Was BR involved? #2

Mama2JML · Apr 4, 2014

Tawny said:
http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/extra/ramsey/1107jonnn.shtml

Lucky for us, that article still exists.

Thank you, Tawny. From the article linked above:

"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."
...

"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."

Were the batteries 'factory-installed'?

Moab · Apr 4, 2014

Maglites using alkaline batteries are most commonly sold like this with the batteries included in the packaging but not 'installed' in the flashlight itself.

otg · Apr 4, 2014

Mama2JML said:
Thank you, Tawny. From the article linked above:
"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."
...

"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."
Were the batteries 'factory-installed'?

The simple answer to your last question (bbm) is, No.

But the explanation is that if the batteries are included in the package, Maglites (and most other items that require batteries) have them included separately within the plastic packaging. The reason is two-fold. On a store shelf, this prevents people from turning the light on and depleting the batteries before the item is purchased. And there is also the problem that even while not in use, installed there is still a slight drain on the battery life if the terminals are connected (even while turned off). If youve ever noticed on many items you buy where the batteries are in place, there will be some kind of paper or plastic separator that has to be removed between one of the ends of the battery and its connection.

But you raise a good point. Theres no reason we shouldnt consider every angle before drawing any conclusions from what is known.

otg · Apr 4, 2014

(sbm)

gramcracker said:
Captain OCD reporting for duty.

Welcome, new member, Captain OCD! :floorlaugh:

otg · Apr 4, 2014

PPKik said:
MyBelle said:

The lights to the basement were found turned on. I don't see any 9-year-old wanting to go into a basement for any reason during the night without turning on the lights.

Click to expand...

Do you remember where this came from?

If the R's reported this, it's meaningless.

How would anyone know since had to be such a time lapse between the murder and the 911 call. I'm curious who said this because I don't remember reading this, but it's been years that I've read anything, except for most of Kolar's book. TIA

The question would also be, "reported" by whom? After BPD arrived, Officer French was the first to go to the basement, looking for an entry/exit point for any intruder. Later it was learned that FW and John had both been to the basement early in the day after police had arrived. Seems the only one whose "report" of the lights being on in the basement (and which rooms also) that would mean anything would be French.

otg · Apr 4, 2014

blackowl04 said:
Is there anywhere that tells what time these neighbors saw these lights moving around?

Sent from my SCH-S738C using Tapatalk 2

Oh, it's another new member! Welcome to WS, blackowl04 (and welcome to the fray)!

Mama2JML · Apr 4, 2014

otg said:
The simple answer to your last question (bbm) is, No.

But the explanation is that if the batteries are included in the package, Maglites (and most other items that require batteries) have them included separately within the plastic packaging. The reason is two-fold. On a store shelf, this prevents people from turning the light on and depleting the batteries before the item is purchased. And there is also the problem that even while not in use, installed there is still a slight drain on the battery life if the terminals are connected (even while turned off). If youve ever noticed on many items you buy where the batteries are in place, there will be some kind of paper or plastic separator that has to be removed between one of the ends of the battery and its connection.

But you raise a good point. Theres no reason we shouldnt consider every angle before drawing any conclusions from what is known.

BBM

I agree. One should consider the plausibility of every angle. ...& that's subject to interpretation.

The flashlight belonged in the home, and it wasn't discarded. Had fingerprints been lifted, one might expect Ramsey prints identified. It seems most likely the items were not free of prints, but, rather, any prints were smudged, partial, &/or otherwise unidentifiable.

otg · Apr 4, 2014

Mama2JML said:
BBM

I agree. One should consider the plausibility of every angle. ...& that's subject to interpretation.

The flashlight belonged in the home, and it wasn't discarded. Had fingerprints been lifted, one might expect Ramsey prints identified. It seems most likely the items were not free of prints, but, rather, any prints were smudged, partial, &/or otherwise unidentifiable.

We can only guess, since we don't have access to the lab reports on evidence. All we have is accounts relayed by reporters, and books written by people who may have had access to the actual reports (and their accuracy in writing the interpretations of the actual evidence).

chlban · Apr 4, 2014

Tawny said:
http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/extra/ramsey/1107jonnn.shtml

Lucky for us, that article still exists.

From the article: "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."

Maybe for the same reason you would leave a Ransom Note and then leave the dead body in the basement thereby eliminating any chance of collecting the Ransom?

Because it is all BS!

Mama2JML · Apr 4, 2014

chlban said:
From the article: "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."

Maybe for the same reason you would leave a Ransom Note and then leave the dead body in the basement thereby eliminating any chance of collecting the Ransom?

Because it is all BS!

Why would the perp leave these obviously valuable, evidentiary items (subsequently sourced to the home); the broken paintbrush (w/the remnant in the paint tote), the notepad, the pen, the flashlight, & the victim?...

Tawny · Apr 4, 2014

Mama2JML said:
Why would the perp leave these evidentiary items subsequently sourced to the home; the broken paintbrush (w/the remnant in the paint tote), the notepad, the pen, the flashlight on the counter, & the victim?...

Because the perp didn't leave the home. JMO

2 percent · Apr 4, 2014

UKGuy said:
MyBelle,
What you thought is different from the facts its that simple.

That BR's touch-dna is on the pink nightgown, which is bloodstained, links him directly to the wine-cellar, thats a fact!

His fingerprints are all over artifacts found in the breakfast bar, not important, except so are JonBenet's, this is where she last snacked pineapple before being sexually assaulted, thats a fact!

According to the R's version of events, there is nothing to suggest BR was not awake before the 911 call, the R's contradicted themselves over this, thats a fact.

BR stated that JonBenet walked into the house on Christmas Night, which contradicts the parents version, thats a fact.

Can you discern a pattern here at all, i.e. BR's version events is at variance with that of his parents?

Conclusion: BR was involved in the staging and death of JonBenet, to date he refuses to assist in the cold case review of JonBenet's homicide!

I find it more likely the adults are lying and the child telling the truth.

Mama2JML · Apr 4, 2014

Tawny said:
Because the perp didn't leave the home. JMO

The evidence I mentioned is inconsistent with BDI theories that include parental involvement of staging an intruder scene.

Many items, used in the commission of the crime, were removed from the scene -or- discarded/hidden really, really, REALLY well. Other items of potentially great evidentiary value were left in plain sight, used then placed back in the 'proper' location. ...aside from the portion of the paintbrush used to fashion "the garrote".

How do BDI theories accommodate this inconsistency?

MyBelle · Apr 4, 2014

bettybaby00 said:
Huh? I'm talking about the possible threat of Kolar being sued by john ramsey.

And that's why I think Kolar might relish that, b/c everything would come out. It's not surprising all those lawsuits filed by the Rs were "settled out of court"

?????

I don't think that's accurate. Anyone with more knowledge on the subject?

In order to win a libel lawsuit, the burden would be on Ramsey to prove Kolar isn't telling the truth. I don't believe Kolar has libeled JR. He was indicted and that is a matter of public record.

MyBelle · Apr 4, 2014

Mama2JML said:
The evidence I mentioned is inconsistent with BDI theories that include parental involvement of staging an intruder scene.

Many items, used in the commission of the crime, were removed from the scene -or- discarded/hidden really, really, REALLY well. Other items of potentially great evidentiary value were left in plain sight, used then placed back in the 'proper' location. ...aside from the portion of the paintbrush used to fashion "the garrote".

How do BDI theories accommodate this inconsistency?

It doesn't. Those items may have been discarded when JR left the house for two hours.

UKGuy · Apr 4, 2014

Mama2JML said:
The evidence I mentioned is inconsistent with BDI theories that include parental involvement of staging an intruder scene.

Many items, used in the commission of the crime, were removed from the scene -or- discarded/hidden really, really, REALLY well. Other items of potentially great evidentiary value were left in plain sight, used then placed back in the 'proper' location. ...aside from the portion of the paintbrush used to fashion "the garrote".

How do BDI theories accommodate this inconsistency?

Mama2JML,
You must elucidate the inconsistency you refer to. Since the use of particular items, that some items were hidden and others left in plain view might simply represent the aggregation of different actors as they engaged in staging?

BR might have removed the size-6 underwear and walked out the door with them on the morning of 12/26/1996. JR might have redressed JonBenet in the size-12's then hidden the remainder in his golf-bag, also he may have used the flashlight upstairs in JonBenet's bedroom and whacked her on the head, thinking he might finish her off, before relocating her to the basement. Then JR wipes the flashlight clean, remembering he changed the batteries recently so he wiped those too. PR might have cut herself when using the broken paintbrush, so hid or destroyed the missing piece with her biological stuff on it?

BDI is a much more consistent theory than either JDI or PDI, since it can actually offer sound explanations for the totality of the forensic evidence.

The other nearly as consistent theory is PDI, but starts to fall apart precisely on the forensic evidence details, e.g. the size-12's: If PR redressed JonBenet in the size-12's, why were the size-12's not found in JonBenet's underwar drawer, after all PR allegedly went to great lengths to stage a crime-scene, but left out the size-12's, how so?

.

UKGuy · Apr 4, 2014

2 percent said:
I find it more likely the adults are lying and the child telling the truth.

percent,
Well BR is on record as offering a fabricated version of events for the morning of 26/12/1996.

Conclusion: all three Ramseys were lying.

But was BR lying because he is an innocent party and was told to offer up a fake version of events, under pressure from his parents, or are the parents lying to cover for BR, you decide?

.

bettybaby00 · Apr 4, 2014

UKGuy said:
Mama2JML,
You must elucidate the inconsistency you refer to. Since the use of particular items, that some items were hidden and others left in plain view might simply represent the aggregation of different actors as they engaged in staging?

BR might have removed the size-6 underwear and walked out the door with them on the morning of 12/27/1996. JR might have redressed JonBenet in the size-12's then hidden the remainder in his golf-bag, also he may have used the flashlight upstairs in JonBenet's bedroom and whacked her on the head, thinking he might finish her off, before relocating her to the basement. Then JR wipes the flashlight clean, remembering he changed the batteries recently so he wiped those too. PR might have cut herself when using the broken paintbrush, so hid or destroyed the missing piece with her biological stuff on it?

BDI is a much more consistent theory than either JDI or PDI, since it can actually offer sound explanations for the totality of the forensic evidence.

The other nearly as consistent theory is PDI, but starts to fall apart precisely on the forensic evidence details, e.g. the size-12's: If PR redressed JonBenet in the size-12's, why were the size-12's not found in JonBenet's underwar drawer, after all PR allegedly went to great lengths to stage a crime-scene, but left out the size-12's, how so?

.

Speaking of the size 12s, I was reading that thread as it has recently been bumped. The beginning is a wealth of info, and for me had some interesting info regarding PRs testimony, revealing more lies, which are actually kinda critical considering what PR was trying to get LO to believe.

As for the idea that items left behind point more to an intruder:

ITA with what you are saying with regard to how some items could have easily been taken from the home that morning, and by PRs sister.

But I have a question. Do we know what time the Rs flight was scheduled to leave, and what time they would have needed to leave the house to get there? Obviously with a private plane, one doesn't have to worry about "missing" their flight, but they would most certainly need to contact their pilot by a certain time if running significantly late. Given this, I could see the Rs thinking they needed to make that 911 call by a certain time. If they were planning the call time based on what time it would seem reasonable they got up for the trip, they may have simply run out of time re: staging, and some items were then "overlooked" in the process.

Not sure if that makes sense? :blushing:

UKGuy · Apr 4, 2014

bettybaby00 said:
Speaking of the size 12s, I was reading that thread as it has recently been bumped. The beginning is a wealth of info, and for me had some interesting info regarding PRs testimony, revealing more lies, which are actually kinda critical considering what PR was trying to get LO to believe.

As for the idea that items left behind point more to an intruder:

ITA with what you are saying with regard to how some items could have easily been taken from the home that morning, and by PRs sister.

But I have a question. Do we know what time the Rs flight was scheduled to leave, and what time they would have needed to leave the house to get there? Obviously with a private plane, one doesn't have to worry about "missing" their flight, but they would most certainly need to contact their pilot by a certain time if running significantly late. Given this, I could see the Rs thinking they needed to make that 911 call by a certain time. If they were planning the call time based on what time it would seem reasonable they got up for the trip, they may have simply run out of time re: staging, and some items were then "overlooked" in the process.

Not sure if that makes sense? :blushing:

bettybaby00,
Makes perfect sense. Yes JR had already preloaded the plane with some items, and they were scheduled that morning, I forget the exact time, but the R's were awake in time to make the flight no problem.

Lots of stuff was overlooked, e.g. size-12's, pineapple snack, hair-ties, etc. Enough to make their version of events very questionable.

Its probable that the mislaid items and those removed were the result of different people staging at different times.

Its entirely possible that JonBenet was in BR's bedroom, subsequently she was staged in her own bedroom, i.e. bloodstain on her pillow, feces all over the place, allegedly including BR's pants, no mention if they were fecally stained. Then this staging was revised down to the basement with at each stage items left behind or removed later, this is what I think happened to the size-12's?

.

gramcracker · Apr 4, 2014

Thomas wrote that PR woke around 5:30AM that morning, which seemed late for a 6:30AM flight

in PMPT Schiller wrote that pilot MA told BPD that the flight was scheduled for 7AM and Kolar quotes JR as reporting the same planned departure time

the co-pilot was at the airport/was told about the kidnapping by 6:05AM; the pilot was en route (his wife was told when she answered the home phone after he left)

IIRC it was about a 15/20 minute drive to the airport (?)

Was BR involved? #2

New Member

Member

Attachments

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

Former Member

Former Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Indentured Cat Servant

DNASolves

Online statistics

Forum statistics