What Was the Murder Weapon?

[Eagle1]

2-26-07

We know that Luther Stanton across the street heard METAL hitting concrete, pretty soon after his wife had been awakened by a scream, so it's unlikely she just dreamed the scream.

Evidently this was in a part of the basement next to a large vent duct aimed in the Stantons' direction, also where there was no floor tile, just bare concrete.

Stanton didn't give any opinion of how heavy the metal sounded.

A flashlight wouldn't likely be heavy enough for the sound to carry that far, and even if it was a 4-battery one, still not big enough to hit the floor if she was being beaten with it and already down, correct?

What would you then guess the fairly-heavy smoking gun might be?

It could have been carried to and from in a car, I'm thinking. But what?

[bullmoose]

2-26-07

We know that Luther Stanton across the street heard METAL hitting concrete, pretty soon after his wife had been awakened by a scream, so it's unlikely she just dreamed the scream.

Evidently this was in a part of the basement next to a large vent duct aimed in the Stantons' direction, also where there was no floor tile, just bare concrete.

Stanton didn't give any opinion of how heavy the metal sounded.

A flashlight wouldn't likely be heavy enough for the sound to carry that far, and even if it was a 4-battery one, still not big enough to hit the floor if she was being beaten with it and already down, correct?

What would you then guess the fairly-heavy smoking gun might be?

It could have been carried to and from in a car, I'm thinking. But what?My money is on the crowbar/nailbar theory on this; either would clang or make a reasonent noise if dropped, whereas an aluminium Maglite, even my 6 cell model, will only give a clunk. JMHO

[ralia]

A metal bat like the one found outside could have produced such a sound. But if that had been the murder weapon wouldn't the police have found evidence on it? JB's hairs for example. Or did they find it wiped clean like the flashlight?
Thre was a lot of junk down there in the basement. Maybe the somebody just moved something metal and heavy out of the way.

[bullmoose]

A metal bat like the one found outside could have produced such a sound. But if that had been the murder weapon wouldn't the police have found evidence on it? JB's hairs for example. Or did they find it wiped clean like the flashlight?
Thre was a lot of junk down there in the basement. Maybe the somebody just moved something metal and heavy out of the way.Actually, IMO an aluminium bat wouldn't make the kind of ringing sound that a nailbar or crowbar, made of steel would make. Certain kinds of sound carry much further than others; for instance a woman's or girls scream carries at least twice as far a a man or boys, generally speaking. When miners are trapped in a cave-in they use a steel hammer or object instead of an aluminium scaling bar to signal with because the sound will carrt much further. JMHO

[bullmoose]

Ralia; when its said that the flashlight was wiped clean of prints, to me all that means is the BPD didn't find any; you do not necessarily leave prints on batteries putting them in a Maglite. I tried it yesterday on my 6-cell Maglite; they went from their package into the flashlight easily without being touched; I think this was all part of the BPD putting a spin on everything to make the Ramseys look guilty in the public eye, when in actuality it meant and certainly proved nothing at all. JMHO

[Tober]

2-26-07

We know that Luther Stanton across the street heard METAL hitting concrete The sound was described by him as a series of scrapes. IMO, the most likely answer for the sound is that the offender was pushing the metal paint cans in the body room out of the way with his/her foot to make room for JonBenet's body.

[Zoey]

The sound was described by him as a series of scrapes. IMO, the most likely answer for the sound is that the offender was pushing the metal paint cans in the body room out of the way with his/her foot to make room for JonBenet's body.


IMO, then there should have been some kind of marks on the floor showing they had been moved, or shoe marks on the cans, shouldn't there?

[Tober]

IMO, Dr. Werner Spitz has demonstrated to a reasonable degree of certainty what the weapon was that caused JonBenet's head injury. His findings are further supported by the fact that the flashlight was left out on the counter where the Ramseys allege it didn't belong and the fact that the flashlight and its batteries were wiped clean of fingerprints. (IMO)

[bullmoose]

The sound was described by him as a series of scrapes. IMO, the most likely answer for the sound is that the offender was pushing the metal paint cans in the body room out of the way with his/her foot to make room for JonBenet's body. I have to say that if was paint cans, to make a sound that would carry across the street, they would have needed to be full 55 gallon drums. He must have had really strong feet, huh? JMHO:biggrin:

[ralia]

Ralia; when its said that the flashlight was wiped clean of prints, to me all that means is the BPD didn't find any; you do not necessarily leave prints on batteries putting them in a Maglite. I tried it yesterday on my 6-cell Maglite; they went from their package into the flashlight easily without being touched; I think this was all part of the BPD putting a spin on everything to make the Ramseys look guilty in the public eye, when in actuality it meant and certainly proved nothing at all. JMHO

"Wiped clean of prints", "unidentified prints" and "no prints" are three different matters, as I understand them. Which one applies for the flashlight? If the definition (whatever it is and I think is "wiped clean") was deliberately put by the BPD to point R's that's a different story.

[bullmoose]

"Wiped clean of prints", "unidentified prints" and "no prints" are three different matters, as I understand them. Which one applies for the flashlight? If the definition (whatever it is and I think is "wiped clean") was deliberately put by the BPD to point R's that's a different story.
When an object at a crime scene that reasonably would have fingerprints, like a whole room or a car is found to have none, then the police reasonably assume and say that it has been wiped clean. I think it is a deduction not a empirically proven point. Unidentified prints are either ones not on file or that do not have enough points of reference to make a match. A few years ago a Muslim lawyer in Portland, Oregan was arrested for complicity in the Madrid train bombing, the FBI got a match from one at the scene; of course it turned out that the print belonged to an Algerian terrorist. I was shocked at the time to learn that fingerprint analysis is far less a science than I had assumed.No prints means the same as wiped clean, IMO. The bowl with the pineapple in it was found with Patsy's print on it, so the BPD says it proves Patsy killed Jonbenet; of course her washing and drying the bowl previous to that night is irrelevant. Closeby, on the counter, the Maglight is found with no prints, that proves the Ramseys had the presence of mind to wipe it and its batteries clean of prints, but not enough presence of mind to put it away, so that the BPD would not pick up on the supposedly damning clue. I just don't buy it, somebody here sounds dumber than a stump, just it isn't the Ramseys its the BPD. JMHO:biggrin:

[thewhitewitch1]

IMO, then there should have been some kind of marks on the floor showing they had been moved, or shoe marks on the cans, shouldn't there?


Well, we don't know if there were or weren't but just the same, the sound heard was described as the sound of metal scraping, NOT "metal hitting concrete". Interesting that Melody Stanton heard this peircing scream and a very short time later her husband heard this metal sound but neither one heard what the other heard. I'd also like to say that if I heard my neighbors child scream like that in the middle of the night, I'd be inclined to go knock on their door just to make sure the child was ok. JMO

[bullmoose]

Well, we don't know if there were or weren't but just the same, the sound heard was described as the sound of metal scraping, NOT "metal hitting concrete". Interesting that Melody Stanton heard this peircing scream and a very short time later her husband heard this metal sound but neither one heard what the other heard. I'd also like to say that if I heard my neighbors child scream like that in the middle of the night, I'd be inclined to go knock on their door just to make sure the child was ok. JMO25 years ago, my wife and I heard a young girl's piercing scream at about 10PM one night as we watched television; I immediately ran outside and saw my neighbor from the one side of my house come tearing outside, too, so we went to my other neighbors house; the 12-year old had caught the house on fire making popcorn, overheated the oil, which flamed the curtains and off to the races it went, burnt the kitchen good. Me and my neighbor managed to put the fire out with our extinguishers and got all the kids[3 of them] out into our house safely. I have always had trouble believing that Melody Stanton really heard a childs scream; when I, my wife and neighbors heard it it was not unlike an ejection seat on a jet fighter, both couples, all four of us were shot outside in the darkness to find the source. I suspect that we humans are hardwired to react to screams of children in danger,my neighbor and me charged into that burning house without hesitation after hearing that scream, knowing there were still children inside. How could she have heard the scream and not at least called the police? It is truly puzzling to me. JMHO:shrug:

[Tober]

A flashlight wouldn't likely be heavy enough for the sound to carry that far, and even if it was a 4-battery one, still not big enough to hit the floor if she was being beaten with it and already down, correct? Hi Eagle--I think you're assuming the sound Mr. Stanton heard occurred during infliction of JonBenet's head injury. Since the sound was a series of scrapes, I think it's more likely to have taken place after JonBenet had been killed. I think the sound was most likely the metal paint cans in the body room being moved to make room for her body, or perhaps the piece of sheet metal that BPD took into evidence being moved/used by the offender. (IMO)

[bullmoose]

Hi Eagle--I think you're assuming the sound Mr. Stanton heard occurred during infliction of JonBenet's head injury. Since the sound was a series of scrapes, I think it's more likely to have taken place after JonBenet had been killed. I think the sound was most likely the metal paint cans in the body room being moved to make room for her body, or perhaps the piece of sheet metal that BPD took into evidence being moved/used by the offender. (IMO) Sure, paint cans, the 55 gallon variety, full ones at that, it would take big ones to be heard across the street when being moved,right?:biggrin: JMHO

[ralia]

When an object at a crime scene that reasonably would have fingerprints, like a whole room or a car is found to have none, then the police reasonably assume and say that it has been wiped clean. I think it is a deduction not a empirically proven point. Unidentified prints are either ones not on file or that do not have enough points of reference to make a match. A few years ago a Muslim lawyer in Portland, Oregan was arrested for complicity in the Madrid train bombing, the FBI got a match from one at the scene; of course it turned out that the print belonged to an Algerian terrorist. I was shocked at the time to learn that fingerprint analysis is far less a science than I had assumed.No prints means the same as wiped clean, IMO. The bowl with the pineapple in it was found with Patsy's print on it, so the BPD says it proves Patsy killed Jonbenet; of course her washing and drying the bowl previous to that night is irrelevant. Closeby, on the counter, the Maglight is found with no prints, that proves the Ramseys had the presence of mind to wipe it and its batteries clean of prints, but not enough presence of mind to put it away, so that the BPD would not pick up on the supposedly damning clue. I just don't buy it, somebody here sounds dumber than a stump, just it isn't the Ramseys its the BPD. JMHO:biggrin:

When a "wiped clean" object is left in plain sight it is done so IMO intentionally for the observers to speculate on its origin, use and user. And it
actually did so for so many to believe it was the murder weapon or it was used by the perp to see his way around. There was a need for the flashlight to suggest something while on the other hand, the pen used for the random note was found back in its usual place.

[Tober]

When a "wiped clean" object is left in plain sight it is done so IMO intentionally for the observers to speculate on its origin, use and user. And it
actually did so for so many to believe it was the murder weapon or it was used by the perp to see his way around. There was a need for the flashlight to suggest something while on the other hand, the pen used for the random note was found back in its usual place.

That's an excellent inference, Ralia. (IMO)

[bullmoose]

When a "wiped clean" object is left in plain sight it is done so IMO intentionally for the observers to speculate on its origin, use and user. And it
actually did so for so many to believe it was the murder weapon or it was used by the perp to see his way around. There was a need for the flashlight to suggest something while on the other hand, the pen used for the random note was found back in its usual place.I agree, good point. The killer/s knew that with the bizarre so-called ransom note, even the BPD would figure it was a Sharpie pen used, but I think he didn't want to chance it on the flashlight. If it had put it away, the BPD might not have even found it, much less figure it as a wiped down murder weapon[clever boys]. JMHO:biggrin:

[Athena]

IMO, Dr. Werner Spitz has demonstrated to a reasonable degree of certainty what the weapon was that caused JonBenet's head injury. His findings are further supported by the fact that the flashlight was left out on the counter where the Ramseys allege it didn't belong and the fact that the flashlight and its batteries were wiped clean of fingerprints. (IMO)

There was a baseball bat also found that had fibers which were consistent with the carpet fibers in the basement. Because there were no evident fingerprints found on the batteries and flashlight it was thought that they could have been wiped down however it was also thought to be unusual and a definitive statement was not made.

[Tober]

There was a baseball bat also found that had fibers which were consistent with the carpet fibers in the basement.
It's possible that the bat was "prop" staging, as opposed to "displacement" staging. Or, it's possible (very probable, IMO) that the bat was coincidental, and had nothing to do with the crime. The bat is not consistent with the type of weapon that would have caused JonBenet's head injury. The flashlight fits her head injury perfectly, with supporting factors being that it was left out on the counter where the Ramseys allege it didn't belong and that its body and its batteries were wiped of fingerprints (inferred on the basis of no fingerprints on both the flashlight body and batteries, supported by wipe marks revealed during chemical testing to raise fingerprints). (IMO)

[Athena]

It's possible that the bat was "prop" staging, as opposed to "displacement" staging. Or, it's possible (very probable, IMO) that the bat was coincidental, and had nothing to do with the crime. The bat is not consistent with the type of weapon that would have caused JonBenet's head injury. The flashlight fits her head injury perfectly, with supporting factors being that it was left out on the counter where the Ramseys allege it didn't belong and that its body and its batteries were wiped of fingerprints (inferred on the basis of no fingerprints on both the flashlight body and batteries, supported by wipe marks revealed during chemical testing to raise fingerprints). (IMO)

You are too funny. I just read about the "wiping" of the flashilight and batteries. It was "assumed" to be wiped because of the lack of fingerprints. It was NOT tested for wiping; it was tested for fingerprints and batteries are metal and fingerprints do not necessarily show up anyway.. And if they do please provide a link. You make these comments with nothing to back them up.

[Athena]

Ideally, nonporous surfaces (which a drop of water would probably not soak into) should be superglue fumed at the crime scene before transit OR transported in such a way as to minimize contact between any smooth surfaces and packaging materials/containers. A beer bottle, for example, should either be superglue fumed at the crime scene or carried upright in a box with minimal contact against any side surfaces. Putting a beer bottle (or gun, can, knife, credit card, etc.) in a plastic or paper bag (or envelope) can sometimes be about the same as wiping it clean. Dusting with powder for prints even though it leaves behind or destroys probably over 50% of the identifiable prints on glass, plastic and metal surfaces.

[Tober]

You are too funny. I just read about the "wiping" of the flashilight and batteries. It was "assumed" to be wiped because of the lack of fingerprints. It was NOT tested for wiping;
In your wishful thinking that the Ramseys "couldn't have done this" (killed their daughter), you are bending over backwards trying to refute the evidence in an attempt to make excuse, after excuse, after excuse on the Ramsey's behalf. Which is odd (some call it the Ramsey spell) because, with the exception of members of Team Ramsey, the Ramseys couldn't give a hoot about any IDI individual. In fact, I've challenged IDIs who think that caterers brought in the pineapple and left it, to contact John Ramsey and tell him that and see what his response will be. You need to pay attention: I never said the flashlight was tested for wiping. When it was tested to raise trace evidence, wipe marks were revealed on both the flashlight body and batteries. There are many thoughtful, polite IDIs. There is also a core group of IDIs who absolutely refuse to look at this case objectively, and make silly, far-fetched, contradictory to the evidence excuses on the Ramsey's behalf because they don't "want" the Ramseys to have been involved in the death of JonBenet. Fortunately, there are many of us (IDIs, RDIs, IDI/RDI (Aussiesheila), and FS) who put the victim first and foremost and never elevate the prime suspects to a level above the victim. (IMO)

[bullmoose]

It's possible that the bat was "prop" staging, as opposed to "displacement" staging. Or, it's possible (very probable, IMO) that the bat was coincidental, and had nothing to do with the crime. The bat is not consistent with the type of weapon that would have caused JonBenet's head injury. The flashlight fits her head injury perfectly, with supporting factors being that it was left out on the counter where the Ramseys allege it didn't belong and that its body and its batteries were wiped of fingerprints (inferred on the basis of no fingerprints on both the flashlight body and batteries, supported by wipe marks revealed during chemical testing to raise fingerprints). (IMO)Gee, you sure like to talk like a cop, does this infer that you used to be one? Since you seem to'know' all about the testing done on the flashlight; surely you can tell us how long after Jonbenet's murder was it that the flashlight was chemically tested to raise prints, and the wipe marks were found? Surely it didn't languish, an important piece of evidence like this was tested immediately, right?:biggrin: JMHO

[Athena]

In your wishful thinking that the Ramseys "couldn't have done this" (killed their daughter), you are bending over backwards trying to refute the evidence in an attempt to make excuse, after excuse, after excuse on the Ramsey's behalf. Which is odd (some call it the Ramsey spell) because, with the exception of members of Team Ramsey, the Ramseys couldn't give a hoot about any IDI individual. In fact, I've challenged IDIs who think that caterers brought in the pineapple and left it, to contact John Ramsey and tell him that and see what his response will be. You need to pay attention: I never said the flashlight was tested for wiping. When it was tested to raise trace evidence, wipe marks were revealed on both the flashlight body and batteries. There are many thoughtful, polite IDIs. There is also a core group of IDIs who absolutely refuse to look at this case objectively, and make silly, far-fetched, contradictory to the evidence excuses on the Ramsey's behalf because they don't "want" the Ramseys to have been involved in the death of JonBenet. Fortunately, there are many of us (IDIs, RDIs, IDI/RDI (Aussiesheila), and FS) who put the victim first and foremost and never elevate the prime suspects to a level above the victim. (IMO)

You talk about objectivity? . LOL I have said this many times over and over. If someone can prove to me what they say is true I have no problem backing down and admitting I'm wrong. I like playing devil's advocate. It's my nature. You make all of these statements and claim them to be true yet I have seen nothing to back up your comments. JMO

[Tober]

Athena--If authorities say the flashlight and its batteries were wiped clean of fingerprints, then they were. I don't understand what your beef with that is. Actually, yes I do: You know that wiping the Ramsey's fingerprints from their batteries is not the behavior of any intruder, but of a Ramsey. And you know that the only time a Ramsey would exhibit such behavior is if they and the flashlight were involved in the crime against JonBenet. (IMO)

[shill]

Athena--If authorities say the flashlight and its batteries were wiped clean of fingerprints, then they were. I don't understand what your beef with that is. Actually, yes I do: You know that wiping the Ramsey's fingerprints from their batteries is not the behavior of any intruder, but of a Ramsey. And you know that the only time a Ramsey would exhibit such behavior is if they and the flashlight were involved in the crime against JonBenet. (IMO)
The Ramsey’s flashlight is not in evidence, so your making things up as usual.

[bullmoose]

Athena--If authorities say the flashlight and its batteries were wiped clean of fingerprints, then they were. I don't understand what your beef with that is. Actually, yes I do: You know that wiping the Ramsey's fingerprints from their batteries is not the behavior of any intruder, but of a Ramsey. And you know that the only time a Ramsey would exhibit such behavior is if they and the flashlight were involved in the crime against JonBenet. (IMO)Still waiting for the date of when the flashlight and the batteries being chemically tested for prints, Tober, I'm sure you must know, as you seem to have a close connection to the investigation; I bet its because you're shy; or maybe its because you don't want to show off; that must be why you never back up any of your claims; certainly it can't be that you're just blowing hot air and don't have a clue, right? JMHO:biggrin:

[Tober]

Shill, Bullmoose, and Athena--You are not facing the evidence. You are trying to diminish it by making excuses for it or acting like it doesn't exist. It is common case knowledge that the flashlight in question was the Ramsey's and that it and its batteries had been wiped of fingerprints. You can make all the excuses you want. That just makes it appear like you want to defend the Ramseys at all costs, rather than look at the evidence objectively. (IMO)

[Zoey]

Shill, Bullmoose, and Athena--You are not facing the evidence. You are trying to diminish it by making excuses for it or acting like it doesn't exist. It is common case knowledge that the flashlight in question was the Ramsey's and that it and its batteries had been wiped of fingerprints. You can make all the excuses you want. That just makes it appear like you want to defend the Ramseys at all costs, rather than look at the evidence objectively. (IMO)


And Tober, you are not following the TOS, which state, if you claim it is fact you must provide the links to prove these facts.

It is not common knowledge that the flashlight in question in the Ramseys. You have provided no proof of this whatsoever. Because it was in their home does not make it theirs. For the third time, provide the links Tober.

[bullmoose]

Shill, Bullmoose, and Athena--You are not facing the evidence. You are trying to diminish it by making excuses for it or acting like it doesn't exist. It is common case knowledge that the flashlight in question was the Ramsey's and that it and its batteries had been wiped of fingerprints. You can make all the excuses you want. That just makes it appear like you want to defend the Ramseys at all costs, rather than look at the evidence objectively. (IMO)Tober, I beg of you: share your immense knowledge of the case with lesser mortals like Shill, Athena, and me. Do what you have yet to do on this board: give your endless claims legitimacy
by proving your claims or at least backing them up . Unsupported statements as you seem to have an endless supply of doesn't do more than show your point of view, it doesn't prove anything in the case. I think that I am perfectly capable of looking at the evidence objectively, so let's get the show on the road!!! Tober, start showing me evidence, come on now, no more unproven blowhard opinion, I"M ready and waiting. Let me have it; you know, evidence. Tober, I'm waiting. JMHO:biggrin:

[Athena]

Athena--If authorities say the flashlight and its batteries were wiped clean of fingerprints, then they were. I don't understand what your beef with that is. Actually, yes I do: You know that wiping the Ramsey's fingerprints from their batteries is not the behavior of any intruder, but of a Ramsey. And you know that the only time a Ramsey would exhibit such behavior is if they and the flashlight were involved in the crime against JonBenet. (IMO)

If an intruder did use the flashlight it would stand to reason that the perp wore gloves and no latent fingerprints could be detected as the gloves would have destroyed any prints on the batteries. In addition to that and I'm sure you probably already know this unless a person's fingers have some kind of sweat residue or grease on them fingerprints will not adhere to metal. Try it yourself.

I asked you for a link because I cannot find anything in any of the documentation on this case where ANYONE made this statement. I did however read the word "surmise"

surmise

verb
To draw an inference on the basis of inconclusive evidence or insufficient information: conjecture, guess, infer, speculate, suppose. See opinion.

noun
A judgment, estimate, or opinion arrived at by guessing: conjecture, guess,

[Tober]

I am a bit busy right now, but when I have time I will list a number of reasons why the flashlight in question can only belong to the Ramseys.

[shill]

I am a bit busy right now, but when I have time I will list a number of reasons why the flashlight in question can only belong to the Ramseys.

Don't bother!
It will only be the opposite of this;
-Only an intruder wipes down his tools of fingerprints before setting out to his target so that when it is left behind he can't be traced.
-Only an intruder would leave the murder weapon so as not to get caught with it.
-Only an intruder would need to use a flashlight to find his way around in the house.

[thewhitewitch1]

Don't bother!
It will only be the opposite of this;
-Only an intruder wipes down his tools of fingerprints before setting out to his target so that when it is left behind he can't be traced.
-Only an intruder would leave the murder weapon so as not to get caught with it.
-Only an intruder would need to use a flashlight to find his way around in the house.


Not true.
-A Ramsey would wipe down these things so that their fingerprints wouldn't be the only ones on them
-A Ramsey would not have the opportunity to get rid of the murder weapon and would deny owning it
-A Ramsey would use a flashlight to avoid lights being on in the house so that neighbors would not see activity taking place in the early hours of the morning that would later be reported to the police.

[bullmoose]

I am a bit busy right now, but when I have time I will list a number of reasons why the flashlight in question can only belong to the Ramseys.Oh, good, are you going to give us that most ephemeral of things, EVIDENCE????? Or is it going to be Tobertwistic reasoning, as usual, you know the old blah, blah, blah? I know which one I'm betting on, JMHO:biggrin:

[bullmoose]

Not true.
-A Ramsey would wipe down these things so that their fingerprints wouldn't be the only ones on them
-A Ramsey would not have the opportunity to get rid of the murder weapon and would deny owning it
-A Ramsey would use a flashlight to avoid lights being on in the house so that neighbors would not see activity taking place in the early hours of the morning that would later be reported to the police.Not convincing; its that negative thing again. There was no prints so the Ramseys 'had' to wipe them down; but would be unable to get rid of the murder weapon, so would deny owning it. These wicked Ramseys so clever and so dumb at the same time, if I am to believe your reasoning. NOT! I seem to remember someone saw a flashlight being used that night, so those devilishly evil Ramseys 'were' seen. Thank God Synthroid Stevie and the rest of the Colorado Crime Fighters didn't fall for their evil plan and made justice ring through-out Colorado; oh wait, they didn't get a thing accomplished, beyond a book deal. I'm still waiting on CK's special prosecuter to be appointed by the governer; hasn't he been in office for a couple months now? Has he forgotten?JMHO:biggrin:

[thewhitewitch1]

Not convincing; its that negative thing again. There was no prints so the Ramseys 'had' to wipe them down; but would be unable to get rid of the murder weapon, so would deny owning it. These wicked Ramseys so clever and so dumb at the same time, if I am to believe your reasoning. NOT! I seem to remember someone saw a flashlight being used that night, so those devilishly evil Ramseys 'were' seen. Thank God Synthroid Stevie and the rest of the Colorado Crime Fighters didn't fall for their evil plan and made justice ring through-out Colorado; oh wait, they didn't get a thing accomplished, beyond a book deal. I'm still waiting on CK's special prosecuter to be appointed by the governer; hasn't he been in office for a couple months now? Has he forgotten?JMHO:biggrin:



What's dumb about them? They got away with it, didn't they? I suspect they didn't think anyone would see the flashlight being used as it wasn't as obvious as a light turned on.
I beg to differ but my reasoning makes just as much sense as Shills intruder reasoning. I see no reason why this intruder wouldn't take his flashlight with him, whether it was the murder weapon or not. There was no blood on it and no one has proven that it is the actual murder weapon so how could it ever be traced back to him? How many other people own flashlights like that?
Why would he bother taking "the rest of the cord and tape" with him? Those are incriminating evidence too. Why not leave it there so it would implicate the Ramseys even more? Of course, they would just deny it was theirs and that would be that. :cool:
IMO

[bullmoose]

What's dumb about them? They got away with it, didn't they? I suspect they didn't think anyone would see the flashlight being used as it wasn't as obvious as a light turned on.
I beg to differ but my reasoning makes just as much sense as Shills intruder reasoning. I see no reason why this intruder wouldn't take his flashlight with him, whether it was the murder weapon or not. There was no blood on it and no one has proven that it is the actual murder weapon so how could it ever be traced back to him? How many other people own flashlights like that?
Why would he bother taking "the rest of the cord and tape" with him? Those are incriminating evidence too. Why not leave it there so it would implicate the Ramseys even more? Of course, they would just deny it was theirs and that would be that. :cool:
IMOtww1: I have in my house, at last count, twenty or more flashlights; how on earth can you say, with any certainty, that the intruder killer didn't leave with his own flashlight? He may have, then left that one where even the BPD would find it. The Ramseys did not, to my knowledge identify that one as their own; all I've ever heard they said was:'it looked liked that one.' It also looked just like a half-dozen of mine, yes tww1 quite a number of people own flashlights like that. Do you think the lack of cord and tape made the BPD spend hundreds of hours and gobs of money to try to tie them to the Ramseys, or what was it?I never said the Ramseys were dumb; I said or at least meant they would have been dumb to do what you claim they did, but since I don't think they did what you claim, the dumb crown goes to the BPD.IMO:biggrin:

[thewhitewitch1]

tww1: I have in my house, at last count, twenty or more flashlights; how on earth can you say, with any certainty, that the intruder killer didn't leave with his own flashlight? He may have, then left that one where even the BPD would find it. The Ramseys did not, to my knowledge identify that one as their own; all I've ever heard they said was:'it looked liked that one.' It also looked just like a half-dozen of mine, yes tww1 quite a number of people own flashlights like that. Do you think the lack of cord and tape made the BPD spend hundreds of hours and gobs of money to try to tie them to the Ramseys, or what was it?I never said the Ramseys were dumb; I said or at least meant they would have been dumb to do what you claim they did, but since I don't think they did what you claim, the dumb crown goes to the BPD.IMO:biggrin:

Geeze, Bullmoose. You mean to imply that the killer brought his own flashlight but dug the Ramseys flashlight out of the drawer it was in (because somehow he knew where to find it) and "planted" it for the police to find? Why in the heck would he do that?
Of course the Ramseys are not going to claim the flashlight as their own. If it implicates them in the murder, why would they?
I don't see how doing what I "claim" for them to have done would make them "dumb".
I'll tell you one thing though. If I ever want to kill somebody, I'm going to make sure I take them to Boulder with me and then when I am questioned by the BPD for physical evidence I may have left, I'm just going to say they aren't mine and when I'm asked questions, I'm just going to say "I don't remember" and then I'm home free. Apparently all you need to get away with murder in Boulder is to deny owning anything damning and amnesia.

[bullmoose]

Geeze, Bullmoose. You mean to imply that the killer brought his own flashlight but dug the Ramseys flashlight out of the drawer it was in (because somehow he knew where to find it) and "planted" it for the police to find? Why in the heck would he do that?
Of course the Ramseys are not going to claim the flashlight as their own. If it implicates them in the murder, why would they?
I don't see how doing what I "claim" for them to have done would make them "dumb".
I'll tell you one thing though. If I ever want to kill somebody, I'm going to make sure I take them to Boulder with me and then when I am questioned by the BPD for physical evidence I may have left, I'm just going to say they aren't mine and when I'm asked questions, I'm just going to say "I don't remember" and then I'm home free. Apparently all you need to get away with murder in Boulder is to deny owning anything damning and amnesia.
Actually, to get clean away with murder in Boulder I think that all you have to do is to commit one, then hop in your car and drive away. In Boulder, being caught with a bloody hatchet and a smoking gun would only get one question asked of you by the cops: Where did the Ramseys leave the victim?
jmho

[shill]

Of course the Ramseys are not going to claim the flashlight as their own. If it implicates them in the murder, why would they?
I don't see how doing what I "claim" for them to have done would make them "dumb".


So you think they took the time to wipe down the flashlight, unscrew the battery end cap, take the batteries out, wipe down each battery (3-6 total), put all the batteries back in with the right polarity, screw the battery end cap back in, and they do all this so it doesn't implicate them in the murder, and then they leave it out in plain sight.
Couldn't they have just put it back in the alleged drawer it came from? The LE may have never considered taking it into evidence if it was in the drawer. Hell, they almost didn't take it into evidence when it was sitting out because they thought it was a LE flashlight.

[Tober]

So you think they took the time to wipe down the flashlight, unscrew the battery end cap, take the batteries out, wipe down each battery (3-6 total), put all the batteries back in with the right polarity, screw the battery end cap back in, and they do all this so it doesn't implicate them in the murder, and then they leave it out in plain sight.
Couldn't they have just put it back in the alleged drawer it came from?
They had to leave it out. If they had put it back in the drawer, wiped clean of fingerprints, it would have pointed right to them. Wiping it and its batteries clean and then leaving it out did two things for them: It "distanced" them from it, while at the same time "suggesting" that an intruder placed it there. (IMO)

[thewhitewitch1]

So you think they took the time to wipe down the flashlight, unscrew the battery end cap, take the batteries out, wipe down each battery (3-6 total), put all the batteries back in with the right polarity, screw the battery end cap back in, and they do all this so it doesn't implicate them in the murder, and then they leave it out in plain sight.
Couldn't they have just put it back in the alleged drawer it came from? The LE may have never considered taking it into evidence if it was in the drawer. Hell, they almost didn't take it into evidence when it was sitting out because they thought it was a LE flashlight.


Actually, I think that when they took the flashlight out to use it, the batteries were dead (one of the Rs pretty much speculated in one of the interviews that their flashlight batteries would probably be dead from lack of use) so they had to replace them. That would be the only thing that would make any sense as far as wiping the batteries off (or wearing gloves to replace them). Yes, they could have put it back in the drawer but isn't it just possible that they forgot to? Well, hey...of course it is. IMO

[bullmoose]

They had to leave it out. If they had put it back in the drawer, wiped clean of fingerprints, it would have pointed right to them. Wiping it and its batteries clean and then leaving it out did two things for them: It "distanced" them from it, while at the same time "suggesting" that an intruder placed it there. (IMO) How long did it take LE to chemically test the flashlight to raise fingerprints, Tober; remember I asked you that days ago after you pedantically stated that; but GEE,TOBER, you never replied with a bit of information to back your bilious bile; here you are again , spinning more of your tobertwistic nonsense. If you really knew any of the things your blather long and hard upon, why not give evidence to back your claims up? Or is it because you can't? Oh well, go ahead---blah, blah, blah. JMHO:biggrin:

[andU]

Bullmoose ... yeah, blah... blah.. let them rant on maybe they will tire themselves and go take a nap... I'm pretty much ignoring them. They love to argue and bicker not debate and discuss.

[bullmoose]

Actually, I think that when they took the flashlight out to use it, the batteries were dead (one of the Rs pretty much speculated in one of the interviews that their flashlight batteries would probably be dead from lack of use) so they had to replace them. That would be the only thing that would make any sense as far as wiping the batteries off (or wearing gloves to replace them). Yes, they could have put it back in the drawer but isn't it just possible that they forgot to? Well, hey...of course it is. IMOI get it, tww1, the Ramseys had to change the batteries to use it that night, wiping the flashlight and batteries down in the process so that the Rocky Mountain Murder Mystery Club[BPD chapter]wouldn't figure out their fiendish deeds; but then their criminal masterminds had a brainfart and they left the flashlite out, right? Is that your last answer, tww1? If it is, remember first that the Ramseys were never shown the flashlight, just pictures of it, and were never able to definitively identify it as their own; of course, you believe it just their clever coverup to deny a pictured flashlight, right? There is just the one detail niggling at me about your latest theory, what did they do with the 3 to 6 D-size batteries? I do not recall ever having read that LE ever found the [doubtless also wiped down so no prints would be found] batteries. This is not an easy thing to get rid of; and your own theory stating they probably forgot to put away the flashlight lends credence to the theory that they probably would have forgot them pesky batteries, too. Your thoughts?:biggrin: JMHO

[andU]

Well, since 'there was no intruder' they couldn't have taken the old ones with them, right? .... Wonder if they looked in Fleet's pockets? Or Fernies?

[Zoey]

I get it, tww1, the Ramseys had to change the batteries to use it that night, wiping the flashlight and batteries down in the process so that the Rocky Mountain Murder Mystery Club[BPD chapter]wouldn't figure out their fiendish deeds; but then their criminal masterminds had a brainfart and they left the flashlite out, right? Is that your last answer, tww1? If it is, remember first that the Ramseys were never shown the flashlight, just pictures of it, and were never able to definitively identify it as their own; of course, you believe it just their clever coverup to deny a pictured flashlight, right? There is just the one detail niggling at me about your latest theory, what did they do with the 3 to 6 D-size batteries? I do not recall ever having read that LE ever found the [doubtless also wiped down so no prints would be found] batteries. This is not an easy thing to get rid of; and your own theory stating they probably forgot to put away the flashlight lends credence to the theory that they probably would have forgot them pesky batteries, too. Your thoughts?:biggrin: JMHO

I am sure the batteries were wrapped up in that Safeway bag the pineapple was brought home in. Remember the inference by Tober and the agreement by Rosh and NP that Patsy bought the pineapple and brought it home in a Safeway bag? The bag is not listed anywhere as being taken by LE, but I am sure this was just a typo, or maybe even one of the items blacked out, because in the totality of the inference of this crime, Patsy distanced herself from the garbage can sometime during the night of the 25th or early morning of the 26th.

[bullmoose]

I am sure the batteries were wrapped up in that Safeway bag the pineapple was brought home in. Remember the inference by Tober and the agreement by Rosh and NP that Patsy bought the pineapple and brought it home in a Safeway bag? The bag is not listed anywhere as being taken by LE, but I am sure this was just a typo, or maybe even one of the items blacked out, because in the totality of the inference of this crime, Patsy distanced herself from the garbage can sometime during the night of the 25th or early morning of the 26th.I've just had an epiphany! WOW! I see the used batteries inside the package the pineapple came in, wrapped in that Safeway bag, floating magically out of the house on Rashoman's Flying Carpet of Imaginary Fibers. But the Rocky Mountain Murder Mystery Club never spotted it as it disappeared into the imaginary distance, at least it can certainly be reasonably inferred that that is what happened, right?JMHO:biggrin:

[rashomon]

Actually, I think that when they took the flashlight out to use it, the batteries were dead (one of the Rs pretty much speculated in one of the interviews that their flashlight batteries would probably be dead from lack of use) so they had to replace them. That would be the only thing that would make any sense as far as wiping the batteries off (or wearing gloves to replace them). Yes, they could have put it back in the drawer but isn't it just possible that they forgot to? Well, hey...of course it is. IMO
This would point to the flashlight not being the murder weapon which one of the Ramseys grabbed on impulse, but to its being used for another purpose.
Maybe they used it in the kitchen to write the ransom note because they did not want to put the lights on?

[rashomon]

They had to leave it out. If they had put it back in the drawer, wiped clean of fingerprints, it would have pointed right to them. Wiping it and its batteries clean and then leaving it out did two things for them: It "distanced" them from it, while at the same time "suggesting" that an intruder placed it there. (IMO)
My thoughts exactly.

[thewhitewitch1]

I get it, tww1, the Ramseys had to change the batteries to use it that night, wiping the flashlight and batteries down in the process so that the Rocky Mountain Murder Mystery Club[BPD chapter]wouldn't figure out their fiendish deeds; but then their criminal masterminds had a brainfart and they left the flashlite out, right? Is that your last answer, tww1? If it is, remember first that the Ramseys were never shown the flashlight, just pictures of it, and were never able to definitively identify it as their own; of course, you believe it just their clever coverup to deny a pictured flashlight, right? There is just the one detail niggling at me about your latest theory, what did they do with the 3 to 6 D-size batteries? I do not recall ever having read that LE ever found the [doubtless also wiped down so no prints would be found] batteries. This is not an easy thing to get rid of; and your own theory stating they probably forgot to put away the flashlight lends credence to the theory that they probably would have forgot them pesky batteries, too. Your thoughts?:biggrin: JMHO


Gee..ya don't suppose the Ramseys could have carried them out in their pockets or Patsys purse, do ya? For all we know, the flashlight may not have even had batteries in it when they went to use it.
Instead of being a smartass all the time, can't you just allow for the possibility?
I'm getting a little sick of the IDI tone from some of you. I can be a smartass too and throw in my little digs about your intruder theory, if you'd like...but it seems like on the occasion that I do, someone cries about it. :shrug:
AndU...why don't you set the tone for this discussion. ("blah blah blah") It seems you excuse Bullmoose for his ridicule of Tober, Rashomon or myself but when I dispute and/or present a thought, you accuse me of arguing. If I don't agree with IDI I'm arguing? WTF.

[bullmoose]

Gee..ya don't suppose the Ramseys could have carried them out in their pockets or Patsys purse, do ya? For all we know, the flashlight may not have even had batteries in it when they went to use it.
Instead of being a smartass all the time, can't you just allow for the possibility?
I'm getting a little sick of the IDI tone from some of you. I can be a smartass too and throw in my little digs about your intruder theory, if you'd like...but it seems like on the occasion that I do, someone cries about it. :shrug:
AndU...why don't you set the tone for this discussion. ("blah blah blah") It seems you excuse Bullmoose for his ridicule of Tober, Rashomon or myself but when I dispute and/or present a thought, you accuse me of arguing. If I don't agree with IDI I'm arguing? WTF.I promise, when Tober comes up with the evidence of his prior claims,including the flashlight, then we can argue whether his evidence is proof. Until he comes up with evidence for his rather remarkable statements, I will continue to poke gentle fun at him.
As for the batteries, don't you think John and Patsy were having enough problems smuggling out the roll of duct tape and roll of cord without having to stuff all those batteries in his pockets and her purse, not to mention the Safeway pineapple container and bag? And, now that I think of it, what do you suppose those scamps did with the battery package? If it wasn't found in the garbage, then they must have smuggled that out too. Strange that nobody noticed their mis-shapen clothing or the sounds and pineapple smell that must have ripe upon them. These aren't the Ramseys here, it sounds like Houdinis, magicians to me. tww1, if with my manner you have an issue, can I suggest you take a tissue? MHBFY:biggrin:

[andU]

Gee..ya don't suppose the Ramseys could have carried them out in their pockets or Patsys purse, do ya? For all we know, the flashlight may not have even had batteries in it when they went to use it.
Instead of being a smartass all the time, can't you just allow for the possibility?
I'm getting a little sick of the IDI tone from some of you. I can be a smartass too and throw in my little digs about your intruder theory, if you'd like...but it seems like on the occasion that I do, someone cries about it. :shrug:
AndU...why don't you set the tone for this discussion. ("blah blah blah") It seems you excuse Bullmoose for his ridicule of Tober, Rashomon or myself but when I dispute and/or present a thought, you accuse me of arguing. If I don't agree with IDI I'm arguing? WTF.

Your tone and your insinuations as well as your acronymns are not so friendly, either. I'm getting a little sick of you, as well.

[andU]

Ok, I will say this:
Perhaps the Ramseys didn't react or act as I would have (one of the reasons that I first felt them guilty) maybe they did change their testimonies along the way. But, they were hammered by BPD, the public and the media. I really think the intruder theory is deserving of at least being looked into without the intention of pointing everything back to the Ramseys.

I am willing to look at what RDI says and their link; if you all are willing to give serious thought to the IDI theories as well. We need to work together here.

Is there evidence that is known beyond circumstancial that anyone is aware of that directly points to either RDI or IDI? I really don't think there is or if there is that we don't have access to it.

I really don't like confrontations and arguements. That is not my makeup at all. I would suggest that we all be better 'listeners' and perhaps a little bit slower to react to the keyboard. We must maintain rational thinking if we are going anywhere with this. Agree?

[shill]

I have flashlights that take D-batteries which most mag-lites take. I never keep backup batteries around in D-size, I do keep extra AA and AAA, but Ds are to big.
I believe the kitchen light was on and that is most likely why the intruder chose to write the R note there.

They could have wiped the outside of the flashlight and thrown it in the drawer. Of course it would be theirs if found, but it proves nothing other then they own a flashlight.

If they left it out to make it look like an intruders, they should have not wiped the outside of it clean so there would be JB's DNA on it to trace it to the murder. Funny how it appears to be left by an intruder, but this is not a possibility for RDI to believe, so they say the Rs did it to look that way and then cry there is no evidence of an intruder.

Funny how it looks like there was signs of an intruder with the strangling, the wrist cuffs, the penetration, the R note, the flashlight, but RDI claim there is no evidence of an intruder.

[thewhitewitch1]

I promise, when Tober comes up with the evidence of his prior claims,including the flashlight, then we can argue whether his evidence is proof. Until he comes up with evidence for his rather remarkable statements, I will continue to poke gentle fun at him.
As for the batteries, don't you think John and Patsy were having enough problems smuggling out the roll of duct tape and roll of cord without having to stuff all those batteries in his pockets and her purse, not to mention the Safeway pineapple container and bag? And, now that I think of it, what do you suppose those scamps did with the battery package? If it wasn't found in the garbage, then they must have smuggled that out too. Strange that nobody noticed their mis-shapen clothing or the sounds and pineapple smell that must have ripe upon them. These aren't the Ramseys here, it sounds like Houdinis, magicians to me. tww1, if with my manner you have an issue, can I suggest you take a tissue? MHBFY:biggrin:


Well, I guess you have irreputable evidence that there was anything left of the cord or tape, right? Couldn't possibly be that there wasn't. Alrighty then.
Battery package...hmmm. I have loose batteries in drawers in my house. My former boss used to keep spare batteries in her freezer. Why would there have to necessarily be a package? I guess it also isn't possible that the batteries could have been taken from another source, such as a radio. Maybe they weren't new batteries. I was proposing a possibility.
It's a big chuckle to you to suggest that Patsy or John carried them out but it's plausable that FW or John Fernie did? I didn't see you laughing at that suggestion.
How do you know that the pineapple container wasn't thrown out in the garbage days before and already picked up for disposal?
No...it makes more sense to you that an intruder carried a bag of pineapple into the house and served it up in Patsys bowl and then took the baggie with him instead of leaving it there to incriminate them...as well as taking the "rest of the cord and tape", which would have further incriminated them...but he left his flashlight behind to incriminate them. Your "logic" cracks me up.
Yes, please...I would like a tissue...I am laughing so hard at your il-logic that I have tears in my eyes. :biggrin:

[thewhitewitch1]

Funny how it looks like there was signs of an intruder with the strangling, the wrist cuffs, the penetration, the R note, the flashlight, but RDI claim there is no evidence of an intruder.



Tell me how those things point conclusively to an intruder and could not possibly be staging done by a parent?

[thewhitewitch1]

Ok, I will say this:
Perhaps the Ramseys didn't react or act as I would have (one of the reasons that I first felt them guilty) maybe they did change their testimonies along the way. But, they were hammered by BPD, the public and the media. I really think the intruder theory is deserving of at least being looked into without the intention of pointing everything back to the Ramseys.

I am willing to look at what RDI says and their link; if you all are willing to give serious thought to the IDI theories as well. We need to work together here.

Is there evidence that is known beyond circumstancial that anyone is aware of that directly points to either RDI or IDI? I really don't think there is or if there is that we don't have access to it.

I really don't like confrontations and arguements. That is not my makeup at all. I would suggest that we all be better 'listeners' and perhaps a little bit slower to react to the keyboard. We must maintain rational thinking if we are going anywhere with this. Agree?

I know you don't like confrontations and arguements. I do try not to be sarcastic or act like a jerk towards you because of this but you do tend to take things I say the wrong way. I will try not to offend you but I am through ignoring Bullmoose and Shills condesending BS and intend to respond in kind to them. I am tired of people ignoring the crap they dish out and then having the same people who ignore their crap jump all over me and a few others for doing exactly what they do.
Personally, neither Bullmoose or Shill bother me with what they say but I'd just like to be allowed to "have my fun at the IDIs expense" the way they do to RDIs without having someone always chastising me for it. Why should they have all the fun? :shrug:

[shill]

Tell me how those things point conclusively to an intruder and could not possibly be staging done by a parent?

That wasn't the point at all!
RDIs keep saying that this stuff was done by the Ramseys to make it look like an intruder, but then they turn around and say that nothing in the crime scene points to an intruder.

[thewhitewitch1]

That wasn't the point at all!
RDIs keep saying that this stuff was done by the Ramseys to make it look like an intruder, but then they turn around and say that nothing in the crime scene points to an intruder.

I'm sorry if I missed your point. Yes, these things could be signs of an intruder but they could also be staging.
The fact is, it could be either. I just do not happen to believe there was an intruder for many reasons. I think my reasons are valid. I think most RDI reasons are valid.
I also think most IDIs have valid reasons for believing what they do.
What most of us try to do in here is find reasons why each others theories are wrong. We try to poke holes in them. Isn't that part of the process of trying to figure out "who done it?"
It is not an excuse to call people stupid or tell them to "get a clue" when they present an opinion on the way something could have happened, based on the evidence that we have. There are ways to dispute things without sinking to that level. IMO

[shill]

There are ways to dispute things without sinking to that level. IMO
I don't sink to that level, I am at that level.:biggrin:

Yes, it can be both ways, staged or real evidence of an intruder.

[Tober]

It can be inferred that the flashlight in question belonged to the Ramseys based on the following supporting factors: 1) The flashlight taken into evidence is the exact model given as a gift to John Ramsey from John Andrew Ramsey; 2) No other flashlight of that type was found in the home; 3) As per PMPT pg. 61 and Mark Beckner, the flashlight did not belong to any police officers; 4) On Dec. 26, the Ramseys did not report the flashlight as being odd, unusual, or out-of-place; 5) There is no sound evidence to show that any intruder was in the home on the night of the murder. The forensic evidence is not consistent with an intruder having committed the crime; 6) All of the items used to carry out the crime were already in the home; 7) Based on the police line of questioning about the flashlight, we can infer that they were able to eliminate, to a reasonable degree of certainty, the potential that the flashlight belonged to anyone other than the Ramseys; 8) When being questioned about the flashlight, John could have easily proven that it wasn't theirs by offering to produce the one JAR gave him. He did not do this, nor has he come forward with that flashlight at any time since to prove that the flashlight in evidence isn't theirs; 9) Everything done by the offender was done for a reason. The offender wiped fingerprints from the flashlight body because those prints would show who used the flashlight; 10) The offender wiped fingerprints from the batteries because those prints would show who owned the flashlight; 11) There would be no need for an intruder to leave his flashlight, when the alleged intruder left, the flashlight would have left with him; 12) There would be no need for any intruder to wipe the Ramsey's fingerprints from their batteries, only the Ramseys would be concerned with that; 13) The only motivation for the Ramseys to wipe their fingerprints from their flashlight and its batteries, would be if they and the flashlight were involved in the crime; 14) The flashlight was left out because putting it back in the drawer, wiped of fingerprints, would have pointed right to the Ramseys; 15) The flashlight was also left out to "suggest" that an intruder placed it there. (IMO)

[Sharon]

It can be inferred that the flashlight in question belonged to the Ramseys based on the following supporting factors: 1) The flashlight taken into evidence is the exact model given as a gift to John Ramsey from John Andrew Ramsey; 2) No other flashlight of that type was found in the home; 3) As per PMPT pg. 61 and Mark Beckner, the flashlight did not belong to any police officers; 4) On Dec. 26, the Ramseys did not report the flashlight as being odd, unusual, or out-of-place; 5) There is no sound evidence to show that any intruder was in the home on the night of the murder. The forensic evidence is not consistent with an intruder having committed the crime; 6) All of the items used to carry out the crime were already in the home; 7) Based on the police line of questioning about the flashlight, we can infer that they were able to eliminate, to a reasonable degree of certainty, the potential that the flashlight belonged to anyone other than the Ramseys; 8) When being questioned about the flashlight, John could have easily proven that it wasn't theirs by offering to produce the one JAR gave him. He did not do this, nor has he come forward with that flashlight at any time since to prove that the flashlight in evidence isn't theirs; 9) Everything done by the offender was done for a reason. The offender wiped fingerprints from the flashlight body because those prints would show who used the flashlight; 10) The offender wiped fingerprints from the batteries because those prints would show who owned the flashlight; 11) There would be no need for an intruder to leave his flashlight, when the alleged intruder left, the flashlight would have left with him; 12) There would be no need for any intruder to wipe the Ramsey's fingerprints from their batteries, only the Ramseys would be concerned with that; 13) The only motivation for the Ramseys to wipe their fingerprints from their flashlight and its batteries, would be if they and the flashlight were involved in the crime; 14) The flashlight was left out because putting it back in the drawer, wiped of fingerprints, would have pointed right to the Ramseys; 15) The flashlight was also left out to "suggest" that an intruder placed it there. (IMO)

But is this the murder weapon anyway? Would wiping it clean really take away all traces of a crime?? What if it wasnt wiped clean but just didnt have finger prints that were identifiable. ie what if the forensics were incorrect (is this possible?).
jmo

[Tober]

But is this the murder weapon anyway? Hi Sharon--There are some factors that support the flashlight being the weapon that caused JonBenet's head injury. They include: 1) Dr. Werner Spitz has demonstrated that the flashlight fits JonBenet's head injury perfectly; 2) The flashlight is consistent with the type of weapon that would have caused JonBenet's head injury, e.g. hard and heavy enough to fracture her skull, but soft enough on the outside due to its rubber coating so as to not break her scalp; 3) The flashlight body and its batteries were wiped clean of fingerprints. The flashlight body may also have been wiped to remove other trace evidence; 4) The flashlight was left out because whoever left it out wanted it to be observed out. 5) The person who placed the flashlight on the counter did so without leaving any fingerprints on it. This person did so in such a way so as to not leave fingerprints. (IMO)

[shill]

-Only an intruder wipes down his tools of fingerprints before setting out to his target so that when it is left behind he can't be traced.
-Only an intruder would leave the murder weapon so as not to get caught with it.
-Only an intruder would need to use a flashlight to find his way around in the house.

-The cord used in the ligature and garrote came from outside the house and could only come from an intruder.
-The tape on her mouth came from outside the house and could only come from an intruder.
-The DNA on her panties came from some one outside of the house.
-A piece of the paintbrush was taken out of the house by an intruder.
-9 pages of note pad were removed from the house by an intruder.

[rashomon]

-Only an intruder wipes down his tools of fingerprints before setting out to his target so that when it is left behind he can't be traced.
-Only an intruder would leave the murder weapon so as not to get caught with it.
-Only an intruder would need to use a flashlight to find his way around in the house.

-The cord used in the ligature and garrote came from outside the house and could only come from an intruder.
-The tape on her mouth came from outside the house and could only come from an intruder.
-The DNA on her panties came from some one outside of the house.
-A piece of the paintbrush was taken out of the house by an intruder.
-9 pages of note pad were removed from the house by an intruder.
Patsy wrote the ransom note and fibers from hers and John's clothes were found in locations associated with JB's death. So they worked together with the intruder?

- The wiping of the flashlight could either have been done for staging purposes or on impulse - the Ramseys may have consciously put it there or simply forgotten about it.
- Intruders normally don't leave their weapons behind but discard them somewhere else.
- the piece of paintbrush could easily have been crumbled and flushed down the toilet.
- Pam Paugh was allowed to rummage through the house - so how do we know exactly what was in the house and what was not? In addition, this was a huge and very cluttered house - how thoroughly did the police search this house?
- DNA: up to ten people handle underwear in the factory before it is finally packaged. Dr. Lee bought a sample of exactly the same underwear and found foreign DNA on it too. He stated the JBR case is not a DNA case.
- Where exactly were those 9 pages misssing on the pad? Was it the nine top pages?

[bullmoose]

Hi Sharon--There are some factors that support the flashlight being the weapon that caused JonBenet's head injury. They include: 1) Dr. Werner Spitz has demonstrated that the flashlight fits JonBenet's head injury perfectly; 2) The flashlight is consistent with the type of weapon that would have caused JonBenet's head injury, e.g. hard and heavy enough to fracture her skull, but soft enough on the outside due to its rubber coating so as to not break her scalp; 3) The flashlight body and its batteries were wiped clean of fingerprints. The flashlight body may also have been wiped to remove other trace evidence; 4) The flashlight was left out because whoever left it out wanted it to be observed out. 5) The person who placed the flashlight on the counter did so without leaving any fingerprints on it. This person did so in such a way so as to not leave fingerprints. (IMO)Blah,blah,blah, OHWOW!!!!! Its Tober again! Is he here to give us evidence to back up any of his claims??? Nope, its just more Tober blah,blah, blah. Too bad, Tober , I thought we were going to learn the basis of all these insightful claims you have of such inside knowledge; especially since you are blathering once more about the flashlight; SIGHHHHH, nothing here thats new, just the same old tobertwistic reasoning without a single word to tell all of us who are waiting with bated breath for the date that the CBI or BPD tested the found flashlight chemically to try to raise fingerprints; instead as Tober claims finding clear evidence of wiping down by the Ramseys. Come on Tober, it must be in your notes somewhere; haven't you found your notes yet Tober so you can fill us in on this claim of yours??????You can do it, Tober; take a deep breath, and---try---very hard---and--do it1!! Push yourself, Tober, we know you can, give us the evidence. Oh well, carry on with whatever you're slapping your gums about---blah, blah, blah.JMHO:biggrin:

[bullmoose]

Well, I guess you have irreputable evidence that there was anything left of the cord or tape, right? Couldn't possibly be that there wasn't. Alrighty then.
Battery package...hmmm. I have loose batteries in drawers in my house. My former boss used to keep spare batteries in her freezer. Why would there have to necessarily be a package? I guess it also isn't possible that the batteries could have been taken from another source, such as a radio. Maybe they weren't new batteries. I was proposing a possibility.
It's a big chuckle to you to suggest that Patsy or John carried them out but it's plausable that FW or John Fernie did? I didn't see you laughing at that suggestion.
How do you know that the pineapple container wasn't thrown out in the garbage days before and already picked up for disposal?
No...it makes more sense to you that an intruder carried a bag of pineapple into the house and served it up in Patsys bowl and then took the baggie with him instead of leaving it there to incriminate them...as well as taking the "rest of the cord and tape", which would have further incriminated them...but he left his flashlight behind to incriminate them. Your "logic" cracks me up.
Yes, please...I would like a tissue...I am laughing so hard at your il-logic that I have tears in my eyes. :tww1::biggrin: : I'm glad I make you happy; no, I have no evidence and have seen no evidence that convinces me that it is actually the Ramsey's flashlight, they were shown a picture and said something to the effect that it looks like ours, thats all. I have never claimed to have any proof of who bought the cord and tape, or where, have I? But, for you to say it was the last bit that they had, and you are, aren't you? then it would be reasonable that some of the other 30 feet of tape to be somewhere, or the other 90 feet or more of cord should be somewhere, right? It was established I think in the Twisters book that the tape had been manufactured only a few months before, right? Only a fool would come to the conclucion that the very last bit had been used,when there was no evidence found of that roll of duct tape used or on a roll in the house or anywhere except that piece; if that is your position ,where is the rest of it? or the cord?Can we have an alrighty, then? Alrighty, Then!! Now, if I bought into the notion that it was proven to be the Ramseys flashlight, which I don't and I thought it needed new batteries, which I don't, I haven't yet seen the radio you are suggesting they took batteries out of. Let me get this straight to you, the batteries are as real as Rashoman's Imaginary Fibers, I don't suggest FW or Fernie ever saw what I don't believe ever existed.HAHAHA! Now you can see me laughing :lol: I have never seen anything actually connecting the Ramseys to the fresh pineapple slices; just because they won't claim it doesn't make liars of them, it only means there is another explanation, intruder, maybe; caterer, maybe; victims advocates the morning of 12/26/96, maybe.I do know that the BPD attempted, as they also attempted to tie the Ramseys to the tape and cord, to tie them to the pineapple; no connection was found. I have no personal favorite idea as to where it came from; however,as far as I am concerned, the burden is on those conducting the pseudo-prosecution to prove their ideas rather than just present them and demand I disprove them. IMO, it doesn't work that way.Nothing personal with you, tww1, I like your arguments, truthfully.;)

[Eagle1]

[QUOTE=bullmoose;8822875]Actually, to get clean away with murder in Boulder I think that all you have to do is to commit one, then hop in your car and drive away. In Boulder, being caught with a bloody hatchet and a smoking gun would only get one question asked of you by the cops: Where did the Ramseys leave the victim? jmho[QUOTE]................


[QUOTE=thewhitewitch1;8822972]Actually, I think that when they took the flashlight out to use it, the batteries were dead (one of the Rs pretty much speculated in one of the interviews that their flashlight batteries would probably be dead from lack of use) so they had to replace them. .........[QUOTE]

Looks like we've decided it was the flashlight. Okay. Maybe so. It could have been long enough to be hitting the concrete floor near the vent duct, which Luther Stanton heard across the rather narrow street, right? Speculating in the interview that batteries may have been dead also suggests the flashlight may be the smoking gun.

Otherwise I was going to suggest possibly a lead pipe, instead of a shovel, having seen a TV show about a murder using a lead pipe, not about JonBenet, obviously.

[Sharon]

Hi Sharon--There are some factors that support the flashlight being the weapon that caused JonBenet's head injury. They include: 1) Dr. Werner Spitz has demonstrated that the flashlight fits JonBenet's head injury perfectly; 2) The flashlight is consistent with the type of weapon that would have caused JonBenet's head injury, e.g. hard and heavy enough to fracture her skull, but soft enough on the outside due to its rubber coating so as to not break her scalp; 3) The flashlight body and its batteries were wiped clean of fingerprints. The flashlight body may also have been wiped to remove other trace evidence; 4) The flashlight was left out because whoever left it out wanted it to be observed out. 5) The person who placed the flashlight on the counter did so without leaving any fingerprints on it. This person did so in such a way so as to not leave fingerprints. (IMO)

I agree that it fits in effortlessly. But, Im just asking because you seem more read here, is there any actual evidence on the flashlight that it had been used as a weapon? And is it that easy to get rid of evidence, ie just wipe something with a cloth. I thought things still remain in terms of forensic evidence?
Its weird too that the flashlight wasnt left near her body if it was `staged` or otherwise hidden in the mess if it was `left`.
Thanks Sharon jmo

[Tober]

I agree that it fits in effortlessly. But, Im just asking because you seem more read here, is there any actual evidence on the flashlight that it had been used as a weapon? No, but it can't be ruled out as having caused JonBenet's head injury. Taking everything into consideration--left out, wiped down, fits perfectly--it most likely is the weapon that was used to bludgeon her in the head. (IMO)

[Tober]

And is it that easy to get rid of evidence, ie just wipe something with a cloth. I thought things still remain in terms of forensic evidence? If a special prosecutor ever gets the case, I'd advise them to get right to work on the flashlight with additional testing and follow-up. It's one of the key pieces of evidence to solving this case. (IMO)

[Louisadelmar]

If a special prosecutor ever gets the case, I'd advise them to get right to work on the flashlight with additional testing and follow-up. It's one of the key pieces of evidence to solving this case. (IMO)

What kind of additional testing?

[Sharon]

If a special prosecutor ever gets the case, I'd advise them to get right to work on the flashlight with additional testing and follow-up. It's one of the key pieces of evidence to solving this case. (IMO)

Then why hasnt that been done by now??? What is the hold up do you think. Has this case been forgotten???

[bullmoose]

If a special prosecutor ever gets the case, I'd advise them to get right to work on the flashlight with additional testing and follow-up. It's one of the key pieces of evidence to solving this case. (IMO)TTTTTOOOOOBBBEEEEERRRRRRR SSPPEEAAAKKKSSSSS; oh wow, if a special prosecuter ever gets the case , I'd advise them, OH TOBER, my heart races when you talk like that; you're such a big boy, and SUCH an expert on the case, too!!! Your bold, insightful pronouncements leave little doubt in any right-thinking person's mind that you are the EXPERT on the case in every respect. I'm surprised you haven't written a book so we all could read it and understand how your deep insight holds the key to this case. Of course, since we're on the subject of that magical flashlight, are you any closer to sharing that evidence as to when the flashlight found in the Ramsey's kitchen was chemically treated to raise fingerprints? I mean, by whom and how long after it was in evidence, a date, you must know, Tober, like you say, its a key piece of evidence. Why not share that evidence, Tober? Or is blah, blah, blah the best you can do? JMHO:biggrin:

[shill]

If a special prosecutor ever gets the case, I'd advise them to get right to work on the flashlight with additional testing and follow-up. It's one of the key pieces of evidence to solving this case. (IMO)
Some how you're under the impression that your conclusions are right because you seem to think a NEW special prosecutor will find the Ramseys guilty.
How many NEW special prosecutors are you willing to wait for?
Surely the proof you keep providing is undisputible and the only reason the Ramseys are free is because of the corruption in the judicial system.
We just need some one who can't be bribed to get those evil Ramseys.
Boy will that make a great news story for the reporter who covers it.

[bullmoose]

Some how you're under the impression that your conclusions are right because you seem to think a NEW special prosecutor will find the Ramseys guilty.
How many NEW special prosecutors are you willing to wait for?
Surely the proof you keep providing is undisputible and the only reason the Ramseys are free is because of the corruption in the judicial system.
We just need some one who can't be bribed to get those evil Ramseys.
Boy will that make a great news story for the reporter who covers it. I have got an even better idea for our little font of wisdom, Tober; he should write a book with all of his incisive, insightful wisdom put on public display to expose the corrupt and evil Ramseys and the corrupt and evil DA's office, and just blow the top off this case!!! I know that if he were to write his tell-all tome of truth, none could then question his veracity ever again. JMHO:biggrin:

[andU]

Just put him on ignore... it prevents a lot irritation

[Eagle1]

-Only an intruder wipes down his tools of fingerprints before setting out to his target so that when it is left behind he can't be traced.
-Only an intruder would leave the murder weapon so as not to get caught with it. Or to plant a diversion.
-Only an intruder would need to use a flashlight to find his way around in the house.

-The cord used in the ligature and garrote came from outside the house and could only come from an intruder.
-The tape on her mouth came from outside the house and could only come from an intruder.
-The DNA on her panties came from some one outside of the house.
-A piece of the paintbrush was taken out of the house by an intruder.
-9 pages of note pad were removed from the house by an intruder.

Besides all these reasons, let me add one more,
- A flashlight wouldn't make a scraping sound loud enough to be
heard across the street.

And another, in case my color doesn't work in the middle of your quote, the flashlight was evidently planted by someone to make everyone jump to the conclusion "The Ramseys did it, in the basement, with the flashlight, and then placed it on the kitchen counter instead of getting rid of it like the tape, rope, etc."

BullMoose, I failed at first to see your suggestion a CROWBAR, which I think would work, in addition to my steel pipe idea and the shovel one.
I really don't think a bat or a flashlight would be large/heavy enough.

Yes, the drums would have had to be very heavy, and didn't Stanton sound like there was hitting-scraping, rather than just scraping? Like Tober, I don't have a link, so instead of being a know-it-all, I'm asking everyone else to pool our memories resources.

[shill]

I believe the murder weapon could be a "Wonder Bar" pry bar.

The injury to her skull matches this pry bars width and shape. The flatness of this pry bar would not cut the skin. This pry bar is compact and makes a great burglar tool and is heavy enough to make a good weapon.
The mark on JB's neck looks like the end of a "Wonder Bar" pry bar.
NECK MARK NEXT TO WB END (http://scorpionsupport.com///neckSMFlipPryBar.jpg)
WONDER BAR (http://scorpionsupport.com///wonderbar.gif)

[andU]

Shill, I agree. The bar could have even been wrapped in something .... like the nightie? to soften the blow as to not cause an open wound.

[thewhitewitch1]

I believe the murder weapon could be a "Wonder Bar" pry bar.

The injury to her skull matches this pry bars width and shape. The flatness of this pry bar would not cut the skin. This pry bar is compact and makes a great burglar tool and is heavy enough to make a good weapon.
The mark on JB's neck looks like the end of a "Wonder Bar" pry bar.
NECK MARK NEXT TO WB END (http://scorpionsupport.com///neckSMFlipPryBar.jpg)
WONDER BAR (http://scorpionsupport.com///wonderbar.gif)


How would the pry-bar mark wind up on her neck?
Why would the killer bring a pry bar and come in/exit through a window? There were no pry marks on any doors except one that was determined to be old (determined by condition of the wood).
If he hit her because she screamed, he would not have had time or thought to wrap the bar in something soft...he would have just hit her instantaneously to silence her. Why would he care if the wound bled or not?
It isn't that hard to murder a child by strangulation so if the strangulation came first, there would have been no need to hit her. I still maintain that it is not possible to scream when you are being strangled...even if the pressure is released for a minute. You'd be gasping for air. IMO

[andU]

I agree with you about the inability to scream....

[shill]

If he hit her because she screamed, he would not have had time or thought to wrap the bar in something soft...he would have just hit her instantaneously to silence her. Why would he care if the wound bled or not?
The wonder bar has a long and wide flat smooth surface with rounded edges.

You would not need to wrap it and that is why it is plausible as the weapon used on JB's head.

You bring a pry bar incase you need it to break in or open something like a stuck wine cellar door.

[shill]

How would the pry-bar mark wind up on her neck?
He used the Wonder Bar sort of like a Marlinspike perse' to loosen the garrote after tightening it around her neck.

[nuisanceposter]

Why would the killer want to loosen the garotte? He wants her dead. And didn't you say you thought that was a slipknot?

[shill]

Why would the killer want to loosen the garotte? He wants her dead. And didn't you say you thought that was a slipknot?
The wrist restraints are a sliding knot.
I thing the garrote is a slipknot, but as you can see from the autopsy photos, once it was pulled tight, it stayed tight. Even a hangmans noose is a slipknot but you have to tug at it to loosen it once it has been tightened.
If the use of it was to choke her off until unconscious and then bring her back, it would require tightening and loosening.

[thewhitewitch1]

The wrist restraints are a sliding knot.
I thing the garrote is a slipknot, but as you can see from the autopsy photos, once it was pulled tight, it stayed tight. Even a hangmans noose is a slipknot but you have to tug at it to loosen it once it has been tightened.
If the use of it was to choke her off until unconscious and then bring her back, it would require tightening and loosening.


It is speculation with no basis of fact that the garrote was tightened and loosened for anyones "sexual pleasure". It fits into your "pry-bar theory", I suppose, though I don't know why anyone would use a pry-bar to loosen a garrote. :confused:
If an intruder brought the cord in, he brought it in with the intent to kill. IMO
You still have not given me your thoughts on how an intruder would take the time to wrap something soft around his pry-bar to cut off a sudden scream (which could not have been made by a person being strangled anyway). Your scenerio implies that the pry-bar was brought in with intent to murder, if your intruder pre-wrapped something soft around it. You still have also not explained why he would care if blood was spilled when he whapped her on the head.
I also wonder why someone would bring in an entire roll of duct tape (and such unique duct tape at that) and only use one small piece of it. I further don't understand why he would not leave the roll of tape there if he was trying to implicate the Ramseys.
How does the RN fit into your theory, Shill?

[shill]

You still have not given me your thoughts on how an intruder would take the time to wrap something soft around his pry-bar to cut off a sudden scream (which could not have been made by a person being strangled anyway).The wonder bar has a long and wide flat smooth surface with rounded edges.
You would not need to wrap it and that is why it is plausible as the weapon used on JB's head.
You should read my posts before you ask these questions.
Your scenerio implies that the pry-bar was brought in with intent to murder, if your intruder pre-wrapped something soft around it. You still have also not explained why he would care if blood was spilled when he whapped her on the head.The wonder bar has a long and wide flat smooth surface with rounded edges.
You would not need to wrap it and that is why it is plausible as the weapon used on JB's head.
It was a knee jerk reaction to strike her, blood could have been spilled, and amazingly it was not.
I also wonder why someone would bring in an entire roll of duct tape (and such unique duct tape at that) and only use one small piece of it. I further don't understand why he would not leave the roll of tape there if he was trying to implicate the Ramseys.You don't read my posts do you? I said he wrapped some duct tape around the flashlight handle, I didn't say he wrapped the whole role around the handle.
How does the RN fit into your theory, Shill?You don't seem to read my answers so why should I explain?
It's obvious that it's personal between you and I because you are acting like a fool whose only concern is to try and make me look wrong.

[thewhitewitch1]

The wonder bar has a long and wide flat smooth surface with rounded edges.
You would not need to wrap it and that is why it is plausible as the weapon used on JB's head.
You should read my posts before you ask these questions.
The wonder bar has a long and wide flat smooth surface with rounded edges.
You would not need to wrap it and that is why it is plausible as the weapon used on JB's head.
It was a knee jerk reaction to strike her, blood could have been spilled, and amazingly it was not.
You don't read my posts do you? I said he wrapped some duct tape around the flashlight handle, I didn't say he wrapped the whole role around the handle.
You don't seem to read my answers so why should I explain?
It's obvious that it's personal between you and I because you are acting like a fool whose only concern is to try and make me look wrong.


Actually, Shill, I didn't think you had an actual theory. You jump around from Muslims did it to pry-bar wielding intruders so excuse me if I got a little confused.
You've stated that an intruder took the smaller sized Bloomies as a trophy and then you've stated that JB was wearing the oversized ones all along.
Maybe I've gotten your posts confused with someone else but I don't think so.
You spend so much time trying to prove the Ramseys didn't do it that you seem to change your theory to whatever points away from them at the moment.
There is nothing "personal" between us and I actually enjoy "debating" with you.

[Zoey]

Actually, Shill, I didn't think you had an actual theory. You jump around from Muslims did it to pry-bar wielding intruders so excuse me if I got a little confused.
You've stated that an intruder took the smaller sized Bloomies as a trophy and then you've stated that JB was wearing the oversized ones all along.
Maybe I've gotten your posts confused with someone else but I don't think so.
You spend so much time trying to prove the Ramseys didn't do it that you seem to change your theory to whatever points away from them at the moment.
There is nothing "personal" between us and I actually enjoy "debating" with you.

At least Shill, and every other IDI, is open to the possibility of other theories, wherein the RDI's, no matter what is shown to them, waiver none on their belief that no one could have possibly done this other than a Ramsey. IMO.

[thewhitewitch1]

At least Shill, and every other IDI, is open to the possibility of other theories, wherein the RDI's, no matter what is shown to them, waiver none on their belief that no one could have possibly done this other than a Ramsey. IMO.


Shill and other IDIs are open to other theories that only include other IDI theories. Might as well be the same thing as RDIs not budging from their RDI stance. We are open to how and why the Ramseys did it.
I don't see a difference.

[Zoey]

Shill and other IDIs are open to other theories that only include other IDI theories. Might as well be the same thing as RDIs not budging from their RDI stance. We are open to how and why the Ramseys did it.
I don't see a difference.

Not wanting to speak for every other IDI, but I, for one, am open to anything that will prove who did this. Whether it be an intruder, a Ramsey, an alien, anything that can put this case to rest where it should have been put ten long years ago.

You are correct in your last statement. RDI's are only open to how and why the Ramsey's did it. IDI's are open to showing how and why anyone did it, Ramsey included. Therein lies the difference.

But, as of yet, I have seen absolutely no evidence pointing to anyone but an intruder, and hence my stance stays as an IDI. Of course, this is just my own opinion.

[thewhitewitch1]

Not wanting to speak for every other IDI, but I, for one, am open to anything that will prove who did this. Whether it be an intruder, a Ramsey, an alien, anything that can put this case to rest where it should have been put ten long years ago.

You are correct in your last statement. RDI's are only open to how and why the Ramsey's did it. IDI's are open to showing how and why anyone did it, Ramsey included. Therein lies the difference.

But, as of yet, I have seen absolutely no evidence pointing to anyone but an intruder, and hence my stance stays as an IDI. Of course, this is just my own opinion.

I do not believe that most IDIs are "open to a Ramsey doing it".
Most IDIs are all over the map pointing fingers at everyone and anyone who ever crossed the Ramseys paths...and even some who haven't.
FYI...for every suspect suggested, I have done whatever research I can on them and have so far seen no one who the evidence points to (as we know it) except for the Ramseys.
You don't seem to understand that it is from my studying this case that has led me to believe that the Ramseys were involved. It isn't for lack of trying to fit an intruder into it.
I will allow for the possibility for an intruder but if this case ever gets solved and it does turn out to have been an intruder, I will be way more than surprised.

[Sharon]

I do not believe that most IDIs are "open to a Ramsey doing it".
Most IDIs are all over the map pointing fingers at everyone and anyone who ever crossed the Ramseys paths...and even some who haven't.
FYI...for every suspect suggested, I have done whatever research I can on them and have so far seen no one who the evidence points to (as we know it) except for the Ramseys.
You don't seem to understand that it is from my studying this case that has led me to believe that the Ramseys were involved. It isn't for lack of trying to fit an intruder into it.
I will allow for the possibility for an intruder but if this case ever gets solved and it does turn out to have been an intruder, I will be way more than surprised.

Well, there have been mention of two cases here where the `mother` was accused and deemed guilty of killing her child and sent to prison on the basis of lack of intruder evidence. One case involved a baby being stolen by a dingo in the outback, the other a random intruder who stabbed the son with a knife from the kitchen. I mean those are really wtf senarios, and it would make more sense to say the mother did it.

None of us (that werent there) can say we have studied this case when it is known that we only have access to 10% of the evidence!!!!

You cant do much with 10% of a story....jmo

[thewhitewitch1]

Well, there have been mention of two cases here where the `mother` was accused and deemed guilty of killing her child and sent to prison on the basis of lack of intruder evidence. One case involved a baby being stolen by a dingo in the outback, the other a random intruder who stabbed the son with a knife from the kitchen. I mean those are really wtf senarios, and it would make more sense to say the mother did it.

None of us (that werent there) can say we have studied this case when it is known that we only have access to 10% of the evidence!!!!

You cant do much with 10% of a story....jmo

I have to agree with you there, Sharon...so why do we all obsess over this case knowing it's like beating our heads against a brick wall? My daughter thinks I'm nuts. I'm beginning to think she's right! :eek:

[Zoey]

I do not believe that most IDIs are "open to a Ramsey doing it".
Most IDIs are all over the map pointing fingers at everyone and anyone who ever crossed the Ramseys paths...and even some who haven't.
FYI...for every suspect suggested, I have done whatever research I can on them and have so far seen no one who the evidence points to (as we know it) except for the Ramseys.
You don't seem to understand that it is from my studying this case that has led me to believe that the Ramseys were involved. It isn't for lack of trying to fit an intruder into it.
I will allow for the possibility for an intruder but if this case ever gets solved and it does turn out to have been an intruder, I will be way more than surprised.


I did not state most IDI's are open to a Ramsey doing it. I stated most IDI's are open to other theories, wherein the RDI's are not. I stated I was open to the possibility of it being a Ramsey, but have found nothing to indicate it that it was indeed a Ramsey.

FYI, I have done research on this case as well for the past 10 years. I do not come to this forum blindly as you have implied. I have plenty of information, most of which cannot be proven as fact. That is why I joined this forum, hoping to sort out some of the information. What I have gotten instead is a lot of people thinking they have the crime solved all by themselves and are unwilling to even consider that their might have been an intruder. IMO.

[nuisanceposter]

But we have considered that an intruder did it, and then decided the evidence indicated Ramsey involvement more than the work of an intruder. Just because people believe in RDI does not mean they didn't bother to examine any other point of view - it just means they've decided the RDI pov is more probable based on what we know. And I've also noticed IDIs seem to be open to any theory other than RDI, just as Zoey accuses the RDI of. Many IDI will accept any explanation no matter how improbable if it leaves out any Ramsey invovlement. IMO.

[shill]

Actually, Shill, I didn't think you had an actual theory. You jump around from Muslims did it to pry-bar wielding intruders so excuse me if I got a little confused.
You've stated that an intruder took the smaller sized Bloomies as a trophy and then you've stated that JB was wearing the oversized ones all along.
Maybe I've gotten your posts confused with someone else but I don't think so.
You spend so much time trying to prove the Ramseys didn't do it that you seem to change your theory to whatever points away from them at the moment.
There is nothing "personal" between us and I actually enjoy "debating" with you.


Sorry but you are confused.

To make a counter point you have to follow the line of reasoning that someone is presenting.
So many of the things are not what I think happened, but what I think didn't happen.
I believe this has come to confuse you on where I stand, Sorry.

The Muslim background is still a go and doesn't change anything.
Even FW possibly fits that theory. I haven't been able to find if in his oil empire he deals with Oil barons from the Middle East, but being in the oil business, he would be more apprised of Muslims life style and terror tactics then the average Joe.

I believe there is no mystery panties, just the oversized pair JB put on herself before the party that night and was found in.
I believe JB got up around 12 midnight to pee as she had been known to do when aided, but was unaided. Hungry and cold she wrapped herself with the white blanket and went downstairs to the kitchen, found a bowl of pineapple left out by Burke, used her fingers to eat a piece and went back to bed wrapped just in the white blanket.
I believe a couple hours later an intruder got into the house and did everything found at the crime scene.
And I believe this is all supported by the crime scene and evidence.

P.S. This site only deals with the pros and cons of RDI.
If as an IDI we pick someone as a suspect, that would change the course.
But when a suspect is picked, there are to many RDI that come back with "they couldn't have done it because the Ramseys did it", so it's pointless to debate anything but RDI and RDin'tDI.

[shill]

I have to agree with you there, Sharon...so why do we all obsess over this case knowing it's like beating our heads against a brick wall? My daughter thinks I'm nuts. I'm beginning to think she's right! :eek:

We're all nuts, don't try and take all the credit yourself TWW1.

I realized why I am a nut about it a few weeks ago and don't feel so bad about it now that I know why.

[Sharon]

I have to agree with you there, Sharon...so why do we all obsess over this case knowing it's like beating our heads against a brick wall? My daughter thinks I'm nuts. I'm beginning to think she's right! :eek:

I think we all have our own agendas for being here. Maybe it makes us feel safer in our own part of the world if we can `solve` this crime that probably represents evil in the truest sence of the word.

My dh reminds me that evil things like this are happening every day of the week, sort of like a dime a dozen, especially in countries with corrupt le & great poverty.

But, yer, in answer to your question, by definition, we are all nuts ie trying to solve a crime scene with so little to go on.

Btw, why do we only have 10% of the available evidence?????

[Sharon]

We're all nuts, don't try and take all the credit yourself TWW1.

I realized why I am a nut about it a few weeks ago and don't feel so bad about it now that I know why.

What did you realise?

[sharlock]

Sharon, your posts are informative and I feel sure you are are very intelligent individual but I need to say that the Lindsay Chamberlain case was very very different! Looking back it is hard to understand how things like jam in the trunk of her car could be mistaken for blood and things of that nature, and with that case I was always a beleiver of Lindy's innocence and remember very involved conversations not only on the dingoes up here but the cross breeds of dingoes and camp dogs that were also very fierce.
With the case of JonBenet you are right when you say we only have a small % of the info but that is all the more reasons to consider all sides I cannot rule the Ramsey's out and I don't see how anyone on the board has managed to do so with so little evidence that we actually have available. For the same reason I don't rule out the intruder scenario. Any hoo I look forward to reading more of your posts as your oppinions on the whole intrigue me :beer: JMHO Sharlock


You cant do much with 10% of a story....jmo[/QUOTE]

[nuisanceposter]

Where is this "10%" number coming from? Linda Arndt? Yeah, she's real credible. First she thought JRDI, then she was thrilled to receive flowers from "John and Patsy", then she claimed she'd forgotten everything about the Ramsey case, now she's writing a book.

[Sharon]

Sharon, your posts are informative and I feel sure you are are very intelligent individual but I need to say that the Lindsay Chamberlain case was very very different! Looking back it is hard to understand how things like jam in the trunk of her car could be mistaken for blood and things of that nature, and with that case I was always a beleiver of Lindy's innocence and remember very involved conversations not only on the dingoes up here but the cross breeds of dingoes and camp dogs that were also very fierce.
With the case of JonBenet you are right when you say we only have a small % of the info but that is all the more reasons to consider all sides I cannot rule the Ramsey's out and I don't see how anyone on the board has managed to do so with so little evidence that we actually have available. For the same reason I don't rule out the intruder scenario. Any hoo I look forward to reading more of your posts as your oppinions on the whole intrigue me :beer: JMHO Sharlock


You cant do much with 10% of a story....jmo[/QUOTE]

Thanks for the feedback. Sorry if it seems that I am trying to compare 2 different cases that have little in common. Its just that my time here is limited as I actually do work & have kids, and believe me, if I had the time I could write a novel here. So, much of what I say is not qualified as much as it should be.
My constant reference to the Lindsey case it not so much to compare the similarities in the evidence, but to compare the concept of judging guilt. The case effected me personally because I remember like yesterday that there was overwhelming evidence against the mother. And like this case there was so much expert opinion that took all the evidence and spun a pretty convincing argument that the mum did do it. She had the means, the motivation, the intent...etc. And the idea of her not doing it seemed not to fit into any evidence. I remember how the nation felt about her & public opinion was pretty damning. I mean she ended up in prison, so obviously the evidence was beyond doubt. And people made up all sorts of motives like she was post natal or a whitch or just evil & cold blooded.
She really would still be in prison today if by chance her babys clothing wasnt found in a dingos far out area.
I think there was blood in her car from a nosebleed.

I use this case to remind myself that even in a court of law the innocent can be wrongly convicted & visa versa. I cant help thinking the R. fall into this category because it just doesnt add up (to me) that they would want to harm their beloved daughter.
jmo

[sharlock]

I was sure I had read somewhere that there were paint tins in the basement and please correct me if I am wrong(hadn't realised how involved I would feel with this case and haven't been saving links), Couldn't it be possible that the metal scraping noise was those being dragged not the actual striking of JonBenet? :o
Sharlock

[sharlock]

Thanks for the feedback. Sorry if it seems that I am trying to compare 2 different cases that have little in common. Its just that my time here is limited as I actually do work & have kids, and believe me, if I had the time I could write a novel here. So, much of what I say is not qualified as much as it should be.
My constant reference to the Lindsey case it not so much to compare the similarities in the evidence, but to compare the concept of judging guilt. The case effected me personally because I remember like yesterday that there was overwhelming evidence against the mother. And like this case there was so much expert opinion that took all the evidence and spun a pretty convincing argument that the mum did do it. She had the means, the motivation, the intent...etc. And the idea of her not doing it seemed not to fit into any evidence. I remember how the nation felt about her & public opinion was pretty damning. I mean she ended up in prison, so obviously the evidence was beyond doubt. And people made up all sorts of motives like she was post natal or a whitch or just evil & cold blooded.
She really would still be in prison today if by chance her babys clothing wasnt found in a dingos far out area.
I think there was blood in her car from a nosebleed.

I use this case to remind myself that even in a court of law the innocent can be wrongly convicted & visa versa. I cant help thinking the R. fall into this category because it just doesnt add up (to me) that they would want to harm their beloved daughter.
jmo[/QUOTE]





Too easy, thanks for replying and I understand where you are coming from, while I mightn't have agreed with the majority at the time you're right in saying it was the majority.
once again thanks for replying,
Sharlock

[Sharon]

Too easy, thanks for replying and I understand where you are coming from, while I mightn't have agreed with the majority at the time you're right in saying it was the majority.
once again thanks for replying,
Sharlock[/QUOTE]

Thanks to you too!!!
If I can add, I remember very clearly that back in the day, here in Aust., pretty much no one believed a dingo could do it. We were told by dingo experts that they dont operate like that ie they wouldnt have the guts to snatch a baby in broad daylight, they dont eat humans, they couldnt carry the weight etc.

Here, at the time, if you did think a dingo did it, you were thought of as absolutly mad!!!! So many Australians hung their heads with shame when the truth came to light.

Tradgically, the mum lost everything including her marriage. And she would have been unable to properly mourn her loss due to being a suspect in this crime. jmo

[thewhitewitch1]

Sorry but you are confused.

To make a counter point you have to follow the line of reasoning that someone is presenting.
So many of the things are not what I think happened, but what I think didn't happen.
I believe this has come to confuse you on where I stand, Sorry.

The Muslim background is still a go and doesn't change anything.
Even FW possibly fits that theory. I haven't been able to find if in his oil empire he deals with Oil barons from the Middle East, but being in the oil business, he would be more apprised of Muslims life style and terror tactics then the average Joe.

I believe there is no mystery panties, just the oversized pair JB put on herself before the party that night and was found in.
I believe JB got up around 12 midnight to pee as she had been known to do when aided, but was unaided. Hungry and cold she wrapped herself with the white blanket and went downstairs to the kitchen, found a bowl of pineapple left out by Burke, used her fingers to eat a piece and went back to bed wrapped just in the white blanket.
I believe a couple hours later an intruder got into the house and did everything found at the crime scene.
And I believe this is all supported by the crime scene and evidence.

P.S. This site only deals with the pros and cons of RDI.
If as an IDI we pick someone as a suspect, that would change the course.
But when a suspect is picked, there are to many RDI that come back with "they couldn't have done it because the Ramseys did it", so it's pointless to debate anything but RDI and RDin'tDI.


I will give you credit for a possible convincing scenerio BUT...(I know you saw that coming)...
I do not believe JB woke herself up to use the bathroom. It was not her habit to do so. Even Patsy said this. Further, I do not believe that Patsy would have put her to bed when they got home without waking her up to use the bathroom. The time allowed for getting the family ready that morning was very short (I think too short) and why would she risk being woke up in the middle of the night by JB wetting the bed, or having to take the sheets etc off the bed in the morning?
I do not believe the blanket she was found in was even on the bed that night. I have already explained to you why.
NP presents an interesting question about those oversized Bloomies that can't be ignored. I do not believe she was wearing them all day for many reasons which I have stated before, and with the info NP has posted recently, I am now convinced that she wasn't.
The problem with IDIs naming people as suspects is that there is no concrete evidence pointing at any one person. RDI has actual evidence that can connect the Ramseys, even if it is debateable. IMO

[shill]

What did you realise?

That's an accurate description of a fact.

I remembered that growing up where I lived we had a serial child killer. The Oakland County Child Killer. I had forgotten about this until recently I came across an article on it researching JB's case.
One of the victims was the younger brother of a guy I went to elementary school with and graduated high school with.
It was a scary time for everyone, and the killer left a M.O. that gave clues, and kidnapped in broad daylight in busy areas.
Also during that time, a babysitter was killed by a mystery burglar on the next street over which I remember thinking I walked by that house that night and could this have been the OCCK? It wasn't, but that's what wound the clock for me.

So I realized this is what drove my fascination with these crimes, especially when there are clues that could lead to the case being solved.

So that's my story, and everyone I know thinks it's nutty to be that interested in these cases. Thank goodness there is the Internet.

[Jayelles]

That's an accurate description of a fact.

I remembered that growing up where I lived we had a serial child killer. The Oakland County Child Killer. I had forgotten about this until recently I came across an article on it researching JB's case.
One of the victims was the younger brother of a guy I went to elementary school with and graduated high school with.
It was a scary time for everyone, and the killer left a M.O. that gave clues, and kidnapped in broad daylight in busy areas.
Also during that time, a babysitter was killed by a mystery burglar on the next street over which I remember thinking I walked by that house that night and could this have been the OCCK? It wasn't, but that's what wound the clock for me.

So I realized this is what drove my fascination with these crimes, especially when there are clues that could lead to the case being solved.

So that's my story, and everyone I know thinks it's nutty to be that interested in these cases. Thank goodness there is the Internet.

I know two people who were murdered. A boy at school was stabbed to death a couple of years after we left school. Another boy whom I grew up with went missing when we were in our 20s and a year later his torso was found on some moorland, they never found the rest of him.

My first recollection of being interested in crime was when heiress Lesley Whittle went missing - it became known as the Black Panther murder. My aunt wouldn't let me watch the news bulletins and she used to chase me outside and tell me I was a "wee ghoul". Oddly enough, there was a documentary on about that case a couple of weeks ago and I couldn't watch it because she died such an horrific death.

[thewhitewitch1]

Hey Shill...I've lived in Oakland County all of my life.

I've known several people who were murdered and have even known a murderer or two (not really well, mind you).
I once set my sister up on a blind date with a guy who later hacksawed his neighbors head off in her own driveway.
A high school on/off friend was butchered when she was 7 months pregnant.
Scarey stuff.
I've been interested in murder crimes for a very long time. I guess it's because I cannot fathom taking another human life and the mystery of how anyone can and then just go on living a "normal" life is what intrigues me about it.

[shill]

I've been interested in murder crimes for a very long time. I guess it's because I cannot fathom taking another human life and the mystery of how anyone can and then just go on living a "normal" life is what intrigues me about it.

I totally agree with you about that.

I wouldn't be surprised if others posting here have been near or new someone that was a victim of a psycho killer.

[shill]

I once set my sister up on a blind date with a guy who later hacksawed his neighbors head off in her own driveway.


That's mad crazy.
How did your sisters date with him go? LOL
I bet you never heard the end of that one.

[thewhitewitch1]

That's mad crazy.
How did your sisters date with him go? LOL
I bet you never heard the end of that one.

Let's just say that she never let me "fix her up" again. :o
The guy was the brother of my best friends boyfriend...and also the son of a police chief.

[Sharon]

Let's just say that she never let me "fix her up" again. :o
The guy was the brother of my best friends boyfriend...and also the son of a police chief.

Well, life really is stranger than fiction....was there a reason why he did this, drugs, crazy, revenge???? Im glad your sister was unharmed on that fateful date!!!

[thewhitewitch1]

Well, life really is stranger than fiction....was there a reason why he did this, drugs, crazy, revenge???? Im glad your sister was unharmed on that fateful date!!!


I guess his father was "seeing" the woman next door...whether he was having an affair or not, I am not sure. At any rate, the guy was diagnosed as a schizophrenic. Scarey, huh? My sister was only a teenager when she went out with him...and so was he. I believe he may have still been a minor when this happened. I have the newspaper clipping around here somewhere...

[AmyW]

At this point, I'm on the fence and am open to any and all theories; whatever will help find JonBenet's killer(s). This is a really good debate with a little BS thrown in, but I'm enjoying reading what everyone has to say.

[Miss Marple]

At this point, I'm on the fence and am open to any and all theories; whatever will help find JonBenet's killer(s). This is a really good debate with a little BS thrown in, but I'm enjoying reading what everyone has to say.

Read here for as comprehensive a listing of various theories as I've been able to assemble: http://jonbenetramsey.pbwiki.com/Theories-of-the-Case
Best wishes,
Miss Marple

[AmyW]

Thanks Miss Marple. I really appreciate that. I've started from the very beginning and am trying to work my way through all the evidence. I'm way behind the regular posters here and can use all the help I can get. I really want to participate in this debate, but don't want to post uninformed, know what I mean?

Thanks again.

:)

[bullmoose]

Thanks Miss Marple. I really appreciate that. I've started from the very beginning and am trying to work my way through all the evidence. I'm way behind the regular posters here and can use all the help I can get. I really want to participate in this debate, but don't want to post uninformed, know what I mean?

Thanks again.

:)Hey, post all you want, the more the merrier, RDI, IDI, we're all SDI and engaged in keeping Jonbenet's memory alive; we all hope that somehow someday there will be justice for her.:beer:

[Eagle1]

How would the pry-bar mark wind up on her neck?
Why would the killer bring a pry bar and come in/exit through a window?

There were no pry marks on any doors except one that was determined to be old (determined by condition of the wood). ......
. I still maintain that it is not possible to scream when you are being strangled...even if the pressure is released for a minute. You'd be gasping for air. IMO

I think Shill's suggestion is a good one, also BullMoose's, and I haven't read page four yet. There may be others. Just want to establish that entry was probably with a key, there were so many keys unaccounted for, and a walker had been seen approaching the house before dark.

Maybe the outside lights were not turned off until after the Ramseys had gone to bed. So what could the walker have been there for so early?

[Eagle1]

Thanks for the link about various theories collected into one place.

WhiteWitch, if you're in Oakland County, Michigan, you also had the series of child murders, still unsolved. I'm in Wayne County.

But back to What Was the Murder Weapon, I for one didn't know there's so many different kinds of bars and crowbars, for the head blow. I don't think one was necessary for getting in that night but maybe one was brought along just in case needed for that or to defend against any discoverers of the crime in progress. Whoever else happened onto the scene probably would have been bashed too.

[aussiesheila]

I was shocked at the time to learn that fingerprint analysis is far less a science than I had assumed.I am so with you on this point bullmoose. I think I posted something like this once at Websleuths but no-one replied and I left it at that. So I am glad that you have brought this up here. I think that where fingerprint evidence is found it is not always the case that a full print from a single digit is found, and I think there is a lot of interpretation that goes on. I think in some cases there might be so little of any one print found that it has to be reported as 'no prints identified'.

So I am quite prepared to believe that 'no fingerprints found on the flashlight or batteries' does NOT translate to 'flashlight and batteries were wiped clean of fingerprints'

As far as positive identification goes, it's not as though they get one perfect complete print which they match up with one of the 10 prints from any given individual. I think there just has to be a certain number of 'points of agreement' (I forget what the terminology is) for it to be classed as a 'match'. So I think if there is sufficient bias on the part of an analyst, an 'iffy' test result can be deemed positive when really the evidence is really inconclusive.

[aussiesheila]

25 years ago, my wife and I heard a young girl's piercing scream at about 10PM one night as we watched television; I immediately ran outside and saw my neighbor from the one side of my house come tearing outside, too, so we went to my other neighbors house; the 12-year old had caught the house on fire making popcorn, overheated the oil, which flamed the curtains and off to the races it went, burnt the kitchen good. Me and my neighbor managed to put the fire out with our extinguishers and got all the kids[3 of them] out into our house safely. I have always had trouble believing that Melody Stanton really heard a childs scream; when I, my wife and neighbors heard it it was not unlike an ejection seat on a jet fighter, both couples, all four of us were shot outside in the darkness to find the source. I suspect that we humans are hardwired to react to screams of children in danger,my neighbor and me charged into that burning house without hesitation after hearing that scream, knowing there were still children inside. How could she have heard the scream and not at least called the police? It is truly puzzling to me. JMHO:shrug:I think you make a good point here, bullmoose. I'm wondering though, would it make a difference if you had been deeply asleep when the sound was made? Might it not be possible for you to be confused when woken and wondered whether you had dreamt it or not? And then fallen back to sleep again?

[aussiesheila]

Hi Eagle--I think you're assuming the sound Mr. Stanton heard occurred during infliction of JonBenet's head injury. Since the sound was a series of scrapes, I think it's more likely to have taken place after JonBenet had been killed. I think the sound was most likely the metal paint cans in the body room being moved to make room for her body, or perhaps the piece of sheet metal that BPD took into evidence being moved/used by the offender. (IMO)Yes I think it was the piece of sheet metal that BPD took into evidence. I think it came from the floor of the wine cellar and was covering a cavity in the floor of the cellar. I think the perpetrators were thinking they could hide the body in the cavity and so dragged the sheet metal across the floor to expose the cavity. Unfortunately it wasn't big enough to fit a body in so the had to drag the sheet metal back again and just leave the body on the cellar floor.

[Zoey]

Yes I think it was the piece of sheet metal that BPD took into evidence. I think it came from the floor of the wine cellar and was covering a cavity in the floor of the cellar. I think the perpetrators were thinking they could hide the body in the cavity and so dragged the sheet metal across the floor to expose the cavity. Unfortunately it wasn't big enough to fit a body in so the had to drag the sheet metal back again and just leave the body on the cellar floor.


Wasn't it a vault/safe that was in the floor?

[Athena]

A metal bat like the one found outside could have produced such a sound. But if that had been the murder weapon wouldn't the police have found evidence on it? JB's hairs for example. Or did they find it wiped clean like the flashlight?
Thre was a lot of junk down there in the basement. Maybe the somebody just moved something metal and heavy out of the way.

Actually the bat was found with fibers on it consistent with the basement carpet.

[Athena]

Obviously I wouldn't hit myself with my maglite. But I did press it very hard against my forearm. The ends of the flashlight made a crescent shape indentation and the middle of the flashlight kind of made two slight straight lines. Wasn't the shape of the injury to the skull rectangular? How would a flashlight make a rectangular indentation? Of course what I did is nowhere being hit with a flashlight so is not proof of anything - just thought I'd try it.

[andU]

What sheet metal? I wasn't aware of there being loose sheet metal covering a 'hole'? in the basement.... I do recall there being discussed a safe in the basement but I think John had stated that it would be far too heavy to be moved. Maybe I've read so much I dreamed this?

[Zoey]

What sheet metal? I wasn't aware of there being loose sheet metal covering a 'hole'? in the basement.... I do recall there being discussed a safe in the basement but I think John had stated that it would be far too heavy to be moved. Maybe I've read so much I dreamed this?

From the search warrant:

black sheet metal in wine cellar (39KKY)

[Athena]

I am so with you on this point bullmoose. I think I posted something like this once at Websleuths but no-one replied and I left it at that. So I am glad that you have brought this up here. I think that where fingerprint evidence is found it is not always the case that a full print from a single digit is found, and I think there is a lot of interpretation that goes on. I think in some cases there might be so little of any one print found that it has to be reported as 'no prints identified'.

So I am quite prepared to believe that 'no fingerprints found on the flashlight or batteries' does NOT translate to 'flashlight and batteries were wiped clean of fingerprints'

As far as positive identification goes, it's not as though they get one perfect complete print which they match up with one of the 10 prints from any given individual. I think there just has to be a certain number of 'points of agreement' (I forget what the terminology is) for it to be classed as a 'match'. So I think if there is sufficient bias on the part of an analyst, an 'iffy' test result can be deemed positive when really the evidence is really inconclusive.

I posted somewhere on here as well that just because the flashlight and batteries did not have fingerprints on them, meant it was wiped. I even linked to a forensic document stating that putting a flashlight into a plastic bag would "wipe" it clean. According to PMPT it was said it was "thought" to have been wiped down because of lack of fingerprints not that it was what happened. Pure speculation and conjecture.

Also fiber evidence is very weak unless you find some piece of clothing that is the only one manufactured like it in the whole world and obviously we know that is impossible; that's why it cannot be said it is an identical match but consistent with. And if only consistent with how many other pieces of cloth were tested to eliminate them and come to the conclusion it was this specific piece of clothing. JMO

[bullmoose]

Obviously I wouldn't hit myself with my maglite. But I did press it very hard against my forearm. The ends of the flashlight made a crescent shape indentation and the middle of the flashlight kind of made two slight straight lines. Wasn't the shape of the injury to the skull rectangular? How would a flashlight make a rectangular indentation? Of course what I did is nowhere being hit with a flashlight so is not proof of anything - just thought I'd try it.I have never thought the flashlight[I have never seen a maglite that was rubbercovered] was the murder weapon , the shape of the fracture does not match a flashlight, but does match certain crowbars.JMO

[bullmoose]

I posted somewhere on here as well that just because the flashlight and batteries did not have fingerprints on them, meant it was wiped. I even linked to a forensic document stating that putting a flashlight into a plastic bag would "wipe" it clean. According to PMPT it was said it was "thought" to have been wiped down because of lack of fingerprints not that it was what happened. Pure speculation and conjecture.

Also fiber evidence is very weak unless you find some piece of clothing that is the only one manufactured like it in the whole world and obviously we know that is impossible; that's why it cannot be said it is an identical match but consistent with. And if only consistent with how many other pieces of cloth were tested to eliminate them and come to the conclusion it was this specific piece of clothing. JMOThe only poster that claimed chemical tests 'proved' the flashlight and batteries had been 'wiped free of prints' was our very own Tober, the poster without a single link or shred of evidence to back up any of his blather.IMO

[shill]

The murder weapon was a flash light..Ask John, he knows..

Why not ask Burke?

[bullmoose]

The murder weapon was a flash light..Ask John, he knows..Okay, Keona, I'll bite, how do you know that a flshlight was the murder weapon?

[Eagle1]

I think it had to be something larger than even the largest Maglite.

And Stanton should be able to tell if the scraping sound was a series or one long scrape, such as the sheet metal being moved.

I wish ST or someone would come out with another book who's checked all the forums for good questions. There's supposed to be one in November, I think, and I forget whose. Doubt it will cover these small points. ST already said, p. 19 of the paperback version, there were no footprints in the frost on her covered balcony.

[LindaA]

wish ST or someone would come out with another book who's checked all the forums for good questions. There's supposed to be one in November, I think, and I forget whose. (Posted by Eagle1)

Could that possibly be Linda Arndt's book?

[Miss Marple]

(Posted by Eagle1)

Could that possibly be Linda Arndt's book?

Laurence Smith's book is the next "scheduled" one to arrive--allegedly in April:
http://jonbenetramsey.pbwiki.com/Sources#ForthcomingBooksandMedia
Best wishes,
Miss Marple

[aussiesheila]

Hey Shill...I've lived in Oakland County all of my life.

I've known several people who were murdered and have even known a murderer or two (not really well, mind you).
I once set my sister up on a blind date with a guy who later hacksawed his neighbors head off in her own driveway.
A high school on/off friend was butchered when she was 7 months pregnant.
Scarey stuff.
I've been interested in murder crimes for a very long time. I guess it's because I cannot fathom taking another human life and the mystery of how anyone can and then just go on living a "normal" life is what intrigues me about it.shill, Jayelles, whitewitch, your stories are interesting. I still haven't found out why I find unsolved murders so fascinating. All my family think I'm mad. It sure is a comfort to know there are others out there as mad as me.

[aussiesheila]

Wasn't it a vault/safe that was in the floor?Yes, it was something like that. I can't remember where I read about it now.

[aussiesheila]

I posted somewhere on here as well that just because the flashlight and batteries did not have fingerprints on them, meant it was wiped. I even linked to a forensic document stating that putting a flashlight into a plastic bag would "wipe" it clean. According to PMPT it was said it was "thought" to have been wiped down because of lack of fingerprints not that it was what happened. Pure speculation and conjecture.

Also fiber evidence is very weak unless you find some piece of clothing that is the only one manufactured like it in the whole world and obviously we know that is impossible; that's why it cannot be said it is an identical match but consistent with. And if only consistent with how many other pieces of cloth were tested to eliminate them and come to the conclusion it was this specific piece of clothing. JMOSorry Athena I either haven't come across your post about no fingerprints on flashlight yet - I am way behind with my reading or my eyes rolled across it in a half asleep state one morning at 2 am and it didn't register in brain. So we are all of like mind, you me and bullmoose. I think Zippo agrees with us as well. So more "fingerprints wiped from flashlight and batteries" statements go unchallenged from now on, right?

And I agree with you about what you say about fibre evidence as well.

[rashomon]

Someone wrote it was a crowbar, but I think this would have lacerated her scalp. It had to have been a blunt surface for JBs scalp not to lacerate. Delmar England believes the attack happened in the kitchen, and he thinks a skillet or heavy cutting board smashed with its blunt surface on JB'd head could have produced this kind of injury.
The rectangular piece of skull bone which broke off needn't have matched the weapon, but could just have broken off because this was the maximum point of impact from the blow.
I believe JB was yanked around and thrown against the bathtub.

[Athena]

Wow now Delmar is an expert on blunt force trauma. :rolleyes:

Hammers have been known to be used in closed head injuries so a wonderbar is just as possible if hit with the flat surface which is can be easily accomplished.

Rash -- I can't believe you are on this bathtub kick. The evidence does not show she was thrown into a bathtub. The evidence shows she was struck on the head with a massive blow.

[Athena]

Rash,

Here's some reading for you to do re: head injuries. Per the autopsy report JBR had a comminuted fracture (depressed) with a linear skull fracture:

Conclusion: There is an obvious diversity in opinions regarding the causation of the contrecoup injury. Its it the opinion of the author that the contrecoup is caused by a combination of brain displacement and rotational sheer force. The manner in which people fall and strike their head vary greatly. In instances where a victim falls directly backwards (as in an ice skating accident), the brain would become displaced, thus striking the opposite side of the skull due to the sudden velocity. The displaced cerebralspinal fluid would then act as a cushion upon impact, protecting the brain from the trauma of landing on a hard surface. Falling down a flight of stairs would produce a rotational movement of the body and skull. In these movements, the brain would move in a rotating manner within the skull, tearing blood vessels on the opposite side of the brain at the point of impact. This tearing would be produced by the sudden arrest of movement. Causation of the coup injury is consistent with the inbending of the skull at the point of impact. This “punch” is usually insufficient in force to cause contrecoup injury; therefore only a local contusion is found.

Knowledge of the various causations of these injuries is extremely helpful for investigators involved in head injury cases. Based upon information learned, criminal investigators can no longer categorize the coup injuries in the “fall versus blow” manner.
Blunt injuries are those without point or sharp edge, such as stick or club, bricks, stone and fist, etc.

Comminuted Fracture of the Skull
When violent force is applied to the skull, some part of skull may break into pieces or fragments to form comminuted fracture of the skull.

Comminuted fracture may develop by impact of one blow or repeated blows.

http://members.aol.com/SVG2254/coup_html.html

Brain contusions are especially difficult to analyze. The general rule is that trauma will be most severe on the opposite side of impact. This is because the brain floats around inside the head, but there may be what are called contrecoups where the pathway to brain trauma has to be reconstructed. Death results rapidly whenever a skull fracture is involved.

http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/425/425lect12.htm

Subdural hematoma aka subdural hemorrhageSubdural hematomas are usually the result of a serious head injury. When they occur in this way, it is called an "acute" subdural hematoma. Acute subdural hematomas are among the deadliest of all head injuries. The bleeding fills the brain area very rapidly, leaving little room for the brain, and are associated with brain injury.

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000713.htm

[rashomon]

Wow now Delmar is an expert on blunt force trauma. :rolleyes:
He gave quite an interesting description of the physical mechanics of the head injury.
Rash -- I can't believe you are on this bathtub kick. The evidence does not show she was thrown into a bathtub. The evidence shows she was struck on the head with a massive blow.
The evidence shows that her skull was cracked, nothing more. Where does it say it must have been a blow?
Of course it could have been a blow too, but how can it be ruled out that she was forcefully thrown against hard surface.

I don't believe she was thrown 'into' the bathtub, but that someone yanked her around and slammed her head against the bathtub rim. Yanking someone around can be done with tremendous force, especially if the person is in a rage.


Athena, thanks for your links about head injuries - very interesting!

[ralia]

He gave quite an interesting description of the physical mechanics of the head injury.

The evidence shows that her skull was cracked, nothing more. Where does it say it must have been a blow?
Of course it could have been a blow too, but how can it be ruled out that she was forcefully thrown against hard surface.

I don't believe she was thrown 'into' the bathtub, but that someone yanked her around and slammed her head against the bathtub rim. Yanking someone around can be done with tremendous force, especially if the person is in a rage.


Athena, thanks for your links about head injuries - very interesting!


Rash, IMO she couldn't have had slammed her head against a bathtub. Don't forget the scream heard from the basement meaning she was still alive, not bashed on the head (that would have made her immedately unconsious), not ducttapped at that very moment. I guess whatever happened, did happened in the basement and not upstairs.

[bullmoose]

Someone wrote it was a crowbar, but I think this would have lacerated her scalp. It had to have been a blunt surface for JBs scalp not to lacerate. Delmar England believes the attack happened in the kitchen, and he thinks a skillet or heavy cutting board smashed with its blunt surface on JB'd head could have produced this kind of injury.
The rectangular piece of skull bone which broke off needn't have matched the weapon, but could just have broken off because this was the maximum point of impact from the blow.
I believe JB was yanked around and thrown against the bathtub.
Delmar England---hmmmm, isn't that one of Steve Thomas' pen names, no,no, wait maybe it one of Tobers alter-egos, I can tell, the same scintillating vision of the crime. Evidence? We don't need no Stinking evidence around here!!!We have the Opinion of a GENIUS to work with. JMHO

[Miss Marple]

He gave quite an interesting description of the physical mechanics of the head injury.

The evidence shows that her skull was cracked, nothing more. Where does it say it must have been a blow?
Of course it could have been a blow too, but how can it be ruled out that she was forcefully thrown against hard surface.

I don't believe she was thrown 'into' the bathtub, but that someone yanked her around and slammed her head against the bathtub rim. Yanking someone around can be done with tremendous force, especially if the person is in a rage.

Please read Dave's analysis here: http://jonbenetramsey.pbwiki.com/Head%20Injuries#SevereHeadBlow
Maybe you and Delmar can jointly craft a response to explain where Dave went wrong in his analysis: he concludes the head blow cannot have been the result of being slammed against the tub no matter how appealing that picture may be in your own mind of how this killing went down.
Best wishes,
Miss Marple

[Athena]

He gave quite an interesting description of the physical mechanics of the head injury.

The evidence shows that her skull was cracked, nothing more. Where does it say it must have been a blow?
Of course it could have been a blow too, but how can it be ruled out that she was forcefully thrown against hard surface.

I don't believe she was thrown 'into' the bathtub, but that someone yanked her around and slammed her head against the bathtub rim. Yanking someone around can be done with tremendous force, especially if the person is in a rage.


Athena, thanks for your links about head injuries - very interesting!

You are very welcome. :)

It was a comminuted fracture (depressed). Please read the documentation I linked to. The only way a comminuted fracture is caused is by a blow with a blunt instrument and it left a rectangular shape in the skull where it was hit. I know I sent you alot to read but if it's too much to wade through right now just do a search for comminuted fracture or depressed fracture. The shape of where the skull was hit was rectangular.

From the autopsy report:

At the superior extension of the is area of hemorrhage is a linear to comminuted skull fracture which extends from the right occipital to posteroparietal area forward tot he right frontal area across the parietal skull.
In the posteroparietal area of this fracture is a roughly rectangular shaped displaced fragment of skull measuring one and three-quarters by one-half inch.

[Athena]

I have never thought the flashlight[I have never seen a maglite that was rubbercovered] was the murder weapon , the shape of the fracture does not match a flashlight, but does match certain crowbars.JMO

The only piece of rubber on our maglites are the switch that turns it off and on and in the middle there is some kind of gripper but I've never seen a rubber-coating on a maglite though I suppose you can buy rubber covers for them.

[rashomon]

Please read Dave's analysis here: http://jonbenetramsey.pbwiki.com/Head%20Injuries#SevereHeadBlow
Maybe you and Delmar can jointly craft a response to explain where Dave went wrong in his analysis: he concludes the head blow cannot have been the result of being slammed against the tub no matter how appealing that picture may be in your own mind of how this killing went down.
Best wishes,
Miss Marple
JFYI: it is not Delmar England's theory that JB was slammed against the bathtub. Do you always read posts so sloppily?
In terms of Dave's analysis: is this the same person who posts under a similar nick on Websleuths and under another on FFJ? If yes, I have had quite a few posting ecxchanges with him re the head blow and am familiar with his theory. Of course JB could have been struck with something.
The Dave in your link wrote that he assumes that in such a scenario, only JB's head was slammed against a hard surface and not her body? What does he mean by that? That Patsy took JB's head in her hands and slammed it against an object?
This would be a completely different situation from the point of physics than assuming Patsy yanked JB's whole body around and her head crashed against the bathtub.

[rashomon]

You are very welcome. :)

It was a comminuted fracture (depressed). Please read the documentation I linked to. The only way a comminuted fracture is caused is by a blow with a blunt instrument and it left a rectangular shape in the skull where it was hit. I know I sent you alot to read but if it's too much to wade through right now just do a search for comminuted fracture or depressed fracture. The shape of where the skull was hit was rectangular.

From the autopsy report:

At the superior extension of the is area of hemorrhage is a linear to comminuted skull fracture which extends from the right occipital to posteroparietal area forward tot he right frontal area across the parietal skull.
In the posteroparietal area of this fracture is a roughly rectangular shaped displaced fragment of skull measuring one and three-quarters by one-half inch.
It was "linear to commminuted" fracture. But there was no bone pushed into her brain tissue, was there?. It seems that the piece of bone was 'punched out'. Interesting that heavy large items can produce those depressed fractures too. abaseball bat is mentioned in the link.

from your link:
Linear fractures: This fracture has been regarded as the most common type of skull fracture (70%). Simply described, a linear fracture is usually a straight line fracture, generally radiating away from the point of impact. This is caused by the “outbending” effect upon the bone at the moment of impact. Once external force is applied to the bone, the exact point of impact will depress, which will cause the surrounding bone to bend outward. In most cases, the fracture will radiate toward weaker portions of the bone [1]. It has also been determined that fractures can be placed into their proper sequence. When bones fractures, it behaves similarly to glass. Fractures in bone will stop traveling once they encounter a pre-existing fracture. As a result, the numerous fractures which may appear on a murder victim’s skull could be placed into their proper sequence of occurrence [22].
Depressed fracture: The depressed skull fracture is regarded as an extremely serious injury. These fractures consist of portions of the bone being pushed into the brain tissue, or in some instances, “punched out”. An assault with a hammer may leave a depressed fracture, with an opening in the skull consistent with the diameter of the hammer. Larger depressive fractures can be obtained by using heavy larger items, such as baseball bats, stones, or similar items [1,3].
Comminuted fractures: The comminuted fracture is basically as shattering of the bone, much like a cracked eggshell. In fact, these fractures are commonly called “eggshell fractures” for this reason. They are received in the same manner as the depressed fracture. For example, repeated blows to a victim’s head with a hammer would produce a shattered skull. These fractures also cause severe injury to the brain due to the broken pieces of bone being pushed into the cranium [1,3].

JB's scalp was not lacerated, therefore it had to be a blunt and not a sharp and pointed object. "If" the reactangular piece of bone which was 'punched out' matched the diameter of the weapon, then it could not have been the rounded flashlight with which she was attacked (I never believed that the flashlight had been the weapon anyway - I think the Ramseys used it when rummaging through the basement looking for items like the cord and tape).

[Miss Marple]

JFYI: it is not Delmar England's theory that JB was slammed against the bathtub. Do you always read posts so sloppily?
In terms of Dave's analysis: is this the same person who posts under a similar nick on Websleuths and under another on FFJ? If yes, I have had quite a few posting ecxchanges with him re the head blow and am familiar with his theory. Of course JB could have been struck with something.
The Dave in your link wrote that he assumes that in such a scenario, only JB's head was slammed against a hard surface and not her body? What does he mean by that? That Patsy took JB's head in her hands and slammed it against an object?
This would be a completely different situation from the point of physics than assuming Patsy yanked JB's whole body around and her head crashed against the bathtub.

I stand corrected. Delmar offered a far more plausible theory than yours. Dave is NOT SuperDave at WS/FFJ. There's 2 reasons to assume only the head hit something. First, the relatively mild bruising on the body is not consistent with the speed/force of the head blow, so if the body had helped absorb the shock of being swung around, there should have been forensic evidence of this. But the second reason is more important. Assuming JUST the head hit an object provides the most optimistic assumptions needed to support your scenario (since as Dave pointed out, if the blow had been apportioned evenly across the body, the head would have received only 1/4 as much force). Yet even when Dave assumes ONLY the head absorbs the entire blow, he can't get up to the force that plausibly would knock our a chunk of the skull the way it did. It's far easier for ANY perp--male or female--to simply swing a weapon (rather than JBR's body) with sufficient speed (~100 mph) to create the necessary force.

I'm not sure how you picture Patsy yanking JBR's whole body around. Presumably you CAN'T mean swinging her by her arms since that wouldn't put the head in the right position to slam into tub. Do you think she was swung by her feet? The chief deficiency with imaging the BODY doing the moving is that I believe in any plausible body-swinging scenario--ESPECIALLY at the speed required to produce the force needed to punch out the skull, there would inevitably have been a contre-coup injury to the brain in which it bounced around in the skull. No evidence of such an injury was reported in the autopsy.
Best wishes,
Miss Marple

[rashomon]

Rash, IMO she couldn't have had slammed her head against a bathtub. Don't forget the scream heard from the basement meaning she was still alive, not bashed on the head (that would have made her immedately unconsious), not ducttapped at that very moment. I guess whatever happened, did happened in the basement and not upstairs.
The eyewitness testimony about the alleged cry sounds somewhat unreliable to me, especially if the cry came from the basement.
At what time did the neigbor claim to have heard a cry?
I believe JB was attacked upstairs by a blow to the head.

[rashomon]

I stand corrected. Delmar offered a far more plausible theory than yours. Dave is NOT SuperDave at WS/FFJ. There's 2 reasons to assume only the head hit something. First, the relatively mild bruising on the body is not consistent with the speed/force of the head blow, so if the body had helped absorb the shock of being swung around, there should have been forensic evidence of this. But the second reason is more important. Assuming JUST the head hit an object provides the most optimistic assumptions needed to support your scenario (since as Dave pointed out, if the blow had been apportioned evenly across the body, the head would have received only 1/4 as much force). Yet even when Dave assumes ONLY the head absorbs the entire blow, he can't get up to the force that plausibly would knock our a chunk of the skull the way it did. It's far easier for ANY perp--male or female--to simply swing a weapon (rather than JBR's body) with sufficient speed (~100 mph) to create the necessary force.

I'm not sure how you picture Patsy yanking JBR's whole body around. Presumably you CAN'T mean swinging her by her arms since that wouldn't put the head in the right position to slam into tub. Do you think she was swung by her feet? The chief deficiency with imaging the BODY doing the moving is that I believe in any plausible body-swinging scenario--ESPECIALLY at the speed required to produce the force needed to punch out the skull, there would inevitably have been a contre-coup injury to the brain in which it bounced around in the skull. No evidence of such an injury was reported in the autopsy.
Best wishes,
Miss Marple
MM: you are right - there are only very small signs of a possible contrecoup injury in the autopsy report:
"Only very minimal contusion is present at the tip of the left temporal lobe".
Whereas there was this large contusion on the right side of her skull, running along the fracture line.

This coupled with the info in your above post, it is indeed more likely that JB was struck on the head by someone wielding an object. But this would not rule out parental rage imo.

[rashomon]

So did the intruder also wear Patsy's Jacket?
Devilishly clever, that guy, wasn't he? Not only did he put on Patsy's jacket, but he also mimicked her handwriting to perfection. :D
It is inconceivable to me that the IDIs can be so blind to evidence which just hollers that Patsy was involved in the staging up to her neck.

[shill]

It is inconceivable to me that the IDIs can be so blind to evidence which just hollers that Patsy was involved in the staging up to her neck.
No wonder you think the DA and the GJ are all bought off by the Ramseys since it is inconceivable to you that they did not find anything you claim to be true and did not find any reason to bring them to trial.
You must be able to see in the dark to see things they don't see.

[shill]

That guy was very clever. I need to meet up with him, he could teach me some things! He was even nice enough to bring Jonbenet some panties!

Uh oh roshomon,
The BO is agreeing with you.

There goes any credibility you might have had!

[thewhitewitch1]

No wonder you think the DA and the GJ are all bought off by the Ramseys since it is inconceivable to you that they did not find anything you claim to be true and did not find any reason to bring them to trial.
You must be able to see in the dark to see things they don't see.

They weren't brought to trial only because there was not enough evidence to win a conviction. That's not the same thing as there being no evidence against them.

[shill]

They weren't brought to trial only because there was not enough evidence to win a conviction. That's not the same thing as there being no evidence against them.

Yes it is.

[Athena]

They weren't brought to trial only because there was not enough evidence to win a conviction. That's not the same thing as there being no evidence against them.

Let's start here:

The so-called evidence against them was circumstantial primarily because they lived in the home that the murder took place. There is not one fact that was proven in this case. Any inference of guilt must be consistent with proven facts and the evidence has to exclude a reasonable theory of innocence.

Every piece of circumstantial evidence thought to point to the Ramseys can be explained away and that is why they were not indicted. Fiber evidence found in one's home is the weakest circumstantial evidence possible. JMO

[bullmoose]

They weren't brought to trial only because there was not enough evidence to win a conviction. That's not the same thing as there being no evidence against them.Thats not quite true, is it tww1? They were not brought to trial because they were not indicted; they were not indicted because Synthroid Stevie and his Colorado Crime fighters were not able to bring enough convincing evidence to the Grand Jury that the Ramseys or anybody was even indictable. I do not consider the Twister's opinion of whodunnit to be evidence, apparently the GJ didn't either, huh?JMHO:biggrin:

[Athena]

It was "linear to commminuted" fracture. But there was no bone pushed into her brain tissue, was there?. It seems that the piece of bone was 'punched out'. Interesting that heavy large items can produce those depressed fractures too. abaseball bat is mentioned in the link.

from your link:
Linear fractures: This fracture has been regarded as the most common type of skull fracture (70%). Simply described, a linear fracture is usually a straight line fracture, generally radiating away from the point of impact. This is caused by the “outbending” effect upon the bone at the moment of impact. Once external force is applied to the bone, the exact point of impact will depress, which will cause the surrounding bone to bend outward. In most cases, the fracture will radiate toward weaker portions of the bone [1]. It has also been determined that fractures can be placed into their proper sequence. When bones fractures, it behaves similarly to glass. Fractures in bone will stop traveling once they encounter a pre-existing fracture. As a result, the numerous fractures which may appear on a murder victim’s skull could be placed into their proper sequence of occurrence [22].
Depressed fracture: The depressed skull fracture is regarded as an extremely serious injury. These fractures consist of portions of the bone being pushed into the brain tissue, or in some instances, “punched out”. An assault with a hammer may leave a depressed fracture, with an opening in the skull consistent with the diameter of the hammer. Larger depressive fractures can be obtained by using heavy larger items, such as baseball bats, stones, or similar items [1,3].
Comminuted fractures: The comminuted fracture is basically as shattering of the bone, much like a cracked eggshell. In fact, these fractures are commonly called “eggshell fractures” for this reason. They are received in the same manner as the depressed fracture. For example, repeated blows to a victim’s head with a hammer would produce a shattered skull. These fractures also cause severe injury to the brain due to the broken pieces of bone being pushed into the cranium [1,3].

JB's scalp was not lacerated, therefore it had to be a blunt and not a sharp and pointed object. "If" the reactangular piece of bone which was 'punched out' matched the diameter of the weapon, then it could not have been the rounded flashlight with which she was attacked (I never believed that the flashlight had been the weapon anyway - I think the Ramseys used it when rummaging through the basement looking for items like the cord and tape).

Other than your last sentence re: the Ramseys' use of the flashlight you do realize we agree re: the head injury. I'm presuming your post now means you no longer believe she hit her head on the bathtub?

[bullmoose]

Other than your last sentence re: the Ramseys' use of the flashlight you do realize we agree re: the head injury. I'm presuming your post now means you no longer believe she hit her head on the bathtub?I think that Rashie realized that bathtub theory wouldn't hold water.:biggrin:

[rashomon]

Uh oh roshomon,
The BO is agreeing with you.

There goes any credibility you might have had!
Unlike you, BO does not turn a blind eye to the evidence.

[rashomon]

Other than your last sentence re: the Ramseys' use of the flashlight you do realize we agree re: the head injury. I'm presuming your post now means you no longer believe she hit her head on the bathtub?
No, I no longer believe that now. But a blow to the head (with whatever object) would not rule out parental rage imo.

[rashomon]

I think that Rashie realized that bathtub theory wouldn't hold water.:biggrin:
I must admit that was a good one. I sure can take a good joke and had to laugh myself too.
Maybe there is hope for you, Bullie: you like to play the role of the resident jester here, but your jokes are always so lame they make me yawn. I know you don't read case files, but try at least not to bore us with your stale jokes which into the bargain have grown whiskers.

[Athena]

No, I no longer believe that now. But a blow to the head (with whatever object) would not rule out parental rage imo.

Funny because when I realized it couldn't have been a scenario where she hit her head that is one (of many) reasons why I did not believe there was a coverup to an accident. Yes parents do go into rages, and yes parents do kill their children and yes I do know there are first times for everything but in order for me to believe that a parent could hit a child with that much force I'd have to know what provoked it and I certainly don't believe it would be over a bedwetting incident. And then the strangling as well??? It just doesn't make sense to me.

[Sharon]

Let's start here:

The so-called evidence against them was circumstantial primarily because they lived in the home that the murder took place. There is not one fact that was proven in this case. Any inference of guilt must be consistent with proven facts and the evidence has to exclude a reasonable theory of innocence.

Every piece of circumstantial evidence thought to point to the Ramseys can be explained away and that is why they were not indicted. Fiber evidence found in one's home is the weakest circumstantial evidence possible. JMO

I agree 100%.
Now I understand how those guys who first realised that the world was round felt (ie. no its flat, I just know it is blah blah blah)!!!! Being here is a bit like being in a paralel universe where people have so much faith in their decision that evidence no longer matters one way or the other.

I particularly love how one minute JBR is accidentaly killed for a syndrome that doesnt exist (except in this one case) and the garrot is mearly put on her for effect, so one might be excused for thinking that it was almost done in a loving way, because she was gone anyway, and it was in everyone`s best interests for the parents to do this. BUT, when the autopsy shows she was actually strangled, instead of reconsidering the parents involvement, no, we get a new type of parent. Its like seeing a dog with a bone and they wont let go. So now we have parents who actively strangled their (much loved) daughter because thats what you do when you accidently hurt your child. Even though it is unheard of for parents to strangle their hurt children as an alternative to trying to save them, our R. are now the first and only to wear this cap. Oh, except that the head bash wasnt an accident...ummmm....ok, well they still did it, because one of them went into a ferosious rage, like the hulk and lost all control and really gave it to her, using strength that this parent would not be capible of but for the hystericle rage...explained by the `one case syndrome` toileting rage.

It really is like my own little J. Springer show here sometimes. jmo

[createthis]

:beer: :beer: :beer: I agree 100%.
Now I understand how those guys who first realised that the world was round felt (ie. no its flat, I just know it is blah blah blah)!!!! Being here is a bit like being in a paralel universe where people have so much faith in their decision that evidence no longer matters one way or the other.

I particularly love how one minute JBR is accidentaly killed for a syndrome that doesnt exist (except in this one case) and the garrot is mearly put on her for effect, so one might be excused for thinking that it was almost done in a loving way, because she was gone anyway, and it was in everyone`s best interests for the parents to do this. BUT, when the autopsy shows she was actually strangled, instead of reconsidering the parents involvement, no, we get a new type of parent. Its like seeing a dog with a bone and they wont let go. So now we have parents who actively strangled their (much loved) daughter because thats what you do when you accidently hurt your child. Even though it is unheard of for parents to strangle their hurt children as an alternative to trying to save them, our R. are now the first and only to wear this cap. Oh, except that the head bash wasnt an accident...ummmm....ok, well they still did it, because one of them went into a ferosious rage, like the hulk and lost all control and really gave it to her, using strength that this parent would not be capible of but for the hystericle rage...explained by the `one case syndrome` toileting rage.

It really is like my own little J. Springer show here sometimes. jmo