Regarding the flashlight - was there solid forensic evidence that the flashlight and batteries had actually been wiped? Or is it an assumption because no fingerprints were present on an item where one would expect to find fingerprints?
JonBenet's Skull Fractures: The Weapon
- Thread starter otg
- Start date
Whaleshark
New Member
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2011
- Messages
- 632
- Reaction score
- 7
it's a good question... and I've linked several times an article about what fingerprints in forensics can and cannot do -- one huge mistake often made is to assume that because there are no fingerprints found on an item, that the fingerprints were wiped away... it listed several reasons why fingerprints do not always transfer to items, or are not found where one thinks they should be, and how this leads to inaccurate conclusions in cases.
I don't know how many times I have to post it for people to grasp that idea. The flashlight and batteries may, or may not, have been wiped down, but the absence of prints does not mean that they for sure WERE wiped down... even if investigators said as such, because the forensics article mentioned that this is a common mistake for people in the business to make.
Once again, for everyone's viewing pleasure.... again:
Fingerprints - What They Can & Cannot Do!
http://www.scafo.org/library/100601.html
"...The most important fact dealing with the lack of fingerprints is that it neither suggests, implies, or establishes that any person did or did not touch the item of evidence. Items which have been witnessed to have been handled and laboratory experimentation repeatedly reiterate this premise...."
...(I have used the following example and explanation in court many times. If I were to provide a clean, smooth piece of glass to the jury and have them hand it from one to another and then I were to process it for fingerprints, I would not have the expectation of obtaining identifiable prints for each juror on that glass. Although the surface of the glass is what most technicians would agree is a superb surface for obtaining prints, not all of the donors would have perspiration and/or contaminates on their hands, (some individuals have very little natural palmar perspiration), some would probably grasp with such firmness they would smudge or smear their prints, and some would touch the surface in the same location as a previous donor's print).
When a report reads “no prints”, what does that really mean? It means no prints of evidentiary value were preserved. It does not mean that the item was wiped down, or that no one had ever touched or handled it. Occasionally observations to establish that the item has been wiped down may be made and reported, but it usually would not be possible to determine at what point it was wiped or even if the item had been handled since the wiping. The term “no prints” does not mean that there were no marks or smears--—it means that if any markings were present, they lacked sufficient detail to be of evidentiary value. As there are limits to the collection of prints at all scenes, an evaluation of what should be preserved as evidence is a necessity. Technicians cannot develop, preserve, document, and collect all fragmentary portions of ridge detail at crime scenes. Realistic expectations and a point of diminishing return are factors with which to reckon...."
I don't know how many times I have to post it for people to grasp that idea. The flashlight and batteries may, or may not, have been wiped down, but the absence of prints does not mean that they for sure WERE wiped down... even if investigators said as such, because the forensics article mentioned that this is a common mistake for people in the business to make.
Once again, for everyone's viewing pleasure.... again:
Fingerprints - What They Can & Cannot Do!
http://www.scafo.org/library/100601.html
"...The most important fact dealing with the lack of fingerprints is that it neither suggests, implies, or establishes that any person did or did not touch the item of evidence. Items which have been witnessed to have been handled and laboratory experimentation repeatedly reiterate this premise...."
...(I have used the following example and explanation in court many times. If I were to provide a clean, smooth piece of glass to the jury and have them hand it from one to another and then I were to process it for fingerprints, I would not have the expectation of obtaining identifiable prints for each juror on that glass. Although the surface of the glass is what most technicians would agree is a superb surface for obtaining prints, not all of the donors would have perspiration and/or contaminates on their hands, (some individuals have very little natural palmar perspiration), some would probably grasp with such firmness they would smudge or smear their prints, and some would touch the surface in the same location as a previous donor's print).
When a report reads “no prints”, what does that really mean? It means no prints of evidentiary value were preserved. It does not mean that the item was wiped down, or that no one had ever touched or handled it. Occasionally observations to establish that the item has been wiped down may be made and reported, but it usually would not be possible to determine at what point it was wiped or even if the item had been handled since the wiping. The term “no prints” does not mean that there were no marks or smears--—it means that if any markings were present, they lacked sufficient detail to be of evidentiary value. As there are limits to the collection of prints at all scenes, an evaluation of what should be preserved as evidence is a necessity. Technicians cannot develop, preserve, document, and collect all fragmentary portions of ridge detail at crime scenes. Realistic expectations and a point of diminishing return are factors with which to reckon...."
On another thread, midwest mama made a couple of interesting points. In Kolar's book, he said that in BR's interview with Berhnard, he talked about JB being taken quietly, etc., and her being hit over the head with a hammer. 'struck a blow', is what was written, but then BR imitated the striking motion twice, so I'm not sure if he meant 2 blows, or if he demonstrated the one blow, and then demonstrated the one blow again. Anyway, we can throw a hammer into the discussion, because if anybody had an idea of what the weapon was, it was somebody from that house. All moo,
dodie20,
Yes, very curious indeed, how would he know JonBenet was hit on the head and not the back of her neck?
It has been alleged that BT and DS were debating the manner in which JonBenet had been asphyxiated. If correct then I think I know why they had this discussion.
Why should the technicalities matter so much, to then such young boys, who were never present?
Another nugget from Kolar was that there were six or seven unidentified samples of touch-dna found at the wine-cellar crime-scene and one of those was female.
That latter evidence allowed Kolar to reject IDI completely.
Assuming Kolar's theory is correct I reckon JonBenet was whacked on the head by some kitchen utensil, i.e. something metal and cylindrical in shape. This would leave what appears as an elliptical or oval depression in her skull.
What Kolar has not expanded upon is the sexual asssault aspect. His theory implies that the assault which preceded her head injury must have taken place in the kitchen?
.
Thanks, UKGuy. You've given us a third idea that sounds logical. We'll eventually figure this out.
I think there would be additional variables between an object swung at 25 mph versus a body traveling at 25 mph but, basically, the pressure applied is what fractured JonBenet's skull. Steve Thomas's theory is the only one presented by someone with access to the evidence that makes sense to me, both from the physics stand point and other known events, testimonies, and behaviors in that household. Kolar could be right but I found several things in his book that, to my mind, were in reasonable doubt.
Thanks, UKGuy. You've given us a third idea that sounds logical. We'll eventually figure this out.
I think there would be additional variables between an object swung at 25 mph versus a body traveling at 25 mph but, basically, the pressure applied is what fractured JonBenet's skull. Steve Thomas's theory is the only one presented by someone with access to the evidence that makes sense to me, both from the physics stand point and other known events, testimonies, and behaviors in that household. Kolar could be right but I found several things in his book that, to my mind, were in reasonable doubt.
BOESP,
ITA. Kolar suggests the kitchen as the primary crime scene, yet there is forensic evidence in JonBenet's bedroom, why does he bypass it?
I think JonBenet and Burke, after concluding the pineapple snack retired to JonBenet's bedroom. Now I'll leave it to your imagination why BR's pajama bottoms might be on the floor and not on his person?
That stuff about JonBenet's bedroom light not working, would that motivate BR to bring the flashlight along, or could that be employed for another more juvenile purpose, i.e. lighting up JonBenet's body while pictures were taken, or simply to facilitate under-the-covers juvenile voyeurism?
.
I think we may be surprised at things that could be found, but each one would tell a different story.
Today I was wondering about the suspicious golf club, and realized that I'd only ever seen irons referenced to (not because they are, but more likely because I've just not read about any others).
My husband is a golfer. I've seen those &#@* clubs a million times. I thought about the shape that's stuck in my head (because of this thread and the person who started it), and realized there are clubs similar. I went out and got two heavy woods, and stamped the rounded side into a pad of clay. It was very close to the oval shape shown here, just a little sharper. I would post a picture if I knew how.
Here is a similar club, although this one looks way lighter weight than the ones I used (picture?):
I love Google.
The thing about the hammer though is this. Was this BR's choice of words, or was it Kolar's? Sometimes, we use a particular word in a broad sense, like hammer, mallet, club, etc. So a hammer might not necessarily be a man's working tool hammer, but maybe something from the kitchen, for instance, used to pound meat. Like, when I hear the word mallet, I immediately think of a marimba mallet, because I used to have a marimba and dozens of mallets. Anyway, just a thought.
Remember the movie is just that- a movie. While director Lawrence Schiller was given access to the R home to recreate sets and had a lot of info on the case, it is not an eyewitness re-creation. The police HAVE PROOF that JB wore the WHITE top to the party. They have photos taken at the White's that show her in the white top.
dodie20,
Guilty or innocent BR was obviously primed by PR and JR exactly as to his role and where he fitted into the fake Ramsey timeline of events.
So when it comes to imagining what befell JonBenet, I definitely do not expect BR to tell us the exact object used to whack JonBenet. Even 10-year old boys know when to dissemble.
How many times did I tell my mother "Honest I never put my hand into the cookie jar?"
.
There was said to be a smell like peroxide or similar in JB's bathroom. Patsy did dye her own hair, it is not known if she dyed JB's hair herself or had it done at a salon. Actually, JB's hair was highlighted, not dyed. The old term in my generation for this was "frosting". The coroner made a note in the autopsy report that JB's hair was "freshly (evenly) colored". JB had been in a pageant just before Christmas and it is possible she had it dyed then, or maybe Patsy did do something with JB's hair herself.
What the coroner meant when he noted this was that JB did not appear to have deep roots that had grown out, but the blonde highlights started very near the scalp. In highlighting, the roots are not as noticeable as all-over dying.
I remember reading that PR blamed the sun for JB's lightened hair. No way. This was a bleach job. Anyway, if she wouldn't admit the truth, she was probably secretive about it, so I doubt she took her to a public salon and just did it herself. Also, hair dyes have a very distinctive smell, much different than a peroxide or bleach. I've never seen a picture progression of JB's hair, but in the picture of her in the pink sweater, JB's hair has the distinct look of a home job, maybe from 'sun in'. The roots were dark, and then further down, it got a little lighter, and then a little lighter, and so forth. There were several different colors of hair, and overall, it had an orangy, brassy tint. Later on, her hair color was much lighter and more uniform, very pretty, even though it obviously wasn't natural. Maybe PR had a trusted stylist do it, but IMO, it's more likely that she just got more adept at the coloring.
Patsy had told friends it was the "hot Michigan sun" that bleached JB's hair but her friends knew better! I had once read long ago that Patsy had taken JB to a hairdresser when JB was three. I think she was just beginning to get more involved in the pageants and Patsy though JB would have an advantage being blonde instead of her natural sandy brown. She had wanted the hairdresser to lighten JB's hair and I believe the hairdresser refused, saying she would not dye the hair of so young a child.
They do sell highlighting kits, so it is very possible Patsy did it herself.
They do sell highlighting kits, so it is very possible Patsy did it herself.
Darlene733510
Active Member
I spent most of yesterday reading and researching a lot of items about this case. I will find time to add it here later today. I have quite a lot of notes to decipher.
I don't mean for this message to be a teaser, and it may be something many of you have discussed.
I have to take Miss Prissy Cat to the vet today, and do a few errands, so I will post my thoughts later today.
I don't mean for this message to be a teaser, and it may be something many of you have discussed.
I have to take Miss Prissy Cat to the vet today, and do a few errands, so I will post my thoughts later today.
midwest mama
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2012
- Messages
- 1,303
- Reaction score
- 46
This is from a Newsweek article entitled "The Body in the Basement":
"Even in the sometimes vicious world of junior beauty pageants, the Ramseys were considered caring parents. But JonBenet-the 1995 Little Miss Colorado and the reighning America's Little Royal Miss-did inspire jeanlousy. "Several mothers told me that when JonBenet competed, they would take their daughters out of competition because they knew their girls would not win," says Eleanor Von Duyke, who runs the Show Biz USA circut of pageants. And the Ramseys reveled in their daughter's career. Patsy Ramsey regularly had her kindergartner's hair lightened at a beauty salon.
Notice the plural Ramseys - and remember John said JB's pageants were something fun for Patsy and JB. He usually kept himself somewhat distanced from caring about JB's pageant life, except to tell us that he emphasized JB's TALENT being what matterered most. Interesting comment by the article reporter about a "career".
P.S. Ms. Von Duyke's book, "A Little Girl's Dream: A JonBenet Ramsey Story" is a quick read and a window on a lot of dynamics that might have been at play in JB's death. Not a very well-comprised book, but still worthy of reading for the abuse/pageant info connections.
otg
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2010
- Messages
- 2,410
- Reaction score
- 184
M.James,
Or for the benefit of anyone who doesnt know how to post a picture... Assuming it is digital (If its not, you'll have to scan a physical print and file it on your computer.), upload it to a public photo storage site (most people seem to use tinypic.com), and then use the URL you are given in your post.
If I didnt make instructions clear enough, or if anyone has any questions about that or anything else, contact me, or any of the other posters who you see do something you want to know about, by private message here (rather than take up space on one of the threads). Im sure anyone will be more than happy to help. This is a great group.
Or for the benefit of anyone who doesnt know how to post a picture... Assuming it is digital (If its not, you'll have to scan a physical print and file it on your computer.), upload it to a public photo storage site (most people seem to use tinypic.com), and then use the URL you are given in your post.
If I didnt make instructions clear enough, or if anyone has any questions about that or anything else, contact me, or any of the other posters who you see do something you want to know about, by private message here (rather than take up space on one of the threads). Im sure anyone will be more than happy to help. This is a great group.
Darlene733510
Active Member
Phew!!! What a day. Miss Priss had to play hide and seek, and I had to get her out from under our bed, she howled all the way to the vet. Came home and my big freezer had a temp warning light on. Had to go and get a new one, and haggle to get it delivered tomorrow, or I will have a freezer full of food spoiled. Got that done. Now Miss Priss is ignoring me big time.
I was looking at pictures yesterday. In JB's bedroom her dresser is very close to the left side of her bed. The top has a round beveled edge. Made me wonder if her head was slammed against it what kind of damage would it do.
Then I looked at kitchen pictures. The countertops have this rounded edge also. I did not find pictures of the kitchen with furniture, as these were taken when the house was empty.
I was hoping to find some other ones to see what was on the countertops that could be used to cause the head injury. The edge of the countertops is what drew my attention.
On 12/13 Patsy had a party. Everyone brought alcohol, but not much food. so she ordered the food. At the party Trip Demuth asked Patsy where the children were. Patsy said she THOUGHT they were upstairs. Her comment was that she didn't remember if they came down and left their food dishes and went back to play. This concerns me - which children were upstairs, and what were they doing? As a Mom, I would be concerned as to what these children were up to. Sure didn't seem to bother Patsy.
In ST's book he mentioned the red shirt thrown on the bathroom floor. He seemed to think
JB was put to bed in this shirt. His idea was that after the kids had pineapple they went to bed, and Patsy stayed up to get some things ready for the trip, that JB wet the bed about midnight. and that"s when PR became so angry that she slammed JB's head against whatever caused all the damage, removed the red shirt and put dry clothes on her.
When fleet and John awakened Burke to be taken to their friends house, he never questioned why all the people and the police were there, yet his voice was heard on the 911 call.
Fleet white noticed that the top latch on the wc door was fastened. Could a child reach to the top of the door to latch it? I don't think so
Fleet White wanted the Gov. To appoint a special prosecutor. and threatened to go to the Attorney General because he wanted Hunter off the case. He had an argument and what he said was, "Hunter what would you say if I told you that the Ramsey's owned Hi Tech shoes."
Fleet asked the Gov. not once, but twice to appt. a special prosecutor, which tells me he suspected the R's would get special treatment and get away with murder, which they sure did.
That's it for now. I just pray that some day this case will be solved. Right now I know who I suspect, but were there more than one is the big question.
I was looking at pictures yesterday. In JB's bedroom her dresser is very close to the left side of her bed. The top has a round beveled edge. Made me wonder if her head was slammed against it what kind of damage would it do.
Then I looked at kitchen pictures. The countertops have this rounded edge also. I did not find pictures of the kitchen with furniture, as these were taken when the house was empty.
I was hoping to find some other ones to see what was on the countertops that could be used to cause the head injury. The edge of the countertops is what drew my attention.
On 12/13 Patsy had a party. Everyone brought alcohol, but not much food. so she ordered the food. At the party Trip Demuth asked Patsy where the children were. Patsy said she THOUGHT they were upstairs. Her comment was that she didn't remember if they came down and left their food dishes and went back to play. This concerns me - which children were upstairs, and what were they doing? As a Mom, I would be concerned as to what these children were up to. Sure didn't seem to bother Patsy.
In ST's book he mentioned the red shirt thrown on the bathroom floor. He seemed to think
JB was put to bed in this shirt. His idea was that after the kids had pineapple they went to bed, and Patsy stayed up to get some things ready for the trip, that JB wet the bed about midnight. and that"s when PR became so angry that she slammed JB's head against whatever caused all the damage, removed the red shirt and put dry clothes on her.
When fleet and John awakened Burke to be taken to their friends house, he never questioned why all the people and the police were there, yet his voice was heard on the 911 call.
Fleet white noticed that the top latch on the wc door was fastened. Could a child reach to the top of the door to latch it? I don't think so
Fleet White wanted the Gov. To appoint a special prosecutor. and threatened to go to the Attorney General because he wanted Hunter off the case. He had an argument and what he said was, "Hunter what would you say if I told you that the Ramsey's owned Hi Tech shoes."
Fleet asked the Gov. not once, but twice to appt. a special prosecutor, which tells me he suspected the R's would get special treatment and get away with murder, which they sure did.
That's it for now. I just pray that some day this case will be solved. Right now I know who I suspect, but were there more than one is the big question.
Darlene733510
Active Member
I wonder if the injury on JB's neck was done in her room? ST said the red turtleneck was on the floor in the bathroom . If she had the turtleneck on, and someone twisted the shirt around her neck what would happen if she had a necklace on under the shirt? The chain from the necklace, it seems to me, would leave a mark on her neck. I think I read somewhere that JB wore a necklace and ring that evening. If she tried to resist, could JB's own ring have made that mark?
Now I am thinking the head bash may have happened in her bathroom. Then I also wonder if the bash could have come from one of her trophies - that seems really gory that she would be killed by one of them, but this murder was a cruel and gory way for her to end her life.
Now I am thinking the head bash may have happened in her bathroom. Then I also wonder if the bash could have come from one of her trophies - that seems really gory that she would be killed by one of them, but this murder was a cruel and gory way for her to end her life.
Thanks, otg.
I’ll work on that. Problem is, I’m not so computer savvy. I am going to try something else first, though.
I took the pictures with my phone, then sent them to my email. I thought I would be able to copy them here from one or the other, but I’m just too ignorant in that field. I tried to save them to my computer from my email, but now I can’t find them. I would think it was hilarious if it wasn’t so frustrating.
I’ll have to try to find the file (again) before I can try your advice.
Thanks, help is always appreciated. The pictures aren’t so great anyway, but you never know what little, unexpected clue could lead to something bigger.
I'm going to try to edit one to this post.