Why would the Ramseys need to stage?

[andreww]

There would be no need to worry on fingerprints on the flashlight or the batteries if it belonged to them. The reason it was clean was because someone did not want their presence known there. The R's were all supposed to be there so fingerprints are not an issue in the slightest.

But there would be an issue if tissue, hair or blood was found on or in the flashlight and Burkes fingerprints were clearly discernible.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

But there would be an issue if tissue, hair or blood was found on or in the flashlight and Burkes fingerprints were clearly discernible.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No. He could have had that flashlight at any time. It belonged to the family. That it does not have any fingerprints points away from the family.

 

[OliviaG1996]

No. He could have had that flashlight at any time. It belonged to the family. That it does not have any fingerprints points away from the family.

If BR's DNA was found on any tissue, hair, or blood from JBR on the flashlight, that would be of very high significance. Pretty much, case closed. It has nothing to do with them owning the flashlight.

Also, how does no fingerprints found on the flashlight point away from the Rs? Why wouldn't they wipe it off if it was the weapon used for the head bash?

 

[BoldBear]

May I also point-out how crazy it would be for an intruder to take the time to wipe-down the flashlight and not take it with him.

The problem is we're all thinking post-crime. We already know that the investigators couldn't pin-down the murder weapon. If you just used the murder weapon and you can't get it out of the house, you'd wipe it down. Hell, you'd probably soak it in gasoline and set it on fire if you could. You'd only want to distance yourself as far away from that weapon as you could. You'd wipe it down and pray to God you didn't miss anything.

Then you'd leave it in plain site. Hiding it somewhere would only make it more obvious unless you simply remembered to put it back in the junk drawer.

 

[OliviaG1996]

May I also point-out how crazy it would be for an intruder to take the time to wipe-down the flashlight and not take it with him.

The problem is we're all thinking post-crime. We already know that the investigators couldn't pin-down the murder weapon. If you just used the murder weapon and you can't get it out of the house, you'd wipe it down. Hell, you'd probably soak it in gasoline and set it on fire if you could. You'd only want to distance yourself as far away from that weapon as you could. You'd wipe it down and pray to God you didn't miss anything.

Then you'd leave it in plain site. Hiding it somewhere would only make it more obvious unless you simply remembered to put it back in the junk drawer.

You just wrote exactly what I was thinking. I agree.

In addition to this, most IDI believe the bash was completed after the strangulation, in the basement. If the flashlight was used to hit JBR in the head after she was already dead, does that mean the intruder went all the way back upstairs to put the flashlight back on the counter, only to go back downstairs and outside through the basement window?

 

[Mama2JML]

You just wrote exactly what I was thinking. I agree.

In addition to this, most IDI believe the bash was completed after the strangulation, in the basement. If the flashlight was used to hit JBR in the head after she was already dead, does that mean the intruder went all the way back upstairs to put the flashlight back on the counter, only to go back downstairs and outside through the basement window?

Most IDIs don't believe the victim was dead before the head blow was inflicted. Some IDIs believe the flashlight was the instrument used. Others believe it was the baseball bat. Some lean toward other options. Opinions vary. Regarding the intruder's exit, the butler's pantry door seems the most likely means to me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[OliviaG1996]

Most IDIs don't believe the victim was dead before the head blow was inflicted.

Does this mean that most IDIs believe the head blow came before the strangulation or that JBR somehow wasn't going to die from the strangulation alone?

Some IDIs believe the flashlight was the instrument used. Others believe it was the baseball bat. Some lean toward other options. Opinions vary. Regarding the intruder's exit, the butler's pantry door seems the most likely means to me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'd like to hear your opinion (along with anyone else's) about two things:

1. If IDI, what was the point of the suitcase if their point of exit was through the butler's pantry door?
2. Why would an intruder need to wipe off the flashlight if they were wearing gloves?

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

If BR's DNA was found on any tissue, hair, or blood from JBR on the flashlight, that would be of very high significance. Pretty much, case closed. It has nothing to do with them owning the flashlight.

Also, how does no fingerprints found on the flashlight point away from the Rs? Why wouldn't they wipe it off if it was the weapon used for the head bash?

First BR is not a suspect and never has been. But even if he was the flashlight belonging to him could be covered in his dna and that would be normal.
Their fingerprints should be on everything they own. That is nothing that could be used in court. No jury is going to go AHA his fingerprints were on the flashlight!! Because it belonged to the R's.
The only reason to wipe it clean is if it the fingerprints or dna belongs to someone else.

 

[OliviaG1996]

First BR is not a suspect and never has been. But even if he was the flashlight belonging to him could be covered in his dna and that would be normal.
Their fingerprints should be on everything they own. That is nothing that could be used in court. No jury is going to go AHA his fingerprints were on the flashlight!! Because it belonged to the R's.
The only reason to wipe it clean is if it the fingerprints or dna belongs to someone else.

If BR has never been a suspect, that is even worse police work than we have already seen in this case. He was not a baby just learning to walk and talk. He was a child capable of murder like any other child who's committed murder in the past. The "he was just a kid who loved his sister" song and dance doesn't automatically eliminate him from anything.

A fingerprint from BR in, just for example, JBR's blood on the flashlight would not be "normal". I see it like this: Say you killed someone who was breaking into your home, but for some reason, did not want to call police and let it be known you killed the intruder. If the weapon you used to bludgeon the intruder was a metal pipe, would you leave the metal pipe lying around with your fingerprints all over it just because you owned the metal pipe? Or, would you clean/stash/burn the pipe?

 

[Mama2JML]

Does this mean that most IDIs believe the head blow came before the strangulation or that JBR somehow wasn't going to die from the strangulation alone?

I believe there is evidence to indicate the victim was strangled prior to the head blow, more than once, & that the ligature was violently tightened bringing her close to death when the head blow was delivered as a coup de grace.

I'd like to hear your opinion (along with anyone else's) about two things:

1. If IDI, what was the point of the suitcase if their point of exit was through the butler's pantry door?
2. Why would an intruder need to wipe off the flashlight if they were wearing gloves?

1. I don't know when/how/why the suitcase was utilized, or even IF it had a purpose connected to the crime.

2. I'm not sure the flashlight was "wiped off" at all. A lack of discernible prints does not equate to this.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

If BR has never been a suspect, that is even worse police work than we have already seen in this case. He was not a baby just learning to walk and talk. He was a child capable of murder like any other child who's committed murder in the past. The "he was just a kid who loved his sister" song and dance doesn't automatically eliminate him from anything.

A fingerprint from BR in, just for example, JBR's blood on the flashlight would not be "normal". I see it like this: Say you killed someone who was breaking into your home, but for some reason, did not want to call police and let it be known you killed the intruder. If the weapon you used to bludgeon the intruder was a metal pipe, would you leave the metal pipe lying around with your fingerprints all over it just because you owned the metal pipe? Or, would you clean/stash/burn the pipe?

He was 9. He did not kill his sister. The person who left their DNA on her did. It is really that simple.
I don't do crazy scenarios.. I only stick to the facts and reasonable assumptions.
The police when they fingerprint homes of victims are not looking for the prints of the people that live there. They are looking for the ones that should not be there. Same with fibers, hairs and DNA. What matters most is what shouldnt be there. Not what is there left by people who lived there. Since they can not prove that she was killed by a flashlight, Nor do they have the murder weapon that hit her, it is a moot point.
If that flashlight was used to kill her it would have evidence of a head bashing on it. cleaned or not.

This is the only case where the DNA is ignored and scenarios make up the facts.

 

[OliviaG1996]

He was 9. He did not kill his sister. The person who left their DNA on her did. It is really that simple.
I don't do crazy scenarios.. I only stick to the facts and reasonable assumptions.
The police when they fingerprint homes of victims are not looking for the prints of the people that live there. They are looking for the ones that should not be there. Same with fibers, hairs and DNA. What matters most is what shouldnt be there. Not what is there left by people who lived there. Since they can not prove that she was killed by a flashlight, Nor do they have the murder weapon that hit her, it is a moot point.
If that flashlight was used to kill her it would have evidence of a head bashing on it. cleaned or not.

This is the only case where the DNA is ignored and scenarios make up the facts.

You're basing your theory on emotions and not facts. "He was 9. He did not kill his sister. The person who left their DNA on her did." If that was your reasoning as a defense attorney, the jury would shake their heads. Not only has the DNA been discounted by professionals countless times, the fact that BR was "9" does not exclude him from anything, whether you want to feel bad for him or not.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

You're basing your theory on emotions and not facts. "He was 9. He did not kill his sister. The person who left their DNA on her did." If that was your reasoning as a defense attorney, the jury would shake their heads. Not only has the DNA been discounted by professionals countless times, the fact that BR was "9" does not exclude him from anything, whether you want to feel bad for him or not.

No. My theory is completely on facts. Nothing else.
The dna has not been discounted. IT is in CODIS because it meets the criteria. There are not experts in this case that can say that DNA does not matter and that is a fact. Because DNA does matter. That DNA is on her in multiple places and it matters.
Being 9 and his size does exclude him from elements of this crime.
People just make stuff up as they go here but the facts say, there is DNA that does not match any of the ramseys and it has no place being where it was unless it was left by the last person to touch her.

I don't base anything on emotion in this case. I have seen it all and I can see a lot of insanity and craziness instead of looking the facts plain in the face.

 

[OliviaG1996]

No. My theory is completely on facts. Nothing else.
The dna has not been discounted. IT is in CODIS because it meets the criteria. There are not experts in this case that can say that DNA does not matter and that is a fact. Because DNA does matter. That DNA is on her in multiple places and it matters.
Being 9 and his size does exclude him from elements of this crime.
People just make stuff up as they go here but the facts say, there is DNA that does not match any of the ramseys and it has no place being where it was unless it was left by the last person to touch her.

I don't base anything on emotion in this case. I have seen it all and I can see a lot of insanity and craziness instead of looking the facts plain in the face.

PR's sweater fibers in the paint tray doesn't matter? PR not being able to be eliminated as being the ransom note writer doesn't matter? JR's shirt fibers in JBR's underwear don't matter? BR's nonchalant behavior doesn't matter? JBR's previous sexual abuse doesn't matter? I can go on and on, but you get the point. There are a million and one things pointing to one or more of the Rs being responsible and you find one thing that might point to an intruder and run with it? Doesn't make sense, but we'll agree to disagree, I guess.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

PR's sweater fibers in the paint tray doesn't matter? PR not being able to be eliminated as being the ransom note writer doesn't matter? JR's shirt fibers in JBR's underwear don't matter? BR's nonchalant behavior doesn't matter? JBR's previous sexual abuse doesn't matter? I can go on and on, but you get the point. There are a million and one things pointing to one or more of the Rs being responsible and you find one thing that might point to an intruder and run with it? Doesn't make sense, but we'll agree to disagree, I guess.

Nope. That sweater was in the house and all over. She has never been proven to be the ransom note author and it does not at all sound like it came from her or another Ramsey.
BR was a kid.. His behavior does not matter. Kids do not process things as adults do.
There is nothing at all that makes any of the R's guilty of this crime. Nothing. But we do have DNA that points to someone else. Find that DNA source and there is the killer.

 

[UKGuy]

Of course the DNA matters, particularly BR's touch-dna found on the bloodstained pink barbie nightgown, discarded in the wine-cellar!

.

 

[SunnieRN]

There is no way at this time to exonerate any family member in this crime. Burke was certainly larger than many other children who have committed murder. Parents unfortunately have killed their own children, so this would not have been the first time.

Due diligence was not performed at the time of the murder, so unfortunately as years go by, there is less of a chance of justice for Jon Benet.

I hope one day, they will put the murderer behind bars. Secrets do not always last a lifetime!!

 

[andreww]

Nope. That sweater was in the house and all over. She has never been proven to be the ransom note author and it does not at all sound like it came from her or another Ramsey.
BR was a kid.. His behavior does not matter. Kids do not process things as adults do.
There is nothing at all that makes any of the R's guilty of this crime. Nothing. But we do have DNA that points to someone else. Find that DNA source and there is the killer.

The sweater that she happened to be wearing that night? The sweater that she said she never wore while painting? Why were there no other fibres in that tray? You sound like someone that has chosen a side for no apparent reason and is sticking to it despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

 

[andreww]

Most IDIs don't believe the victim was dead before the head blow was inflicted. Some IDIs believe the flashlight was the instrument used. Others believe it was the baseball bat. Some lean toward other options. Opinions vary. Regarding the intruder's exit, the butler's pantry door seems the most likely means to me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How could the butler pantry door have been the exit point when John himself told the cops on their arrival that he had checked ALL the doors and they were all locked?

I know he later changed his statement saying that he might not have checked any doors, but then why did he give a detailed account of himself checking all of them, including his trip out to the garage to check that door as well?

Even the possibility that someone left through the basement window is somewhat suspect because, as I understand it, that window would have been locked as well. We have to take Johns unreliable word for it that he found it open but latched it closed without bothering to even mention it to attending officers.

How on gods earth can anybody be naive enough to believe this load of crap???


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BBB167893]

No. My theory is completely on facts. Nothing else.
The dna has not been discounted. IT is in CODIS because it meets the criteria. There are not experts in this case that can say that DNA does not matter and that is a fact. Because DNA does matter. That DNA is on her in multiple places and it matters.
Being 9 and his size does exclude him from elements of this crime.
People just make stuff up as they go here but the facts say, there is DNA that does not match any of the ramseys and it has no place being where it was unless it was left by the last person to touch her.

I don't base anything on emotion in this case. I have seen it all and I can see a lot of insanity and craziness instead of looking the facts plain in the face.

Lou Smit lives again.