901 users online (122 members and 779 guests)  



Websleuths News


Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 31
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    australia
    Posts
    213

    Maglite

    We know the maglite found in the Ramseys house was used in someway for the murder, as had been wiped down batteries and all. The Ramseys Claim that it wasnt thier maglite, hence an intruder brought it in. But i was thinking, lets imagine the intruder did bring in the maglite as a tool in his crime, why would the intruder wipe down the outside of the maglite as well as the batteries if he owned it, if he was so scared of leaving fingerprint evidence why not take the maglite back with him?

    However if the Ramsey's owned the flash light and the intruder saw it upon entering the house and decided to use it to help guide him, and then upon leaving the house decided to wipe it down in order to prevent fingeprint evidence leading back to him, why did he bother wiping down the batteries if the maglite wasnt his? If he owned the maglite then yes he could have inserted the batteries himself and then had a reason for his actions, but if the rams owned the flashlight there would be no threat of fingerprint evidence to warrant it being wiped down.

    Logic directs us to think that the inturder must have brought it into the house, as the rams say they didnt own it and the fact stated above how odd it would be for the intrduer to wipe down batts on a maglite he didnt own....but if the intruder had gone to such great lengths to eliminate fingerprint evidence why didnt he just take it with him???????

    Doesnt make sense, either way you look at it.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    US
    Posts
    1,607
    Maybe he meant to take it with him.....forgot it or had to leave hurriedly.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    australia
    Posts
    213
    If he meant to take it with him, why wipe it down at all? And how could u forget something you intentionally go out of your way to attend to during the crime.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    157
    Quote Originally Posted by Charlie
    If he meant to take it with him, why wipe it down at all? And how could u forget something you intentionally go out of your way to attend to during the crime.
    And surely the perp would need it while fumbling around in the dark to get out of there.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,399
    Absolutely, the perp would need it to while doing his thing and then on his way out. I don't see how it could have been forgotten or left behind by an intruder. I don't understand why it would be wiped down, batts and all though.

    I think it sounds as though whoever was moving around during that night was using the flashlight, based on what neighbors saw. I could see an intruder using one, but at the same time, I could the Ramseys using it to assist in covering up whatever happened. Having the lights on is definitely going to be noticed by any neighbors awake and not back up their IDI story. I could them thinking they needed to wipe away any of their prints to also back up their IDI theory. On the other hand, if an intruder came in and used their paper and pen and paintbrush to kill their daughter and write the ransom note, why wouldn't he just grab a flashlight that's there and use that too? But how would he know where to find it? How could he even count on the Rams owning a flashlight for use in kidnapping their daughter? How could he be sure he was going to find the supplies needed to write that long rambling note? How did he find the Sharpie pen and paper? They were just sitting right out, according to the Rs. How did he find the paintbrush to make the garrote? That was down in the basement.

    There's so much that the intruder had to count on the Ramseys providing that there is no way the perp who killed JonBenet and/or wrote that ransom note was someone they didn't know personally. Just the ransom note itself tells you the perp knew the Ramseys, the fact that he counted on them to provide the needed materials and they way it's written to sound so familiar with them.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    343
    Quote Originally Posted by Charlie
    If he meant to take it with him, why wipe it down at all? And how could u forget something you intentionally go out of your way to attend to during the crime.
    nice points you make, charlie. however, i wonder how a forensics expert determines if something has no prints because the perp wore gloves, or has no prints because it was wiped down? are we absolutely sure that it was "wiped down" and not simply absent of prints?

    it may be that the perp, assuming for a moment he/she's an intruder, wiped it down before heading to the ramsey house in case his evening didn't go as planned. (he/she didn't want to bring anything into the house that could identify him, right?) and then, he wore gloves. in the heat of the moment, he forgot the flashlight.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    5,299
    Quote Originally Posted by Charlie
    We know the maglite found in the Ramseys house was used in someway for the murder, as had been wiped down batteries and all. The Ramseys Claim that it wasnt thier maglite, hence an intruder brought it in. But i was thinking, lets imagine the intruder did bring in the maglite as a tool in his crime, why would the intruder wipe down the outside of the maglite as well as the batteries if he owned it, if he was so scared of leaving fingerprint evidence why not take the maglite back with him?

    However if the Ramsey's owned the flash light and the intruder saw it upon entering the house and decided to use it to help guide him, and then upon leaving the house decided to wipe it down in order to prevent fingeprint evidence leading back to him, why did he bother wiping down the batteries if the maglite wasnt his? If he owned the maglite then yes he could have inserted the batteries himself and then had a reason for his actions, but if the rams owned the flashlight there would be no threat of fingerprint evidence to warrant it being wiped down.

    Logic directs us to think that the inturder must have brought it into the house, as the rams say they didnt own it and the fact stated above how odd it would be for the intrduer to wipe down batts on a maglite he didnt own....but if the intruder had gone to such great lengths to eliminate fingerprint evidence why didnt he just take it with him???????

    Doesnt make sense, either way you look at it.
    The intruder-perp(s) was IMO leaving town, state, and country. The perp(s) would have to cross state lines and pass thru an international airport.

    Its easy to conclude that under these circumstances, he/they wouldn't want any evidence in the car or on themselves.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    US
    Posts
    1,607
    Quote Originally Posted by Voice of Reason
    nice points you make, charlie. however, i wonder how a forensics expert determines if something has no prints because the perp wore gloves, or has no prints because it was wiped down? are we absolutely sure that it was "wiped down" and not simply absent of prints?

    it may be that the perp, assuming for a moment he/she's an intruder, wiped it down before heading to the ramsey house in case his evening didn't go as planned. (he/she didn't want to bring anything into the house that could identify him, right?) and then, he wore gloves. in the heat of the moment, he forgot the flashlight.
    I don't think we are sure that it was wiped down vs. absent of prints.

    I agree; I can see where the perp could have left hurriedly, forgetting to pick up the flashlight.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    30,910
    Quote Originally Posted by Nehemiah
    I don't think we are sure that it was wiped down vs. absent of prints.

    I agree; I can see where the perp could have left hurriedly, forgetting to pick up the flashlight.
    Why the sudden hurry???

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Huntsville, Alabama
    Posts
    135
    Did the Ramsey's say that the flashlight wasn't theirs? I thought it resembled one given to JR by his son but they were unsure.

    I don't think the maglite had anything to do with the murder. I think when the Ramseys were staging the crime they decided an intruder would need a flashlight given the layout of the house. They wiped it clean and then left it for police to discover. Just 1 more clue of an intruder.

    I think JBR was killed upstairs, then carried down the spiral staircase into the basement. I think the scream heard that night was Patsy when she realized JBR wasn't dead after the head blow and the viciousness of the garrotte was panic rather than anger. I also think JR opened that broken window during the staging (the neighbors heard a noise) and thats why some small pieces of glass were found.


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    US
    Posts
    1,607
    Quote Originally Posted by Linda7NJ
    Why the sudden hurry???
    Anybody's guess...

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    NSW Australia
    Posts
    9,183
    I think the flashlight was used by the Ramsey's instead of the house lights that night. Also, it could have been used to check JonBenet's eyes to see if she was dead.
    I don't know if it was what caused JonBenet's head injury.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    1,384
    Quote Originally Posted by narlacat
    I think the flashlight was used by the Ramsey's instead of the house lights that night. Also, it could have been used to check JonBenet's eyes to see if she was dead.
    I don't know if it was what caused JonBenet's head injury.
    Good ideas.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    13,721
    I think the flashlight was also used as lighting to write the ransom note.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    portland, Ore
    Posts
    18,228
    It never fails to amaze me how this case could go on and on, seemingly never ending without something giving spark to a resolution of it!

    I remember the day not very long ago when in line at Safeway I saw a headline on a familiar tabloid - "Jon Bennet's killer found", or something like that. I actually thought they now realized who the perp was!

    Everything that could be ripped apart and put back together must have been by now, oodles of times. Why can't anyone discover clear evidence as to who killed Jon Bennet?

    The only good thing about this is I know Jon Bennet realizes everyone is trying to name her killer and bring him/her to justice. God bless Her manyfold.

    Scandi


    PS: I think her brother's friend had his way with her and killed her, the brother right there seeing everything so a party to the murder, and the parents, realizing the way it would affect the son's life in the future, did major coverup to protect him.

    PSS: One of the main reasons I think this is it was a joint coverup by both the mother and father. She wrote the note and he broke the crime scene by removing her from the crime scene and proceeded to carry her upstairs, even with an investigator present! This gave nonending disturbance to the investigation!

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Maglite
    By Solace in forum JonBenet Ramsey
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: 03-25-2007, 10:43 PM