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.