The Flashlight.....

[midwest mama]

If the R's originally intended for police to look outside the house for JB having been kidnapped by an intruder, surely they would leave some simple things for LE to question: such as the flashlight being left out on the counter by an intruder who "forgot it" in his haste to get JB out of the house. With no Ramsey prints on it, they might have thought they could just say it wasn't theirs and did not suppose anyone would ever know or say differently. No Ramsey prints, no way it would have belonged to them. After all, wouldn't a sneaky glove-wearing intruder need a flashlight to be able to get into their house when it was dark without being able to turn on any lights? Staging. IMO, the flashlight is a tangible forensic "clue" to lead thoughts toward an intrusion, even without an entry/exit point other than the latched/unlatched broken train room window.

 

[bettybaby00]

If the R's originally intended for police to look outside the house for JB having been kidnapped by an intruder, surely they would leave some simple things for LE to question: such as the flashlight being left out on the counter by an intruder who "forgot it" in his haste to get JB out of the house. With no Ramsey prints on it, they might have thought they could just say it wasn't theirs and did not suppose anyone would ever know or say differently. No Ramsey prints, no way it would have belonged to them. After all, wouldn't a sneaky glove-wearing intruder need a flashlight to be able to get into their house when it was dark without being able to turn on any lights? Staging. IMO, the flashlight is a tangible forensic "clue" to lead thoughts toward an intrusion, even without an entry/exit point other than the latched/unlatched broken train room window.

Never thought of that! They tried saying they didn't recognize it initially, right?

 

[Chrishope]

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

If an intruder actually brought his own FL, then he'd more likely have wiped the batteries before leaving his house, wouldn't he, in case he was forced to leave it behind before being able to wipe them ? It would make little sense to commit the crime first then wipe his prints off his batteries.

If an intruder used the R's flashlight, he'd have no concern at all about fingerprints on the batteries.

If RDI there would also be no concern about prints on the batteries, nor on the outside of the FL - R prints are exactly what we expect.

So, if IDI, (using the R's FL) the outside only needs to be wiped, the concern being the intruder's prints. If RDI, then only the outside needs wiping, the concern being forensics other than prints.

 

[Chrishope]

If the R's originally intended for police to look outside the house for JB having been kidnapped by an intruder, surely they would leave some simple things for LE to question: such as the flashlight being left out on the counter by an intruder who "forgot it" in his haste to get JB out of the house. With no Ramsey prints on it, they might have thought they could just say it wasn't theirs and did not suppose anyone would ever know or say differently. No Ramsey prints, no way it would have belonged to them. After all, wouldn't a sneaky glove-wearing intruder need a flashlight to be able to get into their house when it was dark without being able to turn on any lights? Staging. IMO, the flashlight is a tangible forensic "clue" to lead thoughts toward an intrusion, even without an entry/exit point other than the latched/unlatched broken train room window.

All of that would make sense except for the fact that they didn't really deny it was theirs. (See BlueCrab's post on page one)

 

[Anti-K]

If an intruder actually brought his own FL, then he'd more likely have wiped the batteries before leaving his house, wouldn't he, in case he was forced to leave it behind before being able to wipe them ? It would make little sense to commit the crime first then wipe his prints off his batteries.

If an intruder used the R's flashlight, he'd have no concern at all about fingerprints on the batteries.

If RDI there would also be no concern about prints on the batteries, nor on the outside of the FL - R prints are exactly what we expect.

So, if IDI, (using the R's FL) the outside only needs to be wiped, the concern being the intruder's prints. If RDI, then only the outside needs wiping, the concern being forensics other than prints.

Yes, that’s just what I said, if an intruder actually brought his own FL, then he'd more likely have wiped the batteries before leaving his house. As I see it, this is the only reasonable explanation for wiped batteries: the flashlight was the intruder’s, wiped in advance and left inadvertently.

If an intruder uses a Ramsey flashlight, then he would have no concern at all about fingerprints on the batteries. If the Ramseys used the flashlight, there should only be concern about fingerprints on the batteries if the flashlight could be connected to the crime. But, as you say, in such a case wiping the outside should have been good enough.
.

I think we need to acknowledge that the flashlight and batteries may not have been wiped and that they may simply have been devoid of useable prints.

I think we need to acknowledge that the flashlight may not have belonged to the Ramseys. Even if RDI, the flashlight may not have belonged to them (see Thomas; p. 240). Certainly, the flashlight looked like a Ramsey flashlight, but other flashlights – as used by BPD, for example – look the same. so, without prints or identifying characteristics, who can say?
...

AK

 

[bettybaby00]

All of that would make sense except for the fact that they didn't really deny it was theirs. (See BlueCrab's post on page one)

Interesting how this was the reply to the post you mentioned.

When did they confirm this?

In the interview from august 2000 JR still does not accept the flashlight as his but goes on about it being different. Are you saying it took plus 4 years to explain to the R's why the flashlight appeared filthy in the pictures???

10 Q. (By Mr. Levin) Mr. Ramsey, I know

11 that you were asked questions about a black

12 metal flashlight that was found in the house.

13 We have developed, since '98, some

14 information about that flashlight I would

15 like to ask you just a little bit about.

16 Is that the flashlight that you

17 habitually used, say for example, if your

18 power went out and you had candles lit in

19 your house? Do you know?

20 A. Not necessarily. And I don't

21 know that that was my flashlight . The

22 picture I saw, and I think I commented at

23 the time, was that that one was very dirty.

24 My flashlight, while it looked to be the

25 same size, mine was clean. And my son gave

0043

1 it to me for a present. So that was the

2 issue that I saw. It kind of looks like

3 mine, but it's certainly filthy.

 

[Teresa]

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..

You could be right. Maybe the flashlight was wiped but then forgotten for basement staging. The Ramseys had to be freaking out (panic). Still, I do think the wiping could have been to erase pretend fingerprints. Look police, the kidnapper wiped away their fingerprints. Just enough doubt for a potential jury. .

 

[UKGuy]

You could be right. Maybe the flashlight was wiped but then forgotten for basement staging. The Ramseys had to be freaking out (panic). Still, I do think the wiping could have been to erase pretend fingerprints. Look police, the kidnapper wiped away their fingerprints. Just enough doubt for a potential jury. .

Teresa,Could be the case. Although I reckon the flashlight was used to roam about the basement and probably stage JonBenet's homicide. The flashlight might also have been used to whack JonBenet on the head, intended as staging which failed cue for asphyxiation. There are two asphyxiation marks on JonBenet's neck, one circumferential, the other lies beneath the latter, evidence of two different events IMO. If the flashlight was used directly to assault JonBenet then the R's likely decided to wipe it clean, since any fingerprints would act as circumstantial evidence against the person who changed the batteries, e.g. JR's remarks about battery changing, so no prints mean no problems. So Kolars theory might be correct and the flashlight was used to whack JonBenet on the head in the Breakfast Bar, i.e. matches the evidence, e.g. JonBenet sitting down, assailant whacks from above, lots of torque there. Later JR or/and PR used the flashlight to roam about the basement then wiped it clean prior to the 911 call. .

 

[Chrishope]

Interesting how this was the reply to the post you mentioned.

But they aren't denying it either, they are just saying they don't know if it's theirs because it looks different. It looks different because the police have put something on it to try to lift prints.

If they want to convince police it belonged to an intruder, they'd have to deny it was theirs. Deny outright. Not just say that it's similar to theirs but they can't be sure.

If they were trying to convince the police it wasn't theirs, they weren't doing a very good job.

 

[Chrishope]

Yes, that’s just what I said, if an intruder actually brought his own FL, then he'd more likely have wiped the batteries before leaving his house. As I see it, this is the only reasonable explanation for wiped batteries: the flashlight was the intruder’s, wiped in advance and left inadvertently.

If an intruder uses a Ramsey flashlight, then he would have no concern at all about fingerprints on the batteries. If the Ramseys used the flashlight, there should only be concern about fingerprints on the batteries if the flashlight could be connected to the crime. But, as you say, in such a case wiping the outside should have been good enough.
.

I think we need to acknowledge that the flashlight and batteries may not have been wiped and that they may simply have been devoid of useable prints.

I think we need to acknowledge that the flashlight may not have belonged to the Ramseys. Even if RDI, the flashlight may not have belonged to them (see Thomas; p. 240). Certainly, the flashlight looked like a Ramsey flashlight, but other flashlights – as used by BPD, for example – look the same. so, without prints or identifying characteristics, who can say?
...

AK

I'm sorry, I misread your post. You did say exactly that.

I agree with you that it supports an IDI theory (though for many other reasons I can't accept IDI)

I also agree that we can't be sure the FL or batteries were wiped. We know there were no prints, but we don't know why. Wiping is an assumption.

We may not be able to say with 100% certainty that it was the Rs flashlight. We can say with a great deal of certainty that it was. The Rs acknowledge having one like it.

 

[midwest mama]

And, if it WAS the R's, regardless of no prints on it, what would have led an intruder to think to rummage around in the kitchen to look for a flashlight, hoping to find one. An intruder unfamiliar with the Ramsey house would have no idea as to the location of an available flashlight. The only intruder, IMO, who might have known where to even look for one would have to be someone with that specific knowledge...someone familiar with the Ramsey's kitchen contents.

 

[UKGuy]

And, if it WAS the R's, regardless of no prints on it, what would have led an intruder to think to rummage around in the kitchen to look for a flashlight, hoping to find one. An intruder unfamiliar with the Ramsey house would have no idea as to the location of an available flashlight. The only intruder, IMO, who might have known where to even look for one would have to be someone with that specific knowledge...someone familiar with the Ramsey's kitchen contents.

midwest mama,Absolutely, hence the assumption an R wiped the flashlight clean, an intruder need not wipe since his/her prints should not be on the batteries. So either there are no prints due to coincidence or its a forensic awareness issue?.

 

[sandy betts]

She was hit in the head with a baseball bat not a flash light. Someone saw a picture of it next to her head before the crime scene was ever shown to the public. The killer put it on the internet and removed it, before the police could see it. At the bottom of the picture were 6 symbols like some sort of a cipher ?

 

[gramcracker]

Wiping the batteries is the act of someone concerned that the flashlight could be used against them, or, at least, connected to them.

parsing/evasively answering questions re the FL is the act of someone concerned that the FL 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.

re my red: we don't know that. LE knows and the Rs know, but we don't

 

[Anti-K]

I'm sorry, I misread your post. You did say exactly that.

I agree with you that it supports an IDI theory (though for many other reasons I can't accept IDI)

I also agree that we can't be sure the FL or batteries were wiped. We know there were no prints, but we don't know why. Wiping is an assumption.

We may not be able to say with 100% certainty that it was the Rs flashlight. We can say with a great deal of certainty that it was. The Rs acknowledge having one like it.

I think we can know with a great deal of certainty that the Ramseys owned a flashlight “like it.” This is not the same as knowing “with a great deal of certainty” that they owned the flashlight in question.

The bigger question would be, is the flashlight connected to the crime.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

As an IDI, I tend to believe that this killer had a plan and that he brought with him only those items he could not risk being without; for example: cord and tape, and a flashlight (maybe, a pen). Certainly, a flashlight. Even if you don’t think an intruder exists you still understand that if he did exist, he probably would have needed a flashlight.
.
We can say that this flashlight, or a similar flashlight, or an object similar to this flashlight, is consistent with the object used for the head blow, but we’ve never been able to say that this flashlight was the one used, and, we’ve only been able to make a connection to the crime through the wiping of the batteries. If the batteries were not wiped, than this connection is gone.

Of course, if the batteries were wiped and if we use this to connect the flashlight to the crime than reason favors an intruder. There simply is no reason for the Ramseys to wipe the batteries, and if they were concerned, than surely they would have put it away after wiping it.
.

A cpl posters have opined that wiping the batteries and leaving the flashlight in the open was some clever way of suggesting to LE that the flashlight was an intruder’s. But, someone going to such length would not turn around and admit to LE that the flashlight could be their own, and such a person so motivated would not tell LE that all their doors were locked, etc.
...

AK

 

[midwest mama]

As an IDI, I tend to believe that this killer had a plan and that he brought with him only those items he could not risk being without; for example: cord and tape, and a flashlight (maybe, a pen). Certainly, a flashlight. Even if you don’t think an intruder exists you still understand that if he did exist, he probably would have needed a flashlight.
.
We can say that this flashlight, or a similar flashlight, or an object similar to this flashlight, is consistent with the object used for the head blow, but we’ve never been able to say that this flashlight was the one used, and, we’ve only been able to make a connection to the crime through the wiping of the batteries. If the batteries were not wiped, than this connection is gone.

Of course, if the batteries were wiped and if we use this to connect the flashlight to the crime than reason favors an intruder. There simply is no reason for the Ramseys to wipe the batteries, and if they were concerned, than surely they would have put it away after wiping it.
.

A cpl posters have opined that wiping the batteries and leaving the flashlight in the open was some clever way of suggesting to LE that the flashlight was an intruder’s. But, someone going to such length would not turn around and admit to LE that the flashlight could be their own, and such a person so motivated would not tell LE that all their doors were locked, etc.
...

AK

BBM...Remember the "clever little clues"" comment? JR also repeatedly kept himself distanced from admission of the flashlight being his with certainty. And, doesn't it make sense that with locked doors on the main floor, an intruder would have had to use that broken window as an access point? For a while the window with the hole in it looked plausible, even to Lou Smit. I have no doubt that in any conversation the R's had with him, there would have been every attempt made to cleverly suggest the broken window should get greater investigation. Once Lou Smit made the pronouncement of possibility of an intruder, the seed was not only planted but watered and fertilized. Let's remember too, that one of the first suspects offered up was LHP, and she would have satisfied the "it's an inside job" comment as well as being someone who would have known how to use the broken window to make an entry (or have someone else use the window...like her husband). Pretty handy to have a personal employee to blame who needed money, who was known to think of JB as a bit bratty, who wondered if the R's might not be worried about something happening to her because she was allowed to be outside in the neighborhood playing alone at the age of 6, who would have known about the basement layout, and who also was actually able to identify the flashlight as belonging to the R's.

 

[Chrishope]

I think we can know with a great deal of certainty that the Ramseys owned a flashlight “like it.” This is not the same as knowing “with a great deal of certainty” that they owned the flashlight in question.

The bigger question would be, is the flashlight connected to the crime.
...

AK

Since the Rs admit to owning one like it, and since there is only one like it in the house, not two, we can be pretty sure the Rs own it.

 

[Chrishope]

As an IDI, I tend to believe that this killer had a plan and that he brought with him only those items he could not risk being without; for example: cord and tape, and a flashlight (maybe, a pen). Certainly, a flashlight. Even if you don’t think an intruder exists you still understand that if he did exist, he probably would have needed a flashlight.
.
We can say that this flashlight, or a similar flashlight, or an object similar to this flashlight, is consistent with the object used for the head blow, but we’ve never been able to say that this flashlight was the one used, and, we’ve only been able to make a connection to the crime through the wiping of the batteries. If the batteries were not wiped, than this connection is gone.

Of course, if the batteries were wiped and if we use this to connect the flashlight to the crime than reason favors an intruder. There simply is no reason for the Ramseys to wipe the batteries, and if they were concerned, than surely they would have put it away after wiping it.
.

A cpl posters have opined that wiping the batteries and leaving the flashlight in the open was some clever way of suggesting to LE that the flashlight was an intruder’s. But, someone going to such length would not turn around and admit to LE that the flashlight could be their own, and such a person so motivated would not tell LE that all their doors were locked, etc.
...

AK

I'd agree that if there were an intruder, he'd have brought his own FL. One of the many problems with IDI theory is that there are not two large maglites, as there would be had the intruder brought one and failed to take it with him.

Wiping the batteries isn't the only connection between the FL and the crime. Wiping the outside is also a connection. As you say, the Rs would have no reason to wipe the batteries;if they were wiped, that supports an intruder theory. Additionally the Rs have no reason to wipe prints from the outside of the FL anymore than wiping their prints off all the doorknobs in the house. But a Ramsey perp might have a reason to wipe the outside to remove forensics, other than prints.

I agree that if a Ramsey had staged the scene to appear as if the intruder brought his own FL, then the Ramsey in question would certainly deny outright that it belonged to them. Again this is problematic in that there are not two similar lights. I also agree, in general, that they wouldn't have claimed all the doors were locked, if they wanted to push an intruder theory. The exception of course is that a different entry point might already have been partially staged (the basement window) and would be hard to explain if the perp had simply come in through an unlocked door. (IOWs, Doc's theory)

 

[Teresa]

And, if it WAS the R's, regardless of no prints on it, what would have led an intruder to think to rummage around in the kitchen to look for a flashlight, hoping to find one. An intruder unfamiliar with the Ramsey house would have no idea as to the location of an available flashlight. The only intruder, IMO, who might have known where to even look for one would have to be someone with that specific knowledge...someone familiar with the Ramsey's kitchen contents.

Ding, ding, ding! Have a winner!