No misunderstanding - Burke, Hi-Tec and a compass

Discussion in 'Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum' started by Why_Nut, Apr 21, 2005.

  1. Why_Nut

    Why_Nut FFJ Senior Member

    http://www.webbsleuths.com/cgi-bin/dcf/dcboard.cgi?az=printer_format&forum=DCForumID107&om=74&omm=1

    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:

     
  2. Jayelles

    Jayelles Alert Viewer in Scotland

    This is my post from Websleuths. These sizings come from fogdog. If you go to the Web Archive and look up the Hi-Tec.com website, there is a link to fogdog on the Hi-Tec's earliest archived pages.

    The wonderful Why_Nut found out abot the Hi-Tec footwear with compasses attached to laces in his above post made in 2005. Apparently they were brought out to commemorate COlumbus' 500th anniversary in 1991.

    Elsewhere it is being suggested that Burke could only have been 5 when he had these shoes, but I would suggest that to be narrow thinking for the following reasons:-

    1. How likely is a child of 10 to remember shoes he had when he was 5?

    2. The shoes may have been brought out in 1991... but that doesn't mean Hi-Tec only sold them for one year. Even if they were brought out to commemorate an anniversary - they could have been on sale for several years as "current stock" and thereafter as "discontinued stock".

    Elsewhere, shoe sizes are also being posted which show bigger size differences between the adult and child sizes. I suggest that my fogdog link is more relevant since the actual Hi-Tec site links to it.
    But I would repeat, the Hi-Tec print is not going to solve this crime and as such, there seems little point in arguing about it as evidence.
     
  3. Cherokee

    Cherokee FFJ Senior Member

    You're right, Jay. There is little point in arguing about it as it cannot be dated to the crime scene. But the RST and IDIs keep harping on it because they want the partial print to be that of an intruder. They want it to be EVIDENCE of an intruder, so therefore, it CANNOT be from Burke's shoe. They think if they can prove the print wasn't from Burke's Hi-Tecs, then it is evidence of an intruder.

    They can't see the illogic of that argument. Even IF it can be proven the partial print is from a Hi-Tec boot not owned by Burke, IT STILL DOESN'T PROVE THERE WAS AN INTRUDER! The boot could have belonged to anyone who had access to that area of the house. It could have been a visitor, a friend of Burke's, a friend of John Andrew's, or who knows? Because the print cannot be dated to the crime, it is useless. But that doesn't stop the RST/IDIs from jumping on it as evidence BECAUSE THEY ARE SO DESPERATE FOR ANY SIGN OF AN INTRUDER!

    It is their desperation that makes them keep holding on to the partial shoe print and Melinda's palm print as evidence of an intruder.
     
  4. Jayelles

    Jayelles Alert Viewer in Scotland

    BTW - I'm having problems with my keyboard just now - hence lots of typos. It's wireless. I replaced the batteries, but it's still happening.
     
  5. JC

    JC Superior Cool Member

    Was the shoe print in the same room with the body, or just somewhere in the basement?
     
  6. sboyd

    sboyd Member

    You are great. Why don't you write a book. I WILL BUY IT.
     
  7. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Yeah...sure...we knew that.... :drunk:
     
  8. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    The logo print was found in the same room as the body--the cellar room.
     
  9. JC

    JC Superior Cool Member


    As always, thank you koldkase. :rose: :martini:
     
  10. heymom

    heymom Member

    Yours and mine must be communicating. I am having the same trouble. I will type a sentence and it sticks, and half the letters don't come up, and then if I tap a letter more than once, I get ttttttttttttt like that. I keep re-setting mine and I can't figure out what the heck the problem is!

    :bigstick:
     
  11. Moab

    Moab Admin Staff Member

    I agree the footprint cannot be dated, and I also agree that the IDI's use this as evidence of an intruder.

    Years and years ago I looked up and posted pictures of Hi-Tec shoes and boots. They showed (in the advertisement) one shoe sole down, and one shoe laying on its side where you could see the logo.

    JR was probably right, and the ones BR had were tennis shoes - or at the time I think I found rubber soled boating shoes - or at least shoes BR might have worn boating ( and hence the compass).

    A flat-soled shoe would have been the only way an imprint from a logo could have possibly been in mold because the logo on children's and adult hiking boots (of which I own a pair) is in the arch of the boot, and the mold would have had to have been an inch thick for it to reach the arch of the boot well enough to leave an imprint of the logo.

    I can't find the old site I did back then showing both shoes, but this link will show you how high the arch is in the products they make.
    http://www.campmor.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/CategoryDisplay?catalogId=40000000226&storeId=226&categoryId=69752&langId=-1&parent_category_rn=69710&CMP=KNC-google&engine=google&keyword=G000002506&gclid=CNP7pvntjpECFSBMGgodImAXHQ

    Actually this link has several views and is a better example

    http://www.onlineshoes.com/productpage.asp?gen=w&pcid=73842&adtrack=nextag&term=women%27s+hi%2dtec+cape+trail+wp&offer=
     
  12. Moab

    Moab Admin Staff Member

    Hi-Tec shoes and boots have such a high arch because they are "long distance" type footwear - great build and great support, which is why LE has used them for years...they can be worn for long hours without your feet hurting or being tired.
     
  13. JC

    JC Superior Cool Member


    I think it was more a question of if Burke had hi-tec shoes or not. It's my understanding Burke said yes, he did.



    When Burke had them??????? :nuts:
     
  14. Jayelles

    Jayelles Alert Viewer in Scotland

    Whether Burke had Hi-Tecs or not is merely interesting from the perspective of conflicting Ramsey statements. The print cannot be dated and we know that everyone and their aunt seems to have been in the Ramsey home at some point or another (builders, visitors etc) so the likelihood of them ever finding the owner of the shoeprint is negligible. It's a common enough piece of footwear.

    Also - we only know that Hi-Tec made the boot with the compass. They made lots of other less memorable styles too. Burke could have had other Hi-Tec footwear that he remembers but which his parents wouldn't have remembered in particular. One thing we do know for sure is that Patsy is an unreliable witness who denies a LOT of things - even when she knows them to be true (like discussing the interviews with John during the evenings between sessions). There are sufficient examples of her denying knowledge of and/or distancing herself from their own perfectly innocent belongings and habits to consider her lacking in credibility.

    Downplaying or denying everything which might connect her/John/Burke to any wrong-doing whatsoever is IMO just the wrong thing to do.
     
  15. tylin

    tylin Banned

    I think the HiTech print is a huge piece of the JBR murder puzzle. Patsy and JR knew damn good and well their son had a pair of those boots. They were all the rage that year. No doubt in my mind that Patsy made sure her little boy had a pair. What she didn't expect him to do IMO is share that info with the GJ. A major piece of evidence that shows there was no intruder.
     
  16. Karen

    Karen Member

    I thought it was Fleet White Jr. who first shared that with the GJ and also admitted he had a pair too? I'm sure I read that in a transcript somewhere.
     
  17. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Never heard or read that White, Jr. had Hi-tecs, Karen, just that his son testified that Burke had some. Or maybe White, Jr. testified to that. Although there is no way we should KNOW that, is there? hahaha

    Maybe you're thinking of Fleet's son? There is Fleet Sr, the father of Fleet, Jr, who was the friend of the Ramseys in Boulder. Then Fleet Jr. has a son, and he was around Burke's age.
     
  18. Karen

    Karen Member

    Sorry I was talking about Fleet Jr. SON who was Burkes age. Daphne's brother. It is in a transcript somewhere. I think maybe in one of Patsys interviews she was told that by the interviewer, I don't remember if it was Kane or Thomas or who. Later when I have some down time I'll see if I can find it for you.
     
  19. JC

    JC Superior Cool Member

    I was thinking it was the Stein boy who had them in addition to Burke.
     
  20. JC

    JC Superior Cool Member

    I was probably thinking wrong. This is from the transcript.

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


     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice