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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Eagle1

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]

Originally Posted by Tober

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]

Originally Posted by Tober

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

[ralia]

Originally Posted by 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

"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]

Originally Posted by ralia

"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

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally Posted by Zoey

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]

Originally Posted by thewhitewitch1

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

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

[Tober]

Originally Posted by Eagle1

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]

Originally Posted by Tober

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? JMHO

[ralia]

Originally Posted by bullmoose

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

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]

Originally Posted by ralia

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]

Originally Posted by ralia

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

[Athena]

Originally Posted by 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)

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]

Originally Posted by Athena

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]

Originally Posted by Tober

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]

Originally Posted by Athena

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]

Originally Posted by Tober

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? JMHO

[Athena]

Originally Posted by Tober

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]

Originally Posted by 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)

The Ramsey’s flashlight is not in evidence, so your making things up as usual.

[bullmoose]

Originally Posted by 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)

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

[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]

Originally Posted by 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)

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]

Originally Posted by 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)

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

[Athena]

Originally Posted by 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)

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by shill

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[bullmoose]

Originally Posted by thewhitewitch1

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

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally Posted by bullmoose

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

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.
IMO

[bullmoose]

Originally Posted by thewhitewitch1

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.
IMO

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

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally Posted by bullmoose

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

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.