I was just reading a detective novel and it mentioned a flashlight heavy enough to use as a weapon and it got my wheels turning.<P>First of all, unless I am mistaken, the Ramsey's did not know if that flashlight was their's or not. Is that correct? If that is correct, I have a real problem with that. Even if one of my kids drags something in the house from the garage I always recognize it; even if it's "ohhhhh, ya, I forgot about that thing."<P>Even it's theirs or it isn't. How can they not know?<P>Second of all, personally I always buy cheap flashlights (under $10). So I was wondering what kind of person owns a heavy cop-style flashlight?<P>Someone who camps a lot? Someone whose job requires one, like a cop or a plumber or a pest control person? Who else?<P>Does the average Joe have one?

My dad owns 2 of those types of flashlights and he would definitly know if it was his or not. But you never know, I'm sure they had alot of stuff so it is hard to determine if they owned it or not. I could be wrong...

We have 2 large ones and I think a small one as well. <P>We got the first when my oldest was about 13 and he thought they were really "cool." Don't remember why we got the others. I couldn't tell ours from anyone elses. We also have a basket of junk flashlights. Of all our flashlights the only one I really like is the one that plugs into the wall so it's batteries are always charged.

>My dad owns 2 of those types <BR>>of flashlights and he would definitly <BR>>know if it was his or <BR>>not. But you never know, I'm <BR>>sure they had alot of stuff <BR>>so it is hard to determine <BR>>if they owned it or not. <BR>>I could be wrong... <P>in the suitcase thread? It showed storage shelves on both sides of where the photographer was at. They'd had their older boy living there at one time and it could've been his so they probably didn't know.<P>However, I've always wondered if it WAS from the perp, couldn't they have gotten SOME prints off of it?<P>Good places to look on a flashlight. <BR>1 - anything smooth on the outside. I'm sure the perp thought of that.<BR>2 - batteries - if the batteries were out of the flashlight then the perp thought of that too.<BR>3 - inside on the back of the reflector where you might touch it to get the bulb out if you ever had to replace it - did anyone check that?<BR>4 - the bulb itself. Ever replace a flashlight bulb without touching it? I wonder if they checked that?<P>And of course, WHY did the perp leave the flashlight THERE? Was there any indication that it had been used to create the blow to her head? I read that it did not, so why leave it there? Some I beleive have suggested that the flashlight had nothing to do with the crime and that it was left there as a part of the symbolism, not that I understand it. So we have it that this flashlight appears in the kitchen in the morning, supposedly (from what I remember) it had been taken apart and washed off. So this perp runs water in the house at night. Water running in the pipes can be heard from whatever location there are other pipes. Did the perp not know that, or did he not think about it, or did he not care? Seems like this perp felt comfortable in the house. Why?<P>If someone had come downstairs when he was washing the flashlight (if I did indeed read that right - however, it may have said "cleaned" rather than "washed") who would they have seen? Would they have seen someone they knew, or someone they'd never seen before?<P>These people who creep in the night have got to be really strange when they could be inside a nice coffee shop with other people enjoying the night instead.

yeah, maybe you know how many you have, exactly where they are and when you last changed the batteries, but most people do not.<P>They all look pretty much the same, no particular identifying marks; maybe its their flashlight, maybe not. They don't know.<BR>

>yeah, maybe you know how many you <BR>>have, exactly where they are and <BR>>when you last changed the batteries, <BR>>but most people do not. <BR>>They all look pretty much the same, <BR>>no particular identifying marks; maybe its <BR>>their flashlight, maybe not. They don't <BR>>know. <BR> <BR>I figured you'd say something like that. Actually I don't know where very much is around here (I'm not very organized). The point is that once someone says "Looky here" I'd say "oh, ya". How do you forget it's yours? SOMEONE had to PURCHASE it!<P>

Okay, go find one of your flashlights and then ask yourself: if someone had snuck into your home and switched flashlights with you the night before would you really know it or not?<BR>Are there any unique identifying characteristics?<BR>

>Okay, go find one of your flashlights <BR>>and then ask yourself: if someone <BR>>had snuck into your home and <BR>>switched flashlights with you the night <BR>>before would you really know it <BR>>or not? Are there any unique <BR>>identifying characteristics?<P>I would know whether or not it was one of our flashlights because Lil Bud has made it his goal to "test" his magic markers on the lens. <P>But IF the flashlight was identical and escaped Lil Bud's markings on the lens, then no ... I would not know whether or not the flashlight was mine.<P><BR>

I thought that the Ramsey's didn't know if it was their's or not. No one ever said (that I know of) that "yes, we have one identical to it, but don't know if it is this very one."<P>Is it the case that they had an identical one?

<center><font size="1" color="#ff0000">LAST EDITED ON Jul-22-02 AT 10:20 PM (EST)</font></center><p>doesn't bring everone in the family at least one new Mag flashlight for Christmas...varying sizes, it's just not Christmas...... Mag flashlights are also the gift of choice for males one doesn't know well.....but in our family the women and kids have their fair share as well..... <P>but i wouldn't have clue if one "found" was truely ours or not.....

Maglight - heavy duty.<P>the Ramseys owned one, but they didn't think the one left on the counter was theirs as that one was dirty and they thought theiirs was really new looking and clean.<P>I don't believe the Ramseys ever saw the actual flashlight but photos of it - - they weren't shown the evidence - - only photos.<P>Could you make a positive ID off a photograph?<P>The BPD wasn't making things easy.

>The BPD wasn't making things easy. <BR>No, just the opposite. For a reason!<P><BR>

I recall the BPD was unable to find the flashlight for a rather long period - maybe a year, or so. I've always thought that was a bit odd, considering it was a leading candidate for the "blunt instrument" used in the murder.

The BPD never fessed up to the situation involving its having 'gone missing' and then being 'found' in the place it was supposed to be all along.<P>To some, it does not seem sufficient to be the instrument that delivered such a massive blow.

<a href="http://www.southwestpublicsafety.com/gensym-23.html";>http://www.southwestpublicsafety.com/gensym-23.html<;/a><P>After our infamous watermelon experiments I have no doubt that a maglite flashlight might have caused the injuries by someone with enough upper body strength. Mine is the rechargable type & is quite heavy. Also, it caused a similar spliting pattern to the autopsy photos. <P>I understand Patsy not being able to tell if it was their flashlight, they are all similar in appearance. <P>P.S. Hi Guppy!<P>

Don mentions that some think that the flashlight is not sturdy enough to deliver a massive blow. I once was one of those. After smashing coconuts (whose yield strength I measured/estimated to be somewhat less that human skull bone), I now am convinced that this type of flashlight (MagLite) is sturdy enough to deliver a massive blow to the skull. There was no damage at all to my MagLite after smashing several coconuts. I used the smaller end where the end cap reinforces the sturdiness of the edge (closed ring instead of open ring as at the lens end).<BR> <BR>

The advantages of experimentation. <BR>We learn from it.<P>Now that we know a maglite particularly if turned around and swung by the front so that the rear strikes the victim could have caused the skull damage, do we look for a scientifically aware, analytical type rather than 'neighborhood kids' or 'disgruntled employee'.<P>

Or should we look for a "police buff?" A rather large percentage (something like one-third) of serial killers are estimated to be police buffs.

The coconut experiments were the best I've read. Braveheart did some great research too. I recall Mrs.Dave & Mrs. B were vital parts of the experiments. Behind every great man...<P>The ransom note writer did mention being familiar with law enforcement counter measures. He liked movies & books dealing with kidnapping & worked them into the ransom note. Was this an effort to hide his "real" voice? If so, then the person must have some other written works he was afraid would be compared. <P>Police buff? Would that include collecting things like stun guns, badges, uniforms? <P>

Murder weapon, or not, I still think there is a reasonable possibility that one of the cops ran off with the Ramseys' flashlight and left a dirty one behind.

I also wonder if the flashlight currently in the BPD evidence locker is the same one that went missing for so long.

Then there is the reported lack of fingerprints on the batteries...

I suppose it could be just coincidence, but it would seem possible that the flashlight has been swapped or tampered with at some point since the night of the murder.

What cop would admit to accidentally leaving the scene of the latest "crime of the century" with the murder weapon thrown carelessly in his trunk? And, if that were the case, what cop wouldn't want to get his own flashlight back real fast?

>Murder weapon, or not, I still think there is a reasonable
>possibility that one of the cops ran off with the Ramseys'
>flashlight and left a dirty one behind.
Quite possibly, though I would tend to doubt it. I would certainly tend to doubt that the cop wore gloves when inserting the batteries into his flashlight so as to avoid leaving fingerprints.

>What cop would admit to . . .
The BPD would not.

LAST EDITED ON Aug-30-02 AT 00:34 AM (EST)
 
I have to believe that who(m)ever struck JonBenet that night removed the weapon from the scene. I asked myself early on whether the Ramseys would have left a flashlight out on the kitchen countertop if they had even used it to move around the house that night not to mention having used it as a weapon and the answer seemed obvious to me. Why even use a flashlight? That doesn't make sense. Light switches were everywhere-it would have been much more suspicious to move around in one's own house with only a flashlight wouldn't it have been? There were neighbors up between midnight and two am approximately. Wouldn't they have noticed this?

So that brings me to the next question: if the FL was supposedly the weapon used by who(m)ever WHY WOULD they have had it in their hands? An intruder would more likely have been the user of that type of artificial light not wanting to afford anyone out side the home a good look at them-thru the sw corner sun room-by leaving the lights on.

I had to come to the conclusion that the Maglight is heavy enough at 18 oz. (3-battery version) to do a lot of damage. Now if an intruder/murderer used a FL to move around the house and in a tense moment had to subdue a struggling child that was trying to scream, well yes, they might use what was at hand. But I don't see any reason for a parent to use one or have one in their hand. On the subject of child abuse I think most often the weapons used are fists/hands. Would the Ramsey's have used the FL as a weapon-accidently- then covered up the situation including wiping the entire case and batteries clean of prints and then forgotten to put it back up?

So even assuming the situation above I still have a problem with the way the skull fractured and the way the void in the skull is esentially a symetrical convex shape. I believe if we took this flashlight, either end, and pressed the edge into a "head-shaped" clay bust, the top edge of the impression formed would be slightly different fromn the bottom edge. In other words, if struck from the side with this object, the void in the skull would not be symetrical and the fracture lines would tend to radiate downward with the force of the blow.

The way the fracture line runs front to back makes me think the blow came from behind or in front, not the side, where the FL would have had to have been used.

If the crime scene had been highly "disorganized" I might buy the idea that the perp left it accidentally. But it is quite the opposite, everything here seems to have been planned out and, in my opinion, aimed at setting up the Ramseys. I have to believe that it was left out on purpose as a plant. This type of criminal, if he used a FL to kill the child, would have taken it with him and left one he was sure had nothing to tie him to the crime.

From the beginning, I have felt that we could determine the type of weapon used from the headwound and from that we might trace the killer. I have previously believed that a section of pipe might have been used but having seen the photos and xrays I pretty much have abandoned this idea-the void in the skull is too convex, too symetrical.

Back in February, I came across something that really stood out as being something that would qualify as the device that would produce this type of wound-no blood, tearing of flesh, no sharp edges, heavy-weighted at the end, etc. I am going to repost what I posted that time as I don't believe it got the attention it deserves. Regardless of how improbable it seems to you at first glance, study the wound and study the weapon-then if you think it could be the thing used then ask yourself why?

I believe this fellow was anti-high tech, a "naturalist"/outdoors person. A person who had studied the damage done by this device in history might have picked it as low tech way of baffling investigators.

http://www.brierlys.com/page39.htm

Has two tomahawks (not the metal ones) similar to the one I saw, "C", "E" And by the way, Brierlys is located in Georgetown, Colorado

http://www.frontieramericana.com/iteminfo.cfm?ItemNumber=L1075

This one is way more pointed than the one I am describing, but this shows how polished and smooth they can be.

http://www.foutztrade.com/views/itemdetail.asp?IV=180
Getting close!

17 . "A Tomahawk?"
Posted by BraveHeart on Feb-25-02 at 02:22 AM (EST)

(LAST EDITED ON Aug-29-02)

Earlier this evening I spent about an hour at a coffee shop, reading. It was one of those places where antiques are nailed all over the walls and ceilings. As I prepared to leave, I noticed a tomahawk fastened to the wall near my table. I have included a link to a sketch I made of it.

http://b.heart.50megs.com/ramsey/tomahawk.htm

The stone looked very heavy and was completely smooth all around. The end was somewhat narrowed and brought to a slight edge. It seemed to be the type of thing that could crush a skull without tearing the scalp. The end of the thing looked like it could make a convex shaped void in a skull completely pulverizing it.

Please take a look at the sketch. Some of you Indian experts (Snapple?) might tell us if anything like this could be found around Colorado (Brierly's!) or if you can find some info on what kind of injury these things caused in the old west.

Dave: Try this on your coconuts! Looks like it wouldn't take a lot of strength to make this hurt someone.