or just put it back in the drawer,where it was said they kept it.
even if they were afraid someone saw it being used in the kitchen..as the neighbor did..big deal,an intruder would carry his own flashlight,right? why wipe it off and leave it out,unless it IS the murder weapon;I believe they were afraid,(and it seems it was),it could be matched to the head injury.
JMO8778,
I reckon the removal of the flashlight and its cleaning was possibly a last minute thing?
We do not know when this occurred, how about John pocketing it on his lone absence that morning, then recognizing it may be harmful cleaning it inside and out.
Whenever it occurred we can link it to the crime-scene precisely because it was forensically cleaned and also more relevently its shape matches the depression in JonBenet's skull.
Now if you are staging a crime-scene, why not leave the
cleaned murder weapon at the scene of the crime, it would help to embroider the crime-scene, lend it some consistency?
Why was this not done? Why was an apparently lifeless body not left half-naked, with the flashlight by its side?
Thats is the question that needs answered, why was it altered to that of a
clothed victim who has been garroted?
That is for those that suggest the garrote offers a visual clue to death, then so does the flashlight if left at the crime-scene. A safe assumption might be that the flashlight might hold traces of JonBenet's hair and random dna?
So what I'm suggesting is that the flashlight may not have been cleaned
after the wine-cellar staging, but prior to it. e.g. it was part of the staging, some have inferred for this very reason that this was its sole purpose e.g. obsfucation?
So although it does not make 100% sense the idea that there was more than one staging, particularly one that included the flashlight, which was then discarded, or placed back into the kitchen, is more consistent than say a PDI from
Toilet Rage because apparently unrelated forensic evidence can be factored into a multiple staging theory?
.