The Flashlight.....

[Anti-K]

Oh come on. His daughter has (supposedly) been kidnapped. The window ajar is relevant either because the intruder may have come in that way, or because JR had himself (supposedly) closed it, and so it's not found by police in it's original state. The suitcase being under the window (where it's not usuallly kept) is also relevant, but he also neglects to tell police about that. He notices both things at the same time. Even if there was nothing unusual about the window being ajar, there was, by JR's own admission, something unusual about where the suitcase was placed.



Well, as you said in a prior post, it's funny what some people believe while others find it absurd. That the police didn't notice a broken window is a bit beyond belief for me.



No you are conflating two things. Yes he told FW that he'd broken the window, but he didn't tell the police that he'd gone down the basement found the window ajar and closed it. He told police that 4 months later at his first interview. It's only four months later that he remembers the window being ajar and thinks it relevant enough to share at that time.



Once again I'm reminded of your prior post where you said, in effect, it's odd how some people will believe something while others will reject it. Sure it's necessarily true that someone would have seen the broken window. It's (supposedly) been broken for 5 or 6 months by the time of the murder. LHP is in the house 3 days a week. As UKGuy pointed out, LHP's husband was down there before Christmas. BR played with his trains in that room. JAR was home weekends, and weekdays if it suited him as his dorm room was only about a mile from the Ramsey home. Additionally workmen had been down there. There may also have been houseguests down there. If the window was broken, for 6 months, the police would have been able to find at least one person (besides JR/PR) to confirm the story.

It's a pretty good bet that if one confirmation was obtained, it would have appeared in one of the R's books.

With respect, this is just as obvious as the FL belonging to the Rs.

AK

[/QUOTE]
I certainly appreciate your point of view and suspicions. I just don’t share them.

I know that the police were in the basement and that they should have seen everything that Mr Ramsey saw. They examined the area. They took video, they photographed, etc. I can understand you thinking Mr Ramsey should have said this or that and something else besides, and I don’t disagree with you, but I can also understand this not happening. At least, not that morning, or that day. This does not strike me as strange as, if RDI, Mr Ramsey saying that all the doors were locked! Now, that’s something that, if RDI, makes no sense at all.

I don’t think you are right in saying that, “It's only four months later that he remembers the window being ajar and thinks it relevant enough to share at that time.” He remembered that morning, he just didn’t – as far as we know – relate it to the police that morning.
I’m not sure if anyone knows for sure how long the window was broken. Mr Ramsey says that it could have been late august – Mrs Ramsey was gone until then, so the glass wasn’t cleaned up ‘til then. So, that’s maybe only four months. Still, a long time, I think.

LHP, etc claimed to have not even seen the door to the WC, a door which is pretty obvious (the hole in the window less so), and it doesn’t seem like she spent very much time in the basement. So, once again, I think it is very easy to say that she could have been down there and never noticed it. Have another look at the dailybeast video: how much cleaning do you think she did down there? None, I venture.

Burke? Children miss all sorts of details, it wouldn’t surprise me that he never noticed it. The trains he played with weren’t even in that room! JAR, who knows? Not me, and not you, either.

Did the police go to any lengths to determine that the window had been (or, not) previously broken? I don’t think they did (beyond asking LHP if she remembered anything). I’m not sure why they would. There simply isn’t any evidence to show that it was broken that night/morning. And, certainly no evidence to show that any glass had been cleaned up that night/morning.

As I said before and once advised Docg, you would be better off accepting that the window was already broken and then argue that that is why Mr Ramsey chose it as the location for his (incomplete) staging that he (incompletely) un-staged.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

(I can't seem to get the quote function, to well function )

Anti-K




The problem with lying is that often the liar feels the need to overly embellish, and furnish way too many extra details.

You argue that...



PR states...

" I mean I cleaned that thoroughly and I asked Linda to go behind me and vacuum."​

Why would someone state it in that way unless the person was actually in the room behind them?

If as you suggest PR asked her to vacuum on a subsequent day, why wouldn't she state, "I cleaned it up, I scoured, etc., and when Linda came to work the next day I asked her to vacuum" she could even add "just in case I missed something."

FWIW, most of us would obviously vacuum at the time the glass was "picked up," for the very fact that unless one vacuums there is often small pieces missed.





So much glass everywhere....really? It's not that big of a hole in the window. Based on her description one would think someone took a baseball bat and smashed every window down there!

Such surprising detail, such recollection! and yet.........she has no idea whether or not she ever had the damn thing repaired? How does that work exactly? She goes on to recount the countless people that were in the basement prior to that night...workmen, the kids, herself, LINDA, etc., etc., and no one ever reminded her that maybe she should get it fixed? Patsy never had it on some sort of to do list? According to her she was pretty intimate with all the damage John cause, and recollects in detail how she cleaned it up, but then just went and forgot about it.



What does that even mean? makes zero sense.

Embellishing is one thing, but including a hostile non-accomplice in a lie is folly. There is no reason to do such a thing, and many reasons not to.

I agree that it sounds like LHP could have been in the room with Mrs Ramsey. I don’t agree that this is what was meant. It just makes no sense. If LHP was present, than LHP would have picked up the glass, or – and, I doubt this – LHP and Mrs Ramsey would have picked up the glass together. So, why didn’t Mrs Ramsey say so? Add to this the fact that LHP said that she didn’t know anything about it, and we have a pretty good basis for believing that LHP did not know anything about the broken glass because Mrs Ramsey cleaned it up when she was not present.
.

It’s a big enough hole.

Surely you’ve dropped a plate or a glass or something and had it shatter. Didn’t glass go everywhere, big pieces, little pieces all scattered about. And, the window is less substantial, more fragile, kicked in and fallen from a much greater distance than what something would typically be dropped from. True story.
.

“No, I don’t know whether I fixed it or didn’t fix it. I can’t remember even trying to remember that”

It means they didn’t consider the question before it was asked. But, it is oddly phrased – sort of like, I asked Linda to go behind me and vacuum. This is how people talk. I read it in transcripts all the time. All sorts of people talking about all sorts of things, and without context (even with, sometimes!) you can’t always tell exactly what they’re talking about or exactly what they mean.
...

AK

 

[THE BUNK]

Interesting...

The killers potential inventory
rope
tape
flashlight
stun gun

None of these are just murder weapons in an off themselfs. They are all tools for an abduction.

You would think someone who's intent on committing murder would bring a murder weapon with him.

Though it makes sense not to bring a murder weapon. You don't want to be caught for B&E with a weapon. Most experienced people breaking into a house for profit, wouldn't bring a weapon. I don't know why a premeditated murderer wouldn't, though.

 

[UKGuy]

(I can't seem to get the quote function, to well function )

Anti-K




The problem with lying is that often the liar feels the need to overly embellish, and furnish way too many extra details.

You argue that...



PR states...

" I mean I cleaned that thoroughly and I asked Linda to go behind me and vacuum."​

Why would someone state it in that way unless the person was actually in the room behind them?

If as you suggest PR asked her to vacuum on a subsequent day, why wouldn't she state, "I cleaned it up, I scoured, etc., and when Linda came to work the next day I asked her to vacuum" she could even add "just in case I missed something."

FWIW, most of us would obviously vacuum at the time the glass was "picked up," for the very fact that unless one vacuums there is often small pieces missed.





So much glass everywhere....really? It's not that big of a hole in the window. Based on her description one would think someone took a baseball bat and smashed every window down there!

Such surprising detail, such recollection! and yet.........she has no idea whether or not she ever had the damn thing repaired? How does that work exactly? She goes on to recount the countless people that were in the basement prior to that night...workmen, the kids, herself, LINDA, etc., etc., and no one ever reminded her that maybe she should get it fixed? Patsy never had it on some sort of to do list? According to her she was pretty intimate with all the damage John cause, and recollects in detail how she cleaned it up, but then just went and forgot about it.



What does that even mean? makes zero sense.

bettybaby00

" I mean I cleaned that thoroughly and I asked Linda to go behind me and vacuum."

Yet LHP never backed her story up! PR is just making stuff up to cover for a broken window, IMO its part of a prior staging. As for PR's memory well thats similar to the size-12's she says she placed in JonBenet's underwear drawer! I suspect if JonBenet could have been stuffed into that samsonite suticase then it was part of the original staging and the chair was probably where the case ended up? Someone redressed JonBenet without Patsy's knowledge, this is the big clue, it tells you there was a restaging, probably while Patsy was authoring the RN?

.

 

[Chrishope]

Embellishing is one thing, but including a hostile non-accomplice in a lie is folly. There is no reason to do such a thing, and many reasons not to.

I agree that on the surface that makes little sense. But the police interviews don't happen until 4 months after the murder. By that time LHP has been thrown under the bus, and her unwillingness to back up PR's story can also be put down to her (LHP's) hostility. IOWs, at that point it's PR's word against LHP's, and LHP has a reason to lie - she's hostile to the Rs. Not that I believe LHP is lying, but your point that PR simply wouldn't involve a hostile non-accomplice is weakened by the fact that at the time (of the interviews) LHP might have a reason not to back up the story, even if true. What it comes down to is PR knows the police can't prove it one way or the other.

I agree that it sounds like LHP could have been in the room with Mrs Ramsey. I don’t agree that this is what was meant. It just makes no sense. If LHP was present, than LHP would have picked up the glass, or – and, I doubt this – LHP and Mrs Ramsey would have picked up the glass together. So, why didn’t Mrs Ramsey say so? Add to this the fact that LHP said that she didn’t know anything about it, and we have a pretty good basis for believing that LHP did not know anything about the broken glass because Mrs Ramsey cleaned it up when she was not present.

I almost agree. We have a good reason to disbelieve the story about PR/LHP picking up/vacuuming the glass, but we don't know if it's because PR picked it up when LHP wasn't there, or if she's just telling a lie.

The language suggest to me that PR wanted the police to believe LHP was there for the glass cleanup.
.

It’s a big enough hole.

Surely you’ve dropped a plate or a glass or something and had it shatter. Didn’t glass go everywhere, big pieces, little pieces all scattered about. And, the window is less substantial, more fragile, kicked in and fallen from a much greater distance than what something would typically be dropped from. True story.

.

“No, I don’t know whether I fixed it or didn’t fix it. I can’t remember even trying to remember that”

It means they didn’t consider the question before it was asked. But, it is oddly phrased – sort of like, I asked Linda to go behind me and vacuum. This is how people talk. I read it in transcripts all the time. All sorts of people talking about all sorts of things, and without context (even with, sometimes!) you can’t always tell exactly what they’re talking about or exactly what they mean.
...

AK

IMO it means that the Rs are covered whether the break is fresh or old. The forensics team can probably make a determination about how old the break is, so if it is old then that supports JR's general story about breaking it during the summer. If it's fresh, then it must have been repaired, (or never broken in the first place) even though the Rs can't specifically remember whether or not it was repaired, or even remember trying to remember.


Again, the first interviews are in April '97 so by this time the police have determined, if possible, whether the break was old or new. I'd say more likely new because otherwise why continue asking about it? They want to pin the Rs down on when it was fixed, but the Rs aren't having it. They don't remember whether they left a window broken for months on end, in the heat of summer or the cold of winter.

As UKGuy points out, it is suspicious that PR remembers the details of cleaning up, but then simply forgets all about whether or not the window has ever been repaired. That's hard to swallow.

As I've pointed out before, the basement was full of workmen doint a remodel job, and surely someone would have asked if the Rs would like their window fixed.

As has also been pointed out, LHP and her husband were down there before Christmas. BR plays with his trains near that window. We can only speculate how many others had been down there (neighbor kids playing the the R kids for example) so someone, besides PR/JR, knows whether or not the window was broken.

If the story were true, JR could remember details about how he broke it, whether or not he drove his car or took a cab, etc. Also it would have been fixed.

The window is almost a perfectly staged entry point for the "intruder" except that the grate had not been popped out and the web was intact. Had the staging been completed before the police arrived, the Rs would remember having had it fixed.

 

[bettybaby00]

I agree that on the surface that makes little sense. But the police interviews don't happen until 4 months after the murder. By that time LHP has been thrown under the bus, and her unwillingness to back up PR's story can also be put down to her (LHP's) hostility. IOWs, at that point it's PR's word against LHP's, and LHP has a reason to lie - she's hostile to the Rs. Not that I believe LHP is lying, but your point that PR simply wouldn't involve a hostile non-accomplice is weakened by the fact that at the time (of the interviews) LHP might have a reason not to back up the story, even if true. What it comes down to is PR knows the police can't prove it one way or the other.



I almost agree. We have a good reason to disbelieve the story about PR/LHP picking up/vacuuming the glass, but we don't know if it's because PR picked it up when LHP wasn't there, or if she's just telling a lie.

The language suggest to me that PR wanted the police to believe LHP was there for the glass cleanup.
.

.


IMO it means that the Rs are covered whether the break is fresh or old. The forensics team can probably make a determination about how old the break is, so if it is old then that supports JR's general story about breaking it during the summer. If it's fresh, then it must have been repaired, (or never broken in the first place) even though the Rs can't specifically remember whether or not it was repaired, or even remember trying to remember.


Again, the first interviews are in April '97 so by this time the police have determined, if possible, whether the break was old or new. I'd say more likely new because otherwise why continue asking about it? They want to pin the Rs down on when it was fixed, but the Rs aren't having it. They don't remember whether they left a window broken for months on end, in the heat of summer or the cold of winter.

As UKGuy points out, it is suspicious that PR remembers the details of cleaning up, but then simply forgets all about whether or not the window has ever been repaired. That's hard to swallow.

As I've pointed out before, the basement was full of workmen doint a remodel job, and surely someone would have asked if the Rs would like their window fixed.

As has also been pointed out, LHP and her husband were down there before Christmas. BR plays with his trains near that window. We can only speculate how many others had been down there (neighbor kids playing the the R kids for example) so someone, besides PR/JR, knows whether or not the window was broken.

If the story were true, JR could remember details about how he broke it, whether or not he drove his car or took a cab, etc. Also it would have been fixed.

The window is almost a perfectly staged entry point for the "intruder" except that the grate had not been popped out and the web was intact. Had the staging been completed before the police arrived, the Rs would remember having had it fixed.

BBM

ain't it funny how that works when you are given police files and your previous statements before you are formerly questioned?????

this is a really good example of Hunter's blatant……god i can't even find the right word? ineptitude, misconduct, or perhaps both? its just beyond normal procedure and protocol

any other DA faced with such tactics by a defense team would have called their bluff.

 

[chlban]

Presumably, if the flashlight was his, he would have handled the batteries and flashlight without gloves on occasion; before the night of the crime. He would wipe it before leaving for the Ramseys as a precaution – you know, in case something happened to it and it was accidently left at the scene, or could otherwise somehow be connected to the crime.

But, really, I’m skeptical about it having been wiped at all.
...

AK

So he was so prepared that he wiped the batteries from his flashlight in advance, but "forgot" to bring his own pad and paper? Or, oh I don't know, maybe a pre-written Ransom Note?

As far as not being wiped at all, I am not at all skeptical on that. I cannot imagine getgting batteries into the compartment without leaving fingerprits. It's not like you just gently place them in there. It takes some maneuvering every time I do it.

 

[Tawny]

I bet if you're wearing very thin latex type gloves the batteries wouldn't be difficult to remove and replace.

 

[bettybaby00]

So he was so prepared that he wiped the batteries from his flashlight in advance, but "forgot" to bring his own pad and paper? Or, oh I don't know, maybe a pre-written Ransom Note?

As far as not being wiped at all, I am not at all skeptical on that. I cannot imagine getgting batteries into the compartment without leaving fingerprits. It's not like you just gently place them in there. It takes some maneuvering every time I do it.

one of the biggest duh moments i've had regarding the flashlight was the post (i believe it was you?), stating the obvious fact that if the flashlight had been the intruder's and was mistakenly left behind, then the Rs flashlight would have been still sitting in their kitchen drawer.

 

[chlban]

I bet if you're wearing very thin latex type gloves the batteries wouldn't be difficult to remove and replace.

I'm sure they wouldn't but why would I wear latex gloves to replace batteries?

I was responding to a comment that the flashlight and battery were not wiped at all. My point is, it is not a matter of course that batteries, inside a flashlight, would be without fingerprints. Unless you wiped them or wore gloves or both. However both of those actions point to guilty knowledge by whoever that flashlight belonged to.

Once again, it all leads back to the people known to be in the house that night.

 

[bettybaby00]

I bet if you're wearing very thin latex type gloves the batteries wouldn't be difficult to remove and replace.

i've no doubt that there were readily accessible disposable gloves in the house--to be used in whatever aspects of the crime they felt were necessary. Patsy seemed quite the crafter, and most who are keep disposable gloves on hand. and let's not forget that boxed, home hair dye kits come with disposable gloves as well.

 

[Tawny]

I'm sure they wouldn't but why would I wear latex gloves to replace batteries?

I was responding to a comment that the flashlight and battery were not wiped at all. My point is, it is not a matter of course that batteries, inside a flashlight, would be without fingerprints. Unless you wiped them or wore gloves or both. However both of those actions point to guilty knowledge by whoever that flashlight belonged to.

Once again, it all leads back to the people known to be in the house that night.

Oh, I believe we're on the same page It makes ZERO sense to wipe the fingerprints, whether the wiper was an intruder who didn't intend to leave his flashlight, or whether the wiper owned the flashlight and lived in the house.

 

[Frigga]

Was Patsy the one who was bleaching Jonbenet's hair or was someone professional doing it? Anyone know?

 

[Chrishope]

So he was so prepared that he wiped the batteries from his flashlight in advance, but "forgot" to bring his own pad and paper? Or, oh I don't know, maybe a pre-written Ransom Note?

As far as not being wiped at all, I am not at all skeptical on that. I cannot imagine getgting batteries into the compartment without leaving fingerprits. It's not like you just gently place them in there. It takes some maneuvering every time I do it.

Every time I change batteries on a Maglite, the maneuvering consists of holding the battery between thumb and forefinger and letting it slip into the compartment. This slipping might destroy useful fingerprints.

 

[Chrishope]

Oh, I believe we're on the same page It makes ZERO sense to wipe the fingerprints, whether the wiper was an intruder who didn't intend to leave his flashlight, or whether the wiper owned the flashlight and lived in the house.

In IDI, it makes sense that the intruder would wipe his own prints, off his own flashlight batteries, if he'd brought his own flashlight. Something might happen to prevent him taking the flashlight with him, and his prints on the batteries might reveal his identity (if his prints are on file somewhere) *

What makes no sense is for the intruder to wipe his prints from the Rs flashlight batteries. The intruder knows damn well his prints are not on those batteries (except I'm sure some IDI will claim that he brought his own batteries to use in the R's fl).

But it's unlikely that an intruder brought his own flashlight, because if he had, the Rs flashlight would be in the drawer where it was normally kept.

* It's not just convicted criminals who have their prints on file. Most members of the armed forces, for example, have had to have background checks for security clearances, and part of the process is being fingerprinted.

 

[chlban]

In IDI, it makes sense that the intruder would wipe his own prints, off his own flashlight batteries, if he'd brought his own flashlight. Something might happen to prevent him taking the flashlight with him, and his prints on the batteries might reveal his identity (if his prints are on file somewhere) *

What makes no sense is for the intruder to wipe his prints from the Rs flashlight batteries. The intruder knows damn well his prints are not on those batteries (except I'm sure some IDI will claim that he brought his own batteries to use in the R's fl).

But it's unlikely that an intruder brought his own flashlight, because if he had, the Rs flashlight would be in the drawer where it was normally kept.

* It's not just convicted criminals who have their prints on file. Most members of the armed forces, for example, have had to have background checks for security clearances, and part of the process is being fingerprinted.

Yes and many types of professional licensing requires it as well. My fingerprints are on file do to professional licensing, I have never been arrested (or I wouldn't have gotten the professional license).

The lack of fingerprints both on the flashlight and batteries and on the RN are big red flags to me. Like non-criminals, already under stress and overcompensating for everything, just wiping Fingerprints like crazy.

There would be nothing even remotely suspicious if their fingerprints were on these items. But, ironically, it is the lack of fingerprints that draws suspicion.

 

[bettybaby00]

In IDI, it makes sense that the intruder would wipe his own prints, off his own flashlight batteries, if he'd brought his own flashlight. Something might happen to prevent him taking the flashlight with him, and his prints on the batteries might reveal his identity (if his prints are on file somewhere) *

What makes no sense is for the intruder to wipe his prints from the Rs flashlight batteries. The intruder knows damn well his prints are not on those batteries (except I'm sure some IDI will claim that he brought his own batteries to use in the R's fl).

But it's unlikely that an intruder brought his own flashlight, because if he had, the Rs flashlight would be in the drawer where it was normally kept.

* It's not just convicted criminals who have their prints on file. Most members of the armed forces, for example, have had to have background checks for security clearances, and part of the process is being fingerprinted.

BBM
as do people who work in the securities industry. I wouldn't be surprise if aerospace companies that have military contracts would be required as well.

Not that I think an intruder wiped the batteries, especially since we aren't really sure that in this instance it was more of a question of recovery of
usable prints rather than a wipe down scenario :dunno:

 

[bettybaby00]

Yes and many types of professional licensing requires it as well. My fingerprints are on file do to professional licensing, I have never been arrested (or I wouldn't have gotten the professional license).

The lack of fingerprints both on the flashlight and batteries and on the RN are big red flags to me. Like non-criminals, already under stress and overcompensating for everything, just wiping Fingerprints like crazy.

There would be nothing even remotely suspicious if their fingerprints were on these items. But, ironically, it is the lack of fingerprints that draws suspicion.

Much like the purported lack of tDN on the waistband of the long johns when we know that both John and Patsy handled them in that location.

 

[THE BUNK]

* It's not just convicted criminals who have their prints on file. Most members of the armed forces, for example, have had to have background checks for security clearances, and part of the process is being fingerprinted

Also any friends, associates or family of the Ramseys would also be requested to give their fingerprints. To be honest any possible suspect, criminal record or not, could have their fingerprints collected if they were considered by the police.

 

[UKGuy]

There might be no prints due to happenstance and nobody actually pressing their fingertips onto the batteries. That might be, yet if we assume someone did wipe the batteries clean, then we can also assume this person knew that the flashlight is linked to JonBenet's crime-scene, else why bother wiping it clean?

This means that the wiper might also be JonBenet's killer, since they wish to evade detection?

James Kolar thinks that JonBenet was killed in the kitchen then taken down to the basement. What he does not outline is the possibility that BR whacked JonBenet on the head with the flashlight whilst he and JonBenet were engaged in a pineapple snack.

Indirectly the wiped flashlight offers evidence that the wiper knows that the flashlight was used to whack JonBenet on the head, else why bother wiping it?


.