Molested with the handle?

[JMO8778]

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.

I think they were worried about the neighbors seeing someone in the kitchen with it..remember,they were supposed to be 'asleep' at that time,and so they even turned off lights that were normally left on,to keep the house dark and to appear they were 'sleeping'.
And of course,lo and behold,someone did see either PR or JR with it,and so the plan worked,in that sense.It was wiped and placed on the counter,last place it was used (or could have been noticed from outside),and denied.

 

[JMO8778]

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:

You could be right.If her head was struck with it,perhaps they would have felt the need to have it 'disappear' and or retrieved by PP in her run of the house.
I used to think perhaps she was struck with it,and although I don't rule it out,since the injury was to the back of her head,I tend to think it happened just as ST said.

 

[BOESP]

You could be right.If her head was struck with it,perhaps they would have felt the need to have it 'disappear' and or retrieved by PP in her run of the house.
I used to think perhaps she was struck with it,and although I don't rule it out,since the injury was to the back of her head,I tend to think it happened just as ST said.

I think Mr. Thomas is the best resource the public has in this case as far as someone working for JonBenet. I've not seen anything that discounts his theory. I do wish those who believe in the Ramseys total innocence would apply the same rules to evaluating the Ramseys actions and statements that they apply to Thomas. At least be fair and impartial. :innocent:

Also, if the flashlight was used, it seems most likely the assailant was either left-handed or ambidextrous based on the the location and shape of the impression in her skull. If swung, the depression's shape indicates a left-handed stance (based on the on-line autopsy photos of JonBenet's skull).

 

[Ames]

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.

Could be...maybe when Patsy went up with the flashlight, for the midnight potty run, that is when she found that JB had already WENT potty...in her bed, therefore making Patsy angry. And that same flashlight was used in the kitchen...IMO...while she wrote the RN. I think the flashlight being left on the counter, with wiped off prints....was a "setup"...part of the staging. Because, they COULD have just told the police the truth...yes, that is our flashlight, and so you will find OUR prints on it. But, that
wouldn't have played into their "intruder" scenario. They HAD to leave little clues around....that pointed to an intruder...and what better to leave out, than a wiped clean of prints flashlight. In Patsy and John's mind...IMO...that SCREAMED....INTRUDER.

 

[Ames]

I think they were worried about the neighbors seeing someone in the kitchen with it..remember,they were supposed to be 'asleep' at that time,and so they even turned off lights that were normally left on,to keep the house dark and to appear they were 'sleeping'.
And of course,lo and behold,someone did see either PR or JR with it,and so the plan worked,in that sense.It was wiped and placed on the counter,last place it was used (or could have been noticed from outside),and denied.

I agree. That's exactly why they left it out. If not, then why didn't they just place it back in the drawer where it came from? It was THEIR flashlight, so of course it would have THEIR prints on it. So, if the police found it in the drawer...there is nothing at all suspicious about that. BUT...IMO..they were trying to cover all of their bases by wiping it down, and placing it on the counter...JUST IN CASE the neighbors saw the flashlight beam (which they did)...while Patsy was using it to write the RN. Also, WHY would an intruder take the time to wipe the flashlight, AND the batteries down...when it would have been easier for him to have just been easier for him to take it with him...for two purposes....to see with...and to save time.

 

[BOESP]

Could be...maybe when Patsy went up with the flashlight, for the midnight potty run, that is when she found that JB had already WENT potty...in her bed, therefore making Patsy angry. And that same flashlight was used in the kitchen...IMO...while she wrote the RN. I think the flashlight being left on the counter, with wiped off prints....was a "setup"...part of the staging. Because, they COULD have just told the police the truth...yes, that is our flashlight, and so you will find OUR prints on it. But, that
wouldn't have played into their "intruder" scenario. They HAD to leave little clues around....that pointed to an intruder...and what better to leave out, than a wiped clean of prints flashlight. In Patsy and John's mind...IMO...that SCREAMED....INTRUDER.

I totally agree. Patsy even said in one of her interviews that she often used the flashlight when she checked on JonBenet at midnight. Like you, I think the evidence suggest the police suspected that Patsy sat at the table and used the flashlight to see while she wrote the ransom note. I think the box of Kleenex was used to wipe her tears away and if true, it suggests one reason the police asked Patsy about what type make-up she wore -- make-up was on the box or a Kleenex still in the box or, possibly, dirty Kleenex could have been found (I'm speculating). If this scenario is true, it suggests John was either still asleep while Patsy wrote the note or he was occupied with the staging.

I guess my response shouldn't be in the "molested with the handle" thread. :waitasec: At least the traffic, grammar, spelling, reputation, and content police don't come around here much -- I like that. :clap:

 

[Ames]

I totally agree. Patsy even said in one of her interviews that she often used the flashlight when she checked on JonBenet at midnight. Like you, I think the evidence suggest the police suspected that Patsy sat at the table and used the flashlight to see while she wrote the ransom note. I think the box of Kleenex was used to wipe her tears away and if true, it suggests one reason the police asked Patsy about what type make-up she wore -- make-up was on the box or a Kleenex still in the box or, possibly, dirty Kleenex could have been found (I'm speculating). If this scenario is true, it suggests John was either still asleep while Patsy wrote the note or he was occupied with the staging.

I guess my response shouldn't be in the "molested with the handle" thread. :waitasec: At least the traffic, grammar, spelling, reputation, and content police don't come around here much -- I like that. :clap:

Good point! Why else would the police care what brand of makeup Patsy wore. That normally wouldn't have been important in the grand scheme of things. They had to have had a reason for asking that question...and the reason, like you said, could have been that they found a kleenex with makeup on it, from her crying....which you KNOW she did ALOT of that night. Makes perfect sense to me.

My guess is that John was occupied with the staging, as Patsy wrote the note. I don't believe that he was sleeping. I think that Patsy would have woke him up, if he had of been, to try and help revive JB, when she realized what she had done. She would have needed his help, she wouldn't have been able to do all that was done, by herself.

 

[JMO8778]

I think Mr. Thomas is the best resource the public has in this case as far as someone working for JonBenet. I've not seen anything that discounts his theory. I do wish those who believe in the Ramseys total innocence would apply the same rules to evaluating the Ramseys actions and statements that they apply to Thomas. At least be fair and impartial. :innocent:

I totally agree.But 'fair and impartial' don't exist much in the IDI's book.Especially not when they have something to gain from it,or their reputation is at risk.

Also, if the flashlight was used, it seems most likely the assailant was either left-handed or ambidextrous based on the the location and shape of the impression in her skull. If swung, the depression's shape indicates a left-handed stance (based on the on-line autopsy photos of JonBenet's skull).

either that, or PR was standing face to face with her,with JB's head bent fwd? But I would think there would be some external swelling if she was hit with an object,(or more likely so than by being pushed or shoved into a solid object),since she didn't die right away from the head injury?
Anyway,I agree that Thomas is the best resource,he studied the case well,and tried to be fair,(something the IDI's won't admit).

 

[Ames]

I think Mr. Thomas is the best resource the public has in this case as far as someone working for JonBenet. I've not seen anything that discounts his theory. I do wish those who believe in the Ramseys total innocence would apply the same rules to evaluating the Ramseys actions and statements that they apply to Thomas. At least be fair and impartial. :innocent:

Also, if the flashlight was used, it seems most likely the assailant was either left-handed or ambidextrous based on the the location and shape of the impression in her skull. If swung, the depression's shape indicates a left-handed stance (based on the on-line autopsy photos of JonBenet's skull).

Patsy was ambidextrous...:waitasec:

 

[JMO8778]

Good point! Why else would the police care what brand of makeup Patsy wore. That normally wouldn't have been important in the grand scheme of things. They had to have had a reason for asking that question...and the reason, like you said, could have been that they found a kleenex with makeup on it, from her crying....which you KNOW she did ALOT of that night. Makes perfect sense to me

she was vague on the makeup answers,wasn't she? I don't think she ever said exactly what she was wearing the last time she put any on.

 

[Ames]

she was vague on the makeup answers,wasn't she? I don't think she ever said exactly what she was wearing the last time she put any on.

Yes, she was. She probably knew where they were going with that round of questions.

 

[UKGuy]

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, Wiping it clean probably means they were removing any forensic links, just as was done with the ransom note e.g. no fingerprints. It may have been used to strike JonBenet on the head, but would have been left in the wine-cellar in that instance. It could be that the flashlight and the ransom note are linked, but the timeline is difficult to create?

 

[UKGuy]

Could be...maybe when Patsy went up with the flashlight, for the midnight potty run, that is when she found that JB had already WENT potty...in her bed, therefore making Patsy angry. And that same flashlight was used in the kitchen...IMO...while she wrote the RN. I think the flashlight being left on the counter, with wiped off prints....was a "setup"...part of the staging. Because, they COULD have just told the police the truth...yes, that is our flashlight, and so you will find OUR prints on it. But, that
wouldn't have played into their "intruder" scenario. They HAD to leave little clues around....that pointed to an intruder...and what better to leave out, than a wiped clean of prints flashlight. In Patsy and John's mind...IMO...that SCREAMED....INTRUDER.

Ames, Only if it was found, and it was not noticed for a period of time, some thought it was a police flashlight? That is the place where it was left, unlike the crime-scene, did not immediately draw attention to it. It could be that the flashlight was left elsewhere by mistake, then retrieved and wiped clean as a precautionary measure?

 

[Ames]

Ames, Only if it was found, and it was not noticed for a period of time, some thought it was a police flashlight? That is the place where it was left, unlike the crime-scene, did not immediately draw attention to it. It could be that the flashlight was left elsewhere by mistake, then retrieved and wiped clean as a precautionary measure?

They could have left it in the WC, but it would have had their prints on it, so they wiped it clean, and placed it on the counter. I still think its because they suspected that the neighbors could have seen the beam...(which they did), and they wanted to be able to explain that. They couldn't have said.."Well, you see...Patsy was using it to write the Ransom note with"....so they wiped it down, placed it on the counter...and hoped that the police would find it there, and they could blame it on the intruder. I am sure that when John put it there, he never thought in a million years, that it would take time for the police to find it...or that the police would think that it belonged to one of the policemen.

 

[JMO8778]

Yes, she was. She probably knew where they were going with that round of questions.

I think I recall from the interview that she seemed to just blow it off, almost like it was nothing but daily chit chat,when she said her sister Pam works at a makeup counter and she 'keeps us in samples'.
As in,'ok,can we go on to the next question?' I think she knew where they were going w/ the kleenex box,too.

 

[UKGuy]

They could have left it in the WC, but it would have had their prints on it, so they wiped it clean, and placed it on the counter. I still think its because they suspected that the neighbors could have seen the beam...(which they did), and they wanted to be able to explain that. They couldn't have said.."Well, you see...Patsy was using it to write the Ransom note with"....so they wiped it down, placed it on the counter...and hoped that the police would find it there, and they could blame it on the intruder. I am sure that when John put it there, he never thought in a million years, that it would take time for the police to find it...or that the police would think that it belonged to one of the policemen.

Ames, If they speculated that neighbors saw the beam then why bother drawing so much attention to it. The neighbors testimony indicates an intruder using a flashlight, sounds consistent with an IDI so far. Why add the ramsey flashlight to the mix?

 

[JMO8778]

I think panic ensued,and they just weren't thinking straight,UK.They overdid it a bit w. the staging;perhaps it was common knowledge to others (like the housekeeper) that the FL was in the drawer in the kitchen,therefore they didn't want anyone to think anything seen could have come from their own FL.Better to just wipe it down and deny it.

 

[BOESP]

...
either that, or PR was standing face to face with her,with JB's head bent fwd? But I would think there would be some external swelling if she was hit with an object,(or more likely so than by being pushed or shoved into a solid object),since she didn't die right away from the head injury?
Anyway,I agree that Thomas is the best resource,he studied the case well,and tried to be fair,(something the IDI's won't admit).

Even if JonBenet's head was bent forward and the killer was standing to JonBenet's right side and swung down (which is the only position I can think of that would shape the depression the way the autopsy shows it), it seems like the force would push JonBenet to the floor, falling on her face. I would expect more and larger bruising on the face than what the autopsy mentions. I still think the head wound indicates a blunt force trauma with her head hitting something instead of a weapon striking her (I won't dare say low velocity-high pressure wound ).

 

[BOESP]

she was vague on the makeup answers,wasn't she? I don't think she ever said exactly what she was wearing the last time she put any on.

Yes, she was vague; she said she wasn't loyal to any brand and used whatever free samples sister Pam sent for her to use (my paraphrasing). Of course in DOI (if I remember correctly) she also mentions how godforsaken Boulder was because when she moved there her favorite lipstick wasn't even available in that one-horse town (again, my paraphrasing but that's pretty much what she said -- I don't have a copy of DOI to check for a quotation).\

P.S. Maybe it was Nedra who mentioned the lack of good cosmetics in Boulder and how Patsy couldn't even find her favorite lipstick.

 

[BOESP]

BOESP, Wiping it clean probably means they were removing any forensic links, just as was done with the ransom note e.g. no fingerprints. It may have been used to strike JonBenet on the head, but would have been left in the wine-cellar in that instance. It could be that the flashlight and the ransom note are linked, but the timeline is difficult to create?

I agree with your thinking that the flashlight and the ransom note are linked, but that the flashlight is not linked to the act of killing.

And, yes, no fingerprints, no connection to who handled it. An Intruder who thought along the lines you mentioned would have, in my opinion, taken the flashlight with him.