Tea

[rashomon]

aussiesheila,

Its not the absence of fingerprints that is important. Its the fact that someone had wiped the flashlight clean including the batteries.

This in law enforcement 101 means the wiper was forensically aware, e.g. there was premeditation, criminal intent and the wiper wanted to remove any association to the flashlight!

The same principal applies to her size-6 underwear they have gone missing so to remove any forensic evidence that adhered to her size-6 underwear!

Other items of her clothing were left behind, there were soiled underwear upstairs in the bathroom, so this was not an issue.

JonBenet was dressed in day-clothes above her torso and night-clothes below.

If there is prior evidence of sexual abuse then it would appear a sexual assault was being hidden or masked.

UKGuy, what do you mean by 'premeditation'? That the person who wiped the flashlight planned to use it for the murder?

I keep getting confused about the clothes issue. JB wore the top with the sequined star in which she was found, and black velvet pants. Were those pants found and examined?
And her size six underwear is missing, but there was another pair of JB's soiled underwear found in a pair of jeans on her bedroom (or the bathroom) floor?

 

[tumble]

I think JB wore black velvet pants to the Whites(same as PR). She had the white top with the sequined star and a black velvet vest.
According to PR she took those pants off and put longjohns on her when they got home from the Whites.

From the 97' interview

[font='Courier New',monospace]PR: He carried her and put her in bed and I got her, you know, pulled off everything and put her, I left the shirt on and put the pants on.[/font]

[font='Courier New',monospace]so basically she says she pulled her panties of also. So they should be found...
she put her to bed in the same shirt she had wore at the Whites.
[/font]
Her playpants which were left on her bathroom floor were some kind of jeans.

 

[UKGuy]

UKGuy, what do you mean by 'premeditation'? That the person who wiped the flashlight planned to use it for the murder?

I keep getting confused about the clothes issue. JB wore the top with the sequined star in which she was found, and black velvet pants. Were those pants found and examined?
And her size six underwear is missing, but there was another pair of JB's soiled underwear found in a pair of jeans on her bedroom (or the bathroom) floor?

rashomon,

By premeditation I mean the person who decided to make use of the flashlight knew it was going to be used in a criminal enterprise, and that this person did not want to be associated with it in any manner. Hence it was wiped clean.

The clothes issue is not as confusing as you suggest. But the staging has been quite successful at giving people the wrong impression.

To save lots of text, lets try an argumentum ad absurdum, or reductio ad absurdum: The size-6 soiled underwear found in the bathroom was worn by JonBenet after returning from the Whites, but Patsy stated she undressed and put JonBenet straight to bed, hence the former statement is wrong!

The above is not watertight, JonBenet could have returned from the White's and changed into the jeans then had an accident, so soiling the size-6 underwear, and in embarrassment possibly she then changed into the size-12 Wednesday pair.

From memory I believe Patsy stated JonBenet had an accident prior to leaving for the White's, or even some other day?

But why should JonBenet consider her cousin's underwear more appropriate than her own, resting next door in the bathroom drawer? And since it was meant as a gift JonBenet is possibly further angering Patsy?


To return to the law enforcement 101, the removal of JonBenet's size-6 underwear, was most likely done to remove any accompanying forensic evidence.

It was patently not a taste issue since a soiled pair lay upstairs for all to see, else why not retrieve those and wash them out, it would only take 5-minutes?

Lets become litigious: To sexually assault JonBenet her black velvet pants would most likely have to be removed?

Not so her size-6 underwear, these could remain.

So lets assume JonBenet was the victim of some form of abuse, either during or afterwards something unexpected occurred, and her abuser decided to silence her, maybe a whack on the head , who knows?

So there may be dna evidence on her underwear and genitalia, so its decided to wipe her down, and remove her size-6 underwear, that way the perp cannot be associated with the abuse.

But there is the remaining evidence of her sexual assault, mmm , well lets mask this for the time being, by redressing her, particularly in size-12 Wednesday underwear, hinting not much as changed down below.

So although some of the staged elements have manifestly convinced many people that certain things did or did not take place, the removal of her size-6 underwear and the wiping of the flashlight indicate, IMO, that a ramsey was involved.


.

 

[UKGuy]

I think JB wore black velvet pants to the Whites(same as PR). She had the white top with the sequined star and a black velvet vest.
According to PR she took those pants off and put longjohns on her when they got home from the Whites.

From the 97' interview

[font='Courier New',monospace]PR: He carried her and put her in bed and I got her, you know, pulled off everything and put her, I left the shirt on and put the pants on.[/font]

[font='Courier New',monospace]so basically she says she pulled her panties of also. So they should be found...
she put her to bed in the same shirt she had wore at the Whites.
[/font]
Her playpants which were left on her bathroom floor were some kind of jeans.

tumble,

Well basically she does not, in other interviews she cannot state what color JonBenet's underwear was, or even if she removed them, same applies to her socks.

Patsy is only on record as stating she removed the black velvet pants and replaced those with the white longjohns.

But JonBenet's pijamas from the previous night were lying underneath her pillow!


.

 

[rashomon]

aussiesheila,

Its not the absence of fingerprints that is important. Its the fact that someone had wiped the flashlight clean including the batteries.

This in law enforcement 101 means the wiper was forensically aware, e.g. there was premeditation, criminal intent and the wiper wanted to remove any association to the flashlight!

The wiping could also have come as an afterthought, done by the perp (a Ramsey) who wanted to remove forensic evidence to make it appear as if the flashlight did not belong to the Ramsey household.

 

[UKGuy]

The wiping could also have come as an afterthought, done by the perp (a Ramsey) who wanted to remove forensic evidence to make it appear as if the flashlight did not belong to the Ramsey household.

rashomon,

Possibly, but that idea just does not fit.

Why would any intruder of average intelligence remove JonBenet's size-6 underwear, wipe her down, redress her in a size-12 Wednesday pair, then at the end think hey I better clean this flashlight and leave it out for everyone to find?

Also it would be common knowledge who owned what regarding the flashlight and why, so attempting to make the ownership appear non-ramsey looks pretty naive.

It would have appeared more convincing if the flashlight had been recovered from the wine-cellar, then it would patently be a piece of crime-scene evidence, but left wiped clean on its end in the kitchen, reflects more the knowledge that its ownership would in time be discovered, so it would be better away from the wine-cellar, and wiped clean so to break any connections what so ever with its user.

The pattern of staging and evidence removal is consistent e.g. JonBenet wiped down, flashlight wiped clean, size-6 underwear removed , flashlight removed.

Further analysis may yield other wiping instances.

 

[tumble]

Also it would be common knowledge who owned what regarding the flashlight and why, so attempting to make the ownership appear non-ramsey looks pretty naive.

Maybe the only thing the R's did was to make it look like the flashlight was wiped, again pointing to an intruder.
To find the flashlight on the counter would not be that strange. The supposed intruder would have to write a RN in the dark on a paper taken from the kitchen.
To place the flashlight in the kitchen might just be an attempt to show where and how the RN was composed.
I say attempt because a real intruder would ofcourse bring his own flashlight.

 

[Nuisanceposter]

I always wonder why they didn't point out that flashlight to police. You would think if it wasn't theirs or they didn't use it that they would say that, since it shows someone else either brought it or used it.

 

[tumble]

I always wonder why they didn't point out that flashlight to police. You would think if it wasn't theirs or they didn't use it that they would say that, since it shows someone else either brought it or used it.

But it was theirs and JR did use it. By wiping the prints of it they could make it look like someone else wiped it, they didn't have any reason to wipe it but an intruder would. I think they knew they didn't have to point it out to LE, more effectful to say 'oh, that flashlight, yes, that doesn't belong there'.

 

[UKGuy]

I always wonder why they didn't point out that flashlight to police. You would think if it wasn't theirs or they didn't use it that they would say that, since it shows someone else either brought it or used it.

But it was theirs and JR did use it. By wiping the prints of it they could make it look like someone else wiped it, they didn't have any reason to wipe it but an intruder would. I think they knew they didn't have to point it out to LE, more effectful to say 'oh, that flashlight, yes, that doesn't belong there'.

tumble,

As I remarked to rashomon this approach is naive, the devil is in the detail.

The batteries were wiped too, Mr Average Intruder does not normally go around the crime-scene wiping items, let alone Batteries!

Mr Average Intruder brings a pair of gloves along with his favorite homicide kit, e.g. duct-tape, cord, manacles, flashlight etc, or uses his socks as a substitute in an emergency!

I dont think any other items were removed from the wine-cellar and deposited elsewhere, the barbie-gown was left in place, so the removal of the flashlight was deliberate.

By wiping the prints of it they could make it look like someone else wiped it, they didn't have any reason to wipe it but an intruder would.

No intruder would need to wipe the batteries clean, the only person that would want to wipe the batteries clean might be the same person who inserted new batteries in anticpation of its use.

And one further detail is I think no other items were found similarly wiped, e.g. not the bowl containing the pineapple. And there is no forensic evidence of an intruder!.


The evidence points directly at the Ramsey's, and it looks less and less like an accident to me.


.

 

[tumble]

The batteries were wiped too, Mr Average Intruder does not normally go around the crime-scene wiping items, let alone Batteries!

Agree. Whoever wiped those batteries sure wasn't thinking straight.
Seems the stager thought wiping was something an average stager could do.
To stage a gloved intruder is hard but a wiping one can be done.

I dont think any other items were removed from the wine-cellar and deposited elsewhere, the barbie-gown was left in place, so the removal of the flashlight was deliberate.

Who said the flashlight were ever in the winecellar. I don't think so.

And there is no forensic evidence of an intruder!.

Agree. But someone did a hard job trying to make it look that way.

 

[BBB167893]

"Agree. But someone did a hard job trying to make it look that way."

Except they couldn't decide what kind of intruder.

 

[Britt]

Maybe the only thing the R's did was to make it look like the flashlight was wiped, again pointing to an intruder.
To find the flashlight on the counter would not be that strange. The supposed intruder would have to write a RN in the dark on a paper taken from the kitchen.
To place the flashlight in the kitchen might just be an attempt to show where and how the RN was composed.
I say attempt because a real intruder would ofcourse bring his own flashlight.

I agree with all this, Tumble, excellent points. More stage directions by the stager... and, at the same time, a blanket distancing of Ramsey from an item related to the crime (wiping ALL, including the batteries)... just like their blanket distancing via chronic Ramnesia.

 

[tumble]

wiping ALL, including the batteries

Yes, this wiping seems almost compulsive. Like distancing from this flashlight is very important as it would be if this indeed was the murder weapon.

 

[rashomon]

wiping ALL, including the batteries

Yes, this wiping seems almost compulsive. Like distancing from this flashlight is very important as it would be if this indeed was the murder weapon.

My thoughts exactly. Suppose ths was the murder weapon, removing any Ramsey fingerprints from it including batteries imo was a frantic attempt by the Ramseys to remove any connection of this weapon to themselves.

(UkGuy)Also it would be common knowledge who owned what regarding the flashlight and why, so attempting to make the ownership appear non-ramsey looks pretty naive.

The whole crime scene staging is full of naive elements. Just think about that silly ransom note.

I don't believe the flashlight was ever in the wine cellar, nor would it be logical for the Ramseys to put it in the wine cellar for staging purposes. For their wine-cellar staging (garrote, ligatures, sexual assault) was obviously done to disguise the head bash.
And again, they themselves 'neutralized' this scene by adding the 'naive' element of wrapping JB in a blanket - a parental act of undoing which no sexual predator would do.

 

[BBB167893]

Yes, whomever this was had no idea what a real crime scene looked like.

 

[UKGuy]

My thoughts exactly. Suppose ths was the murder weapon, removing any Ramsey fingerprints from it including batteries imo was a frantic attempt by the Ramseys to remove any connection of this weapon to themselves.


The whole crime scene staging is full of naive elements. Just think about that silly ransom note.

I don't believe the flashlight was ever in the wine cellar, nor would it be logical for the Ramseys to put it in the wine cellar for staging purposes. For their wine-cellar staging (garrote, ligatures, sexual assault) was obviously done to disguise the head bash.
And again, they themselves 'neutralized' this scene by adding the 'naive' element of wrapping JB in a blanket - a parental act of undoing which no sexual predator would do.

rashomon,

I have an open mind on this, there are some aspects to the staging that conflict with specific theories.

If you consider what was imported into the wine-cellar e.g. Cord, Paintbrush Handle, Duct-Tape, Barbie-Gown, some items did leave again.

I think its inconsistent to consider that the flashlight was never in the wine-cellar. Its possible it was part of a prior intruder staging that was then dismantled, or it was simply used as a tool whilst down in the basement. Which I guess would make sense, but not something an intruder might think so important.

Maybe the flashlight was used to cause the head trauma, maybe it was deliberately left as part of the staged evidence to suggest a violent intruder had been abroad?

Its removal would be explained by the shift from a sexual predator assault to a kidnapping for ransom scenario?

Possibly the person who removed it did so with their bare hands, so wiped it clean afterwards regardless?


.

 

[tumble]

I think its inconsistent to consider that the flashlight was never in the wine-cellar

Why?
I agree it is possible that is was down there but why is it inconsistent to think it wasn't?

 

[UKGuy]

I think its inconsistent to consider that the flashlight was never in the wine-cellar

Why?
I agree it is possible that is was down there but why is it inconsistent to think it wasn't?

tumble,

Because every other item of the JonBenet crime-scene evidence conforms to a particular pattern of use.

To isolate the flashlight and make it a special case is simply inconsistent.

I cannot prove the flashlight was ever in the basement never mind the wine-cellar, but given the lack of natural light in the basement, the fact it was wiped of fingerprints, and that the apparent crime-scene is in the wine-cellar, then I can imagine it being of some use down there.


If it played no part, why bother wiping it clean?


.

 

[tumble]

UKGuy:

I think the flashlight played a large part in the crime.
Not every priece of staging is located to the basement. The obvious RN was not in the basement.

To use the flashlight for lightening up the basement is a good point and that may very well be the case,
I just think the stager saw a good use of the flashlight staging a scene in the kitchen, this not meaning it was the optimal thing to do.

I am not trying to make a consistent scene but trying to build an idea of how the stager thought while doing the staging.

This whole staging business is inconsistent because the stager was not able to make it consistant. The stager threw in alot in the pie.