First Prev
of 7
Next Last
Anti-K

Grande Prairie, Canada

#129 Feb 15, 2013
Bakatari wrote:
<quoted text>
Hi AK,
http://crimeshots.com/JBMorning.html
IF you look up "The Murder" in this article, it tells you that officers French and Veich were the first at the scene, AND in the next paragraph, that the police "QUICKLY REALIZED that there was no footprints in the snow." Now, you might try to use your semantics on this, but French and Veich were the first police at the scene, and noticed no footprints in the snow.
CC
Let me quote from the article you linked to: One of the early Boulder police officers at the scene noted that when he walked on the driveway and sidewalks, his steps left no visible footprints.
This is exactly what I have been saying. It is what the quotes I have provided from Reichenbach, Thomas, Kolar, Hayden, Glick, etc have said –you could not tell whether anyone had walked on them or not.

So, your own source backs up my claim, and does nothing to support yours. So, we are still waiting for you to show us where it is said that French and Veitch saw no snow on the ground and where they reported it. Still waiting for you to show us where it is said that French and Veitch (or anyone!) said they saw “no footprints in the snow leading to, or exiting the home.” All we have is no FRESH footprints in the snow on the grass in the yard.

Incidentally, the search warrant affidavit has Reichenbach’s arrival at six a.m. while Thomas and Kolar have his arrival at approx. 6:10. I don’t see mention of Veitch’s arrival in either book, but I may have just missed it. Kolar has French arriving at 5:56. So, Reichenbach was one of the first officer’s on scene.

From Kolar and Thomas we learn that Reichenbach first went inside the house, talked to the officer(s) present, talked to the Ramseys, looked around the house (basement, etc.) and then he went outside and inspected the exterior of the house and the surrounding area.

Reichenbach was “one of the early Boulder police officers at the scene,” and he is the one who made the “no FRESH footprints” in the snow observation. This is in the search warrant affidavit.

Once again, from the article you linked to: One of the early Boulder police officers at the scene noted that when he walked on the driveway and sidewalks, his steps left no visible footprints.

Try again. Look in the search warrant affidavit, look in Kolar or Thomas.


AK

Since: Feb 12

Aiea, HI

#130 Feb 15, 2013
Hi AK,
The source does NOT back your claim. It states that there were no footprints in the snow. THAT was an observation by the police, first at the scene close to 6AM on that day.
CC
Anti-K

Grande Prairie, Canada

#131 Feb 15, 2013
Bakatari wrote:
Hi AK,
The source does NOT back your claim. It states that there were no footprints in the snow. THAT was an observation by the police, first at the scene close to 6AM on that day.
CC
I’m using multiple sources. Which one are you talking about it? I don’t recall that any of them saying “no footprints in the snow.“ They say no FRESH footprints. NONE of them support your claim, not even your own linked to article (it supports mine!) that French and Veitch (or anyone!) said they saw “no footprints in the snow leading to, or exiting the home.”

From the Thomas book, p. 19; QUOTE:[Reichenbach] went outside. A light dusting of snow and frost lay atop an earlier crusty snow in SPOTTY PATCHES on the grass. he saw no FRESH shoe impressions……but walking on the driveway and sidewalks LEFT NO VISIBLE prints.

From Kolar, p.27; QUOTE: Reichenbach noted that NO snow had adhered to the rear patio and walkways.
Your source; QUOTE: One of the early Boulder police officers at the scene noted that when he walked on the DRIVEWAY and SIDEWALKS, his steps left NO VISIBLE FOOTPRINTS.

From PMPT, p. 225: QUOTE: Reichenbach told the detectives that there was light, crusty snow and frost on the Ramsey’s lawn and he had seen no fresh footprints in the snow. THE BRICK WALKWAYS WERE CLEAR OF SNOW.

From the Thomas deposition:“there was a fresh frost and maybe a light dusting of snow on some of the lawn areas, but on the SIDEWALKS and WALKWAYS around the house, as he put in his report, as I may have put in one of my reports, as we presented to the VIP conference, that YOU COULD NOT TELL WHETHER SOMEBODY MAY HAVE WALKED ON THOSE WALKWAYS in question.”

My sources back up my claim. If you cannot see this, then there must be something wrong with your ability to read and/or comprehend the simplest of things regardless of how clearly they are stated. it si no surprise that you are incapable of backing up your own claim that French and Veitch (or anyone!) said they saw “no footprints in the snow leading to, or exiting the home.”


AK
Steve Eller

United States

#132 Feb 16, 2013
So we can agree that none of the Officers arriving noticed any footprints in the snow? It would have been in the report.

Since: Feb 12

Aiea, HI

#133 Feb 16, 2013
Steve Eller wrote:
So we can agree that none of the Officers arriving noticed any footprints in the snow? It would have been in the report.
Hi SE,
The report stated that there was no footprints in the snow.
The IDI argument to refute the report, is that there was areas where there was no snow. The argument as far as I know, was started by Lou Smit, who went by photographs that were not date and time stamped, but obviously taken hours after sunrise.

There were no footprints in the snow.
CC
Anti-K

Grande Prairie, Canada

#134 Feb 16, 2013
Bakatari wrote:
<quoted text>
Hi SE,
The report stated that there was no footprints in the snow.
The IDI argument to refute the report, is that there was areas where there was no snow. The argument as far as I know, was started by Lou Smit, who went by photographs that were not date and time stamped, but obviously taken hours after sunrise.
There were no footprints in the snow.
CC
Your nonsensical and unsupported claim is refuted by Thomas, Kolar, Reichenbach, Hayden, Glick, etc, it is refuted by the search warrant affidavit, Thomas’ deposition, various media reports, the Thomas and Kolar books and PMPT. Where’ve you been? you seem to have missed a lot. No wonder you’re confused. Or, maybe it’s your obsession with Smit?


AK
Anti-K

Grande Prairie, Canada

#135 Feb 16, 2013
Steve Eller wrote:
So we can agree that none of the Officers arriving noticed any footprints in the snow? It would have been in the report.
What report, Steve? The search warant affidavit says that “Sgt Reichenbach states that he saw no fresh footprints in any of the snow or in the frost on the grass.” You can follow the link below and read this for yourself. <1>

I’m a Canadian and I live up here in Canada. Maybe my understanding of the english language is not the same as some – Bakatari’s, for example – but when I read “no fresh footprints” it sounds to me that there were foot prints, there just weren’t any “fresh” ones.

When I read “no fresh footprints in any of the snow or in the frost on the grass,” it sounds to me like the snow and frost was on the grass, and that there were no fresh footprints in it?

I’ve been wrong about a lot of things before and I could be wrong about this, and all I’ve really been asking is for someone – Bakatari, specifically – but, really anyone (you?) to show me. Show me where it says,“no footprints.” Show me where it says that there was snow on the sidewalks and walkways around the house, show me where it is said that you could not walk on them without leaving prints.
cont.->


<1> http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/...

AK
Anti-K

Grande Prairie, Canada

#136 Feb 16, 2013
<- cont.
The only thing I’ve been shown so far is this. <2> Read it. Look for this,“One of the early Boulder police officers at the scene noted that when he walked on the driveway and sidewalks, his steps left no visible footprints.”

To me, that sounds like you could walk on the driveway and walkways without leaving prints; right? Isn’t this what Thomas said in his deposition, that,“you could not tell whether somebody may have walked on those walkways..” I mean, where am I going wrong? How can I be misunderstanding this?

Perhaps someone (you?) could explain to me what Kolar meant when he wrote,(p. 27)“Reichenbach noted that NO snow had adhered to the rear patio and walkways.”

To me, it seems as if he is saying that there was no snow on the patios and walkways? Am I wrong? If so, then what did he mean? It sounds to me like there was no snow on the walkways and that you could walk on them, as Thomas writes in his book (p. 19), without leaving “visible prints.”

The statements I’ve come across regarding the snow have been descriptive and specific: the snow was crusty, such-and-such deep, it was on “some”(not all. some) of the “grass and yard” and from “previous snowfalls;” in addition there was a “light dusting of snow and frost on the exposed grass.” <2> all quotes this paragraph

Descriptive and specific. No mention of snow, light dusting or frost on the walkways or driveway. Why not? It’s almost as if there was no snow, light dusting or frost on there!

If I’m wrong, then (anyone!) show me! If I’m misunderstanding, then (anyone!) explain it to me! Someone, anyone show me where it is said that there was snow on the walkways and that you could not walk on them without leaving prints.


<1> http://crimeshots.com/JBMorning.html
<2> http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/...

AK

Since: Feb 12

Aiea, HI

#137 Feb 16, 2013
Anti-K wrote:
<quoted text>
Your nonsensical and unsupported claim is refuted by Thomas, Kolar, Reichenbach, Hayden, Glick, etc, it is refuted by the search warrant affidavit, Thomas’ deposition, various media reports, the Thomas and Kolar books and PMPT. Where’ve you been? you seem to have missed a lot. No wonder you’re confused. Or, maybe it’s your obsession with Smit?

AK
Hi AK,
The observation by the police first at the scene, was there was no footprints in the snow. There was snow on the ground, and there were no footprints in it, leading to, or exiting the home.

SOMEBODY within the household did it. There is no evidence that conclusively supports any intruder.

The Grand Jury realized the situation, and voted to indict the parents. THAT should tell you something.
CC
Steve Eller

Brooklyn, NY

#138 Feb 16, 2013
Anti-K wrote:
<quoted text>
What report, Steve? The search warant affidavit says that “Sgt Reichenbach states that he saw no fresh footprints in any of the snow or in the frost on the grass.” You can follow the link below and read this for yourself. <1>
I’m a Canadian and I live up here in Canada. Maybe my understanding of the english language is not the same as some – Bakatari’s, for example – but when I read “no fresh footprints” it sounds to me that there were foot prints, there just weren’t any “fresh” ones.
When I read “no fresh footprints in any of the snow or in the frost on the grass,” it sounds to me like the snow and frost was on the grass, and that there were no fresh footprints in it?
I’ve been wrong about a lot of things before and I could be wrong about this, and all I’ve really been asking is for someone – Bakatari, specifically – but, really anyone (you?) to show me. Show me where it says,“no footprints.” Show me where it says that there was snow on the sidewalks and walkways around the house, show me where it is said that you could not walk on them without leaving prints.
cont.->

<1> http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/...
AK
Hi Anti K,

I think that we are being wholly unproductive parsing over semantics. The fact remains that no officer responding to the scene of the crime saw or reported any footprints. No footprints fresh or old were pursued as part of the crime. Now IDI (not necessarily you) can impugn the Boulder Police all they want but common sense dictates that if police officers responding to the scene of the crime arrived and saw footprints they would be investigated immediately.

Since: Feb 12

Aiea, HI

#139 Feb 16, 2013
Steve Eller wrote:
<quoted text>
Hi Anti K,
I think that we are being wholly unproductive parsing over semantics. The fact remains that no officer responding to the scene of the crime saw or reported any footprints. No footprints fresh or old were pursued as part of the crime. Now IDI (not necessarily you) can impugn the Boulder Police all they want but common sense dictates that if police officers responding to the scene of the crime arrived and saw footprints they would be investigated immediately.
Hi SE,
You are 100% correct. However, AntK is trying to salvage something rather than admit that she was fooled by the pro Ramsey propaganda.

One of the three remaining humans in the home did it. There is absolutely no evidence of an intruder, because there wasn't an intruder.

Patsy wrote the RN in a futile attempt to deter the thoughts of their guilt away, which obviously was successful with the IDIs, but anyone with any intelligence could see that this case has only three suspects.
CC
Anti-K

Grande Prairie, Canada

#141 Feb 16, 2013
Steve Eller wrote:
<quoted text>
Hi Anti K,
I think that we are being wholly unproductive parsing over semantics. The fact remains that no officer responding to the scene of the crime saw or reported any footprints. No footprints fresh or old were pursued as part of the crime. Now IDI (not necessarily you) can impugn the Boulder Police all they want but common sense dictates that if police officers responding to the scene of the crime arrived and saw footprints they would be investigated immediately.
No one is impugning BPD, or any officers at the scene. I’m certainly not disputing what they said, in fact, I am repeatedly quoting what they said – their words, not mine: no fresh footprints in the snow on the grass; no snow on the driveway or walkways and when you walked on the driveway and walkways no visible prints were left and the officers could not tell if anyone had ever walked on them.

Glad we could straighten this out.


AK
Anti-K

Grande Prairie, Canada

#142 Feb 16, 2013
Bakatari wrote:
<quoted text>
Hi SE,
You are 100% correct. However, AntK is trying to salvage something rather than admit that she was fooled by the pro Ramsey propaganda.
One of the three remaining humans in the home did it. There is absolutely no evidence of an intruder, because there wasn't an intruder.
Patsy wrote the RN in a futile attempt to deter the thoughts of their guilt away, which obviously was successful with the IDIs, but anyone with any intelligence could see that this case has only three suspects.
CC
So, Kolar, Thomas and Reichenbach statements regarding no snow on the driveway or walkways and when you walked on the driveway and walkways no visible prints were left and the officers could not tell if anyone had ever walked on them – that’s all Ramsey propaganda.

Good grief! I think we’ve all been duped. Hola!


AK
Anti-K

Grande Prairie, Canada

#143 Feb 16, 2013
Steve Eller,
I agree that no footprints were pursued as part of the crime.

However, it remains true that a Ramsey or an intruder could have entered/exited without leaving prints because, as we learned from Reichenbach, Kolar, Thomas – there was no snow on the driveway or walkways and you (the officers) could not tell if anyone had ever walked on them.


AK
Anti-K

Grande Prairie, Canada

#144 Feb 16, 2013
The Count of Monte Cristo wrote:
<quoted text>
Is it your contention that because no footprints were observed by responding police officers that there absolutely could not have been an intruder?
Could it not simply be the case that there were footprints but they were just not observed? After all, the BPD did bungle the initial stages of the investigation very badly by allowing the crime scene to be trampled under foot. How much confidence can one really have in their observations of footprints, or the lack thereof?
No, there were no fresh footprints in the snow or the grass. Yes, they could have missed something, but we can’t just assume that they did.

Read post 131 above to see what the search warrant affidavit, Thomas in his depo and his book, Kolar in his book, Reichenbach via those listed as well as in PMPT, etc. said about this matter. Also check out the story here (scroll down to FOOTPRINTS IN WHAT SNOW): http://www.acandyrose.com/02002000NEWS-jonben...

Also go back a few pages and read Bakatari’s posts on the matter through to here. Good stuff! LOL


AK
Colt1911

Lansing, MI

#146 Feb 17, 2013
The Count of Monte Cristo wrote:
<quoted text>
Technically speaking, unless the intruders made their way to the Ramsey home by way of levitation, parachute, or rope slide, their should have been footprints to some degree; albeit, not necessarily snow prints, but footprints that would not have been readily observable to the naked eye, and became even less observable after being trampled over several times. Thus, we can assume that they were there but that they were not discovered, or even discoverable. The bottom line is that a lack of discovered footprints is not necessarily strong evidence for there having been no intruders, if it is evidence at all.
LOL
Anti-K

Grande Prairie, Canada

#147 Feb 17, 2013
The Count of Monte Cristo wrote:
<quoted text>
Technically speaking, unless the intruders made their way to the Ramsey home by way of levitation, parachute, or rope slide, their should have been footprints to some degree; albeit, not necessarily snow prints, but footprints that would not have been readily observable to the naked eye, and became even less observable after being trampled over several times. Thus, we can assume that they were there but that they were not discovered, or even discoverable. The bottom line is that a lack of discovered footprints is not necessarily strong evidence for there having been no intruders, if it is evidence at all.
IIRC, the Ramseys drove into the garage and entered the house from there, so there wouldn’t – shouldn’t – have been any fresh prints from them. According to Reichenbach, Thomas, Kolar, etc. there was no snow on the driveway or walkways and you could not tell is anyone had walked on them. Officers noted that when you walked on them, no visible prints were left.

So, I think it is reasonable to provisionally accept the claim there were no foot prints going in or out of the house.


AK

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 7
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

JonBenet Ramsey Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Suspect # 1- Rod Westmoreland did it or he was ... (Mar '10) 2 hr Undrtheradar 116
koldkase patsy wrote the note 4 hr Just Wondering 7
SBTC and victory ??? 4 hr Just Wondering 4
But Not From You (Oct '09) 5 hr Just Wondering 30
James Kolar book: Foreign Faction: Who really... (Jul '12) 5 hr Just Wondering 1,052
Jonbenet's "Secret Santa..." 5 hr Rupert 35
The timeline on the 26 Dec 9 hr Rangette 5
Note-odd detail? 15 hr Legal__Eagle 552
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

JonBenet Ramsey People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••