1. "FOX reported it too"
In response to message #0
Carol McKinley also reported on this - - and FOX shared this statement from Lin Wood " This information is bunk! It's an intentional plan to get the Ramseys to confess. ... The Boulder Police
are buying themselves a lawsuit."
```````````````````````````````````````
jameson
Member since 5-8-02
08-23-02, 06:38 PM (EST)
2. "RE: FOX reported it too"
In response to message #1
Those are FRESH prints in the mold in that basement room.
There is absolutely NO testimony that Burke was in the windowless room to leave that print.
The police checked all footwear in the house - - they photographed the shoes - top and bottom - - and
they did not find the shoes.
The cops went around weeks later asking friends and neighbors if they owned stun guns and Hi-tec shoes.
The idea that they had linked it to Burke is total BS. If they knew it was Burke's, why would they have
been asking around?
In August of 2000 they took Helgoth's boots to the CBI lab to be compared. if they had a match, they
wouldn't have done that. They would have said NO.
Time has passed - - someone hopes to discount the intruder evidence and they are floating this story
expecting most people are so uninformed they will believe it. Sadly, they are probably right.
But we know better!
Burke did not own Hi-Tec hiking boots - - there is NO evidence he did. No sales receipts and no boots in
evidence.
Did someone say he owned Hi-Tec footwear? Did Burke? Is that their "evidence"? Maybe. But what would
that mean? Long ago I asked my kid if he owned any Hi-Tec shoes - - he was 8 or 9 and he said, "Yeah - -
they have lights!"
Personally I wonder if this is Thomas or Beckner.... your thoughts?
```````````````````````````````````````````````
jameson
Member since 5-8-02
08-23-02, 06:42 PM (EST)
3. "FOX said hair is Patsy's"
In response to message #2
Carol McKinley said that hair found on the blanket was tested and identified as Patsy's. I would
remind her and everyone else that the hair that was considered suspect was MALE.
I have no doubt that they found some of Patsy's hair on the blanket - - but what about the
unmatched hair?
``````````````````````````````````````````````````
jameson
Member since 5-8-02
08-23-02, 07:55 PM (EST)
4. "Mark, Lin, and Lou respond"
In response to message #3
Boulder Police Chief Mark Beckner said he wouldn't "confirm or deny" any reports about specific
evidence in the ongoing investigation.
"All I can say is there were a lot of questions in the course of the investigation and some have
been answered and some have not," Beckner said.
John and Patsy Ramsey's lawyer, L. Lin Wood, blasted the newspaper and the Boulder police
for continuing "a campaign of character assassination" against his clients.
"Within days of the murder, the Boulder police have leaked false, distorted information to the
media to apply pressure and elicit a confession from John and Patsy," Wood told Reuters by
telephone from his Atlanta office.
Wood said that his clients -- who now live in suburban Atlanta -- are innocent and were
"outraged" by the article.
Unidentified DNA found in the girl's underwear and under her fingernails, Wood said, are more
significant clues to finding her killer.
Lou Smit, a retired homicide detective who was brought into the case after the investigation
stalled but was later resigned because he believed John and Patsy Ramsey were being unfairly
targeted by authorities, said the evidence he's seen still points toward an intruder.
"Burke Ramsey never had the type of shoes described," Smit said on Friday. "As for the palm
print, I don't know that it was ever matched to anyone. Someone is coming up with some bad
information and better check their sources."
````````````````````````````````````
jameson
Member since 5-8-02
08-23-02, 08:00 PM (EST)
5. "more from Mark Beckner"
In response to message #4
Boulder Police Chief Mark Beckner on Friday declined to confirm or deny the information
about the evidence. He said he believed the information did not come from any police
department employee.
``````````````````````````````````````````
jameson
Member since 5-8-02
08-24-02, 02:13 PM (EST)
6. "AP story"
In response to message #5
Ramsey theory may weaken Report: Investigators say palm print, footprint unrelated to
JonBenet's death
By Katherine Vogt, Associated Press
August 24, 2002DENVER — A report that both a palm print and a footprint found in the
home of JonBenet Ramsey were made by relatives could weaken her parents' contention
that an intruder killed her. An attorney for JonBenet's parents insisted the report does
nothing to undermine the intruder theory, but he also said the case will remain unsolved
until new detectives take over. Police say there have been no significant developments
in the 1996 slaying of the 6-year-old beauty queen in more than a year. Citing an
unnamed source, the Rocky Mountain News reported Friday that investigators said they
think the prints found in the basement of the Ramseys' Boulder home were not related to
the unsolved killing of JonBenet, whose body was found Dec. 26, 1996. Investigators
have held this conclusion for some time, the newspaper said. The report said a footprint
found in mold on the floor of the Ramseys' wine cellar, near where the girl's body was
found, was linked to her then-9-year-old brother, Burke. Burke, now 15, has been
cleared by authorities. Investigators also said a palm print on the door leading to the
wine cellar is that of Melinda Ramsey, JonBenet's adult half sister, who was in Georgia at
the time of the girl's death. The technician who originally ruled her out as the source had
made an error, the newspaper said. Boulder Police Chief Mark Beckner on Friday declined
to comment on the evidence. He said he thought the information did not come from any
police department employee. "I wouldn't put any stock into any information that's
reported unless it comes directly from Boulder police," he said. "People have speculated
on evidence and information for years and it comes from many different persons, some of
them not even connected to the case." Attorney Lin Wood of Atlanta, who represents
JonBenet's parents, John and Patsy Ramsey, said he doesn't give credence to any
information that comes from an anonymous source. He said Burke Ramsey did not own
the shoe that left the print, and the size of the shoe — a 9 — was inconsistent with
what Burke would have worn. Wood also said the investigators' conclusions regarding the
two pieces of evidence do not eliminate the theory that an intruder killed the girl. "Even
if that explanation turns out to be true, but I have serious doubts, it certainly does not
outweigh the overwhelming physical evidence and other evidence pointing to an
intruder," Wood said. Wood said the two most important pieces of evidence are
unidentified male DNA found in the girl's underwear and the handwritten ransom note,
whose author has never been determined. Beckner said no arrests were imminent. "The
going is pretty slow, actually," Beckner said. "But that doesn't mean we're going to give
up on it." Three detectives are assigned part-time to the case, he said. Boulder District
Attorney Mary Keenan declined to comment on whether her office was pursuing leads in
the case. A grand jury investigating the slaying adjourned in the fall of 1999 with no
indictments issued. Authorities have said John and Patsy Ramsey, who moved to Atlanta,
remain under suspicion. They have denied any involvement. JonBenet was found
strangled about seven hours after her mother reported finding a ransom note demanding
$118,000 for her safe return.
```````````````````````````````````````````````````
jameson
Member since 5-8-02
08-24-02, 02:18 PM (EST)
7. "RE: AP story"
In response to message #6
Investigators also said a palm print on
the door leading to the wine cellar is that of Melinda Ramsey, JonBenet's adult half
sister, who was in
Georgia at the time of the girl's death. The technician who originally ruled her out as
the source had
made an error, the newspaper said. Boulder Police Chief Mark Beckner on Friday
declined to comment
on the evidence. He said he thought the information did not come from any police
department
employee. "I wouldn't put any stock into any information that's reported unless it
comes directly from
Boulder police," he said. "People have speculated on evidence and information for
years and it comes
from many different persons, some of them not even connected to the case."
<b>I don't know whose palm print it was, but if they are reviewing old evidence, I
hope they are willing to check evidence from the intruder suspect list as well. I have a
few names that might be interesting to look at.
(Personally, I think this is Steve Thomas acting out - - would love to get a note from
him denying it.)
``````````````````````````````````````````
Summer
Member since 5-8-02
08-24-02, 07:03 PM (EST)
9. "RE: more from Mark Beckner"
In response to message #5
Sigh... Why is this 'source' telling mis information? I honestly think, whoever it is, is lying
and there repuation can fall by doing this!
Summer
Shoes shoes the victims shoes.. who will stand in the victims shoes?
```````````````````````````````````````````
Mikie
Member since 5-8-02
08-23-02, 07:03 PM (EST)
8. "RE: FOX said hair is Patsy's"
In response to message #3
So Patsy is a transvestite...former beauty contestant? Maybe that will be the next story.
There is conspiracy between some local police personnel and press to cover up the crime and
part of that involves distracting public by accusing the innocent. Evil intentions include not
only getting away with murder but putting blame on innocent people. This was accomplished
in the Routier case and is in process in the Ramsey and vanDam case.
``````````````````````````````
Guppy
Member since 5-8-02
08-25-02, 01:12 PM (EST)
10. "RE: FOX said hair is Patsy's"
In response to message #8
This is beginning to look like a mini-version of the Vanity Fair article we all read so long ago.
````````````````````````````````````````
Joyce
Member since 5-8-02
08-25-02, 11:37 PM (EST)
11. "RE: RMN story on boot prints and palm prints"
In response to message #0
LAST EDITED ON 08-25-02 AT 11:43 PM (EST)
My question would be (and of course we probably will never find out) where this reporter got his
information from. Since it says that Beckner refused to discuss the evidence with anyone, we know it
didn't come from there.
You see, I see stories like this with an ulteriour motive. Not just something to make a story with
because surly the reporter could've come up with something else, but surly someone went to him with
the story, you think? And where did THEY get it from? That would be the trail to follow, except
because of 'protecting one's sources' I guess they can't.
However, you see, if someone wanted it to seem as if some of the important evidence was indeed
superflous (sp) or there from another time, perhaps said person can get others to NOT seriously
consider it AS evidence. Otherwise, why bother saying anything? If the police knew it wasn't
evidence, why would anyone bother telling a reporter that, and if it was considered evidence, then
why tell a reporter that it was NOW not considered evidence. Therfore I am trying to understand the
motives of the person who talked to the reporter to begin with. There is no mention of where that
information came from, so it can't be noteriety. Therefore I look at the possiability that someone
somewhere might want to cast doubt that that evidence IS evidence. Why would anyone do that? Do
they think that their relative might've had something to do with it? What is the reason for it?
Of course you may not go into things like this or wonder such things, but I always wonder why the
motive of such things. Why try to cast doubt on prior evidence? What could anyone hope to gain from
it?
You see my point? I doubt that the reporter made it up; I would imagine someone talked to him about
it. That person, his source, would be someone we'd be curious about no doubt.
In any case, the police would KEEP that evidence no matter WHERE they thought it came from, so if it
was done for some unusual reason, it was done in vein. However, it makes me interested to know if
that reporters source was FROM that town, had NOT lived there at the time of the murder (or if they
did, not very close by) and DO live there now.
If I missed it quoting someones name in there as the source, I am sorry but I did not see any such
information so I do wonder where the reporter got his information from.
`````````````````````````````````````
Joyce
Member since 5-8-02
08-25-02, 11:58 PM (EST)
12. "RE: RMN story on boot prints and palm prints"
In response to message #11
LAST EDITED ON 08-26-02 AT 00:06 AM (EST)
Just to make each post a bit shorter, I'll just add to it here rather than edit the other one again.
Here's the point, and I know you all know this.
If something happens news worthy, many times it gets front billing.
If it later turns out to NOT be true, it may end up in the paper but NOT in "A" section. It'll be stuck
on some back page someplace no doubt.
So this is a story which is saying that what was previously called evidence, has NOW been found to
be from normal occurances. That is such an anti-climax (if I've got my terms right) that I can't
imagine that it would ever end up in a news story. So why did it? Because it uses family member
names? Perhaps.
I do NOT think that the reporters source told the story BECAUSE of the names used, but for some
OTHER reason. Perhaps the reporter saw it as newsworthy BECAUSE of the names, HOWEVER, I
wonder if his source didn't use names JUST to get him to print it, yet with the ulterior motive of
casting doubt on those two particular pieces of evidence.
I know, you probably all understood me the first time I said it, but I did want to get my point across
just in case anyone didn't.
We know that the family members did not match the evidence gathered, and that included the palm
print. A palm has lines that would match up just like one big fingerprint and I doubt you'd have to
even be an expert to make a match (or a non-match) like that, so I believe they got that right to
begin with. If they said it didn't belong to a family member, I beleive it.
So why start a rumor (via the paper) about those two pieces of evidence meaning nothing? Without
names of who the prints belonged to, it would not be newsworthy to anybody, and even with the
names I'd think it would be just barely newsworthy, even to the BORG. Unless you know the news
different than I see it, I can't see why anyone would have even considered writing such a story.
You can say it smacks of BORG, but what if the names were there JUST to get the reporter to print
it, and the REAL intent of the story was to discredit those two pieces of evidence?
I know, I say the same thing in different ways hoping someone will get what I am saying.
``````````````````````````````````````
Guppy
Member since 5-8-02
08-26-02, 00:53 AM (EST)
13. "RE: RMN story on boot prints and palm prints"
In response to message #12
Why put this info out, worded in such a way that it's impossible to say if it is meaningful or not?
I see two possibilites:
1.) Hurt the Ramseys by making it look like the police already know the evidence of an intruder
doesn't exist.
2.) Make Burke look like a suspect, regardless of the disclaimers present in the article.
I don't think there is any question the leak came from someone who wanted to make the
Ramseys look bad. Since the BPD won't confirm or deny it, it will just sit out there forever with
many believing it is true or worse than stated, just like Brennan's previous classic, the "no
footprints in the snow" article.
``````````````````````````````````
jameson
Member since 5-8-02
08-26-02, 10:07 AM (EST)
14. "I see 2 possibilities"
In response to message #13
there could be more...
1. Steve Thomas is angry at the law suit being settled - - the ramseys made a deposit into
their bank account and he wrote a letter saying he had not paid them a penny - - but he lost
his house and life savings anyway. I think he is bitter and this could have been an effort to
hurt the Ramseys.
2. Tom Miller's book is supposedly finished and he is looking for a publisher. Maybe he thinkshis
book will be worth more if the case is back in the news.
Either way, the information - - I really believe it - - did not come from the BPD. Why? Because
the BPD knows what is out there that disproves the information put out by Brennan last week
- - I don't think they want to leak lies at this point.