Remember the Hi-Tec Boot print? And partial palm print?

Just one itty bitty difference

between Westerfield and Intruderfield, Shadow - Westerfield took Danielle out of the house to do his dirty work, he didn't kill her in the house, compose a three-page ransom note in the house, linger in the basement for hours staging the crime scene. In that case, unless he wore a rubber suit over his entire body, there most certainly should have been some hair and fibers, even good sources of DNA from the perp.

So, I have to disagree with you on that one, because for comparison purposes, the two scenes are not really compatible. I personally believe Westerfield entered the van Dam house, crept up the stairs, either carried a sleeping Danielle out or whacked her one so she was out, and left the house quickly. A quick in and out does not always leave evidence that anyone was there, no matter what anyone thinks. Microscopic skin cells that may have been shed during that time are not going to be found during evidence collection. The only evidence of value would have been hair, obviously, fibers, dirt from shoes, spit, semen, blood.

Westerfield is bald on top, and for the amount of time he spent in that house, it is extremely possible he didn't shed one hair. He didn't rape her or ejaculate in the house, he didn't spit in the house, and he didn't bleed in the house. I've never seen the mystery in this - just because they didn't find his DNA or fibers in that house, it doesn't mean he wasn't there, and you know there is no way to prove a negative. Obviously SOMEONE was in that house and SOMEONE took Danielle from her bed that night. The telling point is, there was NO foreign DNA found that would incriminate anyone. Yet, we know Danielle was in Westerfield's possession because HER blood, her hair, fibers from HER house were found all over Westerfield's RV and home.

I will agree with you that it would be nice to know the source of these leaks, but as sue-happy as the Ramseys and their harpy, Limpwood are, it doesn't seem these news people would be repeating the leaks if they didn't come from sources they know. Then again, who knows?

What I find hysterical is the predictable Lin Wood threatening to sue, sue, sue. For the past six years, the RST has taken the improbable "evidence" of an intruder and spun it every which way. Lou Smit has come out to say he didn't know of any such evidence, but he's looking more the fool with every passing day, too, because he resigned shortly after ST did, and, like they say with Steve, he doesn't know what developed after his departure.

Such arrogance! The prime suspects in the murder of their child have been free to propagate their version of a handprint, a footprint, a body hair as proof an intruder existed, but when anyone dares negate that bullshirt, their arrogant civil lawyers comes out threatening to sue and the arrogant swamp dweller goes into such a meltdown her forum crashes. Think about it, is there anyone the Ramseys have surrounded themselves with who is NOT arrogant?

Look at Lou Smit - he is arrogance supreme with his stun gun crap and revealing of crme scene evidence on national television that the old man knew should never have been revealed. He did it on purpose to sabotage any hope of a trail in this case. ST has taken a beating for writing a book exposing the steamy underbelly of the Boulder establshment, but Steve never revealed evidence that wasn't already out there.

Lou Smit took crime scene photos and showed them on TV, and his confidant Susan Bennett, aka jameson, continues to show those same photos, with the caption that they are crime scene photos and not for publication right on them, on her forum, which exists for the sole purpose of slandering anyone who crosses her idols, the Ramseys. What arrogant asses.

Sorry to get off subject, but chit happens. There has been nothing fair about any of this - the RST has been allowed to lie, lie, lie, and the BPD has had to remain silent. Of course the Ramseys don't want this information coming out. Why do you think they wanted to get their hands on whatever evidence the BPD has that they haven't already been given by Hunter or Smit or whomever? So they could start their spin to counteract that evidence. This information broadsided them with a sucker punch that they can't counter, except to have the Big Arrogant Mouth threaten to sue.

The whole damn lot of them make me want to puke.

 

A good point

Gsquared brought up a good point on River's Websleuths forum:

"Why video cellar room door??"
All afternoon we have been hearing that the palm print on the cellar door is Melinda's and that this was discovered based on a Christmas video in which Melinda places her hand on the cellar door. We all thought that was interesting news, but suddenly a light bulb went on in my head: WHY WOULD ANYONE FILM THEIR MESSY CELLAR?????"

She's got a point there. I can't imagine Patsy wanting any of that area on film either but then again I don't think she considered being untidy (I'm trying to be nice) a problem as long as the housekeeper kept the area of the house that was exposed to friends and/or the public clean for impressions.

I can, however vision the older kids, maybe Jar and Melinda playing around with the camera and one of them following the other around filming but why would Melinda be even standing at the doorway of the windowless room if it was so secluded, musty and moldy as the Ramseys made it out to be? I have yet to understand why they would even keep Christmas decorations in a room like that.

On the hi-tek boots, you know it is possible that Burke didn't actually "own" a pair of his own but was wearing a pair that belonged to somebody else.

I can't count the times my grandson said he was going hiking and when asked what shoes he was planning on wearing, he said one of his friends was letting him borrow their hiking boots.

And I don't buy that the Ramseys had enough money to buy Burke hiking boots. They didn't even take the money or time to repair the broken window in the basement. If it didn't have anything to do with beauty pageants, I doubt it was important.

Just my opinion, of course

 

Was reading on another forum just now about Burke's boots and someone heard Carol Mc. on Fox yesterday say that this is true, he did own a pair and a friend confirmed it. I believe it. I think there is a reason they are lying about that particular part of this investigation. That's as far as I'll go on that.

When did Loose Mitts resign? I know it was right after Steve but was it 1998? That sounds right. Anyway, remember when the Loose Mitts show was aired that Beckner's comments on this were that since Loose resigned, a significant amount of new evidence & stuff has come in. The old goat doesn't know a lot of this chit.

 

If she could get it out of her mouth long enough...

...for us to get a measurement...I'd be interested in knowing what size shoe Patsy Ramsey wears.

Solen, my friend who has a teen-aged grandson, has been known to wear his cast-offs.

She also is not very tall, and tends to purchase shoes on sale...even buying men's sneakers, if she finds a good deal.

She also is raising her grandson, and purchases all of his clothes.

So, I just asked her:

"Have you ever worn your grandson's shoes?" She said, "Yes."

I asked, "What size men's shoe do you wear?" She said, "Size 7."

I asked, "What size shoe does your grandson wear now?" She said, "He's 14 now and wears a size 9 1/2."

I asked, "What size shoe did he wear when he was 10?"

She thought a while...then she said (without prompting)..."Size 7. Little puppy, big feet."

I then asked, "Did you ever wear his shoes?" She answered, "Oh, sure. Not only his size 7 shoes he grew out of, but also his out-grown shirts and jeans."

Could Patsy Ramsey have possibly worn the Hi-Tec shoe that Burke Ramsey allegedly owned at the time of the murder?

To paraphrase: "Does the shoe fit? Then we cannot acquit."

<img src="http://www.geocities.com/Area51/nebula/9337/HitecSierraLiteSole.gif">

<i> Picture of Hi-Tec sole from <b><a href="http://www.geocities.com/Area51/nebula/9337/print.html">Ruthie's (Ruth Gerstenkorn) website page</a></b> which addresses her forensic study of the Hi-Tec bootprint found at the murder scene.</i>

I say all of that just to say this: If the Hi-Tec print was left long before the murder, it has nothing to do with the murder...and has nothing to say about whether or not JonBenet was killed by an intruder or a family member.

If, as Lin Wood, Lou Smit, and the Ramseys claim, the print was fresh and probably left the night of the murder, then if Burke owned a pair of these shoes, and Patsy could fit them, this print alone doesn't (by itself) prove the existance of an intruder...<b>yet, if Burke's shoe fits Patsy, it also doesn't exclude her from being the person that left that lone fresh print the night of the murder.</b>

<B>SHOES...SHOES, indeed....</b>

 

It was September, 1998

Thor, that Smit resigned.

Should we take John Ramsey's words at face value?

<b><i>(7) The footprint by JonBenet's body....Next to JonBenet's body the killer, I believe, left a clear footprint made by the sole of a Hi-Tec hiking shoe... The markings are clear and should further help identify the killer.</b></i> (DOI, p. 373)

There are all sorts of ways to look at this, but if we take John Ramsey literally, he has named his own son as the killer of JBR in that segment, if the leak that the Hi Tecs belonged to Burke are true.

What a keg of worms this could turn out to be. First of all, with the discrediting of the footprint evidence, the palmprint evidence, and the hair evidence, which had no substance to begin with, the remaining four items of evidence the Ramseys have presented as evidence of an intruder are further diminished. We can discount the stun gun, because there is simply no evidence one was ever used. Yet, the Ramseys present that stun gun as indisputable fact in DOI as proof of an intruder - another so-called piece of evidence that never existed. That's four. Three left.

Dunvegan pretty much demolished all the alleged evidence the Ramseys have claimed as intruder evidence on another thread, and she did a darn good job of it, so I'll get back to subject.

Second, now that there have been statements made that refute the three items of evidence, the question begs to be asked - why did the Ramseys lie about Burke's footwear?

Questions, questions. Hunter cleared Burke, against all reason, IMO, but he cleared him, nonetheless. If that footprint belonged to Burke, and the Ramseys claim it's the killer's footprint, maybe it wasn't such a good idea to clear Burke. He was one of the three in that house that night. No one has ever been convicted of the murder, or even indicted. Why was Burke cleared? Never made sense to me, even though I didn't, and still don't, suspect Burke of any complicity in JB's murder.

My point is, and I do have one, is because Hunter cleared Burke, that opened the door for the Ramseys and their guard-dog attorney to sue anyone who breathed Burke's name. They had the legal right to do so, but in light of this new information, should they have had that right? If this new information is correct, can those who were sued now countersue for, say, recovery of settlement because the suit was based upon false information by the Rams? Probably not, because that moron Hunter cleared Burke with no stipulations. Yet, one cannot help but feel revulsion for the Ramseys for taking advantage of a system that allows suspected murderers of their child to sue because someone else presents the possibility that another member of the family who was in the house that night could have been involved.

Seems to me this is twice John Ramsey's words have come back to haunt him. The first time was when he said whoever wrote the ransom note was the murderer (I totally believe Patsy wrote that note - her own mother implicated her when she said someone was trying to write like Patsy in the note). And, now, when it turns out that the footprint that JR said belonged to the killer and was evidence of an intruder actually belonged to his own minor son.

What next? There's an entire book full of Ramsey statements. The possibilities are endless - they should have shut their mouths and kept them shut.

As for Lin Wood, I have heard some serious comments about him. He's completely lost touch with the real world - that's the world outside of Atlanta, GA and the Ramseys, his chief means of support, it seems, these days. Intelligent people are questioning his skills as an attorney and are asking if he has become the Ramseys' PR person as well as their attorney. Surely he has other clients besides the Ramseys, but we never hear about the other clients. Why just the Ramseys? People are asking why he has become so enamoured of the chief suspects in the murder case of their daughter. His actions do not seem normal or professional and he is losing credibility fast.

Mostly, I hear people laughing at him, he's become a joke to many. It's too bad, but associating with morons such as Susan Bennett hasn't helped his reputation a bit. He comes across as arrogant and spiteful - two traits that turn the public off entirely.

He's a piece of work and, to me, an embarrassment. As his friend at the swamp is fond of saying, that's my opinion, and I can say it.

Pretty soon, there will be nowhere for the Ramseys to run. It's only a matter of time before time runs out for them.

 

Hi-Techs

I remember very clearly, on the old JW forum, that I posted about a picture in the tabs of the Rams (at Christmas) whereby Burke appears to be wearing hi-tech boots.

Someone, at the time, asked me to send the photo, whatever, to one of the rags but, of course, I didn't. It's a photo that many of you have seen and Burke, contrary to what most people think, in my opinion, did have sort of large feet for a 9+ year old.

You know, it was kind of one of those "OJ moments" where a picture of a pair of shoes in a publication tells the real truth.

Maybe Burke got the shoes as a Xmas gift from his parents and didn't wear them too often, except when he first got them???

I believe that the shoes (no matter who wore them) were thrown out by the Rams in an effort to throw a monkey wrench into the investigation.

Remember the Santa Bear, the Heart drawn on John's picture, etc. These were all things the Rams claimed they never saw. They had to have an explanation for the Santa Bear, heart and hi-tech boots - so somewhere along the line, I believe they ditched a lot of stuff in an effort to match their story line and thwart the investigation.

Now that I know how to scan, I may look back at all the old mags and rags I kept on the Ramsey case. Just maybe I can come up with the family Xmas photo that depicts him wearing what I consider to be hi-tech boots. You know, maybe a friend of Burke's had a picture of him with these boots on and it never came out. Who knows?



Regards,
Mandarin

 

WY, I agree with your theory about the JBR killer being in the house longer than DW was in the VanDam's and therefore <i>more likely</i> to leave traces of him/herself there. However, I still have to say this does not prove that there was no intruder. Simple logic says that someone could be in a house all day and it's <i>possible</i> the police might find no trace of them.

As far as I'm concerned, the hand print and shoe print were always BS used by pro- and anti-Ram alike to make whatever point that pleased them. I'm sure they are spin, spinning away over at the swamp right now. And I still don't think that the shoe print implicates whomever wore the shoes, particularly if it was a member of the Ramsey family, who lived there. The only thing I see significant about the shoe story is if it turns out Patsy or Burke had a pair, then the Ramseys (and Lin Wood) lied about it. Now, if someone can prove that the shoe print was made at about the same time JBR was killed, then it does have some case value!

There is absolutely nothing that I can see in the article that is going to matter as regards solving the death of JBR - it did perk-up interest, though. IMHO, the killer of JBR will never be revealed unless there is a confession or Burke knows who did it and tells all when he is older.

I predict that one week from today this article will be lost in File 13, overtaken by other events...

 

I beg to differ with you, Angel...

...you know, for some reason, there seem to be loads of people who would actually <b>describe John Ramsey as a CAD package</b>...or at least a cad.

But I don't gossip, and you didn't hear that from me. :0)

The Lou Smit/John Ramsey relationship gets very murky on three issues:

1. John Ramsey announcing as the finale of <i>Death of Innocence</i> that he was starting an organization named "SHOES"...and...

2. The Ramsey "gift" of a DeLorian car to Lou Smit...and...

3. Lou and his son working with John on a new software package that could be used to track murderers or serial crimes.

Some people ask why such a "seasoned detective" such as Lou Smit would be pro-Ramsey if they at all could be guilty of murdering their daughter, JonBenet...that the mere fact that he supports the Ramseys is "proof" (there's that word again) that upright ex-police officers find them credible and innocent.

I would counter by pointing out the seductive power of a false promise of having a nation-wide organization named after you...the possibility that during the heady days of the Internet bubble when anyone with the ability to code (like Smit's son) <i>seemed</i> to all be instant millionaires...and a coveted and sparkly toy like a pristinely restored DeLorian <b>might</b> cloud the reasoning of anyone who could be influenced by such things.

Was Smit influenced by John Ramsey's gifts and promises of riches and fame? I don't know...stranger things have happened.

Perhaps Smit felt that his long career was coming to an end, and here was a last chance for glory. All those good cases worked on, so many solved* crimes...so little to show for it.

Then comes the call from the DA's office in Boulder.

Maybe Smit convinced himself it was his destiny that had been denied...that now he, and he alone, would choose the right course in this case and be the hero...and this time eveyone in the world would hear about it.

Was Lou snookered?

Probably as much by himself as by the Ramseys. But, they must have seen his vulnerabilities, and milked them for all it was worth.

And with every day that passes since JonBenet was murdered, Lou and his clients the Ramseys look worse and worse...by playing to Smit, and then shamelessly using him, the Ramseys actually ruined a man and buried his reasonably well-performed career...and for their own benefit just plain turned out the old "fox" like he was a joke...like they care.

So, now how will Lou Smit be remembered by posterity?

Let's just say that I wouldn't want to be in his non-existant <b>SHOES.</B>




<right><i>* Some of Smit's cases were purported to have been solved basically with the help of other officers, or other law enforcement that was at his disposal. </i></right>

 

You know, Moab...none of this would have happened...

...if only Linda Arndt had brought a <b>beagle</b> with her. <img src="http://www.forumsforjustice.org//forums/images/smilies/beagle.gif">

 

My goodness!

What an amazing thread and such BRILLIANT posts. You guys never cease to impress me with your great memories, research skills and ability to put ideas together.

Dunv, my heart stopped a little when I read your thoughts of Patsy wearing Burke's shoe. Do we know which Hi-Tech model Ruthee's picture shows?

And boating shoes, Moab, that's a good one.

WY, your Westerfield comparison is also wonderful. Consider the struggle that JB put up -- one would think there'd be plenty of perp evidence left... but no.

Mandarin, if you can find that photo of Burke, please post it! Any details about the photo would help.

Yep, SHOES SHOES, indeed. Maybe it was Lou's way of leaving a clue where we'd find it. Fat chance. I think he was just duped. But I theorized before that Lou, based on when he sought to do media interviews or make other public utterances, knew about timely publicity -- they were never random. That would allow him to heighten his profile in the media to attract interest for, say, a book, movie or TV series deal. A character based on an "ex-cop who goes against the grain" and solves tough cases is nothing new, but quite lucrative to the person on whose life it's based. And if he was administering to a dying wife AND driving a DeLorean, well, how dramatic! (Btw, I had never heard that Ramsey gave him that car. Is that true? How do you know that, Dunv?) Old fashioned religion meets new-fangled computer spinning (just the kind of knowledge that could create a cloaked website in a South Pacific island?).

I don't know if my guess was true, but if it was, it's dead in the water now. Perhaps someone met with him and realized there really wasn't much there worth putting under contract. Imagine a couple years back when it seemed like quite a few people close to the case were making big bucks. It could have been in Lou's mind, or his kids'. It'd be their future, after all, and a better fortune than a retired cop would leave behind, especially after paying for his wife's medical bills.

Shadow, you mentioned skepticism about Charlie Brennan's "unnamed source." Charlie has a great background, solid sources and has, almost certainly, confided the full info to his editor. An unnamed source is always named to at least one other person, be it a lawyer or editor. CNN did that recently with the Iraqi tapes and so did Woodward-Bernstein with Deep Throat. Secret sources are the backbone of real investigative reporting. Doesn't mean they're made up, or that reporter wouldn't have much future. Read any mainstream hard hitting piece and you'll see unnamed sources in the mix.

As for Carol McKinley, I'd have to see a second source for her hair scoop since she's been so sloppy in the past. But maybe she's trying to rehabilitate herself. I'm not sure how that squares with Schiller's "underbelly hair" comment, though.

Anyway, bravo to Charlie for one of the most significant puzzle pieces in a VERY long time.

 

I never heard that either about JR giving Smit a car. Is that true?

 

That was a rumor

actually a sarcastic joke, that was going around at one time. There was never any evidence that Ramsey gave Smit that car, just suppositions on certain posters' part, as in, Smit couldn't afford that car, so Ramsey must have given it to him. I don't think that is what happened. No one on these forums is in a position to know what Smit's financial circumstances are. I'm sure not.

 

Damage control?

I have a new thought about why these leaks are happening now. With the possibility that Steve Thomas's deposition may be released if CBS (or is it ABC, I don't know) gets its way, is it possible the BPD is attempting to mitigate damaging information contained in that deposition? These leaks didn't just happen by chance - there is a bigger purpose for them, and I think there is something bigger coming.

It's like the Ramseys - when they found out the BPD had the 911 tape enhanced and it proved Burke was awake and talking at that time, they changed their story from "Burke was sleeping" to "Burke appeared to be sleeping." They even gave the National Enquirer an interview about it, remember?

I'm betting there are some serious allegations, perhaps against the BPD, that is forcing them to do damage control in the form of leaks to head off those allegations.

OR, a second possibility is that the damaging information is against the Ramseys, and these leaks are only a forerunner of the biggie.

I'm going to guess the first possibility, because it's been pretty clear Boulder officials haven't exactly been killing themselves working on the JBR case lately.

Something's up, folks. I'd stake my spleen on it.

 

Well this car thing is pretty serious, if true. If Smit was given that car while working for the DA then, well, that would be some SERIOUS misbehaviour. I want to see some evidence that this car was a gift from Ramsey, and I'd also like to know when the car was given.

 

That's what I'm saying, BobC

the Ramseys did not buy Smit a Delorean.

And, I'm backed up by the mouth at the swamp who reads here all the time - she states Smit owned the Delorean before JBR was murdered.

I won't link to her "temporary" forum because I don't want any of her backwash contaminating our beautiful forum.

 

Gotcha

Sorry--I'm reading quickly and didn't understand what you were saying.

 

You're correct...it was rumor, not fact...

Thanks, WY...I did go back and do research, and I found that the talk about Lou Smit being given that DeLorian by the Ramseys is nothing but speculation.

There's no proof that the Ramseys purchased Lou's car for him.

We don't have any concrete information on the purchase of Smit's DeLorian.

Since these cars (good running models) are priced between $14 and $40K...they are not utterly beyond the possible means of a retired detective.

But, as Fedora says, this is a flashy car...an attention getter. The kind of car you wouldn't bother with (parts are rare, mechanics for them are rarer) unless you were a rabid home auto jockey, and/or you had quite a bit of money and time to devote to keeping it running well...that, and that you really enjoyed the stares that a running DeLorian rolling around the streets brings.

Thanks, WY, for helping to keep the record straight.

Speaking of DeLorian Lou, I was just reading <b><a href="http://thewebsafe.tripod.com/02242000peterboylesshow-pb.htm"> a transcript of an old Peter Boyles show</a></b> from Thursday, February 24, 2000:<ol> Peter Boyles: We (Schiller) were on a Geraldo show about a month before the GJ conclusion and he said to me he said he believed the Ramseys would be indicted for the murder. He also said that he wasn't quite sure which of the two did what inside the house. Now if this movie turns out to be what some people say it's going to turn out to be because the highest price guy, and this movies gonna get a lot of attention... Caller: Yeah, Kris Kristofferson's gonna say, you know...

PB: He's gonna be Lou Smit. Well Lou Smit as you know, in the views of the people who really understand this story, Lou Smit is basically a turncoat. And the Ramseys tricked him, I believe, with their own professed Christianity. You know they prayed together at the side of the house.

Caller: Yeah, yeah.

PB: Then they went to the gravesite and prayed together and Lou doesn't believe another Christian could do this. And Patsy's a cancer survivor, Smit's wife's a cancer survivor...I mean, there's a lot of crossover. But in the history of investigations, according to people that I respect, they said there's never been a case where an investigator switches sides.

<b>{snip}</b>

We know for one interview we know that's been already granted is Barbara Walters for a special with the Ramseys. Look, Barbara Walters, God bless her...

Caller: Bahbwah...

PB: But she doesn't know her rear end from third base when it comes to this case or for that matter, some people say, anything. But can you imagine Barbara going "Well, Petsee, if you were going to be a twee what kind of a twee would you be?" Remember that great question if you were going to be a tree what kind of a tree would you be?</ol>I think I could answer that question for Walters:

If Patsy were going to be a "twee", she'd probably be a "wych elm" or an "American beech" twee.

Alex Hunter? A mountain ash.

Lin Wood would be either a "smooth sue-mac" or a "honey locust."

Smit? A bald cypress, of course.

And Jameson? Easy. A bitternut hickory twee.

 

Fedorax - <i>"Shadow, you mentioned skepticism about Charlie Brennan's "unnamed source." Charlie has a great background, solid sources and has, almost certainly, confided the full info to his editor. An unnamed source is always named to at least one other person, be it a lawyer or editor. CNN did that recently with the Iraqi tapes and so did Woodward-Bernstein with Deep Throat. Secret sources are the backbone of real investigative reporting. Doesn't mean they're made up, or that reporter wouldn't have much future. Read any mainstream hard hitting piece and you'll see unnamed sources in the mix."</i>


First, "An unnamed source is <b>always</b> named to at least one other person, be it a lawyer or editor." It would be nice if that was <b>always</b> true, FedoraX, but you're smart enough to know that it's not. Actually, in the past five or six years, several writers have been fired for using "unnamed sources" that turned-out to be non-existent in articles in major magazines - off the top of my head I remember one in the Atlantic Monthly and one in George.

Second, I don't know Charlie Brennan from Clark Kent, therefore I have no knowledge of his "great background." I most certainly agree that Charlie Brennan's "secret source" is the backbone of his report, but I'm not sure I see much there in the way of "investigative reporting." In fact, it appears to me that "investigative reporting" is becoming a lost art, replaced by articles that, when read closely, are nothing more than the reporter's assumptions based on "leaks" and "hand-outs" from these indispensable "sources" whose "agenda" we don't know. We have a classic case going on right now with Dr. Stephen J. Hatfill and his treatment by the media based on "leaks" and rumors started by the FBI and Justice Dept.

Actually, I have no problem with the people on this forum and in the world in general believing "unnamed sources" if they wish to do so. Yes, I'm a skeptic... it's just one of my strange little quirks that I prefer to have something tangible to back-up the "source." Hey, that's just me... and BTW, although I think Woodward and Bernstein were pretty good "investigative reporters," I won't be convinced that there was a Deep Throat until he reveals himself.

shadow