Haunting Evidence: JonBenet Ramsey

Do you believe in these 2, and the psychic/paranormal evidence?


  • Total voters
    162
Yeah, I saw this a while ago, and thought it was pretty cool until I saw that it was "Smiterized". My stupid word, yes. He just looks so happy that they are substantiating his beliefs.

I saw it awhile ago too....did you notice that they left out the head injury altogether? Seems with all of their psychic ability, they would have been able to "see" that. It wasn't even mentioned....hmmmm
 
bold by me

Just a guess here, but since they both did live in the house, I would imagine their fingerprints would be on lots of stuff. I'd be more surprised if their fingerprints weren't on the bowl.

Yeah, and you would think that with all of that handling of the RN....I mean, Patsy says she picked it up, read some of it, handed it to John, who spread it across the floor to read it for some reason....and then Patsy handed it to investigators when they arrived. But...for some reason...no prints of the Ramsey's were found. HMMMM...how could this be?? (My scenario....RN was written while wearing latex gloves, was never ON the steps to begin with, NOR handed to John, only actually handled by a Ramsey (without a glove) for a minute as Patsy handed it over to investigators). Sorry...this has nothing to do with the pineapple bowl...but, more to do with Ramsey fingerprints.
 
But I thought according to ST in his book that 5 prints was found on the RN one was from the tech that was examining the RN and one from a Dective and 3 was from PR and JR's never showed up...
 
Yeah, and you would think that with all of that handling of the RN....I mean, Patsy says she picked it up, read some of it, handed it to John, who spread it across the floor to read it for some reason....and then Patsy handed it to investigators when they arrived. But...for some reason...no prints of the Ramsey's were found. HMMMM...how could this be?? (My scenario....RN was written while wearing latex gloves, was never ON the steps to begin with, NOR handed to John, only actually handled by a Ramsey (without a glove) for a minute as Patsy handed it over to investigators). Sorry...this has nothing to do with the pineapple bowl...but, more to do with Ramsey fingerprints.

Patsy did have latex gloves- LE questioned her about them. She used them when she dyed her hair. This makes sense- when you consider that Patsy's prints were on the pineapple bowl and not the note because the pineapple snack happened before the death and staging. At some point, the Rs obviously became aware of the need to not have their prints on certain things. They may very well have worn gloves when handling the flashlight, but then remembered the BATTERIES (which were previously put in before that day) and removed them, wiped them off, and replaced them. How suspicious is that? The R knew they couldn't deny owning the flashlight if their prints were ever found on the batteries, so they wiped off the batteries. I have to say that there are many things in this case that point to the parents' guilt, but for ME the two things that scream parental involvement are the wiped down batteries, and denying the pineapple snack. That is because the pineapple and the flashlight play a part in the events of the night. The flashlight because it may have been the murder weapon and/or was used to move about the house after the death, and the pineapple because there was no need to lie about it. The only reason they had to lie was because they needed to have LE think they had no interaction with JB that night after they returned from the White's. The time of death was so close to the time they returned that there was no way an intruder would be able to do all that was done that night and not be found by the parents, who were at home.
 
Now alot here goes by Steve Thomas and even says he was JonBenet's hero...But he says in his book that five fingerprints was found on the RN...One from the detective,one from the tech looking at it,three from PR...Why do we keep coming back that no fingerprints was on the RN,have I missed some where that it says different....If so can someone please post a link....I have been searching to see if I missed it somewhere...I'm just wondering if Steve Thomas was wrong....
 
Now alot here goes by Steve Thomas and even says he was JonBenet's hero...But he says in his book that five fingerprints was found on the RN...One from the detective,one from the tech looking at it,three from PR...Why do we keep coming back that no fingerprints was on the RN,have I missed some where that it says different....If so can someone please post a link....I have been searching to see if I missed it somewhere...I'm just wondering if Steve Thomas was wrong....
Hi Ravyn

You are confusing what was found on the notepad with the RN.
PR's prints were found only on the notepad, not on the RN.

Vargas: "Were John and Patsy Ramsey's fingerprint on the ransom note?"
Thomas: "No."
Vargas: "No?"
Thomas: "No."
Vargas: (VO) "But if they found the note and picked it up, Thomas asks why their fingerprints were not on it. Did they say whether or not they had picked it up to read it?"
Thomas: "I tried to pin Patsy Ramsey down at the time of our first interview with them. Did you grab the note? Did you pick up the note? Did you clutch it in your hand and read it and run upstairs with it? Who moved it to the hardwood floor? And I couldn't get an answer to that. She didn't recall."
Vargas: "Is it possible that the parents could have handled the note and not left their fingerprints? Or that the paper for some reason didn't retain that kind of print?"
Thomas: "Certainly. But then I think the argument can be made, then when the sergeant touched the same pad, he left a fingerprint on it. When the CBI examiner touched the same pad, he left a fingerprint on it. Patsy had left previous fingerprints on that pad, five that we identified. So that remains one of the mysteries in this case. How come there's no identifiable fingerprints on this thing if one or both parents handled and grasped it that morning?"
http://www.acandyrose.com/crimescene-ransomnote.htm


The only print identified on that note belonged to the document examiner (Chet Ubowski).
...
Lab analysts did identify 7 latent fingerprints on the tablet from which the ransom note came. None of them belonged to an intruder. One belonged to Sergeant Whitson, who handled the tablet on the morning of December 26. A second belonged to CBI's Ubowski. The remaining five prints were Patricia Ramsey's.

JonBenet : Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation - Steve Thomas p223
 
It's interesting - the items that do NOT (or have not been said to) contain R prints or DNA are part of what makes me think they are guilty. The RN, the longjohns that Patsy ADMITTED putting on her daughter, the flashlight batteries. Their prints or DNA should be on these things. Their absence is suspicious. No way a parent finds a ransom note and doesn't pick it up. Why would they have to worry about leaving prints on it? Because they were worried the handwriting might point to Patsy, and so made sure her prints were not there. The way I see it- Patsy wore her latex gloves to write the note. It was never on the stairs. Today's forensic methods would have tested the back of the note paper to see if any forensic evidence from the stairway on the paper.
 
Patsy did have latex gloves- LE questioned her about them. She used them when she dyed her hair. This makes sense- when you consider that Patsy's prints were on the pineapple bowl and not the note because the pineapple snack happened before the death and staging. At some point, the Rs obviously became aware of the need to not have their prints on certain things. They may very well have worn gloves when handling the flashlight, but then remembered the BATTERIES (which were previously put in before that day) and removed them, wiped them off, and replaced them. How suspicious is that? The R knew they couldn't deny owning the flashlight if their prints were ever found on the batteries, so they wiped off the batteries. I have to say that there are many things in this case that point to the parents' guilt, but for ME the two things that scream parental involvement are the wiped down batteries, and denying the pineapple snack. That is because the pineapple and the flashlight play a part in the events of the night. The flashlight because it may have been the murder weapon and/or was used to move about the house after the death, and the pineapple because there was no need to lie about it. The only reason they had to lie was because they needed to have LE think they had no interaction with JB that night after they returned from the White's. The time of death was so close to the time they returned that there was no way an intruder would be able to do all that was done that night and not be found by the parents, who were at home.

DeeDee249,

Some think the latex gloves may also link with the discovery of Birefringent Material inside JonBenet?

At some point, the Rs obviously became aware of the need to not have their prints on certain things. They may very well have worn gloves when handling the flashlight, but then remembered the BATTERIES (which were previously put in before that day) and removed them, wiped them off, and replaced them. How suspicious is that?

1. The flashlight was found in the kitchen?
2. The flashlight was not linked to the wine-cellar.

Are you suggesting that the flashlight is part of an extended crime-scene staging? If so why not just leave it down in the wine-cellar? This is the same thought as to why JonBenet was redressed in size-12's, since she was already, allegedly dead and the victim of a sexual assault?

That is in one case evidence is added, in another, evidence is removed.

If the Ramsey's prints had been found on both the flashlight casing and the batteries what would that tell anyone?

So could the flashlight have been left deliberately at some prior crime-scene staging then removed when it was later revised?

It would make more sense to forensically clean the flashlight before adding it to some fake crime-scene suggesting the intruder wore gloves to handle the flashlight which was used to whack JonBenet on the head?

Placing the flashlight into the kitchen away from the crime-scene suggests some form of restaging?


.
 
I think the flashlight was used in the basement, then used to light the way back up to the kitchen where it was cleaned inside and out. At that point, with all that was going on in the house and in their minds, the flashlight was simply left on the counter. Either forgotten or simply left out, as would be the case in anyone else's home after using a flashlight, especially when it was kept in a drawer near the kitchen anyway. Neighbors reported seeing "moving lights" in the kitchen around midnight. That fits into the above theory. It wasn't left in the basement because it was used to get to the kitchen in the dark. I don't think the placement of the flashlight is staging. I think it was simply left there. It was wiped when they were finished with it, which makes sense to me.
 
I think the flashlight was used in the basement, then used to light the way back up to the kitchen where it was cleaned inside and out. At that point, with all that was going on in the house and in their minds, the flashlight was simply left on the counter. Either forgotten or simply left out, as would be the case in anyone else's home after using a flashlight, especially when it was kept in a drawer near the kitchen anyway. Neighbors reported seeing "moving lights" in the kitchen around midnight. That fits into the above theory. It wasn't left in the basement because it was used to get to the kitchen in the dark. I don't think the placement of the flashlight is staging. I think it was simply left there. It was wiped when they were finished with it, which makes sense to me.

DeeDee249,

You may be correct. Assuming it was Ramsey property why bother wiping it? There were many other items touched during the wine-cellar staging, but I've seen no report itemising wiped items.

Everything you say is consistent with your theory except the requirement to wipe it clean, why bother?

Unless it has forensic traces from JonBenet deposited. Or someone other than a Ramsey used the flashlight?

.
 
Sorry for butting in here, but I feel the only reason they would have needed to entirely wipe down the flashlight was because it was the source of the head bash. I know there are numerous items that could have made that wound but the fact that it was wiped down goes a long way in convincing me. They were terrified of being implicated by that flashlight.
 
Sorry for butting in here, but I feel the only reason they would have needed to entirely wipe down the flashlight was because it was the source of the head bash. I know there are numerous items that could have made that wound but the fact that it was wiped down goes a long way in convincing me. They were terrified of being implicated by that flashlight.

joeskidbeck,

I agree, its probably not the fingerprints but forensic deposits from JonBenet that was being wiped from the flashlight.



.
 
joeskidbeck,

I agree, its probably not the fingerprints but forensic deposits from JonBenet that was being wiped from the flashlight.



.

The batteries were wiped too. And that was probably for the prints. However, no intruder would worry about prints on the batteries because they didn't put the batteries in there. But one of the Rs put the batteries in there, and the only way they could get away with saying the flashlight didn't belong to them was to wipe their prints from the batteries as well. Their prints on an intruder's flashlight batteries would be a little hard to explain.
No intruder would bring a flashlight that big anyway and coincidentally one that was "just like" the one in the house where they broke into and killed a child.
 
However, no intruder would worry about prints on the batteries because they didn't put the batteries in there.

If it was his flashlight he would (fear of losing it at the crime scene).
 
If it was his flashlight he would (fear of losing it at the crime scene).

What are the odd's that an intruder brought a flashlight exactly like the one that the R's had? Plus, if I remember correctly the R's flashlight wasn't located, so where was it if the one left sitting on the counter was the intruders? When leaving the intruder remembered to take with him the leftover tape and rope, but not the flashlight?
 
If it was his flashlight he would (fear of losing it at the crime scene).

Why? His prints are not found anywhere else. And if they are not in a database, it doesn't matter anyway. You'd need HIM to make a match. The flashlight was a bit to big to "lose". It was simply left on the counter. Because it belonged to the house anyway.
 
Sorry, not trying to be nasty, but I cannot understand why people continutally berate Lou Smit just because they don't agree with him. He has been a homicide investigator (and from what I gather a rather good one) for, I don't know, how many years? People may not always agree with him, but since he is an expert in his field I think at the very least his opinions and ideas could be considered. I have read posts from people calling him everything from "nut job" to wishing him dead just because they don't agree with him. Not accusing anyone of course, but when I read posts where people are berating him, I just want to ask them "how many years have you been actively investigating homicides"?
I wouldn't berate him just because I disagreed with him, it's because he prematurely concluded the Ramsey's were innocent because he sat down and prayed with them!!!:banghead::banghead::banghead: That's why!
 
I wouldn't berate him just because I disagreed with him, it's because he prematurely concluded the Ramsey's were innocent because he sat down and prayed with them!!!:banghead::banghead::banghead: That's why!

That's the way I feel when I read that because he didn't believe they were guilty, that makes him a bad investigator. You completely dismiss the possibility (or probability for me) that they were innocent. However, just keep banging, something might click.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
108
Guests online
2,393
Total visitors
2,501

Forum statistics

Threads
590,002
Messages
17,928,877
Members
228,037
Latest member
shmoozie
Back
Top