Hi-Tec crime scene photos

Discussion in 'Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum' started by koldkase, Sep 27, 2009.

  1. fr brown

    fr brown Member

    In Smit's testimony before Carnes he says that the Hi-Tec logo at the crime scene matches Helgoth's boots down to the circular trademark. I took another look at the crime scene photo and there is a circular mark on the right near the "H." Because it's deep and regular it does look like it could be part of the boot.

    I looked at a bunch of Hi-Tec logos on boots courtesy of ebay and while some of them have a symbol near the "H," they are closer to it and larger than the mark in the crime scene photo.

    I know the police said Helgoth's boots didn't match and I've wondered if they could tell because the logos weren't a match.
  2. DeeDee

    DeeDee Member

    The size could also have been different. BR did admit to police that he had a pair of Hi-Tec shoes (though his parents said he did not). NO mention of whether the print matched BR's. That type of shoe is commonly worn by police and workmen. Because prints (including fingerprints) can't be dated, there is no way to prove that shoe print was left at the time of the crime. However, prints left on blood or other matter that are part of the crime CAN be linked to the crime (as in the OJ Simpson case, where his Bruno Magli shoeprints were made by his wife's blood. Doubt a stranger bent on murder or robbery would be wearing Bruno Magli shoes (a very expensive Italian brand). And in OJ's size, too.
  3. fr brown

    fr brown Member

    I think the police said that the Hi-Tec logos are the same size no matter the size of the shoe. The shoeprint itself is unsizeable, I believe.

    Hi-Tec logos vary, I've found, over the years. They sometimes have a symbol near the "H," sometimes near the "C." I haven't seen any yet where the symbol is a plain circle.

    I'm willing to take Smit's word that Helgoth's shoes (or the ones attributed to him) had a symbol of some type near "Hi-Tec," presumably it's on the "H" side, but it might be on the "C" side if he forgot to account for mirror imaging.
  4. Texan

    Texan FFJ Senior Member


    The size of the shoe that made the imprint in the Ramseys' basement may not be ascertainable but the BPD did say it was made by a small shoe (possibly a woman's shoe). That being said, I simply can't remember where I read that, maybe in ST's book. I currently don't have access to that book or I would try to find the reference to it. The chain of custody of Helgoth's boots is probably not any good.
  5. fr brown

    fr brown Member

    Are you sure they were talking about the Hi-Tec print? There are other shoeprints there, one where you see a partial logo and some actual tread.
  6. fr brown

    fr brown Member

    Here's what Kane says in Patsy's 2000 interview. It sounds like the Hi-Tec shoeprint isn't sizeable (because only the logo is discernible):

    "23 Q. (By Mr. Kane) But I mean, but
    24 my question was, when you said we, you were
    25 talking about you or John?

    1 A. Well, what is the, what size
    2 print is the Hi-Tec? Is it a child's or is
    3 it an adult's?

    4 Q. I don't think there is any
    5 difference between the two. And I think
    6 that has been pretty well publicized too."
  7. zoomama

    zoomama Active Member


    You mean "those ugly @ss shoes"?

    Sorry, I can't help myself- Heh
  8. Texan

    Texan FFJ Senior Member

    size of shoes

    I still don't have access to Steve's book and am not likely to for some months as we are in the midst of moving so it is frustrating for me. I did do a search on ffj and found where Jayelles had done some research on hi-tec shoe sizes and said there is very little difference between a child's size five and an adults size 9.5 - like .5 to 1.0 inch so I would guess that the print would be hard to size even if more of it was visible.

    After all of that, the shoe print really isn't a case maker or breaker 'cause the best piece of evidence is surely the note. Lou can carry on about Helgoth's boot but I still think there would be a chain of custody issue with that boot anyway and probably couldn't be used in court.
  9. fr brown

    fr brown Member

    Though a size 5 would have been ginormous on Burke. My kid is nine and just closing in on a 1.

    If the circular mark in the crime scene photo isn't part of the Hi-Tec logo then we know for sure that Helgoth's boot didn't make that mark because that boot does have some kind of circular symbol as part of the logo, according to Smit.

    I suppose the note is unlikely to yield up more secrets. Personally, I'd like to know where in the country they would say "deviation of my instructions" instead of "deviation from my instructions." I think that particular construction would lie below the level of consciousness and to my ear it sounds very odd.
  10. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    The problem with Smit's "story" about Helgoth's Hi-Tec matching that imprint is that the man who "brought" the Hi-Tecs to Team Ramsey, Kenady, IS A FREAKING FRUIT CASE with a long history of bringing frivolous lawsuits in Colorado and getting into trouble himself with LE over various issues.

    At best, Kenady broke into Helgoth's family's home and stole the boots, as he tells the story. He also stole some checks and drawings, the tale went. The only true thing we know about him, other than his wingnut status, is that he is just another fame-seeking freak who wanted to interject himself into this case.

    Remember that Kenady appeared ON CAMERA in one of Michael Tracey's crocumentaries, alleging Helgoth was part of a NINJA BURGLAR RING. It was another fantastical story played out by Tracey and Smit to lead away from the Ramseys, with money being made in the process, of course. It was so cheesy, it was laughable. Except...you know...MURDERED CHILD.

    Tracey even had the LOWDOWN, DIRTY HYPOCRISY to put the coroner's photo of Helgoth on his bed, a suicide, on international TV. You could see Helgoth's face, which was NOT blurred in any way, and the gun by his side. I guess since the Ramseys never have objected to JonBenet's autopsy photos being splashed worldwide by their good buddy Smit, as long as he was pitching the "intruder" theory successfully, Tracey figured it was just fine to traumatize the Helgoth family that way. Anything for their precious Ramseys! Only the Helgoths had NO CHOICE in the matter.

    So IMO Kenady came up with his silly stories just like PERV Karr and a dozen other mental cases who have tried to link themselves to this case and ride the fame train.

    Bottom line: there is not one cracked DNA strand of truth in any of Smit's lies and red herrings. NO one has ever proven Helgoth ever heard of the Ramseys in his life before the rest of us. Just another bus victim, compliments of Team Ramsey, led by LOU "PSYCHIC" SMIT.

    Mark Beckner stated to the press that the boot Team Ramsey turned in to the BPD was not a match to the imprint. He should know.

    Wonder when Smit is going to go on TV and talk about LE testing for "touch" DNA on that garrote cord? The duct tape? The paintbrush "handle"? When is he going to talk about that enhanced 911 tape he's undoubtedly heard but never publicly spoken about, even while Lin Wood and jams were spreading all their disinformation that it doesn't have any voices on it? How about the testing of the package of Boomies the Ramseys "turned in" to Lacy FIVE YEARS AFTER THE MURDER? Any of JonBenet's fingerprints on that package? How about the "remaining" six pairs of Bloomies in it? Hello?

    You can bet that anything Smit spins in this case is ALL BS. The man either doesn't know as much about forensic evidence as a twelve year old or he's deliberately deceiving the public to protect the Ramseys. Either way, he's no detective, just another Ramsey shill, IMO.
  11. fr brown

    fr brown Member

    I didn't know any of that, but I could tell there was something fairly peculiar about how the boots came into the Ramseys' possession. In 2000 Kane grills Patsy pretty good about what she knows about it. Here's a small excerpt:

    "10 Q. (By Mr. Kane) Do you know how
    11 Mr. [Ollie] Gray came into possession of these boots?

    12 A. I don't know exactly, no.

    13 MR. WOOD: I think that was
    14 explained in a memo to Chief Beckner by Mr.
    15 Gray that he sent to him in the last couple
    16 of weeks.

    17 THE WITNESS: You all have the
    18 boots now.

    19 MR. KANE: That wasn't my
    20 question. I want to know what you know
    21 about those.

    22 Q. (By Mr. Kane) So you don't know
    23 how he came into possession of those boots?

    24 A. I think he said he might have
    25 gotten them from a family member, or --

    1 Q. When did you learn this?

    2 A. Some time ago. A couple of
    3 months ago.

    4 Q. And was that the first time you
    5 heard about Mr. Helgoth having Hi-Tec boots?

    6 A. Yes.

    7 Q. All right. And did you learn
    8 about that in a personal conversation with
    9 Mr. Gray or did you learn it indirectly
    10 through somebody else?

    11 A. I think I probably heard it from
    12 John."

  12. Karen

    Karen Member

    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.
  13. Texan

    Texan FFJ Senior Member

  14. fr brown

    fr brown Member

    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.
  15. DeeDee

    DeeDee Member

    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.
  16. DeeDee

    DeeDee Member

    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).
  17. fr brown

    fr brown Member

    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.
  18. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    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:


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

    fr brown Member

    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."
  20. DeeDee

    DeeDee Member

    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.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice