Smit's butler door story, which gave rise to a major "urban myth" on the internet, is particularly disturbing, as once again he is very clearly stretching the truth to suit his "clients." Here's a more complete picture from reporter and insider Frank Coffman, known on the forums as "Masked Man." Coffman is by no means a member of the BORG persuasion, and has enthusiastically defended both Ramseys. Hopefully this will put that particular urban myth to rest forever -- though somehow I doubt it, since Ramsey diehards are famous for never giving a single inch:

"There was NO open door at the Ramseys' house on the morning of Dec. 26, 1996. John Ramsey himself found all the doors closed and locked that morning. Here are the FACTS:
* According to John Ramsey, ALL the doors were LOCKED. John Ramsey told the police that "I looked around the house that morning and... and all the doors were locked and I checked every door on the first floor... and they appeared to be locked." (Thomas, p. 172)

* Sgt. Paul Reichenbach checked all the doors at the Ramsey house in the early morning of Dec. 26, 1996. He found no open doors and no signs of a break-in.

* In June 2001, Linda Arndt testified at her civil trial that there were no signs of a break-in or other identifiable points of entry for an intruder into the Ramsey home.

* Patsy Ramsey told a guest at the memorial service on Dec. 29, 1996 that all the doors were closed and locked.

* Police chief Mark Beckner told me that the northside door (the so-called "butler's pantry door") was opened by a crime scene technician early that morining. The police technicians went to work at the Ramsey house by 6:50 a.m. on Dec. 26, 1996.

* Lou Smit himself told me a few months ago that he agreed that the "butler's pantry door" was probably left open by a police technician, just as Beckner said.

I have to admit: at one time, I was taken in by the myth of the "open door" because it was reported in a newspaper story and it was touted by others. Since then, I have learned that there were no open or unlocked doors. Neither the police nor John Ramsey found any open doors.

The mistaken notion about an "open door" got started after John Fernie noticed that the northside "butler's pantry door" was ajar. Fernie didn't know that the door was left open by a police technician."

From a Websleuths post by Masked Man dated August 20, 2001

Confirmation from the 1997 interview:

JR: Yeah, and when I went down and looked around the house that morning, and I think I'd made a statement or at least I read, I know I said this, that all the doors were locked, and I had checked, I believe, every door on the first floor. And they were, appeared to be locked.

ST: So the morning of the 26th do you recall checking all the doors and they were locked?

JR: I believe I checked all the first floor doors, yeah.

What is pertinent here is that snow falls, it does not form on the ground. That means that there were large areas under the trees and around the house that would not have had any snow, light or otherwise. What snow would have been there would have fallen in the front

While I do not believe the officer was lying, he was obviously mistaken about there being frost on the ground and for the reason stated above, it is very important to make the distinction. It means that there were areas where an intruder could have walked without leaving footprints, not to mention what I always mention, that someone could have come and gone prior to any snow fall, which, according to my best guess (based on the Weather station information) was around 12:30AM to 1:00AM.

The temperature that morning was recorded at the Boulder weather station as 6 degrees F. just before the sun came up at 7:30AM. It would have taken a while, until about mid to late morning, for the snow on the sidewalks to melt, and after lunch for the snow on the grass to start melting. The crime scene photos were taken around 8:30AM ish. I believe the reason we don't see any snow in these photos is that it was a "light dusting", nothing that would uniformly cover the ground.

I believe we can take Officer R's word that he did not see any footprints around the house but that does not equate to evidence for or against an intruder. It is equivalent to saying there was no sign of forced entry. That is not equivalent to saying no entry. The ground was hard, covered with pine needles and leaves on the sides of the house, and even with a dusting of snow, there would be no reason to expect footprints anywhere except where someone might have walked in the 1-2" of days-old patches of crunchy snow in the front and back yard.

I agree with Lou Smit that it's possible the butler door was an escape route for the intruder. I also believe that's how the intruder gained entry, possibly with a key.

>of Dec. 26, 1996. John Ramsey himself found all the doors
>closed and locked that morning. Here are the FACTS:
>* According to John Ramsey, ALL the doors were LOCKED. John
>Ramsey told the police that "I looked around the house that
>morning and... and all the doors were locked and I checked
>every door on the first floor... and they appeared to be
>locked." (Thomas, p. 172) .
>
>* In June 2001, Linda Arndt testified at her civil trial
>that there were no signs of a break-in or other identifiable
>points of entry for an intruder into the Ramsey home.

I don't believe Linda Arndt is one of the world's all time great detectives, or Steve Thomas for that matter.
>
>* Police chief Mark Beckner told me that the northside door
>(the so-called "butler's pantry door") was opened by a crime
>scene technician early that morining. The police technicians
>went to work at the Ramsey house by 6:50 a.m. on Dec. 26,
>1996.

What is the name of this famous police technician and where are the police reports about the matter of his opening the butler's pantry door?
>
>The mistaken notion about an "open door" got started after
>John Fernie noticed that the northside "butler's pantry
>door" was ajar. Fernie didn't know that the door was left
>open by a police technician."
>
>From a Websleuths post by Masked Man dated August 20, 2001.

This is what John Ramsey actually said about checking whether the doors were locked, not what docg or Masked Man reported John Ramsey as saying. From the John Ramsey interview with Lou Smit and Mike Kane on June 23rd 1998:

MIKE KANE: Okay. I don't know if this is any particular -- I tried to keep this in order, but it's now totally out of order, but I will just jump as I go through a page here. On that morning I think before last April, when you gave a statement about this, you were describing, I mean there were some disagreement or confusion about if you checked the doors that night and you said that you hadn't checked the doors that night.

JOHN RAMSEY: Well, you know, one of the things that perplexed me is how did this person get in. When Linda Arndt was there, I used to say I don't know how they got in. The doors are locked. Well, these guys said did you check all the doors, I said yeah. Well, did you check all the doors? Well no, I didn't, there is doors on the second floor, you know, I guess I didn't check all the doors. So you know, if -- I don't remember specifically what you're talking about, but I am sure I told Linda Arndt the doors are all locked. I don't know how they got in. But the fact of the matter is I didn't check the door in JonBenet's room, I didn't check the door in the TV room, I didn't check the door on the third floor bathroom, I DON'T REMEMBER CHECKING THE PANTRY DOOR. So I mean, I checked the doors that we normally used, and would have left open, you know, accidentally, perhaps, but....

Yeah, how did that objective investigator apply his objectivity to the supposed stun gun marks? From all he has said, he looked at them, said, "Could these be stun gun marks?" and he was off to the races. His objectivity never apparently led to trying to find out what things in the house could have made the marks other than a stun gun, he has never indicated that he ruled out the antlers or hooves on the metale deer at the bottom of the spiral staircase, or the prongs on the various items associated with Burke's train set, or any number of items the house and backyard contained. Smit never said his supposed bjectivity showed him that the marks could not possibly have come from John's rough handling of JonBenet while he was trying to get her out of the car, as John himself said was a problem. Ah, but if it was John who accidentally bumped JonBenet while getting her out of the car, that would ruin Smit's intruder theory, and Smit does not appear to be interested in ruining his own theory of the case.

An experienced investigator is aware of all aspects of the scene even when they do not fit any given theory. In this case, the marks, and many other items at the scene made an experienced investigator sit up and take notice.

The BPD here, Steve Thomas, had NO experience in investigating a murder. Neither did a great many other 'investigators' to whom this case was handed.

Rainsong

"Clearly"
When in doubt, say "clearly." It may not be clear, but your opposition doesn't know that. By offhandedly suggesting that a particular train of thought is obvious to you, you will come across as a daunting force of intelligence difficult to reckon with.

(g)

Jameson, this is not meant as an attack, but it just cracks me up. If you believe it is not appropriate to point out docg and 70's tactical maneuvering, by all means delete this post.

Jameson had best not point out such "maneuvering," since there are plenty of examples on this forum of her own use of "clearly" in the way you call attention to.

"Name calling is an efficient way of pointing out your opponents' weaknesses and call into question the authority with which they dispute your position. By encouraging your opponents to doubt their competence, you can undermine a contrary argument from the inside. For example:

* You: "I believe all short people should be beaten with rocks until they bleed."
* Opponent: "I think that's a very horrible and malicious idea."
* You: "Well, you're fat! Fatty fat doo doo head!"
* Opponent: (sobs)"

The site's author is CLEARLY pulling your leg!

Smit has stated that because of the higher number of cases where parents are involved in these crimes against children he went into the case biased against them. He expected to find incriminating evidence against them. What he found and what he has said, is that the further along he went the more the evidence pointed away from the parents. All of the evidence, including the fact that they have a good history, went into that conclusion. The bias in this case is not Lou's, it is yours.

Have we heard enough yet?!

The stun gun experiments by Dobersen will rule in court because the "other expert' will be discredited just as quickly as he was when Darnay used him.

I have never heard from one officer or investigator that footprints would have been visible on the south side of the house that morning.

There was snow on the front yard - - no doubt - - but NOT on the south side. Why? Hell, I am not a scientist but I spent enough tie around the house to know it just worked that way. Maybe because the rising sun hit the south side at a low angle and after bouncing off the windows cleared the snow much faster theretan on the other sides of the house.

The ONLY thing we have is early discussions that were largely BORG rhetoric that was planted to put pressure on the family - - and the crime scene photos.

I will believe the photos - and my own experience.

When i went to the house and there was snow on the front yard but NOT on the side, I took photos and posted them. I saw for myself how warm that side was compared to the rest of the yard and I (right or wrong contributed that to all the glass in that alcove and the nature of the sun in the morning, coming in low and bright.

You are free to ignore the photos and my insight, but don't pretend you have any PROOF because you have none - - not in images, not in personal experience at that site- - and certainly not from police reports. They may have said no prints on the side of the house - - they didn't say there was undisturbed snow.

Then what is this picture of, if not snow on the side of the house, the south side, the side with all those windows in the solarium and the dining room?

Take the time to read Braveheart's posts. They disprove the 'no footprints in the snow/frost" from a meteorological angle.

Rainsong

For the record, the picture was taken by Jameson herself, therefore she can identify the exact date and time it was taken. It was posted to question her own statement that "there was snow on the front yard but NOT on the side, I took photos and posted them." Her own photos (there are several others she took available by her own permission at ACandyRose) show that both the front yard and the south side yard, the very side she just told you all had no snow when she was there, did in fact have snow. So we have photographic proof of facts here. Snow can form on the south side of the house, even under the trees. Snow also falls and stays on the walkways, as evidenced by yet another of Jameson's own photos:

>Snow also falls and
>stays on the walkways, as evidenced by yet another of
>Jameson's own photos:
>
>

As I stated previously, the photo in question appears to have been taken after a fairly HEAVY snow. No such heavy snowfall occurred in Boulder on the night of December 25th, 1996.

Rainsong

There was No frost, no frost, no frost, no frost. There is No frost in Lou's photos because there was none, not because Lou is lying or the pictures are defective. The photos don't prove this, the National Weather station data at Boulder does this, the photos illustrate this. There wasn't enough "Dusting of snow" on the ground to be seen from more than a few feet away from the ground. A photo taken 15 feet away wouldn't show this whether it was taken at 8:00 AM or 11:00AM. John Fernie arrived prior to Reichen*, and after the dusting, and walked around the back and side of the house without leaving foot prints that the officer saw.
Lou read Fernie's statement, he has studied the timeline, read Reichenbach's report, probably checked with the weather station, studied the site under similar conditions and come to the only rational conclusion one can make from this and that is that "no footprints" does not equal no intruder. This doesn't represent bias, it represents common sense.

An investigation does not have to lead to a prime suspect or an arrest for it to be a valid, professional investigation.

Rainsong

Such photographs as you term 'irrelevant' are commonly used in many investigations by a wide-variety of departments. You seem to be upset that the photographs were taken at a later time and under somewhat changed conditions. Well, most crime scene photos are!

Since you brought up the snow and sidewalks photos, let's be clear about the FACTS.

There was no snow for the sun to melt when the sun came up on the 26th. It was already gone and no new snow had fallen to be melted on the 26th. There was No frost, no frost, no frost, no frost. There is No frost in Lou's photos because there was none, not because Lou is lying or the pictures are defective. - Braveheart Braveheart has done the research and provided it for your benefit once again.

SNOW that fell BEFORE December 25th had MELTED almost completely on the SOUTH side of the house because that's ALWAYS the case - the south side of any house gets more direct sunlight throughout the day than any other. Only sheltered snow (under an overhang or a tree with heavy foliage, for example) may not melt away as quickly from the sun's rays on the south side. So, the open areas (grass, sidewalks) were CLEAR on the 25th. It doesn't matter what time the photos were taken.

edited to add - We all know the sun comes up in the east and works its way to setting in the west. The NORTH side of any street or building receives the least amount of sunlight and snow melting follows the sun's path. The north side loses any accumulated snow last. Snow under an overhang or heavy foliage on the north side is the slowest to melt.

I've already refuted your maligning of Det. Smit but you choose to toss the 'evidence' aside just as the BPD did in investigating JonBenet's murder.

Rainsong

I'm also deeply troubled by the photograph that Why Nut posted. We've all seen photos of the Ramsey property taken on the 26th of December. Why would Why Nut post a photo of a snow-laden yard implying that's how it looked when the crime was committed? The next photo shows a smattering of snow in the yard and UNDER the trees on a different side of the house, not on the walks.

I think it should be pointed out that Lou did not take any of the crime scene photos but he does have access to ALL of them.
He has access to ALL of the evidence. We don't know the evidence he has that will never be revealed to the public until such time as there is a trial. It's premature to convict anyone without knowing all of the facts and evidence of the case. This is true of any case.
And I highly doubt that Lou fears the opinions of a group of flamers on the Internet.

JS

Why_Nut neither claimed nor implied no such thing.

jameson says she took photos of the south side of the house and claims it was much warmer than elsewhere around the house (as one would expect - no rocket science there). She claimed that when she went to the house there was snow elsewhere but not on that south side. You could say that jameson was implying that the south side of the house was much to warm for snow to lie.

Why_Nut simply and effectively proved otherwise.

This is not that difficult:
Presentation = conclusions based on prior unbiased investigation
not presentation of biased investigation based on prior conclusions.

There was No frost, no frost, no frost, no frost. There is No frost in Lou's photos because there was none, not because Lou is lying or the pictures are defective. The photos don't prove this, the National Weather station data at Boulder does this, the photos illustrate this. There wasn't enough "Dusting of snow" on the ground to be seen from more than a few feet away from the ground. A photo taken 15 feet away wouldn't show this whether it was taken at 8:00 AM or 11:00AM. John Fernie arrived prior to Reichen*, and after the dusting, and walked around the back and side of the house without leaving foot prints that the officer saw.

Lou read Fernie's statement, he has studied the timeline, read Reichenbach's report, probably checked with the weather station, studied the site under similar conditions and come to the only rational conclusion one can make from this and that is that "no footprints" does not equal no intruder. This doesn't represent bias, it represents common sense.

Regardless, the photo posted by Why_Nut is a photo taken after a fairly heavy snow. No such snow was evident on December 25th/26th, 1996. Therefore, the photo is irrelevant.

Rainsong

Here is a picture taken of the east and south sides of the house, and it was taken before the pictures of the walkway that Smith favors presenting. What is all that stuff on the ground under those trees and by those large windows on the south side, if not snow? And given the amount of snow that is definitely present, should it not be an item of fact that if an intruder came into the house, his footwear was very, very wet, prone to retain a great deal of dirt and grass from the ground and even the walkways, and would have left shoeprint-shaped areas of dirt when the moisture from them dried?

"docG
unregistered user
Nov-09-02, 11:01 PM (EST)

"Footprints in the snow"

From one of the first search warrants issued in the Ramsey case:
"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."
__________________________________________________
I believe DocG is playing fast and loose, still, even after posting the following which should be proof enough that Officer R's report is not the definitive answer to whether there were footprints or not around the Ramsey home. DocG is the one who wants to believe what they want to believe.
_____________________________________________________________
"BraveHeart
Charter Member
457 posts Nov-11-02, 01:45 AM (EST)

18. "RE: DocG, time of dusting"
In response to message #11

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 <7:20> 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....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 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.

BraveHeart
unregistered user
Nov-12-02, 01:21 AM (EST)

35. "RE: R. was third police officer to arriv"
In response to message #28

He came at 6:45 am after French and Veitch and the Ramsey friends John and Barbara Fernie and Fleet and Priscilla White.

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

BraveHeart
unregistered user
Nov-13-02, 01:42 AM (EST)

47. "RE: Officer Reichenbach's report"
In response to message #46

....I don't think Officer R's report is being being disputed, other than perhaps, the time of his arrival. He did state that the brick walkways were clear which means that if an individual stayed entirely on them there would be no prints in the snow. I would also be willing to bet that a broken window within that window well would allow for enough heated air to rise up-cold air falls, hot rises- to melt whatever frost or snow might otherwise have been around and on the grate. I think the problem most of us have with the report is the way that the report was misrepresented in leaks to the press.

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.

Officer R. may have reported that there was frost on the ground at 6:15 am when he circled the house, in the dark, but the U.S.weather station at Boulder records that it was a light dusting of snow. Looking at the known data collected for the night of the 25th. to 26th. bears this out, and also gives us an idea when the snow fell.

About Frost:
http://www.awis.com/Misc/Fact_Sheets.htm#UsingDew

"As the air temperature cools on a winter night and approaches the dew point, the moisture in the air will condense out of the air and on to solid objects. The surface temperature of an object must be freezing in order for frost to form. Objects that radiate energy more efficiently tend to frost up first. Thin objects (leaves, small branches, shoots, etc.) frost quicker than thick objects. The ground, particularly when moist, does a relatively good job of holding heat, so frost damage tends to occur at the top of vegetation.

Frost can form when dew point temperatures and air temperatures are in the upper 30s. Patchy and scattered frost can occur in areas that typically run cold, low areas where cold air accumulates, the lee side of wind blocks, etc. In addition, dew point and temperature are measured at the standard height of five feet. It can be colder at ground level.

Prime dew point temperatures for widespread frost formation are in the upper 20s to lower 30s. When this occurs with freezing air temperatures, everything is in place for potentially heavy frost formation.

Frost formation is less likely with dew point temperatures below the mid 20s. There just isn't enough moisture in the air for significant frost formation, even if temperatures are below freezing.
_____________________________________________________
Sunrise/Sunset:
25th. 7:19am/4:41pm
26th. 7:20am/4:41pm

Ambient air Temperature
degrees farenheit, Max./Min./Precip.(snow)/snow accumulation
25th. 54 24 0 T
26th. 51 6 T 0 (Frost point = 11)
Temperature measurements are typically taken at a point 4-5 feet above the ground
Ground temperatures may vary from this by as much as 2 degrees

25th. Relative Humidity: Max = 86%/min = 24%

26th. Relative Humidity: Max = 87%/min = 37%

Using a psychrometric chart (a graphing device that shows the relationships among the various properties of air)
and the above data taken from the National Weather records for Boulder, for the 25th. and 26th. of December,
we can determine the wet bulb temperatures for these days, at least at these times. This tells us the point
at which moisture in the air condenses out as snow or frost.

For the 26th. then, the "dusting" of snow occured when the temperature reached 26 degrees, and continued until the
moisture content of the air fell below the dew point saturation level. Snow, rather than frost is recorded by the
NWS station. For snow to fall, the atmospheric air temperature must be consistently or uniformly below freezing
from the point of crystal formation to the ground.

Since the moisture in the air condensed as snow prior to the temperature reaching the frost point of 11 degrees, there could have been no frost on the ground.

The temperature at daybreak was close to 6 degrees, the daily low T, and the high of 51 degrees would have been reached in mid afternoon. That means that the snow probably did not start melting until late morning, or until after the photos had been taken. Nothing dishonest about the photos.

There are trees on both sides of the house which would have blocked snowfall (dusting) to the ground beneath them, unless there were driving snows which was not the case.

Approximation of temperature changes:
highest temp. 25th. at 2:00 pm = 54 degrees
assume an estimated drop from 54 to 52 degrees by 4:30 pm, just before sunset at 4:41 pm.
lowest temp 26th. morning of 26th.= 6 degrees at 6:00 am
difference in temp. = 46 degrees
difference in elapsed time = 14.5 hours
rate of drop in degrees per hour = 3.4 degrees/hour

assume 6 degrees temp at 7:30 just after sunrise at 7:20 am
highest temp. 26th. at 2:00 pm = 51 degrees
difference in temp. = 45 degrees
difference in elapsed time = 6.5 hours
rate of rise in degrees per hour = 8.2 degrees/hour

This is not exact, the temperature most probably did not drop in a completely uniform rate, but it will give us an idea of what the temperatures were like that night.

25th. 2:00 pm 54
3:00 pm 54
4:00 pm 53
4:30 pm 52
5:30 pm 49
6:30 pm 45
7:30 pm 42
8:30 pm 38
9:30 pm 35
10:30 pm 32
11:30 pm 28
mid am 25 Snow would have begun falling at dew point of 26 degrees, about 12:15 am to 12:45am, approximately,
1:00 am 21
2:00 am 18
3:00 am 15
4:00 am 11
5:00 am 08
6:00 am 06
7:00 am 06
7:20 am daybreak
7:30 am 14
.....
At about 8:30 am with an air temperature of 22 the trace of snow on the yard in direct sun would start to melt

At about 9:30 am and 31 degrees, the "old" snow left over from the 16th. & 17th.,
and dusting, in shaded areas, would begin to melt, as air temp moved above freezing at about 10:00 am, 35 degrees.

As long as the intruder left before the dusting of snow at about 12:30 am , there would have been no footprints in it.

As long as the perp walked under the trees which were on both sides of the house there would be no snow at any time, no frost either, and consequently, no footprints (snow falls from the sky - blocked by trees, frost forms on the ground).

BraveHeart
Charter Member
457 posts Jul-31-03, 11:03 AM (EST)

26. "RE: difference"
In response to message #24

DocG:
I spent some time trying to show the difference between frost and snow, above. Snow falls while frost forms on the ground. Unless there was a blowing wind, we wouldn't expect to see snow under the trees but we would expect to see frost there, and everywhere else.
I showed that according to the psychrometrics of the known weather data for the US weather station at Boulder that there could have bee no frost that morning only a light dusting of snow.

When officer R said he saw snow I think he meant the days old snow still left on the ground.... When he said there was frost on the ground he was speaking as a police officer not as a weather expert. I believe he got it wrong. Based on real evidence there was no frost. That means that there were areas, like under trees, {and on the sidewalks]where no prints could have been found, in either snow or frost.

This is obviously why Officer R didn't see Fernie's footprints when Fernie had run around the butler door side of the house....The fact that Fernie could have traveled around the house on that side without making prints proves that anyone else could have done the same thing, including an intruder.

The myth that was propagated from R's report was that no footprints found meant that there was no intruder at the home. That wasn't R's fault. It was the impression the BPD wanted to create. It was a misrepresentation of the truth. It became a fact in the public mind.

What I have shown is that Officer R's report doesn't prove anything concerning an intruder.

BraveHeart
Charter Member
457 posts Aug-03-03, 00:53 AM (EST)

39. "RE: mBm"
In response to message #38

No photos because it was pitch black outside, the moon was setting on the other side of the house behind the flatirons and the sun was not yet up. The outside light normally turned on at the south east corner of the house wasn't on that night. All R. had to work with was his trusty mag light.

The text of Officer Reichenbach's report:
"...Sgt. Reichenbach states in his report that he had arrived at the Ramsey home at approximately 0600 hours on December 26, and that he had examined the exterior of the Ramsey home as well as the yard. Sgt. Reichenbach noted that the air temperature was approximately 10 degrees fahrenheit. Sgt. Reichenbach noted in his report that there was a very light dusting 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 snowfall(s) and this snow was described as being crusty and measuring one - two inches deep. Sgt. Reichenbach states that he saw no fresh foot prints in any of the snow or in the frost on the grass. Sgt. Reichenbach also states in his report that he visually examined the exterior doors and windows of the Ramsey residence and founbd no signs of forced entry."

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

"....Sgt. Reichenbach noted that the air temperature was approximately 10 degrees fahrenheit."
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The low temperature recorded for the 26th. by the Boulder National weather station was 6 degrees. We could expect that temperature to be reached just before sunrise when the air would begin to be heated up by the sun, or about the time of Officer reichenbach's inspection. This probably doesn't matter one way or the other as far as the discussion on footprints goes unless it reflects on his degree of attempted accuracy in reporting what he saw. We don't know how he determined this, if he read a cheap thermometer on the house exterior, or caught a newscast off the radio. I see it as accurate enough for the purpose it served, to describe the general weather conditions.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
"Sgt. Reichenbach noted in his report that there was a very light dusting snow and frost on the exposed grass..."
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
And I have noted my understanding of the weather data that tells me it was impossible for frost to have formed that night making the point that we should expect only to see the light dusting of snow on the exposed grassy areas. This is what I think the officer is reporting. I don't think he differentiated between frost or snow and ....the snow/frost only covered the "exposed" grass, or areas not under the trees and shrubs on both sides of the house.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
"Some of the grass and yard was covered with snow from previous snowfall(s)"
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
True, on the 16th. and 17th. , 6 inches of snow fell
http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/Boulder/boulder.data.1990-99.html#Dec96
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
"...and this snow was described as being crusty and measuring one - two inches deep."
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The weather station reported an average of 1" to a trace left on the ground, but this would be a hypothetical average. In real life the snow could have drifted into greater or lessor depths. When the thinner areas melted, after the 17th., patches of 1" to 2" depth could have been left and this is exactly what the yard photos show.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
"Sgt. Reichenbach states that he saw no fresh foot prints...."

Doesn't say he saw no "old" prints, like a print in old snow that was covered with dusting of snow or frost, but that could be reasonably inferred. This would be a point I would clarify if I were asking him questions.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
"....in any of the snow or in the frost on the grass."

I would think it would be impossible to find prints in the leaves and pine needles under the trees, unless the ground was soft which it was not and it was examined closely in daylight. He stated that even he made no prints on the sidewalks. It would have been fortunate for the case if the perp had taken the time to walk onto the patches of snow that were left on the exposed grass! My feeling is that he avoided the open, exposed areas and stuck to the sidewalks and "wooded" areas for cover.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
"Sgt. Reichenbach also states in his report that he visually examined the exterior doors and windows of the Ramsey residence and found no signs of forced entry."

I guess he didn't see the broken window down in the grated window well? How close did he check the windows? Was he just looking for pry marks or broken panes? There were several unlocked windows, why weren't these noted?
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

In summary, I see this as a quick inspection in the dark that should have been followed up with a more thorough exterior inspection after daylight. I think Reichenbach could have been more precise on some items in his report but I don't see anything careless about it. I don't think we can write it off as an officer "donut" affair and neither do I think we should attribute more absoluteness to it than a professional, but cursory, search deserves. As far as the myth of "no footsteps in the snow" I believe the officer made some assumptions about his observations that were not warranted and he passed these on to the detectives he saw shortly after his inspection to help start the ball rolling.

As far as the photos of the yard are concerned, they show the patches of snow in the exposed grass that Reichenbach described - nothing dishonest there. As for the "frost" - it's very possible that we would not be able to see it in this photograph if it were a light dusting. I'm sure it's there, whether snow or frost (at 8:30 am it was still freezing in Boulder) just not evident from the distance that the pics are taken from. Smit was not trying to discredit Reichenbach's report, that I can tell, which talks of patches of old snow in exposed areas, only to discredit the rumors perpetuated by media and police that there was so much snow around the house that no footprints in it meant no intruder possible. I can't imagine what you think he should apologize for DocG."

And therefore, by your own standards, jameson's photos and shared insight must also be irrelevant as she did not visit the house and take photos on December 25th/26th 1996.

Also, all of Smit's and Jameson's experiments involving entering the window well through the grate are irrelevant, as they were not done wearing winter clothing.

What do we KNOW about what SP was wearing? NOTHING. Before 8:30 PM, the temperatures were in the high 40's, low 50's. At the time the "JAR-like figure" was seen by Barnhill, the temperature was about 50 degrees. Who needs winter clothing that is any heavier than a sweater and light jacket - no 'heavier' than the way Lou was dressed in that video demonstration?

What we KNOW about what a potential intruder would be wearing is that it would be someone prepared to leave the house at night after the Ramseys were asleep and JonBenet was dead. And what were those nighttime temps?

10:30 pm 32
11:30 pm 28
mid am 25 Snow would have begun falling at dew point of 26 degrees, about 12:15 am to 12:45am, approximately,
1:00 am 21

Frostbite starts forming at 32 degrees F.

What does frostbite have to do with anything? JonBenet wasn't frostbitten. Nor were John or Patsy Ramsey. Don't think Burke was either.

Rainsong

Yep. Photos attesting to the snow level on the day of the discovery of JonBenet's murder are the only photos that need be considered when discussing the snow issue.

Rainsong

Let's recall what Why Nut posted: Then what is this picture of, if not snow on the side of the house, the south side, the side with all those windows in the solarium and the dining room?

Why Nut didn't PROVE anything. He showed a photo of significant snowfall that has nothing to do with THIS case or the type of snowfall and melting pertinent to the timeline of this case.

You go ahead and play dumb. Why Nut had a PURPOSE for showing that photo that had nothing to do with the time in question. I don't see Why Nut as being quite as dumb as you are asking us to believe hir is. The relevance of the photo even to support WhyNut's argument is NIL. A heavy snow fall, of course, would lay on the trees and on the ground as long as the temperatures allowed it to - even on the south side of the building. On a different day, it may have. The use of that photo, therefore, is in question.

Rude.

At the risk of alienating EVERYONE, I must admit that the issue of footprints in the frost, snow, walkway, whatever is, for me, inconclusive. I agree with aspects of what everyone is presenting, I think you all have good arguments and I respect the research you've done. But I don't see the footprints issue as being particularly useful, either for or against the intruder theory. The absence of prints certainly doesn't bolster that theory. But there ARE intruder scenarios that allow this person to arrive and leave prior to the frost or via sticking to the walkways. I do have to go along with the idea that whoever entered would probably have had very messy shoes and left all sorts of wet and mud all over the house. But I see no reason to belabor that point.

The point I've been TRYING to make here has to do with Smit's dupicity, NOT the frost and snow per se. The photos he included in his presentation HAVE NO BEARING on the case whatsoever, since they couldn't possibly show what Reichenbach claimed he saw. They don't refute the "no footprints" reports that Smit claims they do refute. That's all I'm interested in here, Smit's use of these very misleading photos.

True. Rather difficult to take photos in the dark if you can see nothing due to the dark--unless, of course, one has a flash. And that flash is going to cause all kinds of difficulties casting shadows etc.

What Reichenbach claimed he saw is disputed by the weather bureau as posted by Braveheart. No frost. Days old snow. Clear sidewalks.
Ergo, no footprints.

Rainsong

The server who hosts the jameson245.com site is in the process of moving - - when it is set up again I will post those images.

But the fact still remains - there was no snow and hence no footprints in the snow.

You might want to remember that Fernie and passed by the south door that morning early on - - had there been snow- - HIS would have been there.

But perhaps we are missing something here.

Why_nut - if that really is him - is trying to say there was FROST! I don't know what time the frost would have cleared, but what if the killer was come and gone before the frost really took over? That is also a possibility.

Is there a problem with your memory, that you do not remember your own pictures? Because your own picture shows snow by the window well, and a great deal of snow on the walkway.

Well I do. The only place that might have had, that probably had, any mud available for anyone to step in would have been around the patches of 1-2" of old snow that had partially melted during the day on the 25th.; That would be the front yard, where intruders fear to tread and Officer R failed to see any prints. So, I challenge the idea that the lack of mud tracked into the house has any bearing on the question of whether or not there was an intruder.

"The point I've been TRYING to make here has to do with Smit's dupicity, NOT the frost and snow per se. The photos he included in his presentation HAVE NO BEARING on the case whatsoever, since they couldn't possibly show what Reichenbach claimed he saw. They don't refute the "no footprints" reports that Smit claims they do refute. That's all I'm interested in here, Smit's use of these very misleading photos."

Officer R stated that the walkways were clear. That is what these photos show. He said there was a very light dusting of snow & frost on the grass. What exactly is it that you think Smit is trying to misrepresent? Smit doesn't say R's report is wrong, simply that BPD leaked to the press a bit of information calculated to make it seem as though there COULD BE NO INTRUDER. That is what he is refuting here with CRIME SCENE PHOTOS that support the report that there was NO SNOW on the sidewalks. The only disingenuousness here is with the BPD and those who believe it is duplicious to point that out.

Let me summarize:
The report said there was no snow or frost on the walkways.
The report said there were no footprints in the snow or frost.
The BPD said to the press, there were no footprints in the snow.
The press reported the same, indicating that this meant no possible intruder.
Smit shows clear walkways indicating that it was wrong to suppose that the report meant no possible intruder. In fact, clear walkways mean, and this is just plain common sense, that someone could have easily entered the house without leaving prints. He did not say there was no snow or frost on the grass. He did not misrepresent this observation (although as far as I can determine it is only an observation-not a proven fact). He did not say this cleared the Ramseys. He did not say this proved an intruder was present.

What he did do, and apparently not many here would be able to do this, was present the facts in as unbiased a manner as possible while standing against the malestrom of out of control misinformation and bull headed investigators wanting to string up the Ramseys.

Are the crimescene pics on here , the numbered ones , the actual pictures taken that morning? The picture in the post above looks like it was taken after a heavier snow.?

It is also noteworthy to point out that the gutters and down spouts drain into "boots" (the white square to round adapters at the bottom of the down spouts) at the ground (they are directly connected to an underground storm drain) meaning that any snow on the roof would, when melted, drain directly into the storm sewer instead of running off onto the flower bed and ground making mud.

The policeman reported no sign of prints in the patches of snow or the pervasive layer of frost. That was accurate. There was nothing inaccurate to correct. In some media reports that got simplified into, simply: no footprints found. Which is also accurate, though admittedly somewhat misleading. I don't recall any report claiming this was proof there was no intruder. All Smit had to do was point out that an intruder could have entered via the relatively clear walkway.

>Smit shows clear walkways indicating that it was wrong to suppose that the report meant no possible intruder.

Here's what Smit said:

(quote) Smit's argument: Early in the case, leaks from law enforcement said there were no footprints in the snow around the Ramsey house, seemingly discounting the possibility of an intruder. In fact, police photographs taken before 9 a.m. the morning of JonBenet's death show much of the perimeter of the house, including walkways, free of snow. "You can't have footprints in something that's not there."
(end quote)

First, Smit misquotes the report. It didn't refer to "the snow" but "patches of snow." The emphasis was not on the snow in any case but the pervasive layer of frost. Which Smit fails to mention. Smit's reference to the fact that "much of the perimeter of the house" was "free of snow" is misleading because it was the frost, not the snow that was the point of the officer's report. The frost might well have burned off by the time the photos, showing full sunlight, were made. Even if it was still there, it wouldn't have shown up on the photos. The photos are totally misleading, irrelevant and pointless. So why are they in Smit's presentation?

>In fact, clear walkways mean, and this is just plain common sense, that someone could have easily entered the house without leaving prints.

That's true. But the photo has no bearing on that. Any frost that might have been on the walkways wouldn't have shown up in the photo anyhow and might well have burned off in the sun. All the photo shows is that there were just PATCHES of snow, not a complete ground cover. But the police report already mentioned the patchy snow. The photos are presented in such a way as to make it seem as though the police were deliberately trying to make the Ramseys look bad and that's in fact how the great majority on this forum have interpreted them.

>He did not say there was no snow or frost on the grass. He did not misrepresent this observation (although as far as I can determine it is only an observation-not a proven fact). He did not say this cleared the Ramseys. He did not say this proved an intruder was present.

How could the absence of prints possibly clear the Ramseys? What he DID do was make it seem as though the issue was snow and NOT frost. This in itself, photos or no, was a misrepresentation of the facts.

>What he did do, and apparently not many here would be able to do this, was present the facts in as unbiased a manner as possible while standing against the malestrom of out of control misinformation and bull headed investigators wanting to string up the Ramseys.

The FACTS had to do with the pervasive layer of frost, NOT the patches of snow. Smit ignored the facts and presented photos that were taken hours later and were completely misleading and irrelevant. He was definitely biased, no question.

No frost. Braveheart has shown you proof from the Boulder weather service. There was NO frost. Ergo, no footprints. No footprints in the non-existent frost does not clear the Ramseys, but it certainly allows for the possibility of an intruder who would not have left footprints in the non-existent frost.

Rainsong

******************

Please stick to facts. The Boulder weather service takes its readings from an area immediately surrounding the Boulder weather station which was not located in the grounds of the Ramsey home! The readings taken from the weather station will not be found uniformly across the whole of Boulder.

So, regardless of what Braveheart says, the following eye witness testimony is of more value. (From a police report):-

"Sgt Reichenbach states in his report that he had arrived at the Ramsey home at approximately 0600 hours on December 26 and that he had examined the exterior of the Ramsey home as well as the yard. Sgt Reichenbach noted that the air temperature was approximately 10 degrees Fahrenheit. 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 snowfall(s) and this snow was described as being crusty and measuring one-two inches deep. Sgt Reichenbach states that he saw no fresh footprints in any of the snow or in the frost on the grass..."

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

There is a weather station at CU:-

http://foehn.colorado.edu/weather/paos1/PAOSstation.html

Weather bureaus do not restrict their readings to the immediate area. If frost conditions are present, frost occurs. Do some research on frost. Nevermind. I'll do it for you.

"It is formed by sublimation - water vapor moving directly to a solid... ice. Frost is formed when the dew point is nearor below freezing and the temperature of the air falls to within a few degrees
of the DP. Generally the air is warmed or cooled by the surface. The air is largely transparent to radiant energy so heat released by the surface at night is radiated off into space. But as the surface cools, the heat from the lowest layer of air is conducted to the ground. Cooling the air from below tends to make the air more stable and keep the cooler air low." http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/wea00/wea00039.htm

These are not conditions that occur in the restricted area surrounding the weather service's building. What you will find is frost can and does form in small pockets such as low-lying areas in an individual's yard or on rooftops due to the warmer temps above such surfaces. F'rinstance, frost may form in a depression in your yard but not on the top of a hill. This is due to the top of the hill receiving more air flow than the depression. Still air is required for frost formation.

From the same article:
"Frost formation is a complex process, and conditions have to be "right" for it to occur. Frost forms on surfaces directly from the vapor state, without condensing as dew. If dew forms, frost formation is unlikely, even if the temperature drops below freezing.

"Frost is more likely to form on surfaces above the ground first, such as house roofs, or automobiles, because the air immediately above the ground is usually a few degrees warmer than air a few feet higher. There is some heat transfer from the ground to the air a few centimeters above it. If there is much wind, frost will not form either. (Neither will dew, as both these occurrances require little or no wind, so the atmosphere will not stay mixed.) If the skies are cloudy, usually dew or frost will not form either, as the clouds reflect the radiated heat from the ground, which helps in
keeping the lower layers mixed.

"So the ideal conditions for frost formation is a night with clear skies, light winds, and a temperature forecast to be near or a little below freezing. Standard temperature measurements are taken from about 2 meters above ground. On a calm night the ground temperature can be as much as 5-7 degrees cooler than the standard temperature reading. If there is some wind, the air stays mixed, and the temperature difference disappears."

Rainsong

Eyewitness testimony is generally considered the weakest type of testimony.

Rainsong

Please understand that the determination of no frost on the Ramsey lawn was made from a psychrometric chart based on humidity and temperature readings made by the weather station there. These data do not vary that much across the city as they have to do with broad patterns of weather. That tells us it was not possible for any frost to form anywhere in Boulder.

It is much more believeable to me that Officer R, walking around the house in the dark with a flash light mistook the light dusting of snow to be frost and snow. That is further supported by his statement that the walkways were clear. The walkways under the trees would not have been covered by snow but would have been covered with frost, IF there had been any. In other words, he could not have accurately said the walkways were clear IF there have been frost forming that morning.

So again, if the walkways were clear at 6:45 am in the dark then they would be clear at 8:45 am whenever the crime scene photos were taken. There is no discrepancy here. There is no duplicity here.

Young children can tell the difference between frost and snow. We have no reason to suppose that Sgt Reichenbach cannot. Frost can lie in pockets for many days. Just because conditions may not be ripe for fresh frost to form during one particular night does not mean that it did not remain from the previous day.

Footprints show up and leave an impression if you walk on the grass.

It's just plain common sense that if there wasn't any snow there couldn't be any footprints in the snow. To say that there was no intruder because there were "no footprints in the snow" when there wasn't any snow is sheer madness.

This is from the Steve Thomas deposition with Lin Wood with regard to snow and frost at the Ramsey home on the morning of the murder:

11 Q. How about Officer Reichenbach, how

12 do you pronounce his name?

13 A. Reichenbach.

14 Q. Do you ever recall hearing about

15 what he said when he met with Dr. Henry Lee

16 in terms of whether there was snow on the

17 sidewalk of the house when he arrived that

18 morning?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. What did he say?

21 A. He said, and he also said this to

22 me, that although there was due to what I

23 think was an 11 degree temperature outside,

24 there was a fresh frost and maybe a light

25 dusting of snow on some of the lawn areas,

241

1 but on the sidewalks and walkways around the

2 house, as he put in his report, as I may

3 have put in one of my reports, as we

4 presented to the VIP conference, that you

5 could not tell whether or not somebody may

6 have walked on those walkways in question.

7 Q. Or the wood chips?

8 A. I don't recall specifically him

9 talking about the wood chips.

10 Q. Did you also get some information

11 from NOAA about whether or not there might

12 have been snow expected to be found on the

13 north and west sidewalks of the Ramsey home

14 on the morning of December 26th?

15 A. I think one detective may have

16 gotten that assignment.

17 Q. And that NOAA indicated they would

18 not have expected snow there; is that right?

19 A. I don't know the results of that

20 NOAA report.

21 Q. You would have had the ability to

22 look at them when you were there and

23 investigating the case, wouldn't you?

24 A. Yes, I don't -- as I said, I

25 don't recall seeing that NOAA report.

The myth of "no footprints in the nonexistant snow" is as BORG useless as the lie that John flew the plane that took the family to Atlanta for the funeral.

Both are lies that were put out early on to poison the public against the Ramseys - - part of a plan to put pressure on their #1 suspects.

The crime scene photos show that there was no snow on the side of the house. None. It is as simple as that.

The BORG is looking at photos of snow on that side of the house taken at other times - - but that doesn't prove anything.

I posted a lot of photos of the house -- the only ones I feel matter on this subject were part of a series I did on the patterns of the melting snow around the house. I was in Boulder in December one year and got the house with snow in the front yard, not on the side - - very similar to the crime scene photos and I photographed them

I will try to find them and repost them - - but not until the server has moved - - - I will have to rebuild all the files on that site and will do it then.

UNTIL then, I think we have had enough spinning by Why_Nut - - I am getting email that people are tired of his posts and i really don't see where he is CONTRIBUTING. He is trying to mislead - - and I really don't think we will let it go on much longer.