"Sgt. Reichenbach noted in his report that there was a very light dusting of snow and frost on the exposed grass in the yard outside the Ramsey home. Some of the grass and yard was covered with snow from previous snowfalls and this snow was described as crusty and measuring one-two inches deep. Sgt. Reichenbach states that he saw no fresh foot prints in any of the snow or on the frost on the grass."

Lou Smit has presented photos of the area around the house showing patches of snow, with many areas free of such patches. He has presented these photos as evidence that early police reports regarding lack of footprints "in the snow" were erroneous. I'm wondering whether he read the actual police reports, or was simply reacting to vague media reports. It seems clear from the information provided in the warrant that the patches of snow shown in Smit's photos were observed by Reichenbach as "snow from previous snowfalls" and that this snow should NOT be confused with the "very light dusting of snow and frost," something that would not be likely to show up in a photo -- and might well have melted prior to the time the photo was taken. Reichenbach saw "no fresh foot prints in ANY of the snow OR on the frost on the grass." In other words his observations were based NOT just on the obvious patches of snow, but also on the far less obvious "light dusting of snow and frost." NOWHERE in the vicinity did he see fresh prints in ANY of this.

Is Smit unaware of the exact wording of Reichenbach's report? Is he spinning the evidence to bolster his theory? In any case, it seems clear from the information in the warrant that there WAS in fact a good deal of snow and/or frost on the ground that morning and that the early report of "no footprints" does seem in fact to have been accurate.

Lou was called,given a brief outline of what the evidence was, and he was told there were no footprints in the snow. He himself says that he figured that meant it was an inside job.

After he was hired, he read the police reports and saw the photos and realized there was little snow on the yard, none on the path, and the fact that the cop noted no fresh prints in the existing snow did NOT mean no one had walked to the house - or left it.

Lou isn't spinning - - he backed up what he said with the crime scene photos taken on the 26th. They are posted on the show transcript page.

>After he was hired, he read the police reports and saw the
>photos and realized there was little snow on the yard, none
>on the path, and the fact that the cop noted no fresh prints
>in the existing snow did NOT mean no one had walked to the
>house - or left it.

The "cop" noted no fresh prints ANYWHERE, not just in the patches of snow, but in the "light dusting of snow" and in the "frost." Sgt. Reichenbach was THERE. He was not evaluating the scene from a photograph. He could see not only the snow visible in the photo, but also a "light dusting of snow and frost" which cannot be seen in the photo.

>Lou isn't spinning - - he backed up what he said with the
>crime scene photos taken on the 26th. They are posted on
>the show transcript page.

I've seen these photos and they tell us NOTHING about the "light dusting of snow and frost," ONLY the older patches of snow from a previous snowfall. There is NO reason to dispute Reichenbach's report and in my opinion Smit's use of these photos to discredit this "cop" is simply irresponsible.

I do wish the first police report - and the revisions - were public.

As far as the walkways are concerned, you may well be right, up to a point. The police report mentions "dustings of snow and frost" only on the grassy areas, not the walkway, true. But the area around the basement window grate IS grassy. It's very hard to see how an intruder could have lifted that grate, put it aside, and then lowered himself into the window well without leaving any footprint or any mark from the grate in the "light dusting of snow and frost" on that area of grass.

They missed an open window in the basement...missed searching the room JBR was in early in the morning---why would anyone think they got the "no footprints in the snow" right, and did a thorough search in the dark?

Smit isn't misrepresenting the lack of snow or the clear sidewalks. He has crime scene photos to back up what he concluded: An intruder could have come onto the Ramsey property from the alley and walked on clear sidewalks all the way around the house.

The footprints in the snow became a non-issue long ago. The story of the importance of no footprints in the snow appears to have been part of "The Plan".

Is it possible that the perpetrators did not leave any trace in the snow because they were gone before the snow fell? The answer depends on the time of the snow. But the answer is yes, unless someone can prove that it did not snow after midnight.

The time for the dusting is uncertain.

Are you suggesting the BPD already "had it in" for the Ramseys as early as 6 AM on the 26th? Reichenbach reported "a light dusting of snow and frost" on the grassy areas surrounding the Ramsey house at that time. What basis do you have for doubting his report? Are you claiming Lou Smit's photos show only PATCHES of such dusting and frost? They show snowy patches for sure -- from a PREVIOUS snowfall, as reported by Reichenbach.

And by the way, if you look at the sky in the photos Smit used, you'll see it is full daylight. Reichenbach made his observations at 6 AM on one of the shortest days of the year, most likely prior to sunrise. And by the way, policemen carry flashlights and are capable of making observations at such a time.

>The time for the dusting is uncertain.

This is true. But when we combine Reichenbach's report regarding the snow and frost with the observations from virtually every policeman on the scene that morning, that there was NO sign of a breakin, then it becomes very difficult indeed to imagine an intruder on those premises at ANY time that night. Not only no footprints in the dusting of snow and frost. But also no sign of disturbance around the window grate. No footprints (in snow, frost, grass or dirt), no marks, imprints, dirt, plant residue, etc. left by the grate, which would have to have been displaced so the intruder could enter. Where did he put it? Where was it sitting while the intruder spent all that time in the house? And how/why did it get placed BACK where it belonged after he left? (Are you suggesting the intruder would take the trouble to replace the grate in order to hide the fact that he had broken in -- and yet at the same time leave the window ajar, leave the suitcase in place -- and leave a three page note affirming his presence?)

Jameson, you are very good at backtracking your way out of the very difficult problems posed by the intruder theory. If there are police reports of snow, you refer to the patches of snow in Smit's photos. When you're reminded that the policeman reported a dusting of snow and frost that would not have shown up on the photos, then you point out that the walkways were clear. When reminded that the area around the grate would NOT have been clear of the dusting of snow and frost, then you question the time the dusting of snow and frost would have fallen. And no doubt, when faced with the fact that there was no sign of disturbance around the grate, you will no doubt remind us of all the people who had access to keys.

At least admit there is a PROBLEM, for God's sake!!!! Why are you shutting your eyes to important facts in this case?

Q. Reichenbach reported "a light dusting of snow and frost" on the grassy areas surrounding the Ramsey house at that time. What basis do you have for doubting his report?
A. I haven't seen his report, have you? If so, please share! I doubt the spin of reporters much more than I doubt official documents.

This tells me that the perp was gone before the snow fell.

There was no light until day break at 7:30 am, and there was no moon at 6:00 am, also per weather almanac.

This tells me that officer R. walked around the house in the dark looking for evidence with a flashlight. That he didn't see any footprints under these conditions doesn't surprise me. Besides, I believe you'll find a lot of leaves and pine needles under those trees on the sides of the house which coupled with the fact that the ground was dry shouldn't allow for many prints. Otherwise, after daybreak, you should have been able to see officer R's and Fernie's footprints all around the house.

The statement that there was no footprints in the snow is a deliberate misrepresentation of the situation. The spin is that there could have been no footprints and consequently, no intruder. The fact is that an intruder could have gone in and left without leaving any prints. This doesn't by itself prove there was one but it sure doesn't prove there wasn't one, which is what the BPD wnated people to believe.

Reichenbach, according to Steve Thomas book (hardback p19), walked around outside and noted that his own walking on the sidewalks and driveway left NO impressions.

There are sidewalks, as shown in the crime scene photos, all the way around the house, but most importantly, from the alley there is paved driveway, then paved sidewalk that leads to the basement window found open that morning.

If an intruder walked from the alley onto the driveway onto the sidewalk, there would be NO footprints, as evidence by officer Reichenbach when he walked on the same driveway and sidewalk early that morning.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/jonbenet/charlevoix3.html

LP, no one is disputing that the walkways were probably clear. But the walkway does NOT extend directly to the grid over the basement window. That grid is surrounded by a grassy area. If anyone had entered or left via the grid, they would have left visible traces for sure. In the dusting of snow, in the frost and in the grass itself. The grid itself must have been covered with dirt particles, some of which would have fallen off when it was displaced. This is NOT rocket science. Anyone entering via that window would have left traces outside. None were found!

If you read the weather almanac I beleive you will not find any mention of frost. Note the previous reply on the weather.

As far as the grid is concerned, my understanding is that this object was examined by the police very early on for any sign that it might have been displaced the previous night. No such sign was found. In fact, an intact spider web was found, woven between the grid and the surrounding turf. The photo in question was, as I understand it, taken AFTER the police had lifted and examined the grid.

Smit has clearly played fast and loose with the photographic evidence, using what suits him, ignoring what doesn't, interpreting everything very much his own way. This is really the main point of my initial post. The police report I cited does not, of course, in itself constitute proof that there was no intruder. But it DOES tell us something about the quality of Smit's "photo evidence." Very poor quality, if you ask me.

As far as the situation in and around the basement window, there has been a tendency on the part of Ramsey defenders to fixate on certain things and ignore others. It is certainly true that an area of the window well adjacent to the broken window was relatively clean of debris. And, under certain circumstances, we might be able to confidently conclude this is evidence of a breakin at that point. But there was NO evidence that ANY dirt, dust, peeling paint, etc., from the window frame or sill was displaced. Given this fact, the absence of debris in the well takes on a very different meaning. Since the grid was undisturbed AND the window itself was undisturbed, then the disturbance at the window well area is very hard to interpret as anything other than staging by someone inside the house. It looks like someone scooped some debris from the well by hand and dropped it on the floor. The same person could have positioned the suitcase under the window.

This situation is a serious problem for ANY intruder theory. Even if one discounts Smit's (extremely unlikely) window entry theory and moves to a possible door entry by someone with a key, one still has to account for the absence of debris at the window well and its presence on the floor.

IF there was a dusting of snow, it could have happened after the intruder left and so any lack of footprints would prove nothing.

BUT - - if there was a dusting of snow - - why didn't the cop see Fernie's prints? He got in the house after walking from the back alley to the south door and then to the front.

The time of dusting of snow is reported to be after 2:00 am per weather almanac for Boulder, Colorado. I believe the TOD is estimated to be anywhere from about 10:00 pm December 25th. to 5:00 am the 26th., with the preponderance of evidence indicating a death between 1:00 and 2:00 am.
This tells me that the perp was gone before the snow fell.

There was no light until day break at 7:30 am, and there was no moon at 6:00 am, also per weather almanac.

This tells me that officer R. walked around the house in the dark looking for evidence with a flashlight. That he didn't see any footprints under these conditions doesn't surprise me. Besides, I believe you'll find a lot of leaves and pine needles under those trees on the sides of the house which coupled with the fact that the ground was dry shouldn't allow for many prints. Otherwise, after daybreak, you should have been able to see officer R's and Fernie's footprints all around the house.

The statement that there was no footprints in the snow is a deliberate misrepresentation of the situation. The spin is that there could have been no footprints and consequently, no intruder. The fact is that an intruder could have gone in and left without leaving any prints. This doesn't by itself prove there was one but it sure doesn't prove there wasn't one, which is what the BPD wnated people to believe.

JonBenét was the only murder thay had had all year - - they weren't even THINKING murder. And, truth be told, they weren't even properly investigating a kidnapping! They should never have let all those people have total access to that house - - who knows what evidence was altered or destroyed - - or originated! (The photos of the pineapple and glass were NOT taken until hours after the friends and family and victims' advocates arrived. I would love to see their statements on the pineapple and glass - - and the other items on the table.)

I know they were dealing with a sitution totally beyond their experience - - and what they wrote down, not on the spot but hours later - may not be complete or totally in line with what really happened.

Really need to compare all the statements and have a good investigator get their stories. Then look at the photos and determine what the truth is.

What MOST bothers me is the suggestion that Reichenbach was incompetent, that the photos released by Smit somehow invalidate Reichenbach's report. That's simply NOT true. And I think Smit owes Reichenbach an apology.

The absence of prints in the "dusting of snow and frost" that morning is only one element of many that have to be evaluated in order to determine the likelihood that an intruder could have been present that night. When ALL the various pieces of evidence are put together, we have a situation that points MUCH more strongly to insider staging than to an intruder. See my earlier posts for the details -- and the reasoning. No one piece of evidence does that. It's only when we put them all together that a pattern emerges.

When I found out initial reports were altered days after being filed, I was very, very upset.

I would love to see each and every one of them deposed under oath so a record is there for all to see.

I think you are right. And I SURE don't think you would sit down to write a 3 page note to leave with the body.

The leak of the "no footprints in the snow" to the media was the very first article that started raising suspicions, and because it was in a police report, doesn't mean it's based on a good search and investigation of the exterior.

Here is a timeline of events gathered from PMPT and DOI, with the appropriate page numbers for your reference:

Patsy states that her husband, John, wakened at around 5:30 am and began his shower. She got up a few minutes later, dressed, put on her makeup and went down to the second floor to rinse out a soiled jumpsuit that belonged to her daughter, before continuing down to the kitchen. At the bottom of the staircase she found and read the 3 page ransom note lying on one of the steps. As soon as she realized the content she ran back upstairs to JonBenet's bed room which she found to be empty. She screamed for her husband who met her on the 2nd. floor and ran to Burke's room to check on him. From there she ran back down stairs to where John was reading the rn.
PMPT, p.77, PB edition

Patsy states that she gathered clothes for the trip into a plastic bag at the second floor. No mention of laundering a soiled jumpsuit.
DOI, p. 10, PB Edition

John instructed Patsy to call the police. The call was logged in at 5:52 am.
PMPT, p.78, PB edition
Immediately afterward Patsy called the Whites and Fernies.
PMPT, p.78, PB edition
She states that she called Fernies first and then the Whites.
DOI, p. 12,13, PB Edition

The first officer to arrive at the home was Rick French who arrived at 5:59 am.
PMPT, p.7, PB edition, and PMPT, p.78, PB edition

At about 6:00 am, Patsy called the White's residence, their house guest, Cliff Gaston, answers the phone.
PMPT, p.44, PB edition (this conflicts with other references to this call. It was made before officer French arrived at 5:59 am).

Officer Veitch arrives between 5:59 and the arrival of John Fernie.
DOI, p. 14, PB Edition

Fernie was the first of Ramsey friends to arrive. His wife, Barbara, came later.
He tried the patio door first.
PMPT, p.78, PB edition

Minutes after 6:00 am, Priscilla and Fleet White arrive. A few minutes later Fleet goes down to the basement to look for JonBenet.
PMPT, p.44, PB edition

Ramsey tries to call his pilot. Arhuletta returns the call some minutes later and Patsy answers. She is hysterical, being consoled by her friends. A second officer had arrived by this time, Karl Veitch.
PMPT, p.78, PB edition

At 6:45 am, 3 more officers arrive- Barry Weiss, Sue Barcklow, Sgt. Paul Reichenbach.
PMPT, p.79, PB edition

Officer Reichenbach notes no footprints found in the crusty/frosty snow which covered "much of the grass" and the brick walkways were clear of snow.
PMPT, p.57 , PB edition, and PMPT, p.79, PB edition

At 6:45 am Priscilla White called her niece at the White home.
PMPT, p.44, PB edition

At about 7:00 am Burke is awakened, dressed and taken by Fleet White and John Fernie to pick up the Fernie children and then taken to the White's home. Just before they left, Rev. Hoverstock arrived.
PMPT, p.45, PB edition

Sgt. Reichenbach meets with Det's. Arndt and Patterson at the Basemar Shopping Center to brief them on the case.
PMPT, p.79, PB edition

Det's. Linda Arndt and Fred Patterson arrived at the home at 8:10 am.
PMPT, p.10, PB edition

Approx. 10:00 am several crime scene investigators are dusting for fingerprints.
DOI, p. 20, PB Edition

After 10:00 am, John Ramsey goes down to the basement to look at the broken window.

1:00 pm. Det. Arndt instructs John to look throughout the house for unusual items. He takes Fleet with him to the basement.
DOI, p. 21, PB Edition

At 1:05 John Ramsey opens the door to the wine cellar and discovers his daughter's body.
DOI, p. 22, PB Edition

Between 1:05 pm and 1:30 pm Barry Weiss and Det. Michael Everett arrived at the home. Everett searched the basement including the wine cellar.
PMPT, p.21, PB edition
Priscilla called her niece at 1:30 pm, at the White home, to tell her of the murder.
PMPT, p.46, PB edition

Ron Walker and Larry Mason saw JonBenet's body in the living room at 1:30 pm. They then searched the basement and the wine cellar. Mason decides to secure the premises.
PMPT, p.21, PB edition

At 1:30 pm John Ramsey calls his boss, Gary Merriman to tell him of JonBemet's death.
PMPT, p.24, PB edition

House secured by 1:50 pm
PMPT, p.23, PB edition

Det. Arndt visits the Ramseys at the Fernie's house at 2:30 pm. At approx. the same time Det. Patterson talks to Burke Ramsey at the White's house and confirms that Burke had "slept through the events of the previous night".
PMPT, p.23, PB edition

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/jonbenet/charlevoix3.html

It's possible this document was not available to Schiller at the time he was writing this portion of PMPT. Reichenbach may have arrived along with French, but possibly decided to examine the exterior of the house first, so his presence might not have been noticed right away. Or possibly the info in the warrant is mistaken. Since the warrant is an official document and Schiller's source is unclear, my instinct tells me the Sgt. probably arrived when he said he did, at 6.

Again, however, my principal point regarding the footprints is NOT whether Reichenbach's report actually proves anything (in itself) but the total irrelevance of the photos released by Smit. Since the Sgt.'s report mentions a light dusting of snow and frost in addition to the patches of snow shown in Smit's photos, there is nothing in these photos that contradicts him (Reichenbach).

In any case, as I've argued repeatedly, it is the PREPONDERANCE of evidence, not just one piece, that makes it so hard to accept any intruder theory. Anyone climbing through that window would had to have left very clear traces of his presence on the frame and sill. NONE were found. This evidence is corroborated by many other things, notably the lack of any exterior sign of forcible entry, the intact spider web on the grate, the lack of any signs of an intruder in and around the grate, and, yes, the lack of any footprints in the vicinity, as (allegedly) observed by a police sergeant, (apparently) at 6 AM.

Excellent point. He unstaged! Now, if he had staged that scene at the window, why would he unstage it by closing the window? And if he had broken the window that night in the hope the police would assume an intruder did it, why would he claim he himself had broken it months earlier?

>But what I don't get is that he went down there to check it out and possibly see if he could find where the intruder got in. He FINDS the open window, CLOSES it and doesn't tell the cops. So he FINDS what he went down there to look for but doesn't tell the cops. Somebody help me here. What's up with that?

Good thinking. What's up with that is that it is suspicious behavior. For sure! Months later he DOES tell the cops about it, but when asked why he didn't tell anyone at the time, he cannot (according to PMPT) explain.

Something there is about this case that does not add up. Somethihg there is about that scene at the basement window that does not add up. Something there is about John's behavior that morning that does not add up.

But consider this: if John had indeed staged the window scene by breaking the window, scooping debris onto the floor, placing the suitcase under the window and then leaving it open -- AND something had gone wrong with his original plan -- for example, if Patsy had called the police too soon, BEFORE he'd had a chance to dump his victim's body and complete his staging -- THEN there would have been a VERY good reason for him to UNstage. Because once the police realized no one could have gone through that window, then they might well put two and two together and see the staging for exactly what it was. By claiming he himself had broken the window months earlier he could have managed to deflect suspicion away from himself in that regard.

For years John insisted it was he who broke that window months before after having been locked out of the house. But when recently deposed by Darnay Hoffman, this is what he had to say:

19 Q. When you saw that the basement was in
20 the condition that it was in, as you have just
21 described it, and you came back upstairs, did you
22 inform anybody of what you found in the basement?
23 A. I don't recall specifically if I did
24 or not. I have a vague recollection of telling
25 Linda Arndt that I found an open window with
0018
1 broken glass, but that I perhaps had broken that
2 glass myself months earlier.

Now John is having second thoughts. "Perhaps" he broke the window himself months earlier. And, I suppose, "perhaps" not -- eh? Well, which is it? Aside from Patsy, NO ONE has ever verified that the window was broken prior to the night of the murder. Linda Pugh, the housekeeper, insisted she never noticed such a thing. Neither did anyone else. It was winter, it was cold, no one noticed a broken window? And now John can't recall if he broke it or not?

Something there is that does NOT add up here. Not at all.

The photos are not useless. They were taken the same day----any accumulations of snow would still be present if they existed early that morning. Accumlations where someone tromping through the snow would clearly have left footprints that could be seen in the dark with a flashlight. The photos clearly show the melting patterns, and the backyard had no accumlations. A light dusting of snow or frost could very likely have occurred after the perp had left---or any footprint so faint, they were not easily seen in the dark. The bricks would be warmer than the earth, because of the sun shining on them in the daytime.

NOW it is.

And there is no question as to who got to the house when. Two cops, then the friends. More cops - then the detective.

I defer to Smit's experience and observation about the window as a possible point of entry, but whether or not he is correct, I know there were other ways of entering that house without force and without leaving prints. The fact that Reichenbach didn't find any prints in the snow, on the drive, on the walkway or on the pine needles/leaves doesn't impress me one way or the other. It does not prove the absense or presence of an intruder. Would that it would!

Actually the situation with that window, when it was first seen open, when Fleet White saw it, whether it was open or closed when he saw it, when John saw it and what he saw (or what he CLAIMS to have seen), when the police first noticed it, and when they photographed it -- all this is, as far as I have been able to determine, extremely confused. White apparently went down there very early on, noticed the suitcase and the glass, but has claimed it was closed (though not latched?). John claims he went down there around 10 AM, saw it was slightly ajar, and then closed it. But John is a suspect, so we ought not take his testimony at face value. It's possible he had closed it much earlier. It's also possible he's the one who opened it. The police photo shows it fully open (at least as much as possible, since it was blocked by a duct). But I don't think the exact time of that photo has ever been released. I've seen presentations by Smit that imply this photo represents the condition of the window when first observed that morning. But John has claimed it was only slightly ajar when he saw it. I've heard it said the photo was made later in the day, after the window had been examined and manipulated by the police.

What we do NOT have, apparently, is a photo of the window itself, showing exactly how it was broken. The break has been described as roughly round, baseball sized. Which seems odd for an intruder intent on passing a hand through that hole to unlatch it from outside. Why not just kick out the entire pane and THEN reach through?

Again, the whole thing simply does NOT add up. Very very strange situation.

1. If the guy lifted the grate, and went down into the well, then he was definitely planning on breaking a window. Because there would have been no way for him to see that the window was already broken until he got down there.

2. It would have been possible for him to break that window without making hardly any sound at all. Just apply more and more pressure with your foot until the glass gives. Or just use your hands to pull out the unbroken shards and lay them on the window well. Softly.

It's really hard to see how an intruder could have managed to squirm his hand and arm into a baseball sized hole in order to get at the latch. Or why he'd go to all that trouble when it would have been so easy to just remove the remaining glass from the (small) pane.

You are definitely right to remain on the fence. This cas is FAR more complex and puzzling than either the Ramsey defenders or the so-called BORG are willing to accept. As far as Lou Smit is concerned, he has been able to make his points only by ignoring significant evidence.

John made a hole in the glass so HE could open it - so it follows logically that the hole would have been big enough for an intruder's hand too.

Someone is saying that if anyone went in that window there would have been a "clean sweep" as the person went in - - his butt dragging acoss the ledge. But that is not true. There is a rim there - I know because I have been there, gone inthe window. You pick up your butt to go over the rim - - else it would hurt!

According to the latest word from John, via Darnay's deposition, he "perhaps" made a hole in the glass. "Perhaps" he himself punched out that hole months earlier. Not sure. Maybe not. "Hmmmmm . . . now lemme think, did I or didn't I . . . "

Have you seen that hole, by the way? Or a photo of it? I'm really curious to know how someone,either John OR an intruder, could get his arm through such a hole to unlatch the latch.

>
>Someone is saying that if anyone went in that window there
>would have been a "clean sweep" as the person went in - -
>his butt dragging acoss the ledge. But that is not true.
>There is a rim there - I know because I have been there,
>gone inthe window. You pick up your butt to go over the rim
>- - else it would hurt!

Jameson, we've all seen Lou Smit squeeze his way through that very narrow space. You're telling me that wouldn't have left any trace on the window sill or frame?

What the rim does for me is explain why the debris wasn't just shoved from the well, across the sill and onto the floor. Which would have displaced debris on the sill. The presence of the rim would have made it necessary to scoop that stuff up, out of the well and then drop it onto the floor, bypassing the sill. Looks VERY much like it happened that way.

The rim - - there WAS a disturbance at the window - and I think it fits someone going in there, or out. The thing I was trying to explain is why there was no "clean sweep" on the window sill - and I think I did that fairly well.

Boulder, Colorado times of sunrise and sunset

every December

Sunrise Sunset Length-of-Day
1 7:02 4:36 9:34
2 7:03 4:36 9:33
3 7:04 4:36 9:32
4 7:05 4:36 9:31
5 7:06 4:35 9:29
6 7:06 4:35 9:29
7 7:07 4:35 9:28
8 7:08 4:35 9:27
9 7:09 4:35 9:26
10 7:10 4:35 9:25
11 7:11 4:36 9:25
12 7:12 4:36 9:24
13 7:12 4:36 9:24
14 7:13 4:36 9:23
15 7:14 4:36 9:22
16 7:14 4:37 9:23
17 7:15 4:37 9:22
18 7:16 4:37 9:21
19 7:16 4:38 9:22
20 7:17 4:38 9:21
21 7:17 4:39 9:22
22 7:18 4:39 9:21
23 7:18 4:40 9:22
24 7:19 4:40 9:21
25 7:19 4:41 9:22
***26 7:20 4:41 9:21***
27 7:20 4:42 9:22
28 7:20 4:43 9:23
29 7:21 4:44 9:23
30 7:21 4:44 9:23
31 7:21 4:45 9:24

The sun rose at 7:20am in the East which would have been on the front entry side of the house, where the window (in which the abandoned flue was positioned) to the furnace room was.

http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/Boulder/boulder.sunset.html#December

Daily Precipitation and snowfall record for
Dec 1996 Boulder, Colorado

Day high T low T Precip Snow Snow Depth

1 51 14 0 0 2
2 46 27 0 0 1
3 47 14 0 0 1
4 41 21 0 0 1
5 47 24 0.02 0 T

6 44 30 0 0 T
7 45 27 0 0 T
8 68 38 0 0 0
9 67 37 0 0 0
10 63 43 0 0 0

11 56 35 0 0 0
12 58 36 0 0 0
13 54 31 0 0 0
14 51 29 0 0 0
15 40 13 0 0 0

***16 40 14 0.23 3.8 4***
***17 18 -4 0.11 2.1 6***
18 18 -6 0 0 4
19 31 -4 0 0 4
20 49 22 0 0 3

21 47 36 0 0 2
22 52 20 0 0 1
***23 38 17 0.01 0.2 1***
24 44 24 0 0 T
25 54 24 0 0 T

***26 51 6 0 T 0***
27 59 26 0 0 0
28 54 37 0 0 0
29 64 34 0 0 0
30 60 42 0 0 0

31 65 32 0 0 0

The snow that covered the yard, as seen in the photos taken early on the morning of the 26th., fell on the 16th. & 17th.-a total of 5.9 inches.Then followed 6 days of above freezing daytime temperatures where the snow melted (down to an average depth of 1" on the 23rd. after a very light 0.2 inches fell. By the 25th. only a trace of snow, on the average for the weather station for Boulder, was left on the ground. Then on the 26th. a trace of snow fell with no significant accumulations, the "dusting". The remainder of the snow, just a "trace" melted on the 26th. Not much rain fell during the month, none in the two days prior to the 26th. It was a very light amount and I feel sure the ground was dry on the night of the 25th. & 26th.and probably hard.

http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/Boulder/boulder.data.1990-99.html#Dec96

NOAA-CIRES Climate Diagnostics Center
Document maintained by Cathy Smith (cas@cdc.noaa.gov)
Updated: Jun 28, 2001 11:39:47 MDT
http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/Boulder/getdata.html

Every day from 1948 to the present for Boulder:
ftp://ftp.cdc.noaa.gov/Public/cas/boulder.daily.data

http://mach.usno.navy.mil/cgi-bin/aa_rstablew.pl or
http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/RS_OneYear.html

A google search of "dark adaptation" will result in 262,000 web pages on the subject like the one above if one is so inclined to study them.

This phenomena occurs when we walk from a brightly lit space into a very dark room, such as a movie theatre. Essentially, it takes about 5-7 minutes for the eyes to adjust to see anything and another 30 minutes or so for the eyes to complete the adjustment. You will notice things within the theatre, earlier than this, if they are illuminated by what is on a brightly lit screen.

However, This could not a factor in the matter of what Fleet or John saw, or didn't see, in the windowless room for the following reasons:

1. Dark adaptation occurs when one moves from one room or place into another with very low (but not nonexistent as found in a cave far below the earth's surface) illumination. Neither John nor Fleet entered the windowless wine cellar to look around. They stood at the threshold of the door yet were nevertheless still in the furnace room. What they saw in the wine cellar was whatever was illuminated by the reflected/refracted light of the furnace room similar to those things lit by the movie screen in the example above.

2. When Fleet entered the basement at about 6:00 am he noted that the basement lights were on already. My guess is that Officer French had turned them on as he searched the basement a few moments earlier and had left them on. Thus, Fleet's eyes went from a marginally lit living area to a marginally lit basement all illuminated by incandescent bulbs. They did not adjust between the two levels as they were essentially at the same level.

3. The only difference between the light that was availiable to Fleet White and John Ramsey was the refracted/reflected light entering the furnace room window after day break. This however, was significant extra lighting in addition to the lone bulb that lit the furnace room.

4. If adaptation were involved it would require a 3 to 7 minute period of time for either John or Fleet's eyes to adapt to whatever light had been in the room in order to see anything. Neither one waited anything like this time before they either left or turned on the room light.

5. The light availiable in the furnace room and that penetrating the darkness of the wine cellar through the open doorway was further hindered by Fleet's body as he stood in the doorway-the lone bulb was behind him about 5 feet and up about 1.5 feet above his head. His body would have blocked any light from reaching the floor in front of him.

All this can be measured with a light meter, and/or recreated, if it ever becomes necessary to prove this in court for whatever reason. I am certain that this is what happened and why and I find no reason to account for the difference with any body switching theory.

When John looked in the room that afternoon, his eyes would have been exposed to sunlight for some time. So it's HIS eyes that would have needed a few minutes to adjust, NOT Fleet's. Yet he claims he saw her immediately!

Fleet had not been in the house very long and he went looking for JonBenét, calling her name. Despite the ransom note, he was calling her name, hoping that this would be like the situation in his own home where Daphne went missing, the cops were called, friends were called, but the child was simply hiding and perfectly safe.

So he opens a door and there is a totally dark room - - a room he HAD been in before - -he KNEW it was a nasty storage room. Not the place a little girl was likely to hide in. No child answering his call - - and the LARGE MAN was blocking any light that was behind him.

I think he quickly registered that he was looking into that nasty room and she wouldn't be hiding inthere - - and left.

On the other hand, John was asked to do a more thorough search. Being smaller than Fleet, more light would have passed by him into the room so he would stand a better chance of seeing her - but the fact is, he knew where the light switch was and he turned it on!

I know that he can't remember all the details of that time. He certainly wouldn't be able to tell you what foot he put in the room first and I don't think he even noticed the pink nightgown on the floor - - - all his attention was on JonBenét. he can't remember turning on the light - but he DID turn it on - - we know that because Fleet White was then able to see the body, her foot sticking out from the blanket.

I see NOTHING strange in the fact that Fleet didn't see the body when he went down ahortly after 6 am - - and John found it immediately when he went searching the same area after 1 pm.

Standing in the furnace room which was lit, dimly, and looking into the dark wine cellar/windowless room would be simillar to looking into the theatre. You can immediately see what is illuminated but but not much if it isn't.

Adaptation takes place when you move from a light space **into** the dark space and it is either not illuminated, or poorly illuminated.

When someone gets up in the morning and turns on the light their eyes adapt to light very quickly, in moments. The drive over to the Ramseys house probably took 10 minutes, or less, i would guess-I think you can drive across the whole town in 20 minutes or less. It takes in the neighborhood of 6-7 minutes for your rods to adapt to darkness, 30 minutes or more for the cones. After Fleet arrived at the Ramsey house he moved from one illuminated room to another and hjis eyes would have become accustomed to that light very quickly, reversing what adaptation had happened in the drive over.

While the reflected and refracted light penetrating the furnace room window was significant, I don't think any direct sunlight entered the room as the sun, at that time, was above and southwest of the house, placing it opposite the east elevation where the window wqs. The outside of the window was partially shaded by brush as well. We are not talking going from direct sunlight outside into a completely dark room. Dark adaptation takes place when we move from one extreme to another. Otherwise, it is minimal or doesn't happen at all. Unless one of the two men have some genetic problem with their eyesight the only significant difference in their ability to see what was in the room was in the amount of light that entered the wine cellar door from the furnace room.

Since the original room has been bricked over it would not be easy to test this but I think a reasonable substitute might be arranged by someone if they are interested. If your theory hinges on what happened at the door you might want to recreate the situation and see what you come up with.

I think it's also pertinent to remember that the room was "L" shaped and had a lot of miscellaneous junk in it. The body lay, mostly, around the interior corner. It is possible, I think, that Fleet saw various but unrecognizable items, shades and shapes in the moment he looked into the room...nothing that would suggest to him that anyone was hiding in there as Jams suggests above. He wasn't looking for a body-specifically, two small feet sticking out from under a blanket just beyond the interior corner of the room.