The Flashlight.....

[RANCH]

Agree.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks Linda. I'm not used to you agreeing with me though. LOL.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Thanks Linda. I'm not used to you agreeing with me though. LOL.

I know, right?!

I marked this day down in my calendar

lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[GoBrewers]

were the batteries found with no fingerprints, or even checked?

 

[DeeDee249]

were the batteries found with no fingerprints, or even checked?

The batteries were checked and found to have been wiped clean of fingerprints.

 

[gramcracker]

I don't know of any parent of a bedwetter, myself included, who would let a child go to bed without going to the bathroom first. If she was asleep when arriving home, I would have awakened her, taken her to the bathroom, put her in pajamas and tucked her in. That entire process only takes a couple of minutes. From the evidence in this case, it appears JonBenet woke up entirely and wanted to eat. That is consistent with being awakened to use the bathroom and change into pjs.

JMO

the BBM is some good stuff

wetting was an issue, day and night. the 26th was a long busy day for everyone. there were busy days ahead. PR was packing for 4 people going 2 places, yet she wanted to gamble (or pretty much insure) that JB would wet her bed? it has always seemed odd that they denied waking her to use the toilet when they got home

 

[DeeDee249]

The batteries were checked and found to have been wiped clean of fingerprints.

I should have added that the BATTERIES being wiped clean is one of the most telling aspects of the parents' involvement. NO intruder would take out the batteries and wipe them. NO intruder would take the time to replace batteries. Keep in mind that the parents and sibling were allegedly up in their rooms as the intruder took JB from her room, fed her pineapple, molested her, made her scream and bashed her with (presumably) that flashlight, carried her to the basement and found her white blanket in the dryer, along with what was said to be her favorite nightie and not worry about being heard/discovered.
IMO ONLY the parents would have wiped those batteries- so they could claim it wasn't their flashlight.

 

[THE BUNK]

NO intruder would take the time to replace batteries

Did the Ramsey's ever claim the batteries were not theirs? What happened to the dead batteries?

 

[DeeDee249]

Did the Ramsey's ever claim the batteries were not theirs? What happened to the dead batteries?

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.

 

[Mama2JML]

If a source exists that confirms the claim the flashlight & the batteries were, in fact, determined to have been wiped clean of prints, please share. I've been unable to find such a source. So, at this point, it seems to be a possibility, not necessarily a probability, and certainly not a conclusive finding. According to a November 7, 1998, Rocky Mountain News article by Charlie Brennan:

"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.
...

A broadcast report Friday raised the possibility that the batteries were free of fingerprints or residue because they were wiped clean.
...

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.'"​

.
.
.
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-67570499.html

 

[questfortrue]

If a source exists that confirms the claim the flashlight & the batteries were, in fact, determined to have been wiped clean of prints, please share. I've been unable to find such a source. So, at this point, it seems to be a possibility, not necessarily a probability, and certainly not a conclusive finding.
~RSBM~

According to Kolar “it was processed for latent fingerprints, inside and out, (by CSI’s) but nothing could be lifted from its surfaces. Kindle location Foreign Faction 740.

 

[Anti-K]

I’ve never understood how wiping the flashlight/batteries is supposed to implicate the Ramseys.

The Ramseys wouldn’t need to use a flashlight in their own home, but, let’s say that they did use it and that RDI is true: wiping the flashlight AND the batteries is the act of someone concerned with the possibility that somehow they might end up in the hands of the authorities.

Wiped or not, as the RDI murder weapon than the Ramseys might have wanted to dispose of it – just like the tip of the paint brush, the pages from the notepad, the roll of tape, the brown, cotton item used for the wiping, the remainder of the cord...

But, the flashlight is just sitting there on the counter (look at me! Look at me!).

If the Ramseys had had the forethought to wipe the flashlight, open it, remove, wipe and replace the batteries you’d think that would have also thought to at least put it away.

But, maybe it wasn’t wiped at all, and this is simply a case of no identifiable (smeared, smudged, fracture, etc) prints being found. I don’t think we know the answer to that question.
...

AK

 

[DeeDee249]

I’ve never understood how wiping the flashlight/batteries is supposed to implicate the Ramseys.

The Ramseys wouldn’t need to use a flashlight in their own home, but, let’s say that they did use it and that RDI is true: wiping the flashlight AND the batteries is the act of someone concerned with the possibility that somehow they might end up in the hands of the authorities.

Wiped or not, as the RDI murder weapon than the Ramseys might have wanted to dispose of it – just like the tip of the paint brush, the pages from the notepad, the roll of tape, the brown, cotton item used for the wiping, the remainder of the cord...

But, the flashlight is just sitting there on the counter (look at me! Look at me!).

If the Ramseys had had the forethought to wipe the flashlight, open it, remove, wipe and replace the batteries you’d think that would have also thought to at least put it away.

But, maybe it wasn’t wiped at all, and this is simply a case of no identifiable (smeared, smudged, fracture, etc) prints being found. I don’t think we know the answer to that question.
...

AK

Wiping the flashlight batteries is the only way they can distance themselves and say it wasn't their. And their own home or not, in the dark they'd need the flashlight as they moved about the house in the dark. The basement windows were not covered, and neighbors might have seen the lights ON through the windows. As is is, some neighbors DID report unusual lights. One neighbor claimed to see "strange, moving lights" in the kitchen- which sound exactly like someone walking around with a flashlight. Another neighbor told police that the light in the den, which was always on, was off that night.

 

[aussiesheila2]

Wiping the flashlight batteries is the only way they can distance themselves and say it wasn't their. And their own home or not, in the dark they'd need the flashlight as they moved about the house in the dark. The basement windows were not covered, and neighbors might have seen the lights ON through the windows. As is is, some neighbors DID report unusual lights. One neighbor claimed to see "strange, moving lights" in the kitchen- which sound exactly like someone walking around with a flashlight. Another neighbor told police that the light in the den, which was always on, was off that night.

So why do you think that, after wiping the flashlight and taking the batteries out and wiping them and then putting them back in the flashlight, the Ramseys left the flashlight on the bench and didn't put it away in the drawer where it was normally kept?

 

[Blue Bottle 01]

"The Ramseys" weren't involved.

 

[Linda7NJ]

.....

 

[bettybaby00]

I know I'm probably in the minority, but I still favor the golf club :dunno:

Especially a wedge putter, or even a wood driver?

 

[THE BUNK]

I favor an object like the floor or a bannister or a edge of a stationary object. I believe the head bash was an accidental blow unintended by the perp.

 

[THE BUNK]

the Ramseys left the flashlight on the bench and didn't put it away in the drawer where it was normally kept?

It may be needed again. Jonbenet's body is still in the house.
Also at the time it was wiped, John Ramsey may have put on gloves so he can continue using it without risk of fingerprints.

 

[bettybaby00]

.....

I like this comment :lol:

Drivers

Putters

Compelling, yes?

Sorry so big :blush:

 

[questfortrue]

Someone pointed out that it may be that the CBI report stated that there were no “usable” fingerprints. Consequently those reading the report believed it meant that the flashlight was wiped down. However, it would be a mistake to conclude that partial or smudged fingerprints were not examined. Typically, lab people will lift even partials or smudged fingerprints from an item, because there may exist some small identifiable “points” of comparison. We won’t know because as poster otg commented once: “We can only guess, since we don't have access to the lab reports on evidence.”
Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Was BR involved? #2


As for the psychology of wiping down the flashlight, you bet, it doesn’t really make sense for RDI or IDI. If one thinks it was an intruder, why didn’t the intruder take it with him? Likewise, why wouldn’t the family have just left the fingerprints on the flashlight, after all it was their Mag-lite (identified by friend JF and housekeeper LHP). For my 2 cents: I agree totally with DeeDee249 and that’s because of my viewpoint of the distancing aspect. For me the intent of all of the staging is to distance the crime from the family. ( I can picture a chaotic, panicked scene, and baffling choices of altering the crime scene to create this distance.) IIRC, some of the FBI (not JD) did evaluate the cs from the perspective of staging.

This topic may just come down to our speculation as to what was in the mind of the perp, and that can be interpreted differently.
1) If one believes it was in realty an intruder, then the idea of staging and distancing is nonsense. The perp was simply eliminating the forensic evidence he left behind.
2) If, on the other hand, the family was involved, then the distancing worked like a charm and created enough confusion that we still speculate what could have been in the mind of the perpetrator or the stagers.

MHO