Page 6 of 12 FirstFirst ... 2345678910 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 72 of 138
  1. #61

    Default

    In Smit's testimony before Carnes he says that the Hi-Tec logo at the crime scene matches Helgoth's boots down to the circular trademark. I took another look at the crime scene photo and there is a circular mark on the right near the "H." Because it's deep and regular it does look like it could be part of the boot.

    I looked at a bunch of Hi-Tec logos on boots courtesy of ebay and while some of them have a symbol near the "H," they are closer to it and larger than the mark in the crime scene photo.

    I know the police said Helgoth's boots didn't match and I've wondered if they could tell because the logos weren't a match.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    1,311

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fr brown View Post
    In Smit's testimony before Carnes he says that the Hi-Tec logo at the crime scene matches Helgoth's boots down to the circular trademark. I took another look at the crime scene photo and there is a circular mark on the right near the "H." Because it's deep and regular it does look like it could be part of the boot.

    I looked at a bunch of Hi-Tec logos on boots courtesy of ebay and while some of them have a symbol near the "H," they are closer to it and larger than the mark in the crime scene photo.

    I know the police said Helgoth's boots didn't match and I've wondered if they could tell because the logos weren't a match.
    The size could also have been different. BR did admit to police that he had a pair of Hi-Tec shoes (though his parents said he did not). NO mention of whether the print matched BR's. That type of shoe is commonly worn by police and workmen. Because prints (including fingerprints) can't be dated, there is no way to prove that shoe print was left at the time of the crime. However, prints left on blood or other matter that are part of the crime CAN be linked to the crime (as in the OJ Simpson case, where his Bruno Magli shoeprints were made by his wife's blood. Doubt a stranger bent on murder or robbery would be wearing Bruno Magli shoes (a very expensive Italian brand). And in OJ's size, too.
    This is my Constitutionally protected OPINION. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.

  3. #63

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee View Post
    The size could also have been different. BR did admit to police that he had a pair of Hi-Tec shoes (though his parents said he did not). NO mention of whether the print matched BR's. That type of shoe is commonly worn by police and workmen. Because prints (including fingerprints) can't be dated, there is no way to prove that shoe print was left at the time of the crime. However, prints left on blood or other matter that are part of the crime CAN be linked to the crime (as in the OJ Simpson case, where his Bruno Magli shoeprints were made by his wife's blood. Doubt a stranger bent on murder or robbery would be wearing Bruno Magli shoes (a very expensive Italian brand). And in OJ's size, too.
    I think the police said that the Hi-Tec logos are the same size no matter the size of the shoe. The shoeprint itself is unsizeable, I believe.

    Hi-Tec logos vary, I've found, over the years. They sometimes have a symbol near the "H," sometimes near the "C." I haven't seen any yet where the symbol is a plain circle.

    I'm willing to take Smit's word that Helgoth's shoes (or the ones attributed to him) had a symbol of some type near "Hi-Tec," presumably it's on the "H" side, but it might be on the "C" side if he forgot to account for mirror imaging.

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    The Lone Star State
    Posts
    827

    Default size

    The size of the shoe that made the imprint in the Ramseys' basement may not be ascertainable but the BPD did say it was made by a small shoe (possibly a woman's shoe). That being said, I simply can't remember where I read that, maybe in ST's book. I currently don't have access to that book or I would try to find the reference to it. The chain of custody of Helgoth's boots is probably not any good.

  5. #65

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Texan View Post
    The size of the shoe that made the imprint in the Ramseys' basement may not be ascertainable but the BPD did say it was made by a small shoe (possibly a woman's shoe). That being said, I simply can't remember where I read that, maybe in ST's book. I currently don't have access to that book or I would try to find the reference to it. The chain of custody of Helgoth's boots is probably not any good.
    Are you sure they were talking about the Hi-Tec print? There are other shoeprints there, one where you see a partial logo and some actual tread.

  6. #66

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Texan View Post
    The size of the shoe that made the imprint in the Ramseys' basement may not be ascertainable but the BPD did say it was made by a small shoe (possibly a woman's shoe). That being said, I simply can't remember where I read that, maybe in ST's book. I currently don't have access to that book or I would try to find the reference to it. The chain of custody of Helgoth's boots is probably not any good.
    Here's what Kane says in Patsy's 2000 interview. It sounds like the Hi-Tec shoeprint isn't sizeable (because only the logo is discernible):

    "23 Q. (By Mr. Kane) But I mean, but
    24 my question was, when you said we, you were
    25 talking about you or John?
    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. #67
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Southern Silicon Valley !!
    Posts
    2,285

    Talking DeeDee,

    You mean "those ugly @ss shoes"?



    Sorry, I can't help myself- Heh
    "When are we going to get our heads out of the sand and understand that sometimes really nice people who look good on the outside are dastardly on the inside." Wendy Murphy, former prosecutor, MA

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    The Lone Star State
    Posts
    827

    Default size of shoes

    I still don't have access to Steve's book and am not likely to for some months as we are in the midst of moving so it is frustrating for me. I did do a search on ffj and found where Jayelles had done some research on hi-tec shoe sizes and said there is very little difference between a child's size five and an adults size 9.5 - like .5 to 1.0 inch so I would guess that the print would be hard to size even if more of it was visible.

    After all of that, the shoe print really isn't a case maker or breaker 'cause the best piece of evidence is surely the note. Lou can carry on about Helgoth's boot but I still think there would be a chain of custody issue with that boot anyway and probably couldn't be used in court.

  9. #69

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Texan View Post
    I still don't have access to Steve's book and am not likely to for some months as we are in the midst of moving so it is frustrating for me. I did do a search on ffj and found where Jayelles had done some research on hi-tec shoe sizes and said there is very little difference between a child's size five and an adults size 9.5 - like .5 to 1.0 inch so I would guess that the print would be hard to size even if more of it was visible.

    After all of that, the shoe print really isn't a case maker or breaker 'cause the best piece of evidence is surely the note. Lou can carry on about Helgoth's boot but I still think there would be a chain of custody issue with that boot anyway and probably couldn't be used in court.
    Though a size 5 would have been ginormous on Burke. My kid is nine and just closing in on a 1.

    If the circular mark in the crime scene photo isn't part of the Hi-Tec logo then we know for sure that Helgoth's boot didn't make that mark because that boot does have some kind of circular symbol as part of the logo, according to Smit.

    I suppose the note is unlikely to yield up more secrets. Personally, I'd like to know where in the country they would say "deviation of my instructions" instead of "deviation from my instructions." I think that particular construction would lie below the level of consciousness and to my ear it sounds very odd.

  10. #70

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fr brown View Post
    Though a size 5 would have been ginormous on Burke. My kid is nine and just closing in on a 1.

    If the circular mark in the crime scene photo isn't part of the Hi-Tec logo then we know for sure that Helgoth's boot didn't make that mark because that boot does have some kind of circular symbol as part of the logo, according to Smit.

    I suppose the note is unlikely to yield up more secrets. Personally, I'd like to know where in the country they would say "deviation of my instructions" instead of "deviation from my instructions." I think that particular construction would lie below the level of consciousness and to my ear it sounds very odd.
    The problem with Smit's "story" about Helgoth's Hi-Tec matching that imprint is that the man who "brought" the Hi-Tecs to Team Ramsey, Kenady, IS A FREAKING FRUIT CASE with a long history of bringing frivolous lawsuits in Colorado and getting into trouble himself with LE over various issues.

    At best, Kenady broke into Helgoth's family's home and stole the boots, as he tells the story. He also stole some checks and drawings, the tale went. The only true thing we know about him, other than his wingnut status, is that he is just another fame-seeking freak who wanted to interject himself into this case.

    Remember that Kenady appeared ON CAMERA in one of Michael Tracey's crocumentaries, alleging Helgoth was part of a NINJA BURGLAR RING. It was another fantastical story played out by Tracey and Smit to lead away from the Ramseys, with money being made in the process, of course. It was so cheesy, it was laughable. Except...you know...MURDERED CHILD.

    Tracey even had the LOWDOWN, DIRTY HYPOCRISY to put the coroner's photo of Helgoth on his bed, a suicide, on international TV. You could see Helgoth's face, which was NOT blurred in any way, and the gun by his side. I guess since the Ramseys never have objected to JonBenet's autopsy photos being splashed worldwide by their good buddy Smit, as long as he was pitching the "intruder" theory successfully, Tracey figured it was just fine to traumatize the Helgoth family that way. Anything for their precious Ramseys! Only the Helgoths had NO CHOICE in the matter.

    So IMO Kenady came up with his silly stories just like PERV Karr and a dozen other mental cases who have tried to link themselves to this case and ride the fame train.

    Bottom line: there is not one cracked DNA strand of truth in any of Smit's lies and red herrings. NO one has ever proven Helgoth ever heard of the Ramseys in his life before the rest of us. Just another bus victim, compliments of Team Ramsey, led by LOU "PSYCHIC" SMIT.

    Mark Beckner stated to the press that the boot Team Ramsey turned in to the BPD was not a match to the imprint. He should know.

    Wonder when Smit is going to go on TV and talk about LE testing for "touch" DNA on that garrote cord? The duct tape? The paintbrush "handle"? When is he going to talk about that enhanced 911 tape he's undoubtedly heard but never publicly spoken about, even while Lin Wood and jams were spreading all their disinformation that it doesn't have any voices on it? How about the testing of the package of Boomies the Ramseys "turned in" to Lacy FIVE YEARS AFTER THE MURDER? Any of JonBenet's fingerprints on that package? How about the "remaining" six pairs of Bloomies in it? Hello?

    You can bet that anything Smit spins in this case is ALL BS. The man either doesn't know as much about forensic evidence as a twelve year old or he's deliberately deceiving the public to protect the Ramseys. Either way, he's no detective, just another Ramsey shill, IMO.

    "University of Colorado Law Professor Paul Campos declared the letter a 'reckless exoneration.' He went on to state, 'Everyone knows that relative immunity from criminal conviction is something money can buy.
    Apparently another thing it can buy is an apology for even being suspected of a crime you probably already would have been convicted of committing if you happened to be poor.'"
    FF: WRKJB?

    ~~~~~~~
    Bloomies underwear model:
    3 Dimensional

    ~~~~~~
    My opinions, nothing more.

  11. #71

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by koldkase View Post
    The problem with Smit's "story" about Helgoth's Hi-Tec matching that imprint is that the man who "brought" the Hi-Tecs to Team Ramsey, Kenady, IS A FREAKING FRUIT CASE with a long history of bringing frivolous lawsuits in Colorado and getting into trouble himself with LE over various issues.

    At best, Kenady broke into Helgoth's family's home and stole the boots, as he tells the story. He also stole some checks and drawings, the tale went. The only true thing we know about him, other than his wingnut status, is that he is just another fame-seeking freak who wanted to interject himself into this case.....
    I didn't know any of that, but I could tell there was something fairly peculiar about how the boots came into the Ramseys' possession. In 2000 Kane grills Patsy pretty good about what she knows about it. Here's a small excerpt:

    "10 Q. (By Mr. Kane) Do you know how
    11 Mr. [Ollie] 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."


  12. #72

    Default

    I'm not saying Burke did it but as a matter of practicality what are the odds that Helgoth was in that basement when one of the four people in the house that night actually owned Hi-Tech boots?
    I think the prints were from Burkes boots and I think it was from an earlier time, not that night.
    Need to think horses here, not zebras. IMO.



Similar Threads

  1. What do you see in JBR crime scene photos?
    By INSIGHT in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 119
    Last Post: November 12, 2006, 3:50 pm, Sun Nov 12 15:50:34 UTC 2006
  2. Crime scene pics--again
    By koldkase in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: August 5, 2006, 5:10 pm, Sat Aug 5 17:10:00 UTC 2006
  3. Crime scene photos - Steven Jones - GRAPHIC CONTENT
    By Moab in forum FIRE-In-The-HOLE
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: June 13, 2006, 9:06 am, Tue Jun 13 9:06:42 UTC 2006

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •