Did Jon-Benet Ramsay's brother kill her?

[Segnosaur]

The flashlight was in their home, it had no fingerprints on the item when tested. If it had been brought in by "the keystone cops" it would #1 have had all kinds of evidence on it because we generally don't take the step of sterilizing our duty gear and #2 very likely have a badge number engraved on it inside the tailcap or on the tube because we like to keep track of our duty gear.

First of all, do you have any proof that all (or even a significant majority) of police forces label items like flashlights? I can certainly see them doing so for things like guns/tasers, but a harmless and relatively low cost item like a flashlight would seem like unnecessary overkill for many police forces.

Secondly, this illustrates a major problem with the whole "insider theory"... the Ramseys are smart enough to realize "The flashlight may have evidence... we have to sterilize it", but somehow aren't smart enough to realize that it would also look suspicious to not dispose of the writing pad. Or if they are getting rid of evidence like the roll of tape, why not get rid of the flashlight while they're at it?

You find the issue of going room to room problematic. I don't as the toy train materials were in the room adjacent to where the body was initially discovered.

Still a problem, because the flashlight (if it indeed belonged to the Ramseys) would be in a different room that the train materials. You'd have to come up with a plausible scenario to explain how Burke would have had easy access to both. (Not to mention a scenario that would get her to the basement in the first place.)

If the videos shown in the CBS presentation are any indication, the boy wasn't questioned or interrogated in the way you're inferring. I've never had to deal with the issue of a kid of his age involved in a murder, but you don't get out the heatlamp and phone book on a kid. His parents continually insisted the boy knew nothing, he's absolutely a minor and it would have been a huge issue if the PD insisted on a real interview - the parents could insist that they'd be present, along with a lawyer representing them and most likely another attorney representing the kid. That didn't happen.

I'd drop Dr. Phil as a source on anything. The guy's a bottom feeder...

Granted, Dr. Phil isn't exactly a paragon of moral virtue, but given some of the information presented by CBS (As described here) appears to be absolute bunk, I wouldn't exactly say CBS has the high ground either.

The marks on her body attributed to the use of a taser in no way conform to the type of injury you actually experience when you tase someone or you are tased. Whoever came up with that idea initially had no idea what they were talking about.

The 'stun gun' theory was originally put forward by Lou Smit, a retired police detective who was asked to investigate the case by the District Attourney. Smitt had a very solid reputation, having worked on many high profile cases. He should have adequate knowledge to identify the marks that would be left by a stun gun.

And stun guns can leave marks on the skin, perhaps not in all cases, but it does happen.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12762539

Or: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/searching-the-stun-gun-theory/
Dr. Michael Dobersen, a stun gun expert and coroner for neighboring Arapahoe County, also believes the marks on JonBenet were left by a stun gun. To prove it, he used one on the skin of an anesthetized pig. "The marks are similar in size, shape and color and are a certain distance apart," he says.

There is nothing that I've seen so far as I started paying attention to this case that adds up as anything more than a very sad set of circumstances surrounding a horrible moment - and unfortunately I've seen and/or have direct knowledge of enough ugly stupid decisions culminating in death that somebody tries to mitigate by lying, destroying or disposing of evidence that the actions possibly taken by the parents don't surprise me in the least, and in fact make much more sense than the various terrorist/sex offender/satanist boggeyman jive that this case seems to attract.

Once again... evidence shows that JonBenet was still alive when the garrot was used. If Burke did hit JonBenet and contributed to her death, not only would the parents have to act to cover up the murder, they would have to strangle their still living daughter as part of the cover up, rather than actually getting her medical attention.

 

[Segnosaur]

Why would a guilty John partially undo his own staging, by removing the tape over JonBenet's mouth?

The first answer might just be confusion.

Which doesn't really help the "insider/staged" theory much. After all, the Ramseys were supposedly criminal masterminds, able to keep their cool under questioning by police, and smart enough to stage the break in.... Yet get confused over removing the tape?

Yeah, the ONLY reason I can imagine for staging is that they knew (maybe had just learned & were trying to deal with?) Burke was abusing her in some really heinous way.

From what I understand, JonBenet's doctor found no evidence of any abuse. If it was happening, you'd expect some sort marks.

But I don't really believe that. Honestly, their behavior hardly makes sense to me under any theory.

You're dealing with distraught parents... first ones that thought their daughter was kidnapped, then grieving because she was actually dead. People handle stress like that in different ways. I don't think you can make any determinations of someone's actions based on their behavior in those situations.

I mean, they have this crazy ransom note loaded with dark threats about not calling the police & they aren't fazed at all by it.

what makes you think they weren't fazed by it?

Call the police, don't mention the threat, let the police park in the driveway ... it's barely more credible than what I just speculated about above.

Frankly, if I ever got contacted by kidnappers, I'd probably call the police too, even if the note said not to. The police have training on how to handle that sort of situation... your average citizen doesn't.

 

[Segnosaur]

That ransom note was all Patsy, with help from John. Once you cross the line, whatever that is, you've got to be all in.

Handwriting analysis has not concluded that it was Patsy, and while some similarities exist between her wring and the note's, there are differences as well.

Burke had several mental issues he probably wouldn't have been getting help for. Younger sister gets ALL the attention. John, Pasty, Jon Benet, and oh yeah, here's Burke. I don't think he meant to really hurt her but we'll never know. At that point, they're deeply invested in their remaining child.

As I pointed out before... JonBenet was strangled with a garrot while she was still alive. Not only would the Ramseys have to cover up the crime, but they would also have to strangle their still-living daughter (the one who "gets all the attention"), rather than get her medical attention.

There was no intruder. Too much time spent in the house means more DNA left behind

Why? Was he bleeding in various rooms in the house? Spitting on all the flat surfaces? I doubt DNA would just magically appear on random surfaces... the police would have to look in certain locations.

Yes, DNA can be left behind at a crime scene. But its not exactly a road-map to solving crimes. Dozens of people would have been in the house both in the weeks before the crime and in the immediate aftermath.

Add to that the incompetence of the police investigating the crime, and any DNA would be overlooked.

By the way, another poster did point out that DNA of an unknown male was found in the house... under JonBenet's nails.

...or an errant fingerprint.

Unless of course he was wearing gloves.

Much of that house was like a maze and the room Jon Benet was found in was certainly off the beaten track.

Which would be consistent with either someone familiar with the Ramseys who had been in their house (a workman or acquaintance) or someone who had spent significant time waiting for the Ramseys to return.

Why did John run directly to that room, and allegedly found her in the dark?

Simple answer... he didn't.

John was asked to look around to see if anything looked out of place... According to wikipedia:
After first searching the bathroom and the "train room," they went into a "wine cellar" room, where Ramsey found his daughter's body

So no, they didn't go directly to the room.

The biggest offenders in this case, after the killers, are the Boulder Police. They let this spin out control so fast they couldn't contain the fallout. Letting John and Fleet run off on their own with no escort?

Not only did they let John and Fleet run off, they encouraged them to go search the house.

 

[Segnosaur]

If you have internet access -- as you obviously do -- you can watch it on the CBS web site. If you are outside the U.S., you might be able to use a vpn to cloak your location.

Oh, I'm sure I could track down the video if I really wanted to. However:
1) I've already watched documentaries on the case, AND read various books and articles
2) some of the information that's been presented here has been less than convincing

Because of that, I just don't see much value in tracking down something that seems like it might be of little or no value.

Some of us are saying "watch the video" because the panelists have made a persuasive argument for their conclusion.

Have any of their arguments differed significantly from either what's been written here, or what's been written in any of the articles about their special (such as the rolling stone articles)?

They say there is no evidence of an intruder

Which is wrong. The missing roll of tape is a major piece of evidence of an intruder. (Other items, such as the DNA under JonBenet's nails, the boot print, the scuff mark on the wall, the unlocked door) may not be solid proof, but they too are evidence of an intruder.

that Burke had a long, weird history of abusing his sister...

Except of course her doctor said they saw no evidence of such abuse.

...and that the Ramseys never cooperated with the investigation, and in fact resisted the minimal cooperation that you would expect from parents of a murdered child.

Actually they did cooperate. They provided multiple handwriting samples, AND consented to a lengthy interview.

Now, it is true that they did get themselves legal representation, AND they initially resisted interviews. But, by then the cops made it obvious that they considered the Ramseys the murders. Any person (guilty or innocent) should react in the same way under the same circumstances.

John was on the phone making arrangements to fly his family out of the state...

You know, I've heard that claim before, but I've never actually seen a transcript or description of the actual nature of the conversation. So, I think people are jumping to conclusions.

What I think happened... the Ramseys were already scheduled to fly out based on plans made before christmas. After the kinapping/crime, Jonn would have had to cancel the plans. Someone hears him talking on the phone about flying out, and think "he's planning on leaving".

Believing that she was killed by anyone other than a family member requires a string of "what-ifs" and "maybes" and "if thens"

No, really it doesn't.

The intruder theory fits in with the evidence, and does so in a way that doesn't require bizarre changes in personality of those involved, or weird contradictions.

A stun gun is the hand-held gadget that sends a current through two attached electrodes. They vary enormously in power and quality, and when someone is touched by one his first reaction is always to pull away, probably screaming/yelling/cursing as loud as he can. The claim is that Jon-Benet was hit with a stun gun, and there is no evidence to support the claim.

Actually yes there is evidence. As I pointed out in an earlier post, the stun gun theory is based on 2 sets of marks with identical spacing, and was put forward by a cop who had significant experience and a strong reputation. His assertion is backed up by both by experiments AND by documented cases showing similar marks on other people subjected to stun guns.

As for people yelling/screaming when one is used... JonBenet might have had it used on her when she was in the basement (far from where her parents were sleeping), and had her hands bound and tape over her mouth.

By the way, I do recognize that there is a difference between a tazer and a stun gun, both in their effectiveness/power, and the way they work. I think it was the poster Bstrong that first started using the phrase 'Taser'; I just let it go because I thought the meaning was clear enough.

The floor plan wasn't discussed on CBS as I recall, but another writer observed that the basement was a maze. No one who wasn't already familiar with the layout would have been able to hide her body where it was found.

Not sure why anyone thinks it is so significant that the basement was a "maze". I'm pretty sure that spending even 5 minutes in the basement would have been enough to get an intruder familiar enough with the layout. You're only talking about 6 rooms; you're not talking about trying to find a minotaur in a labyrinth (It also falsely assumes that knowledge of the basement layout was NECESSARY... The body could probably have been left in any room; it wouldn't have made a difference. The fact that it was left in the wine cellar was just luck.

In fact, apparently the police themselves overlooked that room in their initial search of the house. More evidence for John or Patsy's involvement, less for a random stranger.

Actually from what I remember it wasn't the police that did the search, it was one of the friends of the Ramseys. And he didn't overlook the room... he just didn't look very hard in it. (Remember, at that time they were not looking for a body at the time.)

 

[Segnosaur]

For anyone who thinks the JonBonet murder was an "inside job" (either with the murder done by one or both parents, or by the son and just covered up by the parents), I have a challenge for you...

Describe what happened, from the time the family returned from the party, until the time the body was found and the case went from a kidnapping to a murder investigation. Describe where each action happened (e.g. which room), who was involved, and if possible the character's motivation. Where details are unknown, give possible options. And make it so that it explains as much of the evidence as possible (the equal-spaced marks on completely different parts of JonBenet's body, the evidence that suggest she was strangled while still alive, the DNA under her fingernails, the missing tape roll, etc.)

And when you're done, look at how many times people act contrarily to how they normally would, or end up making bizarre decisions....

After all, we keep hearing how "It wasn't an intruder", and "It was part of the train set not a stun gun". But I haven't yet seen a full account of a possible set of actions from that day.

I've already done so for the intruder theory, back in post 25, when I wrote (with some minor additions):
An intruder (possibly with a grudge against the Ramseys) breaks in when they are away, either through the window or an unlocked door, or using one of the many keys known to be in circulation. He brings with him duct tape and some rope. Maybe he brings a note, maybe not. He waits for the family to come home, exploring the house and writing the ransom note (because he didn't bring one originally, or because he saw John's pay stub for $118k and thought that would be a good amount to ask for) when waiting. Family comes home and goes to bed. Intruder leaves the note on the stairs, incapacitates JonBenet and brings her downstairs. However, for some reason his plans change. (Perhaps she struggles at an inopportune time, perhaps the stress of the situation gets to him, perhaps he realizes he can't get her out of the house safely). He takes her to the basement to the wine cellar, stuns her, starts to strangle her and hits her with the flashlight (or, alternatively, with a baseball bat he found in the house), and leaves either through the door that was found unlocked, taking the roll of tape with him. (If he used the baseball bat, he left it outside.) He leaves his flashlight in the kitchen on his way out of the house. (Or, the flashlight actually belonged to a policeman who had left in there by mistake and its irrelevant.)

 

[Henri McPhee]

If you have internet access -- as you obviously do -- you can watch it on the CBS web site. If you are outside the U.S., you might be able to use a vpn to cloak your location.

Some of us are saying "watch the video" because the panelists have made a persuasive argument for their conclusion. They say there is no evidence of an intruder, that Burke had a long, weird history of abusing his sister -- including hitting her with a golf club -- and that the Ramseys never cooperated with the investigation, and in fact resisted the minimal cooperation that you would expect from parents of a murdered child. John was on the phone making arrangements to fly his family out of the state on his private plane while investigators were still in the house. And as with some other high-profile cases, some of what the public thinks is not supported by the known facts. Believing that she was killed by anyone other than a family member requires a string of "what-ifs" and "maybes" and "if thens" that is far less likely than the obvious conclusion supported by the evidence.

That's just jumping to conclusions and is guesswork and pure speculation. It's not very thorough. There is no supporting evidence.

The incident with a golf club involving Burke was a pure accident Accidents happen. John Ramsey was advised by his lawyers not to cooperate at first because the Boulder police, and later the FBI, were trying to hang the Ramseys and not to help them. John Ramsey wanted to get out of Boulder on the day JonBenet's body was found because his entire house had become a crime scene full of fingerprint dust and he was unable to stay there.

This is a previous posting I made about the JonBenet Ramsey case and it implicates suspect Fleet White:

"This is an interesting bit of cross-questioning of Fleet White by Chris Wolf's lawyer, Darnay Hoffman.

"I fully appreciate why Candy is so cross with Fleet White. If you were asked if you owned cord and duct tape, and you were innocent, would you refuse to answer that question? It's highly suspicious. Fleet White was never properly, or thoroughly, investigated by the idiot cops in the Ramsey case.

Just say yes or no to a question like that, and none of this 'no comment' stuff beloved of criminals:

MR. HOFFMAN: Thank you.

"Over the three days of interviews, however, Santa Bill McReynolds was only one of many potential suspects named by Ramsey. Also high on the list were ex-friends, Fleet and Priscilla White. He recalled that Fleet had both cord and duct tape and that, instead of being comforting on December 26, Fleet had furiously scribbled notes. He said Priscilla was jealous of Patsy and used the ransom note term "fat cat." And it was Fleet and Priscilla who pressured the Ramseys to appear on CNN to defend themselves, Ramsey claimed. Just the opposite was true: Fleet had confronted Ramsey on the decision to appear in the media."

"Now, my question to you is, let's start at the top: Did you own cord and duct tape at that time, at the time of the murder? Is that statement true, by John Ramsey -- by not John Ramsey, by Steve Thomas?

THE WITNESS: Is that relevant?

MR. BALSER: How is that relevant to a claim or defense in this case?

MR. HOFFMAN: If you claim the Ramseys are innocent, that there is a killer still out there, I think it is relevant; and also to the issue of whether or not Fleet White was ever considered a suspect in this case is also relevant to the issue whether he would have a motive to lie, if he were to ever give testimony in this case.

MR. BALSER: Well, you claim you know who killed JonBenet.

MR. HOFFMAN: I am not saying that. But that is a defense in the case, a defense that someone other than the Ramseys, whoever that may be -- and I am not saying that the Ramseys are saying it is Fleet White; but if and when that issue is raised, it is going to go to the issue of the truthfulness of the testimony of some people who may have, in fact, been considered suspects by law enforcement.

And I am just asking Mr. White whether, in fact, it is true that he and/or Priscilla owned a cord or duct tape at that time.

THE WITNESS: I won't answer the question.

 

[Henri McPhee]

From the Fleet White deposition:
Q.(By Mr. Wood) Mr. White, I am not asking you for your speculation. I am not asking you for your opinion. I am not asking you what you have heard from someone else, or on the television, or from any media outlet. I am not asking you for hearsay information, as we call it in the law.
A. Uh-huh (affirmative).
Q. My question to you is factual, and it is directed to your firsthand knowledge only. You with me so far?
A. I believe so.
Q. I would like for you to tell me, sir, whether you, Fleet White, have a firsthand factual knowledge that indicates to you that Patsy Ramsey murdered her daughter or killed her daughter in December of 1996.
A. Could you repeat that?
Q. Yes, sir.
I would like for you to tell me, Mr. White, whether you, Fleet White, have any firsthand factual information that indicates that
Patsy Ramsey killed her daughter JonBenet in December of 1996.
A. No.
Q. Same question, Mr. White, whether you have any firsthand factual information that indicates that John Ramsey killed his daughter JonBenet in December of 1996.
A. No.
Q. I have not asked you about Burke, but I will, just to cover it.
Do you have any firsthand factual information that indicates that Burke Ramsey, nine years of age at the time of his sister's murder, was involved in any way in the death of his sister
A. No.

 

[Henri McPhee]

From the Fleet White deposition:

A. There was a latch, as I recall, that was at the top of the door, and I unlatched it and then opened the -- opened the door and just looked in the room.
Q. Did you open the door completely to look in?
A. Wide enough to look in.
Q. And what did you see?
A. It was dark
Q. Totally dark?
A. As I recall, it was quite dark.
Q. Did any of the light in the hallway illuminate the area when you opened the door, to some extent?
A. Perhaps to some extent, but it was quite dark.
Q. It is my understanding you tried to find a light switch unsuccessfully?
A. Yes.
Q. Which side of the wall did you reach for? Left? Right? Describe for me the extent of your effort to locate a light switch in the wine cellar.
A. I believe I just reached in and felt the wall next to the door and didn't find one, so --
Q. Did you actually step into the room, though?
A. I may have put one -- I may have leaned in, placed one foot in.
Q. Would there be any reason why you would not have simply walked into the room, even though dark, to make an observation?
A. I don't -- I don't remember why I didn't walk in the room
Q. But you did not?
A. I did not walk in the room, other than to, perhaps, lean in or -- far enough to reach around and look for a switch.
Q. When you couldn't find a switch, what did you do?
A. I closed the door.
Q. Did you relatch it?
A. I believe I relatched it.
Q. Were you wearing gloves that morning?
A. No.

 

[Henri McPhee]

My .02 after having watched part II:

The brother killed his sister, Mom and Dad covered it up.

The Boulder PD did their job.

The case was tanked by the DA's office for reasons unclear.

ETA -Henri, has anyone accused of or convicted of a crime ever been guilty as charged?

I entirely disagree with you. Many murders are open and shut cases, and they often involve murder for life insurance money. Those murders are not difficult murders. Other murders like the Jeffrey MacDonald case, or the JonBenet Ramsey case, or even the Darlie Routier case, are difficult murders because they are difficult to detect. There are no forensics in those sort of cases like DNA or fingerprints.

The trigger happy American police have been proved to have made mistakes with regard to murders in the past. I admit it's not just the American police either.

 

[Strawberry]

I can feel myself being prejudiced against the intruder theory by the fact that Henri believes in it.

However - if it was inside job, how do you explain the missing roll of tape and why was she garotted while still alive?

 

[BStrong]

I'm sorry but Websleuths is that way -->>

When I was living in Europe I watched John and Patsy being interviewed by the BBC. They were very forthright about everything. Here's a transcript from the American version:

http://www.jameson245.com/doc1of2.htm

IME there is no shortage of folks that will lie to you with a straight face.

 

[BStrong]

I entirely disagree with you. Many murders are open and shut cases, and they often involve murder for life insurance money. Those murders are not difficult murders. Other murders like the Jeffrey MacDonald case, or the JonBenet Ramsey case, or even the Darlie Routier case, are difficult murders because they are difficult to detect. There are no forensics in those sort of cases like DNA or fingerprints.

The trigger happy American police have been proved to have made mistakes with regard to murders in the past. I admit it's not just the American police either.

Murdered individual in the home with no solid evidence of intruder(s) isn't exactly a Gordian knot.

 

[BStrong]

I can feel myself being prejudiced against the intruder theory by the fact that Henri believes in it.

However - if it was inside job, how do you explain the missing roll of tape and why was she garotted while still alive?

The parents weren't criminals by nature or inclination as far as it can be determined, sand master mind criminals only exist in popular fiction.

Folks in panic mode make all kinds of mistakes, and I seriously doubt the actions taken came about as the result of careful deliberation and detailed planning..

 

[Bob001]

...
From what I understand, JonBenet's doctor found no evidence of any abuse. If it was happening, you'd expect some sort marks.
...

Not sexual abuse. Extreme harassment, including hitting her with a golf club and smearing feces around her room.

 

[Strawberry]

The parents weren't criminals by nature or inclination as far as it can be determined, sand master mind criminals only exist in popular fiction.

Folks in panic mode make all kinds of mistakes, and I seriously doubt the actions taken came about as the result of careful deliberation and detailed planning..

How do either of those two things look like a mistake?? If the Ramseys did it, getting rid of the duct tape was the opposite of a mistake, and whoever did it, garotting her wasn't a mistake it was the method of murder.

 

[Segnosaur]

However - if it was inside job, how do you explain the missing roll of tape and why was she garotted while still alive?

The parents weren't criminals by nature or inclination as far as it can be determined, sand master mind criminals only exist in popular fiction.

That still doesn't answer the question... what happened to the roll of tape. The fact that the Ramseys were "not criminal master minds" doesn't answer the question.

Folks in panic mode make all kinds of mistakes, and I seriously doubt the actions taken came about as the result of careful deliberation and detailed planning..

So, these parents who, by all accounts dote on their daughter, get so far into panic mode that their inclination is to strangle their still living daughter rather than get her medical help.

Yet these same parents that were so prone to panic are also able to sit down and compose a ransom note (which, while rather lengthy and rambling, does show at least some thought), stage a break in (including destroying evidence), and were able to spend both the rest of the morning (before the body was found) and the subsequent weeks/months without somehow breaking down and confessing.

Its this dual nature of the Ramseys that many of us find so perplexing.... being both over-the-top hysterical at one point, then cold blooded and calm when it suits them.

Murdered individual in the home with no solid evidence of intruder(s) isn't exactly a Gordian knot.

Except of course there was evidence. You just choose to ignore it.

DNA under the fingernails, missing roll of tape (which would have to have left the house somehow) are the most solid pieces. Other things (boot print in the basement, language in the ransom note more akin to a younger male than a middle-aged woman, unlocked door) are less solid, but still point to an intruder.

 

[Henri McPhee]

Not sexual abuse. Extreme harassment, including hitting her with a golf club and smearing feces around her room.

There is nothing new about these false accusations against Burke, or about that golf club incident. When Prince William was a child at school he was involved in some kind of golf club accident. The boy who hit him was never charged with attempted murder. The JonBenet forums have been full of 'Burke did it' postings for years.

The point is that nobody in the Boulder Police Department, or Boulder DA's office, has ever suggested Burke did it. Even Steve Thomas with his 'Patsy did it' theory without facts, and who wrote a book about it, has said publicly in the past that Burke didn't do it.

It strikes me this is just another FBI media campaign to deflect attention from the real culprits in the JonBenet case, who were involved in a child sex ring. The same sort of FBI media campaign happened in the Jeffrey MacDonald case, which led to a gross miscarriage of justice. The American public are very credulous.

There is some background to this from some sort of romper.com website:

"When asked for comment regarding public scrutiny Burke Ramsey has faced, and will face with the resurfacing of the case, the family's attorney, L. Lin Wood, had the following to say:

In May of 1999, the Boulder District Attorney and the Boulder Police Department publicly confirmed that Burke Ramsey was not a suspect or even a possible suspect. Any statement conveying that this young man was involved in the brutal murder of his sister - his life's best friend - is unquestionable false and defamatory. Conveying this false accusation for TV ratings is unconscionable and will result in litigation in the future as it has in the past. There is no legitimate journalistic or First Amendment value in broadcasting false accusations against Burke.

Suspicion fell onto the Ramsey family because, allegedly, only John, Patsy, Burke, and JonBenét were in their home at the time of the young girl's death. Burke has never spoken to the media about his sister's death, which makes sense – he was only 9 years old at the time, and, according to statements given by his father to Barbara Walters, his parents wanted to shield him from allegations that he had committed the crime, either accidentally or purposefully.

Since, in these types of unsolved cases, everyone puts on their amateur detective caps, here are several prominent but also entirely unproven theories alleging that Burke Ramsey was involved in his sister's death. No one was ever charged in the JonBenét Ramsey case, and Burke Ramsey was never a suspect........."

 

[William Parcher]

That still doesn't answer the question... what happened to the roll of tape. The fact that the Ramseys were "not criminal master minds" doesn't answer the question.

They may have hidden it. If a Ramsey applied that tape to JonBenet as a form of staging then they would probably want to hide or dispose of the remainder of the roll.

 

[fuelair]

First of all, do you have any proof that all (or even a significant majority) of police forces label items like flashlights? I can certainly see them doing so for things like guns/tasers, but a harmless and relatively low cost item like a flashlight would seem like unnecessary overkill for many police forces.
Secondly, this illustrates a major problem with the whole "insider theory"... the Ramseys are smart enough to realize "The flashlight may have evidence... we have to sterilize it", but somehow aren't smart enough to realize that it would also look suspicious to not dispose of the writing pad. Or if they are getting rid of evidence like the roll of tape, why not get rid of the flashlight while they're at it?


Still a problem, because the flashlight (if it indeed belonged to the Ramseys) would be in a different room that the train materials. You'd have to come up with a plausible scenario to explain how Burke would have had easy access to both. (Not to mention a scenario that would get her to the basement in the first place.)


Granted, Dr. Phil isn't exactly a paragon of moral virtue, but given some of the information presented by CBS (As described here) appears to be absolute bunk, I wouldn't exactly say CBS has the high ground either.

The 'stun gun' theory was originally put forward by Lou Smit, a retired police detective who was asked to investigate the case by the District Attourney. Smitt had a very solid reputation, having worked on many high profile cases. He should have adequate knowledge to identify the marks that would be left by a stun gun.

And stun guns can leave marks on the skin, perhaps not in all cases, but it does happen.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12762539

Or: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/searching-the-stun-gun-theory/
Dr. Michael Dobersen, a stun gun expert and coroner for neighboring Arapahoe County, also believes the marks on JonBenet were left by a stun gun. To prove it, he used one on the skin of an anesthetized pig. "The marks are similar in size, shape and color and are a certain distance apart," he says.

Once again... evidence shows that JonBenet was still alive when the garrot was used. If Burke did hit JonBenet and contributed to her death, not only would the parents have to act to cover up the murder, they would have to strangle their still living daughter as part of the cover up, rather than actually getting her medical attention.

re: para 1, the flashlights used by most departments are generally high quality, able to dent a head without breaking or ceasing to work and not giantly expensive but definitely not cheap. And, yes they would be marked if department issued - regulations from purchasing tend to require that of issue equipment. I cannot say for absolute certain that this was the case in that police department at that time but I strongly suspect that it was.

 

[Segnosaur]

That still doesn't answer the question... what happened to the roll of tape.

They may have hidden it.

The police (once they realized that it was a crime scene) would have done a complete search of the house, in fine detail, in the search for evidence. No tape roll was found.

If he hid it, he hid it in another dimension.

If a Ramsey applied that tape to JonBenet as a form of staging then they would probably want to hide or dispose of the remainder of the roll.

First of all, why would he need to? Everyone knows that tape was used on JonBenet. Finding the roll next to the body would not have implicated the Ramseys since an intruder could have simply left the roll behind after the crime. Its significant that it was missing because it shows it would have had to be taken from the house.

Secondly, you now have the inconsistency... the Ramseys are competent enough to hide a roll of tape so that it can't be found by the cops during a search, but they leave behind both the writing pad, AND the flashlight (assuming it was relevant for the case).