<a href="http://www.rockymountainnews.com/cr/cda/article_print/1";>http://www.rockymountainnews.com/cr/cda/article_print/1<;/a>,1250,DRMN_15_408302,00.html<P>UNIDENTIFIED FOOTPRINTS<P><BR>Smit's argument: There are unidentified footprints amid the mold on the<BR>wine cellar floor. Experiments conducted by Smit suggest the fast-growing<BR>mold would diffuse footprints quickly, so he believes these were fresh<BR>prints. <P>Unknown shoe tread: One print appears to be a tread from a shoe but<BR>doesn't match shoes owned by John and Patsy Ramsey and doesn't match<BR>any shoes found in the house. The print is in the cellar near where the<BR>body was found. <P>Hi-Tec boot print: Another print belongs to a Hi-Tec boot, which also<BR>does not match any shoes owned by the family. <P>Small footprint: A third mark in the mold could belong to a small<BR>footprint. Smit said it matches the size and width of his own six-year-old<BR>granddaughter's foot. Could it be JonBenet's? If so, it suggests she was<BR>standing in the basement, not knocked out upstairs by a parent in a fit of<BR>rage as one police theory suggests. <P>Response: Police said the Hi-Tec print doesn't match any suspect they<BR>have investigated. <BR>

The boots were worn the night of the murder - and likely since. Pits and lines would change - - so it is NEVER going to be a "match" - - but there will be similarities - - and that could place a suspect under the umbrella of suspecion.<P>They bought new boots for McElroy - - no word on those.<P>And the police have not shared the report on Helgoth's boots - you remember - the boots they didn't take after he killed himself - - the boots that, IMO, were FORCED on them for testing by Team Ramsey.<P>I know of another pair of Hi-Tec boots - - belonged to a man who was a handiman very near the Ramsey house - - the cops never went to check on them.<P>So yeah - - they boot prints probably don't match anything they TESTED - - they didn't test many.<P>A special investigator would have done more - I feel sure of that.

"Experiments conducted by Smit suggest the fast-growing mold would diffuse footprints quickly, so he believes these were fresh prints."<BR>..................................................................................................<BR>And just who was the mold expert or experts that Smit consulted to determine the "mold"'s growth rate? It sounds rather like he was making an assumption that it "grew" fast, because it served his theory to believe that. That is not following the evidence. If this was truly "mold," what genus was it? You have, yourself, said you walked on it and it crackled, as if you were walking on soap bubbles. This would be a characteristic of concrete dust, which does form a soap-like substance, but would not be a characteristic of an organic mold, which would be slimy and cause the windowless room to have a stench from the continuously-dying portions of any real "mold."<P>

I am not going to throw out any expert names so that the BORG can hound them - - nope, not MY place.<P>The room was dark and damp and very warm. The walls and floor were covered in patches of something I would call mold - - I don't know the scientific word for it and won't pretend to. But I will say there's no way that print was there long before the murder.<P>I am sure all this will be discussed in court.

That's what John Ramsey calls it in DOI p 373. It "grew" on the floor and walls of the moist, warm, windowless room. <P>Regardless of what it was, it changed shape with time because it "grew". Prints left in it would change shape and be obliterated as the mildew/fungus/concrete-dust/mold.<P>Therefore, the prints made in the material on the floor were "fresh".<P>There is also the consideration that LHP and some of her family had been in the room about 3 weeks before but none of their footprints were apparentley still left when the floor was photographed as a crime scene.

We know of 4 people in there removing artificial trees - - but only these prints were found. <P>I do hope the investigators asked LHP and her husband and daughter and her husband if they owned that footwear.<P>Surely they did - - cause if they could explain away those prints they would have - - but they never did.<P>Their prints were gone - - it had been a month and the mold had taken over any marks they left.<BR>

over time then these would be the list of persons to check for the print. If none of them made the print, it would have to come from the intruder. From another thread:<P><BR>10 . "Reply to Annabelle"<BR>Posted by BraveHeart on Jan-09-02 at 02:28 AM (EST)<BR> <BR>Annabelle is correct, in part, as there were more than 4 persons in the room. There were 5 and maybe 8, as follows:<BR>In the windowless room (taken from PMPT):<P>1. John Ramsey 1:04 pm -1:05 pm<BR>2. Fleet White "followed him into the room."<BR>3. FW returned to the room, between 1:06 pm & 1:12 pm (When Arndt made the 911 call)<BR>4. Det. Michael Everett after 1:12 pm & before 1:30 pm <BR>5. Officer Rick French SAW the spot. Did he go in?<BR>6. Det. Larry Mason & Agent Ron Walker arrived at 1:30 pm, then went down to the wine cellar.<BR>Mason cleared the house by 1:50 pm<BR>7. Officers Barry Weiss and Linda Arndt were at the house but it is not publically known whether they were in the wine cellar or not.<P>Summarizing, there were 5 persons minimum and possibly 8 maximum, before the house was secured, that were in the room. To me it doesn't seem that it would be that difficult to determine who, within this small group, was wearing what shoes/boots that day. Counting the Pugh entourage we are dealing with 10-13 total. Is this a big deal? The Hi-Tek boot that made this print was very distinctive, probably not a routine part of the officers and detectives footwear, unless they came in swat uniforms or outdoor/hiking/climbing wear. <BR> <BR>

They can't link the boot to the Ramseys so the next thing to do is pretend it isn't important.<BR>Can't be dated. Maybe a cop. Maybe the milkman. Maybe the pizza man.<P>We know that's not the case - but that isn't going to make the BPD admit it is an important clue.<P>You have to follow the evidence - can't make up stuff, can't ignore stuff. Some may not be connected to the crime but you can't pretend it never was.

<center><font size="1" color="#ff0000">LAST EDITED ON Mar-16-02 AT 08:07 PM (EST)</font></center><p>Here we have positive evidence that is from the scene of the crime - - and people want to ignore it.<P>Someone left this print - - who was it?<P><BR><img src="http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/art/extra/ramsey/img038.jpg";><P><P><P>

>Considering the mold changed<P>>over time then these would be the <BR>>list of persons to check for <BR>>the print. If none of them <BR>>made the print, it would have <BR>>to come from the intruder<P>How long did it take that mold to regenerate? The print in the photo did indeed look fresh. I would imagine that print would've been made within a day or two though since whatever it was it grew and make it look 'fuzzier'. If it cracked and crunched under foot, then that sounds to me like a crystaline growth. I've seen that in the basement of a house in Illinois but it's usually seen in some caves. If it's the same thing I have no idea how quick it grows.<P>>The Hi-Tek <BR>>boot that made this print was <BR>>very distinctive, probably not a routine <BR>>part of the officers and detectives <BR>>footwear, unless they came in swat <BR>>uniforms or outdoor/hiking/climbing wear. <P>You say this Hi-Tek boot is a for hiking and climbing? Intersting. I understand there was a "bag of rope" discovered in the guest room and nobody knew where it had come from. Was that really rope, and if so, what kind? 'Standard rope' or 'Climbers rope'? <BR>

LAST EDITED ON Oct-29-02 AT 10:50 AM (EST)
 
The Ramseys denied owning the rope found in the bedroom.

Personally I wondered if they had just forgotten - maybe it was just taken home from the photo shoot where a rope was used. But investigators told me that the rope was NOT the same as that in the photo.