The Suitcase - Duvet, Sham & Dr. Suess

[dodie20]

[/B]

Great question! If the suitcase was being used regularly by JAR to transport items back and forth from the dorm to the house, then the house to Atlanta, and back again, why would JR, who said he assumed the suitcase was empty, have taken it to the basement? You would think he might want to leave it handy for JAR to use again when he came back from Christmas break to gather up things to take back to the dorm.

Then, let's ask this: Did JAR bring home a soiled duvet from the dorm, set the suitcase in the laundry area, expecting the housekeeper to check thru it, and then wash the comforter for him and replace it back into the suitcase? If that was a pattern, it would explain why it was in the laundry area on the second floor. But then, all the more reason NOT to move the suitcase to the basement, rather you would think it would be kept there to reload with the clean bedding, and then set back into the bedroom for JAR to pick up when going back to school.

Better yet, if JR had moved the suitcase 3 months earlier, as was stated in one of his interviews, and it still had a duvet in it that was soiled, wouldn't JAR have looked for his dorm comforter by then? Why would he bring home a soiled comforter, if not to wash it, planning to take it back to the dorm? If he wasn't going to use it again, and planned to just replace it with a new one (which is what he would have had to do since 3 months had gone by), wouldn't he just have trashed it at school??

Also, JAR must not have worried about using the suitcase again to take back and forth to Atlanta over the holidays. JR claimed to have moved it 3 months prior to the crime, and since it was found in the train room, JAR must have been using alternative luggage for his travels. He must have brought home the soiled duvet from his dorm room, decided to replace the soiled one with a new one, and never gave another thought to his old one being shuffled off to the basement in his suitcase that he also decided he'd never have to use again anyway.

I think I remember JR saying that the suitcase started out in JAR's room and then at some point, wound up in the laundry room. He supposedly then moved it to the basement in order to clean up. So, (and I'll have to check), if JR did say that the case started out in JAR's room, why Didn't he just move it the few inches back to JAR's room? instead of down flights of stairs and into a dank basement. People take care of good luggage, (and a samsonite is the good stuff), and it normally goes in a bedroom closet. And I still don't understand why JR wouldn't have 'borrowed' it for the cruise. It was a nice, upscale piece of luggage, just the sort of thing he would like for his image. I bought my brother and his wife a set of vintage samsonite, and even that stuff goes for over a hundred dollars a piece. moo

 

[Nom de plume]

I've never read JR's books either, just can't stand the thought of helping him make money off of JB's death. But with that said, IMO, if I want to be informed of his own words, I really Should read his books, kwim? But, in interviews, I see 2 different JR's. 1, the stuttering, disingenuous, backtracking JR, and 2, the prepared statement, soundbight JR. I have never seen relaxed, open, honest JR. IDK how he conducted business, but IMO, there was a lot of luck involved in his success. . If he was as genius and skillful as has been portrayed, he would have continued on in the computer world. Business isn't personal and I think him saying that JB's murder made him unemployable is a cop-out. So, in other words, I think JR conducted business in the same way he has conducted himself where JonBenet is concerned, and IMO, THAT's why he became virtually unemployable. moo

BBM That, along with not wanting to hear them/him play the victim card, is why I never read them. If I decide to read either of them I will be checking out a copy at the library. I will not give that lizard lipped weasel :twocents: of my money!

 

[UKGuy]

Remember there was another trip planned right after they got home from Charlevoix. I think it very likely she was simultaneously packing for BOTH because there wasn't going to be time to pack for the Disney cruise. Also, there would have to be different kinds of clothing packed- Charlevoix in December would be very cold. But the Disney cruise involved warm weather and swimsuits.
Patsy said she only used plastic bags for the Charlevoix trip in the small plane. But she said she used suitcases for the other trip.

DeeDee249,
Agreed, but from Patsy's answers I thought she wanted to avoid discussion around the suitcases.


.

 

[UKGuy]

I think I remember JR saying that the suitcase started out in JAR's room and then at some point, wound up in the laundry room. He supposedly then moved it to the basement in order to clean up. So, (and I'll have to check), if JR did say that the case started out in JAR's room, why Didn't he just move it the few inches back to JAR's room? instead of down flights of stairs and into a dank basement. People take care of good luggage, (and a samsonite is the good stuff), and it normally goes in a bedroom closet. And I still don't understand why JR wouldn't have 'borrowed' it for the cruise. It was a nice, upscale piece of luggage, just the sort of thing he would like for his image. I bought my brother and his wife a set of vintage samsonite, and even that stuff goes for over a hundred dollars a piece. moo

dodie20,
I doubt it was vacation time three months back? Why would JR deliberately move someone elses belongings to a location where they could not find them again?

If JAR had moved the sutcase fine, but JR, he of no house-work, the CEO etc, whats he doing?

It follows from JR's explanation that JAR had to find another suitcase, duvet and pillow etc.

I reckon the samonsite is connected to the death of JonBenet, even if its only that to use the samonsite was eventually rejected, because they went for a kidnapping.

Actually maybe they intended to place JonBenet in the samsonite and leave her in the wine-cellar with the samonsite acting as a staging ruse to suggest an intruder was on his way out of the house?


.

 

[dodie20]

dodie20,
I doubt it was vacation time three months back? Why would JR deliberately move someone elses belongings to a location where they could not find them again?

If JAR had moved the sutcase fine, but JR, he of no house-work, the CEO etc, whats he doing?

It follows from JR's explanation that JAR had to find another suitcase, duvet and pillow etc.

I reckon the samonsite is connected to the death of JonBenet, even if its only that to use the samonsite was eventually rejected, because they went for a kidnapping.

Actually maybe they intended to place JonBenet in the samsonite and leave her in the wine-cellar with the samonsite acting as a staging ruse to suggest an intruder was on his way out of the house?


.

I think the suitcase was involved in the crime somehow, because after re-reading some interviews, it seems that LE was very interested in that particular suitcase along with the other cases and bags, and with who packed what and where everything was located. And speaking of suitcases, I wonder what JR meant by this statement.

TT: Okay. What kind of, what type of, you just carried a little small bath kid, shaving kit I guess; uh, how big of a suitcase does Patsy carry for the kids and herself?

JR: Oh, I don’t remember, I remember there were some suitcases sitting out by the back stairs, uh usually it’s three of them, bags.

So, PR couldn't really remember what she packed their stuff in, but here JR is talking about 3 suitcases by the back stairs? or was he talking about 3 bags?

 

[dodie20]

just curious. Were all of these suitcases and bags accounted for? I guess the plane and airport were checked, along with the house, cars, garage. What about JR's 'dock' kit? Was it located?

 

[Chrishope]

What’s important about the suitcase is that JR says it was not normally kept there, but he only says this months later at the police interviews. If it was really suspicious why didn’t he tell patrol officers/detectives on the scene the morning the 911 call was made? JR also claims to have found the broken window slightly open, and that he closed it when he first went down the basement that morning. But again, he fails to mention this to officers at the crime scene, mentioning it only months later.


Another important thing about the suitcase is there was a small piece of glass on top of it. FW says that he himself placed the glass on it. That means that if we give credence to JR’s story about breaking in months earlier, the glass had not been cleaned up well. This is a room where the kids play, and the family has a housekeeper. To me that makes the story about breaking in months prior highly suspicious. I’d expect the glass to be completely swept up.

As DeeDee points “The whole package- duvet/book/suitcase in the basement LOOKS like a portable child-molestation kit. But there is simply no way to tie it to the crime UNLESS there is definite, proven evidence - like the duvet fibers on her shirt, or even MORE - if the dark fibers on her pubic area were tested against the duvet or JR's shirt or navy terry bathrobe found in the den (odd place for a robe). Unless this testing was done, there is simply no way to link the suitcase, duvet or book to the crime.”

This is really the bottom line. Talking about the suitcase and it’s content can keep everyone occupied for days on end, but it cannot help solve the crime.

 

[dodie20]

What’s important about the suitcase is that JR says it was not normally kept there, but he only says this months later at the police interviews. If it was really suspicious why didn’t he tell patrol officers/detectives on the scene the morning the 911 call was made? JR also claims to have found the broken window slightly open, and that he closed it when he first went down the basement that morning. But again, he fails to mention this to officers at the crime scene, mentioning it only months later.


Another important thing about the suitcase is there was a small piece of glass on top of it. FW says that he himself placed the glass on it. That means that if we give credence to JR’s story about breaking in months earlier, the glass had not been cleaned up well. This is a room where the kids play, and the family has a housekeeper. To me that makes the story about breaking in months prior highly suspicious. I’d expect the glass to be completely swept up.

As DeeDee points “The whole package- duvet/book/suitcase in the basement LOOKS like a portable child-molestation kit. But there is simply no way to tie it to the crime UNLESS there is definite, proven evidence - like the duvet fibers on her shirt, or even MORE - if the dark fibers on her pubic area were tested against the duvet or JR's shirt or navy terry bathrobe found in the den (odd place for a robe). Unless this testing was done, there is simply no way to link the suitcase, duvet or book to the crime.”

This is really the bottom line. Talking about the suitcase and it’s content can keep everyone occupied for days on end, but it cannot help solve the crime.

I'm not sure the suitcase or contents can't help solve the crime. Information is coming out now, so who knows what will be next? In the past months we've been told about the feces covered chocolate and the grand jury vote for starters. IMO, JR probably got comfortable, (comfortable enough to write another book anyway), but right now, he should be shaking in his boots. IMO, his victim status is going to come crashing down. ML's 'exoneration' has been completely debunked and that exoneration along with the grand jury voting 'not' to indict, were his legs to stand on. And they were pretty strong legs, But now, those legs have been knocked out from under him. What next? Also, discussing this case, (even if it is redundant), is 1 of the things that keeps this case alive. If the public didn't care, this case might just fade away because the pressure for the truth wouldn't be there.

 

[Darlene733510]

I have to wonder what JR's new wife is thinking about all of this? I am sure she has asked a few questions. I wonder if he's back on the Prozak again?

 

[midwest mama]

What’s important about the suitcase is that JR says it was not normally kept there, but he only says this months later at the police interviews. If it was really suspicious why didn’t he tell patrol officers/detectives on the scene the morning the 911 call was made? JR also claims to have found the broken window slightly open, and that he closed it when he first went down the basement that morning. But again, he fails to mention this to officers at the crime scene, mentioning it only months later.


Another important thing about the suitcase is there was a small piece of glass on top of it. FW says that he himself placed the glass on it. That means that if we give credence to JR’s story about breaking in months earlier, the glass had not been cleaned up well. This is a room where the kids play, and the family has a housekeeper. To me that makes the story about breaking in months prior highly suspicious. I’d expect the glass to be completely swept up.

As DeeDee points “The whole package- duvet/book/suitcase in the basement LOOKS like a portable child-molestation kit. But there is simply no way to tie it to the crime UNLESS there is definite, proven evidence - like the duvet fibers on her shirt, or even MORE - if the dark fibers on her pubic area were tested against the duvet or JR's shirt or navy terry bathrobe found in the den (odd place for a robe). Unless this testing was done, there is simply no way to link the suitcase, duvet or book to the crime.”

This is really the bottom line. Talking about the suitcase and it’s content can keep everyone occupied for days on end, but it cannot help solve the crime.

You would think, if no other fibers were tested (except we know they were) that ANY fibers from JB's pubic area were either tested or kept in evidence and COULD be tested at any time against any of the articles taken into evidence. Why would that not have been done, or be something BPD might want to do in order to pursue new arrest charges?

Maybe under a FOIA, since the GJ vote has been publicized, there will be more disclosure of fiber evidence already on file. For now, all we can go on is the report that CBI determined there were fibers on her shirt that matched the duvet, and that it was reported the FBI disagreed, even though Steve Thomas said he had never heard that the findings were debunked by the FBI.

The possibility of duvet fibers on JB's shirt suggests the contents of the suitcase might have been involved in the crime, and if so, figuring out WHEN and HOW provide more pieces for the jigsaw puzzle of truth.

 

[Tadpole12]

Heyya dodie,


JR is going on 70 now,
I was wondering how/if his demise
would affect accessibility of info, ie FOI.

 

[dodie20]

I have to wonder what JR's new wife is thinking about all of this? I am sure she has asked a few questions. I wonder if he's back on the Prozak again?

I wouldn't be surprised to hear that she never asks questions, because I can't imagine JR marrying someone that asks for details or points out discrepancies. He probably prefers a woman who appreciates his 'need' for quiet solitude and and Christian contemplation. I would like to know if he told her about the grand jury or if she found out with the rest of us.

 

[dodie20]

Heyya dodie,


JR is going on 70 now,
I was wondering how/if his demise
would affect accessibility of info, ie FOI.

IDK, but I don't want to wait until he dies. 70's not really old anymore, (he's probably as healthy as a horse), and he might live for years and years. Even if he never goes to trial, I want the information made public, so the public can see the things he has done. And he should be here to see the public see. moo

 

[Chrishope]

The possibility of duvet fibers on JB's shirt suggests the contents of the suitcase might have been involved in the crime, and if so, figuring out WHEN and HOW provide more pieces for the jigsaw puzzle of truth.

No, because any time the top and the duvet were in the house at the same time the opportunity existed for innocent primary transfer, and for secondary transfer. The fiber evidence, if it exists, will be inconclusive.

 

[dodie20]

No, because any time the top and the duvet were in the house at the same time the opportunity existed for innocent primary transfer, and for secondary transfer. The fiber evidence, if it exists, will be inconclusive.

Not necessarily. A lot would depend on when JB's shirt was bought. It has been reported that the shirt was either new or relatively new. JR said he moved the suitcase months earlier. If LE managed to get a receipt of when the shirt was bought, and it was After JR claimed to have moved the suitcase, then this wouldn't look quite so innocent. I remember reading that LE went to a hardware or some store, trying to track down a receipt for the duct tape purchase, so IMO, they very likely went to the same trouble for JB's shirt. moo Or, if they have a statement from a witness as when to the shirt was bought, (LHP, maybe? or a friend who went on the shopping trip), then they would still have credible evidence. Not as good as a receipt, but good enough.

 

[dodie20]

The initial thought I have on why JBR's book might be in the suitcase is that she might have put it there herself. My daughter is 5 and loves to pack things up. I'm always finding spare backpacks, bags, suitcases with random things of hers (once she packed my purse full of her underwear! I didn't notice this until pulling out my wallet at the bank when underwear tumbled all over the bank floor). Especially if her family travelled often, she might look to "pack" a suitcase. If she "packed the suitcase" that day it could explain why her clothing fibers are on the duvet. If those aren't her clothing fibers, perhaps she "packed the suitcase" awhile ago.

This IS a good point because kids love to pack and play with suitcases. I've seen it with my own 2 eyes, and the stuff they pack can be random, depending on what game they're playing at the moment. But, the suitcase, according to JR, had been in the basement for months, and JB's shirt was supposedly at least semi new. Also, this was Christmas, so this shirt was winter wear, while 3 months earlier, she would have been playing in summer/fall clothes. And another thing. This was Christmas and they all got dressed up for a dinner party. Even though she didn't wear what PR picked out, I don't think she would have been allowed to wear older play type clothes. PR even remembered where the outfit was bought, (the Gap), so IMO, this was a nice, special occasion outfit. Also, if this suitcase had been in the basement for months, didn't the Rs or at least JAR, miss his duvet, sham, and most of all, the suitcase? I remember either PR or LHP, saying that JB didn't like playing in the basement because it scared her. So, if she was lugging bedding down to the basement that scared her, wouldn't somebody have noticed?

 

[Chrishope]

Not necessarily. A lot would depend on when JB's shirt was bought. It has been reported that the shirt was either new or relatively new. JR said he moved the suitcase months earlier. If LE managed to get a receipt of when the shirt was bought, and it was After JR claimed to have moved the suitcase, then this wouldn't look quite so innocent. I remember reading that LE went to a hardware or some store, trying to track down a receipt for the duct tape purchase, so IMO, they very likely went to the same trouble for JB's shirt. moo Or, if they have a statement from a witness as when to the shirt was bought, (LHP, maybe? or a friend who went on the shopping trip), then they would still have credible evidence. Not as good as a receipt, but good enough.

No. Sorry. It still does not work, unless the top was purchased the day of the murder, and even then it's questionable.

UKGuy, in a post upthread suggests the top was bought about 1 month prior to the murder. That means it could have been worn by JB at least a few times prior to the day of the murder.

We have no idea if the duvet had been in the suitcase for 3 months, 3 days, or even 3 hours prior to the murder. JB could well have been wearing the top 2 weeks prior and could well have been playing with the duvet, or simply laying upon the duvet. As the next post demonstrates, kids play with suitcases and their contents. JB could have played with the suitcase and it's contents, while wearing that top, a month prior, or the day of the murder, or anytime in between. We can't time stamp fiber evidence, so we can't say anything conclusive, even if the fiber evidence exists. And of course there is no reason to assume the fibers are there from primary transfer.

 

[UKGuy]

Not necessarily. A lot would depend on when JB's shirt was bought. It has been reported that the shirt was either new or relatively new. JR said he moved the suitcase months earlier. If LE managed to get a receipt of when the shirt was bought, and it was After JR claimed to have moved the suitcase, then this wouldn't look quite so innocent. I remember reading that LE went to a hardware or some store, trying to track down a receipt for the duct tape purchase, so IMO, they very likely went to the same trouble for JB's shirt. moo Or, if they have a statement from a witness as when to the shirt was bought, (LHP, maybe? or a friend who went on the shopping trip), then they would still have credible evidence. Not as good as a receipt, but good enough.

dodie20,
My understanding is that the White Gap Top was new, purchased locally in the Gap Store, search online for it.

Because it was new JonBenet wanted to dress wearing it to the White's. Patsy says this was a point of disagrement between her and JonBenet.

Now three months does not seem new to me, not even one month.

So regardless of the method of fiber transfer, there does appear to be an inconsistency with JR's version of events!

.

 

[UKGuy]

No. Sorry. It still does not work, unless the top was purchased the day of the murder, and even then it's questionable.

UKGuy, in a post upthread suggests the top was bought about 1 month prior to the murder. That means it could have been worn by JB at least a few times prior to the day of the murder.

We have no idea if the duvet had been in the suitcase for 3 months, 3 days, or even 3 hours prior to the murder. JB could well have been wearing the top 2 weeks prior and could well have been playing with the duvet, or simply laying upon the duvet. As the next post demonstrates, kids play with suitcases and their contents. JB could have played with the suitcase and it's contents, while wearing that top, a month prior, or the day of the murder, or anytime in between. We can't time stamp fiber evidence, so we can't say anything conclusive, even if the fiber evidence exists. And of course there is no reason to assume the fibers are there from primary transfer.

Chrishope,
The general assumption, as per Patsy, is that the White Gap Top was new on JonBenet the night of the White's party. It might be she was lying of course.


.

 

[dodie20]

No. Sorry. It still does not work, unless the top was purchased the day of the murder, and even then it's questionable.

UKGuy, in a post upthread suggests the top was bought about 1 month prior to the murder. That means it could have been worn by JB at least a few times prior to the day of the murder.

We have no idea if the duvet had been in the suitcase for 3 months, 3 days, or even 3 hours prior to the murder. JB could well have been wearing the top 2 weeks prior and could well have been playing with the duvet, or simply laying upon the duvet. As the next post demonstrates, kids play with suitcases and their contents. JB could have played with the suitcase and it's contents, while wearing that top, a month prior, or the day of the murder, or anytime in between. We can't time stamp fiber evidence, so we can't say anything conclusive, even if the fiber evidence exists. And of course there is no reason to assume the fibers are there from primary transfer.

maybe in an absolute proof theory, you're right, but we're talking about a totality of evidence, common sense, logic, and proof beyond a reasonable doubt, not proof beyond Any doubt. Yes, if JR's defense team was faced with this, they would come up with an 'doable' explanation, but if you add that doable explanation to another doable explanation, etc. and then combine them all against hard facts, IMO, a jury might not be so quick to disregard fibers, just because an explanation was in the realm of possibility. Anything besides hard science, (and there are attempts at this), can be explained away, but IMO, there is still a place in criminal cases for circumstantial evidence. Just because fiber evidence can't be time stamped doesn't make it unreliable evidence. It just makes it a little trickier to convince, but it can be done. moo