The Flashlight.....

[bettybaby00]

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

Idk why exactly but I've always been under the impression that PR did it herself. IIRC there were reports that JBs bathroom had a strong smell of peroxide/bleach? And didn't Meyer make some sort of notation that her hair was "freshly colored?"

 

[DeeDee249]

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.

This is a gray area. SUSPECTS can be requested (but not required). Persons who ARE arrested can be fingerprinted against their will. Persons who are NOT arrested do not have to allow themselves to be fingerprinted. No one has been arrested in this case yet. Those who gave prints, DNA (saliva swabs, etc) handwriting samples, etc. did so willingly. No one is COMPELLED to talk to the police- that is why people are read "Miranda" rights (aka you have the right to remain silent, etc.). Even someone who has been arrested does not have to talk to police. If they are on trial and are called as a witness they can STILL refuse by invoking their 5th Amendment rights.
There has long been discussions about whether any of the young male children who were party guests at the White's gave samples. I doubt it. Even as adults now, they do not have to. Remember the "unknown male DNA" does not prove an AGE for a donor. Even DNA like semen only proves an age of at least puberty- the exact age of the semen donor cannot be determined- only that they are old enough to produce semen.
In this case, the "unknown male DNA" was skin cells- something that is easily transferred by a third party innocently- touch a doorknob, toilet handle, shake hands, touch your own clothes (as in using a toilet) and someone else's Touch DNA (skin cells) are likely to be on your hands and then on your clothes. Skin cell TDNA is different from DNA from a primary source like saliva. blood or semen. The presence of DNA from blood, semen on a dead child's clothing is MUCH less explainable innocently. And like ALL DNA- until and unless a donor is identified by name, useless as far as "clearing" anyone- especially clearing people who were present at the crime scene during the time the crime was committed.

 

[bettybaby00]

This is a gray area. SUSPECTS can be requested (but not required). Persons who ARE arrested can be fingerprinted against their will. Persons who are NOT arrested do not have to allow themselves to be fingerprinted. No one has been arrested in this case yet. Those who gave prints, DNA (saliva swabs, etc) handwriting samples, etc. did so willingly. No one is COMPELLED to talk to the police- that is why people are read "Miranda" rights (aka you have the right to remain silent, etc.). Even someone who has been arrested does not have to talk to police. If they are on trial and are called as a witness they can STILL refuse by invoking their 5th Amendment rights.
There has long been discussions about whether any of the young male children who were party guests at the White's gave samples. I doubt it. Even as adults now, they do not have to. Remember the "unknown male DNA" does not prove an AGE for a donor. Even DNA like semen only proves an age of at least puberty- the exact age of the semen donor cannot be determined- only that they are old enough to produce semen.
In this case, the "unknown male DNA" was skin cells- something that is easily transferred by a third party innocently- touch a doorknob, toilet handle, shake hands, touch your own clothes (as in using a toilet) and someone else's Touch DNA (skin cells) are likely to be on your hands and then on your clothes. Skin cell TDNA is different from DNA from a primary source like saliva. blood or semen. The presence of DNA from blood, semen on a dead child's clothing is MUCH less explainable innocently. And like ALL DNA- until and unless a donor is identified by name, useless as far as "clearing" anyone- especially clearing people who were present at the crime scene during the time the crime was committed.

Thank you!

 

[curiouslittleone]

one of the neighbours noticed a light "roaming" around the bottom floor of the house ( kitchen area i believe) that surely would have been the flashlight

 

[Anyhoo]

The flashlight is a false clue, as almost everything else found at the Ramsey house is a false clue. It was not the murder weapon but the fact that the batteries inside of this flashlight were found to be have been wiped is significant and fits with my theory. The only reason for those batteries to have been wiped is because someone who was NOT a Ramsey put the batteries in the flashlight. <mod snip>

 

[Chrishope]

The flashlight is a false clue, as almost everything else found at the Ramsey house is a false clue. It was not the murder weapon but the fact that the batteries inside of this flashlight were found to be have been wiped is significant and fits with my theory. The only reason for those batteries to have been wiped is because someone who was NOT a Ramsey put the batteries in the flashlight. Are you beginning to comprehend yet?

No. Because, as I've pointed out before, if the intruder left his own flashlight behind, then the R's flashlight would have been found safe and snug in the drawer where it was usually kept. So far as we know, there is only one flashlight.

 

[Chelly]

I often think the flashlight was the murder weapon (until I conjure up OTG's experiments some time ago using melons, clay and other materials which showed a golf club blow most resembling the skull fracture in JBR's autopsy photos) Anyway, I digress:

I think BR may have used the flashlight more often than the other R's, mostly to explore around the house in the dark, to find his way to kitchen for snacks and perhaps to JBR's bed. So, BR probably was the one replacing batteries and the R's were aware. If the flashlight was the MW, and the R's wiped down the batteries and exterior, it could have been because they knew BR's prints would be found inside and out. There was no way the R's wanted LE to connect in any way the events of Dec 25 to BR....IMO

 

[UKGuy]

I often think the flashlight was the murder weapon (until I conjure up OTG's experiments some time ago using melons, clay and other materials which showed a golf club blow most resembling the skull fracture in JBR's autopsy photos) Anyway, I digress:

I think BR may have used the flashlight more often than the other R's, mostly to explore around the house in the dark, to find his way to kitchen for snacks and perhaps to JBR's bed. So, BR probably was the one replacing batteries and the R's were aware. If the flashlight was the MW, and the R's wiped down the batteries and exterior, it could have been because they knew BR's prints would be found inside and out. There was no way the R's wanted LE to connect in any way the events of Dec 25 to BR....IMO

Chelly,
You could be onto something, especially if you adopt Kolar's theory that JonBenet was assaulted in the breakfast bar, then taken down to the basement.

This would work if JonBenet changed for bed when she arrived home, had her hair put up, then was sexually assaulted, followed by a pineapple snack as some kind of promised reward.

Working against this is there appears no sign of a struggle in the breakfast bar, also it was never cleaned up, as if the R's either forgot all about it, or never knew about in the first place?

I have the impression due to a kind of percieved domestic consistency: where it looks as if everything was OK until after the pineapple snack, i.e. to the point when JonBenet might have returned to her bedroom?

.

 

[Chelly]

Chelly,
You could be onto something, especially if you adopt Kolar's theory that JonBenet was assaulted in the breakfast bar, then taken down to the basement.

This would work if JonBenet changed for bed when she arrived home, had her hair put up, then was sexually assaulted, followed by a pineapple snack as some kind of promised reward.

Working against this is there appears no sign of a struggle in the breakfast bar, also it was never cleaned up, as if the R's either forgot all about it, or never knew about in the first place?

I have the impression due to a kind of percieved domestic consistency: where it looks as if everything was OK until after the pineapple snack, i.e. to the point when JonBenet might have returned to her bedroom?

.

I agree with MOST of Kolar's theories. However, as I've theorized in previous posts, I think the sexual assault and head bash happened in JBR's bedroom after eating the pineapple. I believe the transfer of Christmas garland fragments from stairway railing happened when she was carried from her bedroom down to the basement.

 

[fr brown]

The only explanation for leaving the flashlight out in plain sight....with it wiped clean of prints....would be that it was part of the staging. If it wasn't meant for staging and actually had been used, they would have hidden it, or destroyed it....the fact that it was wiped clean, and left in full view...points to the fact that they didn't just forget that it was there. It was wiped clean...including the batteries...and then placed on purpose where investigators would see it. The flashlight was just another prop...in their planned out staged cover-up. And apparently it has worked...because there are many IDI's out there...that think that the intruder just wiped the flashlight off, (including the batteries)...after using it to smash JB's head in....and then he just left in in plain view, because he FORGOT to take it with him (how could he have picked it up, and wiped it clean of prints...and then forgot that it was there....it was right in front of him...he was wiping off the prints). Theres also some RDI's that think that the flashlight was the weapon, and the Ramsey's forgot that it was left out....again...I will say...WHY take the flashlight after using it as a weapon, wipe it clean...(including the batteries)...and then place it in full view of the police/investigators? If the Ramsey's or the "intruder" picked the flashlight up AT ALL, (which they did to remove the prints) then that tells me that it wasn't forgotten.The Ramsey's NOR an intruder would have taken the time to wipe it clean, after using it....and then leave it in full few, instead of disposing of it..UNLESS it was merely a prop...part of the staging. I want to know what you nice people here think about this. Flashlight as the weapon....or NOT!

Yeah, Patsy in the kitchen with the flashlight.

And yes, why wipe it down inside and out and then leave it ostentatiously on the counter? Why wipe down the battery(ies) at all? A Ramsey fingerprint on a battery in a Ramsey flashlight isn't incriminating. Why not wipe the outside of the flashlight and just put it back in the drawer where it lived? With any luck the police wouldn't connect it to the crime.

My guess is that Patsy had replaced the batteries and didn't want to be connected in any way with the flashlight, but she leaves it in plain sight on the counter because she foresees wanting John to be connected to it. She tells investigators, twice, that John looks in the garage with it. She herself never uses it and never changes the batteries because it's "not her thing." He, however, looks in the car with it and looks under the car with it.

 

[fr brown]

Apparently it's possible to do productive DNA testing on objects that have been dusted with fingerprint powder. I wonder if the flashlight is a candidate for that. I don't think it's been done.