Hi-Tec crime scene photos

[Moab]

I think the angles are slightly different in the modeling clay example vs the moldy picture (har har har) making it look like the lettering is different, but I don't believe it is.

Fr brown, could you grow some mold and do the experiment again? (Just kidding) Great job both of you.

[Learnin]

Originally Posted by fr brown

They say "Columbus" right inside the boots and they've got a compass on the right boot lace. The left boot doesn't come with a compass. I didn't get the shoe box, but he included the paper from the box. It says that it (the paper) was manufactured in 1992. It's compostable plastic.

I was more concerned about the area around the letters, but looking at your enlargement, it seems like the part that concerned me, the right side of the "H," has been altered by a mini-landslide. If the typeface is different, I didn't notice that.

Go ahead and post wherever you'd like.

Good work, Fr. Brown. The typeface looks pretty close to me.

[fr brown]

Originally Posted by Moab

I think the angles are slightly different in the modeling clay example vs the moldy picture (har har har) making it look like the lettering is different, but I don't believe it is.

Fr brown, could you grow some mold and do the experiment again? (Just kidding) Great job both of you.

I tried flour first. That was a real mess.

I'll take a photo of the shoes head-on and post it. They have an unusual asymmetrical pattern on the toe box. Someone may be able to spot them in a photograph of Burke--or of JonBenet because I don't see why she couldn't have worn them as hand-me-downs.

[Cherokee]

Thanks, Fr Brown, for obtaining the Hi-Tec shoes and the photos, including the one with modeling clay.

The logo looks the same to me, even to the inclusion of the two 45 degree accent lines attached to the bar that underscores the brand name.

I've made two composites, one with inverted color, to see if it helps with visual identification.

[Cherokee]

Here is the second photo.

[Learnin]

Originally Posted by Cherokee

Here is the second photo.

Good job. IMO, one and the same.

[DeeDee]

Thanks for posting that photo. Obviously, Hi-Tec may make some minor changes from year to year, but I think we can all tell that this is most likely a very similar shoe to one that BR admitted owning (though his parents denied it).

[fr brown]

Originally Posted by Learnin

Good work, Fr. Brown. The typeface looks pretty close to me.

Thanks.

(Actually as far as the compostable plastic box liner provided with the shoes, I'm not sure it was manufactured in 1992. It appears that something was copyrighted then. But I suspect that that the liner was made in 1992.)

[JC]

Originally Posted by Learnin

Good job. IMO, one and the same.

Mine too.

[fr brown]

There's a photo of the blanket with the piece of tape in the "Tape? What tape?" thread. Is that pretty accurate for the location of JonBenet's body? I know the shoeprints were found near her body so could someone who knows post the photo of the blanket here with an indication of the location of the prints?

Thanks.

[fr brown]

Here are the Columbus boots. Note the pattern on the toe.

The boots also came in navy blue.

[DeeDee]

Originally Posted by fr brown

There's a photo of the blanket with the piece of tape in the "Tape? What tape?" thread. Is that pretty accurate for the location of JonBenet's body? I know the shoeprints were found near her body so could someone who knows post the photo of the blanket here with an indication of the location of the prints?

Thanks.

As far as we know, the blanket was found "in situ" in the wineceller. Though FW, who followed JR into the room, would have known if the blanket was moved by anyone. My thinking is that the photo represents the blanket as it remained on the floor after JB was lifted out by her father. No one but JR and FW know if it is in the exact same position as they left it behind in the room.
The body (and blanket) was close enough to the doorway that even though FW couldn't find the light switch to the wineceller, there should have been enough ambient light from the area outside the wineceller to see her if she'd been there that close to the door. That room is not THAT large. However, the position of the body has been described as being such that someone looking into the room actually had to step into the room and look to the side.
The footprints in photos seem to be right next to the blanket, so that someone making the prints would be standing right over the body.
Keep in mind that footprints, like fingerprints and other kinds of DNA, can't be actually "dated" as to the time it was left. That type of evidence is circumstantial- if the person who left the print is known, and was known to be in the house where the body was found during the time frame that the death occurred prosecution will try to link them to the crime, especially if found in the same room as the body. But the defense can argue that it doesn't prove involvement because it can't be proved it was left at the same time the death occurred. Other things are needed to tie it to the crime- for example, the actual HI- Tec shoes would bee needed, and tested to see if the same mold found in the wineceller is found on the sole of the shoe- also if any hair, blood, etc. belonging to the victim is found anywhere on the shoe. The print alone isn't enough.
BUT- if a print from a person who DOESN'T belong in the house is found, that would be suspicious, but in order to tie it to the crime the owner of the print MUST be known. It can't be an unknown person because you'd have to be able to look at the person who left the print and say that they had never had a legitimate reason to be in the house. That isn't the same as saying it was an intruder print. That can never be said in the JBR case for the simple reason that BR had admitted to owning Hi-Tec shoes. That doesn't mean the prints were his, but if he had those shoes, the prints COULD have been his. I think he no longer had the shoes in question because I can't imagine LE not wanting to match them to the print. Maybe another thing taken by Aunt P?