Intruder theories only - RDI theories not allowed! *READ FIRST POST* #2

[tovarisch]

BBM

that is not correct. perhaps you read it too quickly? the measured 8 - 10 cc/1.5 - 2 teaspoons refers to the contents of the stomach (the mucous alone), not the contents of the small intestine

" ... The stomach contains a small amount (8 - 10 cc) of viscous to green to tan colored thick mucous material without particulate matter identified. ... "

"... The proximal portion of the small intestine contains fragmented pieces of yellow to light green-tan apparent vegetable or fruit material which may represent fragments of pineapple. ... "
http://www.acandyrose.com/12271996jonbenet07.gif

the AR does not state that the number of vegetable/fruit pieces was counted or that the volume of the pieces was measured. that information would have been documented during the testing which was done later, when the fragmented pieces found in the small intestine (not the stomach) were identified as raw pineapple

I`m using the same coroner`s report that you are referring me too.

Ok, gastric mucous was in the stomach, 8-10 cc, the fragments of food was already moved to the proximal portion of the small intestine at this tragic moment of time. Do you know what proximal portion of small intestine means ? Proximal portion means right next to the stomach. Right next to it. The stomach gastric juice was for this fragments of food, because it`s automatic and proportional in quantity process. It`s” computer”, you know, like everything in our body. No food-no gastric juice. A little tiny food- tiny amount of gastric juice. Do you know it`s all parts of the same digesting system ? You are seperating the parts of the same as it`s equipment .

Coroner did not bother to measure the food`s fragments, hah? Why? It was tiny. He measured the gastric juice, though.

Whatever you say, and you really have said nothing particular,
my saying is IT WAS TINY amount.

 

[tovarisch]

The gastric juice is clear in color, when no food present.

From the coroner`s report we know that Jonbenet`s gastric juice was greenish to tan in color THE SAME as the fragments of food green-yellow-tan that had been in the stomach seconds before and just moved to proximal portion of the small intenstine. The death interupted the proceess of juice to follow, but juice still carried particles of the food and it was GREEN and TAN.
We can not close eyes on this forensic fact, she ate pineapple with something GREEN and TAN at the same time. And it was very small amount of everything.

 

[gramcracker]

it's much more likely that the green/tan color of both the gastric mucous and the fragmented food reflected how far along the processes of putrefecation and autolysis were. (autolysis = self-digestion or self-destruction). the autopsy was conducted many hours after death, and the stomach is an organ that autolyzes quickly. pineapple is neither green nor tan; it's much more likely that it was tentatively identified by texture because it had been minimally chewed (an identification which was later confirmed)

the AR stated that the gastric mucosa (the membrane lining the stomach) was autolyzed, meaning that it was negatively altered by the internal processes which follow death. with that information, IMO it's not logical to posit that the gastric juices or the food fragments found in the small intestine of a corpse would be the same condition/color as what is seen in the organs of a living person

gastric juices are not produced/required to be produced in proportion to the quantity of food being digested. the type of food determines the quantity, one example being that more is required for proteins and less is required for carbs

anyway, there was pineapple on the kitchen table, it was JB's favorite food, it was not served at the party, it was found in her body, it was the only thing that could reasonably be used to peg the TOD, and her consumption of it blows a great big hole in the timeline and the alleged events of her last night on earth. has anyone seen the goal post lately?

 

[Chewy]

Just one quick question about gastric juices, if anyone knows. I do understand that the body stops digesting when it dies. But at the same time if you are left with small amounts of food, basically soaking in gastric acid, would it continue to break down? It's not steak it's pineapple?

 

[THE BUNK]

Just thought of something.

If you had to pay out $118,000 for a ransom, what are the tax consequences of that? Can you actually write that money off in some way as a deduction? I know this sounds morbid, but it's leading me to a possible idea regarding this case.

Also interesting...$118,000 would be above the FDIC limit, wouldn't it?

 

[Mama2JML]

RMN, 11.07.98:

State investigators find no fingerprints on flashlight, batteries from Ramseys' kitchen

By Charlie Brennan

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.​

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

RMN, 11.07.98:

State investigators find no fingerprints on flashlight, batteries from Ramseys' kitchen

By Charlie Brennan

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.​

This is not odd to me at all. I have bought flashlights that had the batteries already in them.

 

[RANCH]

RMN, 11.07.98:

State investigators find no fingerprints on flashlight, batteries from Ramseys' kitchen

By Charlie Brennan

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.​

"If the batteries were wiped" sounds like they don't know that they were wiped but it's speculated that it's possible. That's weak evidence IMO.

 

[gramcracker]

This is not odd to me at all. I have bought flashlights that had the batteries already in them.

already established that this flashlight was not packaged/sold that way, somewhere in this thread

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

already established that this flashlight was not packaged/sold that way, somewhere in this thread

The point is that the flashlight in the house was not a murder weapon and that if it was it would not have been put back in the drawer.

 

[Mama2JML]

"If the batteries were wiped" sounds like they don't know that they were wiped but it's speculated that it's possible. That's weak evidence IMO.

Exactly.

 

[Tawny]

The point is that the flashlight in the house was not a murder weapon and that if it was it would not have been put back in the drawer.

It wasn't put back in the drawer.

 

[gramcracker]

The point is that the flashlight in the house was not a murder weapon and that if it was it would not have been put back in the drawer.

There were no dead batteries. It was simply the Rs own flashlight, which was found on a counter. The police dusted it for prints, and when they dusted the batteries they found they had been wiped clean of prints. NO one wipes batteries to remove prints except someone who wants to try to say the flashlight isn't theirs.

The Rs tried to say the flashlight wasn't theirs, not just the batteries, even though they said they had one "just like it". But in an interview with police, Patsy conceded that the flashlight in the crime scene photo was likely theirs when it was pointed out to her by police that the drawer she claimed their flashlight was kept in was shown in a photo open and without a flashlight.

^^^ BBM

"If the batteries were wiped" sounds like they don't know that they were wiped but it's speculated that it's possible. That's weak evidence IMO.

reading the article carefully, "If the batteries were wiped" is not attributed to anyone/any source. obviously, as written, that wording comes from the reporter positing that the action of wiping the batteries is in synch with JB's pubic area having been wiped clean (a known fact)

 

[tovarisch]

Just thought of something.

If you had to pay out $118,000 for a ransom, what are the tax consequences of that? Can you actually write that money off in some way as a deduction? I know this sounds morbid, but it's leading me to a possible idea regarding this case.

Also interesting...$118,000 would be above the FDIC limit, wouldn't it?

Yes, it is deductible; see IRS publication 547 and instruction to schedule A , form 1040. The loss by theft by kidnapping after couple of IRS tricks will be limited to the certain allowable amount, but nevertheless it`s deductible, I would say up to 50-80% of the loss , depending on the family`s income and all of the family`s itemized deductions.

Murdering the child for 50%-80% ransom amount deductible on tax return?

Let`s remember- there was no kidnapping, body was at the house. And if it were RDI, who they would pay the ransom? themselves ? and claim deduction ?
No kidnapping- no tax deduction.

Publication 547 - Main Content
Theft
A theft is the taking and removing of money or property with the intent to deprive the owner of it. The taking of property must be illegal under the law of the state where it occurred and it must have been done with criminal intent. You do not need to show a conviction for theft.
Theft includes the taking of money or property by the following means.
• Blackmail.
• Burglary.
• Embezzlement.
• Extortion.
• Kidnapping for ransom.
• Larceny.
• Robbery.

10% Rule
You must reduce the total of all your casualty or theft losses on personal-use property by 10% of your adjusted gross income. Apply this rule after you reduce each loss by $100. For more information, see the Form 4684 instructions. If you have both gains and losses from casualties or thefts, see Gains and losses, later in this discussion.

 

[RANCH]

^^^ BBM



reading the article carefully, "If the batteries were wiped" is not attributed to anyone/any source. obviously, as written, that wording comes from the reporter positing that the action of wiping the batteries is in synch with JB's pubic area having been wiped clean (a known fact)

If you can find a source that verifies that the flashlight batteries were in fact "wiped clean" and not simply that no fingerprints were found I'd be interested in reading it. Otherwise I'll go with it being mere speculation.

To me "wiped clean" of fingerprints is used by some to place blame on the Ramsey's. If the batteries were not "wiped clean" it makes a big difference on how this case is viewed.

JMO.

 

[gramcracker]

the Schiller and Thomas books mention that the flashlight and the batteries "held no fingerprints." PMPT/February 1999 and IRMI/April 2011

the Schiller/Thomas books mention that the flashlight and batteries were devoid of fingerprints, not that smeared/illegible prints were obtained

Kolar's book doesn't mention the lack of prints, and describes the MagLite as being favored for use by LE. Kolar also mentions that the ML was not marked in any way (as LEOS do, to identify their equipment) and the serial number could not be traced as having been supplied to any LEO by their department. Kolar mentions that a gloved officer would not leave fresh prints on the ML (but I would think that previous prints would be smeared by a gloved hand). as Kolar asks, would an officer insert batteries while wearing gloves? perhaps. no officer ever stepped forward to say "that's my MagLite"

this is discussed because the Rs were coy/reluctant about IDing the Maglite as belonging to them/their household. which IMO telegraphs guilty knowledge about some part played by the ML during the event (think: the moving light observed by neighbors)

that LE did not confirm the the lack of fingerprints in '98 during an ongoing investigation and while the GJ was in session is to be expected

 

[Linda7NJ]

RMN, 11.07.98:

State investigators find no fingerprints on flashlight, batteries from Ramseys' kitchen



By Charlie Brennan



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.​

Wiping JonBenet's pubic region is also not consistent with an intruder. IMO

It makes no sense. Neither does re-dressing her and covering her with that blanket from the dryer.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[aussiesheila2]

already established that this flashlight was not packaged/sold that way, somewhere in this thread

Nonsense,this has never been established. If someone up thread said it has then they don't know what they are talking about

 

[gramcracker]

already established that this flashlight was not packaged/sold that way, somewhere in this thread

Nonsense, this has never been established. If someone up thread said it has then they don't know what they are talking about

you are correct. I was wrong, it was not in the thread we are reading, and I apologize. it was in this thread:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=240126&page=3

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

"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 you’ve 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.

 

[lawstudent]

The article clearly has a policeman speculating on what the lack of fingerprints *could* mean, and what that possibility *could* indicate, which is a common news article tactic to drum up something interesting to say. It's also why I don't put much stock in books about crimes - things like that get printed as fact. It's not that what the policeman said is inaccurate, but that he's talking about possibility upon possibility.