Forums For Justice  

Go Back   Forums For Justice > Forums for Justice - Crime Forums > JonBenet Ramsey Crime Forums > Justice for JonBenet > The Ramsey Documented Truth Forum.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old June 2, 2004, 3:46 pm, Wed Jun 2 15:46:47 CDT 2004
Tricia Tricia is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: The "Beehive State" It's true. Look it up
Posts: 5,395
Default The Truth About Judge Julie Carnes’ Decision Boot/Palm Print

HI-TEC BOOT PRINT
AND UNIDENTIFIED PALM PRINT



From Judge Carnes’ Decision:

“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 n addition, on the wine-cellar door, there is a palm print that does not match either of defendants' palm prints. (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 palm print is not dispositive, as they could have been made prior to the time of the murder, but they are clearly consistent with an argument that an intruder was in the basement area.”


The Truth

From the Rocky Mountain News (Charlie Brennan, August 22, 2002):

“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.”…


and:

“…L. Lin Wood, the attorney representing the Ramseys, who now live in Atlanta, doesn't debate the palm print findings…”


As proof of an intruder, the Ramseys and Mr. Wood have bantered about the “unidentified” palm print. Now, according to Mr. Brennan’s article, Lin Wood doesn’t debate the finding that the palm print belongs to a Ramsey family member. Yet, Wood allows a federal judge to base part of her decision on this case using information that Wood has conceded isn’t connected to the case.

Charlie Brennan, Rocky Mountain NewsAugust 22, 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 Ramsey evidence is explained Hand, boot prints determined to be innocent occurrences 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."


It's interesting that Mr. Wood would claim the police have not answered the "Hi-Tec print mystery."

Forums for Justice can only assume Ramsey attorney Lin Wood never dreamed the 2000 Atlanta interviews with law enforcement the Ramseys participated in would be made public.

From the Atlanta interviews it is obvious that Burke Ramsey told the Grand Jury that he indeed did own a pair of Hi Tec shoes/boots.

From the Atlanta Interviews. Mr. Levin for the United States. Mr.Wood for the Ramseys. This exchange is with Mr. Levin, Patsy Ramsey, and Lin Wood. Bold has been added.

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
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.
[b]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.{/B]
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 --

``````````````````````````````````````````````````

To read all of the Atlanta 2000 interviews please go here.
http://www.forumsforjustice.org/foru...ead.php?t=4665

The mystery of the palm print is solved. It was Melinda Ramsey's palm print on the door leading to the room where JonBenet's body was found.

The mystery of the Hi-Tec boots/shoes is solved. Burke Ramsey told the Grand Jury that he did indeed own a pair of Hi-Tec boots.

How Lin Wood can claim the boot print and palm print still point to an intruder is beyond comprehension.
__________________
tgrif@xmission.com
FFJ C/O Tricia Griffith
6300 N Sage Wood Drive
Suite H #214
Park City UT
84098




I am unaware of anyone who's profited from exploiting the Ramsey murder over a longer period of time, with a greater disregard for the principles of accuracy and fairness, than the production team of Mills and Tracey.They truly do inhabit a different moral universe from real journalists. It's the difference between journalism and propaganda.
Alan Prendergast,reporter for Westword
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is Sat Jul 31 8:38:29 CDT 2010.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2001-2010 Forums for Justice