Discussion in 'Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum' started by koldkase, Sep 27, 2009.
Here is the second photo.
Good job. IMO, one and the same.
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).
(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.)
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?
Here are the Columbus boots. Note the pattern on the toe.
The boots also came in navy blue.
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?
Where exactly? I can't pinpoint the shoeprints, specifically the Hi-Tec print, in the photo.
DeeDee, With the above information, isn't the investigation of footprints stymied when one considers the number of workmen who were in this home before Patsy and John Ramsey ever moved into it? Paint cans and Christmas trees were stored in the windowless room, and the Hoffman Pugh family were all in there carting the Christmas trees all over. This plus the Christmas tour through their home in December 1996? Although I know the basement was off limits there.
Or, is there a time limit when it comes to the white mould forming, therefore eliminating the workmen from the past(?).
Yes, you are correct in the fact that not only workmen, but LE favor those shoes. This has been stated before, in some of the books on the case. The presence of the Hi-Tec print by no means links BR to the crime at this point. For that to happen, LE would need his ACTUAL shoes, and they would need to be tested to see if the same mold is there. And even that would not be conclusive, because as I stated, the print can't be DATED. It can't be proved when it was left. Only blood from JB, or fibers from the cord - anything from THAT NIGHT, found on the shoe can link the wearer to the crime. At this point it is simply a print- nothing more.
As far as a time limit for the mould- In a house the age of the Rs (I believe the original part of the house was well over 70 years old when the Rs bought it ) and that mould forms quickly on an uncured concrete floor in a damp area. That mould had been there for many years.
Here is the photo you wanted posted on this thread, fr brown. Also, I have never seen the location of the shoe prints found in that room pinpointed, and I don't see them in this photo myself.
I've seen that photo before, and we've seen the close-up photo of the Hi-Tec print. I THINK the Hi-Tec print was found in the very visible area of white mould right at the top of the photo, right above where the tape is on the white blanket. If you look closely at that patch of mould, you can see some very faint straight lines, or what looks like some kind of an impression, imprinted in the mould, and I believe this was the shoeprint.
The print was left in an area that was covered with the white mould, and as you can see, this mould does not cover the entire floor, but can be seen in patches here and there.
This would place the person wearing the shoes standing right over JB as she lay in the wineceller.
Here's another blanket in the basement photo provided by Why Nut. (I don't know the source, but I'm guessing it was from a TV program where we got a lot of our crime scene photos.) This is from another angle, it appears.
Here are some comparisons I played with, but I'm not that good and can't seem to get the proportions to match up. At any rate, you can see the floor colors in the lighter photo better than the darker photo. Comparing with the "print" photos, one can see that there is some color variation that might show differently if you were closer and had better lighting when doing the close up of the prints.
Just got a question
In the photo with the blanket and the pink garment, is her body still there under the blanket?
No. That would have been impossible. Until her father brought her up at 1:30 that afternoon, police did not know she was IN the basement and the house was not considered a crime scene. It should have been, though. If proper protocol had been followed, NO friends and victim advocates, clergy, etc. would have been allowed in the house, and no one present when the crime occurred (this means BR) would have been allowed to leave. When JR carried her up, he carried only the body (stiff as a board, held upright in front of him as if he was carrying a mannequin).
It was after that when police were called that the crime scene photos were taken (when she was found, only Det. Linda Arndt was in the house with the Rs and their friends).
Thanks for posting the pics, KK. You can clearly see the pink nightgown stuck on the the white blanket. It isn't visible in all the photos.
From the patterns of the mold and darker concrete floor, it still seems to me that the part where the print could be is close to the blanket.
Thanks. Of course I just wasn't thinking. My little grey cells aren't always firing when asked to do so. Heh!
John Ramsey removed the body from the basement ZM and carried JonBenÃ©t's rigid body upstairs.
Separate names with a comma.