The Suitcase - Duvet, Sham & Dr. Suess

[midwest mama]

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.

Of course this could be possible - given the duvet had been out of the suitcase at some time prior to the murder. The details are sketchy, which is a problem for sure, but the duvet was said to have been brought from JAR's dorm room to the Ramsey house IN the suitcase. So, if it was still in the suitcase when found, with a semen stain on it, and it came from the dorm room, doesn't it stand to reason that if the suitcase had not been opened for some reason and then transported to the basement, that no fibers should have escaped to create "transference"?

 

[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?


.

Her's another thing about that suitcase. People pack clothes, not bedding, into a suitcase. They would be more likely to put bedding in a bag or just toss it on a seat. But, say JAR did pack the bedding. Wouldn't he have unpacked it at the Rs so it could be washed? If the bedding was important enough to pack, then he wanted to hang on to it and use it again, or he would have tossed it. (on a sidenote...my husband works at a university and kids DO throw perfectly good stuff in the dumpster. Actually, we recently got a brand new comforter set and a little white tv/vcr combo for my daughter. Another man got a 50 inch tv, (minus the remote), because a guy dumped it because he didn't want to move it). Here's another thing. It was late December and JR said the suitcase had been in the basement for 3 months. That would have been September. So, how long was the suitcase in the house before it got moved to the basement? Did JAR bring it in September, right after the start of a semester? Or did he bring it during the summer? If so, Why? Or did he bring it during the last spring semester? If it was way back in the spring, (during moving), why did the suitcase's presence not bother JR until September? IMO, the only way JAR bringing the bedding in a suitcase makes sense, is if he was moving, (not coming for a little visit), and everything had to go. Otherwise, he would have carried the suitcase back with him. But then again, we have to ask why the suitcase didn't bother JR until September?

 

[UKGuy]

Her's another thing about that suitcase. People pack clothes, not bedding, into a suitcase. They would be more likely to put bedding in a bag or just toss it on a seat. But, say JAR did pack the bedding. Wouldn't he have unpacked it at the Rs so it could be washed? If the bedding was important enough to pack, then he wanted to hang on to it and use it again, or he would have tossed it. (on a sidenote...my husband works at a university and kids DO throw perfectly good stuff in the dumpster. Actually, we recently got a brand new comforter set and a little white tv/vcr combo for my daughter. Another man got a 50 inch tv, (minus the remote), because a guy dumped it because he didn't want to move it). Here's another thing. It was late December and JR said the suitcase had been in the basement for 3 months. That would have been September. So, how long was the suitcase in the house before it got moved to the basement? Did JAR bring it in September, right after the start of a semester? Or did he bring it during the summer? If so, Why? Or did he bring it during the last spring semester? If it was way back in the spring, (during moving), why did the suitcase's presence not bother JR until September? IMO, the only way JAR bringing the bedding in a suitcase makes sense, is if he was moving, (not coming for a little visit), and everything had to go. Otherwise, he would have carried the suitcase back with him. But then again, we have to ask why the suitcase didn't bother JR until September?

dodie20,
Exactly, too many questions, for a suitcase.

I have the impression there was a prior staging involving some setup in the basement which incorporated the suitcase. Once they went for the kidnapping JR just trotted out these bland explanations for circumstances in the basement?

 

[DeeDee249]

Her's another thing about that suitcase. People pack clothes, not bedding, into a suitcase. They would be more likely to put bedding in a bag or just toss it on a seat. But, say JAR did pack the bedding. Wouldn't he have unpacked it at the Rs so it could be washed? If the bedding was important enough to pack, then he wanted to hang on to it and use it again, or he would have tossed it. (on a sidenote...my husband works at a university and kids DO throw perfectly good stuff in the dumpster. Actually, we recently got a brand new comforter set and a little white tv/vcr combo for my daughter. Another man got a 50 inch tv, (minus the remote), because a guy dumped it because he didn't want to move it). Here's another thing. It was late December and JR said the suitcase had been in the basement for 3 months. That would have been September. So, how long was the suitcase in the house before it got moved to the basement? Did JAR bring it in September, right after the start of a semester? Or did he bring it during the summer? If so, Why? Or did he bring it during the last spring semester? If it was way back in the spring, (during moving), why did the suitcase's presence not bother JR until September? IMO, the only way JAR bringing the bedding in a suitcase makes sense, is if he was moving, (not coming for a little visit), and everything had to go. Otherwise, he would have carried the suitcase back with him. But then again, we have to ask why the suitcase didn't bother JR until September?

JAR likely brought the bedding home to be laundered. But that doesn't mean he washed it as soon as he brought it home. Christmas is usually at the BEGINNING of most college Christmas breaks. You know how college kids are- especially boys. His laundry is not first on his list of priorities during his school break. And most colleges are closed for about a month- usually till the end of January. He had plenty of time to have his bedding laundered.

 

[OpenMind4U]

JAR likely brought the bedding home to be laundered. But that doesn't mean he washed it as soon as he brought it home. Christmas is usually at the BEGINNING of most college Christmas breaks. You know how college kids are- especially boys. His laundry is not first on his list of priorities during his school break. And most colleges are closed for about a month- usually till the end of January. He had plenty of time to have his bedding laundered.

DeeDee, in this case (JAR bringing his dirty staff for Christmas break), John LIES when he stated that he moved this suitcase to basement 3 month ego! But what else is new? Every word from Ramseys mouth should be consider as LIE.

jmo

 

[OpenMind4U]

On 'strangulation' thread (?, sorry, forgot on which thread and name of the poster...hate to be unrespectfull), someone recommends to read Mr. Dalmar England analysis on ACR. While reading, I found very interesting reference which IMO would be applicable to this thread as well. In 'Ransom Note Analysis' written in 2000, Mr. England makes this statement. BBM

"Make sure that you bring an adequate size attache to the bank. When you get home you will put the money in a brown paper bag."

There is also the question of why the command to put the money in a paper bag. Was there to be a delivery in a place where a paper bag would not be conspicuous. If so, where? A grocery store? Why not leave the money in the attache case? There is another curiosity that may not mean a thing, but bugs me a bit. Why not a suitcase to hold the money for delivery?

In a very large number of kidnapping and ransom scenes that I have seen on tv, a suitcase was the container of choice to hold the money. Since there was earlier concern about an attache large enough to hold the volume of money, why the assumption that a paper bag (no size mentioned) will hold the money? Also, since suitcase ties in with attache case in general description, I wonder a bit about the mental jump past suitcase to paper bag. Admittedly, I'm reaching a bit here, but I have a faint impression of negative associated with suitcase, although I can't nail anything down.

http://www.acandyrose.com/04212000delmaranalysis1.htm

 

[dodie20]

On 'strangulation' thread (?, sorry, forgot on which thread and name of the poster...hate to be unrespectfull), someone recommends to read Mr. Dalmar England analysis on ACR. While reading, I found very interesting reference which IMO would be applicable to this thread as well. In 'Ransom Note Analysis' written in 2000, Mr. England makes this statement. BBM



http://www.acandyrose.com/04212000delmaranalysis1.htm

This is interesting and a very good analysis of the note. After reading the last paragraph of the ransom, I've kind of wondered if a lot more of the note is personal too. I strongly believe that PR wrote the note, so that's what I'm going with here. Like, why WAS she concerned with an 'adequate' sized attache? When she wrote, 'make sure that you bring', could the word 'bring' have been a slip and Not southern slang? because she wanted the suitcase at home, and that's where she was writing from? Was she telling JR to bring a large suitcase? and a paper bag? Did she really want him to get the money, and if so, why? I've looked for signs of sexual abuse in the note, and the main one I came up with was, 'any deviation of my instructions will result in the immediate execution of your daughter'. Was PR blaming JR being a deviant for JB 's murder? IDK, but there's so much anger in this note. moo

 

[Charterhouse]

Regarding the window, I read that PR said she picked up every little piece of glass and the housekeeper vacuumed the floor twice because the childrens played down there. I just can't find where I read it. So PR is saying she would not have missed the big piece of glass that FW found. JMO

Also, just because! I know these were rich people and did not seem do anything for themselves. But Holy Cow, I have never read, seen or heard of a household that knew so little about where things were and who did what and what went on in a house. That includes keeping track of their children and what they were doing.

Who was the last person that saw that comforter?

And this just bugs me. Why would you not see to it that a window would be fixed during a Colorado winter? Did they have so much money they could just see it burned up and go out the winter in a heating bill.


Just some things that bug me!

 

[UKGuy]

DeeDee, in this case (JAR bringing his dirty staff for Christmas break), John LIES when he stated that he moved this suitcase to basement 3 month ego! But what else is new? Every word from Ramseys mouth should be consider as LIE.

jmo

OpenMind4U,
This is such an obvious error, I wonder if JAR had another suitcase and duvet setup?

i.e. Alike the other children maybe he dumped stuff expecting LHP or his parents to deal with it?

Surely this detail was not lost on BPD?

3 months back and it would be autumn semester, and JAR would be studying.

Wonder what Kolar thinks about this, maybe someone could ask him if he does another interview?

In a sense its not the duvet or the sham that seem out of place its the Dr. Suess book.

.

 

[UKGuy]

Regarding the window, I read that PR said she picked up every little piece of glass and the housekeeper vacuumed the floor twice because the childrens played down there. I just can't find where I read it. So PR is saying she would not have missed the big piece of glass that FW found. JMO

Also, just because! I know these were rich people and did not seem do anything for themselves. But Holy Cow, I have never read, seen or heard of a household that knew so little about where things were and who did what and what went on in a house. That includes keeping track of their children and what they were doing.

Who was the last person that saw that comforter?

And this just bugs me. Why would you not see to it that a window would be fixed during a Colorado winter? Did they have so much money they could just see it burned up and go out the winter in a heating bill.


Just some things that bug me!

Charterhouse,
Its obviously just a story invented by JR. The broken window had some role to play, then JR changed his mind saying he broke it way back. Just like he said he placed JAR's suitcase in the basement 3 months back. These are cover stories, much as JonBenet was staged in the wine-cellar.

I reckon the Ramsey's had intended to enact some other staged crime-scene, maybe with the Dr. Suess book lying next to JonBenet. I wonder if this is what JR read to JonBenet either fictionally or in real life, it seems to fit in with the R's version of events.


.

 

[DeeDee249]

Regarding the window, I read that PR said she picked up every little piece of glass and the housekeeper vacuumed the floor twice because the childrens played down there. I just can't find where I read it. So PR is saying she would not have missed the big piece of glass that FW found. JMO

Also, just because! I know these were rich people and did not seem do anything for themselves. But Holy Cow, I have never read, seen or heard of a household that knew so little about where things were and who did what and what went on in a house. That includes keeping track of their children and what they were doing.

Who was the last person that saw that comforter?

And this just bugs me. Why would you not see to it that a window would be fixed during a Colorado winter? Did they have so much money they could just see it burned up and go out the winter in a heating bill.


Just some things that bug me!

There is a LOT about this case that bugs me, too! The Rs were deliberately vague about every aspect of their routine and lives and I think the main reason for that is a lot of what they were saying was a lie OR they didn't REMEMBER what they might have said to LE previously. THAT was one of the reasons their lawyers insisted that they have all questions from LE IN WRITING in advance. UNHEARD of for suspects. When you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything.
Re: the broken window- JR said in one of his interviews that the furnace made the basement rather warm- still- it had to let in a lot of cold air in winter. I have also seen interviews where the Rs said that they THOUGHT they had the housekeeper clean up the broken glass but weren't sure....

 

[Chrishope]

Of course this could be possible - given the duvet had been out of the suitcase at some time prior to the murder. The details are sketchy, which is a problem for sure, but the duvet was said to have been brought from JAR's dorm room to the Ramsey house IN the suitcase. So, if it was still in the suitcase when found, with a semen stain on it, and it came from the dorm room, doesn't it stand to reason that if the suitcase had not been opened for some reason and then transported to the basement, that no fibers should have escaped to create "transference"?

No, because if fibers from a new top were found on the duvet then we know the suitcase had been opened. (Or the duvet had been removed, contaminated, then replaced) But we still don't know if it's primary transfer or secondary. If it was secondary we don't know who's responsible for the transfer.
Unless we can pin things down more - and it appears for now that we can't - there is nowhere to go with the contents of the suitcase. They might be considered suspicious, but they will not help us solve the case.

 

[Chrishope]

By far the biggest problem concerning the suitcase is not it's contents, but the fact that there was a chair nearby.

Of course LS never shows the chair as he puts on his dog and pony show. We only learn of the chair when we see pictures of the room on The Daily Beast.

This tells us that JR did not place the suitcase with the intent of staging an entry/exit (nor did anyone else do that). Had staging of an exit been the plan, the chair would have been selected as the thing the "intruder" stood on to get out the window. The chair is far more believable.

Until LS gets involved, JR is working hard against the intruder theory. He tells the cops all the doors were locked, he tells the cops that he himself broke the widow, so that's not the entry/escape point.

Since the police see the window broken, there is no good reason for JR to dissuade the police that it's the intruder's entry/exit point -if that was the plan. Nor is there a reason for not placing the chair under the window. So, we can be pretty sure that was not the plan. IOWs, neither JR nor any one else wanted, initially, for the police to think someone had forcibly broken into the house.

The other major problem with the suitcase is that it has a piece of glass on top of it. FW claims to have picked up the piece of glass and placed it there. I have no trouble believing FW, but it's problematic that there is glass laying around where the children play, months after the window was supposedly broken by JR because "he forgot his key".

 

[DeeDee249]

Although Smit completely disregards this, it was FW who placed the suitcase under the window. He moved it on his early morning search of the basement alone. JR was unaware he had gone to the basement that morning alone.

 

[UKGuy]

By far the biggest problem concerning the suitcase is not it's contents, but the fact that there was a chair nearby.

Of course LS never shows the chair as he puts on his dog and pony show. We only learn of the chair when we see pictures of the room on The Daily Beast.

This tells us that JR did not place the suitcase with the intent of staging an entry/exit (nor did anyone else do that). Had staging of an exit been the plan, the chair would have been selected as the thing the "intruder" stood on to get out the window. The chair is far more believable.

Until LS gets involved, JR is working hard against the intruder theory. He tells the cops all the doors were locked, he tells the cops that he himself broke the widow, so that's not the entry/escape point.

Since the police see the window broken, there is no good reason for JR to dissuade the police that it's the intruder's entry/exit point -if that was the plan. Nor is there a reason for not placing the chair under the window. So, we can be pretty sure that was not the plan. IOWs, neither JR nor any one else wanted, initially, for the police to think someone had forcibly broken into the house.

The other major problem with the suitcase is that it has a piece of glass on top of it. FW claims to have picked up the piece of glass and placed it there. I have no trouble believing FW, but it's problematic that there is glass laying around where the children play, months after the window was supposedly broken by JR because "he forgot his key".

Chrishope,
All of which might suggest that what you are surveying is the remnants of a prior staging. Hence JR's disinterest in the window, the chair, or the suitcase.

All these items are suspicious by their apparent random presence!


.

 

[UKGuy]

Although Smit completely disregards this, it was FW who placed the suitcase under the window. He moved it on his early morning search of the basement alone. JR was unaware he had gone to the basement that morning alone.

DeeDee249,
I wonder what JR thought about the glass then, or did he learn later that FW had placed it beneath the window?


.

 

[UKGuy]

No, because if fibers from a new top were found on the duvet then we know the suitcase had been opened. (Or the duvet had been removed, contaminated, then replaced) But we still don't know if it's primary transfer or secondary. If it was secondary we don't know who's responsible for the transfer.
Unless we can pin things down more - and it appears for now that we can't - there is nowhere to go with the contents of the suitcase. They might be considered suspicious, but they will not help us solve the case.

Chrishope,
mmm, now assuming JR's version of events is correct. Also that Patsy's version of events is correct, i.e. she purchased the White Gap Top recently at a local Gap Store, specifically at JonBenet's request!

And if there are fibers from the White Gap Top on the sham and duvet as claimed then both of the above version of events cannot be correct.

This is irrespective of the mode of transfer, primary or secondary.

I conclude given the interval of time passed since JR said he placed the suitcase in the basement, that its his version of events that are inconsistent with the alleged facts.

LS said he wished to discuss the samsonite suitcase with JAR, did he?

.

 

[dodie20]

Although Smit completely disregards this, it was FW who placed the suitcase under the window. He moved it on his early morning search of the basement alone. JR was unaware he had gone to the basement that morning alone.

Exactly what did the Rs have to say about this? Did they take the easy way out and accuse FW of lying? or was this one of the things that got twisted into 'suspicious' behavior. This blows Smit's theory right out of the water.

 

[midwest mama]

By far the biggest problem concerning the suitcase is not it's contents, but the fact that there was a chair nearby.

Of course LS never shows the chair as he puts on his dog and pony show. We only learn of the chair when we see pictures of the room on The Daily Beast.

This tells us that JR did not place the suitcase with the intent of staging an entry/exit (nor did anyone else do that). Had staging of an exit been the plan, the chair would have been selected as the thing the "intruder" stood on to get out the window. The chair is far more believable.

Until LS gets involved, JR is working hard against the intruder theory. He tells the cops all the doors were locked, he tells the cops that he himself broke the widow, so that's not the entry/escape point.

Since the police see the window broken, there is no good reason for JR to dissuade the police that it's the intruder's entry/exit point -if that was the plan. Nor is there a reason for not placing the chair under the window. So, we can be pretty sure that was not the plan. IOWs, neither JR nor any one else wanted, initially, for the police to think someone had forcibly broken into the house.

The other major problem with the suitcase is that it has a piece of glass on top of it. FW claims to have picked up the piece of glass and placed it there. I have no trouble believing FW, but it's problematic that there is glass laying around where the children play, months after the window was supposedly broken by JR because "he forgot his key".

BBM - And, JR did say, "It has to be an inside job" loud and clear. Then later he proceeded to hand the police two writing pads with paper like that of the RN. One of them (there were several taken into evidence later by search warrant) the exact pad that was used to write the note which he identified as Patsys, and one of them which he had claimed he used. I guess I wonder now with the history of lies having come from him, just how trusted the handwriting on that pad of his should have been.

 

[DeeDee249]

Exactly what did the Rs have to say about this? Did they take the easy way out and accuse FW of lying? or was this one of the things that got twisted into 'suspicious' behavior. This blows Smit's theory right out of the water.

FW said he picked up a shard of glass and placed it on top of the suitcase. At least publicly, the Rs have not said too much about the matter of the suitcase, FW and the broken glass. I think they realized that JR should not have mentioned breaking the window himself at all. When Lou Smit found the "Holy Grail"- the suitcase under the window- he jumped on that like white on rice. That was his "proof" and at that point the Rs clammed up about FW and the suitcase. To my knowledge, the Rs did not accuse FW of lying about moving the suitcase or touching the glass. Fingerprinting the glass and suitcase handle would have yielded FW's prints, if it had been done. And that would have proven he DID touch both of those items. I suppose JR could have accused him of lying about it, but he had already told FW that he had broken the window himself, so I don't know that it would have cast any suspicion on FW. FW did make the mistake of touching the duct tape and throwing it back on the blanket, so if there was going to be anything that would have pointed to FW, they would have jumped on that. Had FW told LE that he never saw JR perform CPR or untie her hands, JR could have come back and said that he never saw FW touch JBs ankle or the duct tape that had been on her mouth- casting suspicion on how FW's prints got there. So it was a stand-off, I suppose.
We don't know that these two items were tested.
And once again- LE seems to have dropped the ball on the follow-up.