Why would the Ramseys need to stage?

[Mama2JML]

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?

The Hi-Tec boots, that LE attributed to Burke Ramsey, were introduced July 29, 1991 by Footwear News:

Hi-Tec Sports will launch hikers promo

MODESTO, Calif. - Hi-Tec Sports USA will step up the marketing of its new children's outdoor hiking boot with an incentive campaign centered around the 500th anniversary of Columbus' voyage to the New World.

The company plans to offer posters, stickers and other amenities as part of a Navigators' Club that children can join when they purchase an item in the new Navigators' series.

Hi-Tec unveiled an outdoor boot called the Columbus as part of the series. The shoe features a compass tied to the laces. It comes in mochaspruce and navy, priced to retail at $44.95.

Hi-Tec will coordinate the club membership in Modesto and will send promotional posters with new orders. Details of the promotion will be offered to children in product boxes.

David Pompel, marketing manager, said he expects the promotion to spur children's sales. He reported company-wide sales for Hi-Tec should grow by 60 percent this year.

"When the kids get something in the box, they get excited," he said. Pompel added that Hi-Tec's rugged outdoor look is growing more popular as children focus on the environment.

"We're getting into department stores where the athletic look is dying. We try to make ties to positive values like recycling and the environment."

If the boots in question were promotional in nature, then I am curious as to how long were they sold in stores?...

We know, per the sworn testimony of Steve Thomas, that LE engaged in a "public pressure strategy" designed to 'break' the Ramseys, the BPD's prime suspects. This strategy included 'leaking' inaccurate, fabricated, false, etc. information via the MSM.

This realization, compounded with the fact that LE has never been able to produce these boots, supposedly belonging to Burke, and considering the promotional nature of the specific boots attributed to him, I have serious doubts as to the accuracy and reliability of this information.

NO evidentiary value, here. Thus, I see no logical reason to presume Burke left the Hi-Tec impression in the WC. ...unless one is driven by theory as opposed to evidence.

 

[andreww]

The Hi-Tec boots, that LE attributed to Burke Ramsey, were introduced July 29, 1991 by Footwear News:



If the boots in question were promotional in nature, then I am curious as to how long were they sold in stores?...

We know, per the sworn testimony of Steve Thomas, that LE engaged in a "public pressure strategy" designed to 'break' the Ramseys, the BPD's prime suspects. This strategy included 'leaking' inaccurate, fabricated, false, etc. information via the MSM.

This realization, compounded with the fact that LE has never been able to produce these boots, supposedly belonging to Burke, and considering the promotional nature of the specific boots attributed to him, I have serious doubts as to the accuracy and reliability of this information.

NO evidentiary value, here. Thus, I see no logical reason to presume Burke left the Hi-Tec impression in the WC. ...unless one is driven by theory as opposed to evidence.

You can dismiss it all you like but Burke himself testified that he owned them in front of the grand jury. Thomas was never able to produce the boots but he did seem to have the sales receipt as he was able to specify the exact date they were purchased. Fleet White was also aware that Burke owned the boots.

The question here is not whether Burke left the print or didn't leave the print, its why the Ramseys denied ownership of the boots.

 

[Mama2JML]

You can dismiss it all you like but Burke himself testified that he owned them in front of the grand jury.

...according to a statement made during an interrogation. Why should we accept this as fact?

Thomas was never able to produce the boots

The entire investigative team was unable to produce any physical evidence of the boots in question.

but he did seem to have the sales receipt as he was able to specify the exact date they were purchased.

Steve Thomas sourced a receipt, AND linked it to the Ramseys, for Hi-Tec boots/shoes/etc? News to me.

Fleet White was also aware that Burke owned the boots.

REPORTEDLY. Fleet White has never verified this to be true, nor has any member of the White family.

The question here is not whether Burke left the print or didn't leave the print, its why the Ramseys denied ownership of the boots.

Seems you've really narrowed down your hypotheticals. Why; your theory or the evidence?...

The possible answers to your question are numerous, most of which are not indicative of guilt. Perhaps you should start asking more questions...

Just a suggestion.

 

[CorallaroC]

JMHO, but I tend to view the R's ridiculous denials in the same way I view staunch IDI's posts which attempt to argue things into ridiculousness. It's exasperating!

 

[tovarisch]

JMHO, but I tend to view the R's ridiculous denials in the same way I view staunch IDI's posts which attempt to argue things into ridiculousness. It's exasperating!

A lot of times things presented by RD`s just THINGS, not the facts. . That`s why its ridiculous when discussed. The shoe print is unidentified as of today. The known fact that LE proposed that it was similar to police and security footwear. Not to footwear of little tiny boys.

 

[Mama2JML]

JMHO, but I tend to view the R's ridiculous denials in the same way I view staunch IDI's posts which attempt to argue things into ridiculousness. It's exasperating!

An understanding of, and acknowledgement of, U.S. laws, reliable science, verifiable facts and forensic evidence does not equate to staunch support of the Ramseys.

 

[UKGuy]

An understanding of, and acknowledgement of, U.S. laws, reliable science, verifiable facts and forensic evidence does not equate to staunch support of the Ramseys.

Mama2JML,
Playing your IDI games are we? If you are so infallible how about you itemize any verifiable facts regarding the mythical Intruder, or even present some forensic evidence that links to anyone outside of the Ramsey household?


.

 

[andreww]

...according to a statement made during an interrogation. Why should we accept this as fact?

The entire investigative team was unable to produce any physical evidence of the boots in question.

Steve Thomas sourced a receipt, AND linked it to the Ramseys, for Hi-Tec boots/shoes/etc? News to me.

REPORTEDLY. Fleet White has never verified this to be true, nor has any member of the White family.

Seems you've really narrowed down your hypotheticals. Why; your theory or the evidence?...

The possible answers to your question are numerous, most of which are not indicative of guilt. Perhaps you should start asking more questions...

Just a suggestion.

I notice you didn't address the fact that Burke admitted to owning them. That's what make all the above statements likely true. How would Thomas no to question Patsy about the date and store which the boots were purchased?

And you know damned well that Fleet has never publicly spoken about what he told LE, probably because he'd be accused of grabbing his 15 minutes of fame. Damned if you do, damned if you don't with you guys.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[andreww]

Mama2JML,
Playing your IDI games are we? If you are so infallible how about you itemize any verifiable facts regarding the mythical Intruder, or even present some forensic evidence that links to anyone outside of the Ramsey household?


.

The lack of response is deafening.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[UKGuy]

A lot of times things presented by RD`s just THINGS, not the facts. . That`s why its ridiculous when discussed. The shoe print is unidentified as of today. The known fact that LE proposed that it was similar to police and security footwear. Not to footwear of little tiny boys.

tovarisch,
mmm, another one playing IDI games, I'm tiring of you guys playing the negative card in the RDI threads but excluding us from the IDI thread.

The poon was identified as that from a hi-tec shoe, BPD know whether its an adults or a childs, BR was asked if he owned a pair by the GJ, that question does not need posed unless the footprint is that of a child!

That is established fact, so if you have nothing constructive to contribute please head over to the IDI thread!

.

 

[andreww]

An understanding of, and acknowledgement of, U.S. laws, reliable science, verifiable facts and forensic evidence does not equate to staunch support of the Ramseys.

You seem to be able to ignore verifiable fact at whim. Are you still clinging to the idea that the boot print came from an intruder? Because the Ramsey's denials of fact suggest otherwise.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[UKGuy]

The lack of response is deafening.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

andreww,
You should not stroke their ego's with rebuttals, those IDI's are winding you up, they know full well what they are doing, its a form of trolling, on other forms they say Don't Feed The Trolls.

The poon and its identity, that BR owned a pair of hi-tecs is established fact. This allows us to incorporate this into any theory we care to speculate about, what the IDI's think is fact or scientific or forensic is irrelevent. We are dealing with theory and linking the poon in the wine-cellar with BR's shoes is consistent, so its allowed, just as BR's touch-dna is on JonBenet's pink nightgown also allows us to speculate further. We do not need to demonstrate how these items actually arrived in the wine-cellar, we can incorporate them into a theory as long as it is consistent with the facts.

.

 

[UKGuy]

JMHO, but I tend to view the R's ridiculous denials in the same way I view staunch IDI's posts which attempt to argue things into ridiculousness. It's exasperating!

CorallaroC,
The poon's identity and BR's ownership of hi-tec shoes is established fact we are simply trying build a theory around all of BR's forensic links to the wine-cellar. Just ignore the IDI's, they are playing the same game as in the pineapple thread.

 

[andreww]

andreww,
You should not stroke their ego's with rebuttals, those IDI's are winding you up, they know full well what they are doing, its a form of trolling, on other forms they say Don't Feed The Trolls.

The poon and its identity, that BR owned a pair of hi-tecs is established fact. This allows us to incorporate this into any theory we care to speculate about, what the IDI's think is fact or scientific or forensic is irrelevent. We are dealing with theory and linking the poon in the wine-cellar with BR's shoes is consistent, so its allowed, just as BR's touch-dna is on JonBenet's pink nightgown also allows us to speculate further. We do not need to demonstrate how these items actually arrived in the wine-cellar, we can incorporate them into a theory as long as it is consistent with the facts.

.

Feel free to theorize UKguy. Although I agree with where you are coming from, I can't date stamp the poon and I can't date stamp the DNA on the nightie. All I can say after that is the Ramsey's lied yet again, but any theory beyond that is mere speculation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Mama2JML]

Mama2JML,
Playing your IDI games are we? If you are so infallible how about you itemize any verifiable facts regarding the mythical Intruder, or even present some forensic evidence that links to anyone outside of the Ramsey household?


.

That burden isn't mine.

 

[Mama2JML]

I notice you didn't address the fact that Burke admitted to owning them.

Burke admitted to owning what, and according to whom?

That's what make all the above statements likely true. How would Thomas no to question Patsy about the date and store which the boots were purchased?

Can you source your reference, please?...

And you know damned well that Fleet has never publicly spoken about what he told LE,

He certainly hasn't shied away from publicity. Regardless, his testimony in Wolf v. Ramseys provides NO support for theories involving Burke's ownership of Hi-Tec boots.

because he'd be accused of grabbing his 15 minutes of fame. Damned if you do, damned if you don't with you guys.

Aside from the context, I agree with this: "Damned if you do, damned if you don't."

 

[UKGuy]

Feel free to theorize UKguy. Although I agree with where you are coming from, I can't date stamp the poon and I can't date stamp the DNA on the nightie. All I can say after that is the Ramsey's lied yet again, but any theory beyond that is mere speculation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

andreww,
Just what forensic evidence comes with a date stamp? Fingerprints dont, yet their presence is sufficient to convict many, i.e. BR's fingerprint on the glass.

The one place where you might expect never to find a hi-tec poon could be the wine-cellar. That it exists along with the fact that BR owned a pair of hi-tec shoes takes us into the land of corroboration. The one inconsistency is that Kolar has said BR was in the wine-cellar, I assume, Christmas Day PM, so there you have an innocent explanation!

.

 

[questfortrue]

While we’re kickin’ around the boots within our theories (pun intended ) I was wondering if anyone else sees a logo on the bottom of these shoes? Maybe it’s my eyes, but I do see a logo here.

 

[tovarisch]

tovarisch,
mmm, another one playing IDI games, I'm tiring of you guys playing the negative card in the RDI threads but excluding us from the IDI thread.

The poon was identified as that from a hi-tec shoe, BPD know whether its an adults or a childs, BR was asked if he owned a pair by the GJ, that question does not need posed unless the footprint is that of a child!

That is established fact, so if you have nothing constructive to contribute please head over to the IDI thread!

.

Our IDI thread is under cleaning and maintenance.

Yours so called "facts" are not the facts unless they are in material form. Your facts are hearsay...

 

[BBB167893]

...according to a statement made during an interrogation. Why should we accept this as fact?

Why SHOULDN'T we?