Wecht vs. Lee

[UKGuy]

"I doubt this very much, did JonBenet snack her pineapple in the dark, did Burke sip his tea by flashlight?

Its Xmas, vacation time, lights late at night are no big deal.

added: Was the Ransom Note authored in the dark, or by the moonlight?"

Could the kitchen lights be seen from outside?

SuperDave,

Not certain, but I think they were visible?

The more substantial point is why wipe down the flashlight, particularly if it belongs in the house.

Patsy's fibers were found on the garrote and under the duct-tape, but that was not a smoking-gun, similarly Ramsey finger-prints on the flashlight would be no surprise.

Personally imo, it suggests that more than one person was involved in the staging e.g. one was careful and one was not.


.

 

[rashomon]

rashomon,

JonBenet was killed shortly after consuming the pineapple. Presumably the lights were on during the snacking session. And unless you think the Ransom Note was pre-written, then some light would be required to author it after JonBenet was dead! So assuming the foregoing is correct there should be no need for a flashlight?

JonBenet was not killed shortly after eating the pineapple (see Britt's post). The flashlight was found in the kitchen. And don't forget the Ramseys stated they had gone to bed shortly after arriving home. Since JB was killed two to five hours after eating the pineapple, how would they explain light in their kitchen at dead of night when they sat down to write the ransom note? So maybe the flashlight was used to provide light for the writer of the RN?

IMO an intruder would only need to wipe the outside of the flashlight, better still, take it with him on the way out. e.g. leave no evidence.
But the batteries were wiped too, ask yourself why should the perp want to wipe the batteries?

You proved my point, UkGuy: indeed there was no need at all for an intruder to wipe a flashlight and the batteries, for we can assume that he, as you correctly stated, would have taken the flashlight with him on the way out. A flashlight he had probably brought with him, for which intruder could rely on finding a flashlight right away in that huge house?

But no one took that flashlight out with him. So instead of speculating about an alleged intruder, let's consider the stager of the scene: could the stager have had a motive for wiping the flashlight and the batteries? Absolutely!
For the stager (I think it was Patsy) obviously wanted to make people believe that the flashlight did not come from the Ramsey home, which is why she wiped both the flashlight and the batteries. Makes sense, doesn't it? Especially since this flashlight could also have been the murder weapon. If memory serves, Dr. Spitz said the head wound was consistent with a blow from this type of flashlight.

 

[Britt]

Rashomon, I agree with all that.

The more substantial point is why wipe down the flashlight, particularly if it belongs in the house.

Patsy's fibers were found on the garrote and under the duct-tape, but that was not a smoking-gun, similarly Ramsey finger-prints on the flashlight would be no surprise.

I think all the stager wanted to do was put distance between herself and any physical evidence and she did all she could to accomplish that.

IMO she even wore the same clothes (didn't change them) for the specific purpose of being able to explain fiber evidence that may be found on JB, by throwing herself on her in the a.m.

 

[shiloh]

SuperDave: Not to me. I can visualize all of it. And I think she thought JB was dead already.

But please remember, SuperDave, that your visualization is simply your imagination, and probably has more to do with you than with the reality of what actually happened.

 

[UKGuy]

Rashomon,

JonBenet was not killed shortly after eating the pineapple (see Britt's post). The flashlight was found in the kitchen. And don't forget the Ramseys stated they had gone to bed shortly after arriving home. Since JB was killed two to five hours after eating the pineapple, how would they explain light in their kitchen at dead of night when they sat down to write the ransom note? So maybe the flashlight was used to provide light for the writer of the RN?

Yes maybe! But I doubt it.

You proved my point, UkGuy: indeed there was no need at all for an intruder to wipe a flashlight and the batteries, for we can assume that he, as you correctly stated, would have taken the flashlight with him on the way out. A flashlight he had probably brought with him, for which intruder could rely on finding a flashlight right away in that huge house?

mmm well I'm not sure what you are trying to prove, what I was attempting to demonstrate is evidence of premeditation and planning, whether by an intruder or an occupant!

But no one took that flashlight out with him. So instead of speculating about an alleged intruder, let's consider the stager of the scene: could the stager have had a motive for wiping the flashlight and the batteries? Absolutely!
For the stager (I think it was Patsy) obviously wanted to make people believe that the flashlight did not come from the Ramsey home, which is why she wiped both the flashlight and the batteries. Makes sense, doesn't it? Especially since this flashlight could also have been the murder weapon. If memory serves, Dr. Spitz said the head wound was consistent with a blow from this type of flashlight.

I doubt very much that wiping the flashlight was staging, as I mentioned already, Patsy's fibers were found on the garrote and under the duct-tape, but that was not a smoking-gun, similarly Ramsey finger-prints on the flashlight would be no surprise.

If the intention was to suggest the flashlights owner was JonBenet's killer, why did Patsy not leave the flashlight at the alleged scene of the crime? Removing forensic evidence is not indicitive of staging, its the opposite its a Precautionary Act.

Dr. Spitz said the head wound was consistent with a blow from this type of flashlight.

The blow to her head would also be consistent with a blow from many other objects, to use the word consistent in this manner is simply jargon for I think my interpretation is correct since i have not yet found another object, although one may exist!

I prefer to think that the use of the flashlight indicates that there was more than one stager?


.

 

[UKGuy]

Rashomon, I agree with all that.


I think all the stager wanted to do was put distance between herself and any physical evidence and she did all she could to accomplish that.

IMO she even wore the same clothes (didn't change them) for the specific purpose of being able to explain fiber evidence that may be found on JB, by throwing herself on her in the a.m.

Britt,

Compelling and seductive as an explanation it may appear, fitting the theory to the evidence is the wrong way round.

Given JonBenet was deposited in the wine-cellar, how was Patsy to ever know she would ever have the opportunity to throw herself on JonBenet?

.

 

[Britt]

Removing forensic evidence is not indicitive of staging, its the opposite its a Precautionary Act.

IMO it's a Cover Your Tracks Act.

 

[UKGuy]

IMO it's a Cover Your Tracks Act.

Britt,

Of course it is.

Its most definitely not a staging.


.

 

[Britt]

Given JonBenet was deposited in the wine-cellar, how was Patsy to ever know she would ever have the opportunity to throw herself on JonBenet?

How would she not? She was right there in the same house waiting by the phone for the kidnapper's call. She knew at some point someone, probably a cop, would find the body, and naturally the distraught mother would run to her child and launch into her performance. Who would stop her?

 

[Britt]

Of course it is.

Its most definitely not a staging.

Huh? Okay you've lost me... lol.

 

[Linda7NJ]

JonBenet was not killed shortly after eating the pineapple (see Britt's post). The flashlight was found in the kitchen. And don't forget the Ramseys stated they had gone to bed shortly after arriving home. Since JB was killed two to five hours after eating the pineapple, how would they explain light in their kitchen at dead of night when they sat down to write the ransom note? So maybe the flashlight was used to provide light for the writer of the RN?


You proved my point, UkGuy: indeed there was no need at all for an intruder to wipe a flashlight and the batteries, for we can assume that he, as you correctly stated, would have taken the flashlight with him on the way out. A flashlight he had probably brought with him, for which intruder could rely on finding a flashlight right away in that huge house?

But no one took that flashlight out with him. So instead of speculating about an alleged intruder, let's consider the stager of the scene: could the stager have had a motive for wiping the flashlight and the batteries? Absolutely!
For the stager (I think it was Patsy) obviously wanted to make people believe that the flashlight did not come from the Ramsey home, which is why she wiped both the flashlight and the batteries. Makes sense, doesn't it? Especially since this flashlight could also have been the murder weapon. If memory serves, Dr. Spitz said the head wound was consistent with a blow from this type of flashlight.

The "intruder" is a ritualistic, kidnapping, pedophile turned murderer...but he's no thief! The "intruder" draws the line at theft, he prefers to simply use/borrow the Ramsey's things.

 

[UKGuy]

How would she not? She was right there in the same house waiting by the phone for the kidnapper's call. She knew at some point someone, probably a cop, would find the body, and naturally the distraught mother would run to her child and launch into her performance. Who would stop her?

Britt,

How would she not?

Because she may not have known where the body was, even if she did, the crime-scene should have been isolated etc, with JonBenet left in-situ for the coroner. She did not know if she along with John would arrested for questioning, there is no way she could plan on hugging JonBenet's corpse!


.

 

[UKGuy]

Huh? Okay you've lost me... lol.

Britt,
There is a subtle difference between faking crime-scene evidence and removing crime-scene evidence.


One is attempting to eliminate any suspect traces, the other to create false ones.

IMO it's a Cover Your Tracks Act.

So wiping the flashlight clean indicates this was done to remove forensic evidence, not to add.

So its not staging!

Furthermore it was not located at the alleged crime-scene, which is where you might expect to see it , if it had been intended as staging.

.
.

 

[rashomon]

Britt,

Of course it is.

Its most definitely not a staging.

UKGuy:Wiping the flashlight including the batteries could have been done for staging purposes if Patsy wanted to create the impression that the intruder had brought the flashlight with him, which is why she wiped any Ramsey fingerprints off it.
Your question as to why she didn't put the flashlight in the wine cellar then: I believe she forgot about it in her panic. Just as she forgot to put JB's nightgown back, leaving it behind in the wine cellar.

But I think Britt's scenario is just as likely: that wiping everything off the flashlight was simply a frantic 'cover your tracks' act by Patsy. And when wiping the batteries, she didn't realize that she was actually drawing suspicion on herself, for her fingerprints on batteries would have been perfectly normal.

 

[BBB167893]

"Patsy's fibers were found on the garrote and under the duct-tape, but that was not a smoking-gun,"

Close as you're going to get in this case, imo.

"similarly Ramsey finger-prints on the flashlight would be no surprise."

Precisely! So why was it wiped down?

"Personally imo, it suggests that more than one person was involved in the staging e.g. one was careful and one was not."

You have my attention, UkGuy. I'm anxious to see this play out.

"mmm well I'm not sure what you are trying to prove, what I was attempting to demonstrate is evidence of premeditation and planning, whether by an intruder or an occupant!"

Lay it all out, UKGuy.

"But please remember, SuperDave, that your visualization is simply your imagination, and probably has more to do with you than with the reality of what actually happened."

Maybe so, shiloh. I don't deny that could be the case, but you have to remember what Holmes said: "it is in the imagination that crimes are conceived and ultimately where they are solved."

 

[UKGuy]

UKGuy:Wiping the flashlight including the batteries could have been done for staging purposes if Patsy wanted to create the impression that the intruder had brought the flashlight with him, which is why she wiped any Ramsey fingerprints off it.
Your question as to why she didn't put the flashlight in the wine cellar then: I believe she forgot about it in her panic. Just as she forgot to put JB's nightgown back, leaving it behind in the wine cellar.

But I think Britt's scenario is just as likely: that wiping everything off the flashlight was simply a frantic 'cover your tracks' act by Patsy. And when wiping the batteries, she didn't realize that she was actually drawing suspicion on herself, for her fingerprints on batteries would have been perfectly normal.

rashomon,

Removing forensic evidence it not normally seen as indicitive of staging.

I dont share your opinion on this subject.

.

 

[Britt]

FBI guy John Douglas: Staging occurs when someone purposely alters the crime scene prior to the arrival of the police.

How is wiping off evidence not altering the crime scene?

So wiping the flashlight clean indicates this was done to remove forensic evidence, not to add.

But it does add evidence by trying to connect the maglite to someone, anyone other than the perp.

Maybe she left it there hoping one of the invited guests would pick it up, then voila! a suspect.

Furthermore it was not located at the alleged crime-scene, which is where you might expect to see it , if it had been intended as staging.

Neither was the ransom note, which was obviously part of the staging.

The whole house was a crime scene.

 

[Britt]

"similarly Ramsey finger-prints on the flashlight would be no surprise."

Precisely! So why was it wiped down?

So that someone else, one of those unsuspecting kidnapping breakfast guests, or maybe even John, would pick it up and make themself a suspect ?

Can you imagine... the coroner discovers the head wound... CBI discovers the maglite fits it perfectly... the only prints on the maglite are, say, John's or Fleet White's?

Or maybe John was involved in the cover-up by this point and HE devised this diabolical scheme to invite guests into the crime scene to contribute evidence...

Oh wait, it was Patsy who called them.

 

[Solace]

rashomon,

Removing forensic evidence it not normally seen as indicitive of staging.

I dont share your opinion on this subject.

.

Rashomon: With all due respect to UKGuy, I do share your opinion on this subject. There was no reason at all for the batteries to be wiped clean and when I heard that, it made more and more sense to me that Patsy did that in her franctic behavior to cover her tracks. Even if her prints were all over it, so what. It is her house and she may have at one time used it. Who is to say she did not. Certainly a jury would never convict on evidence like that. So wiping it clean is indicative of guilt of some sort, whether it be aiding or abetting or the actual murder.

Just like Patsy's lies are indicative of something not right.
Burke being up with them (they lied); Patsy lied about seeing the heart in JB's hand after she realized what she had said, Patsy lied about not remembering whether she spoke with her doctor about bed wetting; Patsy lied about not knowing about John's girlfriend in his first marriage;Patsy failed at least two polys, at least that we know of.

Sometimes it seems so clear.

 

[UKGuy]

FBI guy John Douglas: Staging occurs when someone purposely alters the crime scene prior to the arrival of the police.

How is wiping off evidence not altering the crime scene?


But it does add evidence by trying to connect the maglite to someone, anyone other than the perp.

Maybe she left it there hoping one of the invited guests would pick it up, then voila! a suspect.


Neither was the ransom note, which was obviously part of the staging.

The whole house was a crime scene.

Britt,

But it does add evidence by trying to connect the maglite to someone, anyone other than the perp.

It is you that does the connecting, removing evidence is not altering it, if its not there then it cannot be altered.


John Douglas's definition of staging is historical, and his own personal interpretation, he has been criticized for this definition, since it patently excludes staging after the arrival of the police.

.