If JR israeli made sweater was used to wipe her down, wouldnt JB DNA be on the sweater? Please dont tell me the Ramsey clothes they were wearing on the 25th eve were not confiscated.
If JR israeli made sweater was used to wipe her down, wouldnt JB DNA be on the sweater? Please dont tell me the Ramsey clothes they were wearing on the 25th eve were not confiscated.
Actually, they were requested one year after the murder and turned in four months after they were requested. The BPD stated that the clothes looked brand new and the top/sweater, didn't look like it would even fit Patsy. Also, they didn't say whether or not they even asked for any of Burkes clothing.
What I meant by that is that the statement "...did not match any footwear belonging to the parents," is correct; but we know now that at least one (the Hi-Tek) might have belonged to BR. Do we know that it did belong to BR? No. But despite their initial denial, BR did own a pair -- the ones with a compass on the laces. We don't know the size of it, but the BPD probably does.
And on your earlier question about the "XP" seen on the other one... I looked, Murri, but couldn't find a specific brand of shoes. If you google "xp shoes", you'll find lots of references, but I didn't find any images of what the soles of any of them would show. Thanks, BTW, for the all the image enhancements. You're really good at that!
.
What I meant by that is that the statement "...did not match any footwear belonging to the parents," is correct; but we know now that at least one (the Hi-Tek) might have belonged to BR. Do we know that it did belong to BR? No. But despite their initial denial, BR did own a pair -- the ones with a compass on the laces. We don't know the size of it, but the BPD probably does.
And on your earlier question about the "XP" seen on the other one... I looked, Murri, but couldn't find a specific brand of shoes. If you google "xp shoes", you'll find lots of references, but I didn't find any images of what the soles of any of them would show. Thanks, BTW, for the all the image enhancements. You're really good at that!
.
RTC:
The Ramsey clothes they were wearing on the 25th eve were not confiscated.
(Well, actually... not until much later, and probably after many washings.)
.
I'm not even sure there was a print to size. My understanding (and keep in mind, this is from some time ago) is that the logo was the ONLY part of the print that could be seen.
Yes I think that's quite possible. Looking at the photo, the logo "Hi-Tec" is clear, but there is no visible outline of the shoe. That seems odd.
Yes I think that's quite possible. Looking at the photo, the logo "Hi-Tec" is clear, but there is no visible outline of the shoe. That seems odd.
I think with what they have, they should be able to determine the shoe size.
Have they announced it? (Why should they? I believe they know who it belongs to.)
I put some lines coming from what I see as the outline of the Hy-Tec:
See it now?
I think with what they have, they should be able to determine the shoe size.
Have they announced it? (Why should they? I believe they know who it belongs to.)
.
And naturally....16 months later BR would have outgrown most everything he owned at the time of the murder. Although I'm sure if he did have anything with possible evidence PR would have made sure he "outgrew" it right away.I honestly think they needed to ask for the clothes he wore and his pj's, but 16 months after the fact, the only use is fibers. I am sure there would not be any DNA evidence on any of the clothing items.
Agreed...no way would he use his nice shirt to do that...he'd know it would need to be accounted for and if he destroyed it...PR would be TICKED.Either that, or the shirt wasn't used to wipe her down at all. If my theory is correct, the fibers would have fallen in when his arm scuffed against her waistband.
I was thinking that the logo being so clear and the outline not clear indicates that the logo is on the ball of the foot (most weight), rather than in the arch where you have assumed. Also you have the logo cross-wise, but in some of their shoes it is lengthwise. So, while you are trying to fit the logo to the size of your suspect, (BR) I think if you expand your suspects to include adults, you might find the shoe size is potentially larger.
Murri , I see the outline. I see where the logo is in relation to the outline. I see the direction of the logo. I dont have the logo cross-wise. It is what it is. You are trying to interpret the evidence to support a preconceived conclusion.
While I could have tried to say that the evidence supports my belief of BRs involvement, I pointed out that it did not necessarily prove that. I follow the evidence wherever it leads. If it proves Im wrong -- so be it. Believe me when I tell you, I really hope to be proven wrong. But misinterpreting hard evidence is not something that lends credence to anyone.
.