"Stun Gun" marks

[Solace]

You're going outside the scope of evidence to try and claim something as evidence. The flashlight in question that was taken into evidence has a rubber coating. I challenge you to prove to me that the flashlight in evidence does not have a rubber coating.

I just looked at pictures of them and the outside appears to be black (rubber coating?).

 

[BlueCrab]

You're going outside the scope of evidence to try and claim something as evidence. The flashlight in question that was taken into evidence has a rubber coating. I challenge you to prove to me that the flashlight in evidence does not have a rubber coating.

Tober,

Sorry, but I can't prove a negative. Mag-lite 3-cell, D battery flashlights don't have rubber coatings. Nowhere in the evidence or interviews does it state that the Ramsey flashlight was rubber-coated. Therefore, it is your burden to prove your claim. Please provide your source that says the Ramsey flashlight was rubber-coated. Thanks.

BlueCrab

 

[Solace]

Tober,


Sorry, but I can't prove a negative. Mag-lite 3-cell, D battery flashlights don't have rubber coatings. Nowhere in the evidence or interviews does it state that the Ramsey flashlight was rubber-coated. Therefore, it is your burden to prove your claim. Please provide your source that says the Ramsey flashlight was rubber-coated. Thanks.

BlueCrab

Jayelles says she has a large Maglite and it is rubber coated.

 

[Camper]

Welllllll, Jayelles Maglite has rubber coating, but Jayelles flashlight was not found on the Ramsey kitchen counter.

SOOOOOOO BlueCrab may we assume that the Maglite on the Ramsey kitchen counter was in fact alumeeum too, er, just did not have rubber coating. Plus how do you know that it did not have rubber coating?

Another wonderment on my part, WHY would the person who MIGHT have struck JonBenet with the Maglite. LEAVE IT IN plainsight. Nevermind 'hidden in plain sight comes to me'. BUT why expect investigators to dismiss the hidden in plain sight, by pointing a finger at yourself with wiping all prints off the batteries? Mr. Tidy is the perp, gotta find him and arrest him asap.

What we end up with after ten years, is 'some of this' and 'some of that', which leaves all of us in the dark.

Grandma Snoopers Investigating School. Initial Crime Scene Investigation: Class number one, Room one, basic rule #1, Upon entering the kidnapping/crime location, separate all living people presently there, and question them separately.

HOWEVER IF there is only 'one' of you, call for backup. Hmmm that didn't work either.

.

 

[BlueCrab]

SOOOOOOO BlueCrab may we assume that the Maglite on the Ramsey kitchen counter was in fact alumeeum too, er, just did not have rubber coating. Plus how do you know that it did not have rubber coating?


.

Camper,

To the best of my knowledge all Mag-lite flashlights are aluminum, although there may be some specialty models available. I owned a 3-cell black Maglite and it was identical to the Ramsey's Mag-lite. It was not rubber coated.

How do I know that the Ramsey's Mag-lite wasn't rubber coated? The answer is in the police interviews, The cops showed the R's a picture of the flashlight taken in as evidence, and at first they weren't sure it was their's because it was gray instead of black. The cops eventually admitted the flashlight had been emersed in chemicals in an attempt to lift fingerprints from it, and the chemicals had changed the color of the aluminum Mag-lite from a shiny black to a mottled gray. The R's then identified the Mag-lite as their's.

Also, Mag-lite sites are all over the web. Just google Mag-lite and read the sites; none of which mention anything about any of them being rubber coated.

BlueCrab

 

[Camper]

Camper,

To the best of my knowledge all Mag-lite flashlights are aluminum, although there may be some specialty models available. I owned a 3-cell black Maglite and it was identical to the Ramsey's Mag-lite. It was not rubber coated.

How do I know that the Ramsey's Mag-lite wasn't rubber coated? The answer is in the police interviews, The cops showed the R's a picture of the flashlight taken in as evidence, and at first they weren't sure it was their's because it was gray instead of black. The cops eventually admitted the flashlight had been emersed in chemicals in an attempt to lift fingerprints from it, and the chemicals had changed the color of the aluminum Mag-lite from a shiny black to a mottled gray. The R's then identified the Mag-lite as their's.

Also, Mag-lite sites are all over the web. Just google Mag-lite and read the sites; none of which mention anything about any of them being rubber coated.

BlueCrab

--->>>Thanks BlueCrab. I had not been privy to the information about the discoloration caused by fingerprint testing on the Mag found in the R home.

I had Googled the Maglites previously, interesting. So am I to assume then that the attempt at lifting 'any'fingerprints from the R Mag, were not successful? I would also guess that no fibres were found on the batteries from a fabric wiping cloth in cleaning off any potential fingerprints on the batteries either. Sounds like a futile enterprise.

.

 

[Tober]

The cops eventually admitted the flashlight had been emersed in chemicals in an attempt to lift fingerprints from it, and the chemicals had changed the color of the aluminum Mag-lite from a shiny black to a mottled gray. The R's then identified the Mag-lite as their's.

The police have never said the flashlight had been "emersed" in anything. The flashlight in the photo had been dusted for fingerprints, it was NOT "emersed" in anything. The Ramseys have NEVER admitted the flashlight was theirs. The closest to admitting it was theirs that they came, is when Patsy said "OK" after police explained that it was dirty because it had been tested for prints. That's it. She (nor John) still doesn't admit it's theirs. Anyone can read the interviews and see this for themselves.

 

[Tober]

Please provide your source that says the Ramsey flashlight was rubber-coated.

http://misty.angelcities.com/article1.html

 

[Eagle1]

We've discussed that a neighbor across the street heard sounds like metal scraping on concrete, right after his wife was awakened by a scream but went back to sleep. And that police tested how much sound could be heard across the street vs. on the third floor of the house.

How is it the killer already seemed to know the sounds wouldn't be heard upstairs, or was he just so high or something that he just didn't care?

 

[BlueCrab]

http://misty.angelcities.com/article1.html

Tober,

Thank you for providing your source for saying the flashlight was rubber-coated. However, Misty was an internet poster like you and me. Unfortunately, in her article she failed to mention a source for her comment about the flashlight being rubber-coated.

BlueCrab

 

[Camper]

Insteresting link.

I remember Misty.

Those who might not have noted carefully in this link, the hanging victim shown directly under the picture of the garrotte, is NOT JonBenet. I am wondering where a person finds such a picture as 'that' unidentified hanging victim?

I also noted again the paint brush/garrotte. The remainder end of what would have held the brush, is not visually good to see, but looks to me as IF it might have been cut off.
It has a clear and blunt end remaining.

The other end that held the tip, looks to me as if it was sorta cut at and THEN SNAPPED OFF. A long piece of rather plain wood that extends and sorta looks like a thin fingernail, is the type of break that tells me this.

Hardly something that a busy busy perpetrator would deal with at a murderous moment in time.

Wish I had a clearer picture of the missing brush end.

This was an olde brush imop. IF IF a tracking dog had been brought in ASAP the knotted end would have given some mighty clues, imop. We would perhaps not be here posting yet about this case IF all of the IF's had been done.

.

 

[Tober]

Another wonderment on my part, WHY would the person who MIGHT have struck JonBenet with the Maglite. LEAVE IT IN plainsight. Nevermind 'hidden in plain sight comes to me'. BUT why expect investigators to dismiss the hidden in plain sight, by pointing a finger at yourself with wiping all prints off the batteries?

Camper--I think the flashlight was left out to "suggest" an intruder placed it there and to "account" for its earlier use (neighbor observed strange lights in kitchen area). The fingerprints were wiped from the flashlight body because those prints would indicate who handled it last. The fingerprints were wiped from the batteries because those prints would indicate who owned the flashlight. The Ramseys couldn't put it back in the drawer wiped clean because that would point right to them. They didn't hide it or dispose of it because they needed to "show" that an intruder was in the home and used it. They didn't point it out as being odd or out-of-place on Dec. 26 because that would seem too suspicious. They just kept quiet about it and let the police take it from there. They certainly drew suspicion to themselves by wiping the batteries, but that was their way of distancing themselves from it while at the same time using it to their advantage.

 

[UKGuy]

Camper--I think the flashlight was left out to "suggest" an intruder placed it there and to "account" for its earlier use (neighbor observed strange lights in kitchen area). The fingerprints were wiped from the flashlight body because those prints would indicate who handled it last. The fingerprints were wiped from the batteries because those prints would indicate who owned the flashlight. The Ramseys couldn't put it back in the drawer wiped clean because that would point right to them. They didn't hide it or dispose of it because they needed to "show" that an intruder was in the home and used it. They didn't point it out as being odd or out-of-place on Dec. 26 because that would seem too suspicious. They just kept quiet about it and let the police take it from there. They certainly drew suspicion to themselves by wiping the batteries, but that was their way of distancing themselves from it while at the same time using it to their advantage.

Tober,

The Ramseys couldn't put it back in the drawer wiped clean because that
would point right to them.

Why not, who is to know it ever left the drawer?

I reckon the maglite was present either at JonBenet's original location of her death , or/and was also used in the wine-cellar.

The Ransom Note was intended to flag up an intruder and they had no problem telling everyone about that!

imo the best guess is that the maglite played a part in a prior staging which when revised meant the maglite was redundant but as part of the alleged crime-scene was still wiped clean. I would speculate that JonBenet was whacked on the head with that maglite, which was then left by her side, say in her bedroom?


.

 

[Tober]

Why not, who is to know it ever left the drawer?

It can be inferred that the flashlight and its batteries were wiped of fingerprints because it had something to do with the crime. Had they put it back in the drawer that way, then it would appear that they were the ones who used it when the neighbor observed the strange lights in the kitchen area. That's what they were trying to avoid. Once JonBenet's head injury was discovered, police certainly would collect any item that might have caused such an injury. If they retrieved the flashlight from the drawer and it didn't contain prints, then the inference would be made that it was intentionally placed in the drawer in such a manner so as to not leave prints. That would point right to the Ramseys. By leaving it out, they avoided that.

 

[BBB167893]

help us. WolfmarsGirl is on to something.

Don't tell me you want me to track down the Atlanta and Boulder jewelry stores!

 

[Eagle1]

It can be inferred that the flashlight and its batteries were wiped of fingerprints because it had something to do with the crime. Had they put it back in the drawer that way, then it would appear that they were the ones who used it when the neighbor observed the strange lights in the kitchen area.

That's what they were trying to avoid. Once JonBenet's head injury was discovered, police certainly would collect any item that might have caused such an injury. If they retrieved the flashlight from the drawer and it didn't contain prints, then the inference would be made that it was intentionally placed in the drawer in such a manner so as to not leave prints. That would point right to the Ramseys. By leaving it out, they avoided that.

I think you may be right, Tober, that very obviously the flashlight was planted on the kitchen counter, wiped clean of prints, to suggest it was the murder weapon, which to me means it probably wasn't, even if the indention in her skull does match the flashlight in size. And I have to agree with BC or whoever said the paint cans would have to be huge for the sound of scraping them to carry across the street to closed up houses on a winter night, when people would be tired from the holiday and sleeping pretty soundly.

The perp evidently took the rest of the roll of tape, some rope, and no-telling-what-else with him, so if the flashlight had really been used, I think he would have taken that away too, don't you?

And the Ramseys didn't yet know a neighbor had noticed a flashlight moving around in the house, right? Question, how many neighbors are inspecting each others' houses at that hour right after an exhausting holiday? What's up with that? They're probably closer neighbors than most of us have because 15th is a narrow street, or they were right across the alley, I forget which. But still, why would a neighbor be looking at the house in the first place?

Repeating for more emphasis, things that were used in the crime were taken away with the perp, flashlight planted, on kitchen counter, to mislead, like the ransom note. This may have been premeditated for quite a long time, and various objects were probably considered for the "job". If a stun gun was used, which wouldn't knock out an adult, it may have knocked out JonBenet, a 6 yr old child, and a girl. I'm not taking sides about the stun gun, haven't really studied the facts we've had about that or DNA. Too scientific for right-brained art/music/philosophy me.

 

[Camper]

We don't know which side of the neighbors house had their kitchen in it. IF the neighbors kitchen window faced the R's kitchen area side of the house, it would be quite normal for example to look out the window while getting a glass of water or something to eat in their own kitchen at that hour of the night.

I don't remember IF the neighbor who saw the moving light within the home is the same neighbor who noticed that the outdoor sidewalk light was not on as was normal. IF that same neighbor noted the outdoor light was off earlier in the evening, the neighbor might have looked out the window again out of curiosity to see if the outdoor light was still not on, and THEN noted the moving light within the R home.

.

 

[UKGuy]

It can be inferred that the flashlight and its batteries were wiped of fingerprints because it had something to do with the crime. Had they put it back in the drawer that way, then it would appear that they were the ones who used it when the neighbor observed the strange lights in the kitchen area. That's what they were trying to avoid. Once JonBenet's head injury was discovered, police certainly would collect any item that might have caused such an injury. If they retrieved the flashlight from the drawer and it didn't contain prints, then the inference would be made that it was intentionally placed in the drawer in such a manner so as to not leave prints. That would point right to the Ramseys. By leaving it out, they avoided that.

Tober,
You can infer that, but if the flashlight had not been cleaned and placed back into the drawer assuming it originated from there, then who is any wiser?

I cannot go from lights in the house to a flashlight in a drawer, if it had been placed back in the drawer who would be any wiser?

The flashlight was simply wiped clean to remove forensic evidence, there is no need to speculate further.


.

 

[Eagle1]

We don't know which side of the neighbors house had their kitchen in it. IF the neighbors kitchen window faced the R's kitchen area side of the house, it would be quite normal for example to look out the window while getting a glass of water or something to eat in their own kitchen at that hour of the night.

I don't remember IF the neighbor who saw the moving light within the home is the same neighbor who noticed that the outdoor sidewalk light was not on as was normal. IF that same neighbor noted the outdoor light was off earlier in the evening, the neighbor might have looked out the window again out of curiosity to see if the outdoor light was still not on, and THEN noted the moving light within the R home.

.

Yes, if the kitchens looked out on each other, that might be a reason the kitchen light wasn't turned on by whoever was moving around in there,
as well as all the other that you said. Couple of good ideas there.

I THINK it was a different neighbor who noticed the usual outside light was turned off, and I'm assuming turning it off was part of the walker's job, the one the Barnhills saw before dark.

My neighbors and I sure aren't that observant about each others' homes!
There pretty much has to be a siren for us to notice anything.

 

[BlueCrab]

We don't know which side of the neighbors house had their kitchen in it. IF the neighbors kitchen window faced the R's kitchen area side of the house, it would be quite normal for example to look out the window while getting a glass of water or something to eat in their own kitchen at that hour of the night.

I don't remember IF the neighbor who saw the moving light within the home is the same neighbor who noticed that the outdoor sidewalk light was not on as was normal. IF that same neighbor noted the outdoor light was off earlier in the evening, the neighbor might have looked out the window again out of curiosity to see if the outdoor light was still not on, and THEN noted the moving light within the R home.

.

Camper,

It was the neighbor directly to the south, Diane Brumfit, who noticed the Ramsey security light located at the southeast corner of the sun room, was turned off that night. She remembered it because it was odd for the light not to be burning since it had been on every night for years.

The next door neighbor to the north, Scott Gibbons, reported the late-night movement of people in the Ramsey kitchen. Gibbons said they appeared to be creeping around quietly so as not to be heard by others in the house. He also mentioned seeing a light in the butler kitchen around midnight, the first time he had ever seen that light on. Gibbons said he observed these unusual late-night activities from the window of his kitchen.

BlueCrab