has this case been discussed in comparison?

[Shylock]

Smit said the fibers from JonBenet's clothing were on the ITEMS in the suitcase.

Remember that Smit thinks and talks like a hick with an 8th grade education.

"There were items in that suitcase which contained fibers which were found on the outside of the clothing of JonBenét."

Just what DOES that mean? It could go either way. Were COMMON fibers found on the items in the suitcase and JB's clothing? OR were fibers from the construction of the suitcase items found on her clothing?

Someone should email Smit and ask him what he seen.....LOL

 

[TLynn]

If the intruder had pulled out the items in the suitcase to put JonBenet in - do you really think he'd take the time to put them back into the suitcase?!

True, if she were going to be put in the suitcase, they would take the items out - but who'd put them back in?

Also, it's quite possible, as Bluecrab suggests, JonBenet was on the blanket and then the blanket was put into the suitcase.

The theory of an intruder putting JonBenet in the suitcase and then gave up because it didn't fit through the window makes no sense -- there were plenty of exits in that house.

 

[Arielle]

I just had a weird thought while reading this thread. What if JonBenet had been placed in the suitcase and as "whoever did it" tried to lift the suitcase out the window (up the stairs, or wherever), the suitcase came open and she tumbled out, thus hitting her head on something (hard enough to crack her skull). This would possibly explain why she was not removed in the suitcase (because it wouldn't stay shut with her inside) and was left in the house afterall. This works for either an intruder or a family member who wished to take the body out of the house. It does not address the excellent point of somebody taking the time to put the things back into the suitcase, presumably folding them as well. I agree, that if this were done, it points more to a family member than an intruder.

 

[candy]

That program was on the Dowaliby case and it was on A & E. I saw it too.
It's a mirror image of the Ramsey case. Unsurprisingly, Ramsey lawyer Mike Bynum used the Dowaliby case to put the fear of God into the Boulder DA's office from ever charging the Ramseys:
http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/extra/ramsey/0809jon.htm

Cutter knew a lot about the Dowaliby case and always believed like the police and DA's office that the parents were still the perps, even though they got off just like the Aisenbergs. In all three cases, (Dowaliby, Aisenberg, Ramsey) an "intruder "has never been found.

Like the Aisenberg case, I applaud the Chicago police for trying to bring justice for the victim by charging the only suspects ever the parents. Even if they got off later, it's better than never charging the ONLY suspects ever.

 

[BlueCrab]

Thank you TLynn and Arielle. It doesn't make much sense for the killer to have put JonBenet into the suitcase, and the fiber evidence also suggests it didn't happen that way.

The fiber evidence more strongly suggests JonBenet had been lying on the comforter or had been wrapped in the comforter. IMO she had been lying on it.

Killers don't spread comforters on the floor to kill their victims. The comforter was more likely placed on the basement floor for consensual sex or for forced sexual assault. The Dr. Seuss book in the suitcase suggests it wasn't the first time JonBenet had seen the contents of the suitcase.

JMO

 

[little1]

Hi, txsvicki.

Are you referring to the Dowaliby case? If you are, then yes, the case has been compared to the JonBenet case and discussed here at WS. On the surface, there are some similiarities between that case and the JonBenet case.

In each case, the victim's parents and brother are the only other people besides the victim known to have been in the house when the victim was taken from her bed.

In both cases, law enforcement suspected the parents.

JonBenet and Jaclyn were both sexually assaulted and strangled.

But...

Jaclyn's vaginal injuries were apparently far worse than JonBenet's, which were minimal and thought to have been caused by digital penetration or from the broken handle of an art brush. I seem to recall reading (or hearing) that Jaclyn was strangled manually, not with a ligature as JonBenet was. Also, Jaclyn's skull wasn't fractured, though JonBenet's was.

Only in the JonBenet case was there a "ransom note." (A link to Patsy Ramsey's handwriting exemplars can be found at the bottom of Shylock's posts. It's obvious to many of us here that Patsy penned the note.)

JonBenet's body was found in the basement of her home only hours after her death, whereas Jaclyn Dowaliby's body was found in a field several miles from her home, four days after her disappearance.

~~~~~

Based only on flimsy evidence (a broken basement window thought to have been broken from the inside and a wacko witness who said he recognized the possible perp's nose as being Jaclyn's step father's), David Dowaliby, Jaclyn's step father, was tried and convicted for her murder in 1990. He was exonerated after having served 18 months in prison. No one else has ever been charged with Jaclyn's murder. Some people still believe that one or both of the Dowalibys are guilty.

IMO

I thought the police could not verify a cause of death, and I thought they could not say fro sure wehter or not she was sexually assaulted due to the decomposition of her body??

 

[little1]

And just what is your vision SS? You somehow manage to post over and over again with no real theories or quotes from any of the books on JB? Do you own any of the books? Have you read them?

Books don't really make that much of a difference. One could read many different versions of the death.

 

[SisterSocks]

That's because there is no room for "fencesitters."

Blue fibers from inside the suitcase were consistent with fibers found on JonBenet. It's quite possible they tried to put her in the suitcase to get her out of the house. It's really not tunnel vision at all - just following the clues.

Tlynn. Are you saying that Fence sitters should not post?

Not have an opinion ?

Come on, get past it.


In my view you have lots of vision problems with this case--- Fibers are not .


Have a good day ,
Thanks for replying.

Socks

 

[SisterSocks]

You may be right. But there is no way to know what John's involvement in the cover up was. That was my point. John might have tried to get the body out of the house in the suitcase as part of the staging.

N0 way John covered up..... Patsy maybe for burke or JAR ---But not John.
MHO
Socks

 

[SisterSocks]

Books don't really make that much of a difference. One could read many different versions of the death.

Thank you Little 1 :blowkiss:
Toltec hates me he has been attacking me for years. He thinks I have no vision....

 

[TLynn]

Actually, Sistersocks, I replied last night - but I don't see it. Not as much energy today. (Sorry, if I posted somewhere else or don't see it.)

Let's just say - I have NEVER felt someone shouldn't post and yes, I have an opinion after six years or so of following this case and respect other opinions as well.

Tunnel vision is not an appropriate word for someone who is trying to develop a theory from "clues" as I believe Ivy's first post was about. Fence sitting when specifically addressing an element is (IMO) not forming an opinion.

Take the fibers being found on JonBenet being consistent with those in the suitcase and try to define an opinion and/or theory about it. That's what I meant about no room for fence sitters - which seems to be ignoring evidence because you want to "fence sit." That, to me, is tunnel vision.

Thank you -

 

[little1]

Thank you Little 1 :blowkiss:
Toltec hates me he has been attacking me for years. He thinks I have no vision....

It's cool, I don't post on this board much, but the similarities between these 2 crimes made me stop and think.

Books are great (I personally have about 276 that I read over and over again--don't ask me why I counted them, I needed more bookshelve space and went off on a tangent) I have a few books on this case myself--from ALL angles. Reading them all, and many of the posts here has shown me that anyone can take legitimate facts and base them on their theory of what happened.