The Flashlight.....

[Chrishope]

ITA. A Ramsey "familiar with forensics" (as UK Guy surmised) would not have had a need to wipe the flashlight simply for the purpose of removing fingerprints. They would have wanted to remove any other traces of evidence they thought specifically related to the crime: hair, fibers, wine cellar/floor dust/debris, glass shard dust, etc?

So, which Ramsey would have been most likely, under the circumstances at the time, to be the one to think like that?

Well you already know what theory of the case I subscribe to so if I reply JR you won't be surprised.

I long ago settled on the FL as the most probable weapon (with respect to otg who's done an enormous amount of work on the topic) I was just in the "neighborhood" so to speak, looking for some data from an old post. Thought I'd make a comment or two and say hi. Hi MWM.

 

[Chrishope]

This was my only forensic test, too. One 12.5” M.L. which I loaded with 3 batteries. It took my thumb and 2 fingers. One would leave at least partial prints, imo.

Could be. Might get a thumb print. Still, as far as we know there are no prints on the batteries, and there would be no reason for a Ramsey to wipe down the batteries - we expect their prints on their FL batteries. So slipping them in w/o leaving a useful print is what occurs (another poster came up with this idea a few years ago, but I can no longer remember who)

IIRC, PR tried to claim initially that it wasn’t their M.L.

BlueCrab deals with this in post 25 of this thread.

But when shown a drawer where the flashlight was supposed to be and wasn’t, plus which LHP and friend JF told LE it belonged to the Rs, PR was placed in the corner about the M.L. I can see 3 reasons for distancing from the M.L.:

• It had forensic evidence on it, WC dust or something else.
• The plan was to blame it on an (inside job) intruder.
• A stager may have felt the M.L. disrupted their narrative of everyone went to bed, except JR who claimed he stayed up to help BR put a toy together, and then why would a flashlight be on the counter.

In trying to discern any other motivation for cleaning off the M.L., I also came up with a 4th reason - “overthinking” the situation, kind of like why were there no fingerprints on the RN. PR does an American Ninja Warrior mantling flip using the rails of the bannister, in order to read the RN from below. Hmmm. :dunno: MHO.

Overthinking is always a possibility.

 

[midwest mama]

qft: with regard ti your post comments sbout LHP and friend JF saying the maglite brlonged to the R's. ...I had no recollection of reading that anywhere, but I believe since LHP eorked in the house and was responsible for keeping things picked up and put away, she could have had knowledge of it and where it was usually stored. But it seems odd to me that JF, if it's John Fernie, would know much about the kind of flashlight the R's would have owned? I wonder how he knew that?

 

[questfortrue]

qft: with regard ti your post comments sbout LHP and friend JF saying the maglite brlonged to the R's. ...I had no recollection of reading that anywhere, but I believe since LHP eorked in the house and was responsible for keeping things picked up and put away, she could have had knowledge of it and where it was usually stored. But it seems odd to me that JF, if it's John Fernie, would know much about the kind of flashlight the R's would have owned? I wonder how he knew that?

Hi, Midwest Mama,
John Fernie and housekeeper Linda Hoffmann-Pugh would subsequently identify the flashlight as belonging to the Ramsey family, both having seen it in the home before the kidnapping. Kolar, FFJ (Kindle Locations 743-744).

Smit interviewed JR about the Mag-Lite in 1998:
LOU SMIT: What kind of flashlight do you
23 have?
24 JOHN RAMSEY: Well we've got several, I guess.
25 One that, I believe, came up as an item was this
0145
1 MAG light flashlight. If it's the one I think it
2 is, my son gave me that for a Christmas present a
3 year or two ago. And that was probably in the bar.
4 The bar drawer was typically where it was kept.
5 LOU SMIT: You don't remember getting that?
6 JOHN RAMSEY: No. I know I did not get it.
7 LOU SMIT: Anyone else get it?
8 JOHN RAMSEY: Not that I recall. I don't even
9 know it worked. Typically our flashlights didn't
10 work because we needed new batteries (INAUDIBLE).
11 We might have a few blown flashlights around.

Source - ACR
MHO

 

[Tawny]

How do you not know how a flashlight works.

 

[THE BUNK]

Typically our flashlights didn't
10 work because we needed new batteries (INAUDIBLE).

"Typically our flashlights don't work"??????

I had no idea that this was such a serial problem that family had. Chronic flashlight battery failure.

 

[midwest mama]

"Typically our flashlights don't work"??????

I had no idea that this was such a serial problem that family had. Chronic flashlight battery failure.

I wonder why in the world, when the line of questioning simply seemed to establish ownership of the flashlight, JR found it necessary to embellish his answers with the story about their flashlights typically not working, and that they needed new batteries. Since it was determined that even the batteries were "wiped clean", it now seems even more suspicious to me that JR could have been the one to reload fresh batteries into the flashlight, possibly wearing gloves, which he might have already had on as a precaution during part of the crime and/or staging? But we have to wonder if "wiped clean" batteries would have left some sort of identifiable fiber evidence behind, i.e. color and fabric type?

 

[gramcracker]

I wonder why in the world, when the line of questioning simply seemed to establish ownership of the flashlight, JR found it necessary to embellish his answers with the story about their flashlights typically not working, and that they needed new batteries.

yet another example of overthinking. taking all the examples into account, it is blatant and shows consciousness of guilt

 

[Aleph]

Still, as far as we know there are no prints on the batteries, and there would be no reason for a Ramsey to wipe down the batteries - we expect their prints on their FL batteries..

This is such a good point.

 

[Chrishope]

This is such a good point.

Thank you, but it's really pretty basic. It's possible (imo not probable) that a Ramsey wiped the batteries because he/she over-thought the situation. But if the perp was smart enough to stage a fake intruder, it's a cinch the perp realized that the intruder wouldn't bother wiping Ramsey prints off Ramsey flashlight batteries. Plus the "intruder" would have to do this in the dark, since the FL wouldn't be working w/o the batteries. After wiping them, how does one reinstall them in the FL w/o getting fingerprints on them? I suspect by letting them slip into the light between the fingers, which wouldn't leave a solid identifiable print. So the "intruder" does this useless task, in the dark, risking getting his prints on the batteries, where his prints couldn't possibly be if he'd left the batteries alone. Someone smart enough to stage an intruder scenario is smart enough to know Ramsey prints should be on the batteries - if any prints are on the batteries.

My guess is that the batteries were not wiped. They yielded no prints, but that's not necessarily because they were wiped. Maybe someone has some citation to support the notion they were wiped?

 

[Darlene733510]

Would the basement light(s) be on during the staging? I don't see how everything could have been done to JBR with only the FL as a light source. I have to wonder if the neighbors would have noticed if the lights were on in the basement.
We seem to think that JB lost urine on the carpet, before she was placed in the WC. Was the garrote made
with the light from the FL?
If the FL was used, it would not have been needed for the WC. There were no windows there, so the perp
could have turned on the light there, and it would never be noticed.
I remember that PR mentioned one of the windows were not completely shut because an electric cord was
put through the window for the use of the Christmas outdoor lights.

 

[gramcracker]

IIRC some of the basement rooms/areas did not have windows. some had windows facing the window well under the grate. were there any windows which faced above ground level? if doors were closed in the areas with either type of window then any light in the windowless areas would not be visible from outside. if that makes sense

 

[Teresa]

Here's my thought. The flashlight was wiped to make it look like a kidnapper had used the flashlight and wiped it clean. The Ramseys needed a kidnapper in their house and they knew that they needed proof he had been. The Ramseys wouldn't wipe their flashlight but a kidnapper would. The Ramseys couldn't produce fingerprints of a kidnapper so they made it look like there has been. Staging.

 

[UKGuy]

Here's my thought. The flashlight was wiped to make it look like a kidnapper had used the flashlight and wiped it clean. The Ramseys needed a kidnapper in their house and they knew that they needed proof he had been. The Ramseys wouldn't wipe their flashlight but a kidnapper would. The Ramseys couldn't produce fingerprints of a kidnapper so they made it look like there has been. Staging.

Teresa,Could be the case, so why leave the flashlight in the kitchen, and not say next to the broken window or on top of the suitcase?I reckon the flashlight could have been used by JR during the period he went missing in the morning, or to visit the wine-cellar after JonBenet had been asphyxiated..

 

[UKGuy]

Thank you, but it's really pretty basic. It's possible (imo not probable) that a Ramsey wiped the batteries because he/she over-thought the situation. But if the perp was smart enough to stage a fake intruder, it's a cinch the perp realized that the intruder wouldn't bother wiping Ramsey prints off Ramsey flashlight batteries. Plus the "intruder" would have to do this in the dark, since the FL wouldn't be working w/o the batteries. After wiping them, how does one reinstall them in the FL w/o getting fingerprints on them? I suspect by letting them slip into the light between the fingers, which wouldn't leave a solid identifiable print. So the "intruder" does this useless task, in the dark, risking getting his prints on the batteries, where his prints couldn't possibly be if he'd left the batteries alone. Someone smart enough to stage an intruder scenario is smart enough to know Ramsey prints should be on the batteries - if any prints are on the batteries. My guess is that the batteries were not wiped. They yielded no prints, but that's not necessarily because they were wiped. Maybe someone has some citation to support the notion they were wiped?

Chrishope,Another possibility is that James Kolar knows something we do not since in his book and during an interview with Tricia he suggests the possibility that JonBenet was whacked on the head in the breakfast bar then later taken down to the basement. Prime candidate as the object which caused the head injury would be the flashlight which one of the R's realized would require forensic cleaning?Its also possible that the flashlight is a red herring, simply an evidential rabbit hole? So denying that an R over-thought the situation. Consistent with this notion is JR's continual supply of additional information when questioned about any topic, in distinction to PR who forgets or denies any relationship, i.e. JR confirms any bias in assuming the flashlight was used in JonBenet's homicide by stating:

8 JOHN RAMSEY: Not that I recall. I don't even9 know it worked. Typically our flashlights didn't10 work because we needed new batteries (INAUDIBLE).11 We might have a few blown flashlights around.

A rebuttal might be so how did the Intruder know where the flashlight was? One inference to be drawn from JR's reply is if it was used then it had its batteries changed?.

 

[Chelly]

I think the R's mindset was: 1) Leave no fingerprints behind and 2) Leave a few red herrings.

 

[UKGuy]

I think the R's mindset was: 1) Leave no fingerprints behind and 2) Leave a few red herrings.

Chelly,Most likely. I reckon JR left many red herrings behind, particularly when he went missing, i.e. he would know what to remove from the crime-scene? JR told us about climbing in the window in his underpants, about moving the suitcase etc, all unprompted additions!.

 

[bettybaby00]

Chelly,Most likely. I reckon JR left many red herrings behind, particularly when he went missing, i.e. he would know what to remove from the crime-scene? JR told us about climbing in the window in his underpants, about moving the suitcase etc, all unprompted additions!.

BBM

well let's not forget that according to John, the intruder was "bizarrely clever," and left "clever little clues."

 

[Anti-K]

Here's my thought. The flashlight was wiped to make it look like a kidnapper had used the flashlight and wiped it clean. The Ramseys needed a kidnapper in their house and they knew that they needed proof he had been. The Ramseys wouldn't wipe their flashlight but a kidnapper would. The Ramseys couldn't produce fingerprints of a kidnapper so they made it look like there has been. Staging.

If the Ramseys wanted the police to believe an intruder had come into their home, then why would they tell police that all the doors were locked?! Why wouldn’t they, at least, raise the garage door a cpl feet (an intruder could slip beneath the door and enter the house because the door joining garage and house was routinely left unlocked). Something, anything to show police how an intruder could have come and gone (the back door was wide open when we got up that morning...).

These are the sorts of things that they could have done, but wiping flashlight batteries?
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Wiping the batteries is the act of someone concerned that the flashlight could be used against them, or, at least, connected to them. For this reason an intruder who was “familiar with police tactics and countermeasures,” an intruder forensically aware and concerned, might think of wiping the batteries as a precautionary act. Something done before even leaving for the Ramsey home that night.

How about RDI? Why does a Ramsey wipe the batteries? Presumably for the same reason as an intruder: out of concern that the flashlight could be used against them, or, at least, connected to them.

But, why would they be concerned about that? The concern should have been, could the flashlight be connected to the crime? If it can’t be connected to the crime (it can’t) than there’s no problem. Just put it in a drawer, or in the garage, or the car or wherever, and forget about it.

It seems odd, even contradictory that a Ramsey would wipe flashlight batteries, but leave a brush end in the paint tote, and a so-called ransom note in the notepad. But, an intruder could use that paintbrush and use that notepad, and hence leave that so-called practice note and that brush end without concern.
...

AK