I'm puzzled.

Someone with access to Lou Smit's evidence. Someone working on the case in conjunction with Lou Smit tells me that Bootman is the prime suspect because of a boot match and a questionable suicide.

Why doesn't this draw more interest?

What I don't know is the time frame in which she reviewed Smit's evidence. Was it when Lou had been out of the loop for awhile or was it recent?

What else do we know about bootman other than his death?

LAST EDITED ON Feb-02-04 AT 05:14 PM (EST)
 
We had a thread or two just last month. Check them out. http://www.webbsleuths.com/dcf/DCForumID101/2031.html

No one ever said the boot was a match.

The police Chief said it was not a match - - the question is, could it be eliminated as a possible source of the print? Did it not "match" because the killer wore the boots for 6 weeks after the murder and cause the markings to change?

I've always felt that the "not a match" was misleading but that does not mean that Bootman's Boots are in any way related to the crime.
It could simply reflect the general reticence of various officials to give out any information.

If there is the slightest difference between the crime scene print and the test-print of the boot made at the crime lab, then those two prints are not a match. However, that does not mean that the boot did not cause the crime scene print.

I just think that if the lab said the boot was likely to have caused the print, the authorities would have had to have done something more in the interim simply because of the threat if the story leaked out.

The last I heard they did not consider him the prime suspect, but one of the top two or three they felt should be investigated.

Where is there any forensic science about boot-matching?

Footprints are found at crime scenes far more often than fingerprints are.

Forensic labs have alot of data on shoe sizes and tread designs.

Obviously they like it best if a shoe has a particularly unique defect in it caused by wear or debris.

Whatever happened to SAS shoe print supposedly found? Was that untrue?

SAS print (I believe a full one) was found at the scene but can not necessarily be attributed to the intruder as opposed to police, recovery or forensic personnel. SAS footwear are often used by police, nurses or waitresses.

I believe that even months later, there were several police officers who had not brought in their footgear that they had on that day.

You are right, Don, it took a very long time to get the personnel who was at the crime scene to bring in their boots, but I think they eventually ALL did get them in for comparison --- and the owner of that boot print is still unknown.

There were three prints found in the mold - the Hi-Tec partial print, a SAS print, and a small print that made Lou think of his 6-year-old grandchild. Since we seem to only be hearing about the Hi-Tec print, I wonder if the SAS print was identified.

LAST EDITED ON Feb-03-04 AT 04:20 PM (EST)
 
My neighbor is the only one that ever referred to it as a match. But she has direct contact with Smit.

Perhaps she only meant it was a hi tec boot.

Somebody passed me a thread with a lot of info on bootman.

This Kenady character is kind of interesting. He was arrested in Longmont, which is where the McReynold's 1974 kidnapping occurred. He was 47 in 2000, which makes him 21 at that time. That makes him of an possible age as far as we know for the 1974 crime. He's so much older than bootman. I wonder what their connection was?

Thanks for the reply. That thread was very interesting.