The Suitcase - Duvet, Sham & Dr. Suess

[dodie20]

Have you seen the photo of Patsy kneeling at JonBenet's grave while Patsy clutchers her own throat? If not, go to John Ramsey's New Book - The Other Side of Suffering - Page 29 - Forums For Justice and look at Riverrat's avatar.

Here's something else I've thought about. It probably doesn't mean much and I doubt it was planned, but the garotte shared space on JB's neck with a cross. How utterly wrong this is. You'd think even a hardened criminal would have thought twice about this, you know? Either killed her in another way or removed the cross and put it in her hand. I guess it has been verified that JB wore the cross necklace to the W's party?

 

[UKGuy]

Here's something else I've thought about. It probably doesn't mean much and I doubt it was planned, but the garotte shared space on JB's neck with a cross. How utterly wrong this is. You'd think even a hardened criminal would have thought twice about this, you know? Either killed her in another way or removed the cross and put it in her hand. I guess it has been verified that JB wore the cross necklace to the W's party?

dodie20,
Well I have speculated that if the ligature had contributed to all the marks on JonBenet's neck, since they intersect, then there should have been some kind of imprint or abrasion left, i.e. pattern, this was not the case.

This was another factor that led me to think that the ligature is actually staging. Its purpose is to mask any prior asphyxiation marks.


.

 

[dodie20]

dodie20,
Well I have speculated that if the ligature had contributed to all the marks on JonBenet's neck, since they intersect, then there should have been some kind of imprint or abrasion left, i.e. pattern, this was not the case.

This was another factor that led me to think that the ligature is actually staging. Its purpose is to mask any prior asphyxiation marks.


.

ok, what do you think she was strangled with originally? hands, shirt, necklace? Was the necklace chain thick enough to leave those marks? Were there marks as in plural, because from what I saw, it looked like 1 long furrow...but, to tell the truth, I could barely glance at at those pictures, so I probably missed something.

 

[UKGuy]

ok, what do you think she was strangled with originally? hands, shirt, necklace? Was the necklace chain thick enough to leave those marks? Were there marks as in plural, because from what I saw, it looked like 1 long furrow...but, to tell the truth, I could barely glance at at those pictures, so I probably missed something.

dodie20,
Bare hands or shirt. That the necklace has left no mark should allow you to raise a question regarding the asphyxiation?

There was only a circumferential furrow relating to the ligature, but there was em, other marks on JonBenet's neck.



.

 

[dodie20]

dodie20,
Bare hands or shirt. That the necklace has left no mark should allow you to raise a question regarding the asphyxiation?

There was only a circumferential furrow relating to the ligature, but there was em, other marks on JonBenet's neck.



.

I went and looked at the Christmas morning picture and JB was wearing a cross necklace. I guess this was the same one? Anyway, the chain was very thick, not that that means much. So, do you think the necklace was put on JB after she was murdered?

 

[UKGuy]

I went and looked at the Christmas morning picture and JB was wearing a cross necklace. I guess this was the same one? Anyway, the chain was very thick, not that that means much. So, do you think the necklace was put on JB after she was murdered?

dodie20,
Not sure about this, but pictures from the White's Christmas party should show whether JonBenet wore it or not?

The wine-cellar is a staged crime-scene. Its purpose is to present JonBenet as she arrived home from the White's, so if she has an additional necklace, then that raises more questions.

Again, I apologise for the repetition, but if the necklace and ligature intersect and there is no visible abrasion or pattern on JonBenet's neck, where you might expect some mark, but there is a circumferential furrow, what conclusion can you draw?


.

 

[icedtea4me]

A couple of the items could be seen as trying to convey a symbolic message:

This is a child's story (Dr. Seuss book) about a cover-up connected to sex (semen-stained duvet).

 

[midwest mama]

A couple of the items could be seen as trying to convey a symbolic message:

This is a child's story (Dr. Seuss book) about a cover-up connected to sex (semen-stained duvet).

:what: Clever observation!

 

[Whaleshark]

dodie20,
Not sure about this, but pictures from the White's Christmas party should show whether JonBenet wore it or not?

The wine-cellar is a staged crime-scene. Its purpose is to present JonBenet as she arrived home from the White's, so if she has an additional necklace, then that raises more questions.

Again, I apologise for the repetition, but if the necklace and ligature intersect and there is no visible abrasion or pattern on JonBenet's neck, where you might expect some mark, but there is a circumferential furrow, what conclusion can you draw?


.

In close up of the back of her neck with the ligature removed, looking at the furrow, you can see impression indentation spots of what look like where the cross pressed into the back of her neck...

 

[Chrishope]

Chrishope,

Like fibers from a new gap top float through the air down to the basement, mmm, unlikely.


As per usual, assertion without any evidence. The fiber evidence, if it exists, is very important, simply because fibers from a dead girls shirt have contaminated other objects.


What you say is redundant, simply because you repeat JR's version of events. You offer no evidence that the suitcase moved from the basement in the intervening period, and if it did, then who placed it back? There is something about the basement that prevents fiber transfer, and thats a closed suitcase with the White Gap Top upstairs in JonBenet's dresser. In other words there is absolutely nothing to mandate fiber transfer, thats the issue. That it might have taken place is the evidential issue.


Sure, but if you wish to make this claim, you must provide evidence. Mere assertion is redundant.


And thats the point. It obviously has passed you by.


Either do I. Our respective ignorance does not preclude this possibility.


Lots of qualifying statements with no evidence, just assertion. I read the book might have actually belonged to JAR, this is more realistic than asserting the book just magicked itself into the suitcase, because this is what kids do.

Especially if it turns out to be BDI!


.

As per usual, you've ignored (or to be generous perhaps you've forgotten) that I've posted many times that the GBI (Georgia Bureau of Investigation) says, in a document specifically aimed at investigators, that fiber evidence from someone living in the home is of no value.

You can search my old posts to find the link.

 

[Chrishope]

Agree with you on the suitcase perhaps getting too much attention because of the LS intruder theory. Also, remembering that FW said he "moved it" when looking for glass, could mean it was no where near the window when FW grabbed it to move it, which might mean it was tucked out of the way in the train room - along with a lot of other junk that was stored in there.

However, in considering that the suitcase and it's contents might be connected, since LE is guarding the name of the book and CBI's report of fibers on JB's shirt, I highlighted above the points that you made which lead me to think there might have been an intent to ditch the suitcase. If that book has incriminating evidence on it, and a lone parent had intended to try to fool the police and the other parent into believing JB was kidnapped, then I think it is possible the suitcase would have been taken out of the house with her.

Actually, I did consider the book might have initially been put with JB's body, as part of her "comfort package", and moved out at the last minute by a perp who might have worried about prints or something else being discovered on the book. If a title is being withheld by LE, isn't it possible some other detail about the condition of the book is also being withheld?

Patsy gave a statement to Haney that she didn't know that JAR had a Seuss book in the suitcase. Of course, Patsy has been accused of other lies. And, we cannot rule out the fact that JAR might have had the book in there, without getting him on a witness stand or in a GJ interview.

Your statement about the college boy using a blanket and pillow rang so true - so much that for a moment I had to ask myself, why on earth would JAR have even had a DUVET and SHAM on his college dorm bed to begin with. Come on, a college BOY with a SHAM???

OK - all you guys who had Shams on your dorm bed, chime in, please! Or I am going to start wondering if that duvet and sham actually came home from the dorm!

A sham and/or duvet (I'm still not really clear if these are different things) seems rather effeminate for a college boy.

It's certainly possible police are withholding info about the book, besides the title. But so much has been leaked how were they able to keep that info secret - if there is any info?

If we assume that it was a Ramsey who did the crime, then it's hard to see why any suitcase would be needed as part of the plan. A Samsonite is just about indestructible unless it's burned, so ditching the suitcase is just leaving evidence that can be traced back to the family. It's possible I suppose that the plan was to carry the body in the suitcase, dispose of it, then bring the suitcase back. In that case the duvet/sham may have been removed, along with the book, then the killer may have decided the suitcase wasn't big enough and put the sham and book back.

There would be no reason for the perp (assuming a Ramsey) to worry about prints. The book is JB's, the prints could easily be explained as having been left after reading to JB. There's no time stamp on prints.

There is no need to use the book as a lure, nor any need to use it to "comfort" a dead body. IMO the most likely explanation for the book is that it was in the suitcase along with the duvet.

The fibers could have been transferred days before, or that day by secondary transfer, or just by bad crime scene management. There is nothing definitive to say about the fibers, assuming that CBI is correct.

 

[DeeDee249]

A sham and/or duvet (I'm still not really clear if these are different things) seems rather effeminate for a college boy.

It's certainly possible police are withholding info about the book, besides the title. But so much has been leaked how were they able to keep that info secret - if there is any info?

If we assume that it was a Ramsey who did the crime, then it's hard to see why any suitcase would be needed as part of the plan. A Samsonite is just about indestructible unless it's burned, so ditching the suitcase is just leaving evidence that can be traced back to the family. It's possible I suppose that the plan was to carry the body in the suitcase, dispose of it, then bring the suitcase back. In that case the duvet/sham may have been removed, along with the book, then the killer may have decided the suitcase wasn't big enough and put the sham and book back.

There would be no reason for the perp (assuming a Ramsey) to worry about prints. The book is JB's, the prints could easily be explained as having been left after reading to JB. There's no time stamp on prints.

There is no need to use the book as a lure, nor any need to use it to "comfort" a dead body. IMO the most likely explanation for the book is that it was in the suitcase along with the duvet.

The fibers could have been transferred days before, or that day by secondary transfer, or just by bad crime scene management. There is nothing definitive to say about the fibers, assuming that CBI is correct.

It need not be a ruffled, feminine sham. Plenty of "masculine" styles are available. I agree a college boy wouldn't probably choose to buy it, but his mother/stepmother would.
I agree that the suitcase may have no part in the crime, and if it did, there is no way to prove it. The semen was definitely sourced to JAR, but there is no way to prove when it was left because it was dried.
I do disagree about fibers belonging to the family being useless. It depends where they are found, If they are found on items that are directly involved or part of the crime they are important and can possibly prove contact with the source with the victim during the crime and the staging.
Finding these fibers in places that could ONLY have come into contact with the donor during the crime or staging can be used in court. For example- Patsy's fibers ENTWINED into the knot of the cord indicate more than just casual transfer. They didn't just "float: there in that specific place. The same can be said for her fibers on the INSIDE of the tape. It it was against JB's mouth and Patsy claimed to have never been in the basement while wearing it, those fibers can only have gotten there by her actually being there- handling the tape. The tape was left behind in the basement when JB's body was brought up, so it didn't happen then. The ONLY way that happened was if Patsy either put the tape on her or handed it to whoever did.
Ditto for JR's fibers INSIDE the panty crotch of a brand-new pair of panties. There is simply no innocent explanation for that. He had to either pull them up or down or both. Otherwise there is no way that they got INSIDE. Patsy told police she never wore that jacket when painting and never wore it in the basement at all. Yet the fibers are in the paint tote. While it could be argued that is IS her paint tote- the totality of the parents' fiber being actually on the BODY and on items that were NOT on the body before the crime, combined with the fact that all the fibers are from clothing that they wore the day of the crime indicate that they are INVOLVED with at least the coverup, if not the murder. And if they are involved with the coverup= they KNOW. They know what happened - they know who killed her. And they are guilty of obstruction of justice if that is the case. And likely much more.

 

[midwest mama]

A sham and/or duvet (I'm still not really clear if these are different things) seems rather effeminate for a college boy.

It's certainly possible police are withholding info about the book, besides the title. But so much has been leaked how were they able to keep that info secret - if there is any info?

If we assume that it was a Ramsey who did the crime, then it's hard to see why any suitcase would be needed as part of the plan. A Samsonite is just about indestructible unless it's burned, so ditching the suitcase is just leaving evidence that can be traced back to the family. It's possible I suppose that the plan was to carry the body in the suitcase, dispose of it, then bring the suitcase back. In that case the duvet/sham may have been removed, along with the book, then the killer may have decided the suitcase wasn't big enough and put the sham and book back.

There would be no reason for the perp (assuming a Ramsey) to worry about prints. The book is JB's, the prints could easily be explained as having been left after reading to JB. There's no time stamp on prints.

There is no need to use the book as a lure, nor any need to use it to "comfort" a dead body. IMO the most likely explanation for the book is that it was in the suitcase along with the duvet.

The fibers could have been transferred days before, or that day by secondary transfer, or just by bad crime scene management. There is nothing definitive to say about the fibers, assuming that CBI is correct.

I must agree with several of your comments - and especially the observation that the suitcase might have been traced back to the R's if it turned up with a body in it. But couldn't that have been explained away by suspecting an intruder found it handy there in the basement, so why not use it? All the more reason to try to direct the blame to kidnappers, IMO.

But, as you say, the plan might have included using the suitcase to dump the body, then returning the suitcase. Deciding not to use it, but leaving it in the train room makes as much sense as any other explanation - especially more sense than an intruder using it as a "step" to get in/out of the window, when there was a chair not far away, which wouldn't have been nearly as wobbly!

 

[UKGuy]

A sham and/or duvet (I'm still not really clear if these are different things) seems rather effeminate for a college boy.

It's certainly possible police are withholding info about the book, besides the title. But so much has been leaked how were they able to keep that info secret - if there is any info?

If we assume that it was a Ramsey who did the crime, then it's hard to see why any suitcase would be needed as part of the plan. A Samsonite is just about indestructible unless it's burned, so ditching the suitcase is just leaving evidence that can be traced back to the family. It's possible I suppose that the plan was to carry the body in the suitcase, dispose of it, then bring the suitcase back. In that case the duvet/sham may have been removed, along with the book, then the killer may have decided the suitcase wasn't big enough and put the sham and book back.

There would be no reason for the perp (assuming a Ramsey) to worry about prints. The book is JB's, the prints could easily be explained as having been left after reading to JB. There's no time stamp on prints.

There is no need to use the book as a lure, nor any need to use it to "comfort" a dead body. IMO the most likely explanation for the book is that it was in the suitcase along with the duvet.

The fibers could have been transferred days before, or that day by secondary transfer, or just by bad crime scene management. There is nothing definitive to say about the fibers, assuming that CBI is correct.

Chrishope,
Not according to Patsy she stated she had not visited the wine-cellar on 12/24/1996 or 12/25/1996!

For fibers from both parents to accidentally arrive at a remote crime-scene and become deposited on different objects, including one that is geographically distinct from the wine-cellar, e.g. paint-tote, is not something either secondary or prior contact can explain away.

You could attempt to argue in court that the killer came in contact with Patsy's jacket prior to asphyxiating JonBenet, thereby transferring her fibers onto the ligature, duct-tape and paint-tote.

Thats a big ask, and next up is how?

There is nothing definitive to say about the fibers, assuming that CBI is correct.

You may have nothing definitive to say about the fibers, but others may, as per Locard's Exchange Principle. We are not attempting to determine culpability by the use of fibers, but that of involvement.


Fibers are not unique like DNA, but some fibers might be statistically rare, like John Ramsey's Israeli manufactured shirt. The tests applied to Patsy's fibers may have been simple standard analysis, which would allow LW's proof request. Advanced fiber tests using lasers and birefringence properties would increase the accurancy of any report.

Whatever value the GBI derive from fiber analysis is for them to decide, others can arrive at their own valuation independently, thank you.

.

 

[UKGuy]

I must agree with several of your comments - and especially the observation that the suitcase might have been traced back to the R's if it turned up with a body in it. But couldn't that have been explained away by suspecting an intruder found it handy there in the basement, so why not use it? All the more reason to try to direct the blame to kidnappers, IMO.

But, as you say, the plan might have included using the suitcase to dump the body, then returning the suitcase. Deciding not to use it, but leaving it in the train room makes as much sense as any other explanation - especially more sense than an intruder using it as a "step" to get in/out of the window, when there was a chair not far away, which wouldn't have been nearly as wobbly!

midwest mama,
Whatever the purpose of the suitcase was is opaque. Yet JR wished to associate himself with it, why? I reckon because he had realized his fingerprints would be on the handle, even the lock, latch etc.

I reckon if it can be demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that fibers from JonBenet's white Gap Top were found inside that suitcase, then we can derive a new updated theory relating to who did it, with lets say 60% probability.


.

 

[midwest mama]

midwest mama,
Whatever the purpose of the suitcase was is opaque. Yet JR wished to associate himself with it, why? I reckon because he had realized his fingerprints would be on the handle, even the lock, latch etc.

I reckon if it can be demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that fibers from JonBenet's white Gap Top were found inside that suitcase, then we can derive a new updated theory relating to who did it, with lets say 60% probability.


.

AGREE! There have been references to fibers found on her shirt that supposedly came from the duvet, etc. which was found in the suitcase, and there was even a report that fibers from the suitcase lining itself were supposedly found on her shirt, IIRC.

But I have never seen a report or statement, to the best of my recollection that the inside of the suitcase was tested for any fibers relating to her clothing, or traces of her hair, tDNA, etc! Anyone else - info/corrections please??

 

[UKGuy]

AGREE! There have been references to fibers found on her shirt that supposedly came from the duvet, etc. which was found in the suitcase, and there was even a report that fibers from the suitcase lining itself were supposedly found on her shirt, IIRC.

But I have never seen a report or statement, to the best of my recollection that the inside of the suitcase was tested for any fibers relating to her clothing, or traces of her hair, tDNA, etc! Anyone else - info/corrections please??

midwest mama,
Fibers from the duvet on JonBenet's shirt or from the shirt to the duvet, would generate another theory, stronger than any other. Fibers from the suitcase lining are not as potent since they can be explained by secondary transfer, which might implicate JR?


.

 

[Chrishope]

It need not be a ruffled, feminine sham. Plenty of "masculine" styles are available. I agree a college boy wouldn't probably choose to buy it, but his mother/stepmother would.
I agree that the suitcase may have no part in the crime, and if it did, there is no way to prove it. The semen was definitely sourced to JAR, but there is no way to prove when it was left because it was dried.
I do disagree about fibers belonging to the family being useless. It depends where they are found, If they are found on items that are directly involved or part of the crime they are important and can possibly prove contact with the source with the victim during the crime and the staging.
Finding these fibers in places that could ONLY have come into contact with the donor during the crime or staging can be used in court. For example- Patsy's fibers ENTWINED into the knot of the cord indicate more than just casual transfer. They didn't just "float: there in that specific place. The same can be said for her fibers on the INSIDE of the tape. It it was against JB's mouth and Patsy claimed to have never been in the basement while wearing it, those fibers can only have gotten there by her actually being there- handling the tape. The tape was left behind in the basement when JB's body was brought up, so it didn't happen then. The ONLY way that happened was if Patsy either put the tape on her or handed it to whoever did.
Ditto for JR's fibers INSIDE the panty crotch of a brand-new pair of panties. There is simply no innocent explanation for that. He had to either pull them up or down or both. Otherwise there is no way that they got INSIDE. Patsy told police she never wore that jacket when painting and never wore it in the basement at all. Yet the fibers are in the paint tote. While it could be argued that is IS her paint tote- the totality of the parents' fiber being actually on the BODY and on items that were NOT on the body before the crime, combined with the fact that all the fibers are from clothing that they wore the day of the crime indicate that they are INVOLVED with at least the coverup, if not the murder. And if they are involved with the coverup= they KNOW. They know what happened - they know who killed her. And they are guilty of obstruction of justice if that is the case. And likely much more.

http://dofs.gbi.georgia.gov/sites/d...cit_1210/57/14/180852003GBI-TraceEvidence.pdf

NOTE: The more matching fiber types that exist in a case, the stronger the evidence of association. Remember that fiber matches between two individuals who share the same environment (e.g. live together or drive the same car) are essentially meaningless.

The fibers can't tell us a thing, as there are multiple explanations as to how they got to where they got, multiple people to do the transfer, and both primary and secondary transfer.

 

[Chrishope]

Chrishope,
Not according to Patsy she stated she had not visited the wine-cellar on 12/24/1996 or 12/25/1996!

For fibers from both parents to accidentally arrive at a remote crime-scene and become deposited on different objects, including one that is geographically distinct from the wine-cellar, e.g. paint-tote, is not something either secondary or prior contact can explain away.

You could attempt to argue in court that the killer came in contact with Patsy's jacket prior to asphyxiating JonBenet, thereby transferring her fibers onto the ligature, duct-tape and paint-tote.

Thats a big ask, and next up is how?


You may have nothing definitive to say about the fibers, but others may, as per Locard's Exchange Principle. We are not attempting to determine culpability by the use of fibers, but that of involvement.


Fibers are not unique like DNA, but some fibers might be statistically rare, like John Ramsey's Israeli manufactured shirt. The tests applied to Patsy's fibers may have been simple standard analysis, which would allow LW's proof request. Advanced fiber tests using lasers and birefringence properties would increase the accurancy of any report.

Whatever value the GBI derive from fiber analysis is for them to decide, others can arrive at their own valuation independently, thank you.

.

My choice is GBI or you (and a few others). I find GBI more credible.

 

[Chrishope]

midwest mama,
Whatever the purpose of the suitcase was is opaque. Yet JR wished to associate himself with it, why? I reckon because he had realized his fingerprints would be on the handle, even the lock, latch etc.

I reckon if it can be demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that fibers from JonBenet's white Gap Top were found inside that suitcase, then we can derive a new updated theory relating to who did it, with lets say 60% probability.


.

I reckon there is no reason for JR to concern himself with fingerprints on a suitcase that belongs to him or a member of his household and which is regularly kept in his house.