Page 7 of 12 FirstFirst ... 34567891011 ... LastLast
Results 73 to 84 of 138
  1. #73
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    The Lone Star State
    Posts
    827

    Default youth size 5

    Here is the thread I found on the topic of sizes where the sizing of the shoes are mentioned:

    http://www.forumsforjustice.org/foru...t=hi-tec+boots

  2. #74

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Texan View Post
    Here is the thread I found on the topic of sizes where the sizing of the shoes are mentioned:

    http://www.forumsforjustice.org/foru...t=hi-tec+boots
    Hm. I actually own a pair of size 5 Columbus Hi-Tecs. I just held one of them up to my daughter's foot. The sole is almost twice as long as her foot. Granted she's more of an ibex than a gazelle.

    We just had a bowling party where she and her friends rented shoes so I was looking at a lot of kid feet. None of them took a 5. They were all girls, though. Maybe boy feet are bigger at that age.

  3. #75
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    1,311

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fr brown View Post
    Hm. I actually own a pair of size 5 Columbus Hi-Tecs. I just held one of them up to my daughter's foot. The sole is almost twice as long as her foot. Granted she's more of an ibex than a gazelle.

    We just had a bowling party where she and her friends rented shoes so I was looking at a lot of kid feet. None of them took a 5. They were all girls, though. Maybe boy feet are bigger at that age.
    Boys' feet ARE bigger. My 3-year old grandson wears a size 11 (kids). He will be in a size 1 by the time he is 5.
    Some boys BR's age then (almost 10) wear adult sizes. My daughter wore a woman's size 5 shoe at that age.
    This is my Constitutionally protected OPINION. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.

  4. #76
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    1,311

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Karen View Post
    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.
    If you look at the pages on ACR that deal with LE investigation of Linda Hoffman-Pugh and her family, you will see that both LHP's husband Mervyn and son-in-law were in the wineceller right after Thanksgiving to bring up the artificial trees stored there. (this is also, by the way, what I feel is the source of the green plastic bits found in JB's hair)- the bits from the Christmas trees and decorations are all over that room, as well as the basement. I never thought the green fibers in her hair came from her being carried down the stairs, which had fake green garland wrapped around them.
    If proper modern forensic studies were done on those green bits in her hair, it would indicate exactly which fake tree or decoration in the home they had come from.
    I think MHP did say he owned a pair of Hi-Tec. They were a pretty common shoe/sneaker. Many LE wear them, as well as workmen. The Rs did have workmen in the house before the crime. I agree that the print from the Hi-Tec shoe may have had nothing to do with the crime at all and may have been left there previously (probably when the trees were brought up).
    IF any of those men who helped with the trees had been linked to the print, you can me sure LS and his lacky the DA would have jumped all over it, and tried to pin the crime on one of them.
    Hopefully, it would come out that prints cannot be dated. There is simply no way to say that particular print is linked to this crime. In the OJ Simpson case, his specific brand and size of show was found to have made prints in the victim's BLOOD. This is another matter entirely, and an example of how a print can be linked specifically to a crime. (not that it mattered in that case, sadly).
    This is my Constitutionally protected OPINION. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.

  5. #77

    Default

    I should add that I think it might be the case that the Columbus boot was only marketed for one year, 1992, in honor of the 500th anniversary of 1492.

  6. #78

    Default

    For anyone who would like to read the truth about another Team Ramsey scam to promote their intruder hoax by naming a dead man who could not defend himself, Michael Helgoth, and his former friend as suspected child killers in yet another Tracey croc, you can find the whole story here at FFJ, thanks to Tricia and others, particularly our brilliant member Jayelles:

    http://www.forumsforjustice.org/foru...ead.php?t=7429

    How Team Ramsey pulled these guys out of their , compliments of yet another wingnut they embraced without any intelligent discernment, is all in that thread. Don't forget your barf bag.

    "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.

  7. #79

    Default

    The non-Hi-Tec shoe logo at the crime scene is interesting. Lou Smit says this shoeprint definitely belonged to the killer and that the "source" hadn't been identified by the time he gave his testimony before Carnes. Is he talking about the brand or the actual shoe? I haven't been able to find that brand, but the police have resources.

    "Smit: This is a close-up of that print just to show all of the little ridges and all of the little lines that are so distinctive on this particular print. It also shows a partial logo. Myself and others have tried to find the source of that logo and have been unable to do it so far. This is, I believe, our killer's footprint for sure."

    In the same testimony Smit also says that when John Ramsey broke into his house that summer, he came through the window without his shoes (and thus would not have left a scuff mark on the wall). Ramsey himself says that he left his shoes on. Well, you would, wouldn't you? You're about to jump into a room full of broken glass. Why on earth would you do it without shoes?

    From '97:

    "ST: Tom, let me just ask John this. Do you sit down and slide through, buttocks first if you will, through a window like that or, do you recall how you went through the actual window, John?

    JR: I don’t I mean, I don’t remember. Seems like, I mean, I don’t remember, but I think I would probably gone in feet first.

    ST: Feet first, backwards?

    JR: Yeah.

    ST: And when you went through in your underwear, were you wearing shoes or?

    JR: I still had my shoes on, yeah.

    ST: And were those with a suit, were they business shoes.

    JR: They were probably, probably those shoes."

  8. #80
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    1,311

    Default

    It is astounding how LS could say the shoeprint "definitely" belong to the killer. He knows there is no way to tell when it was left. It it had been sourced to BR's shoe, see how fast he'd back away from that assertion.
    Because there had been workmen in the basement, as well as LHP's husband and son-in-law (who were there weeks before taking out artificial Christmas trees), and because BR admitted owning a pair of Hi-Tec's, this was just one more way in which the RST used lies to cover for the Rs. Lacy's lie about the DNA belonging to the killer was as harmful as LS lies.
    And if this case had gone to trial, neither of those two bozos would have ever made those statements, because they'd have been ripped to shreds in the courtroom.
    This is my Constitutionally protected OPINION. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.

  9. #81

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee View Post
    It is astounding how LS could say the shoeprint "definitely" belong to the killer. He knows there is no way to tell when it was left. It it had been sourced to BR's shoe, see how fast he'd back away from that assertion.
    Because there had been workmen in the basement, as well as LHP's husband and son-in-law (who were there weeks before taking out artificial Christmas trees), and because BR admitted owning a pair of Hi-Tec's, this was just one more way in which the RST used lies to cover for the Rs. Lacy's lie about the DNA belonging to the killer was as harmful as LS lies.
    And if this case had gone to trial, neither of those two bozos would have ever made those statements, because they'd have been ripped to shreds in the courtroom.
    I agree, but he's talking about the shoe with the other logo, the one that doesn't say "Hi-Tec" (backwards). You can see the shoeprint with the partial logo in question at the beginning of the thread.

  10. #82
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    1,311

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fr brown View Post
    I agree, but he's talking about the shoe with the other logo, the one that doesn't say "Hi-Tec" (backwards). You can see the shoeprint with the partial logo in question at the beginning of the thread.
    Yes, but the same thing applies. You still can't PROVE it was left at the time of the crime.
    This is my Constitutionally protected OPINION. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.

  11. #83

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fr brown View Post
    The non-Hi-Tec shoe logo at the crime scene is interesting. Lou Smit says this shoeprint definitely belonged to the killer and that the "source" hadn't been identified by the time he gave his testimony before Carnes. Is he talking about the brand or the actual shoe? I haven't been able to find that brand, but the police have resources.

    "Smit: This is a close-up of that print just to show all of the little ridges and all of the little lines that are so distinctive on this particular print. It also shows a partial logo. Myself and others have tried to find the source of that logo and have been unable to do it so far. This is, I believe, our killer's footprint for sure."

    In the same testimony Smit also says that when John Ramsey broke into his house that summer, he came through the window without his shoes (and thus would not have left a scuff mark on the wall). Ramsey himself says that he left his shoes on. Well, you would, wouldn't you? You're about to jump into a room full of broken glass. Why on earth would you do it without shoes?

    From '97:

    "ST: Tom, let me just ask John this. Do you sit down and slide through, buttocks first if you will, through a window like that or, do you recall how you went through the actual window, John?

    JR: I donít I mean, I donít remember. Seems like, I mean, I donít remember, but I think I would probably gone in feet first.

    ST: Feet first, backwards?

    JR: Yeah.

    ST: And when you went through in your underwear, were you wearing shoes or?

    JR: I still had my shoes on, yeah.

    ST: And were those with a suit, were they business shoes.

    JR: They were probably, probably those shoes."
    And that's TWO MORE lies that Smit told UNDER OATH in his Wolf deposition.

    Lies upon which Judge Carnes based her DISMISSAL of the suit and lengthy opinion.

    You remember that opinion? The one where she said, without the evidence even being tested at trial, that her OPINION is it was more likely an intruder than the Ramseys. AN OPINION BASED ON LIES TOLD BY SMIT UNDER OATH.

    Nice, huh?

    "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.

  12. #84

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee View Post
    Yes, but the same thing applies. You still can't PROVE it was left at the time of the crime.
    Smit's argument was that the print was very fresh and close to the body in contrast, I guess, to the Hi-Tec print which was not so much.

    Unless the person who placed JonBenet there scuffed out his/her shoeprints, it does seem like there should have been something left behind.

    Here's a more extended quote. It sounds like Smit is claiming that the police weren't able to determine the brand of shoe. If true, I think that would be remarkable.

    I believe the leaf he's talking about is the circled brown shape in the crime scene photo. It doesn't look like a leaf to me, but I'll take his word for it.

    "The photograph that I am showing here is an impression in the mold on the floor. If you read it, it says "Hi-Tec." There is a logo on the bottom of that shoe. It is a Hi-Tec shoe. This was left there. This is a very clear and distinct logo that is left in that mold.

    This is another footprint that was located right near where the body was lying, right almost at the part where the body was lying. In fact, if you look very closely at the photograph, you are going to see a disturbance in the mold from a fabric and also a ####### pattern, [############# several notes deleted by jameson as things I believe the police may still find useful during future investigation and interrogation.##########.] Right in that same area is a very distinct footprint. I believe this is a footprint of the killer. This is a very crisp, clear print. I have found from experiments with the mold that, if the mold is allowed to grow, and this mold does grow, that a footprint that is there for any length of time becomes fuzzy and very blurred and finally disappears. This footprint is very, very recent.

    This is a close-up of that print just to show all of the little ridges and all of the little lines that are so distinctive on this particular print. It also shows a partial logo. Myself and others have tried to find the source of that logo and have been unable to do it so far. This is, I believe, our killer's footprint for sure.

    That is the leaf. And you will notice it is on top of the print....
    "



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
  •