JBR: No Fingerprints on the Maglite *or* the Batteries
Harvey Nehgila
Ramseys' kitchen
By Charlie Brennan
News Staff Writer
_________________________________________________________________
A flashlight that might have been used to smash JonBenet Ramsey's
skull showed no fingerprints, even on its batteries.
The Colorado Bureau of Investigation found no prints on the
police-style flashlight, which was in the Ramseys' kitchen, but that
may have limited significance, a law enforcement source said Friday.
That's because almost two years into the investigation police are
still unsure what caused the 81/2-inch fracture along the right side
of the child's skull.
A broadcast report Friday raised the possibility that the batteries
were free of fingerprints or residue because they were wiped clean.
But law enforcement sources did not confirm such a conclusion.
If the batteries were wiped, they might not be the first piece of
evidence to have been sanitized. Boulder County Coroner John Meyer,
who conducted the autopsy on 6-year-old JonBenet, said the child's
pubic area showed evidence consistent with having been wiped by a
cloth.
JonBenet was found in her parents' basement the afternoon of Dec. 26,
1996, about seven hours after her mother reported finding a ransom
note demanding $118,000 for her safe return.
Although forensic pathologists have said the blow to her head could
have proved fatal on its own, Meyer determined her death was caused by
being strangled with a garrote.
Former FBI profiler Gregg McCrary, who has followed the case closely,
was not surprised that fingerprints were not found on the flashlight.
Rough or textured surfaces don't easily retain fingerprints.
The batteries are another story.
"That's a little more suspicious," McCrary said. "By their nature,
batteries would be a better surface on which to leave fingerprints
because they're typically shiny and smooth."
If the flashlight was used to strike a blow to JonBenet's head, and if
the killer had taken the time to wipe down the batteries, McCrary
thinks that would support his suspicion that the crime was committed
by someone close to the family.
"An intruder would have spent very little time in the house," McCrary
said. "They'd want to put as much time and distance between themselves
and the crime scene as possible.
"Why not just take the flashlight with you, if you want to get rid of
it? To wipe down batteries is just not consistent with an intruder."
A Boulder grand jury has been hearing evidence in the case since Sept.
15.
(c) Copyright, Denver Publishing Co.
JBrown6000
<< Former FBI profiler Gregg McCrary, who has followed the case closely,
was not surprised that fingerprints were not found on the flashlight.
Rough or textured surfaces don't easily retain fingerprints.
The batteries are another story.
"That's a little more suspicious," McCrary said. "By their nature,
batteries would be a better surface on which to leave fingerprints
because they're typically shiny and smooth."
If the flashlight was used to strike a blow to JonBenet's head, and if
the killer had taken the time to wipe down the batteries, McCrary
thinks that would support his suspicion that the crime was committed
by someone close to the family.
"An intruder would have spent very little time in the house," McCrary
said. "They'd want to put as much time and distance between themselves
and the crime scene as possible.
"Why not just take the flashlight with you, if you want to get rid of
it? To wipe down batteries is just not consistent with an intruder."
**Sounds just the opposite to me.
If the flashlight belonged to the Ramsey's why would they care if their
fingerprints were on it? It makes more sense, in light of the news that there
were no prints on the batteries, that the batteries were inserted, and the
flashlight handled, by someone wearing gloves. And if you can effectively
"wipe" a flashlight, removing signs that it was used in the commission of the
crime, why not just put it with other tools or something. Why would they leave
it on the kitchen counter? Doesn't make any sense.
jb
Maggie8097
<< Former FBI profiler Gregg McCrary, who has followed the case closely,
was not surprised that fingerprints were not found on the flashlight.
Rough or textured surfaces don't easily retain fingerprints.
The batteries are another story.
"That's a little more suspicious," McCrary said. "By their nature,
batteries would be a better surface on which to leave fingerprints
because they're typically shiny and smooth."
If the flashlight was used to strike a blow to JonBenet's head, and if
the killer had taken the time to wipe down the batteries, McCrary
thinks that would support his suspicion that the crime was committed
by someone close to the family.
"An intruder would have spent very little time in the house," McCrary
said. "They'd want to put as much time and distance between themselves
and the crime scene as possible.
"Why not just take the flashlight with you, if you want to get rid of
it? To wipe down batteries is just not consistent with an intruder."
jb says:
**Sounds just the opposite to me.
If the flashlight belonged to the Ramsey's why would they care if their
fingerprints were on it? It makes more sense, in light of the news that there
were no prints on the batteries, that the batteries were inserted, and the
flashlight handled, by someone wearing gloves. And if you can effectively
"wipe" a flashlight, removing signs that it was used in the commission of the
crime, why not just put it with other tools or something. Why would they leave
it on the kitchen counter? Doesn't make any sense.
***How about this one?
Big storm. Power outtage for several hours. Flashlight batteries fail, new
ones must be inserted. But it's cold in the house because the furnace blowers
are electric. Everyone's wearing gloves. John, or Patsy or Burke gets the new
batteries and puts them in--viola--no fingerprints on the batteries.
Maggie
"Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."
John F. Kennedy
CBofGDALE
right there is proof to me the parents did it because they said they read the
note but there was no fingerprints on it.
Halle 8
>If the flashlight belonged to the Ramsey's why would they care if their
>fingerprints were on it?
There might have been more concern about blood on the handle.
It makes more sense, in light of the news that
>there
>were no prints on the batteries, that the batteries were inserted, and the
>flashlight handled, by someone wearing gloves.
Except fingerprints would have gotten on there at some point prior to the
person donning gloves.
>And if you can effectively
>"wipe" a flashlight, removing signs that it was used in the commission of the
>crime, why not just put it with other tools or something.
It might have had blood or other evidence on it.
Why would they
>leave
>it on the kitchen counter? Doesn't make any sense.
>
>jb
Why would you have sayed and cleaned it up if you were the intruder? Why not
just take it with you?
On the other hand, what would you have done with it if you were Patsy Ramsey?
It's possible she used the flashlight in the commission of the crime and,
afterwards, was worried that it contained traces of blood or other forensic
material. She had no place to dispose of it, not being able to leave the house
without attracting John's attention. So she washed it off thoroughly in the
kitchen. It occurred to her that the batteries might link the flashlight to her
or her family through fingerprints, so she washed those off, too. What else
could she do?
If John had been involved, they could have simply bundled up any incriminating
evidence and taken it to a dumpster -- he could have driven or taken a walk
over to Baseline Road or to that big street near their house where the mall is.
The university is not far away, either -- plenty of dumpsters all around. The
flashlight is one more piece of evidence that indicates to me that Patsy did it
alone. She couldn't leave the house by car without waking John or on foot
without risking him waking up and discovering her gone, which would be
difficult to explain on the morning when their daughter is found dead. So she
carefully removed the fingerprints from the flashlight and left it right on the
kitchen counter.
Halle
JBrown6000
<<***How about this one?
Big storm. Power outtage for several hours. Flashlight batteries fail, new
ones must be inserted. But it's cold in the house because the furnace blowers
are electric. Everyone's wearing gloves. John, or Patsy or Burke gets the new
batteries and puts them in--viola--no fingerprints on the batteries.
**Yeah, sure. Let's get that pack of batteries open and get that flashlight
taken apart with heavy WARM gloves on. Sounds pretty stupid.
jb
JBrown6000
<<>**Sounds just the opposite to me.
>If the flashlight belonged to the Ramsey's why would they care if their
>fingerprints were on it?
There might have been more concern about blood on the handle.
It makes more sense, in light of the news that
>there
>were no prints on the batteries, that the batteries were inserted, and the
>flashlight handled, by someone wearing gloves.
Except fingerprints would have gotten on there at some point prior to the
person donning gloves.
>And if you can effectively
>"wipe" a flashlight, removing signs that it was used in the commission of the
>crime, why not just put it with other tools or something.
It might have had blood or other evidence on it.
Why would they
>leave
>it on the kitchen counter? Doesn't make any sense.
>
>jb
Why would you have sayed and cleaned it up if you were the intruder? Why not
just take it with you?
**Why not, indeed. Maybe it's a red herring?
On the other hand, what would you have done with it if you were Patsy Ramsey?
It's possible she used the flashlight in the commission of the crime and,
afterwards, was worried that it contained traces of blood or other forensic
material. She had no place to dispose of it, not being able to leave the house
without attracting John's attention. So she washed it off thoroughly in the
kitchen. It occurred to her that the batteries might link the flashlight to her
or her family through fingerprints, so she washed those off, too. What else
could she do?
**She kills her daughter in a rage, then calmly takes apart a flashlight and
removes all traces of fingerprints. She washes it clean of blood (can you do
that?) and then leaves it in plain sight on the kitchen counter. Yep, sounds
right to me :)
<<If John had been involved, they could have simply bundled up any
incriminating
evidence and taken it to a dumpster -- he could have driven or taken a walk
over to Baseline Road or to that big street near their house where the mall is.
The university is not far away, either -- plenty of dumpsters all around. The
flashlight is one more piece of evidence that indicates to me that Patsy did it
alone. She couldn't leave the house by car without waking John or on foot
without risking him waking up and discovering her gone, which would be
difficult to explain on the morning when their daughter is found dead. So she
carefully removed the fingerprints from the flashlight and left it right on the
kitchen counter.
**If she can brutalize her daughter, stage a crime scence, and write a 3 page
ransom note without fear, she can certainly dispose of the murder weapon after
removing all fingerprints, yes?
jb
JBrown6000
<<So you're saying that someone came into the house with batteries but
no flashlight, found the Ramseys' flashlight empty of batteries,
popped his own batteries into it, then bashed in JonBenet's head, took
time to wipe any trace evidence off the flashlight, and replaced it
neatly?
**Huh? Has it been proven conclusively that it was, indeed, their flashlight?
jb
JBrown6000
**Except that paper is a notoriously bad medium for obtaining usable
fingerprints.
But, was there not some mention of a partial palmprint? Was that on the note?
jb
Martha Sprowles
>
> >**Sounds just the opposite to me.
> >If the flashlight belonged to the Ramsey's why would they care if their
> >fingerprints were on it?
>
> There might have been more concern about blood on the handle.
>
> It makes more sense, in light of the news that
> >there
> >were no prints on the batteries, that the batteries were inserted, and the
> >flashlight handled, by someone wearing gloves.
>
> Except fingerprints would have gotten on there at some point prior to the
> person donning gloves.
>
> >And if you can effectively
> >"wipe" a flashlight, removing signs that it was used in the commission of the
> >crime, why not just put it with other tools or something.
>
> It might have had blood or other evidence on it.
>
> Why would they
> >leave
> >it on the kitchen counter? Doesn't make any sense.
> >
> >jb
>
> Why would you have sayed and cleaned it up if you were the intruder? Why not
> just take it with you?
>
>
> It's possible she used the flashlight in the commission of the crime and,
> afterwards, was worried that it contained traces of blood or other forensic
> material. She had no place to dispose of it, not being able to leave the house
> without attracting John's attention. So she washed it off thoroughly in the
> kitchen. It occurred to her that the batteries might link the flashlight to her
> or her family through fingerprints, so she washed those off, too. What else
> could she do?
>
> evidence and taken it to a dumpster -- he could have driven or taken a walk
> over to Baseline Road or to that big street near their house where the mall is.
> The university is not far away, either -- plenty of dumpsters all around. The
> flashlight is one more piece of evidence that indicates to me that Patsy did it
> alone. She couldn't leave the house by car without waking John or on foot
> without risking him waking up and discovering her gone, which would be
> difficult to explain on the morning when their daughter is found dead. So she
> carefully removed the fingerprints from the flashlight and left it right on the
> kitchen counter.
>
I like the idea of the flashlight's being washed off in the kitchen
sink, and maybe Patsy intended to put it away but was interrupted by
something or someone? But no fingerprints on the batteries really does
puzzle me. As you say, there should have been fingerprints on the
batteries at some point--why would they have been cleaned? Is it
possible that the blow was so hard that the flashlight popped open, and
the perp picked up the batteries? Or could the batteries themselves
have had forensic evidence on them?
Martha
JBrown6000
<<I like the idea of the flashlight's being washed off in the kitchen
sink, and maybe Patsy intended to put it away but was interrupted by
something or someone? But no fingerprints on the batteries really does
puzzle me. As you say, there should have been fingerprints on the
batteries at some point--why would they have been cleaned? Is it
possible that the blow was so hard that the flashlight popped open, and
the perp picked up the batteries? Or could the batteries themselves
have had forensic evidence on them?
**Well, you've raised some questions. Why not elaborate? WHO or WHAT would
have interrupted her at such an important task that she would forget what she
was doing and the importance of the removal of such an important item.
According to you, she had invested an enormous amount of thought in the
staging.
What possible forensic evidence could be on the batteries (aside from
fingerprints)?
jb
Martha Sprowles
Whoa, nelly. I don't think she "invested an enormous amount of thought"
into anything. I think this was an accident, the result of a sudden,
murderous rage fueled by stress and alcohol. After the fact, of
*course* she (or whoever) would wash off the weapon. Wouldn't you?
I can think of numerous interruptions--John or Burke waking up, for
instance--but the main deal is that the flashlight is clean. Letting
the cops find the flashlight was never a concern. She might not even
have *been* interrupted--after all, why shouldn't her flashlight be in
her kitchen?--but it seemed to me an odd place for a flashlight, and I
think Halle's suggestion of its being washed is a good one.
>
> What possible forensic evidence could be on the batteries (aside from
> fingerprints)?
As I suggested, maybe the blow(s) was/were strong enough to dislodge the
cover, and the batteries fell out, perhaps picking up evidence? Or
maybe Patsy (or whoever) simply didn't want his/her fingerprints, along
with any traces of anything, on the batteries as he/she replaced them.
>
> jb
Maggie8097
<<***How about this one?
Big storm. Power outtage for several hours. Flashlight batteries fail, new
ones must be inserted. But it's cold in the house because the furnace blowers
are electric. Everyone's wearing gloves. John, or Patsy or Burke gets the new
batteries and puts them in--viola--no fingerprints on the batteries.
jb says:
**Yeah, sure. Let's get that pack of batteries open and get that flashlight
taken apart with heavy WARM gloves on. Sounds pretty stupid.
***Do you have a better explanation for why there were no prints on those
batteries?
Halle 8
Perhaps John Ramsey identified it as theirs the morning the detectives came
over, in which case the lack of fingerprints would be even more incriminating
and maybe that's part of the issue.
If John, Patsy, Burke, Andrew, and Melinda and any and all neighbors, friends,
and other family members all have denied that the flashlight belonged to the
Ramseys or that they, in their recollection, had never seen it, that would make
the lack of fingerprints obviously less incriminating, but the need to explain
why an intruder would take the time to wipe off fingerprints rather than
dispose of it elsewhere still remains.
Halle
Halle 8
>Why would you have sayed and cleaned it up if you were the intruder? Why not
>just take it with you?
jb:
>**Why not, indeed. Maybe it's a red herring?
But why?
Halle:
>On the other hand, what would you have done with it if you were Patsy Ramsey?
>
>It's possible she used the flashlight in the commission of the crime and,
>afterwards, was worried that it contained traces of blood or other forensic
>material. She had no place to dispose of it, not being able to leave the
>house
>without attracting John's attention. So she washed it off thoroughly in the
>kitchen. It occurred to her that the batteries might link the flashlight to
>her
>or her family through fingerprints, so she washed those off, too. What else
>could she do?
jb:
>**She kills her daughter in a rage, then calmly takes apart a flashlight and
>removes all traces of fingerprints. She washes it clean of blood (can you do
>that?)
Can an intruder?
and then leaves it in plain sight on the kitchen counter. Yep, sounds
>right to me :)
What else could she do with it?
><<If John had been involved, they could have simply bundled up any
>incriminating
>evidence and taken it to a dumpster -- he could have driven or taken a walk
>over to Baseline Road or to that big street near their house where the mall
>is.
>The university is not far away, either -- plenty of dumpsters all around. The
>flashlight is one more piece of evidence that indicates to me that Patsy did
>it
>alone. She couldn't leave the house by car without waking John or on foot
>without risking him waking up and discovering her gone, which would be
>difficult to explain on the morning when their daughter is found dead. So she
>carefully removed the fingerprints from the flashlight and left it right on
>the
>kitchen counter.
>
>**If she can brutalize her daughter, stage a crime scence, and write a 3 page
>ransom note without fear, she can certainly dispose of the murder weapon
>after
>removing all fingerprints, yes?
Not if she's trying to do it all without John's knowledge or discovering her
mysteriously missing the morning their daughter is murdered. She's stuck with
cleaning it up the best she can and hoping it doesn't incriminate her
forensically.
Halle
Halle 8
>fingerprints)?
>
Bloody fingerprints
Halle
GMSpider
In article <19981108141607...@ng149.aol.com>,
jbrow...@aol.combyte-me (JBrown6000) writes:
>**If she can brutalize her daughter, stage a crime scence, and write a 3 page
>ransom note without fear, she can certainly dispose of the murder weapon
>after
>removing all fingerprints, yes?
>
>jb
Who ever proved that the flashlight was the murder weapon? That was a
tabloid story.
Grandmother Spider
Visit the Girl Gang Web Pages at
http://members.aol.com/gmspider/index.html
Halle 8
>
><<***How about this one?
>
>Big storm. Power outtage for several hours. Flashlight batteries fail, new
>ones must be inserted. But it's cold in the house because the furnace
>blowers
>are electric. Everyone's wearing gloves. John, or Patsy or Burke gets the
>new
>batteries and puts them in--viola--no fingerprints on the batteries.
>
>jb says:
>**Yeah, sure. Let's get that pack of batteries open and get that flashlight
>taken apart with heavy WARM gloves on. Sounds pretty stupid.
>
>***Do you have a better explanation for why there were no prints on those
>batteries?
>
>
>Maggie
Patsy washed them off, still trying to maintain the kidnapper illusion. The
flashlight was used in the crime, she was trying to make it look like an
intruder did the crime, and yet although she could wipe off the fingerprints
and possibly blood on the surface of the flashlight, there were still the
battery fingerprints linking it to her. It could be that she had to insert new
batteries that night, since she couldn't turn on all the house lights while
carrying a dead body around, and thus the need to be sure they were clean (I
think it's the possibility of blood or JBR's body fluids on the fingerprints
that concerned her).
Halle
Halle 8
>
><<I like the idea of the flashlight's being washed off in the kitchen
>sink, and maybe Patsy intended to put it away but was interrupted by
>something or someone? But no fingerprints on the batteries really does
>puzzle me. As you say, there should have been fingerprints on the
>batteries at some point--why would they have been cleaned? Is it
>possible that the blow was so hard that the flashlight popped open, and
>the perp picked up the batteries? Or could the batteries themselves
>have had forensic evidence on them?
>
>**Well, you've raised some questions. Why not elaborate? WHO or WHAT would
>have interrupted her at such an important task that she would forget what she
>was doing and the importance of the removal of such an important item.
John waking up
>What possible forensic evidence could be on the batteries (aside from
>fingerprints)?
>
>jb
Depends on when she loaded the batteries.
Also, depends on whether she thought she could make people think it was the
intruder's flashlight, mistakenly left behind.
Halle
JBrown6000
<<If John, Patsy, Burke, Andrew, and Melinda and any and all neighbors,
friends,
and other family members all have denied that the flashlight belonged to the
Ramseys or that they, in their recollection, had never seen it, that would make
the lack of fingerprints obviously less incriminating, but the need to explain
why an intruder would take the time to wipe off fingerprints rather than
dispose of it elsewhere still remains.
**Why bother. It had no fingerprints.
JBrown6000
<<***How about this one?
Big storm. Power outtage for several hours. Flashlight batteries fail, new
ones must be inserted. But it's cold in the house because the furnace blowers
are electric. Everyone's wearing gloves. John, or Patsy or Burke gets the new
batteries and puts them in--viola--no fingerprints on the batteries.
jb says:
**Yeah, sure. Let's get that pack of batteries open and get that flashlight
taken apart with heavy WARM gloves on. Sounds pretty stupid.
Maggie replies:
***Do you have a better explanation for why there were no prints on those
batteries?
**Yep. And I've already posted it. Gloves.
But not the warm kind. The don't-leave-fingerprints kind.
JBrown6000
>**She kills her daughter in a rage, then calmly takes apart a flashlight and
>removes all traces of fingerprints. She washes it clean of blood (can you do
>that?)
Halle says:
Can an intruder?
**Actually, I didn't think ANYBODY could. I thought there was some sort of
chemical that can show the prior presence of blood (Luminol?) even if it's been
washed off.
jb
Kris Baker
>>What possible forensic evidence could be on the batteries
>>(aside from fingerprints)?
>>jb
LACK of something that SHOULD be there (ie, fingerprints
on batteries) would be forensic evidence.
>Depends on when she loaded the batteries.
>Also, depends on whether she thought she could make people think
>it was the intruder's flashlight, mistakenly left behind.
>Halle
Halle, wasn't there discussion (or a report?) stating that the
perpetrator had worn some sort of latex glove(s) during the
commission of the crime? If so, the batteries could have been
loaded (or washed down afterwards) using the same gloves -
voila, no fingerprints!
Kris
JBrown6000
<<
Who ever proved that the flashlight was the murder weapon? That was a
tabloid story.
**It doesn't seem likely to me either.
jb
Halle 8
But with no fingerprints, what would it matter?
Halle
Halle 8
Who here said it was the murder weapon?
Halle
Halle 8
Is this the same intruder who was so well organized that, in your scenario,
they forgot to bring a ransom note and had to compose it on Patsy's legal pad
and with her pen?
Halle
Halle 8
>
>>>What possible forensic evidence could be on the batteries
>>>(aside from fingerprints)?
>>>jb
>
> LACK of something that SHOULD be there (ie, fingerprints
> on batteries) would be forensic evidence.
Well, lack of fingerprints on batteries is certainly telling. Wasn't there a
report that the Ramseys claimed the flashlight as theirs?
>>Depends on when she loaded the batteries.
>>Also, depends on whether she thought she could make people think
>>it was the intruder's flashlight, mistakenly left behind.
>>Halle
>
> Halle, wasn't there discussion (or a report?) stating that the
> perpetrator had worn some sort of latex glove(s) during the
> commission of the crime?
I think that was a conjecture based on that material (talc) found in JBR's
vagina.
If so, the batteries could have been
> loaded (or washed down afterwards) using the same gloves -
> voila, no fingerprints!
It seems that the flsahlight and batteries would have had to have gotten
fingerprints on them at some time in their lives even if the perpetrator wore
gloves during the actual crime. The lack of any fingerprints at all would seem
to me to indicate the items had been washed.
Halle
>Kris
Halle 8
Why leave the flashlight there?
Halle
GMSpider
In article <19981108194427...@ng68.aol.com>, hal...@aol.com (Halle
8) writes:
If it is not the murder weapon then who cares whether or not there are
fingerprints, blood or anything else on the flashlight. It's just a flashlight.
Halle 8
>In article <19981108194427...@ng68.aol.com>, hal...@aol.com
>(Halle
>8) writes:
>
>>>g'ma says:
>>>
>>><<
>>>
>>>Who ever proved that the flashlight was the murder weapon? That was a
>>>tabloid story.
>>>
>>>**It doesn't seem likely to me either.
>>>
>>>jb
>>
>>Who here said it was the murder weapon?
>>
>>Halle
>>
>>
>If it is not the murder weapon then who cares whether or not there are
>fingerprints, blood or anything else on the flashlight. It's just a
>flashlight.
>
>Grandmother Spider
Wel, it could have been used some other way in the commission of the crime, not
just to whack her on the head. It could be that it was used only to light the
way from the bedroom to the basement and to provide light for writing the
ransom note and picked up incriminating fingerprints that way.
On the other hand, it might not have been used in the crime at all, other than
to provide yet another flase clue pointing to an intruder. Ransom note, open
window, and flashlight -- that's pretty complete. But to have it appear as if
the intruder left it behind, it and the batteries inside would have to be
thoroughly cleaned of prints. I tend to think this is why it was left there --
more intruder staging.
Halle
Halle 8
>not
>just to whack her on the head. It could be that it was used only to light the
>way from the bedroom to the basement and to provide light for writing the
>ransom note and picked up incriminating fingerprints that way.
>
>On the other hand, it might not have been used in the crime at all, other
>than
>to provide yet another flase clue pointing to an intruder. Ransom note, open
>window, and flashlight -- that's pretty complete. But to have it appear as if
>the intruder left it behind, it and the batteries inside would have to be
>thoroughly cleaned of prints. I tend to think this is why it was left there
>--
>more intruder staging.
>
>Halle
Actually, come to think of it, I think it was used for lighting and then
cleaned up to help stage the intruder. On the other hand, if it belonged to the
Ramseys, I wonder why the outside only wasn't cleaned and it put back in its
place as if nothing had happened. It could be that in the rush to finish the
job, it was accidentally left on the kitchen counter. I think that if Patsy had
been able to start up the car and disappear for a while, that and the
paintbrush handle and a few other things would have disappeared into a
dumpster. An intruder would have had the common sense and opportunity to take
it when he left.
Halle
JBrown6000
>>removes all traces of fingerprints. She washes it clean of blood (can you
>do
>>that?)
>
>Halle says:
>
>Can an intruder?
>
>**Actually, I didn't think ANYBODY could. I thought there was some sort of
>chemical that can show the prior presence of blood (Luminol?) even if it's
>been
>washed off.
>
>
>jb
Halle says:
But with no fingerprints, what would it matter?
**I don't get your point. If there's no fingerprints then it wouldn't matter
if there's blood on it? What are you trying to say?
Maggie8097
>>**She kills her daughter in a rage, then calmly takes apart a flashlight and
>>removes all traces of fingerprints. She washes it clean of blood (can you
>do
>>that?)
>
>Halle says:
>
>Can an intruder?
>
>**Actually, I didn't think ANYBODY could. I thought there was some sort of
>chemical that can show the prior presence of blood (Luminol?) even if it's
>been
>washed off.
***The head wound didn't bleed. There was no blood.
Halle 8
>and
>>>removes all traces of fingerprints. She washes it clean of blood (can you
>>do
>>>that?)
>>
>>Halle says:
>>
>>Can an intruder?
>>
>>**Actually, I didn't think ANYBODY could. I thought there was some sort of
>>chemical that can show the prior presence of blood (Luminol?) even if it's
>>been
>>washed off.
>>
>>
>
>Halle says:
>
>But with no fingerprints, what would it matter?
>
>**I don't get your point. If there's no fingerprints then it wouldn't matter
>if there's blood on it? What are you trying to say?
Yes, jb. If there are no fingerprints, then what does it matter if there is
blood on it. The blood alone can't identify the perpetrator. So what's your
point about luminol? Especially if that mythical intruder has been wearing
gloves the whole time?
Halle
Maggie8097
Actually, come to think of it, I think it was used for lighting and then
cleaned up to help stage the intruder. On the other hand, if it belonged to the
Ramseys, I wonder why the outside only wasn't cleaned and it put back in its
place as if nothing had happened. It could be that in the rush to finish the
job, it was accidentally left on the kitchen counter. I think that if Patsy had
been able to start up the car and disappear for a while, that and the
paintbrush handle and a few other things would have disappeared into a
dumpster. An intruder would have had the common sense and opportunity to take
it when he left.
***And in the dog that didn't bark category....don't you think that if you woke
up one morning to find your daughter kidnapped and a large flashlight that
didn't belong to you sitting on your kitchen counter, you might mention it to
the police as soon as they arrived?
In all the stories I have read about the flashlight, it is mentioned that no
one knows if the Ramseys have actually denied ownership.
Maggie8097
>
><<***How about this one?
>
>Big storm. Power outtage for several hours. Flashlight batteries fail, new
>ones must be inserted. But it's cold in the house because the furnace
>blowers
>are electric. Everyone's wearing gloves. John, or Patsy or Burke gets the
>new
>batteries and puts them in--viola--no fingerprints on the batteries.
>
>jb says:
>**Yeah, sure. Let's get that pack of batteries open and get that flashlight
>taken apart with heavy WARM gloves on. Sounds pretty stupid.
>
>***Do you have a better explanation for why there were no prints on those
>batteries?
Halle said:
Patsy washed them off, still trying to maintain the kidnapper illusion. The
flashlight was used in the crime, she was trying to make it look like an
intruder did the crime, and yet although she could wipe off the fingerprints
and possibly blood on the surface of the flashlight, there were still the
battery fingerprints linking it to her. It could be that she had to insert new
batteries that night, since she couldn't turn on all the house lights while
carrying a dead body around, and thus the need to be sure they were clean (I
think it's the possibility of blood or JBR's body fluids on the fingerprints
that concerned her).
***But the head wound didn't bleed--ergo, no blood on the flashlight.
And I find it exceedingly hard to believe that the same person who leaves a
three page handwriting sample and is totally clueless about how to write a
ransom note, would be clever enough to wipe off flashlight batteries. Whether
it's Patsy or an intruder, it just seems very, very odd.
Halle 8
You get me wrong. I don't think wiping off the batteries was clever; I think it
was unnecessary and paranoid. Sort of like the epic-length ransom note and the
overkill of everything else.
Halle
Halle 8
>Actually, come to think of it, I think it was used for lighting and then
>cleaned up to help stage the intruder. On the other hand, if it belonged to
>the
>Ramseys, I wonder why the outside only wasn't cleaned and it put back in its
>place as if nothing had happened. It could be that in the rush to finish the
>job, it was accidentally left on the kitchen counter. I think that if Patsy
>had
>been able to start up the car and disappear for a while, that and the
>paintbrush handle and a few other things would have disappeared into a
>dumpster. An intruder would have had the common sense and opportunity to take
>it when he left.
>
>***And in the dog that didn't bark category....don't you think that if you
>woke
>up one morning to find your daughter kidnapped and a large flashlight that
>didn't belong to you sitting on your kitchen counter, you might mention it to
>the police as soon as they arrived?
I am only assuming that the flashlight belonged to them, because all
investigators would need would be a positive identification by the houeskeeper,
baby sitter, the Ramsey children, relatives, friends, and neighbors, or even
John or Patsy themselves to eliminate an intuder as the owner. And since the
parents remain the prime suspects, I think it's safe to assume they owned the
flashlight.
So why, if it belonged to the Ramseys, were the batteries cleaned?
Halle 8
>>>**She kills her daughter in a rage, then calmly takes apart a flashlight
>and
>>>removes all traces of fingerprints. She washes it clean of blood (can you
>>do
>>>that?)
>>
>>Halle says:
>>
>>Can an intruder?
>>
>>**Actually, I didn't think ANYBODY could. I thought there was some sort of
>>chemical that can show the prior presence of blood (Luminol?) even if it's
>>been
>>washed off.
>
>
>
>Maggie
Again, no one is claiming the flashlight was used to whack her on the head and.
The suggestion has been that whoever touched any part of her and picked up
blood or body fluids could have subsequently left contaminated fingerprints on
the flashlight.
Halle
Cliff and Linda Griffith
So you think Patsy did it? I could've "sworn" I saw a post of yours
that sounded as if your were going for an intruder, and I was surprised.
Maybe I just got the attributions wrong, as I often do.
If I were the murderer, I'd think to wipe fingerprints off of the
flashlight, but never the batteries. After all, I'd say, "Yes, it's our
flashlight, we installed the batteries, but someone else killed our
daughter with it."
Linda
Halle 8 wrote:
>
> >**Sounds just the opposite to me.
> >If the flashlight belonged to the Ramsey's why would they care if their
> >fingerprints were on it?
>
> There might have been more concern about blood on the handle.
>
> It makes more sense, in light of the news that
> >there
> >were no prints on the batteries, that the batteries were inserted, and the
> >flashlight handled, by someone wearing gloves.
>
> Except fingerprints would have gotten on there at some point prior to the
> person donning gloves.
>
> >And if you can effectively
> >"wipe" a flashlight, removing signs that it was used in the commission of the
> >crime, why not just put it with other tools or something.
>
> It might have had blood or other evidence on it.
>
> Why would they
> >leave
> >it on the kitchen counter? Doesn't make any sense.
> >
> >jb
>
> Why would you have sayed and cleaned it up if you were the intruder? Why not
> just take it with you?
>
> On the other hand, what would you have done with it if you were Patsy Ramsey?
>
> It's possible she used the flashlight in the commission of the crime and,
> afterwards, was worried that it contained traces of blood or other forensic
> material. She had no place to dispose of it, not being able to leave the house
> without attracting John's attention. So she washed it off thoroughly in the
> kitchen. It occurred to her that the batteries might link the flashlight to her
> or her family through fingerprints, so she washed those off, too. What else
> could she do?
>
> If John had been involved, they could have simply bundled up any incriminating
> evidence and taken it to a dumpster -- he could have driven or taken a walk
> over to Baseline Road or to that big street near their house where the mall is.
> The university is not far away, either -- plenty of dumpsters all around. The
> flashlight is one more piece of evidence that indicates to me that Patsy did it
> alone. She couldn't leave the house by car without waking John or on foot
> without risking him waking up and discovering her gone, which would be
> difficult to explain on the morning when their daughter is found dead. So she
> carefully removed the fingerprints from the flashlight and left it right on the
> kitchen counter.
>
> Halle
Cliff and Linda Griffith
> Is this the same intruder who was so well organized that, in your scenario,
> they forgot to bring a ransom note and had to compose it on Patsy's legal pad
> and with her pen?
>
> Halle
The consensus seems to be that the ransom note was easily judged as
bogus, that the crime-scene was staged, and that many mistakes were made
in covering up for the murderer(s). All in all, though, it seems to
have worked.
Linda (P.S.: Is the Baby Sabrina case in a stalemate?)
KLBKRN
In article <19981108180101...@ng68.aol.com>, hal...@aol.com (Halle
8) writes:
>It could be that she had to insert new
>batteries that night, since she couldn't turn on all the house lights while
>carrying a dead body around, and thus the need to be sure they were clean (I
>think it's the possibility of blood or JBR's body fluids on the fingerprints
>that concerned her).
>
>Halle
I think that Patsy was running on pure adrenalin all night. She just killed
her daughter. Wasn't she reading Mindhunter? Between that and the OJ DNA
publicity, she was probably in overdrive wiping everything down. The
flashlight, if it was the murder weapon would have gotten a good washing.
Katie
Martha Sprowles
I'm claiming that the flashlight was used to whack her over the head.
M*ry H*dman posted during her last visit that a styrofoam model of a
head was whacked with a Maglite, which left an impression matching the
wound on JonBenét's skull.
And if there wasn't blood on it, how about hairs/bits of skin?
Mothra
Martha Sprowles
>
> >>**Maggie suggests:
> >>
> >><<***How about this one?
> >>
> >>Big storm. Power outtage for several hours. Flashlight batteries fail, new
> >>ones must be inserted. But it's cold in the house because the furnace
> >>blowers
> >>are electric. Everyone's wearing gloves. John, or Patsy or Burke gets the
> >>new
> >>batteries and puts them in--viola--no fingerprints on the batteries.
> >>
> >>jb says:
> >>**Yeah, sure. Let's get that pack of batteries open and get that flashlight
> >>taken apart with heavy WARM gloves on. Sounds pretty stupid.
> >>
> >Maggie said:
> >>***Do you have a better explanation for why there were no prints on those
> >>batteries?
> >
> >Halle said:
> >Patsy washed them off, still trying to maintain the kidnapper illusion. The
> >flashlight was used in the crime, she was trying to make it look like an
> >intruder did the crime, and yet although she could wipe off the fingerprints
> >and possibly blood on the surface of the flashlight, there were still the
> >new
> >batteries that night, since she couldn't turn on all the house lights while
> >carrying a dead body around, and thus the need to be sure they were clean (I
> >think it's the possibility of blood or JBR's body fluids on the fingerprints
> >that concerned her).
> >
> >
> >And I find it exceedingly hard to believe that the same person who leaves a
> >three page handwriting sample and is totally clueless about how to write a
> >ransom note, would be clever enough to wipe off flashlight batteries.
> >Whether
> >it's Patsy or an intruder, it just seems very, very odd.
> >
> >Maggie
>
> You get me wrong. I don't think wiping off the batteries was clever; I think it
> was unnecessary and paranoid. Sort of like the epic-length ransom note and the
> overkill of everything else.
>
> Halle
What if Patsy's story is that Burke did it, and *John* washed off the
flashlight to protect *Burke?*
Mothra
Halle 8
>>batteries that night, since she couldn't turn on all the house lights while
>>carrying a dead body around, and thus the need to be sure they were clean (I
>>think it's the possibility of blood or JBR's body fluids on the fingerprints
>>that concerned her).
>>
>
> I think that Patsy was running on pure adrenalin all night. She just killed
>her daughter. Wasn't she reading Mindhunter? Between that and the OJ DNA
>publicity, she was probably in overdrive wiping everything down. The
>flashlight, if it was the murder weapon would have gotten a good washing.
>
>
> Katie
Yep, that's exactly what I think. She was frantic and manic and trying to do
everything she could to clean things up and throw the investigators off into
left field. It only looks planned and organized in the afterward.
Halle
Maggie8097
Halle, wasn't there discussion (or a report?) stating that the
perpetrator had worn some sort of latex glove(s) during the
loaded (or washed down afterwards) using the same gloves -
voila, no fingerprints!
***The problem with this is, that if the batteries were loaded while the perp
was wearing latex gloves, it would tend to rule out a family member. Unless,
of course, we just haven't heard that old batteries and an open battery
container were found in the trash.
Although I still don't believe it, I think the lack of fingerprints on the
batteries *tends* to implicate an intruder more than the parents. I have
visions of watching an old Columbo where the perp, at his own home, prepares
for the crime, pulling on latex gloves, and inserting fresh batteries to make
sure the flashlight doesn't give out halfway through the escapade.
Ican't get my mind around the idea that anyone who knew enough about police
procedures and crime to wipe down batteries inside a flashlight (Patsy *or* an
outsider) would be dumb enough to leave an extensive handwriting sample. I
still favor the innocent "somebody was wearing gloves when he/she changed the
battery" explanation--could Patsy have been decked out for a party, John been
surveying the yard in winter, the maid have rubber gloves on her hands as she's
trying to unstop the disposal (using the flashlight to get a better look)? I
think that there may be some rational explanation for the lack of fingerprints
on the batteries that doesn't have anything to do with the crime.
Kris Baker
>Kris said:
> Halle, wasn't there discussion (or a report?) stating that the
> perpetrator had worn some sort of latex glove(s) during the
> commission of the crime? If so, the batteries could have been
> loaded (or washed down afterwards) using the same gloves -
> voila, no fingerprints!
>***The problem with this is, that if the batteries were loaded while
>the perp was wearing latex gloves, it would tend to rule out a family
>member. Unless, of course, we just haven't heard that old batteries
>and an open battery container were found in the trash.
>Although I still don't believe it, I think the lack of fingerprints on
the
>batteries *tends* to implicate an intruder more than the parents. I
>have visions of watching an old Columbo where the perp, at his own
>home, prepares for the crime, pulling on latex gloves, and inserting
>fresh batteries to make sure the flashlight doesn't give out halfway
>through the escapade.
And leaves it there? A really really big flashlight? I don't
see why "no fingerprints" makes it any more likely to be an
intruder. An intruder would want to be in and out quickly,
and plan things well enough to not leave things behind.
Meanwhile, someone who lives in the house just doesn't have
a chance to remove ANYTHING - so must cleanse it.
>Ican't get my mind around the idea that anyone who knew enough
>about police procedures and crime to wipe down batteries inside
>a flashlight (Patsy *or* an outsider) would be dumb enough to leave
>an extensive handwriting sample. I still favor the innocent
>"somebody was wearing gloves when he/she changed the
>battery" explanation--could Patsy have been decked out for a party,
>John been surveying the yard in winter, the maid have rubber gloves
>on her hands as she's trying to unstop the disposal (using the
>flashlight to get a better look)? I think that there may be some
>rational explanation for the lack of fingerprints on the batteries that
>doesn't have anything to do with the crime.
What about this: the batteries had been in the flashlight
for a long time - and the prints that had been there, had
dissipated. I learned from a few of the crime shows that
fingerprints degrade over time. The clearest fingerprints,
of course, are left by someone with dirty or oily fingerprints.
It's even possible to leave fingerprints that dissipate quickly
if you touch something right after washing your hands.
In any case, the lack of fingerprints on the batteries themselves
does say anything about an intruder.
Nor does Smits' rationale about the "vent" on the front of
the home (which showed no signs of entry or signs of an
intruder into that very room.)
Kris
Debby Sobwick
wrote:
>**Maggie suggests:
>
><<***How about this one?
>
>Big storm. Power outtage for several hours. Flashlight batteries fail, new
>ones must be inserted. But it's cold in the house because the furnace blowers
>are electric. Everyone's wearing gloves. John, or Patsy or Burke gets the new
>batteries and puts them in--viola--no fingerprints on the batteries.
>
>jb says:
>**Yeah, sure. Let's get that pack of batteries open and get that flashlight
>taken apart with heavy WARM gloves on. Sounds pretty stupid.
>
>***Do you have a better explanation for why there were no prints on those
>batteries?
>
>
>Maggie
>
>"Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."
>John F. Kennedy
Dear Maggie: Yes, three senarios, one, the parents did it and in their
warped mind they thought if the batteries weren't on the flashlight
they wouldn't get the blame. two, Someone was out to frame the
parents and wiped the flashlight clean. three, Someone had an
obsessive cleaning habit and wipes everything clean and the flashlight
wasn't even used as the murder weapon.
Debby S.<sarg...@injersey.com>
Debby Sobwick
>
>In article <19981108180101...@ng68.aol.com>, hal...@aol.com (Halle
>8) writes:
>
>>It could be that she had to insert new
>>batteries that night, since she couldn't turn on all the house lights while
>>carrying a dead body around, and thus the need to be sure they were clean (I
>>think it's the possibility of blood or JBR's body fluids on the fingerprints
>>that concerned her).
>>
>>Halle
>
> I think that Patsy was running on pure adrenalin all night. She just killed
>her daughter. Wasn't she reading Mindhunter? Between that and the OJ DNA
>publicity, she was probably in overdrive wiping everything down. The
>flashlight, if it was the murder weapon would have gotten a good washing.
>
>
> Katie
Dear Katie: I thought she was packing for a cruise.
Debby S.<sarg...@injersey.com>
Debby Sobwick
>>>>**She kills her daughter in a rage, then calmly takes apart a flashlight
>>and
>>>>removes all traces of fingerprints. She washes it clean of blood (can you
>>>do
>>>>that?)
>>>
>>>Halle says:
>>>
>>>Can an intruder?
>>>
>>>**Actually, I didn't think ANYBODY could. I thought there was some sort of
>>>chemical that can show the prior presence of blood (Luminol?) even if it's
>>>been
>>>washed off.
>>>
>>>
>>>jb
>>
>>Halle says:
>>
>>But with no fingerprints, what would it matter?
>>
>>**I don't get your point. If there's no fingerprints then it wouldn't matter
>>if there's blood on it? What are you trying to say?
>
>Yes, jb. If there are no fingerprints, then what does it matter if there is
>blood on it. The blood alone can't identify the perpetrator. So what's your
>point about luminol? Especially if that mythical intruder has been wearing
>gloves the whole time?
>
>Halle
>
Dear Halle: If there was blood on the flashlight there would be blood
on the gloves.
Debby S.<sarg...@injersey.com> JB is right blood cannot be washed
off. Not anymore anyway. There are chemicals to detect it.
Debby Sobwick
>>Wel, it could have been used some other way in the commission of the crime,
>>not
>>just to whack her on the head. It could be that it was used only to light the
>>way from the bedroom to the basement and to provide light for writing the
>>ransom note and picked up incriminating fingerprints that way.
>>
>>On the other hand, it might not have been used in the crime at all, other
>>than
>>to provide yet another flase clue pointing to an intruder. Ransom note, open
>>window, and flashlight -- that's pretty complete. But to have it appear as if
>>the intruder left it behind, it and the batteries inside would have to be
>>thoroughly cleaned of prints. I tend to think this is why it was left there
>>--
>>more intruder staging.
>>
>>Halle
>
>Actually, come to think of it, I think it was used for lighting and then
>cleaned up to help stage the intruder. On the other hand, if it belonged to the
>Ramseys, I wonder why the outside only wasn't cleaned and it put back in its
>place as if nothing had happened. It could be that in the rush to finish the
>job, it was accidentally left on the kitchen counter. I think that if Patsy had
>been able to start up the car and disappear for a while, that and the
>paintbrush handle and a few other things would have disappeared into a
>dumpster. An intruder would have had the common sense and opportunity to take
>it when he left.
>
>Halle
>
Dear Halle: Why would an intruder use thier flashlight. He She It
would have their own.....
Debby S.<sarg...@injersey.com>
Debby Sobwick
>>Halle said:
>>Actually, come to think of it, I think it was used for lighting and then
>>cleaned up to help stage the intruder. On the other hand, if it belonged to
>>the
>>Ramseys, I wonder why the outside only wasn't cleaned and it put back in its
>>place as if nothing had happened. It could be that in the rush to finish the
>>job, it was accidentally left on the kitchen counter. I think that if Patsy
>>had
>>been able to start up the car and disappear for a while, that and the
>>paintbrush handle and a few other things would have disappeared into a
>>dumpster. An intruder would have had the common sense and opportunity to take
>>it when he left.
>>
>>***And in the dog that didn't bark category....don't you think that if you
>>woke
>>up one morning to find your daughter kidnapped and a large flashlight that
>>didn't belong to you sitting on your kitchen counter, you might mention it to
>>the police as soon as they arrived?
>
>I am only assuming that the flashlight belonged to them, because all
>investigators would need would be a positive identification by the houeskeeper,
>baby sitter, the Ramsey children, relatives, friends, and neighbors, or even
>John or Patsy themselves to eliminate an intuder as the owner. And since the
>parents remain the prime suspects, I think it's safe to assume they owned the
>flashlight.
>
>So why, if it belonged to the Ramseys, were the batteries cleaned?
>
>>In all the stories I have read about the flashlight, it is mentioned that no
>>one knows if the Ramseys have actually denied ownership.
>>
>>Maggie
>
>
Dear Maggie: I have already stated this. Someone has a cleaning
obsession or it was done to make the Ramseys look guilty or they are
warped.
Debby S.<sarg...@injersey.com>
Debby Sobwick
<spro...@eroTHEHONOUROFTHEPURSEls.com> wrote:
>JBrown6000 wrote:
>>
>> Martha says:
>>
>> <<I like the idea of the flashlight's being washed off in the kitchen
>> sink, and maybe Patsy intended to put it away but was interrupted by
>> something or someone? But no fingerprints on the batteries really does
>> puzzle me. As you say, there should have been fingerprints on the
>> batteries at some point--why would they have been cleaned? Is it
>> possible that the blow was so hard that the flashlight popped open, and
>> the perp picked up the batteries? Or could the batteries themselves
>> have had forensic evidence on them?
>>
>> **Well, you've raised some questions. Why not elaborate? WHO or WHAT would
>> have interrupted her at such an important task that she would forget what she
>> was doing and the importance of the removal of such an important item.
>> According to you, she had invested an enormous amount of thought in the
>> staging.
>
>Whoa, nelly. I don't think she "invested an enormous amount of thought"
>into anything. I think this was an accident, the result of a sudden,
>murderous rage fueled by stress and alcohol. After the fact, of
>*course* she (or whoever) would wash off the weapon. Wouldn't you?
>
>I can think of numerous interruptions--John or Burke waking up, for
>instance--but the main deal is that the flashlight is clean. Letting
>the cops find the flashlight was never a concern. She might not even
>have *been* interrupted--after all, why shouldn't her flashlight be in
>her kitchen?--but it seemed to me an odd place for a flashlight, and I
>think Halle's suggestion of its being washed is a good one.
>
>>
>> What possible forensic evidence could be on the batteries (aside from
>> fingerprints)?
>
>As I suggested, maybe the blow(s) was/were strong enough to dislodge the
>cover, and the batteries fell out, perhaps picking up evidence? Or
>maybe Patsy (or whoever) simply didn't want his/her fingerprints, along
>with any traces of anything, on the batteries as he/she replaced them.
>
>>
>> jb
I got it!!! Patsy was packing for a trip.She knew she had to go down
to the basement to get some items for the trip, maybe like the
suitcases. She got out the flashlight and since it was dusty and
she has a cleaning obcession she washed it off and seeing it needed
new batteries took them out of the case, washed them off and put them
in the flashlight. She then put them on the counter. Going down into
the basement she found she didn't need the flashlight and left the
flashlight on the counter. The flashlight is a red herring.
Debby S.<sarg...@injersey.com>
Debby Sobwick
>hal...@aol.com (Halle 8) wrote:
>
>>>What possible forensic evidence could be on the batteries
>>>(aside from fingerprints)?
>>>jb
>
> LACK of something that SHOULD be there (ie, fingerprints
> on batteries) would be forensic evidence.
>
>>Depends on when she loaded the batteries.
>>Also, depends on whether she thought she could make people think
>>it was the intruder's flashlight, mistakenly left behind.
>>Halle
>
> Halle, wasn't there discussion (or a report?) stating that the
> perpetrator had worn some sort of latex glove(s) during the
> commission of the crime? If so, the batteries could have been
> loaded (or washed down afterwards) using the same gloves -
> voila, no fingerprints!
>
>Kris
>
Dear Kris: There would be something on the gloves.
Debby S.<sarg...@injersey.com>
Debby Sobwick
wrote:
>CB says:
>
><<There's no fingerprints on anything in that house related to the crime. That
>right there is proof to me the parents did it because they said they read the
>note but there was no fingerprints on it.
>
>**Except that paper is a notoriously bad medium for obtaining usable
>fingerprints.
>But, was there not some mention of a partial palmprint? Was that on the note?
>
>jb
Dear J.B. Of course we may be all barking up the wrong tree. When the
police say no fingerprints, they mean nothing that they can recognise
or get a clear picture of. We don't really know if anything was wiped
clean.
Debby S.<sarg...@injersey.com>
Kris Baker
Just caught my own typo:
I typed:
> In any case, the lack of fingerprints on the batteries themselves
> does say anything about an intruder.
It should have read:
> In any case, the lack of fingerprints on the batteries themselves
> does NOT say anything about an intruder.
Kris
Kris Baker
>
>x-no-archive: yes
>JDK...@prodigy.com (Kris Baker) wrote:
>
>> What about this: the batteries had been in the flashlight
>> for a long time - and the prints that had been there, had
>> dissipated. I learned from a few of the crime shows that
>> fingerprints degrade over time. The clearest fingerprints,
>> of course, are left by someone with dirty or oily fingerprints.
>> It's even possible to leave fingerprints that dissipate quickly
>> if you touch something right after washing your hands.
>How rapidly do they degrade in an enclosed area like a flashlight? I
>would think fingerprints out in the open would degrade more quickly.
>Do you remember what you heard about how long it might take?
Ellie, there wasn't a mention of an enclosed area; most finger-
prints are slightly oily, and WAIT A MINUTE! I JUST THOUGHT
OF SOMETHING!
First of all, a flashlight isn't exactly airtight inside.
Secondly (the little "bing" that just went off in my head):
plastics are petroleum-based, and its very possible that oily
fingerprints could actually disappear more quickly when exposed
to certain plastics in a fairly-enclosed area. I just thought of this
as I used lighter fluid (petroleum based) to remove sticky residue
from the price tag on a book jacket. I use lighter fluid (a petroleum
product) to remove crayon marks, greasy stuff, etc.
Kris
Kris Baker
>I got it!!! Patsy was packing for a trip.She knew she had to go down
>to the basement to get some items for the trip, maybe like the
>suitcases. She got out the flashlight and since it was dusty and
>she has a cleaning obcession she washed it off and seeing it needed
>new batteries took them out of the case, washed them off and put them
>in the flashlight. She then put them on the counter. Going down into
>the basement she found she didn't need the flashlight and left the
>flashlight on the counter. The flashlight is a red herring.
>Debby S.<sarg...@injersey.com>
Debby, one question re: the above theory.
WHY on God's good earth would someone going downstairs
to perform a perfectly-innocent task (getting suitcases for
the trip) use a flashlight when they had access to a perfectly
fine little implement called a light switch?
Kris
Kris Baker
>> Halle, wasn't there discussion (or a report?) stating that the
>> perpetrator had worn some sort of latex glove(s) during the
>> commission of the crime? If so, the batteries could have been
>> loaded (or washed down afterwards) using the same gloves -
>> voila, no fingerprints!
>>Kris
>Dear Kris: There would be something on the gloves.
>Debby S.<sarg...@injersey.com>
OK, Debbie - and just where are those gloves?
Flushed down the toilet, perhaps? Even if found, they'd be
so cross-contaminated any evidence on them would be
useless.
Kris
Maggie8097
>Ican't get my mind around the idea that anyone who knew enough about police
>procedures and crime to wipe down batteries inside a flashlight (Patsy *or* an
>outsider) would be dumb enough to leave an extensive handwriting sample. I
>still favor the innocent "somebody was wearing gloves when he/she changed the
>battery" explanation--could Patsy have been decked out for a party, John been
>surveying the yard in winter, the maid have rubber gloves on her hands as
she's
>trying to unstop the disposal (using the flashlight to get a better look)? I
>think that there may be some rational explanation for the lack of fingerprints
>on the batteries that doesn't have anything to do with the crime.
Eleanor said:
Perhaps you might want to reconsider your Patsy-did-it-alone theory.
Might not some of the inconsistencies show that two people were
involved in the cover-up, one perhaps a bit more clever and careful,
and the other frantic and emotional, who divided up their post-murder
tasks?
***I'm having a hard time figuring out what clever and careful actions you're
speaking of. Everything I can think of off the top of my head seems frantic
and emotional--including the nonsensical action of wiping off batteries. It's
pretty hard for me to imagine that the clever and careful partner in crime
assigned the duties of writing the ransom note, hiding the body and calling the
police to the frantic and emotional partner, while saving for himself the
important task (not) of wiping off flashlight batteries.
Maggie8097
> Halle, wasn't there discussion (or a report?) stating that the
> perpetrator had worn some sort of latex glove(s) during the
> commission of the crime? If so, the batteries could have been
> loaded (or washed down afterwards) using the same gloves -
> voila, no fingerprints!
Maggie said:
>***The problem with this is, that if the batteries were loaded while
>the perp was wearing latex gloves, it would tend to rule out a family
>member. Unless, of course, we just haven't heard that old batteries
>and an open battery container were found in the trash.
>Although I still don't believe it, I think the lack of fingerprints on
the
>batteries *tends* to implicate an intruder more than the parents. I
>have visions of watching an old Columbo where the perp, at his own
>home, prepares for the crime, pulling on latex gloves, and inserting
>fresh batteries to make sure the flashlight doesn't give out halfway
>through the escapade.
Kris said:
And leaves it there? A really really big flashlight? I don't
see why "no fingerprints" makes it any more likely to be an
intruder. An intruder would want to be in and out quickly,
and plan things well enough to not leave things behind.
Meanwhile, someone who lives in the house just doesn't have
a chance to remove ANYTHING - so must cleanse it.
***But why must Patsy cleanse the batteries of fingerprints? Why not just say,
"Yeah, it's our flashlight. So what? The perp must have used it--just like he
used our paintbrush and notepad and pen." The only reason to wipe
fingerprints off the batteries is to try to pass off the flashlight as the
perp's. The problem with that is it's quite a gamble to assume that no one
with access to that house (friends, servants, workers, babysitters, etc.) ever
saw the flashlight there and could link it to the family. Why not put it in
the back of the broom closet and hope it doesn't get found? Trying to pass it
off as the perp's if it's actually theirs seems like an unnecessary risk to me.
But I suppose we could lay it on the all-purpose "panic" but somehow that's so
unsatisfying.
Maggie said:
>Ican't get my mind around the idea that anyone who knew enough
>about police procedures and crime to wipe down batteries inside
>a flashlight (Patsy *or* an outsider) would be dumb enough to leave
>an extensive handwriting sample. I still favor the innocent
>"somebody was wearing gloves when he/she changed the
>battery" explanation--could Patsy have been decked out for a party,
>John been surveying the yard in winter, the maid have rubber gloves
>on her hands as she's trying to unstop the disposal (using the
>flashlight to get a better look)? I think that there may be some
>rational explanation for the lack of fingerprints on the batteries that
>doesn't have anything to do with the crime.
Kris said:
What about this: the batteries had been in the flashlight
for a long time - and the prints that had been there, had
dissipated. I learned from a few of the crime shows that
fingerprints degrade over time. The clearest fingerprints,
of course, are left by someone with dirty or oily fingerprints.
It's even possible to leave fingerprints that dissipate quickly
if you touch something right after washing your hands.
***Actually, I have heard exactly the opposite--that there's no way to date
fingerprints and in a protected space like inside a battery compartment,
they'll last for a hundred years (might be helpful to know if those batteries
were corroded at all, however).
Kris said:
In any case, the lack of fingerprints on the batteries themselves
does say anything about an intruder.
***Nothing definitive, of course. But I can think of lots more reasons for an
intruder to wipe the batteries, than someone who lives in the house. But, as
you pointed out, it makes no sense for him to leave it there. Yet another real
conundrum in this case.
Kris said:
Nor does Smits' rationale about the "vent" on the front of
the home (which showed no signs of entry or signs of an
intruder into that very room.)
***Agreed. Sounds like grasping at straws.
JBrown6000
<<>**Except that paper is a notoriously bad medium for obtaining usable
>fingerprints.
>But, was there not some mention of a partial palmprint? Was that on the note?
>
Debbie answers:
Dear J.B. Of course we may be all barking up the wrong tree. When the
police say no fingerprints, they mean nothing that they can recognise
or get a clear picture of. We don't really know if anything was wiped
clean.
**I think that's what I said, Debi. Do you happen to recall anything about the
palm print?
jb
JBrown6000
<< Secondly (the little "bing" that just went off in my head):
plastics are petroleum-based, and its very possible that oily
fingerprints could actually disappear more quickly when exposed
to certain plastics in a fairly-enclosed area. I just thought of this
as I used lighter fluid (petroleum based) to remove sticky residue
from the price tag on a book jacket. I use lighter fluid (a petroleum
product) to remove crayon marks, greasy stuff, etc.
**The material on the outside of batteries looks like an ideal medium for
fingerprints.
I can't believe they'd degrade that quickly. Why would the police even comment
if it was an ordinary event?
JBrown6000
intruder to wipe the batteries, than someone who lives in the house. But, as
you pointed out, it makes no sense for him to leave it there. Yet another real
conundrum in this case.
**Why not leave it there? There is *NO* reason to take it. Especially if the
intent is to make someone KNOW that there had been an intruder in the house.
Leave a BIG BLACK FLASHLIGHT right in the middle of the kitchen!
Kris said:
Nor does Smits' rationale about the "vent" on the front of
the home (which showed no signs of entry or signs of an
intruder into that very room.)
***Agreed. Sounds like grasping at straws.
** The article stated that more than one investigator holds that theory. They
advance it as a reason for believing that the basement was the scene of the
crime, and not the bedroom.
jb
JBrown6000
>Debby S.<sarg...@injersey.com>
Kris says:
OK, Debbie - and just where are those gloves?
Flushed down the toilet, perhaps? Even if found, they'd be
so cross-contaminated any evidence on them would be
useless.
**The intruder took them with him.
Greg Goss
>Big storm. Power outtage for several hours. Flashlight batteries fail, new
>ones must be inserted. But it's cold in the house because the furnace blowers
>are electric. Everyone's wearing gloves. John, or Patsy or Burke gets the new
>batteries and puts them in--viola--no fingerprints on the batteries.
>
>**Yeah, sure. Let's get that pack of batteries open and get that flashlight
>taken apart with heavy WARM gloves on. Sounds pretty stupid.
flashlights are big. D cells are big. If you live in Colorado, you
own good, well-fitting gloves. I would have no problem changing
D-cells in a flashlight with gloves on.
But I still don't buy the hypothesis.
Greg Goss
>And I find it exceedingly hard to believe that the same person who leaves a
>three page handwriting sample and is totally clueless about how to write a
>ransom note, would be clever enough to wipe off flashlight batteries. Whether
>it's Patsy or an intruder, it just seems very, very odd.
The flashlight might just be new. Inserted at a factory by an
assembly machine.
Greg Goss
>--after all, why shouldn't her flashlight be in
>her kitchen?--but it seemed to me an odd place for a flashlight, and I
>think Halle's suggestion of its being washed is a good one.
Why not in the kitchen? The whole time I was growing up, "the"
flashlight was either on the left end of the kitchen counter or in the
first cupboard left of the sink. We knew where it was, and could find
it in the dark.
Kitchens have lots of storage space for miscellany
JBrown6000
<<Is this the same intruder who was so well organized that, in your scenario,
they forgot to bring a ransom note and had to compose it on Patsy's legal pad
and with her pen?
**My scenario doesn't include a forgetful intruder.
jb
JBrown6000
>and
>>>removes all traces of fingerprints. She washes it clean of blood (can you
>>do
>>>that?)
>>
>>Halle says:
>>
>>Can an intruder?
>>
>>**Actually, I didn't think ANYBODY could. I thought there was some sort of
>>chemical that can show the prior presence of blood (Luminol?) even if it's
>>been
>>washed off.
>>
>>
>>jb
>
>Halle says:
>
>But with no fingerprints, what would it matter?
>
>**I don't get your point. If there's no fingerprints then it wouldn't matter
>if there's blood on it? What are you trying to say?
Yes, jb. If there are no fingerprints, then what does it matter if there is
blood on it. The blood alone can't identify the perpetrator. So what's your
point about luminol? Especially if that mythical intruder has been wearing
gloves the whole time?
**The earlier part (been snipped) was, I believe, about why an intruder would
not take the light with him. No reason to.
The luminol was in answer to a question about whether blood could be washed
from the flashlight. I'm not sure there would even BE blood.
JBrown6000
<<Again, no one is claiming the flashlight was used to whack her on the head
and.
The suggestion has been that whoever touched any part of her and picked up
blood or body fluids could have subsequently left contaminated fingerprints on
the flashlight.
**I think the only mystery concerning this light is it's ownership. If it
doesn't belong to anyone in the house, or a policemen, then it is certainly an
interesting piece of evidence. It's non-fingerprinted status is then quite
intriguing.
John R. Woodward
Greg Goss wrote in message <364c0269...@news.direct.ca>...
I've got two flashlights -- one in the bedroom and one in the kitchen near
the phone. I figure that way I'll always be near one during one of our
*frequent* North Florida power outages. The kitchen is a bad place to be
without light.
Pan D. Moniem
Debby Sobwick wrote in message <36476265...@news.injersey.com>...
>On 8 Nov 1998 21:31:53 GMT, maggi...@aol.comSPAMBLOC (Maggie8097)
>wrote:
>
>>**Yeah, sure. Let's get that pack of batteries open and get that
flashlight
>>taken apart with heavy WARM gloves on. Sounds pretty stupid.
>>
of experience with fine motor skills and gloves. No big trick changing
flashlight batteries if one is wearing Isotoners or even GI inserts. Any
ex-GI can tell you that!
jb, you're rash judgement sounds pretty stupid to me!
Dan
Maggie8097
>And I find it exceedingly hard to believe that the same person who leaves a
>three page handwriting sample and is totally clueless about how to write a
>ransom note, would be clever enough to wipe off flashlight batteries. Whether
>it's Patsy or an intruder, it just seems very, very odd.
Greg Goss said:
The flashlight might just be new. Inserted at a factory by an
assembly machine.
****Greg! I think you've got it. Thanks.
Harvey Nehgila
>The flashlight might just be new. Inserted at a factory by an
>assembly machine.
Batteries included??? No way any self respecting company would
participate in such heresy! ;-)
Actually, I have seen batteries included with a flashlight, but they
are still packed separately. Putting them in at the factory would be
asking for leakage problems if they were to spend longer than expected
in any (or all) of transit, storage, or on the shelf.
Halle 8
I can only think that if ownership of the flashlight was impossible to pin on
the Ramseys, considering all the people who had opportunity to see it there
before the murder, that it would from the beginning have served as the
cornerstone piece of evidence in a very active search for an intruder.
If the Ramseys truly had all those Colorado politicos under their thumb, then
why hasn't the mysterious flashlight been used to keep attention on the
intruder?
The only thing that makes sense is that the flashlight does, in all likelihood,
belong to them.
Halle
Halle 8
You're right. I have an identical flashlight (same manufacturer and model) and
it came without batteries. I think it holds eight D batteries. Anyone can find
them for sale at the hardware store and see for themselves (Maglite Big Boy).
Halle
Halle 8
>**The earlier part (been snipped) was, I believe, about why an intruder would
>not take the light with him. No reason to.
>The luminol was in answer to a question about whether blood could be washed
>from the flashlight. I'm not sure there would even BE blood.
But why would the intruder leave it behind? And risk even one even
partially-smudged fingerprint haunting him later? Seems unreasonable.
An intruder could have left it behind accidentally, having cleaned it up
beforehand "just in case." But then you have to show that the intruder had
access into the house, and even the investigators have been unable to do that.
It makes sense that Patsy, in her desire to paint an intruder scenario, opened
the basement window, wrote a ransom note, and wiped the flashlight free of
prints and left it there in the hope that it might fool someone. No one says
she was thinking rationally. I think she was setting a scene that, in her
panicked state, seemed the best she could do and maybe even plausible to
others.
Of course, it could be that the flashlight is completely irrelevant to the
case. Who knows?
Halle
Halle 8
Mine is hanging on the landing to the basement stairs next to the kitchen. I
can't remember where the Ramsey basement stairs are located. Are they next to
the kitchen?
Halle
Halle 8
They had those little rooms in the basement. Did all of them have lights?
Halle
Halle 8
>>Debby S.<sarg...@injersey.com>
>
>Kris says:
>
>
>OK, Debbie - and just where are those gloves?
>
>Flushed down the toilet, perhaps? Even if found, they'd be
>so cross-contaminated any evidence on them would be
>useless.
jb:
>**The intruder took them with him.
ITEMS THE "INTRUDER" BROUGHT OR HANDLED AND LEFT BEHIND
(All possibly implicating him in a murder)
1. Ransom note
2. Broken paintbrush handle
3. Sharpie pen
4. Garotte
5. Body
Why not leave the gloves behind, too?
Halle
Halle 8
Oh, right. Yours is the incredibly brazen, prescient intruder.
Halle
Halle 8
>
>So you think Patsy did it? I could've "sworn" I saw a post of yours
>that sounded as if your were going for an intruder, and I was surprised.
>Maybe I just got the attributions wrong, as I often do.
>
>If I were the murderer, I'd think to wipe fingerprints off of the
>flashlight, but never the batteries. After all, I'd say, "Yes, it's our
>flashlight, we installed the batteries, but someone else killed our
>daughter with it."
>
>Linda
Yes, I think Patsy did it, and I think a lot of the more baffling aspects of
the case are the result of her panicked, irrational activity that night in
trying to cover up her role in the crime.
Halle
Halle 8
>prints are slightly oily, and WAIT A MINUTE! I JUST THOUGHT
>OF SOMETHING!
>
> First of all, a flashlight isn't exactly airtight inside.
>
> Secondly (the little "bing" that just went off in my head):
>plastics are petroleum-based, and its very possible that oily
>fingerprints could actually disappear more quickly when exposed
>to certain plastics in a fairly-enclosed area. I just thought of this
>as I used lighter fluid (petroleum based) to remove sticky residue
>from the price tag on a book jacket. I use lighter fluid (a petroleum
>product) to remove crayon marks, greasy stuff, etc.
>
Unfortunately, that particular flashlight (is that what you're referring to?)
is metal. Maybe Maglite has a website. The model is called Big Boy, according
to Carol Whatshername, the Boulder reporter who is sometimes on Geraldo.
Halle
Halle 8
>
>><< Secondly (the little "bing" that just went off in my head):
>>plastics are petroleum-based, and its very possible that oily
>>fingerprints could actually disappear more quickly when exposed
>>to certain plastics in a fairly-enclosed area. I just thought of this
>>as I used lighter fluid (petroleum based) to remove sticky residue
>>from the price tag on a book jacket. I use lighter fluid (a petroleum
>>product) to remove crayon marks, greasy stuff, etc.
>
>>fingerprints.
>>I can't believe they'd degrade that quickly. Why would the police even
>comment
>>if it was an ordinary event?
>
>been put in a month before, a week before--who knows? The important
>point is, if Kris is right, that there could be a benign explanation
>for a lack of fingerprints on the batteries.
>
>Eleanor (elli...@ix.netcom.com)
Oh, is Kris talking about the covering on batteries? Hmm. Well, it's as good a
theory as anything; I guess it depends on how long they were in there.
Maybe it's also a matter of how the batteries were actually installed. You buy
the flashlight and eight batteries, come home and tear open the pack of
batteries, then drop them in one-by-one. It's not like they get a lot of
handling. Could be they were picked up by the edges or otherwise handled in
such a way as to prevent fingerprints.
Halle
Kris Baker
jdk...@prodigy.com (Kris Baker) wrote:
>>Debby, one question re: the above theory.
>> WHY on God's good earth would someone going downstairs
>> to perform a perfectly-innocent task (getting suitcases for
>> the trip) use a flashlight when they had access to a perfectly
>> fine little implement called a light switch?
>>Kris
>They had those little rooms in the basement. Did all of them have
>lights?
>Halle
I can't imagine a room in ANY home without some sort of
lighting (even if it's a bare bulb in the ceiling of a utility room,
with a pull-string instead of a switch.)
I can't "see" any of the Ramseys having to take a flashlight
downstairs every time they want to do something in a basement
room - when a light switch could be easily installed by an
electrician.
But....I can see someone using a flashlight in a room that does
have lighting, when they don't want anyone to see that the
light is ON in the room.
Kris
want visibl
Kris
Kris Baker
>Unfortunately, that particular flashlight (is that what you're
>referring to?) is metal. Maybe Maglite has a website. The model
>is called Big Boy, according to Carol Whatshername, the Boulder
>reporter who is sometimes on Geraldo.
>Halle
All metal, no plastic inner parts, eh? Well...hell...there goes
my theory.
Kris (who can't even FIND a flashlight - I don't think we own one)
JBrown6000
<<flashlights are big. D cells are big. If you live in Colorado, you
own good, well-fitting gloves. I would have no problem changing
D-cells in a flashlight with gloves on.
But I still don't buy the hypothesis.
**I don't either. And I don't think I could do it without difficulty.
jb
JBrown6000
<<Who said the gloves were thick? Having lived in Alaska, I've had quite a bit
of experience with fine motor skills and gloves. No big trick changing
flashlight batteries if one is wearing Isotoners or even GI inserts. Any
ex-GI can tell you that!
jb, you're rash judgement sounds pretty stupid to me!
**The warm gloves were somebody elses idea. Remember the scenario? Someone
suggested that the gloves were being worn because it was cold because of a
power outage. That sounds stupid to me. (Not saying *I'm* not stupid.) But I
still think it's stupid to wear big gloves because you're in a power outage and
you need to put batteries (innocently) into a flashlight.
jb
JBrown6000
>--after all, why shouldn't her flashlight be in
>her kitchen?--but it seemed to me an odd place for a flashlight, and I
>think Halle's suggestion of its being washed is a good one.
Greg says:
Why not in the kitchen? The whole time I was growing up, "the"
flashlight was either on the left end of the kitchen counter or in the
first cupboard left of the sink. We knew where it was, and could find
it in the dark.
Kitchens have lots of storage space for miscellany
**Stored in the kitchen maybe. Left out on a counter? I don't think so.
Wasn't Patsy supposed to be a "decorator" type? Would she allow a big ugly
flashlight to be routinely stored in plain sight in the kitchen?
jb
JBrown6000
>they forgot to bring a ransom note and had to compose it on Patsy's legal pad
>and with her pen?
>
>**My scenario doesn't include a forgetful intruder.
>
>jb
Halle says:
Oh, right. Yours is the incredibly brazen, prescient intruder.
**That's right. Smart too. (Not you. The intruder.)
jb
Kris Baker
Actually, folks....putting them IN is simple with gloves on. It's
getting them OUT that's the trick. Try it!
Kris
JBrown6000
>not take the light with him. No reason to.
>The luminol was in answer to a question about whether blood could be washed
>from the flashlight. I'm not sure there would even BE blood.
But why would the intruder leave it behind? And risk even one even
partially-smudged fingerprint haunting him later? Seems unreasonable.
**If the intruder was wearing gloves, then he has every reason to believe that
there's nothing on the flashlight. No problem at all to leave it. In fact,
better to leave it.
<An intruder could have left it behind accidentally, having cleaned it up
beforehand "just in case." But then you have to show that the intruder had
access into the house, and even the investigators have been unable to do that.
**I don't get my facts from the tabloids. There were several keys to the house
outstanding. We simply *don't know*.
<<It makes sense that Patsy, in her desire to paint an intruder scenario,
opened
the basement window, wrote a ransom note, and wiped the flashlight free of
prints and left it there in the hope that it might fool someone. No one says
she was thinking rationally. I think she was setting a scene that, in her
panicked state, seemed the best she could do and maybe even plausible to
others.
**You just said there was no way in, now you're saying that a window was open.
I don't believe there's any evidence to support your theory.
<<Of course, it could be that the flashlight is completely irrelevant to the
case. Who knows?
**That's absolute true. It's also something you probably don't want to
contemplate because it's more supportive of an intruder theory.
JBrown6000
>**I think the only mystery concerning this light is it's ownership. If it
>doesn't belong to anyone in the house, or a policemen, then it is certainly
>an
>interesting piece of evidence. It's non-fingerprinted status is then quite
>intriguing.
Halle says:
<I can only think that if ownership of the flashlight was impossible to pin on
the Ramseys, considering all the people who had opportunity to see it there
before the murder, that it would from the beginning have served as the
cornerstone piece of evidence in a very active search for an intruder.
**Well, since there seems to be a heck of a mystery involving the whereabouts
of the flashlight for a period of time, then I'd say that the police, too,
found its' presence problematical.
<<If the Ramseys truly had all those Colorado politicos under their thumb, then
why hasn't the mysterious flashlight been used to keep attention on the
intruder?
*It is YOUR thesis, not mine, that the Ramsey's had the Colorado politicos
under their thumb. I don't believe that to be the case.
<<The only thing that makes sense is that the flashlight does, in all
likelihood,
belong to them.
**Belong to who? The Ramseys? Who knows?
Halle 8
>house
>outstanding. We simply *don't know*.
I think it was reported in the more legitimate press that keyholders were
cleared. Plus, they had the alarm on.
Halle
Halle 8
>open.
>I don't believe there's any evidence to support your theory.
Yes, but it has been fairly well concluded that no one entered the window. I
think this was reported in either Newsweek or on Primetime Live.
Halle
Kris Baker
>**Stored in the kitchen maybe. Left out on a counter? I don't think
>so. Wasn't Patsy supposed to be a "decorator" type? Would
>she allow a big ugly flashlight to be routinely stored in plain sight
>in the kitchen?
>jb
Nope - if it didn't belong to the family. If your scenario is the case
(the murderous, plotting, intelligent intruder left the flashlight on
the cabinet), then why hasn't it been mentioned by the Ramseys
as not being theirs? "I came down to make coffee, and found the
ransom note at the bottom of the stairs. And there was this big
ugly flashlight on my kitchen counter!"
Kris
Halle 8
Good point.
Halle
Halle 8
>Halle says:
>
><I can only think that if ownership of the flashlight was impossible to pin
>on
>the Ramseys, considering all the people who had opportunity to see it there
>before the murder, that it would from the beginning have served as the
>cornerstone piece of evidence in a very active search for an intruder.
>
>**Well, since there seems to be a heck of a mystery involving the whereabouts
>of the flashlight for a period of time, then I'd say that the police, too,
>found its' presence problematical.
What are you talking about? It was reported finally that there were two
flashlights, one belonging to an officer who took it with him when he left the
scene. The whole missing flashlight rumor was subsequently clarified. Or are
you referring to something else?
><<If the Ramseys truly had all those Colorado politicos under their thumb,
>then
>why hasn't the mysterious flashlight been used to keep attention on the
>intruder?
>*It is YOUR thesis, not mine, that the Ramsey's had the Colorado politicos
>under their thumb.
No, it isn't. But if the flashlight has been shown to not belong to the
Ramsey's, then there'd be a *lot* more interest in looking for an intruder. But
there's not. How do you explain that?
><<The only thing that makes sense is that the flashlight does, in all
>likelihood,
>belong to them.
>
>**Belong to who? The Ramseys? Who knows?
So where's the big police hunt for an intruder?
Halle