No intruder?

[Toltec]

The coroner stated that JonBenet was wiped down...there were dark fibers on her white shirt, vaginal area, and even on the spots of blood.

Nedra told Steve Thomas that JonBenet would sometimes "dirty" herself and would have to be wiped down and then clean undies put on her.

The flashlight was not left on a bench...it was left on the kitchen island counter. John usually kept his flashlight in the wet bar drawer, which was not there. John used the flashlight to check on his airplane...which he did Christmas Day.

Officer French was the first person who entered the basement. Fleet White checked it next, John checked it, then Fleet and John checked it before "finding" JonBenet.

I don't know if officer French turned on the basement lights or used his flashlight. Fleet White claims the lights were on in the basement.

 

[UKGuy]

I'll ask this question of you one more time, as I can see you are having difficulty interpreting what I am asking YOU.

You have stated that the flashlight was cleaned inside and outside by the Rs to remove evidence. That is your theory, not mine.

Then you say it was left on the kitchen bench.

What I am asking you is:

Why would the R's leave it on the bench rather than replace the flashlight in it's original place?

MurriFlower,

You have stated that the flashlight was cleaned inside and outside by the Rs to remove evidence. That is your theory, not mine.

I reckon I might have to give up on you. There is evidence to suggest that the mag flashlite was wiped clean e.g.

Flashlight May Have Been Used In Jonbenet Slaying
OTHER NEWS TO NOTE - WEST
November 07, 1998

DENVER - Police investigating the slaying of child beauty queen JonBenet Ramsey think a flashlight found in her home - wiped clean of fingerprints - may have been used in the killing, Fox News Channel reported Friday. ``What intrigued police is that there were no fingerprints or residue found on the flashlight. ... It appeared someone had opened it up, pulled the batteries out and wiped them off,'' Fox reported. The flashlight was found in the house when police arrived, but it was not noticed for several hours because officers thought it was one of theirs, a source close to the case said. JonBenet's body was found in the family's home on Dec. 26, 1996. She had a fractured skull and also had been strangled.

Even Lou Smit accepts this since asked John if he changed the batteries or used it that morning etc. So its not a theory, its not an interpretation, its evidence, plain and simple.

Why would the R's leave it on the bench rather than replace the flashlight in it's original place?

Because its their house they can leave it anywhere they like.

We still have yet to hear your explanation for the intruder staging a crime-scene in the wine-cellar, or why if the intruder forgot to take the flashlite with him, would he need to waste time cleaning it, if he intended to take it away. duh!

How about a coherent rendition of your IDI theory matched against the available evidence?

If you have no answers I'll keep on asking.


.

 

[MurriFlower]

The coroner stated that JonBenet was wiped down...there were dark fibers on her white shirt, vaginal area, and even on the spots of blood.

Nedra told Steve Thomas that JonBenet would sometimes "dirty" herself and would have to be wiped down and then clean undies put on her.

The flashlight was not left on a bench...it was left on the kitchen island counter. John usually kept his flashlight in the wet bar drawer, which was not there. John used the flashlight to check on his airplane...which he did Christmas Day.

Officer French was the first person who entered the basement. Fleet White checked it next, John checked it, then Fleet and John checked it before "finding" JonBenet.

I don't know if officer French turned on the basement lights or used his flashlight. Fleet White claims the lights were on in the basement.

Can you please source this information, thanks.

 

[MurriFlower]

MurriFlower,

Because its their house they can leave it anywhere they like.



If you have no answers I'll keep on asking.


.

They would wipe it clean of prints and residue then just leave it lying around looking suspicious eh?

Well, an IDI theory on the use of the flashlight is pretty simple. An IDI happens to have a flashlight similar to the R's. This isn't as far fetched as you might like to suggest, because it was apparently the same type as the Cops used, so as flashlights go, it seems it was a popular type. In fact there was some confusion initially that it might have belonged to one of the officers. We have not established, as far as I can see, whether JR's flashlight was still residing in the drawer where it was supposed to be, or indeed if as you say he used it the previous day, whether it could be found. This would establish IF it was the R's or and IDI's.

I'm happy to try to establish the significance of the flashlight, (if any) to either the RDI or IDI case.

 

[UKGuy]

They would wipe it clean of prints and residue then just leave it lying around looking suspicious eh?

Well, an IDI theory on the use of the flashlight is pretty simple. An IDI happens to have a flashlight similar to the R's. This isn't as far fetched as you might like to suggest, because it was apparently the same type as the Cops used, so as flashlights go, it seems it was a popular type. In fact there was some confusion initially that it might have belonged to one of the officers. We have not established, as far as I can see, whether JR's flashlight was still residing in the drawer where it was supposed to be, or indeed if as you say he used it the previous day, whether it could be found. This would establish IF it was the R's or and IDI's.

I'm happy to try to establish the significance of the flashlight, (if any) to either the RDI or IDI case.

MurriFlower,

They would wipe it clean of prints and residue then just leave it lying around looking suspicious eh?

Why not? Sure beats wiping it clean then forgetting it.

This isn't as far fetched as you might like to suggest,

Nope not guilty , never said such a thing.

We have not established, as far as I can see, whether JR's flashlight was still residing in the drawer where it was supposed to be, or indeed if as you say he used it the previous day, whether it could be found.

We means you of course, not all the members on this board. you say I never said that, you just suffered a memory outage.
The R's flashlite was not found anywhere else in the house, just like the size-12's, here today, gone tomorrow.



The Ramsey's denied that the flashlite was their one.


.

 

[joeskidbeck]

They would wipe it clean of prints and residue then just leave it lying around looking suspicious eh?

Well, an IDI theory on the use of the flashlight is pretty simple. An IDI happens to have a flashlight similar to the R's. This isn't as far fetched as you might like to suggest, because it was apparently the same type as the Cops used, so as flashlights go, it seems it was a popular type. In fact there was some confusion initially that it might have belonged to one of the officers. We have not established, as far as I can see, whether JR's flashlight was still residing in the drawer where it was supposed to be, or indeed if as you say he used it the previous day, whether it could be found. This would establish IF it was the R's or and IDI's.

I'm happy to try to establish the significance of the flashlight, (if any) to either the RDI or IDI case.

You probably cannot believe Patsy when she says that she's not sure if that's John's flashlight or not. He himself states he uses it to check out his plane, which he did that day. Probably just walked in and laid it on that counter. If that wasn't John's flashlight, Patsy would have stated emphatically that it was not his. She did not do this. It was John's. After a while, you can kinda tell the difference between Patsy's outright lies and her statements that were meant to just "mislead".

 

[MurriFlower]

MurriFlower,

Why not? Sure beats wiping it clean then forgetting it.

So, it looks as if SOMEONE wiped it clean and forgot it. NOW just to establish if it was the Rs or and IDI??

Nope not guilty , never said such a thing.

I'm beginning to anticipate.

We means you of course, not all the members on this board. you say I never said that, you just suffered a memory outage.

It was Toltec

John used the flashlight to check on his airplane...which he did Christmas Day.

The R's flashlite was not found anywhere else in the house,

And you have this on the good authority of whom?

just like the size-12's, here today, gone tomorrow.

Well, that's an entirely different issue, let's just stick the the flashlight for the present eh?

The Ramsey's denied that the flashlite was their one.

JR said it looked a bit like his, but it was dirty.

 

[DeeDee249]

Ok, looks like Officer French was there later on. FW was first on the scene, and this is what was reported:

"At 6:06 – 6:15 on the morning of 26 December, 1996 FW searched the basement alone. He did not report the presence of a chair anywhere in the basement. He noted that the lights in the basement were on."

French was there within minutes of the 911 call. I don't believe FW was already there.

 

[DeeDee249]

Is that the blood where they found the unknown male DNA?

Does "having been wiped by a cloth" automatically mean manually wiped? Where is the cloth?

"Numerous traces of a dark fiber..."

http://extras.denverpost.com/news/jonaff5.htm

No. The blood where they found the male DNA was in her panties. The blood I am talking about was swabbed from her thighs and pubic area and it was only her blood. That is where they found the dark fibers. We don't know where the cloth is, but there were some possibilities. JR's terry bathrobe was navy blue- it was found in the den- an odd place to leave it. The dark fibers could also have been JR's dark shirt. Unfortunately, I have never seen where the fibers from her thighs were ever analyzed and attempted to be matched to either the robe or the shirt. All Mayer said was "dark fibers" present in the area led him to believe she had been wiped by a cloth.

 

[DeeDee249]

In her interview, Patsy was asked about the flashlight. She said that one "looked like one JR owned", but it was dirtier. She was asked where they kept "their" flashlight, and was shown photos, and pointed to a photo of an open drawer in an area off the kitchen. The drawer was open, and NO flashlight was in there. LE then asked whether it could be inferred that, since that was the drawer where "their" flashlight was kept and clearly it was not in there, that it is possible that the flashlight on the counter that "looked like theirs' might, in fact, BE theirs. LE knew exactly what Patsy was trying to do and they had it covered.

 

[UKGuy]

No. The blood where they found the male DNA was in her panties. The blood I am talking about was swabbed from her thighs and pubic area and it was only her blood. That is where they found the dark fibers. We don't know where the cloth is, but there were some possibilities. JR's terry bathrobe was navy blue- it was found in the den- an odd place to leave it. The dark fibers could also have been JR's dark shirt. Unfortunately, I have never seen where the fibers from her thighs were ever analyzed and attempted to be matched to either the robe or the shirt. All Mayer said was "dark fibers" present in the area led him to believe she had been wiped by a cloth.

DeeDee249,

Patsy dissembling her way through the interview, note how the interviewers show her the photographs of what the R's were wearing to the party, no ramnesia allowed there.

So is the cloth proposed by Coroner Meyer actually the israeli manufactured shirt? There might be wriggle room on red fibers but an israeli shirt?

Patsy's 2000 Atlanta Interview, excerpt

24 Q. (By Mr. Levin) We have asked for
25 -- we had also requested, through your
0166
1 attorneys, that we be sent a black shirt, a
2 black shirt that John was wearing at the
3 Whites on Christmas of 1996. Were you aware
4 of that request in addition to the request
5 for your red coat?
6 A. I am sure I was.
7 Q. Did you participate in collecting
8 that? What I mean by that is you said,
9 well, I went in my closet and grabbed my
10 jacket. Did you go and grab what you
11 thought was John's shirt? How did that come
12 about? Why don't you just tell us in your
13 own words?
14 A. I don't remember. More likely he
15 found his shirt, I found my jacket.
16 Q. He sent us two black shirts. I
17 am going to show you a photograph here. It
18 shows you wearing your red coat and then
19 John wearing a black shirt. He sent us two,
20 two different black shirts. This one, does
21 this have a collar, this shirt?
22 A. I can't tell.
23 Q. While Mr. Kane tries to get a
24 little closer, I have some more questions.
25 John sent us two black shirts. One had a
0167
1 collar and one did not. Was there any
2 discussion that he had with you in which he
3 tried to obtain your assistance in refreshing
4 his memory as to which of those two shirts
5 he wore Christmas of 1996?
6 A. I don't remember.
7 Q. If it took place, you just don't
8 recall it?
9 A. I don't remember, no.
10 Q. I think this is a little better
11 shot.
12 MR. WOOD: I don't believe
13 there's contrast.
14 THE WITNESS: I can't tell, you
15 know, which one that was. He has got
16 several.
17 MR. WOOD: You are talking about
18 the question of the collar, though, on that
19 one. I don't think you can tell, even from
20 the zoom I can't tell.
21 THE WITNESS: You can't tell if
22 there's a collar.
23 Q. (By Mr. Levin) And the sheriff,
24 this is just, the two he sent us, the one
25 that this appears to be, it is a wool shirt
0168
1 that is made in Israel, which is kind of
2 unusual. It wasn't a gift that maybe you
3 bought for him, something like that, that
4 would make it stand out?
5 MR. WOOD: Let me stop. You are
6 saying this one appears to be. You are
7 talking about the picture that Mr. Kane has
8 just shown us?
9 MR. LEVIN: Yes. And then we
10 are --
11 MR. WOOD: You say it is a wool
12 shirt that is made in Israel.
13 MR. LEVIN: The shirt that your
14 husband sent us.
15 MR. WOOD: Which is kind of
16 unusual. I don't know if that is true or
17 not. But the point is, are you asking if
18 this shirt was one that was made -- are you
19 asking her if she knows whether this is a
20 wool shirt that was made in Israel?
21 MR. LEVIN: Yes.
22 MR. WOOD: The one that you see
23 in this photograph, are you able to know
24 that?
25 THE WITNESS: No, I don't know.
0169
1 Q. (By Mr. Levin) The wool shirt
2 that he sent us was made in Israel. Is it
3 a shirt that maybe you bought him as a gift?
4 A. I don't remember.

Later on ...
Patsy's 2000 Atlanta Interview, excerpt

10 In addition to those questions,
11 there are some others that I would like you
12 to think about whether or not we can have
13 Mrs. Ramsey perhaps in the future answer. I
14 understand you are advising her not to today,
15 and those are there are black fibers that,
16 according to our testing that was conducted,
17 that match one of the two shirts that was
18 provided to us by the Ramseys, black shirt.
19 Those are located in the
20 underpants of JonBenet Ramsey, were found in
21 her crotch area, and I believe those are two
22 other areas that we have intended to ask
23 Mrs. Ramsey about if she could help us in
24 explaining their presence in those locations.

.

 

[MurriFlower]

French was there within minutes of the 911 call. I don't believe FW was already there.

Yes, I think Officer French arrived on the scene first, but that didn't mean he was first to enter the basement. I cannot confirm my sources, and I expect neither can you. Either way, whoever arrived there first apparently noticed the lights were on.

Of course, it's pointless to discuss it, when neither of us know what actually happened.

The point to all this, if I remember correctly, was a debate about whether the Rs or the IDI needed the flashlight to see in the basement, and in the event that the flashlight was left in the kitchen, then I would make the assumption that the lights were on in the basement.

 

[SunnieRN]

WAS the drawer empty?

I'll ask this question of you one more time, as I can see you are having difficulty interpreting what I am asking YOU.

You have stated that the flashlight was cleaned inside and outside by the Rs to remove evidence. That is your theory, not mine.

Then you say it was left on the kitchen bench.

What I am asking you is:

Why would the R's leave it on the bench rather than replace the flashlight in it's original place?

In her interview, Patsy was asked about the flashlight. She said that one "looked like one JR owned", but it was dirtier. She was asked where they kept "their" flashlight, and was shown photos, and pointed to a photo of an open drawer in an area off the kitchen. The drawer was open, and NO flashlight was in there. LE then asked whether it could be inferred that, since that was the drawer where "their" flashlight was kept and clearly it was not in there, that it is possible that the flashlight on the counter that "looked like theirs' might, in fact, BE theirs. LE knew exactly what Patsy was trying to do and they had it covered.

Thank you for answering both questions so eloquently DeeDee! I would like to state again that it is my belief that the flashlight was not used as the weapon, but as a red herring, with the softball bat, with hair from Jon Benet, being the weapon used. If there was an IDI, he wouldn't have had any reason to wipe down the flashlight. I am SURE he would have worn gloves and he could have just put it back in the drawer.

 

[MurriFlower]

Thank you for answering both questions so eloquently DeeDee! I would like to state again that it is my belief that the flashlight was not used as the weapon, but as a red herring, with the softball bat, with hair from Jon Benet, being the weapon used. If there was an IDI, he wouldn't have had any reason to wipe down the flashlight. I am SURE he would have worn gloves and he could have just put it back in the drawer.

Yes, all good points. We have no evidence it was used as a weapon. If the IDI bought the flashlight then the Rs would have still been in the drawer. If he borrowed the Rs' flashlight it would have had their prints (or someone's) on it. If the Rs used their own flashlight, taken the trouble to wipe off the prints from inside and outside, they would have replaced it in the drawer so it would not draw attention to itself.

So something's fishy, it might be your red herring I can smell.

 

[UKGuy]

Thank you for answering both questions so eloquently DeeDee! I would like to state again that it is my belief that the flashlight was not used as the weapon, but as a red herring, with the softball bat, with hair from Jon Benet, being the weapon used. If there was an IDI, he wouldn't have had any reason to wipe down the flashlight. I am SURE he would have worn gloves and he could have just put it back in the drawer.

SunnieRN,
The important point is was the flashlite wiped clean? If this can be verified then you can infer it was used at the crime-scene, otherwise why bother wiping it clean?

I am SURE he would have worn gloves and he could have just put it back in the drawer.

There is no coherent or consistent IDI theory yet published. Lou Smit's intruder theory was blown out of the water once the staging was established.

The IDI theories evolve out of factoids such as:

he could have just put it back in the drawer.

How did he know it was in the drawer? How did he know there was a wine-cellar in the basement? This intruder is patently forensically aware since he left no forensic evidence. IDI cite touch-dna but that may simply be environmental debri. So given the intruders awareness why did he take his gloves off to pull down JonBenet's longjohns, was it at this point he employed the flashlite to look at JonBenet?

Why did the IDI leave the flashlite behind, removing it would have been simpler, just as JonBenet's size-6 underwear was taken away from the crime-scene?

So we have an intruder who is like a ghost, who can glide through the Ramsey household, scooping JonBenet from her bed, feeding her pineapple, sexually molesting her, then killing her with a combination of asphyxiation and head trauma. Then its off to the basement to stage a crime-scene in the wine-cellar complete with a fake garrote, restraints and duct tape over her mouth, after placing the remainder of the paintbrush into the paint-tote, he gathers up his toolkit: cord, tape, flashlite, then intruder next seeks out a Ramsey' writing pad, and pen, sits down and pens his preferred financial reward for his act of evil, reminding john not to grow a brain, as he adds media flourishes to his ransom note. Then he wipes the flashlite clean, replaces it, and flits out the window or front door whistling some dixie tune.

All without leaving a trace of forensic evidence behind?

This is why most IDI theories are a mess, they evolve in response to RDI flagging up Ramsey related evidence e.g. the fake garrote, the flashlite wiped clean, the cord, the duct-tape, the size-6's, touch-dna, black and red fibers, pineapple etc etc.

JonBenet's death is a sexually motivated homicide, there is no evidence of any intruder so that leaves RDI as the only option.


.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

So we have an intruder who is like a ghost, who can glide through the Ramsey household, scooping JonBenet from her bed, feeding her pineapple, sexually molesting her, then killing her with a combination of asphyxiation and head trauma. Then its off to the basement to stage a crime-scene in the wine-cellar complete with a fake garrote, restraints and duct tape over her mouth, after placing the remainder of the paintbrush into the paint-tote, he gathers up his toolkit: cord, tape, flashlite, then intruder next seeks out a Ramsey' writing pad, and pen, sits down and pens his preferred financial reward for his act of evil, reminding john not to grow a brain, as he adds media flourishes to his ransom note. Then he wipes the flashlite clean, replaces it, and flits out the window or front door whistling some dixie tune.

.

Or we have Mr. and Mrs. Hyde who for one Christmas night transformed into...Mr. and Mrs. Jekyl. And then back again, never to sexually assault, strangle, or write bizarre violent notes again.

Or we have Ozzie and Harriet who had a bad accident with their daughter, and created an evil entity known as 'group of individuals representing foreing faction SBTC' in order to make it look like the housekeeper killed her. They created a staged crime scene to make it look like their daughter was brutally strangled by cord, complete with multiple large abrasions at the cord, and under-the-skin bleeding underneath the cord that could only happen while her heart was pumping. Wow thats some authentic-looking staging! And they put their own handwriting at a crime scene where they also lived, spelling one or two words wrong on purpose because they knew later they would spell those words right and pick one or two others to spell wrong.

 

[SunnieRN]

SunnieRN,
The important point is was the flashlite wiped clean? If this can be verified then you can infer it was used at the crime-scene, otherwise why bother wiping it clean?


There is no coherent or consistent IDI theory yet published. Lou Smit's intruder theory was blown out of the water once the staging was established.

The IDI theories evolve out of factoids such as:

How did he know it was in the drawer? How did he know there was a wine-cellar in the basement? This intruder is patently forensically aware since he left no forensic evidence. IDI cite touch-dna but that may simply be environmental debri. So given the intruders awareness why did he take his gloves off to pull down JonBenet's longjohns, was it at this point he employed the flashlite to look at JonBenet?

Why did the IDI leave the flashlite behind, removing it would have been simpler, just as JonBenet's size-6 underwear was taken away from the crime-scene?

So we have an intruder who is like a ghost, who can glide through the Ramsey household, scooping JonBenet from her bed, feeding her pineapple, sexually molesting her, then killing her with a combination of asphyxiation and head trauma. Then its off to the basement to stage a crime-scene in the wine-cellar complete with a fake garrote, restraints and duct tape over her mouth, after placing the remainder of the paintbrush into the paint-tote, he gathers up his toolkit: cord, tape, flashlite, then intruder next seeks out a Ramsey' writing pad, and pen, sits down and pens his preferred financial reward for his act of evil, reminding john not to grow a brain, as he adds media flourishes to his ransom note. Then he wipes the flashlite clean, replaces it, and flits out the window or front door whistling some dixie tune.

All without leaving a trace of forensic evidence behind?

This is why most IDI theories are a mess, they evolve in response to RDI flagging up Ramsey related evidence e.g. the fake garrote, the flashlite wiped clean, the cord, the duct-tape, the size-6's, touch-dna, black and red fibers, pineapple etc etc.

JonBenet's death is a sexually motivated homicide, there is no evidence of any intruder so that leaves RDI as the only option.


.

UK Guy,

I totally agree with you that a RDI, but I have stated what I think happened also. I believe JB was hit with the softball bat that Patsy refuses to admit she owned. The red herring comes into play, when the R's go into panic mode and agree to protect Burke, who I believe is the one who hit JB. I believe the flashlight was used to write the RN, was used in the house to avoid turning on larger lights, as well as a 'convenient weapon' to draw LE away from the actual weapon used. This ensured that Burkes prints would not be found on the weapon that killed his sister. The bat, put outside, that still had JB's hair on it. I wonder if that bat is in the evidence room? Remember this was not a bloody head would. It for the most part remained a closed head trauma. Why the need to wipe down the flashlight? Wouldn't their prints, possibly even smudged, have appeared to be more normal on an object they owned?

Truly yet another example of the R's odd behavior pattern.

 

[BBB167893]

They would wipe it clean of prints and residue then just leave it lying around looking suspicious eh?

Pardon my butting in. Assuming they thought that far ahead, maybe they didn't think the placement would be suspicious. Speaking purely for myself, if I walked into someone's house and saw a flashlight sitting on a counter, I wouldn't give it a second look.

 

[Toltec]

Can you please source this information, thanks.

Steve Thomas book, ITRMI paperback

 

[BBB167893]

So we have an intruder who is like a ghost, who can glide through the Ramsey household, scooping JonBenet from her bed, feeding her pineapple, sexually molesting her, then killing her with a combination of asphyxiation and head trauma. Then its off to the basement to stage a crime-scene in the wine-cellar complete with a fake garrote, restraints and duct tape over her mouth, after placing the remainder of the paintbrush into the paint-tote, he gathers up his toolkit: cord, tape, flashlite, then intruder next seeks out a Ramsey' writing pad, and pen, sits down and pens his preferred financial reward for his act of evil, reminding john not to grow a brain, as he adds media flourishes to his ransom note. Then he wipes the flashlite clean, replaces it, and flits out the window or front door whistling some dixie tune.

Or we have Ozzie and Harriet who had a bad accident with their daughter, and created an evil entity known as 'group of individuals representing foreign faction SBTC' in order to make it look like the housekeeper killed her. They created a staged crime scene to make it look like their daughter was brutally strangled by cord, complete with multiple large abrasions at the cord, and under-the-skin bleeding underneath the cord that could only happen while her heart was pumping. Wow thats some authentic-looking staging! And they put their own handwriting at a crime scene where they also lived, spelling one or two words wrong on purpose because they knew later they would spell those words right and pick one or two others to spell wrong.

I guess those would be the choices!