JonBenet Ramsey - a question for those who follow this story

[mnrose]

I don't pre-wash anything either. Fifty plus years and I still haven't gotten cooties.

The only thing I prewash is towels. Seems to me that towels are much more absorbent after being washed. Could be my own hallucination, though. LOL.

 

[wilkeliza]

The CBS show did show how it was now clear to two of the experts on the show that there was no sexual type of assault at all, no evidence of it. So while odd and unlikely, I could believe the her taking a piece of the pineapple out of his bowl as a 'last straw' to put him over the edge (assuming he already had something wrong with him psychologically). They also demonstrated on the CBS show how it would take not much force at all with that flashlight to kill her so perhaps a 9 year old could do so. Not saying I fully believe it was him, and it still doesn't make sense with the garrott, but I haven't ruled it out in my mind. Burke doing it and Patsy covering for him. Even that Burke hit her and killed her but did not mean to kill her.

I haven't watched the CBS show but why exactly did they say there was 0 proof of molestation when the coroner wrote about trauma to that area? For whatever reason people latch on to the fact that there was no DNA evidence inside of JonBenet but there are many ways someone could make sure that doesn't happen in an assault.

 

[asta]

The CBS show did show how it was now clear to two of the experts on the show that there was no sexual type of assault at all, no evidence of it. So while odd and unlikely, I could believe the her taking a piece of the pineapple out of his bowl as a 'last straw' to put him over the edge (assuming he already had something wrong with him psychologically). They also demonstrated on the CBS show how it would take not much force at all with that flashlight to kill her so perhaps a 9 year old could do so. Not saying I fully believe it was him, and it still doesn't make sense with the garrott, but I haven't ruled it out in my mind. Burke doing it and Patsy covering for him. Even that Burke hit her and killed her but did not mean to kill her.

And that brings back my first question. If Burke killed her with a blow to the head over stealing the pineapple then why was there enough time for to digest the pineapple found in her small intestine? If the blow did not kill her then we have to believe the family let her lie there and die slowly instead of getting medical help. I have a problem with that logic. Of course they also want us to believe Burke or Patsy poked her in the face and back with the ends of a train track in order to wake her up.

 

[msjprincess]

The only thing I prewash is towels. Seems to me that towels are much more absorbent after being washed. Could be my own hallucination, though. LOL.

I think you may be right about that. I once had to run out and buy towels for our camper because I forgot them at home. I thought they were horrible and didn't absorb anything. I was going to throw them out. But then I tool them home and washed them and they were fine.

 

[kimj88]

I haven't watched the CBS show but why exactly did they say there was 0 proof of molestation when the coroner wrote about trauma to that area? For whatever reason people latch on to the fact that there was no DNA evidence inside of JonBenet but there are many ways someone could make sure that doesn't happen in an assault.

If I remember correctly it was mainly the very minor amount, almost nonexistent trauma.

 

[SueM in MN]

Well I guess if you believe that DNA found in her underpants and on her leggings came from a stranger in the manufacturing plant you are likely to believe that its entirely reasonable that the murder weapon had zero traces of the victims DNA.

The flashlight and batteries had nothing - no fingerprints, so it had been wiped of fingerprints.

That was one of the reasons the flashlight was considered suspicious as the murder weapon.
And, also considered suspicious. If an intruder brought it in, why wipe it and leave it?

 

[msjprincess]

The flashlight and batteries had nothing - no fingerprints, so it had been wiped of fingerprints.

That was one of the reasons the flashlight was considered suspicious as the murder weapon.
And, also considered suspicious.

Does the report actually say it was wiped clean or just that no fingerprints were found?

 

[Hikergirl]

The flashlight and batteries had nothing - no fingerprints, so it had been wiped of fingerprints.

That was one of the reasons the flashlight was considered suspicious as the murder weapon.
And, also considered suspicious. If an intruder brought it in, why wipe it and leave it?

I don't know enough about the details of the case. Were there other things, like the garrote or the pen that was used for the note, that didn't have fingerprints?

 

[msjprincess]

I don't know enough about the details of the case. Were there other things, like the garrote or the pen that was used for the note, that didn't have fingerprints?

I'm not positive but from what I've read none of those things had usable fingerprints.

 

[Hikergirl]

I'm not positive but from what I've read none of those things had usable fingerprints.

Then I think your question above is a very good one. If there was nothing on the flashlight that does seem odd. If there was nothing usable then that doesn't seem so strange.

 

[msjprincess]

Then I think your question above is a very good one. If there was nothing on the flashlight that does seem odd. If there was nothing usable then that doesn't seem so strange.

That's why I'm curious. There's a big difference between being wiped clean and just not finding prints. But if it was the Ramseys and they used the flashlight why would the go through the trouble of wiping it clean including the batteries and then leave it right on the kitchen counter? And why wipe the batteries of prints? It's a flashlight in their house. One would expect to find their prints.

I've tried searching but now all the hits are relating to the CBS special.

 

[msjprincess]

double post

 

[RitaE]

I don't believe the garrote had fingerprints. There was some non-matching DNA found on the rope that I don't think was ever matched to any other DNA found elsewhere and was thought to again be irrelevant....contamination, manufacturing process etc etc

The info about the house keys has been bothering me for a couple of days so I went and looked it up

On Dec 26th John Ramsey told the police that no house keys were hidden outside the house under rocks or anything and he stated his older son, his Mother-In-Law, and the housekeeper had keys.

On January 21st the Ramsey lawyers submitted a larger list
Whites (family friends)
Ferries (family friends)
Joe Barnhill (neighbor who cared for the Ramseys dog when they traveled)

In April 1997 a Private Investigator hired by the Ramseys added that he thought there were up to 20 keys outside of family members around. Police were able to find 9 people who said they had keys, but only 6 were able to be physically recovered.

In addition Patsy Ramsey claimed that she had hidden a key outside the front door because that door locked automatically and she got tired of locking herself out. That key was also never recovered.

This is all from the Schiller book.

 

[asta]

That's why I'm curious. There's a big difference between being wiped clean and just not finding prints. But if it was the Ramseys and they used the flashlight why would the go through the trouble of wiping it clean including the batteries and then leave it right on the kitchen counter? And why wipe the batteries of prints? It's a flashlight in their house. One would expect to find their prints.

I've tried searching but now all the hits are relating to the CBS special.

I don't understand why anyone would wipe their fingerprints off of the flashlight batteries and then leave it in the house. If it was a family member then you would only expect their fingerprints to be on it so why clean it. I can even see someone wiping the outside of the flashlight but not opening it to wipe the batteries. But then no one has any proof that the flashlight was even involved.

 

[msjprincess]

I don't understand why anyone would wipe their fingerprints off of the flashlight batteries and then leave it in the house. If it was a family member then you would only expect their fingerprints to be on it so why clean it. I can even see someone wiping the outside of the flashlight but not opening it to wipe the batteries. But then no one has any proof that the flashlight was even involved.

Exactly. I could see wiping the outside because they were afraid that Jonbenet's blood or hair was on it. But wiping it for fingerprints makes no sense. And the only reason to wipe the batteries would be for their fingerprints, not Jonbenet's DNA.

 

[LisaR]

Did the flashlight belong to the Ramsey family? I swear I read/heard that they didn't know where that flashlight on the counter came from. I don't know if that meant, "Yeah, that's our flashlight, but we don't keep it on the counter and we don't know how it got there" or "That isn't our flashlight and we've never seen it before just now."

 

[wilkeliza]

I don't believe the garrote had fingerprints. There was some non-matching DNA found on the rope that I don't think was ever matched to any other DNA found elsewhere and was thought to again be irrelevant....contamination, manufacturing process etc etc

The info about the house keys has been bothering me for a couple of days so I went and looked it up

On Dec 26th John Ramsey told the police that no house keys were hidden outside the house under rocks or anything and he stated his older son, his Mother-In-Law, and the housekeeper had keys.

On January 21st the Ramsey lawyers submitted a larger list
Whites (family friends)
Ferries (family friends)
Joe Barnhill (neighbor who cared for the Ramseys dog when they traveled)

In April 1997 a Private Investigator hired by the Ramseys added that he thought there were up to 20 keys outside of family members around. Police were able to find 9 people who said they had keys, but only 6 were able to be physically recovered.

In addition Patsy Ramsey claimed that she had hidden a key outside the front door because that door locked automatically and she got tired of locking herself out. That key was also never recovered.

This is all from the Schiller book.

Interesting if you asked me today who had copies of my keys I would say me, my fiancé, and our local emergency contact for our dogs/apartment who is a good friend. There is also a spare set we give to guests and dog sitters.

Now I have no clue who else may have a set. My fiancé very well could have given his sisters or parents sets and I have no clue. I don't know if our cleaning service has a set on file or if they are let in through a set the building has. See even here I just realized our building has 2 sets the master they keep just in case maintance needs to come and we aren't home and the spare set our doormen have access to in case a tenant locks themselves out. Any one with access to those could have copies. Thankfully I know management (that's actually my fiancé haha) so I trust he didn't give access to some stranger and our doormen are pretty trustworthy stand up guys so I wouldn't think they would do anything. Plus all hallways are recorded as well as the key boxes so it would be pretty clear who got into an apartment.

Now I'm trying to think of anyone else who could easily access my apartment haha.

 

[cabanafrau]

If it were possible to pick up an identical flashlight and paintbrush brand new from the store and remove them from the packaging, would touching the handle surface areas of each always leave a fingerprint, sometimes leave a fingerprint, possibly show trace of partial prints or unable to leave fingerprints at all? Plenty of everyday objects in our homes don't retain our fingerprints simply because the surface we touch everyday doesn't retain prints.

Plenty of wooden handled knives which have been wielded as murder weapons have no prints on the handles despite not being wiped to remove prints. That makes me suspicious of the paintbrush as likely to contain prints in the first place, even if you were to watch Patsy painting with it, put it down and rush right over to attempt to pull prints from it. We have flashlights at our house with ridged handles and others with metal, industrial, diamond-etched handles that I would guess are unlikely to have our prints on them either.

 

[wilkeliza]

OMG I'm watching the CBS show and what they are doing to the audio as evidence would never ever hold up in court. Those noises when not altered are the dispatcher typing. I believe when you call 911 the audio is initiated and ended by the operator that's why many times when people hang up you hear the click and then the 911 dispatcher saying talk to me are you still there etc. I whole hearted believe that those "voices" were typing.

On top of that none of them agreed on what was said until someone else came up with something and fought for it. Originally the one guy said it was "Jesus, Jesus" and other convinced him it was "What did you do?". Come on that is just idiotic that it could have initially been either or that it sounded completely different from the speakers and the over the ear headphones. That audio tech should be ashamed of himself agreeing to manipulate an audio file like that. Lengthening an audio file does not make it easier to understand it makes it a 1000x harder because you are slowing it down to something that is not natural for us to process. The audio file that length would not have been noticible words.

The 911 operator sounds like she just wants her minute of fame. Why did she think anyone would want to talk to her during the investigation when they had the audio? She isn't a trained person so why does her feeling or opinion matter to the investigation? I had to call 911 when a 4 wheeler was driven over a family member and I can tell you how freaking stressful that is. I couldn'5 even remember our address I just kept saying we are the 2nd to last house on blank road!

 

[pryncess527]

That's why I'm curious. There's a big difference between being wiped clean and just not finding prints. But if it was the Ramseys and they used the flashlight why would the go through the trouble of wiping it clean including the batteries and then leave it right on the kitchen counter? And why wipe the batteries of prints? It's a flashlight in their house. One would expect to find their prints.

I've tried searching but now all the hits are relating to the CBS special.

Lord knows it's hard to verify the accuracy of anything on the internet about this case, but what I read said the report said "no prints were found on the flashlight" and that when "no prints" appears in a report, it means no usable information. The report did not specify that it was wiped clean and there is no reason to believe that is the case.