum(s) . . .

You may be right, as well. I offer my hypothesis as just that -- one possible explanation. But in that closed, windowless room, there is nothing to say that the boot print might not have been there for some time.

Additionally, the print wasnt located moments or minutes after JR found the body, it was in the following day(s)as the entire house was being crime scene processed.

In my book, you will see there were also other unidentified shoeprints in the room -- a small foreign faction gathering? I doubt it. Other prints had been obviously left for some time, no reason your sugegstion might not hold true, as well.

My thoguht is that since Hi-Tec is so commonly worn by Boulder cops, one might have left it in the over-run crime scene.

interesting thought, thanks,

Steve


[Atlanta 2000 Interviews]2000-08-28: Patsy Ramsey Interview - Atlanta, Georgia - August 28, 2000 (Screen Capture on left is from "CBS 48 Hours Investigates - Searching for a Killer" 10/04/2002)

Patsy Ramsey Interview - Atlanta, Georgia - August 28, 2000
Interviewed by: Michael Kane, Bruce Levine, Mitch Morrissey,
Mark Beckner, Tom Wickman, Tom Trujillo and Jane Harmer

Ramsey Representatives Present: Lin Wood, Ollie Gray,
and John San Augustine


http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/2000ATL-Patsy-Interview-Complete.htm

August 2000 Patsy Ramsey Atlanta Interview
(Burke and Hi-Tec Boots)


0026
7 Q. (By Mr. Levin) Go ahead.
8 A. Well, I believe that from this
9 group of experts we know the sequence of the
10 way in which she died. I am not sure -- I
11 don't think I know. There may be other
12 things that that group had to present, but
13 that is the one thing that I can remember.
14 Otherwise, I think Mr. Gray has
15 turned over everything, any piece of anything
16 that he thinks is significant to the police
17 department, including just recently a pair of
18 Hi-Tec boots that were obtained from one of
19 the suspects. We don't know what has
20 happened with that since, and we would like
21 to know that.
22 Q. Anything else?
23 A. No.


(SNIP)


0028
12 Q. (By Mr. Levin) Other than --
13 well, let's talk about the Hi-Tec boots.
14 You said you believe that a suspect had a
15 pair of Hi-Tec boots that were sent to us.
16 A. (Witness nodded head
17 affirmatively).
18 Q. Who was that?
19 A. His name is Helgother or Gogather.
20 Q. This is the man who committed
21 suicide?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. How is it that your team, for
24 lack of a better word, how is it that your
25 team came into possession of those? Do you

0030
1 know?
2 A. No, I do not.
3 Q. Have you been told or offered an
4 explanation?
5 A. Of how?
6 Q. Of how you got into possession of
7 a pair of boots that belonged to someone who
8 committed suicide several years ago.
9 A. I believe Mr. Gray obtained them.
10 Q. I don't believe that I have ever
11 heard you discuss him as a potential suspect
12 in this case. Can you tell us what
13 information you are in possession of that
14 causes you to hold that belief?
15 A. I understand that he committed
16 suicide on the 14th day of February '97. He
17 was in the possession of a stun gun, and we
18 believe, as best we can tell, that it was an
19 AirTaser stun gun, and that apparently
20 matches the markings that were found on
21 JonBenet's body. And he owned a pair of
22 Hi-Tec boots that appeared to be the same
23 size as the footprint found at the crime
24 scene.
25 Q. That information, I am assuming,

0031
1 comes from the work that was done by Mr.
2 Gray? Is that the source of that? If I
3 am incorrect, tell me what the source is.
4 A. Yes, I think.
5 MR. LEVIN: Mitch or Mike, do you
6 want to do some more on their investigation?
7 MR. KANE: Sure.
8 Q. (By Mr. Kane) Let me just follow
9 up the last question. What was the name of
10 the suspect?
11 A. It is an unusual name. It is
12 Helgoth or Golgath.
13 MR. WOOD: I think you all asked
14 her about him in June of 1998 by name.
15 Michael Helgoth.
16 MR. LEVIN: For the Reporter, I
17 believe it's H-e-l-g-o-t-h.
18 THE WITNESS: Lin just said it is
19 Michael Helgoth.
20 Q. (By Mr. Kane) What else do you
21 know about Mr. Helgoth?
22 A. That is all, that is all I know.
23 Q. Did you ever hear that name
24 before?
25 A. No.

0032
1 Q. It was not somebody who was known
2 to your family?
3 A. No.
4 Q. Besides Mr. Gray, do you have any
5 information, has anyone else given you any
6 information about him?
7 A. Not that I can think of, no.
8 Q. Besides the fact -- where did
9 you --
10 Did Mr. Gray tell you that he had
11 an AirTaser stun gun on him when he
12 committed suicide?
13 A. Yes. I believe there is a
14 photograph that he had.
15 Q. And was it Mr. Gray who told you
16 that he had Hi-Tec boots? Was he wearing
17 those? I am sorry, that is a double
18 question. Was it Mr. Gray who told you that
19 he had Hi-Tec boots?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And was he wearing them at the
22 time? Is that your understanding?
23 A. I don't know that.
24 Q. Outside of the fact that he
25 committed suicide, he had a pair of Hi-Tec

0033
1 boots, and an AirTaser, is there any other
2 information you have that connects him to
3 this crime?
4 A. Not that I have, no.
5 Q. (By Mr. Morrissey) Have you seen
6 this photograph where Mr. Helgoth has the
7 stun gun? Have you actually seen that
8 photograph?
9 A. No, I don't believe so.
10 Q. (By Mr. Kane) Do you know how
11 Mr. Gray came into possession of these boots?
12 A. I don't know exactly, no.
13 MR. WOOD: I think that was
14 explained in a memo to Chief Beckner by Mr.
15 Gray that he sent to him in the last couple
16 of weeks.
17 THE WITNESS: You all have the
18 boots now.
19 MR. KANE: That wasn't my
20 question. I want to know what you know
21 about those.
22 Q. (By Mr. Kane) So you don't know
23 how he came into possession of those boots?
24 A. I think he said he might have
25 gotten them from a family member, or --

0034
1 Q. When did you learn this?
2 A. Some time ago. A couple of
3 months ago.
4 Q. And was that the first time you
5 heard about Mr. Helgoth having Hi-Tec boots?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. All right. And did you learn
8 about that in a personal conversation with
9 Mr. Gray or did you learn it indirectly
10 through somebody else?
11 A. I think I probably heard it from
12 John.
13 Q. Have you ever talked to Mr. Gray
14 about those Hi-Tec boots?
15 A. Yes.


(SNIP)


8 Q. (By Mr. Levin) Mrs. Ramsey, I
9 would like to ask you some questions on an
10 area that actually you started to talk about
11 when we were talking about the investigation
12 being conducted at your behest, and that is
13 the Hi-Tec shoes.
14 You are, I would assume, aware of
15 the fact that there is a Hi-Tec shoe
16 impression in the wine cellar?
17 A. Yes, I am.
18 Q. How did you become aware of that,
19 if you can recall?
20 A. I don't remember if I read it in
21 the paper or one of our lawyers told us.
22 Q. Was it something you have been
23 aware of for a substantial period of time,
24 though?
25 A. Yes.

0116
1 Q. And do you recall, I know you had
2 several conversations with Lou Schmidt or
3 other investigators working for you, is it
4 something, prior to your interviews in 1998,
5 that you had discussed either with your
6 lawyers or with your investigators? And I
7 don't want to know about the conversations
8 between you and your attorneys, obviously,
9 but something that you talked about?
10 A. I can't remember if I knew about
11 it before then or not.
12 Q. When you were interviewed in 1998
13 by the Boulder D.A.'s office and some of
14 their helpers, were you at that time aware
15 of the fact that the Hi-Tec existence or non
16 existence of an identifiable source for the
17 Hi-Tec shoes was something that seemed to be
18 important to the investigation?
19 A. Are you asking me if they were
20 wanting to know if I knew anyone with Hi-Tec
21 boots?


(SNIP)


0117
21 Q. (By Mr. Levin) Did you believe,
22 and if I didn't throw that in, I thought it
23 was clear, did you believe that, in the
24 course of the investigation, that identifying
25 the source of the Hi-Tec shoes was important?

0118
1 A. Well, I would think it is
2 important, yes. I mean, I can't remember at
3 that time if I knew about the Hi-Tec shoes
4 or not. I don't remember when all that
5 surfaced.
6 Q. You have since then, since 1998,
7 become aware that the source of the Hi-Tec
8 shoes is important?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. You know that today?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And you thought that one of the
13 things that made Helgoth viable was the fact
14 that you believe he had Hi-Tec shoes?
15 A. Correct.
16 Q. Have you, whether it was before
17 the interview in 1998 or subsequent to the
18 interview in 1998, have you personally made
19 attempts to find possible sources for the
20 Hi-Tec shoe impression?
21 A. You mean like ask around if
22 anybody had --
23 Q. Pick up the phone and call some
24 friends, for example.
25 A. I didn't, no.

0119
1 Q. Had you at any time, for example,
2 some of the kids, like the Colby kids ever
3 come over, did you ever go and just pick up
4 the phone or walk across the alley and say,
5 do you guys have Hi-Tec shoes? Did you ever
6 do anything like that?
7 MR. WOOD: You are assuming she
8 may have learned about it at the time she
9 still lived there. She told you she wasn't
10 sure when she first learned that.
11 THE WITNESS: No, I did not call
12 the Colbys to ask if their children had --
13 Q. (By Mr. Levin) Whether it was
14 from Boulder or Atlanta?
15 A. Right.
16 Q. Okay. Did you sit down and
17 discuss with Burke at any length whether or
18 not he ever had Hi-Tec shoes?
19 A. No.
20 Q. Did it cross your mind that he
21 might be the source of that, for the Hi-Tec
22 shoes?
23 A. No. Because my understanding was
24 that it was an adult footprint. He was nine
25 years old at the time.

0120
1 Q. Do you know the source of your
2 belief that it was an adult's foot,
3 footprint?
4 A. Whoever told me about it or
5 wherever I learned it in the first place.
6 Q. Did you get any details concerning
7 how much of a shoe impression was present?
8 A. No. It was just a footprint.
9 Q. Did you take that to, to be a
10 full footprint, and by that I mean like a
11 shoe, a complete shoe impression?
12 A. That is what I imagined, yes.
13 Q. And that, whether you were told
14 that directly or you just assumed that, you
15 believe is the source of your belief that it
16 was an adult's shoe?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. You have been asked about whether
19 or not anyone in your family owns Hi-Tec
20 shoes or ever owned Hi-Tec shoes?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And I am not restating a
23 question, Mr. Wood. And do you recall you
24 said no one ever did?
25 A. Yes.

0121
1 Q. You have had -- and that was in
2 '98, more than two years ago. You have had
3 an opportunity to, now that you are in
4 possession of knowledge causing you to
5 believe this is a significant fact in the
6 investigation, you have had almost, we will
7 assume, at least a year to rethink that.
8 Have you given it some thought as to maybe
9 someone in the family had Hi-Tec shoes?
10 MR. WOOD: Are you asking her
11 whether she thought about whether somebody in
12 the family -- I mean, all of the prefatory
13 comments leading up to that.
14 Is the question, since June of
15 1998, Ms. Ramsey, have you given any thought
16 as to whether someone in your family had
17 Hi-Tec shoes?
18 MR. LEVIN: That is correct.
19 That is the question.
20 MR. WOOD: All right. You can
21 answer that question.
22 THE WITNESS: No.
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
.

August 2000 Patsy Ramsey Atlanta Interview
(Burke and Hi-Tec Boots)


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.
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 --
6 Q. (By Mr. Levin) Fleet Junior also
7 says that he had Hi-Tec shoes.

8 A. Okay. Now --
9 Q. Does that jog your memory?
10 A. Is, are you talking like Hi-Tec
11 like --
12 Q. The brand name.
13 A. These are really high tech or the
14 brand name? Did the children understand the
15 difference, or are they --
16 Q. I was talking brand name.
17 A. They knew like a brand name like
18 Nike, whatever?
19 Q. Yes, yes, ma'am.
20 A. Okay.
21 Q. That doesn't jog your recollection
22 at all?
23 A. No.
24 MR. WOOD: You are answering no
25 for the reporter?


0127
1 THE WITNESS: No, it does not.
2 MR. WOOD: You gave it a nod of
3 the head.

4 Q. (By Mr. Morrissey) Just so we
5 are clear, these boys may have referred to
6 them as boots. Does that make any
7 difference to you as far as distinguishing
8 between shoes and boots?

9 MR. WOOD: She would have to see
10 what those boys said in context, in all
11 fairness, Mitch, before she can comment on
12 what they might have meant and how it
13 affects her.
14 THE WITNESS: I mean, I just, I
15 can't remember shoes with compasses, and I
16 don't know all of the brand names of all the
17 shoes that I buy for my children. So --
18 Q. (By Mr. Morrissey) And I am just
19 asking do you remember a pair of boots with
20 compasses?
21 MR. WOOD: For the fourth time
22 now.
23 THE WITNESS: I don't remember
24 compasses on any shoes.
25 MR. WOOD: Fair enough. Shoes,

0128
1 boots, compasses.
2 THE WITNESS: I have a picture in
3 my mind of a compass on a watch, but --
4 Q. (By Mr. Morrissey) Shoes, boots,
5 you don't remember a compass on footwear?
6 A. No, I can't.
7 CHIEF BECKNER: I have a
8 follow-up question.
9 Q. (By Chief Beckner) You said you
10 had never seen the photograph of a footprint?
11 A. Right.
12 Q. Have you seen some of the crime
13 scene photos?
14 A. I have seen photographs of her
15 bedroom, and I think I have seen photographs
16 of the downstairs bathroom, basement bathroom.
17 A few.
18 Q. (By Mr. Levin) Just to follow-up
19 on Chief Beckner's --
20 MR. WOOD: You all asked her, you
21 all gave her a ton of photographs in June.
22 MR. LEVIN: Right, and that's
23 what I was going to ask her, if you've seen
24 photos.
25 Q. (By Mr. Levin) I mean, they

0129
1 spent days, day and a half going through
2 photographs with you. Other than in that
3 setting in June of '98, have you ever been,
4 have you ever had a sit down with someone
5 and gone through some of the crime scene
6 photographs other than that, that particular
7 experience, which we don't need to rehash?
8 A. I don't think so. No.
9 Q. (By Chief Beckner) Lou Smith has
10 never shown you any photographs that he has?
11 A. I can't remember if he has. I
12 am sure I would have remembered if they
13 were.
14 Q. How about Ellis Armistead?
15 A. I just can't remember.
16 Q. Ollie Gray?
17 A. No.


(SNIP)


0130
3 Q. (By Chief Beckner) You just
4 don't recall sitting down and having any of
5 your investigators show you any photos?
6 MR. WOOD: Well, you were asking
7 about crime scene photos, Chief, I thought.
8 CHIEF BECKNER: Yes.
9 THE WITNESS: They have shown me
10 photos of people and said do you recognize
11 this person.
12 Q. (By Chief Beckner) Okay. I am
13 specifically referring to photos taken inside
14 the house or outside the house.
15 A. Yeah. Right. Well, certainly
16 when we did that interview.
17 Q. Yeah, I am not talking about the
18 photos we showed you.
19 A. Yeah.
20 Q. I am just asking -
21 A. Other ones.
22 Q. - other photos that your
23 investigators may have shown you.
24 A. No.
25 Q. (By Mr. Kane) You said at one

0131
1 point you might have asked Susan. Are you
2 talking about Susan Stein?
3 A. Uh-huh (affirmative).
4 Q. You said you might have asked
5 her. Do you have any recollection of asking
6 her about Hi-Tec? Is there anything that
7 makes you think that you might have asked
8 that? What made you --
9 A. Well, we just spent quite a lot
10 of time together, and she is very interested
11 in the case. And we kind of hung around
12 the same people.
13 Q. Uh-huh (affirmative).
14 A. And I could have asked her, you
15 know, do you know anybody with Hi-Tec boots
16 or something.
17 Q. But you don't have any specific
18 recollection of that?
19 A. I don't specifically remember
20 saying that.
21 Q. Okay. Is this the first time
22 that you've heard that Burke says that he
23 had Hi-Tec?
24 A. Yes, it is.
25 Q. This is the very first time?

0132
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. When you said in your book and
3 then you said at other times too that you
4 didn't own either brand --
5 MR. WOOD: Hold on. If you have
6 got a reference of the book.
7 MR. KANE: I'm sorry. Page 232.
8 MR. WOOD: And then you said at
9 other times, too. Be more specific to it.
10 MR. KANE: Okay. Well, I will
11 stick to the book.


(SNIP)


0133
24 MR. WOOD: We are not asking you
25 to authenticate it. We are just asking you

0133
1 to refer us to the page.
2 Q. (By Mr. Kane) Okay. Well, I
3 just want to make it clear that this wasn't
4 written by somebody else or a ghost writer
5 or something like that.
6 MR. WOOD: I think they had some
7 help, but I don't think it was like Mr.
8 Davis who wrote Mr. Thomas's book.
9 THE WITNESS: I think we were
10 referring that John or I didn't, did not
11 ever have -- were not in possession of --
12 Q. (By Mr. Kane) So when you said
13 we, you were referring to John or you?
14 A. Yes. It never occurred to me
15 about Burke's shoes.


(SNIP)


0134
1 A. Well, what is the, what size
2 print is the Hi-Tec? Is it a child's or is
3 it an adult's?
4 Q. I don't think there is any
5 difference between the two. And I think
6 that has been pretty well publicized too.
7 MR. WOOD: Well, you all can
8 debate that another day, if necessary.
9 MR. KANE: Yeah, I mean. That
10 is obvious, yes.
11 MR. WOOD: The point is, it would
12 probably be of some consequence to know the
13 context of what Burke said, at age, at age,
14 at age what?
15 THE WITNESS: Nine.
16 MR. KANE: Nine.
17 MR. WOOD: No, he didn't say it
18 at age nine.
19 THE WITNESS: Eight.

20 MR. WOOD: You are telling me he
21 said it sometime late fall of 1999, and I
22 think his age would have been closer in the
23 neighborhood of 12.
24 MR. LEVIN: I think 11 going on
25 12.


0135

1 MR. WOOD: No, I think he turned
2 13 January of 2000. So he was 12, and it
3 was some three years after the murder of his
4 sister, if that is when he first said it.

5 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Pardon me. We
6 need to make a tape change.
7 (A recess was taken.)
8 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: All right.

9 Q. (By Mr. Kane) I just want to
10 follow up, Mrs. Ramsey. How many times have
11 you spoken with Lou Schmidt personally?
12 Let's put it this way, since the grand jury
13 ended to narrow it down.
14 A. Oh, half a dozen.
15 Q. Was that here in Atlanta or back
16 in Colorado or both?
17 A. Both.

18 Q. During any of those discussions,
19 did you ever talk about the Hi-Tec shoeprint
20 that was found?
21 A. Probably. Not -- I can't
22 remember specifically what we talked about
23 each time.
24 Q. Okay. I mean, what was your,
25 were your -- the times that you did talk to

0136
1 him, was it about the investigation or about
2 evidence and that kind of thing or was it
3 more social? Maybe that is an unfair
4 question.
5 MR. WOOD: That is a bunch of
6 things. I think he wants to know what you
7 talked to him about, generally.
8 Q. (By Mr. Kane) Did you talk about
9 the investigation?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Okay. But you don't have any
12 recollection of the shoeprint being part of
13 those discussions; is that what you are
14 saying?
15 A. Well, not specifically. I am
16 sure we talked about it. I mean, you know,
17 I've just heard many references made to the
18 Hi-Tec shoeprint.
19 Q. Okay. I think you said that you
20 don't recall whether Lou showed you any
21 photographs. Did he ever show you, on a
22 computer image, of any of the photographs?
23 A. I think so.
24 Q. Have you seen a photograph of the
25 Hi-Tec shoeprint yourself?

0137
1 A. I can't remember. I have this
2 vague image, but I don't know whether I am
3 imagining it in my mind or if I saw the
4 picture.


(SNIP)


0307
2 MR. LEVIN: Just for purposes of
3 keeping things going.
4 MR. WOOD: Is that all right?
5 CHIEF BECKNER: That's fine, but
6 nothing sticks out in your mind in terms
7 of --
8 THE WITNESS: Well, the most
9 recent thing that sticks out in my mind is
10 that Ollie obtained the Hi-Tec boots that
11 belonged to Helgoth, and that was very, you
12 know, surprising to me that he came up with
13 those. And I just am real curious as to
14 whether that -- you know, I don't know how
15 much of a footprint you all have, but does
16 it match and what have you done with that.
17 CHIEF BECKNER: That is something
18 we are still looking into.
19 Was Helgoth known, when that name
20 came up, was Helgoth somebody you knew prior
21 to this investigation?
22 THE WITNESS: I don't know. I
23 don't know what his business was or -- I
24 don't know any more about him than that.


2000-08-31: Ramseys give police Hi-Tec boots

http://www.boulderdailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/2000/31aside.html
Ramseys give police Hi-Tec boots
By Christopher Anderson
Camera Staff Writer
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

Among other physical evidence discussed in this week's interviews were fiber evidence found in a paint tray, JonBenét's underwear and a garrote used to strangle her. Police asked about the discovery of a red fiber recovered near JonBenét's body, possibly matching Patsy Ramseys red and black jacket. But the Ramseys' attorney objected to the questioning.

Wood quoted prosecutor Michael Kane as saying, "Fibers that appear to match some article were found in such-and-such a location, how do you explain that?" Wood said, "I wanted to make sure we really had a factual situation and not a hypothetical."

Wood also objected to a question about the family's security arrangements for their son Burke, now 13, as he traveled back and forth to school in 1997, a year after the slaying.

Boulder police and prosecutors had hoped to ask the Ramseys questions about their book, "The Death of Innocence" which they promoted this year through several television interviews.

Gray said the interviews were hampered by prosecutor Michael Kane's "aggressive" style.

"I thought for the most part the interviews were productive," Gray said. "I thought there was a good exchange by the Ramseys."

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

August 31, 2000


2000-09-01: Boots' owner was tested by police

Boots' owner was tested by police
By Christopher Anderson
Camera Staff Writer
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A pair of Hi-Tec boots being examined as part of the JonBenét Ramsey investigation belong to a man who committed suicide in 1997, police said Thursday.

Boulder Police Chief Mark Beckner said detectives took DNA samples from the person in 1997 and learned it does not match DNA found at the Ramsey crime scene.

Although police said they do not think the man was involved in the December 1996 killing of JonBenét, Beckner ordered the size 8½ boots tested this month just to be "thorough."


A partial footprint from a Hi-Tec boot was found at the Ramsey crime scene and remains unexplained. The Ramseys did not own that brand of shoe.

Ollie Gray, a private investigator working for John and Patsy Ramsey, gave police the boots Aug. 4 and answered police questions about them during a police interview with the Ramseys this week.

The Ramseys remain under police suspicion in the death of their daughter, but they maintain that an intruder killed their JonBenét.

Gray, who obtained the boots in July, said police never told him they ruled the person out through DNA.

He questions which DNA samples from the Ramsey crime scene they used to do the comparison and how thorough their examination was.

Gray said the boots are one of several pieces of information the Ramseys have given to police for follow-up. He said he wants to protect the dead man's identity unless the man becomes a suspect in the killing.

September 1, 2000


2000-11-21: Police: Boots not connected to Ramsey case

Police: Boots not connected to Ramsey case
By Christopher Anderson
Camera Staff Writer
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

Contact Christopher Anderson at (303) 473-1355 or andersonc@thedailycamera.com.

November 21, 2000

CHAIN OF EVENTS 2001


[http://www.rockymountainnews.com/]2001-05-05: Rocky Mountain News "Clues in the Case"

UNIDENTIFIED FOOTPRINTS

Smit's argument: There are unidentified footprints amid the mold on the wine cellar floor. Experiments conducted by Smit suggest the fast-growing mold would diffuse footprints quickly, so he believes these were fresh prints.

Unknown shoe tread: One print appears to be a tread from a shoe but doesn't match shoes owned by John and Patsy Ramsey and doesn't match any shoes found in the house. The print is in the cellar near where the body was found.

Hi-Tec boot print: Another print belongs to a Hi-Tec boot, which also does not match any shoes owned by the family.

Small footprint: A third mark in the mold could belong to a small footprint. Smit said it matches the size and width of his own six-year-old granddaughter's foot. Could it be JonBenet's? If so, it suggests she was standing in the basement, not knocked out upstairs by a parent in a fit of rage as one police theory suggests.

Response: Police said the Hi-Tec print doesn't match any suspect they have investigated.

CHAIN OF EVENTS 2002


2002-08-23: Ramsey evidence is explained - Hand, boot prints determined to be innocent occurrences

Ramsey evidence is explained Hand, boot prints determined to be innocent occurrences
By Charlie Brennan, Rocky Mountain News
August 23, 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 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.

"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 ½-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 ½ 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."


[Websleuths Sleuthing Community]2002-08-23: From River's Websleuths Forum thread titled,
"Unidentified arm hair belongs to Patsy"


Starling (14 posts)
23-Aug-02, 10:28 AM (CST)
"Unidentified arm hair belongs to Patsy"

Carol McKinnley on Fox news confirming investigators telling her the shoe print, palm print and unidentified hair are all solved.

shoe print is Burke's
palm print is melinda's
hair found on blanket is Patsy's. testing by mitochondrial dna prooves this.

Starling



why_nut (148 posts)
23-Aug-02, 11:07 AM (CST)

8. "Videotaped evidence!"
Well, this is very interesting.
According to the latest Carol McKinley report, the way that Melinda's palmprint was identified was that one of the Ramsey family videotapes seized as evidence was viewed, and investigators actually saw Melinda open the door to the windowless room and place her palm in the place where the palmprint was found.

That seems a reasonable identification. And for once, we have a literal "if you saw it on a videotape would you believe it" scenario.




why_nut (148 posts)
23-Aug-02, 12:40 PM (CST)

14. "Cherokee"
"The "pubic" hair, later identified as a "belly" hair, is now an "underarm" hair belonging to Patsy? And it is confirmed by mitochondrial DNA?"


This has been a fascinating development, and one that confirms something I have had floating about as a piece of information for years.

When the hair was first reported, it was described as pubic. But subsequent descriptions had it as something always said to be "auxiliary." Now, that makes no sense when naming the kinds of hair on the human body. I have kept it in my mental folder that "axillary" was the proper definition of the kind of hair it was, and axillary hairs are, in fact, underarm hairs, which do tend to look like pubic hairs in their coarse and twisty nature. So the pieces are fitting together a bit better as of today. An underarm hair was found on the blanket that surrounded JonBenet's body, and a portion of that hair (because of advances in the ability to analyze smaller amounts of DNA) has been through destructive mitochondrial testing and has been positively identified as belonging to the children of Don Paugh and Nedra Rymer, which is to say, Patsy or Pam or Polly, and due to a little bit of common sense involving who had most access to the blanket, the decision would be that it was Patsy's underarm hair.

(What a shock someone must be feeling, though, that Patsy missed a spot when shaving!)


[Websleuths Sleuthing Community]2002-08-23: From River's Websleuths Forum thread
Titled, "WOOD: THEY'LL SUE!!"


MJenn (2099 posts)
23-Aug-02, 11:07 AM (CST)

"WOOD: THEY'LL SUE!!"
McKinley just said she talked to Wood and he said it's BUNK! and they're "BUYING THEMSELVES A LAW SUIT."

Oh! A LAW SUIT! WHAT A NOVEL IDEA!

I think Wood needs to change his name to LAW SUIT WOODY.

JMO


[Purgatory II Forum]2002-08-23: Puragory II Forum Thread titled,
"Two More Intruder Myths Explained Away"



From: KEEBU 8/23/2002 10:36 pm
To: MASQUERADE_ (22 of 207) 318.22 in reply to 318.21

A snippit from a Fox report:

From Linwood: " Burke Ramsey does not and has never owned a pair of quote, unquote, trademarked Hi-Tec sneakers that the Ramseys are aware of," he said. "I would think they know what shoes he has owned."

He also said the investigators' conclusions regarding the two pieces of evidence do not eliminate the theory that an intruder killed the girl.

"Even if that explanation turns out to be true, but I have serious doubts, it certainly does not outweigh the overwhelming physical evidence and other evidence pointing to an intruder," Wood said.

Wood said the two most important pieces of evidence in the case are unidentified male DNA found in the girl's underwear and the handwritten ransom note, whose author has never been determined

Boulder Police Chief Mark Beckner on Friday declined to confirm or deny the information about the evidence. He said he believed the information did not come from any police department employee.



From: DIGERATI 8/24/2002 10:38 am
To: KEEBU (30 of 207) 318.30 in reply to 318.29

Last night Carol McKinley reported on the local Fox news (not FNC) that Burke owned a pair of HiTec footwear and it was confirmed by a friend of his.



From: KEEBU 8/24/2002 8:01 pm
To: SLYSSLITHERS (34 of 207) 318.34 in reply to 318.32

I just saw Fox News. On it, Carole Mckinnley was doing a bit on the new non evidence, and the Ramseys. Fox did a great job of reporting it, and Mckinley ended her report quoting Linwood's soon to be famous passage.

She kept a totally straight face as she said, 'Ramsey atty Lin Wood charged that the Boulder Police are just trying to get the Ramseys to confess'.


[Crime News 2000 Forum]2002-08-26: From CrimeNews 2000 Forum thread,
"Transcript of "Crier Live" on the Brennan article"



lionmom
8/27/02 08:40 AM
Transcript of "Crier Live" on the Brennan article [Post#: 53413 ]

I don't have a link for this, so I am putting it here in it's entirety. Thanks to Candy over at Websleuths for posting it!!

Transcript of “Crier Live”, August 26, 2002:
Catherine Crier
Bill Nimmo
Craig Silverman

Catherine Crier: In the JonBenet Ramsey case, the intruder theory may now be off the table. Two key pieces of evidence have now been linked to family members. First, the palm print found on the cellar door, investigators say it belongs to John Ramsey’s older daughter, and second, the hiking shoe footprint, said to belong to JonBenet’s brother Burke. Well, what does this mean for the investigation? Will the mystery ever be solved? We want to hear from you. Register your vote @ courttv.com, or aol keyword courttv. Still with us, forensic pathologist, Dr. Cyril Wecht and criminal defense attorney

Bill Nimo, and also joining us by phone from Denver, former prosecutor Craig Silverman. Craig, you and I have spoken quite a bit about this over the years, I’m surprised that all of a sudden this handprint is “new evidence”. What’s going on here?

Craig Silverman: Well, this is a big development. First and foremost, it indicates that the Boulder law enforcement establishment is not just sitting on their hands, but they keep working on the case, which is really, pretty encouraging to those of us who care about the murder of this little girl.

Catherine Crier: Alright, you’ve got a handprint that’s apparently been around for a long time, apparently, it’s been identified to senior Ramsey, father Ramsey’s older daughter, why wasn’t this done a long time ago?

Craig Silverman: Apparently, they just didn’t make the connection. A palm print examiner looked at it and didn’t see the points of comparison, but when they looked at it again, it was obvious, apparently to all concerned, that it was John Ramsey’s oldest daughter’s handprint, and this is a point now conceded by Team Ramsey.

Catherine Crier: Ok, so that’s a done dinner there. A point they are not conceding though is that this shoe print belongs to Burke. Tell me about that.

Craig Silverman: That’s probably the most interesting aspect because for a while, it was a sensational piece of evidence. A shoeprint, what they considered to be an intruder, in fact, in their book, Death of Innocence, the Ramseys cited this as a major factor why this had to be an intruder. Now apparently, Boulder law enforcement is convinced this shoe belongs to Burke Ramsey. Still, team Ramsey denies that that’s the case. You wonder why Boulder law enforcement is so certain that it belongs to Burke Ramsey, and why the Ramseys are still denying it. It also begs the question, what happened to this hi-tec boot that belonged to Burke Ramsey? Under what circumstances did it disappear? It doesn’t appear that anybody has possession, and why are the Ramseys so emphatic in denying that this was Burke’s boot? It would seem that most parents, especially most mothers, would know what kind of shoes their child had.

Catherine Crier: Yeah, they’re denying vehemently, but as I read material the “sources” kept saying don’t worry, it was Burke’s boot, as if they’ve either seen pictures, ala the ugly shoes, or someone knew those boots were in his closet, because it certainly seems definitive on the part of the police. Why?

Craig Silverman: We don’t know the answer to that, but if there is a coverup, if somebody got rid of that hi-tec boot, then that could be very interesting. As you well know Judge, so many times criminals who get away with their crime mess up in the cover up stage of the event, and if they can show that somebody got rid of that hi-tec boot under suspicious circumstances, that’s a very incriminating piece of evidence.

Catherine Crier: Alright, Dr. Wecht, you’ve written a book on this, this has been something you’ve devoted an awful lot of time to, what do these two pieces of evidence tell you?

Dr. Wecht: Well, what I find fascinating about the footprint, and Craig will correct me if I’m wrong, I just know what I’ve read, is that the footprint was found in the wine cellar, where JonBenet’s body was found some seven hours after she was reported missing. That room, we’re told, had not been looked into because gee, nobody ever went there, and John Ramsey didn’t think of going there until about one o’clock in the afternoon. Well, if that be the case, not only a question the print now belonging to Burke, rather than an intruder, how did the print get in that room, if that’s the room then that nobody ever went into, then what was Burke doing in the room at anytime? That’s I think is very, very interesting. The handprint of Melinda on the wall, I think is also near the wine cellar, I don’t know what that means, everybody agrees that she was not there on the night that JonBenet met her tragic fate. But, that footprint is fascinating.

Catherine Crier: Let me ask you about this, because looking at the size of the Ramseys, looking at the pictures of this little boy, my first reaction was, he probably didn’t have a really big foot as a ten year old, and yet everybody was talking about this being the shoe print of an intruder. I would guess it’s a pretty small shoe size. But, does it strike anybody as odd that we’re talking about some intruder, murderer guy, and yet, this little bitty kid’s foot.

Craig Silverman: I think it was a partial footprint where the hi-tec could actually be read and as with most shoes, when you just see a partial print but the brand shows up, you can’t necessarily tell the size of the print.

Catherine Crier: Cyril, would that be true, because I think there would be a lot of ways to evaluate from what you did see…

Dr. Wecht: Yes it would be, based on the way the print was transferred to the soil, to the ground. I am fascinated by the fact that all this time has elapsed and also by the fact that it has now been released, I do agree with Craig Silverman that it certainly implies, it is a reasonable inference on our part that there is some activity, how much I do not know. And of course, the Ramsey family’s attorney continues to dismiss all this and continues to talk about some DNA, which I’m certain is a contaminant and is absolutely meaningless.

Catherine Crier: And that’s the DNA in her underwear, that was still present…

Dr. Wecht: Underwear, the nail print, I’ve had some discussions with people on this and it, it doesn’t mean anything.

Catherine Crier: Bill Nimmo, let me ask you about this. If it shoots the intruder theory out, we’re right back inside the home, where a lot of people have remained, this was the evidence, that there was a shoe print, this boot print, that there was a palm print, that was about it, a broken window, but much too small it seems for a grownup to go in and out of,?

Bill Nimmo: Well, when you look at these cases, I think you have to look at what speaks out to you the loudest. What speaks out to me the loudest, is the $118,000 dollar mention that…

Catherine Crier: Yeah

Bill Nimmo: in that ransom note because it that apparently is the bonus that he was getting. So, if that is correct, if those facts are correct as I recall them, then that means that whoever did that, wrote that ransom note, would have had to have known about that bonus. That puts it in a fairly close inner circle. And the other thing is, if you just killed that child, why would you write a ransom note? So, I think that’s the most interesting fact.

Catherine Crier: Yeah. Yeah, this case has not gone away. We will keep you updated. Craig Silverman, good to talk to you, Cyril Wecht, always a pleasure, Bill Nimmo (nods).

END OF SEGMENT


[www.cybersleuths.com]
2002-08-27: Cybersleuths Forum, Topic:
"The Hi-Tec Shoes"


PrairieGirl
Member # 198
posted 08-27-2002 10:46 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Burke was a boy scout.

From a scouting web site (just skip to item #4 below):

"Welcome new scouts and parents:

The following list is of essential items for Troop 50 outings.... back to table of contents

1. BSA class A uniform - shirt, shorts, belt and buckle, socks with red stripe, red shoulder loops, 5 and 0 numerals, Golden Empire patch, scout book with optional cover. A pair of long pants is very helpful during winter months.

All of the above items can be purchased at the Boy Scout shop.
**************************************************************************************************
1. External frame backpack - i.e. JanSport Scout, Kelty Tioga, Camp Trails, etc. Be sure to have sufficient straps and buckles for attaching a sleeping bag and pad.

2. Sleeping Bag - i.e. Northface Cats Meow, Moonstone, Sierra Designs, Marmot, SlumberJack, etc. The bag should be rated at 15 to 2O degrees, be lightweight, and have a stuff bag. Goosedown filled bags are lightweight but more expensive. Synthetic filled bags are bulkier but more water resistant.

3. Sleeping pad - i.e. Thermarest air mattress, RidgeRest foam, Z-Rest foam, etc. The pad should be very lightweight. The Z-rest is only 16 oz., and folds easily.

4. Hiking boots - i.e. Asolo, Vasque Kids Climbers, Nike, Hi-Tek, Reebok, etc. The shoes should be water resistant, and sized to allow growth."

[ 08-27-2002, 11:13 PM: Message edited by: PrairieGirl ]
--------------------
"I'm so French I hate myself."
"The only Bush I trust is my own."
"Let's not let those pesky facts distract us."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 1172 | From: Puget Sound, WA | Registered: Sep 99 | IP: Logged



PrairieGirl
Member # 198
posted 08-27-2002 11:09 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where would a discriminating buy find Hi-Tec shoes? If you live in Boulder, CO, you can get them at the REI store (1789 28th Street).
--------------------
"I'm so French I hate myself."
"The only Bush I trust is my own."
"Let's not let those pesky facts distract us."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 1172 | From: Puget Sound, WA | Registered: Sep 99 | IP: Logged

CHAIN OF EVENTS 2003


[jameson's Webbsleuths]2003-01-15: Webbsleuths Forum (http://www.webbsleuths.org)
"Dan Abrams"


Margoo
unregistered user
Jan-15-03, 03:04 PM (EST)

21. "RE: High Tech not Hi-Tek"
In response to message #20

There are kids' running shoes that have little "techno" things such as a light that blinks on whenever the child steps down on the heel of the shoe. My son had a pair with the lights in them about 10 years ago. That is the Hi-Tek vs Hi-Tech controversy over whether or not Burke owned Hi-Tek (the brand) vs Hi-Tech (shoes with a light or compass or something set into them) shoes at one time.



jameson
Charter Member
11883 posts
Jan-15-03, 03:37 PM (EST)

23. "RE: High Tech not Hi-Tek"
In response to message #22

Nope - - not what I am saying at all.

The police have never linked the Hi-Tek boot prints in the basement with any footwear owned by Burke.

It seems Burke may have had some "hi tech" shoes that had a compass attached to the laces - - but that doesn't make them boots, Hi-Tek boots OR the Hi-Tek boots that left the print in the basement.

There is no evidence that Burke owned boots of that brand. Certainly none were found in the house.



why_nut
unregistered user
Jan-15-03, 03:53 PM (EST)

24. "Jameson"
In response to message #23

"It seems Burke may have had some "hi tech" shoes that had a compass attached to the laces - - but that doesn't make them boots, Hi-Tek boots OR the Hi-Tek boots that left the print in the basement."

There is little sense in that claim. A compass is a very "low-tech" thing to have. If the boots had a Global Positioning System unit attached to them, that would be quite another thing, but a compass? I think not a person on earth considers a compass high-tech, not when compasses have been around for centuries.



why_nut
unregistered user
Jan-15-03, 06:38 PM (EST)

29. "Rainsong"
In response to message #27

"Ask a kid, a nine-year-old, if his shoes are Hi-Tek, and if he has lighted heels or some other gizmo on them, they're going to say, 'yeah.'"

High-tech to a nine-year-old (almost ten) is Nintendo and 64-bit graphics in 1996. A simple light in the heels of shoes would be baby material. Personally, I live in New York and of the thousands of children I see over the course of time, I have never seen a child older than about five or six who was wearing lighted shoes. Most are being worn on the feet of toddlers. Can they even be bought in sizes appropriate to an eight- or nine-year old?



jameson
Charter Member
11883 posts
Jan-15-03, 08:09 PM (EST)

37. "RE: Snort?"
In response to message #36

There is a question - - would a 9 year old kid think some nifty sneakers were "hi tech"? Could over-anxious prosecutors jump on that as evidence that the kid owned the "Hi-Tec" boots that left the print in the windowless room?



tipper
unregistered user
Jan-15-03, 10:19 PM (EST)

42. "high-tech lights"
In response to message #41

"High-tech to a nine-year-old (almost ten) is Nintendo and 64-bit graphics in 1996. A simple light in the heels of shoes would be baby material. "

In 96/97 my 10 year old son was wearing those shoes, as were all the other boys in his school. While they may have been excited about the latest Nintendo gizmo they also thought those shoes were pretty neat.



addiewalker
unregistered user
Jan-16-03, 06:52 PM (EST)

48. "RE: raise your hands"
In response to message #47

We know Patsy's and John's clothing was eventually turned over but if you think about it what about their shoes? All three walked out of that house with footwear intact on 12/26/1996. Were Burke's shoes turned over? Even questioned? And what about the popularity of this brand with boyscouts? If Burke didn't have the regulation shoes what did he have?


2003-03-31: Carnes Order March 31, 2003 - Wolf vs Ramsey Civil Case 1:00-CV-1187-JEC

SMF - Statement of Material Fact
PSMF - Plaintiff's Statement of Material Fact
PSDMF - Plaintiff's Statement Disputing Material Fact
Dep - Deposition
Def's - Defendants/Defense

Page 73

"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. ) In addition, on the wine-cellar door, there is a palmprint that does not match either of defendants' palmprints. (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 palmprint is not dispositive, as they could have been made prior to the time of"

Page 74

the murder, but they are clearly consistent with an argument that an intruder was in the basement area. The defendants also offer other undisputed evidence that they contend clearly establishes that another male was near JonBenet at the time she was murdered. Specifically, defendants note that unidentified male DNA--which does not match that of a;ny Ramsey- -was found under JonBenet's fingernails. 36 (SMF 173-174, 177; PSMF 173, 177. ) In addition, male DNA, again not matching any Ramsey, was found in JonBenet's underwear. ( SMF 175 ; PSMF 175.)
Likewise, an unidentified Caucasian "pubic or auxiliary" hair, not matching any Ramsey, was found on the blanket covering JonBenet' body. (SMF 179-180; PSMF 179-180.) As noted, some wood fragments from the paintbrush used to create the garotte were found in JonBenet's vagina. Thus, given the existence of undisputed evidence that JonBenet was sexually assaulted and the discovery of DNA evidence on her person from an unidentified male--as well as no DNA from any Ramsey--the defendants argue that the inference of an intruder becomes almost insurmountable. As to the above described evidence, plaintiff offers no explanation consistent with his theory of the crime."


[jameson's Webbsleuths]2003-04-17: Webbsleuths Forum (http://www.webbsleuths.org)
"Burke's shoes"


jameson
Charter Member
10561 posts Apr-17-03, 04:28 PM (EST)

"Burke's shoes"

BlueCrab claims that the Ramseys bought a pair of shoes for Burke when they were in NYC in early December, 1996 - - he is right about that.

But he says they were Hi-Tec boots and they were NOT - - the Ramseys bought Burke a pair of Nike Air Jordans. They were purchased at Niketown on 5th Avenue. And yes, they did have them sent home to Colorado.

So the question begs to be asked... who is BlueCrab's source - and are they telling BlueCrab lies or is he twisting the facts himself?


[jameson's Webbsleuths]2003-04-26: Webbsleuths Forum (http://www.webbsleuths.org)
"What Brennan ignored"


why_nut
unregistered user
Apr-25-03, 04:07 PM (EST)

1. "Jameson"
In response to message #0

"Judge Carnes' analysis had access to the written and video-taped depositions of Beckner, Hunter, Thomas and Weinheimer. She also had Fleet's, Wolf's, Smit's, and John's and Patsy's depositions."

As a reminder, you claimed to be able to cite as fact that there were manufacturers of shoes or boots with compasses attached.



why_nut
unregistered user
Apr-25-03, 09:49 PM (EST)

3. "RE: Jameson"
In response to message #2

"No - I don't believe I said I would share my source."

I did not remind you to. You have convey the information that your mysterious source has identified boots sold with compasses attached. The source can remain unidentified. What brands are those boots? Let us check for ourselves whether a boy of Burke's age would identify them as "high-tech," despite the fact that a compass is decidedly low-tech and fairly useless when attached to one's feet instead of one's wrist where it can be viewed at eye level.

If you cannot cite examples of actual manufacturers, as your source would have to have given the assertion that such things exist and could have been referenced by Burke, then we have no reason to treat the theory that "high-tech" meant "boots with compasses," because there are no such boots to be found.



why_nut
unregistered user
Apr-26-03, 09:08 AM (EST)

7. "RE: Jameson"
In response to message #6

"What is ridiculous about sneakers or boots with a compass attached to them? They are part of the Ramsey case - I didn't make it up. The prosecution claims they were attached to boots. At least one of the Ramseys thinks they were attacked to sneakers."

I take it that since you refuse to identify the maker of shoewear that, in the year 1996 or before, came with compasses attached (and if it not a ridiculous idea, they would still be made today and be available in current catalogs), there is no such actual maker. Instead, in accordance with your oft-stated policy that a person who states something as fact but cannot prove it is distributing misinformation, we must take this shoes-with-compasses assertion as misinformation.

It costs you nothing and betrays absolutely no confidences or reveals no sources for you to say that the manufacturer was Nike or Timberland or whoever. Your refusal to do so must mean that you either are lying or you honestly do not know. I am not telling you how to distribute information or run your forum; what I am doing is telling you that the audience which pays attention to your words is holding you accountable in living up to them. The Ramsey reputation for telling the truth is at question here; if there are no such things as shoes with compasses, identifiable in a way other than a vague "I think I heard about them maybe," then a Ramsey assertion that they owned the things shows that they are deceptive. Patsy named Stride-Rite as a brand of shoe that Burke owned; the shoes under discussion also have a brand. You claim to have been privy to what the prosecution and the defense have had to say about them; post what they said if you dare. Otherwise, we, the audience, have no responsibility to believe you, and can believe as we wish that Burke owned Hi-Tec brand shoes.



why_nut
unregistered user
Apr-26-03, 09:12 AM (EST)

8. "Jameson"
In response to message #7

And I can give you a opportunity to defer gracefully. For years you claimed as a fact that Patsy had laundered JonBenet's Wednesday pair of underwear, and that the possibility of trace DNA from the manufacturer became negligible. Then you backtracked and said that you had been wrong, that the information you had been citing as fact was not even though you had absolutely trusted the source from which you got your information. Perhaps you are also distributing false information about the "Hi-Tec"/"high-tech" shoes. This would not be your fault, as the assertion about laundering was not.



jameson
Charter Member
10542 posts Apr-27-03, 04:40 PM (EST)

18. "RE: Poor Burke"
In response to message #16

Burke says he did not go in that windowless room - - he knew where it was and it was dark and nasty and he didn't go in there.

Burke told the authorities he thought at one time he owned some footwear with a compass on them - - the police have determined without any documentation that those were boots - - and that they were Hi-Tec brand and that they were the exact boots that left the prints next to the body.

Doesn't work that way.

The police knew as soon as they found the body that they were looking for Hi-Tec boots. They spent the next few days with the Ramseys - right with them. They saw the Ramseys' footwear. The BPD also searched the house for any footwear that might have made those tracks - - they didn't find any. The marks remain unmatched.

Taking a child into the grand jury where he was questioned by Kane.... a year and a half after the murder - - maybe 2 or 3 years after he saw any shoes with a compass on them - - - give me a break. The boy did not say - - Yes, I owned Hi-tec boots and I remember because they had a compass on them and so I had to have been in that basement room... didn't happen that way.

I am sure if you just take a few minutes you can figure out what happened in the GJ room without me telling you.



why_nut
unregistered user
Apr-27-03, 05:27 PM (EST)

21. "Jameson"
In response to message #20

"Burke says he did not go in that windowless room - - he knew where it was and it was dark and nasty and he didn't go in there."

Lawrence Schiller on Geraldo, March 17, 2000:

"They even had an Easter egg hunt in that basement the previous Easter, and the kids played in that same wine cellar and looked for Easter eggs. So how do you date this evidence?"



why_nut
unregistered user
Apr-27-03, 05:30 PM (EST)

22. "Jayelles"
In response to message #21

"I'll bet you that Burke can tell you what brands of footwear he has owned even now. Trauma or no trauma. Kids think BRAND."

Burke, as quoted in the Steve Thomas book, page 317:

"When the three days of interviews about his sister were over, Detective Schuller asked the boy if there was anything he wanted to ask. Burke said yes and pointed to the detective's wristwatch. "Is that a Rolex?"



jameson
Charter Member
10542 posts Apr-28-03, 09:35 AM (EST)

26. "RE: What Brennan ignored"
In response to message #0

Carnes' ruling was based only on the facts presented by the Ramseys and their lawyer, L. Lin Wood, and Wolf and his lawyer, Darnay Hoffman - and not on a comprehensive review of investigators' 40,000-plus pages of evidence.

BUT - DA Mary Keenan's statement was based on a comprehensive review of investigators' 40,000-plus pages of evidence.


[Websleuths Sleuthing Community]2003-06-16: From River's Websleuths Forum thread titled,
"Hi-Tec or High Tech?"


Jayelles
WS Addict !
672 Posts
Posted - 06/16/2003 : 08:21:35 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Imon - yes I have decided to get them to write down the answer to "What is a Hi-Tec shoe".

I see them on Wednesday and I can build a lesson around it actually. It needn't be frivolous at all.

I have asked 4 children already. All of them said words to the effect "It's a trainer", "A kind of running shoe like Nike - except not as good". None of them thought I was asking about 'high-tech' shoes - all presumed I was referring to Hi-Tecs. After it was clear that they thought Hi-Tec, I asked them what else I could mean and they were confused. Eventually I asked about 'high-tech' and what it meant and they said "fancy, modern, can do things". So I asked about 'high'tech' shoes - and what that could mean. Three said they really didn't know and one suggested "Shoes that walk for you?".

These four kids were 16 years old - Burke's age. The kids that I will ask on Wednesday will be younger and more imaginative.

I promise to publish the results in full. There will be 35 kids if they are all present and I am looking forward to this little experiment.


[Websleuths Sleuthing Community]2003-06-18: From River's Websleuths Forum thread titled,
"Results of Hi-Tec or High Tech"


Jayelles
WS Addict !
672 Posts
Posted - 06/18/2003 : 08:29:34 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OK, quick summary.

71 children took part. I changed my original plan and decided to ask a variety of age groups just out of curiosity and I'm glad I did because the results seemed to relate to age. The classes were aged between 11 and 17. They were given a piece of paper and asked to write down the answers to my questions.

First of all, I asked them if they had ever owned a pair of Hi-Tec shoes or boots.

18% answered "Don't know"
35% answered "Yes"
47% answered "No"

Secondly, I asked them "What are Hi-Tec shoes or boots?"

13 (18%) said they didn't know.
51 (72%) said a brand/make of trainer (quite a few elaborated and said a very cheap pair of trainers)
2 (3%) said a brand of walking boot
1 (1.3%) said a brand of hiking boot
1 (1.3%) said "A pair of shoes with rockets which fire you into space"
1 (1.3%) said "A pair of running shoes that let you charge your mobile phone"
2 (3%) said they were high heeled shoes

The number of "don't know" answers according the age of the pupil - none of the 17 year olds replied "Don't know" and the highest number of "Don't knows" was in the 11-12 year old class. Similarly with owning Hi-Tecs. It would seem they have gone out of fashion.



Jayelles
WS Addict !
672 Posts
Posted - 06/18/2003 : 3:03:24 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I admit that I was surprised to learn that the kids were aware of the phrase 'high-tech' at all. After I did each batch of questions, I explained to the kids why I was asking the question.

Out of the 71, only 2 had heard of JonBenet Ramsey - and neither knew where they had heard the name. I then explained that she was the little American beauty queen who had been murdered and one of the two who claimed to have heard her name then shook his head and said that he had been mistaken because he didn't know about any such case. A couple of the senior girls (although not recognising the name) said they thought they had seen or heard something about the case but neither of them knew any of the details.

We discussed the notion of whether kids would think 'Hi-Tec' or 'high-tech' and apart from the group who had never heard of the brand Hi-Tec (mainly the younger pupils), they all said they immediately assumed I was talking about Hi-Tec the brand. Mr Rocket Man said he thought it was a trick question and although he had heard of Hi-Tecs, he thought since the question was asked so mysteriously, that I couldn't mean the obvious.

I then asked them to explain to me what COULD be meant by 'high-tech' shoes and quite a few mentioned airsoles and spring soles but these were mainly older pupils. The younger ones tended to either not know or to suggest built-in computers and cameras and other unlikely gadgets.



Jayelles
WS Addict !
672 Posts
Posted - 06/18/2003 : 3:05:05 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh and two pupils mentioned flashing lights but added that it wasn't Hi-tecs that did that.


[jameson's Webbsleuths]2003-06-19: Webbsleuths Forum (http://www.webbsleuths.org)
"Hi-Tec or High Tech"


Jayelles
unregistered user
Jun-19-03, 10:34 AM (EST)

"Hi-Tec or High Tech"

On another thread, jameson said:-
"THAT IS A RUMOR BUT IT IS SIMPLY NOT A VERIFIED FACT. IT SEEMS THE BOY MAY HAVE MEANT "HIGH TECH", NOT THE BRAND HI-TEC."

It is my feeling that the Hi-Tec print is a red herring and I see no problem with the print being Burk's. It cannot be dated accurately and does not point to him as the killer IMO. Burke and his friends seem to have said that Burke DID own a pair of Hi-Tecs although the Ramseys deny this. jameson states that Burke and his friends may have thought that the questioner was asking about 'high-tech' and not 'Hi-Tec'.

IMO, children are very label-conscious these days and I feel that it is doing Burke an injustice to suppose that he would be any different. So, I conducted a little two minute end-of-term experiment with 71 pupils aged between 11-17.



Jayelles
unregistered user
Jun-19-03, 10:52 AM (EST)

2. "Tipper"
In response to message #1

Are you clear about what trainers are? I *think* you call them sneakers. They are sturdy leather shoes or boots which have thick soles with deep treads. They aren't as lightweight as running shoes. Kids wear them all the time, in fact they are an essential item nowadays.



tipper
unregistered user
Jun-19-03, 11:01 AM (EST)

4. "RE: Tipper"
In response to message #3

LOL I can't get the second link to copy.
Try this http://www.yanix.co.uk/shoe-stop/hi-tec/index.htm



Jayelles
unregistered user
Jun-19-03, 11:18 AM (EST)

7. "Tipper"
In response to message #5

Hi-Tec DEFINITELY used to make trainers though. I initially did not realise that they made boots and thought that we were talking about trainers. My own son had a pair of Hi-Tec trainers several years ago.

I had a look at the Hi-Tec website and they only have outdoor, golf and court shoes now. Maybe that why my younger pupils weren't familiar with them. The general consensus amongst those who did know was that they were 'cheaper' and not as good as Nike. So maybe Hi-Tec lost out on the market and decided to specialise in the hiking/walking/working boot market.

Certainly, their website has changed recently. Their old website had a great intro. I know the guy who designed it



Jayelles
unregistered user
Jun-19-03, 11:34 AM (EST)

10. "Tipper"
In response to message #8

I have just been in touch with Hi-Tec. I'm learning all the time here. I didn't realise they were a British company in the first place! They have old catalogues and they are going to send me some from 1995/96. They said that the marketing was different in the UK and the US, but this was because they aimed the British market at the mid-price range (which explains why my pupils regarded them as cheap).

Most of the trainers do have the Hi-Tec logo on the soles same as the boots. It's a trademark.



Jayelles
unregistered user
Jun-19-03, 12:49 PM (EST)

24. "Rainsong"
In response to message #23

I'll address this one first because it's a quick answer to a question I knew would be asked by someone at this forum. That is the implication that Burke Ramsey would have a cheap pair of trainers.

Firstly, it was something that I was aware of before I did the survey - i.e. that Hi-Tecs are considered 'cheaper brand' here. However, without giving too much away, none of the children that I teach are from poor backgrounds. Therefore, I was surprised that 35% admitted to wearing Hi-Tecs.

Secondly, having contacted Hi-Tec (as I said above), the marketing was different in the UK from the US. Hi-Tec aimed at the middle market in the UK and the higher-end market in the US - which explains why they are considered 'cheaper' here.

Slapfish - I don't teach any 9-10 year olds. Sorry, 11 is the best I can do.

I think the research is perfectly valid because only two of the children thought I meant 'high-tech' and neither had heard of 'Hi-Tec'. Those children who had heard of Hi-Tec automatically presumed that I was talkng about the brand.

I thought carefully about the questions and how I was going to word them. I reckoned that when Burke was asked about the Hi-Tecs, it would have been made clear that they were talking about shoes so that is why I asked if they had ever owned a pair of Hi-Tec shoes or boots. I asked the second question to elicit what they thought I meant by 'Hi-Tec'. I think that was fairly sound.

I'll answer the rest of the questions later. I can answer some from memory, but I'd need to check the papers for the rest and they are at school.



Jayelles
unregistered user
Jun-19-03, 01:10 PM (EST)

27. "Margoo"
In response to message #24

Questions:

Since the responses are given in percentages, how many children were age 11? 12? 13? 14? 15? 16? 17? How do the responses correspond with each age?


OK, from memory, now a couple of pupils were absent and I can't remember who was absent from which class. These are the full class sizes so there will be more than 71 here.

10 pupils are 11-12 years (all boys)
25 pupils are 13-14 years (9 girls, 16 boys)
17 pupils are 15-16 years (6 girls 11 boys)
26 pupils are 16-17 years (3 girls, 23 boys) - a few were absent


Since the question gave the answer (or at least was a huge tip-off) why did you ask if they knew what they were? Many of the children, particularly the older ones, would know they were boots or shoes because that was part of the form of the question.


I answered this above. I thought carefully about this and I reckoned that Burke would have known that he was being asked about footwear, so I made it clear that I was asking about footwear.

What is the meaning of "boots" in the UK?


Boots tend to cover the ankle.

What is a "walking boot"?

Sturdy above-ankle height boot with thick soles and good grips

How relevant is this information, based on the way the question/s were asked and the lack of data as to the ages and corresponding responses from each age?

Hey Margoo, I did a quick survey, not a research project. The aim was to find out if kids would think 'Hi-Tec' or 'high-tech'. I think I achieved that.

Where in all of the information on this case has there ever been an implication that the Hi-Tec print in the basement was NOT from a boot?

Where is the evidence that is IS from a boot?

What, then, would be the relevance of a question about trainers/sneakers (we call them running shoes)?

The question was not about trainers, it was about 'Hi-Tec shoes or boots'. Running shoes are different to trainers here.

With the marketing differences between countries, what is the relevance of 71 pupils in the UK being asked any of these questions?

If you can come up with a better survey - which is viable then I'd be delighted to hear about it and to see the result. I happen to have access to lots of young people of Burke's age and younger and I decided to "do something" practical to answer my questions rather than just speculate about what a young person might think/presume (which was what I was doing as well as other posters).

It would seem to me the only relevant respondents (to a more carefully worded 'survey') would be male children, living in Colorado, asked the question/s in 1997 (not 2003).

Actually, our cultural differences are not that great. Certainly not with respect to young people and their need/desire for labels and sports gear. Scotland is not a third world country.



Jayelle
unregistered user
Jun-19-03, 01:12 PM (EST)

28. "Slapfish"
In response to message #27

"Well you see, that is the whole problem. Since Burke replied "Yes, I have a pair with compasses on them" I think something different can be assumed. His response was very much in line with your students who responded that a Hi-tech shoe was something with a gadget or gizmo attached, or something that did something Hi-Tech."

Could you please source this statement? I'd be very interested in a transcript of what Burke said as it would clear up a good deal of doubt as to what was answed and answered.

As I recall, someone 'speculated' that he might have had a pair with a compass and that he might have had those in mind. I do not believe that he said it for a fact.



Jayelles
unregistered user
Jun-19-03, 04:20 PM (EST)

32. "Margoo"
In response to message #31

"I think the most interesting part of the results is the response from two of the younger children (20% of those surveyed) who interpreted the term Hi-Tec as (in their very young view) something to do with high technology"

I am not surprised that you see these 2/71 responses as being the most significant because they alone bolster your theory, but I actually think they are not for one particular reason.... Talking to the pupils afterwards, it was clear that the Hi-Tec brand lost out to other brands and is not as well known now as it was a few years ago.

As I stated, the purpose of the survey was to find out if kids would think Hi-Tec or high-tech. My own children are 18, 16 and 3. I know full and well how important labels are to kids and have often shaken my head in disbelief at the importance that they place upon having the right label. Trainers seem to be of particular importance - to the extent that we actually had staff meetings about the pressure that some children placed their parents under to buy expensive trainers. A former school that I taught in actually banned brand named trainers for that reason. There were cases where parents on benefits were being pressurised to spend the entire school uniform cheque on one pair of trainers for one of their three children! Kids are very savvy about brand names and they start young. I have no reason to believe that Burke Ramsey would be any different.

Now I think it is significant that the most 'don't knows' were in the youngest age group and the fewest in the oldest age group. It is really quite simple and suggests very clearly to me that Hi-Tec is no longer a popular brand and therefore one which the younger children are unfamiliar with

It was an interesting little test and one which the kids thought was fun. They were desperate to know why I was asking them the questions and I told them afterwards. You might be interested to know that only 2 out of the 71 had heard of JonBenet Ramsey although they didn't know from where. One of them then reneged when I explained who she was and two others decided that they had heard something about a little beauty queen being murdered.

Obviously your suggesiton of the 'ideal' research is unfeasible because 7 years have elapsed and fashions have changed. The most reliable factor to determine whether Burke knew what he was talking about would be a transcript of the interview where he said he had Hi-Tec shoes. Was he asked if he knew what these were? Surely a trained interviewer of children would know that children often misinterpret what is being said and that it is important to ensure that they understand the questions?

In the absence of such a transcript, I'm afraid all we can do is speculate, or carry out little surveys which may or may not be an indicator of how children think.

I rather think that if my results had yielded a majority response of 'high-tech' interpretations, then you would have rated it more highly.



tipper
unregistered user
Jun-19-03, 06:05 PM (EST)

41. "RE: jayelles"
In response to message #40

This was all I could find from google with "jonbenet hi-tec compass"

It's from that crime magazine article. Not sure what '2000 interview of the Ramseys' he's talking about.

"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. "


[jameson's Webbsleuths]2003-06-20: Webbsleuths Forum (http://www.webbsleuths.org)
"The Hi-Tec print"


jameson
Charter Member
11502 posts Jun-20-03, 01:22 PM (EST)

"The Hi-Tec print"

UNIDENTIFIED FOOTPRINTS

Smit's argument: There are unidentified footprints amid the mold on the wine cellar floor. Experiments conducted by Smit suggest the fast-growing mold would diffuse footprints quickly, so he believes these were fresh prints.

Unknown shoe tread: One print appears to be a tread from a shoe but doesn't match shoes owned by John and Patsy Ramsey and doesn't match any shoes found in the house. The print is in the cellar near where the body was found.

Hi-Tec boot print: Another print belongs to a Hi-Tec boot, which also does not match any shoes owned by the family.

Small footprint: A third mark in the mold could belong to a small footprint. Smit said it matches the size and width of his own six-year-old granddaughter's foot. Could it be JonBenet's? If so, it suggests she was standing in the basement, not knocked out upstairs by a parent in a fit of rage as one police theory suggests.

Response: Police said the Hi-Tec print doesn't match any suspect they have investigated.

---------------------------------------------------------

This is from the RMN article on Lou Smit's Intruder theory. I will post a few threads so we can review the article. Feel free to comment.

My comment: I will post the images here in the next few threads. All prints remain unmatched. the BORG story that the Hi-Tec print was found to have been from Burke is a total LIE. The police have not identified the boots or their owner.

If someone thinks they know who did this and if they have access to those boots, I do hope they will consider (yes, breaking the law) taking the boots and giving them to LE for comparison. If the person can't bear to break any law, I hope they find a way to make a print from the boot and send that in.

How? Poor ink on a rag, step on it and then walk on some paper. Let the paper dry FLAT, roll it up and then put in a tube - - send to LE with a brief history of the person suspected - - and make sure you give them a way to contact you later.




Webmaster here: The posting above by Jameson is found materials and included here for educational and information purposes only. The webmaster of this site does not condone breaking the law to obtain materials to send to law enforcement. The four photos Jameson included on the same thread titled, "The Hi-Tec Print" above are shown below:
[From Jameson's Webbsleuths thread 'The Hi-Tec print' June 20, 2003]
Jameson (img039): "This is a print from the windowless room that has not been identified - - it is not from a Hi-Tec boot"
[From Jameson's Webbsleuths thread 'The Hi-Tec print' June 20, 2003]
Jameson (img040): "Closeup"
[From Jameson's Webbsleuths thread 'The Hi-Tec print' June 20, 2003]
Jameson (img038):
"the Hi-Tec print"
[From Jameson's Webbsleuths thread 'The Hi-Tec print' June 20, 2003]
Jameson (img041):
"the mystery print"


[Crime News 2000 Forum]2003-08-22: From CrimeNews 2000 Forum thread,
"Hi-Tec red herring?"



Jayelles
8/22/03 01:54 AM
Hi-Tec red herring? [Post#: 126693 ]

According to RST, the Hi-Tec print is a clue which points to an intruder. They say "there is no evidence" that the Ramseys ever owned a pair of Hi-Tecs. No shoes found, no receipts, not photos of them wearing any.

That is possibly true, but it doesn't mean they didn't own them - it just means there is no evidence they owned them! LOL

Now the confusing thing is that Burke Ramsey apparently admitted to the Grand Jury that he had Hi-Tecs - something seemingly corroborated by his friend(s). Personally, I would say a 9 year old would know what brand of footwear he owned - especially a 9 year old who recognised a Rolex when he saw one. However, the RST faithfully (desperately?) argue that Burke "thought" the interviewer meant "high tech" footwear.

It's important for the RST to distance the Ramseys from the crime and so it's perhaps understandable that this footprint is important to them. Why? I have no idea, because it cannot be dated anyway and it's extremely unlikely that it would ever convict anyone. Besides, Burke had every right to be in the basement of his own home.

However, the RST argue that this footprint CAN be dated because the mould that it was formed in was "fast growing" and would have quickly diffused the print.

Imagine - fast growing mould in your home? Would you store precious christmas gifts and decorations in a room which had fast growing mould? Not to mention - would you leave it untreated? I don't think I would.

Now it seems that there could be some doubt that there was even mould on that basement floor at all. Some time ago, Why_Nut posted a couple of images at the BB forum which seemed to indicate that the "mould" is in fact something called "saponification". Before explaining his theory, Why_Nut wisely asked jameson if she had examined the mould and to describe it. She described the mould on the floor as like tiny soap bubbles. Now here is the crunch. Saponification is the act or process of SOAP MAKING!! It can exist on a concrete floor for many years, and a footprint made in it would remain until it was erased.

So, the footprint could have been there for a long time after all and it could have been made by Burke wearing a pair of Hi-Tec's which had been outgrown/trashed - hence no evidence!

CHAIN OF EVENTS 2004


[Forums For Justice]2004-01-14: The Bonita Papers-1999 (Fingerprints)
From a poster known as "Spade" on the www.forumsforjustice.org forum posted information regarding a person known as "Bonita." Spade wrote: "These are the unedited "notes" of Bonita Sauer, secretary/para-legal to Dan Hoffman. Bonita intended to write a book from the case documents provided to her boss. But Bonita's notes were sold to the tabs by her nephew. Larry Pozner is a partner in the same law firm. I hope he reads his secretary's notes about this case before he runs his mouth about the Ramsey's. (Again) This is a long file, so I suggest copying to your own computer and printing it out. I have checked the important case info and find it accurate, however there is some BS. Please post your questions." On another postings, Spade wrote, "Bonita is the 1st name of the legal secretary who wrote up the Boulder Police reports, mailed them to her nephew in Oregon who in turn double-dealt them to two tabs for $70,000. Bonita had access to all the BPD reports. Keep in mind that Bonita wrote-up her info in 1999"



"Before completing the autopsy, the procedure was halted in an attempt to obtain latent fingerprints from JonBenet’s clothing and exposed skin areas by means of a Magnabrush. While waiting for instruction for this procedure from the Colorado Bureau of investigation laboratory, the detectives were also working on an addendum to the search warrant to allow an additional search of the Ramsey home for anything related to the trace evidence already collected during the autopsy Judge MacDonald once again signed the addendum which now gave permission to search for a bludgeon instrument, green garland material, dark cloths or clothing, semen, blood, and fabric or clothing containing blood or semen."



"The floor of the wine cellar contained a soft, white, dirt like substance in which the delineation of a shoeprint was visible with a clear impression of the words "HI TEC". This is known to be a common police footwear product line, and police personnel had been in this room after the discovery of the body and before the crime scene processing. A second shoe impression was also found in the white powdery substance. Although not as visible as the “HI-TEC” shoe impression, it was a distinctly different print."


[Forums For Justice at www.forumsforjustice.org]2004-04-21: Forums For Justice on thread titled,
"No misunderstanding - Burke, Hi-Tec and a compass"


April 21, 2004 23:38:46 CDT 2005

Why_Nut
Member Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 159

No misunderstanding - Burke, Hi-Tec and a compass
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.webbsleuths.com/cgi-bin/dcf/dcboard.cgi?az=printer_format&forum=DCForumID107&om=74&omm=1

Quote:
"#1, RE: John in Atlanta 3
Posted by jameson on Nov-01-03 at 11:02 PM
In response to message #0

30
17 Q. We have been provided, and again,
18 one of the sources of this information is
19 confidential grand jury material I can tell
20 you in the question, but we have been
21 provided information from two sources that
22 your son Burke, prior to the murder of your
23 daughter, owned and wore Hi-Tec boots that
24 had a compass on them, which makes them
25 distinctive.

31
1 Do you recall -- if you don't
2 recall that they actually were Hi-Tec, do you
3 remember Burke having boots that had a
4 compass on the laces?
5 A. Vaguely. I don't know if they
6 were boots or tennis shoes. My memory is
7 they were tennis shoes, but that is very
8 vague. He had boots that had lights on them
9 and all sorts of different things.
10 Q. But you do have some recollection
11 that he had some type of footwear that had
12 compasses attached to them?
13 A. I don't, I don't specifically
14 remember them, but my impression is that he
15 did, in my mind, yeah. But my impression
16 was that they were tennis shoes.
17 Q. Sneakers?
18 A. Sneakers. Yeah. Ask Burke if he
19 remembers it.
20 I said, ask Burke, perhaps he --
21 well, we could certainly ask Burke.

Again, remember this was 2000 - close to 4 years after the murder. I don't know what happened in the GJ room - Burke and Fleet could have been confused... "Hi_Tec" or "high tech". John doesn't know if there were shoes with compasses on them, maybe sneakers...

The Ramseys clearly were not prepared to deal with those questions - they were simply being honest and answering questions as they came up - - they didn't understand the interest in compasses in boots or shoes. No panic there. No lies."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tonight, I have found confirmation that Hi-Tec, the boot company, specifically offered children's boots with a compass attached to the laces. Therefore, any reference Burke would have made to owning a pair of boots with a compass, and attaching the words "Hi-Tec" to them, clearly would refer to the brand name, and not a general use of the phrase "high-tech."

This is from Footwear News, July 29, 1991:

Quote:
"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."

CHAIN OF EVENTS 2006


[jameson's Webbsleuths]2006-06-02: Webbsleuths Forum (http://www.webbsleuths.org)
"Through the House"


Margoo
Member since 11-29-02
06-02-06, 04:25 PM (EST)

8. "RE: Through the House"
In response to message #6
LAST EDITED ON 06-02-06 AT 04:36 PM (EST)

I thought the SAS print was found near the grate along with a knee imprint.

There are THREE prints in the windowless room - (the one with the leaf beside it, the Hi-Tec, and the child-sized one).

edited to add:
Smit's argument: There are unidentified footprints amid the mold on the wine cellar floor. Experiments conducted by Smit suggest the fast-growing mold would diffuse footprints quickly, so he believes these were fresh prints.

Unknown shoe tread: One print appears to be a tread from a shoe but doesn't match shoes owned by John and Patsy Ramsey and doesn't match any shoes found in the house. The print is in the cellar near where the body was found.

Hi-Tec boot print: Another print belongs to a Hi-Tec boot, which also does not match any shoes owned by the family.

Small footprint: A third mark in the mold could belong to a small footprint. Smit said it matches the size and width of his own six-year-old granddaughter's foot. Could it be JonBenet's? If so, it suggests she was standing in the basement, not knocked out upstairs by a parent in a fit of rage as one police theory suggests.

[IMAGE][IMAGE][IMAGE]










70.18.210.203
unregistered user
06-02-06, 06:04 PM (EST)

10. "RE: Through the House"
In response to message #8

"Small footprint: A third mark in the mold could belong to a small footprint. Smit said it matches the size and width of his own six-year-old granddaughter's foot. Could it be JonBenet's? If so, it suggests she was standing in the basement, not knocked out upstairs by a parent in a fit of rage as one police theory suggests."

A human footprint does not have straight edges as that third photo shows, unless JonBenet had unusually-shaped feet with no arches, which she did not.

[JonBenet and Burke's bare feet]










sissi
unregistered user
06-03-06, 02:12 PM (EST)

16. "RE: Through the House"
In response to message #14

I should have looked first..here it is..in news.

Investigators in Ramsey case may have footprint evidence
Camera staff and wire reports
Wednesday, December 10, 1997

Investigators in the JonBenet Ramsey murder case are asking friends of the family whether they own certain types of shoes, leading some observers to speculate police may have footprint evidence.

"The police came a couple of weeks ago and asked us if we ever owned shoes called SAS or Hi-Tec," said Pam Griffin of Boulder, who made many of JonBenet`s pageant outfits.

Griffin and her teenage daughter, Christine, were asked about the shoes, which one detective told them had distinctive patterns on the soles.

"They`ve got to have a shoe impression of some sort they`re looking at, and I assume it would be in a critical area, either in the basement or maybe her room or some significant area," said former FBI special agent Gregg McCrary, who specializes in criminal profiling.


[jameson's Webbsleuths]2006-07-02: Webbsleuths Forum (http://www.webbsleuths.org)
"Not Burke's Boots"


jameson
Member since 5-8-02
07-02-06, 07:48 PM (EST)

"Not Burke's Boots"

The footprint found in the basement room was approximately an adult size 9-1/2.

Burke got new shoes on January 7, 1997 -- they were youth size 5.

The shoes Burke owned that some say were "Hi-Tec" may have been "high-tech" - but they were far from a size 9 1/2. Those shoes were his when he was wearing children's size 2 or 3.

The authorities know all this and the BORG are wasting their time trying to make the print in the basement Burke's.



70.18.210.203
unregistered user
07-02-06, 10:36 PM (EST)

2. "RE: Not Burke's Boots"
In response to message #0

"The footprint found in the basement room was approximately an adult size 9-1/2."

Since no full outline of the sole of the shoe was photographed, as we have all been able to see for ourselves, I have to be very skeptical that the size of the logo itself, all alone and without context of the surrounding sole size, and certainly without a matching logo print for the other shoe, would be of such distinctive size that a person would be able to say, "Oh yes, this logo belongs to a 9.5 size, and definitely not any other size, not even a 7.5 or a 10.5, and definitely not a Hi-Tec logo that appeared on a woman's shoe or one belonging to Hi-Tec's various children's shoes."



jameson
Member since 5-8-02
07-03-06, 10:21 AM (EST)

11. "RE: Burke's Boots?"
In response to message #10

The information I have on the bootprint came from the investigators working on the case - - including someone inside the CBI.

The source on Burke's boots came from a close family friend who actually took Burke shopping for shoes in the weeks following the murder! Remember, the Ramseys didn't get to move out of their house - - most of their stuff stayed in the house for weeks, months.

CLICK HERE: Flight 755 15th Street Main Directory



Home 1998 to 2007 ACandyRose©
E-Mail