Why would the Ramseys need to stage?

[Mama2JML]

Reading about the Hi-Tec boot-print got me thinking about the basement in general and how the state of the carpet- especially near the basement window- would have been affected. I don't know where most IDIs believe the intruder gained access to the house, but the main theory I've heard is that he/she/they came in through the basement window and left the same way. If that's true, wouldn't there also be dirt and wet spots from melted snow left under the window, since the intruder goes from directly stepping on the ground outdoors to stepping on the carpet? I've watched the police footage showing the area of the basement window and saw no dirt on the carpet, and haven't read anything stating the carpet was the least bit damp.

The flooring in the wine cellar was not carpeted.

 

[OliviaG1996]

The flooring in the train room was not carpeted.

Can you provide a source for that? I can be mistaken, but this picture makes it seem as though it was:

 

[Mama2JML]

Can you provide a source for that? I can be mistaken, but this picture makes it seem as though it was:

View attachment 76501

I'm sorry. I misunderstood your post, and I've edited my post to reflect such. I do not know the specifics regarding the flooring directly beneath Smit's "intruder window"; carpet, linoleum, tile, etc...

 

[UKGuy]

There is no way to "date" a shoeprint-like a fingerprint- their presence can only be sourced to a particular date and time by circumstantial evidence- for example, if there had been a photo taken in the winecellar the day before that showed NO shoe print. As far as fingerprints- if not sourced to someone in the home and/or someone known to be in the home at the time of a crime, there is no other way to "date" them. An intruder's print on the duct tape, pineapple bowl, glass etc. would make me take a second look. As it is now, the only prints/fibers on these items belong to family members known to have been in the home at the time JB was killed. As for the Hi-Tec poon print- the "missing" BR shoes would still not prove the print came from him. Many people were in that room that day who were likely to be wearing Hi-Tecs (police, FBI, etc). BR may have outgrown the shoes and no longer had them. What does make me suspicious is the fact that BR told police himself that he owned a pair and his friend also told police that BR owned a pair, so when the parents denied it, that raises a huge red flag to me. What puzzles me about the print is that if it were from someone walking around staging the body, there should be more of them. Yet if had been there previously, why wasn't it obliterated by whoever WAS walking around staging the body? Supposedly, the housekeeper's husband had been in there before Christmas because he was helping with bringing out all the R's Christmas trees that were stored in there. Did police ask whether he had a pair? If so the poon could have been checked to see if it matched.

DeeDee249,
BBM: If the case is BDI, maybe they did not want to ask? James Kolar might speculate that the footprint arrived in the wine-cellar Christmas Day, PM when BR was allegedly opening the Christmas gifts?

The question should have a relatively simple answer: what shoes was BR wearing Christmas Day, say to the White's Christmas Party, were they captured on any of the pictures taken as forensic evidence?

.

 

[DeeDee249]

DeeDee249,
BBM: If the case is BDI, maybe they did not want to ask? James Kolar might speculate that the footprint arrived in the wine-cellar Christmas Day, PM when BR was allegedly opening the Christmas gifts?

The question should have a relatively simple answer: what shoes was BR wearing Christmas Day, say to the White's Christmas Party, were they captured on any of the pictures taken as forensic evidence?

.

As far as I know, no Hi-Tec shoes belonging to BR (or anyone else) was taken into evidence by LE. Police DO have photos of the Rs at the White's party, so they know what every member of the family was wearing. However, I do not know whether they would have been able to tell what brand of shoe he had on. As the parents denied BR owned such shoes (and he admitted that he DID) we have to assume either they had been his at one time and he outgrew them and no longer owned them, OR he did own them and they were hidden/destroyed by the parents.

 

[andreww]

As far as I know, no Hi-Tec shoes belonging to BR (or anyone else) was taken into evidence by LE. Police DO have photos of the Rs at the White's party, so they know what every member of the family was wearing. However, I do not know whether they would have been able to tell what brand of shoe he had on. As the parents denied BR owned such shoes (and he admitted that he DID) we have to assume either they had been his at one time and he outgrew them and no longer owned them, OR he did own them and they were hidden/destroyed by the parents.

What he wore to the whites is inconsequential. What he was wearing during Christmas Day and what he was wearing the morning he left the house are what matters. As for him outgrowing them, LE knew exactly where and when they were purchase and I believe it had been fairly recent. I'm pretty sure they were never collected by LE, so what happened to them is a mystery.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[DeeDee249]

What he wore to the whites is inconsequential. What he was wearing during Christmas Day and what he was wearing the morning he left the house are what matters. As for him outgrowing them, LE knew exactly where and when they were purchase and I believe it had been fairly recent. I'm pretty sure they were never collected by LE, so what happened to them is a mystery.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I had never read where LE knew where and when they were purchased. I was only aware that LE knew he had them.

 

[questfortrue]

I had never read where LE knew where and when they were purchased. I was only aware that LE knew he had them.

Burke apparently testified during his interview with the GJ that he owned Hi-Tec boots prior to JonBenet’s homicide. Burke stated that they were purchased during a shopping trip with his parents in Atlanta. This was revealed by Levin and Kane at the 2000 interviews with Patsy. Attorney LW pressed for the source of the information, and Kane replied they did not want to get into GJ information.

 

[UKGuy]

Burke apparently testified during his interview with the GJ that he owned Hi-Tec boots prior to JonBenet’s homicide. Burke stated that they were purchased during a shopping trip with his parents in Atlanta. This was revealed by Levin and Kane at the 2000 interviews with Patsy. Attorney LW pressed for the source of the information, and Kane replied they did not want to get into GJ information.

questfortrue,
Nice to have this confirmed. Wonder why he was asked and what did Kane wish to hide? Kolar thinks JonBenet was killed in the breakfast bar, so who took her down to the basement and never cleaned up the pineapple snack?

I'm thinking Kolar has BR penciled in for redressing JonBenet in the size-12's, he know about them from earlier in the day. It would interesting to hear his theory?

.

 

[questfortrue]

questfortrue,
Nice to have this confirmed. Wonder why he was asked and what did Kane wish to hide? Kolar thinks JonBenet was killed in the breakfast bar, so who took her down to the basement and never cleaned up the pineapple snack?

I'm thinking Kolar has BR penciled in for redressing JonBenet in the size-12's, he know about them from earlier in the day. It would interesting to hear his theory?

.

Kolar said once in a podcast that BR tore open some of the presents, peeking on Christmas day at presents possibly meant for his birthday. So yes, the Bloomies may have been revealed when he did that. But then there is the issue of whether a child of 9/almost 10 would think to place the Wednesday Bloomies on her, which I believe are in the middle of the package. Maybe just me, but that choice seems more like a parental thought process, anticipating that someone may have assisted her in the bathroom and had seen Wednesday panties. (I guess, if BDI, one could argue BR redressed her in them, to 'fool' his parents, but that would seem to be the least of his hurdles that night, imo.)

IIRC Kolar was a little reticent to reveal his theory about JonBenet’s injuries – the head strike and the strangulation – and whether there had been two perpetrators. When asked during his Reddit he replied, sorry that’s getting into evidence.

 

[UKGuy]

Kolar said once in a podcast that BR tore open some of the presents, peeking on Christmas day at presents possibly meant for his birthday. So yes, the Bloomies may have been revealed when he did that. But then there is the issue of whether a child of 9/almost 10 would think to place the Wednesday Bloomies on her, which I believe are in the middle of the package. Maybe just me, but that choice seems more like a parental thought process, anticipating that someone may have assisted her in the bathroom and had seen Wednesday panties. (I guess, if BDI, one could argue BR redressed her in them, to 'fool' his parents, but that would seem to be the least of his hurdles that night, imo.)

IIRC Kolar was a little reticent to reveal his theory about JonBenet’s injuries – the head strike and the strangulation – and whether there had been two perpetrators. When asked during his Reddit he replied, sorry that’s getting into evidence.

questfortrue,
Redressing JonBenet in the size-12's is a male thing, no woman would do that! It was either BR or JR, so by indirect inference it must be BR, as per Kolar?

Kolar has also suggested a degree of sexual pathology here, but not spelled it out, i.e. referring to books purchased by relatives etc. JonBenet's genital injuries might be a reflection of this, the bleeding would have stained her size-6 underwear making a change required, remember PR cited ramnesia for not knowing what underwear JonBenet dressed in prior to the Whites Christmnas party.

Why would she do this, unless she was going along with the size-12's story, except she had her facts wrong. So Patsy realized someone else had redressed JonBenet in the size-12's and lost her memory.
She tried her best to invent a narrative, but it fell down on the evidence, i.e. no size-12's in the drawer!

If the case was PDI the breakfast bar would have been cleaned up, and there would be no size-12's. BR likely thought JonBenet's underwear has to be a Wednesday pair because he knows Patsy knows this is what JonBenet was wearing?

BR might be 9-years old, but he knows his sister should not be bleeding and naked from the waist down, hence the redressing, then he can tell any story he wants? What seems likely is that BR staged an accident for JonBenet, but the parents realized this was immature staging so refined it.

Dumping everything into the wine-cellar seems to me to be an admission of this, some of the items were obviously involved in whatever had taken place that night?

.

 

[CorallaroC]

UKGuy, let's also keep in mind what Schiller wrote in his book: the housekeeper said that all the children's underclothes were DATED (presumably that meant date of purchase).

Eventhough dated underwear is not all that uncommon - based on previous discussions in this forum - I still find it odd that PR would be that fastidious about her children's underwear while at the same time being such a notoriously bad housekeeper, especially allowing the children to toss their dirty clothes anywhere, or leave them on the floor where they undressed.

But my point is - in a household where underwear/panties are given special focus and attention, it does not surprise me one bit that JBR's body was re-dressed in special underwear, or Wednesday underwear.

I really wish JR had not made a point of talking so openly about reading the ransom note in his underwear - and his story of stripping down to his underwear when he allegedly broke into the basement window the previous summer when he didn't have his keys. Not a pleasant word picture KWIM?

 

[andreww]

Did JR describe reading the note in his underwear? I've only ever seen Patsy state that. I've always thought it a little odd that John said he was getting dressed when Patsy yelled for him, yet she says he wasn't wearing clothes. One would assume he was in his underwear while shaving and brushing his teeth, but It doesn't seem like he was getting dressed.

In JRs statement he never mentioned being in his underwear or getting dressed after reading the note. He says he went and checked that all the doors were locked, and that he went out to the garage to check that. But later he said he didn't check any doors, so did he not go to the garage either?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mochii]

Been a while since I have been here -- but on discussion of the shoe print. Was it ever measured? There is a big difference between the footprint size of a child and that of an adult. It'd definitely give some hint as to who had been in there (either the night of the murder or previously).

As for the panties being Wednesday panties, I am pretty sure Christmas was on a Wednesday that year, so redressing her in Wednesday panties would have been the safe bet by the killer. It'd give the illusion she had the panties on the whole time and that there was no re-dressing. They didn't take into consideration the large size, which is unbelievable she would have worn all day due to them being so big. I think that they panicked and put the panties on (maybe she originally had a fitting Wednesday pair on?) without realizing. It seems to me the cover up was done extremely hastily.

 

[UKGuy]

Been a while since I have been here -- but on discussion of the shoe print. Was it ever measured? There is a big difference between the footprint size of a child and that of an adult. It'd definitely give some hint as to who had been in there (either the night of the murder or previously).

As for the panties being Wednesday panties, I am pretty sure Christmas was on a Wednesday that year, so redressing her in Wednesday panties would have been the safe bet by the killer. It'd give the illusion she had the panties on the whole time and that there was no re-dressing. They didn't take into consideration the large size, which is unbelievable she would have worn all day due to them being so big. I think that they panicked and put the panties on (maybe she originally had a fitting Wednesday pair on?) without realizing. It seems to me the cover up was done extremely hastily.

mochii,
Welcome back. I assume the shoeprint was measured and scaled as in those forensic style photographs, lets put it this way, the GJ would not have asked about BR owning that style of shoe if it had been an adult footprint!

Yes the Wednesday feature must be the important factor since there is a drawer full of other Day of The Week underwear available. I'm thinking BR knew that PR had supervised JonBenet's bathing and dressing for the White's, PR even states she had a disagreement over co-ordinating their outfits color, so PR knew what JonBenet was wearing, even if she cites ramnesia regarding JonBenet's underwear!

I'm beginning to wonder about the longjohns, maybe JonBenet wore them over the size-6 underwear? Again if Patsy knew about the size-12's and JonBenet was wearing them when Patsy redressed JonBenet for bed, whats the big deal about not noticing them?

.

 

[mochii]

mochii,
Welcome back. I assume the shoeprint was measured and scaled as in those forensic style photographs, lets put it this way, the GJ would not have asked about BR owning that style of shoe if it had been an adult footprint!

Yes the Wednesday feature must be the important factor since there is a drawer full of other Day of The Week underwear available. I'm thinking BR knew that PR had supervised JonBenet's bathing and dressing for the White's, PR even states she had a disagreement over co-ordinating their outfits color, so PR knew what JonBenet was wearing, even if she cites ramnesia regarding JonBenet's underwear!

I'm beginning to wonder about the longjohns, maybe JonBenet wore them over the size-6 underwear? Again if Patsy knew about the size-12's and JonBenet was wearing them when Patsy redressed JonBenet for bed, whats the big deal about not noticing them?

.

That is a good point. I am surprised there isn't more information it being child's sized anywhere. Even though that could have been put there before the murder, it still seems like a very important factor worth mentioning, somewhere!

 

[andreww]

That is a good point. I am surprised there isn't more information it being child's sized anywhere. Even though that could have been put there before the murder, it still seems like a very important factor worth mentioning, somewhere!

As I recall the whole boot print really wasn't visible, just the middle part where the logo was located. Possibly the logo size was the same on all sizes o that boot?

 

[DeeDee249]

As I recall the whole boot print really wasn't visible, just the middle part where the logo was located. Possibly the logo size was the same on all sizes o that boot?

I believe the lego on the "poon" of the shoe was said to be the same on all the sizes.

 

[otg]

There have been many, many discussions about the "poon" here at WS over the years. Links to them can be found by doing an advanced search at Google for the word at this website (include the word "jonbenet" to limit the word to this forum only). I've done the search and copied the following URL for those too lazy (or technically challenged) to fill in the blanks:

https://www.google.com/search?as_q=...oon+jonbenet++site:http://www.websleuths.com/

My understanding at this time is that (as DD stated) the size of the poon will be the same on different size shoes -- or at least the same size within most of the sizes. But there is enough of an outline of the shoe's sole found in the basement debris that a reasonable degree of certainty about the size can be determined from the width of the sole and the dimensions that are discernible. I believe BPD investigators know whether or not anyone's known shoe would fit the imprint found in the basement, and that this is part of the evidence that hasn't yet been released or leaked.

Here are a few photos for comparison:

 

[andreww]

There have been many, many discussions about the "poon" here at WS over the years. Links to them can be found by doing an advanced search at Google for the word at this website (include the word "jonbenet" to limit the word to this forum only). I've done the search and copied the following URL for those too lazy (or technically challenged) to fill in the blanks:

https://www.google.com/search?as_q=...oon+jonbenet++site:http://www.websleuths.com/

My understanding at this time is that (as DD stated) the size of the poon will be the same on different size shoes -- or at least the same size within most of the sizes. But there is enough of an outline of the shoe's sole found in the basement debris that a reasonable degree of certainty about the size can be determined from the width of the sole and the dimensions that are discernible. I believe BPD investigators know whether or not anyone's known shoe would fit the imprint found in the basement, and that this is part of the evidence that hasn't yet been released or leaked.

Here are a few photos for comparison:

View attachment 77053View attachment 77054View attachment 77055

Thanks OTG. As far as I am concerned, the boot print has little evidentiary value because we have nothing to match it to. On the other hand, the fact that all the Ramsey's misled LE about Burke owning a pair of HiTeks speaks volumes. Even if they had admitted he owned them, it was not a big deal because the print couldn't be dated. He lived in that house and it could have been made at any time. The fact that they denied the existence of the boots conclusively shows that they were trying to manufacture evidence of an intruder through deceit. Ask yourself why innocent people would do that?