Molested with the handle?

[BOESP]

BOESP, Really, have you read much on the JonBenet case? The missing items are inferences generated by adoption of the intruder theory, over the years various people have assumed them to be true. So within this context that is why I refer to them.

I've read enough to know that what you said about the missing piece of paintbrush handle, missing size-6 panties, and missing remainder of cord is speculation or speculative inference and not fact. Your wording made it sound like you were making statements of fact so thanks for clearing up that problem.

 

[UKGuy]

I've read enough to know that what you said about the missing piece of paintbrush handle, missing size-6 panties, and missing remainder of cord is speculation or speculative inference and not fact. Your wording made it sound like you were making statements of fact so thanks for clearing up that problem.

BOESP, Glad to be of some assistance. Usually you infer from known facts, but speculate in the absence of any.

 

[UKGuy]

If the "intruder" had of left it at the crime scene...then how would he have been able to see to get out of the WC and that messy basement? My guess is that the Ramseys, placed it on the counter on purpose...as part of the staging. They took the flashlight, and wiped it down...(because the only prints on it was their own)...to make it look like the intruder did it. And that would have been VERY suspicious...if the flashlight had of been left in the WC, because it was very dark...and its farfetched to think that the intruder turned on the lights to find his way out, because they all would have had to have been left on all night, if he had of went back to turn them off, it would have been dark again, and he then he wouldn't have been able to see (yet again)...and he wouldn't have wanted to draw attention from the neighbors, you know. I think that they got carried away, when they wiped the batteries clean. That was meaningless because an intruder's prints would not have been on the batteries in the first place.

Ames, I agree with much of what you say. e.g. the flashlight should be required on entering and leaving the basement. Wiping it clean is not required though, and although as you suggest an intruder's prints would not have been on the batteries in the first place., my point was why should an intruder bother to stop and waste valuable time to wipe clean a flashlight, when all the intruder needed to do was place the flashlight in his pocket? Now the same reasoning about entering and leaving does not apply to the Ramsey's since they live there, and patently are not intruders. I think it was BlueCrab who speculated that John may have wiped and placed the flashlight in the kitchen on returning from his mid-morning vanishing act, during the search for JonBenet?

 

[rashomon]

I disagree, the removal of forensic evidence, the authoring of the ransom note, and construction of a staged crime-scene, are hardly the hallmark of disorganzation?

The point is not about something having been done by the Ramseys in that they tried to stage a scene, but how it was done. And that's where the disorganization just jumps at you. The whole ransom note for example is rambling nonsense and disorganized to the point of the author even failing to give a specific date for "tomorrow".

 

[UKGuy]

The point is not about something having been done by the Ramseys in that they tried to stage a scene, but how it was done. And that's where the disorganization just jumps at you. The whole ransom note for example is rambling nonsense and disorganized to the point of the author even failing to give a specific date for "tomorrow".

rashomon, Sure, it was not well planned, the staging left forensic clues etc. But that it was disorganized is not a word I would apply to the crime-scene. The crime-scene was staged ie planned, evidence was removed, e.g. the victim was cleaned up, and redressed. A ransom note was written, although not very convincing and as you suggest, contained grammatical errors. It was not incoherent, or rambling in the chaotic sense. .

 

[BOESP]

BOESP, Glad to be of some assistance. Usually you infer from known facts, but speculate in the absence of any.

I was trying to be humorous by saying "speculative inference." Inference, speculation, deductive reasoning -- yep, I covered that in Logic 101 forty years ago. None of them are likely to hold up in court of law in proving a Murder One charge but they may help guide an investigation to evidence that is of forensic quality. Unfortunately, I don't think Colorado has shown signs they care whether this case ever comes to trial.

Speaking of which, has anyone heard from coloradokares? She said she was recovering from a stroke and wasn't feeling well and it's been a while since she posted.

 

[BOESP]

The point is not about something having been done by the Ramseys in that they tried to stage a scene, but how it was done. And that's where the disorganization just jumps at you. The whole ransom note for example is rambling nonsense and disorganized to the point of the author even failing to give a specific date for "tomorrow".

Yes, I agree with you Rash, as usual. Disorganized crime scenes show signs of spontaneity such as using materials that are handy; push-pull conflicts; and, as you mentioned, the bogus ransom note which on it's own shows spontaneity and conflict. Some may think of the definition of "organized" and "disorganized" as meaning neat and orderly versus helter-skelter. That isn't the definition of an organized or disorganized killer or crime scene and staging is an entirely different concept than organization versus disorganization. In fact, an organized crime scene can look quite grotesque and disorderly and vice versa -- a disorganized killer and crime scene can be relatively neat and tidy.

If anyone is interested in sexual predators and how to recognize them and how they tend to operate, I'd highly recommend the works of Roy Hazelwood.

 

[rashomon]

rashomon, Sure, it was not well planned, the staging left forensic clues etc. But that it was disorganized is not a word I would apply to the crime-scene. The crime-scene was staged ie planned, evidence was removed, e.g. the victim was cleaned up, and redressed. A ransom note was written, although not very convincing and as you suggest, contained grammatical errors. It was not incoherent, or rambling in the chaotic sense. .

My focus wasn't on any grammatical or spelling erros. It is the note as a whole which is just plain incoherent.
It starts off formally with "Mr. Ramsey", but gets more and more personal as it proceeds, calling Mr. Ramsey "John", insulting him: "don't try to grow a brain" (a line from a movie), and to "use his good southern common sense".
The note ends with the totally ridiculous "It is up to you now John!" LOL, the RN author sounds like a quiz show moderator asking the candidate: "It is up to you now, Mr. Smith: "Do you want to answer the million dollar question or not?"

In short, the RN author was not able to stay focused, but got carried away, deviating from her "small foreign faction" overture as she wrote on.
That's what I meant by 'disorganized'. There's just too much contradictory or downright silly stuff thrown into that note which doesn't make sense.
Just take a look at the phrase "you will be scanned for electronic devices and if they are found, she dies." Priceless. So the small foreign faction members were going to step out of the bushes, scanning John for electronic devices?

"A ransom note was written", you said. Yes, but what kind of ransom note was that? It didn't even specify the date of 'tomorrow'. Again, this points to disorganization due to the extreme stress of the panicked parent who wrote it. The FBI CASKU experts said that the ransom note indicated panic. Imo this panic can be felt in every single line, and can also be seen in the handwriting.
A note written in a panic (after JonBenet was dead) indicates that this was not a premeditated crime.

jmo

 

[UKGuy]

My focus wasn't on any grammatical or spelling erros. It is the note as a whole which is just plain incoherent.
It starts off formally with "Mr. Ramsey", but gets more and more personal as it proceeds, calling Mr. Ramsey "John", insulting him: "don't try to grow a brain" (a line from a movie), and to "use his good southern common sense".
The note ends with the totally ridiculous "It is up to you now John!" LOL, the RN author sounds like a quiz show moderator asking the candidate: "It is up to you now, Mr. Smith: "Do you want to answer the million dollar question or not?"

In short, the RN author was not able to stay focused, but got carried away, deviating from her "small foreign faction" overture as she wrote on.
That's what I meant by 'disorganized'. There's just too much contradictory or downright silly stuff thrown into that note which doesn't make sense.
Just take a look at the phrase "you will be scanned for electronic devices and if they are found, she dies." Priceless. So the small foreign faction members were going to step out of the bushes, scanning John for electronic devices?

"A ransom note was written", you said. Yes, but what kind of ransom note was that? It didn't even specify the date of 'tomorrow'. Again, this points to disorganization due to the extreme stress of the panicked parent who wrote it. The FBI CASKU experts said that the ransom note indicated panic. Imo this panic can be felt in every single line, and can also be seen in the handwriting.
A note written in a panic (after JonBenet was dead) indicates that this was not a premeditated crime.

jmo

rashomon,

Again, this points to disorganization due to the extreme stress of the panicked parent who wrote it.

Is that not understandable, after the death of a child, the psychological state is disorganized as you suggest. My point is that the whole crime-scene is not disorganized, elements of it were preplanned, evidence was removed etc, that is was not perfectly executed is to be expected.

 

[Littledeer]

Oh my Gosh!! I've been so involved with "current" events that I haven't had the time to read all the forums that are available.

I can't beleive there is STILL an ongoing forum about JonBonet. I read this forum for a long time when this case hit the news.

I lived that case for months and months and months.

It will take me that many times to catch up on what you have all written since then!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[JMO8778]

Ames, I agree with much of what you say. e.g. the flashlight should be required on entering and leaving the basement. Wiping it clean is not required though, and although as you suggest an intruder's prints would not have been on the batteries in the first place., my point was why should an intruder bother to stop and waste valuable time to wipe clean a flashlight, when all the intruder needed to do was place the flashlight in his pocket? Now the same reasoning about entering and leaving does not apply to the Ramsey's since they live there, and patently are not intruders.

it seems to me that because the batteries and FL were both wiped,and b/c the FL DID belong to the R's,it's hard proof they were involved.I don't know how on earth IDI can logically twist this one,there's really no believable way.
I don't know if it was involved in the head injury or not,but since the neighbor saw it being used in the kitchen,it seems to me they felt the need to distance themselves from it by wiping it,placing it on the counter,and denying it.

 

[Ames]

Ames, I agree with much of what you say. e.g. the flashlight should be required on entering and leaving the basement. Wiping it clean is not required though, and although as you suggest an intruder's prints would not have been on the batteries in the first place., my point was why should an intruder bother to stop and waste valuable time to wipe clean a flashlight, when all the intruder needed to do was place the flashlight in his pocket? Now the same reasoning about entering and leaving does not apply to the Ramsey's since they live there, and patently are not intruders. I think it was BlueCrab who speculated that John may have wiped and placed the flashlight in the kitchen on returning from his mid-morning vanishing act, during the search for JonBenet?

I totally agree with that. That is one of the things that makes me KNOW there was NO INTRUDER. A real intruder would have NOT taken the precious time needed, to wipe off the prints, and the batteries...when it would have been way more simple for him to have taken the darn thing with him. I mean...he had to see to LEAVE the house...and then after he got outside, right? Yes, a real intruder would have just taken it with him!! To use in the dark.....and to eliminate part of the evidence. Why take the tape and rope with him, as some IDI's have suggested...but leave the flashlight?? Makes no sense.
The only thing about John wiping it clean after searching for JB is....why would he wipe his OWN flashlight down...including the batteries?? He simply could have told police, yes, that is my flashlight, I used it to look for JB. Why wipe it down, AND the batteries...UNLESS of course...he did it to make it look like the "INTRUDER" did it. It's the only thing that makes sense.

 

[Ames]

it seems to me that because the batteries and FL were both wiped,and b/c the FL DID belong to the R's,it's hard proof they were involved.I don't know how on earth IDI can logically twist this one,there's really no believable way.
I don't know if it was involved in the head injury or not,but since the neighbor saw it being used in the kitchen,it seems to me they felt the need to distance themselves from it by wiping it,placing it on the counter,and denying it.

Exactly!!!

 

[DeeDee249]

Actually, the Rs denied owning the flashlight, too. But they DID say they had one just like it...I guess they had pineapple, bowls, spoons and tissue too, just NOT the on ones found in their house. LOL!
I'm surprised they admitted the dead little girl was theirs, instead of saying, "Oh, no, we have one just like that, but this one isn't ours."

 

[UKGuy]

Actually, the Rs denied owning the flashlight, too. But they DID say they had one just like it...I guess they had pineapple, bowls, spoons and tissue too, just NOT the on ones found in their house. LOL!
I'm surprised they admitted the dead little girl was theirs, instead of saying, "Oh, no, we have one just like that, but this one isn't ours."

DeeDee249,
That is funny.

 

[UKGuy]

I totally agree with that. That is one of the things that makes me KNOW there was NO INTRUDER. A real intruder would have NOT taken the precious time needed, to wipe off the prints, and the batteries...when it would have been way more simple for him to have taken the darn thing with him. I mean...he had to see to LEAVE the house...and then after he got outside, right? Yes, a real intruder would have just taken it with him!! To use in the dark.....and to eliminate part of the evidence. Why take the tape and rope with him, as some IDI's have suggested...but leave the flashlight?? Makes no sense.
The only thing about John wiping it clean after searching for JB is....why would he wipe his OWN flashlight down...including the batteries?? He simply could have told police, yes, that is my flashlight, I used it to look for JB. Why wipe it down, AND the batteries...UNLESS of course...he did it to make it look like the "INTRUDER" did it. It's the only thing that makes sense.

Ames,

UNLESS of course...he did it to make it look like the "INTRUDER" did it. It's the only thing that makes sense.

Possibly, but what impelled him to think he must do it. In the killers mind it must fit into a larger picture somewhere, one we cannot visualize?

In a sense that makes two items out of place, one allegedly accidental e.g. the Barbie-Gown, and now the flashlight e.g. non-accidental?

I tend to usually assume things are never left at a crime-scene without some reason?

 

[BOESP]

rashomon, Is that not understandable, after the death of a child, the psychological state is disorganized as you suggest. My point is that the whole crime-scene is not disorganized, elements of it were preplanned, evidence was removed etc, that is was not perfectly executed is to be expected.

UKGuy, what parts of the crime scene do you believe don't show a disorganized killer? It looks decide-as-you-go to me with whatever objects were handy and an on-the-fly thought process. It's followed with staging that seems to begin with (and I'm speculating here), "Oh my gosh, she's dead! What should I do" probably followed with, "I've got to cover this up, what should I do?" The staging may be somewhat organized/planned but the killer/killing was not, in my opinion. The staging also shows elements of disorganized thought processes.

The size 12 panties were removed we know because Patsy and John furnished them years later (or panties consistent with the size 12 Bloomies) and claimed they had no idea how the panties got packed away in boxes. I've considered that JonBenet could have originally had on pull-ups instead of size-6 panties and the size 12s were put on her because her mother didn't want her found without underwear.

What else do we know for sure was removed? I believe it is 50/50 whether or not there was a third part to the paintbrush that relates to the crime. The brush may have been broken before JonBenet was killed and that top portion tossed in the trash. There is also a chance the cord was a stray piece rather than an entire roll and the tape on JonBenet's mouth may have been a fragment taken from another object. Steve Thomas believed the cord and tape was probably purchased at a local hardware store but there is some evidence neither item was new. Also, a roll of duct tape was found in a drawer upstairs, maybe it was the tape Thomas considered??? Lots of things can be inferred although I haven't taken time to mention here every possible clue or consideration.

P.S. When I say "we/We" I mean John Q. Public. In my opinion, all of this is speculation and nothing can be inferred because we don't have access to the evidence. I'm just not comfortable saying anything except opinion or speculation because of this.

 

[Ames]

Ames,

Possibly, but what impelled him to think he must do it. In the killers mind it must fit into a larger picture somewhere, one we cannot visualize?

In a sense that makes two items out of place, one allegedly accidental e.g. the Barbie-Gown, and now the flashlight e.g. non-accidental?

I tend to usually assume things are never left at a crime-scene without some reason?

John is and was an extremely smart man, I think that he left the flashlight...with prints wiped off of it AND the batteries...to make it look like an intruder had used it. Remember the neighbors said that they saw what looked like a flashlight in the kitchen....well, John probably thought that he would leave out the flashlight...JUST IN CASE the neighbors had of seen the beam. And they did...so his actions explained the flashlight beam...the intruder was using it, and the intruder wiped off the prints and accidently left it on the counter.

I still think that the nightgown was wrapped up in the blanket, (that she was wrapped in)...that had been taken from the dryer.

 

[BOESP]

Ames,

Possibly, but what impelled him to think he must do it. In the killers mind it must fit into a larger picture somewhere, one we cannot visualize?

In a sense that makes two items out of place, one allegedly accidental e.g. the Barbie-Gown, and now the flashlight e.g. non-accidental?

I tend to usually assume things are never left at a crime-scene without some reason?

I'm speculating again but I think John (and maybe Patsy) knew that as long as no fingerprints were found on the flashlight it couldn't be connected to anyone no matter if it belonged to the Ramseys or to an Intruder.

Something else about the flashlight that I've not seen mentioned puzzles me. Some believe that flashlight (or one like it) was used to strike JonBenet in the head. If so, that would be another good reason to wash/clean the flashlight.

FWIW, I don't think the flashlight was used to strike her head. :snooty:

 

[BOESP]

John is and was an extremely smart man, I think that he left the flashlight...with prints wiped off of it AND the batteries...to make it look like an intruder had used it. Remember the neighbors said that they saw what looked like a flashlight in the kitchen....well, John probably thought that he would leave out the flashlight...JUST IN CASE the neighbors had of seen the beam. And they did...so his actions explained the flashlight beam...the intruder was using it, and the intruder wiped off the prints and accidently left it on the counter.

I still think that the nightgown was wrapped up in the blanket, (that she was wrapped in)...that had been taken from the dryer.

Ames, I agree with you on both points here. I also think it bolsters the idea that John knew that without prints the flashlight could not be traced to the killer. If it was the Ramsey flashlight and an Intruder used it, it is another of those issues that points to a disorganized killer. If it was the Intruder's flashlight and he left his/her flashlight, it still points to a disorganized killer and it's highly unlikely an Intruder would leave their flashlight, wiped free of prints, sitting on the kitchen countertop. The flashlight comes across as a part of the staging, although we can infer (ahem) it was used during the crime since a neighbor saw odd lights in the kitchen at midnight and during the crime-scene sweep the flashlight was found in the kitchen.

I still think that a midnight potty run plays into this. Patsy said that was the normal routine but they didn't do it the night of JonBenet's death.