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."

Even it's theirs or it isn't. How can they not know?

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?

Someone who camps a lot? Someone whose job requires one, like a cop or a plumber or a pest control person? Who else?

Does the average Joe have one?

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.

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.

However, I've always wondered if it WAS from the perp, couldn't they have gotten SOME prints off of it?

Good places to look on a flashlight.
1 - anything smooth on the outside. I'm sure the perp thought of that.
2 - batteries - if the batteries were out of the flashlight then the perp thought of that too.
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?
4 - the bulb itself. Ever replace a flashlight bulb without touching it? I wonder if they checked that?

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?

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?

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.

They all look pretty much the same, no particular identifying marks; maybe its their flashlight, maybe not. They don't know.

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.

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.

Is it the case that they had an identical one?

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.....

but i wouldn't have clue if one "found" was truely ours or not.....

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.

I don't believe the Ramseys ever saw the actual flashlight but photos of it - - they weren't shown the evidence - - only photos.

Could you make a positive ID off a photograph?

The BPD wasn't making things easy.

To some, it does not seem sufficient to be the instrument that delivered such a massive blow.

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.

I understand Patsy not being able to tell if it was their flashlight, they are all similar in appearance.

P.S. Hi Guppy!

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'.

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.

Police buff? Would that include collecting things like stun guns, badges, uniforms?

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?

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

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.

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.