The Suitcase - Duvet, Sham & Dr. Suess

[Chrishope]

Astute comment. This is the item that throws so much out of whack. There is no reason for a college guy who is transporting dirty bedding back from college to have Dr. Seuss tucked in. There are several reasons to think someone wanted to stash that book in the suitcase. Unlike a poster above, I do not think JB would have chosen to tuck away one book in a large, adult suitcase. The latches alone, for small fingers wouldn't be very cooperative, as well as the cumbersome management of the lid.

I have to think the book went into the suitcase in a plan that involved ditching the suitcase somehow. And the title of the book, being protected this long, must have something to do with clues to the crime. Was the book moved from a location in the basement and placed into the suitcase? Before the officers and FW looked through the basement, or after, during the time JR went "missing" in the morning, fearing fingerprints might have been too telling?

Why do you think the book has something to do with a plan to ditch the suitcase?

Let's ask ourselves why an adult (the killer) would put the book in the suitcase.

One reason is if it had incriminating evidence on it, such as semen, blood, mucous, or fecal matter which would arouse suspicion. As far as we know, that's not the case.

Another reason would be to hide it from the other parent because the other parent would know it's in the wrong place and link it with the disappearance of JB. (But how likely is this?) This requires either a lone PDI theory, or a lone JDI theory. Any co-conspiracy theories make hiding the book form the other parent unnecessary.

Even on a lone theory there is little reason to hide the book in the suitcase. The body was hidden in the WC, why not put the book in there too.

Really the book is a red hearing. It most likely was placed there by a child, or for some reason JAR had the book in the suitcase for some reason. (Perhaps JB slipped it into his suitcase the last time he shlepped laundry from home to the frat house and he was just bringing it back?)

I suspect the reason for keeping the title secret is that the police are giving it false importance. Had LS not started his ridiculous intruder theory the suitcase would not be seen as important, nor would it's contents.

 

[Chrishope]

....and for what it's worth, I think the Dr Seuss book was actually JAR's... A college gift about his next journey in life "oh the places you'll go"... Read it somewhere...

Makes more sense than the killer putting it in there.

 

[Whaleshark]

Whaleshark,
Do you have a source for your quote. If true this demonstrates what we all thought anyway. Looks like the broken window was part of a prior staging.

As noted in the below thread post on FFJ, from Linda Hoffman-Pugh's interview with Star, June 2000:

[ame="http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showpost.php?p=192711&postcount=286"]http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showpost.php?p=192711&postcount=286[/ame]

"Footnote: Here's what the housekeeper, Linda Hoffmann-Pugh had to say about the basement window in an interview with the Star, June 20, 2000:"

'Another thing that made me think Patsy had staged the whole crime was the broken window in the basement. I used to clean their house three times a week. If something was broken, Patsy had me clean it up. On the morning of the murder, police found a broken window in the basement, just a few feet from the room where JonBenet's body was found. John Ramsey told the police that he had broken the window to get into the house months before when he was accidentally locked out. But I think that is a lie. If there had been broken glass in the basement, Patsy would have told me to clean it up. Another thing didn't make sense. John claimed he was locked out on that day when he supposedly broke the window. But he never used a key to come in the front or side door of the house. He always opened the garage door from his car with his remote and came in through the garage entrance. I think Patsy broke that window herself on the night she killed JonBenet to make the police think there had been an intruder, and John concocted the story about breaking the window'.

...I'm trying to find the actual Star interview so I'm not quoting 3rd hand, but haven't found it yet...
___

As for the Dr. Seuss book, I'm stating that yes I read that about the book being JAR's, and it being that title somewhere, but not sure if it was confirmed. Here's some testimony that was asked of Patsy about it though, she says she doesn't know why he'd have the book, and Trip Demuth does say that he 'thinks it had John Andrew's name in it, but he hadn't personally seen it':

http://www.acandyrose.com/s-evidence-window-grate.htm

TOM HANEY: Did John Andrew have a Dr. Seuss book?
PATSY RAMSEY: Did John Andrew have a Dr. Seuss book?
TOM HANEY: Or when he was older, like now?
PATSY RAMSEY: I hope not. He is supposed to have college books, not Dr. Seuss books. Why would you ask such a question?
TOM HANEY: Well, that is because in that suitcase was a Dr. Seuss book.
PATSY RAMSEY: What book was it? Did it have any kid's name in it?
TRIP DEMUTH: That I don't know. I think it had John Andrew's name in it.
PATSY RAMSEY: Oh, it did?
TRIP DEMUTH: I think. I haven't personally seen it.
PATSY RAMSEY: (Inaudible) I don't know. You got me. I don't know.
____

(and by the way, one poster claims - identity questionable, as it's on Topix, so take it with a grain of salt - that the Dr. Seuss book was "Marvin K. Mooney, Will You Please Go Now"... but I have no idea why they claim to know that either... tried to research it and can't confirm either, but just throwing that out there as someone's claim of knowledge when trying to find where i read about JAR being owner and the title)...
___

Also, more on the window -- more contradictory testimony from Patsy, as compared to Linda's:

TRIP DEMUTH: Do you know why the window wasn't fixed?
PATSY RAMSEY: No, I don't. Was it not fixed?
TRIP DEMUTH: Well, what do you know about that window, the condition of that window on Christmas of '96, have you --
PATSY RAMSEY: I just remember a little to do list that Linda Hoffman had included fixing that pane in that window. Whether he got to it or not, I don't know because he wasn't able to fix the play room doors, you know, so he didn't get to everything...
___

It is interesting to note how much Patsy has absolutely no clue about or doesn't recall, if you read a lot of her testimony...

The ransom note written on her notepad... 'Oh, it was?'
The Dr. Seuss book? 'I don't know; you got me'...
Why wasn't the window fixed? 'I don't know....'
Kleenex? Don't recognize...
Bowl for pineapple? Not mine
Flashlight? Not sure
Was JBR wearing underwear to bed? Not sure, would've noticed if she wasn't
Did you have an alarm clock set? Don't know; don't remember it going off?
...On and on....

It's all right there in the testimony, all the contradictions -- I wonder how many of us have not taken the time to look at testimony/timeline information in detail, easily found on A Candy Rose, just lately for memory refreshing, researching, or even at all....I think you'll be truly enlightened.

Because as I was just trying to find more of the numerous examples of Patsy's 'cluelessness' (unless, of course, she is suddenly remembering details about certain events that she needs to relay -- albeit never with commitment - they are either with the caveats: 'i think', 'may have', 'not sure'....) it's readily apparent. And if you look at Patsy's and John's accounts of them getting up in the morning - their stories don't mesh either... of course, they changed over time as well, numerous times, numerous versions.

Sorry... taking this thread down the rabbit hole for a bit, but just check this out for a little taste, and you'll see what I mean:

http://www.acandyrose.com/crimescene-discovery.htm

Patsy Ramsey: "Okay, Um, we got up at about 5:30, I think, I think he went to the bathroom and shower. I went to my bathroom. I did not shower that morning and I just put my clothes on and, uh, did my hair and makeup and, uh, and then I started down the stairs. John was still in the bathroom and went, uh, I stopped kind of briefly there in the laundry room area. And I remember the ironing board was up, I think, and I fussed around with this little red jumpsuit of JonBenet's cause it had, had some spots on it and I was going to remember to do something with that when I got back and, uh, so I had, I had the light on in there in the laundry room area and, uh, um, then I started down the spiral staircase there. I came, I had come back down, I'd come down the back bedroom stairs..."

Tom Trujillo: "Okay"

Patsy Ramsey: "....from my bathroom. Um, I started down the spiral stairs and when I got nearly to the bottom I saw these three pieces of paper, like notebook-size paper, on, on the run of the stairs and, uh, I went on down and turned around and started reading, reading it...."

Tom Trujillo: "Uh huh"

Patsy Ramsey: "And I, uh, I remember reading the first couple of lines and I kind of, didn't know what it was on, uh, and ...You know after the first couple of lines I, it dawned on me, it said something about, 'We have your daughter' or something....and I, uh, I ran back upstairs and pushed open the door to her room and she wasn't in her bed."

Tom Trujillo: "Okay"

Patsy Ramsey: "And I, uh, screamed for John."

1997 April 30 - Taped Interrogation interview of Patsy Ramsey by Steve Thomas and Tom Trujillo in Colorado -

NE Book Page 64:

Tom Trujillo: "Patsy, let me back you up just a little bit. Um, actually to the, to the very beginning of the morning. You and John wake up ... Did you have an alarm clock set or anything?"

Patsy Ramsey: "Uh, I think he had it set, but I don't think it went off. I think we woke up about, you know, I don't remember it going off or anything."

Tom Trujillo: "You don't have an alarm that was set on your side of the bed at all?"

Patsy Ramsey: "Heh uh."

NE Book Page 69:

Tom Trujillo: "Right around the corner. Okay. When did you check on Burke during all of this? You talked about John going to check on Burke."

Patsy Ramsey: "Yeah, I think he ran and checked on him when I was up, up there, you know, it just all happened so fast. I said, 'Oh, my God, what about Burke?' and I think he ran in and checked him while I was running back downstairs or something. But I remember he, you know, I think he ran and checked on him and, and he told me he was okay or whatever...
____

So let's contrast and compare with John's testimony about getting up that morning:

1998 June 25, 26, 27 - Taped Interrogation interview of John Ramsey by Lou Smit and Michael Kane in Colorado -

NE Page 298:

Lou Smit: "Okay. You wake up the next morning...what time do you remember it being?"

John Ramsey: "Well, I think we set the alarm for 5:30. I remember waking up before the alarm went off. So it would have been 5:25 or something like that...we wanted to take off at 7. It was a three-hour flight to Minneapolis. That would have gotten us there at 11 (because of different time zones). The kids' flight got in at eleven-ish...I didn't want to be late for the kids' plane...."

Lou Smit: "What is the first thing upon awaking...?"

John Ramsey: "I think I went into the bathroom, probably went to the bathroom, took a shower. Just started to get dressed...I remember I was standing at my sink and I was probably brushing my teeth or combing my hair or something and I heard Patsy scream."

Lou Smit: "You know about what time it was that you heard her scream?"

John Ramsey: "It would have probably been between 5:30 and 6:00..."

Lou Smit: "Did you see your wife get up that morning?"

John Ramsey: "No."

Lou Smit: "So you had already been in the bathroom when she got up?"

John Ramsey:"Right."
____

Oh, it keeps getting better:

1998 June 25, 26, 27 - Taped Interrogation interview of Patsy Ramsey by Tom Haney and Trip DeMuth in Colorado

Patsy Ramsey: "I started down the stairs, the staircase to the kitchen and the note was on the landing, on the stairs, on the bottom of the stairs (pointing at floor plan), and I.... there was some lighting on, but it wasn't bright lights.....and looked you know, read, started reading the letter. And after the first couple sentences realized, you know, what was happening and I ran back up these spiral stairs, okay and I came and pushed open her door to her room right here (pointing at a floor plan) and she's not in her bed and then I went over to these stairs (pointing at a floor plan) and yelled up for John, call to him and he came down and then I said, you know, she's been kidnaped, she's not in her room, there's a note, whatever, and ah (pause) it was a panicking at that point. Ah, I think I, I can't remember exactly what I did then, whether, I think I ran downstairs again, you know, what do we do, what do we do, and he said call 911, call the police. I ran upstairs and I think he, I think I, I can't remember if, I think I asked him to go run and check on Burke."

Some more contradiction:

NE Book Page 143, 144:

Tom Haney: "How about JonBenet's room, what was the condition of the room?

Patsy Ramsey: "Well, I remember racing over and her door was just kind of slightly ajar.. three, four inches, you know."

Tom Haney: "Okay. Is that the way you left it the night before?"

Patsy Ramsey: "Yes, that's usually the way I left it."

Then we have:

07-09-1998 A&E Documentary 'Who Killed JonBenet’
By Michael Tracy and David Mills

Man: The following morning, Dec. 26th, the Ramseys got out of bed early in their third floor bedroom. They were due to take off to the local airport at half past seven. Patsy Ramsey says she went downstairs at about 5:30 to put together clothes for the trip from the laundry cupboard just outside JonBenet's bedroom."

Patsy Ramsey: "I was fussing around getting some clothes and glanced at her door and the door was closed. I always left it ajar a little bit. I just started downstairs and there were these pieces of paper lying on one of the rungs of the stairs. I kind of turned around and looked at it to see what it was and I started reading the first couple of lines. It just wasn't registering but somewhere it said, 'we have your daughter' it clicked, you know, 'Your Daughter' and I just bounded back up the steps and threw her door open and she was not in her bed."
___

May I have another? Yes, you may:

2000 March 18 John and Patsy Ramsey book, "Death of Innocence"
DOI (HB) Page 11:

"Both of us race to Burke's room at the far end of the second floor and find him apparently still sleep. Best not to arouse him until we figure out what's happening here, I think. He's better off asleep for now. I step into the hall."

So, who checked on Burke? no one, john, everyone.

___

Really? People, really?

These versions are as contradictory as John's versions of the toy that he was helping Burke put together - completely changed over time...

Or the chair blocking the entrance to the door of the train room in which the intruder had to 'cleverly pull behind him while shutting the door and so as to not look like anyone had come in that way'.

Really?

....and all their 'facts' that have changed over time, and with each interview, and in each new book - a lovely new version of fiction every time.

___

By the way, whether they supposedly got up at 5:25 together, separate, or whatnot, the timeline does not add up to all they said they did before making the phone call. It's physically impossible.

No alarm was set.
No one got up and got ready for that morning.
No one ever went to bed the night before.

 

[midwest mama]

Why do you think the book has something to do with a plan to ditch the suitcase?

Let's ask ourselves why an adult (the killer) would put the book in the suitcase.

One reason is if it had incriminating evidence on it, such as semen, blood, mucous, or fecal matter which would arouse suspicion. As far as we know, that's not the case.

Another reason would be to hide it from the other parent because the other parent would know it's in the wrong place and link it with the disappearance of JB. (But how likely is this?) This requires either a lone PDI theory, or a lone JDI theory. Any co-conspiracy theories make hiding the book form the other parent unnecessary.

Even on a lone theory there is little reason to hide the book in the suitcase. The body was hidden in the WC, why not put the book in there too.

Really the book is a red hearing. It most likely was placed there by a child, or for some reason JAR had the book in the suitcase for some reason. (Perhaps JB slipped it into his suitcase the last time he shlepped laundry from home to the frat house and he was just bringing it back?)

I suspect the reason for keeping the title secret is that the police are giving it false importance. Had LS not started his ridiculous intruder theory the suitcase would not be seen as important, nor would it's contents.

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!

 

[UKGuy]

@UKGuy

Regardless of the method of fiber transfer, if JR had moved the suitcases months before JonBenet wore the White Gap Top, then no fibers from any of the relevant objects should be transferred.

He didn't move it out of the house. All that's necessary for fiber transfer is that both objects are in the house at the same time.

If the Gap top was worn for the first time on the 25th, then there would have been relatively little opportunity for primary transfer by JB. But we can't really rule this out as we do not know if the duvet was in the suitcase earlier that day, or that week.

So alike the fiber evidence relating to JR's black shirt, which were allegedly found on JonBenet's body, any proven fiber transfer between the suitcase objects and the White Gap Top, shows how helpful the fiber evidence can be.

I assume that was tongue in cheek. The fiber evidence in this case is useless.

You are repeating JR's version of events. the only way there can be no inconsistency in JR's version of events is if there has been no fiber transfer!

Why? JR could have moved it 3 months prior, then it could have shuttled between the Rs home and Psi-Chi several times w/o John really being aware of that. There is nothing about it being in the basement that prevents fiber transfer.

Alternately no inconsistency may arise if JR is telling the truth but someone else attempted to make use of the suitcase, i.e. stuffing JonBenet into the suitcase, in an attempt to turn the suitcase into a kidnap vehicle?

Thats true but not necessary. There are lots of ways the fibers could transfer, both primary and secondary. Not every one of those ways needs to be related to the crime.

Also you have to assume JAR used some other method along with another duvet and sham, in the interim period, since the previous pair had vanished?

No reason to assume he used any sham/duvet as most 20 year old males don't care a great deal about them. He probably slept the way most college boys do, with a pillow and a blanket.

Assuming JAR/JR are acting in good faith, each having no special agenda, then it appears the suitcase may have been intended to form part of a prior staging which was then abandoned?

I don't really see how it's very useful for staging.

Its not the suitcase thats suspicious, its the Dr. Suess book, it should not be in that suitcase in that location on the night JonBenet was killed.

Actually it's not very suspicious at all. It's a child's book (probably) and kids play with suitcases. The book could have been placed in the suitcase several days prior, so there is no real significance to it's being in there the night of the 25th. Things not being where they are "supposed to be" is just the way life is with kids.

Chrishope,

He didn't move it out of the house. All that's necessary for fiber transfer is that both objects are in the house at the same time.

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

I assume that was tongue in cheek. The fiber evidence in this case is useless.

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.

Why? JR could have moved it 3 months prior, then it could have shuttled between the Rs home and Psi-Chi several times w/o John really being aware of that. There is nothing about it being in the basement that prevents fiber transfer.

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.

Thats true but not necessary. There are lots of ways the fibers could transfer, both primary and secondary. Not every one of those ways needs to be related to the crime.

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

No reason to assume he used any sham/duvet as most 20 year old males don't care a great deal about them. He probably slept the way most college boys do, with a pillow and a blanket.

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

I don't really see how it's very useful for staging.

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

Actually it's not very suspicious at all. It's a child's book (probably) and kids play with suitcases. The book could have been placed in the suitcase several days prior, so there is no real significance to it's being in there the night of the 25th. Things not being where they are "supposed to be" is just the way life is with kids.

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!


.

 

[UKGuy]

As noted in the below thread post on FFJ, from Linda Hoffman-Pugh's interview with Star, June 2000:

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showpost.php?p=192711&postcount=286

"Footnote: Here's what the housekeeper, Linda Hoffmann-Pugh had to say about the basement window in an interview with the Star, June 20, 2000:"

'Another thing that made me think Patsy had staged the whole crime was the broken window in the basement. I used to clean their house three times a week. If something was broken, Patsy had me clean it up. On the morning of the murder, police found a broken window in the basement, just a few feet from the room where JonBenet's body was found. John Ramsey told the police that he had broken the window to get into the house months before when he was accidentally locked out. But I think that is a lie. If there had been broken glass in the basement, Patsy would have told me to clean it up. Another thing didn't make sense. John claimed he was locked out on that day when he supposedly broke the window. But he never used a key to come in the front or side door of the house. He always opened the garage door from his car with his remote and came in through the garage entrance. I think Patsy broke that window herself on the night she killed JonBenet to make the police think there had been an intruder, and John concocted the story about breaking the window'.

...I'm trying to find the actual Star interview so I'm not quoting 3rd hand, but haven't found it yet...
___

As for the Dr. Seuss book, I'm stating that yes I read that about the book being JAR's, and it being that title somewhere, but not sure if it was confirmed. Here's some testimony that was asked of Patsy about it though, she says she doesn't know why he'd have the book, and Trip Demuth does say that he 'thinks it had John Andrew's name in it, but he hadn't personally seen it':

http://www.acandyrose.com/s-evidence-window-grate.htm

TOM HANEY: Did John Andrew have a Dr. Seuss book?
PATSY RAMSEY: Did John Andrew have a Dr. Seuss book?
TOM HANEY: Or when he was older, like now?
PATSY RAMSEY: I hope not. He is supposed to have college books, not Dr. Seuss books. Why would you ask such a question?
TOM HANEY: Well, that is because in that suitcase was a Dr. Seuss book.
PATSY RAMSEY: What book was it? Did it have any kid's name in it?
TRIP DEMUTH: That I don't know. I think it had John Andrew's name in it.
PATSY RAMSEY: Oh, it did?
TRIP DEMUTH: I think. I haven't personally seen it.
PATSY RAMSEY: (Inaudible) I don't know. You got me. I don't know.
____

(and by the way, one poster claims - identity questionable, as it's on Topix, so take it with a grain of salt - that the Dr. Seuss book was "Marvin K. Mooney, Will You Please Go Now"... but I have no idea why they claim to know that either... tried to research it and can't confirm either, but just throwing that out there as someone's claim of knowledge when trying to find where i read about JAR being owner and the title)...
___

Also, more on the window -- more contradictory testimony from Patsy, as compared to Linda's:

TRIP DEMUTH: Do you know why the window wasn't fixed?
PATSY RAMSEY: No, I don't. Was it not fixed?
TRIP DEMUTH: Well, what do you know about that window, the condition of that window on Christmas of '96, have you --
PATSY RAMSEY: I just remember a little to do list that Linda Hoffman had included fixing that pane in that window. Whether he got to it or not, I don't know because he wasn't able to fix the play room doors, you know, so he didn't get to everything...
___

It is interesting to note how much Patsy has absolutely no clue about or doesn't recall, if you read a lot of her testimony...

The ransom note written on her notepad... 'Oh, it was?'
The Dr. Seuss book? 'I don't know; you got me'...
Why wasn't the window fixed? 'I don't know....'
Kleenex? Don't recognize...
Bowl for pineapple? Not mine
Flashlight? Not sure
Was JBR wearing underwear to bed? Not sure, would've noticed if she wasn't
Did you have an alarm clock set? Don't know; don't remember it going off?
...On and on....

It's all right there in the testimony, all the contradictions -- I wonder how many of us have not taken the time to look at testimony/timeline information in detail, easily found on A Candy Rose, just lately for memory refreshing, researching, or even at all....I think you'll be truly enlightened.

Because as I was just trying to find more of the numerous examples of Patsy's 'cluelessness' (unless, of course, she is suddenly remembering details about certain events that she needs to relay -- albeit never with commitment - they are either with the caveats: 'i think', 'may have', 'not sure'....) it's readily apparent. And if you look at Patsy's and John's accounts of them getting up in the morning - their stories don't mesh either... of course, they changed over time as well, numerous times, numerous versions.

Sorry... taking this thread down the rabbit hole for a bit, but just check this out for a little taste, and you'll see what I mean:

http://www.acandyrose.com/crimescene-discovery.htm

Patsy Ramsey: "Okay, Um, we got up at about 5:30, I think, I think he went to the bathroom and shower. I went to my bathroom. I did not shower that morning and I just put my clothes on and, uh, did my hair and makeup and, uh, and then I started down the stairs. John was still in the bathroom and went, uh, I stopped kind of briefly there in the laundry room area. And I remember the ironing board was up, I think, and I fussed around with this little red jumpsuit of JonBenet's cause it had, had some spots on it and I was going to remember to do something with that when I got back and, uh, so I had, I had the light on in there in the laundry room area and, uh, um, then I started down the spiral staircase there. I came, I had come back down, I'd come down the back bedroom stairs..."

Tom Trujillo: "Okay"

Patsy Ramsey: "....from my bathroom. Um, I started down the spiral stairs and when I got nearly to the bottom I saw these three pieces of paper, like notebook-size paper, on, on the run of the stairs and, uh, I went on down and turned around and started reading, reading it...."

Tom Trujillo: "Uh huh"

Patsy Ramsey: "And I, uh, I remember reading the first couple of lines and I kind of, didn't know what it was on, uh, and ...You know after the first couple of lines I, it dawned on me, it said something about, 'We have your daughter' or something....and I, uh, I ran back upstairs and pushed open the door to her room and she wasn't in her bed."

Tom Trujillo: "Okay"

Patsy Ramsey: "And I, uh, screamed for John."

1997 April 30 - Taped Interrogation interview of Patsy Ramsey by Steve Thomas and Tom Trujillo in Colorado -

NE Book Page 64:

Tom Trujillo: "Patsy, let me back you up just a little bit. Um, actually to the, to the very beginning of the morning. You and John wake up ... Did you have an alarm clock set or anything?"

Patsy Ramsey: "Uh, I think he had it set, but I don't think it went off. I think we woke up about, you know, I don't remember it going off or anything."

Tom Trujillo: "You don't have an alarm that was set on your side of the bed at all?"

Patsy Ramsey: "Heh uh."

NE Book Page 69:

Tom Trujillo: "Right around the corner. Okay. When did you check on Burke during all of this? You talked about John going to check on Burke."

Patsy Ramsey: "Yeah, I think he ran and checked on him when I was up, up there, you know, it just all happened so fast. I said, 'Oh, my God, what about Burke?' and I think he ran in and checked him while I was running back downstairs or something. But I remember he, you know, I think he ran and checked on him and, and he told me he was okay or whatever...
____

So let's contrast and compare with John's testimony about getting up that morning:

1998 June 25, 26, 27 - Taped Interrogation interview of John Ramsey by Lou Smit and Michael Kane in Colorado -

NE Page 298:

Lou Smit: "Okay. You wake up the next morning...what time do you remember it being?"

John Ramsey: "Well, I think we set the alarm for 5:30. I remember waking up before the alarm went off. So it would have been 5:25 or something like that...we wanted to take off at 7. It was a three-hour flight to Minneapolis. That would have gotten us there at 11 (because of different time zones). The kids' flight got in at eleven-ish...I didn't want to be late for the kids' plane...."

Lou Smit: "What is the first thing upon awaking...?"

John Ramsey: "I think I went into the bathroom, probably went to the bathroom, took a shower. Just started to get dressed...I remember I was standing at my sink and I was probably brushing my teeth or combing my hair or something and I heard Patsy scream."

Lou Smit: "You know about what time it was that you heard her scream?"

John Ramsey: "It would have probably been between 5:30 and 6:00..."

Lou Smit: "Did you see your wife get up that morning?"

John Ramsey: "No."

Lou Smit: "So you had already been in the bathroom when she got up?"

John Ramsey:"Right."
____

Oh, it keeps getting better:

1998 June 25, 26, 27 - Taped Interrogation interview of Patsy Ramsey by Tom Haney and Trip DeMuth in Colorado

Patsy Ramsey: "I started down the stairs, the staircase to the kitchen and the note was on the landing, on the stairs, on the bottom of the stairs (pointing at floor plan), and I.... there was some lighting on, but it wasn't bright lights.....and looked you know, read, started reading the letter. And after the first couple sentences realized, you know, what was happening and I ran back up these spiral stairs, okay and I came and pushed open her door to her room right here (pointing at a floor plan) and she's not in her bed and then I went over to these stairs (pointing at a floor plan) and yelled up for John, call to him and he came down and then I said, you know, she's been kidnaped, she's not in her room, there's a note, whatever, and ah (pause) it was a panicking at that point. Ah, I think I, I can't remember exactly what I did then, whether, I think I ran downstairs again, you know, what do we do, what do we do, and he said call 911, call the police. I ran upstairs and I think he, I think I, I can't remember if, I think I asked him to go run and check on Burke."

Some more contradiction:

NE Book Page 143, 144:

Tom Haney: "How about JonBenet's room, what was the condition of the room?

Patsy Ramsey: "Well, I remember racing over and her door was just kind of slightly ajar.. three, four inches, you know."

Tom Haney: "Okay. Is that the way you left it the night before?"

Patsy Ramsey: "Yes, that's usually the way I left it."

Then we have:

07-09-1998 A&E Documentary 'Who Killed JonBenet’
By Michael Tracy and David Mills

Man: The following morning, Dec. 26th, the Ramseys got out of bed early in their third floor bedroom. They were due to take off to the local airport at half past seven. Patsy Ramsey says she went downstairs at about 5:30 to put together clothes for the trip from the laundry cupboard just outside JonBenet's bedroom."

Patsy Ramsey: "I was fussing around getting some clothes and glanced at her door and the door was closed. I always left it ajar a little bit. I just started downstairs and there were these pieces of paper lying on one of the rungs of the stairs. I kind of turned around and looked at it to see what it was and I started reading the first couple of lines. It just wasn't registering but somewhere it said, 'we have your daughter' it clicked, you know, 'Your Daughter' and I just bounded back up the steps and threw her door open and she was not in her bed."
___

May I have another? Yes, you may:

2000 March 18 John and Patsy Ramsey book, "Death of Innocence"
DOI (HB) Page 11:

"Both of us race to Burke's room at the far end of the second floor and find him apparently still sleep. Best not to arouse him until we figure out what's happening here, I think. He's better off asleep for now. I step into the hall."

So, who checked on Burke? no one, john, everyone.

___

Really? People, really?

These versions are as contradictory as John's versions of the toy that he was helping Burke put together - completely changed over time...

Or the chair blocking the entrance to the door of the train room in which the intruder had to 'cleverly pull behind him while shutting the door and so as to not look like anyone had come in that way'.

Really?

....and all their 'facts' that have changed over time, and with each interview, and in each new book - a lovely new version of fiction every time.

___

By the way, whether they supposedly got up at 5:25 together, separate, or whatnot, the timeline does not add up to all they said they did before making the phone call. It's physically impossible.

No alarm was set.
No one got up and got ready for that morning.
No one ever went to bed the night before.

Whaleshark,
Yes the R's are making it up as they go along. The inconsistency is a sure sign that one or more parties are lying through their teeth.

They can do this, and nobody knows this better than JR, because the only evidence and testimony that counts is that placed in front of a jury!

That LHP contradicts JR's version of events is gold dust. This tells you he is inventing stuff to cover for a prior staging.

Now thats hard evidence and I wonder where that fits in with the JDI theories that are floating about?

 

[DeeDee249]

It still hasn't been definitely proven whether the duvet was REALLY a duvet, or if it was just a comforter. Many people call a comforter a duvet and vice-versa.
I agree that college boys don't care about such things like the sham, but basically they'll use whatever has been bought for them. A mother or stepmother might buy the sham, especially if it came in a set with the comforter/duvet.

 

[dodie20]

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!

The only way I can see JAR having a Dr Seuss book, (except for maybe 'oh the places you will go')), is if he had it as a child and later gave it to JB. IMO, this was most likely not something he had at college. As for him taking a duvet or sham to college, I doubt that too. When my daughter went to college, neither she nor a single one of the girls that she played softball with, took such things. They had sleeping bags and comforters, but no duvet covers and especially, no pillow shams. Now if JAR's things had the school mascot or something on them, maybe, but otherwise, I doubt he used such unnecessary, girly things. Also, JAR was cleared pretty early on, so I'm assuming he was interviewed and questioned and checked pretty extensively? If he told LE anything about using that suitcase in the previous 3 months, I do believe they would have informed JR when he was going on about the suitcase. Or JAR, himself, would have told his dad. It's a fact that JR said he moved that suitcase from the laundry room, to the basement months earlier. So, as far as I'm concerned, whether he's telling the truth or not, is beside the point. He said it, so he, through his own words, blocked himself into this statement. Not much wiggle room, from what I can see. moo

 

[Whaleshark]

Whaleshark,
Yes the R's are making it up as they go along. The inconsistency is a sure sign that one or more parties are lying through their teeth.

They can do this, and nobody knows this better than JR, because the only evidence and testimony that counts is that placed in front of a jury!

That LHP contradicts JR's version of events is gold dust. This tells you he is inventing stuff to cover for a prior staging.

Now thats hard evidence and I wonder where that fits in with the JDI theories that are floating about?

So I really need to move this train of thought to a/the timeline thread that is probably here somewhere, but it goes along with their contradictory testimony:

So, look here - the police arrive at 5:52 and there were several people already in the house by this time! This is suddenly higher priority to me now than the suitcase stuff... No offense... But when i watched kolar's video in that other thread last night, he made a comment that he was told to look at the chronological events of the case and that would help solve it...I sound all over the place today, forgive me, I'm not usually like this, and don't usually try to hijack threads, and will probably redirect these thoughts to the other related threads... But since I mentioned in my earlier post about the morning timeline when they said they got up, got ready, found note, chaos, looked for jonbenet, Burke, called police, etc.... Timeline is even more impossible:

Because -

"The first two Boulder police officers arrived on the scene at 5:52 a.m. Dec. 26. Several family friends were already inside - including White, his wife, friends Barbara and John Fernie and the pastor from St. John's Episcopalian Church, Rol Hoverstock. Throughout the day, more friends came and went".

Police arrive at 5:52.
Friends already there.
Friends had to be called before police in order for them to all already have gotten there ahead of police.
If Ramseys got up between 5:25 -30, barely, Patsy gets dressed, does hair, does makeup,
cleans a spot on a jumpsuit, gets stuff together, goes downstairs, finds note,
reads some lines, runs up stairs, looks in for jonbenet, screams for John, shows him the note, he puts it on the floor spread out to read the whole thing, at some point there he, or they, check for Burke, have some chaos looking all over for jonbenet, go back downstairs, decide to call 911...

Oh, and somewhere in between that John took a shower, brushed his teeth, and halfway got ready....

Did we run out of time yet? Because somewhere in there, friends all needed to be called, show up, be ready, then have police called, and allow time for them to already show up at 5:52.

If anyone's doing the math, all that is supposedly from 5:25 to 5:52.
27 minutes from get out of bed, get ready, do things, have scenario, call people, have them all show up, call police, have them show up at 5:52.

No. These scenarios are total facade, implausible, and clarify to me the requirement of friends to back them up, and in some cases, cover for them.

No, some of those people were at that house way earlier. Some of John's statements about a lot of people being in that house at way early hours is starting to make sense.

Friends covered for the Ramseys clearly -- Dr. Boeuf, Stines...
And the others had to know their testimony and timelines were not matching what happened that morning.

Sorry.... You can go back to the duvet, suitcase, and Dr. Seuss... But I would actually tend to agree with chrishope on this point, that too much importance is being put on that suitcase when Lou Smit tried to make it important.

Kolar, chronological sequence of events, and key testimony is where we will find the answers...

 

[dodie20]

1 thing with the chronology that doesn't fit, is PR getting made up and dressed in the same clothes she wore the night before. So, there's some obvious time that can be cut off from the timeline. Also, JR said she was in bed when he got up, and that's obviously not true, unless he saw her laying there still fully clothed. So, what is the true chronological order of events? Except for the police showing up, there's nothing to trust as truth, because the danged phone records were never released. How somebody could just tell a bold faced lie is beyond me, but without those records, that's exactly what it looks like happened. If JR has nothing to hide, then he should insist those phone records be released, so he can prove that the grand jury got this wrong. And that goes for any cell phone records too. Phone records tell a story...something I know for a fact, from personal experience. Getting the records from 6 different numbers, (including 911), kept my daughter out of a lot of trouble, because they proved step by step that she was telling the truth. Everything from who called who, how long they talked, when the calls were made, the lapse of time between the calls. Put together, it all forms a story. moo

 

[UKGuy]

So I really need to move this train of thought to a/the timeline thread that is probably here somewhere, but it goes along with their contradictory testimony:

So, look here - the police arrive at 5:52 and there were several people already in the house by this time! This is suddenly higher priority to me now than the suitcase stuff... No offense... But when i watched kolar's video in that other thread last night, he made a comment that he was told to look at the chronological events of the case and that would help solve it...I sound all over the place today, forgive me, I'm not usually like this, and don't usually try to hijack threads, and will probably redirect these thoughts to the other related threads... But since I mentioned in my earlier post about the morning timeline when they said they got up, got ready, found note, chaos, looked for jonbenet, Burke, called police, etc.... Timeline is even more impossible:

Because -

"The first two Boulder police officers arrived on the scene at 5:52 a.m. Dec. 26. Several family friends were already inside - including White, his wife, friends Barbara and John Fernie and the pastor from St. John's Episcopalian Church, Rol Hoverstock. Throughout the day, more friends came and went".

Police arrive at 5:52.
Friends already there.
Friends had to be called before police in order for them to all already have gotten there ahead of police.
If Ramseys got up between 5:25 -30, barely, Patsy gets dressed, does hair, does makeup,
cleans a spot on a jumpsuit, gets stuff together, goes downstairs, finds note,
reads some lines, runs up stairs, looks in for jonbenet, screams for John, shows him the note, he puts it on the floor spread out to read the whole thing, at some point there he, or they, check for Burke, have some chaos looking all over for jonbenet, go back downstairs, decide to call 911...

Oh, and somewhere in between that John took a shower, brushed his teeth, and halfway got ready....

Did we run out of time yet? Because somewhere in there, friends all needed to be called, show up, be ready, then have police called, and allow time for them to already show up at 5:52.

If anyone's doing the math, all that is supposedly from 5:25 to 5:52.
27 minutes from get out of bed, get ready, do things, have scenario, call people, have them all show up, call police, have them show up at 5:52.

No. These scenarios are total facade, implausible, and clarify to me the requirement of friends to back them up, and in some cases, cover for them.

No, some of those people were at that house way earlier. Some of John's statements about a lot of people being in that house at way early hours is starting to make sense.

Friends covered for the Ramseys clearly -- Dr. Boeuf, Stines...
And the others had to know their testimony and timelines were not matching what happened that morning.

Sorry.... You can go back to the duvet, suitcase, and Dr. Seuss... But I would actually tend to agree with chrishope on this point, that too much importance is being put on that suitcase when Lou Smit tried to make it important.

Kolar, chronological sequence of events, and key testimony is where we will find the answers...

Whaleshark,
The timeline has been discussed before, and it then seemed inconsistent in parts, a clue that the Ramsey version of events was fabricated.

Sorry.... You can go back to the duvet, suitcase, and Dr. Seuss... But I would actually tend to agree with chrishope on this point, that too much importance is being put on that suitcase when Lou Smit tried to make it important.

You should create a timeline thread where you and Chrishope can make endless inferences regarding the Ramsey's, have fun.

.

 

[UKGuy]

It still hasn't been definitely proven whether the duvet was REALLY a duvet, or if it was just a comforter. Many people call a comforter a duvet and vice-versa.
I agree that college boys don't care about such things like the sham, but basically they'll use whatever has been bought for them. A mother or stepmother might buy the sham, especially if it came in a set with the comforter/duvet.

DeeDee249,
Not certain what a comforter is myself. I do not regard the objects in the suitcase that suspicious. The suitcase might have played no role.

Its the presence of JonBenet's White Gap Top fibers, allegedly on objects in the suitcase, that is important. Since it does not seem JR's version of events and the fiber transfer match up?

.

 

[Nom de plume]

So I really need to move this train of thought to a/the timeline thread that is probably here somewhere, but it goes along with their contradictory testimony:

So, look here - the police arrive at 5:52 and there were several people already in the house by this time! This is suddenly higher priority to me now than the suitcase stuff... No offense... But when i watched kolar's video in that other thread last night, he made a comment that he was told to look at the chronological events of the case and that would help solve it...I sound all over the place today, forgive me, I'm not usually like this, and don't usually try to hijack threads, and will probably redirect these thoughts to the other related threads... But since I mentioned in my earlier post about the morning timeline when they said they got up, got ready, found note, chaos, looked for jonbenet, Burke, called police, etc.... Timeline is even more impossible:

Because -

"The first two Boulder police officers arrived on the scene at 5:52 a.m. Dec. 26. Several family friends were already inside - including White, his wife, friends Barbara and John Fernie and the pastor from St. John's Episcopalian Church, Rol Hoverstock. Throughout the day, more friends came and went".

Police arrive at 5:52.
Friends already there.
Friends had to be called before police in order for them to all already have gotten there ahead of police.
If Ramseys got up between 5:25 -30, barely, Patsy gets dressed, does hair, does makeup,
cleans a spot on a jumpsuit, gets stuff together, goes downstairs, finds note,
reads some lines, runs up stairs, looks in for jonbenet, screams for John, shows him the note, he puts it on the floor spread out to read the whole thing, at some point there he, or they, check for Burke, have some chaos looking all over for jonbenet, go back downstairs, decide to call 911...

Oh, and somewhere in between that John took a shower, brushed his teeth, and halfway got ready....

Did we run out of time yet? Because somewhere in there, friends all needed to be called, show up, be ready, then have police called, and allow time for them to already show up at 5:52.

If anyone's doing the math, all that is supposedly from 5:25 to 5:52.
27 minutes from get out of bed, get ready, do things, have scenario, call people, have them all show up, call police, have them show up at 5:52.

No. These scenarios are total facade, implausible, and clarify to me the requirement of friends to back them up, and in some cases, cover for them.

No, some of those people were at that house way earlier. Some of John's statements about a lot of people being in that house at way early hours is starting to make sense.

Friends covered for the Ramseys clearly -- Dr. Boeuf, Stines...
And the others had to know their testimony and timelines were not matching what happened that morning.

Sorry.... You can go back to the duvet, suitcase, and Dr. Seuss... But I would actually tend to agree with chrishope on this point, that too much importance is being put on that suitcase when Lou Smit tried to make it important.

Kolar, chronological sequence of events, and key testimony is where we will find the answers...

JR said that there were a lot of people at the house at 3:00am. That might have been one of the few truths that slipped out of his mouth.

I'm thinking maybe they called the friends over shortly after the staging & note were finished. They are following the RN instructions not to contact LE, but making the exception for their friends. After all, they had to bring other people into the picture to make it seem realistic. I think the Ws & Fs "convinced" them to call BPD. Then the story was concocted to say that they just got up and found the note.

LS tried to make the suitcase relevant to the IDI theory. Just because he was way off base, it doesn't mean that it didn't play some role that night. I don't think we can say for sure either way about the suitcase. If we can't rule it out, and how can we when we don't know for sure what evidence was found in it, then we have to consider the possibility that it did have some significance.

 

[midwest mama]

So I really need to move this train of thought to a/the timeline thread that is probably here somewhere, but it goes along with their contradictory testimony:

So, look here - the police arrive at 5:52 and there were several people already in the house by this time! This is suddenly higher priority to me now than the suitcase stuff... No offense... But when i watched kolar's video in that other thread last night, he made a comment that he was told to look at the chronological events of the case and that would help solve it...I sound all over the place today, forgive me, I'm not usually like this, and don't usually try to hijack threads, and will probably redirect these thoughts to the other related threads... But since I mentioned in my earlier post about the morning timeline when they said they got up, got ready, found note, chaos, looked for jonbenet, Burke, called police, etc.... Timeline is even more impossible:

Because -

"The first two Boulder police officers arrived on the scene at 5:52 a.m. Dec. 26. Several family friends were already inside - including White, his wife, friends Barbara and John Fernie and the pastor from St. John's Episcopalian Church, Rol Hoverstock. Throughout the day, more friends came and went".

Police arrive at 5:52.
Friends already there.
Friends had to be called before police in order for them to all already have gotten there ahead of police.
If Ramseys got up between 5:25 -30, barely, Patsy gets dressed, does hair, does makeup,
cleans a spot on a jumpsuit, gets stuff together, goes downstairs, finds note,
reads some lines, runs up stairs, looks in for jonbenet, screams for John, shows him the note, he puts it on the floor spread out to read the whole thing, at some point there he, or they, check for Burke, have some chaos looking all over for jonbenet, go back downstairs, decide to call 911...

Oh, and somewhere in between that John took a shower, brushed his teeth, and halfway got ready....

Did we run out of time yet? Because somewhere in there, friends all needed to be called, show up, be ready, then have police called, and allow time for them to already show up at 5:52.

If anyone's doing the math, all that is supposedly from 5:25 to 5:52.
27 minutes from get out of bed, get ready, do things, have scenario, call people, have them all show up, call police, have them show up at 5:52.

No. These scenarios are total facade, implausible, and clarify to me the requirement of friends to back them up, and in some cases, cover for them.

No, some of those people were at that house way earlier. Some of John's statements about a lot of people being in that house at way early hours is starting to make sense.

Friends covered for the Ramseys clearly -- Dr. Boeuf, Stines...
And the others had to know their testimony and timelines were not matching what happened that morning.

Sorry.... You can go back to the duvet, suitcase, and Dr. Seuss... But I would actually tend to agree with chrishope on this point, that too much importance is being put on that suitcase when Lou Smit tried to make it important.

Kolar, chronological sequence of events, and key testimony is where we will find the answers...

Whoa.....Both Kolar's and Thomas' books relate French arriving first, followed by Reichenbach. The Fernies (according to Kolar) arrived around 6:30 am, followed shortly by the Whites. Fleet did his first basement check about 15 minutes after that. Holverstock (according to Kolar) was called a bit later, and arrived after the police and other friends. Boeff stated himself in an interview with Sawyer, that "they" called him in and when he arrived, he found Patsy on the floor, supposedly after they had found JB.

Also both Kolar and Thomas' books stated that there were two phone calls made after the 911 call by Patsy to her friends. Somehow they must have been able to confirm this information.

I would like to know where your information about friends already being in the house when officers arrived came from??

 

[midwestphd]

The contents of the suitcase may have simply been a result of haphazard storage. Given the condition of the basement (a mess), it's not unreasonable to think that PR or LHP just stuffed some random items in there at some point to get those items out of the way. :twocents:

Looking at the photographs of the placement of the suitcase in front of the window, it is placed almost too perfectly not to be part of the staging.

A duvet is a type of cover for a down blanket or comforter. It is kind of like a huge pillowcase that fits over another blanket/comforter and zips up or buttons on one side. People buy them to disguise an ugly comforter--at least that's one reason. Depending on what the duvet is made of, it can also be easier to launder than your average comforter. A comforter is just your basic "thick blanket." The differences probably have no bearing on anything, but I saw an opportunity to contribute and I seized it. :rocker:

 

[Nom de plume]

Whoa.....Both Kolar's and Thomas' books relate French arriving first, followed by Reichenbach. The Fernies (according to Kolar) arrived around 6:30 am, followed shortly by the Whites. Fleet did his first basement check about 15 minutes after that. Holverstock (according to Kolar) was called a bit later, and arrived after the police and other friends. Boeff stated himself in an interview with Sawyer, that "they" called him in and when he arrived, he found Patsy on the floor, supposedly after they had found JB.

Also both Kolar and Thomas' books stated that there were two phone calls made after the 911 call by Patsy to her friends. Somehow they must have been able to confirm this information.

I would like to know where your information about friends already being in the house when officers arrived came from??

I thought that too, then I thought maybe Whaleshark had caught something I missed. Is it possible that they did call the friends in the wee hours, they "convinced" the Rs to call LE, left and then came back later? There's something to that comment by JR about a lot of people being there at 3 am. :waitasec:

 

[Whaleshark]

Whaleshark,
The timeline has been discussed before, and it then seemed inconsistent in parts, a clue that the Ramsey version of events was fabricated.


You should create a timeline thread where you and Chrishope can make endless inferences regarding the Ramsey's, have fun.

.

alrighty then.

perhaps i should have just left things alone and not continued on my train of thought last night.....
it was really late anyway and i wasn't feeling well.

maybe i'll just leave things alone awhile.

 

[UKGuy]

alrighty then.

perhaps i should have just left things alone and not continued on my train of thought last night.....
it was really late anyway and i wasn't feeling well.

maybe i'll just leave things alone awhile.

Whaleshark
Please continue. But we have discussed the friends over at 3am and the timeline before. Its incredibly detailed with a few police mistakes. Friends over early was a suggested reason for the flashlight being wiped down, and JR's cellphone records vanishing.

The other thing about the timeline is the time-lapse between JonBenet being whacked around 12:30am and 5:50am thereabouts when the 911 call was made. Thats more than enough time to stage everything.

One important thing to emerge is that we know someone had already staged a prior crime-scene, and possibly JR decided against it, in favor of the wine-cellar kidnapping, hence he has to invent a version of events to cover for the window etc?

I think the wine-cellar staging was really last-minute stuff. The R's went from IDI to Kidnapper Did It, real fast.

This is why we are discussing the suitcase, just in case it played a role, i.e. as vehicle to stage JonBenet's removal from the house?

.

 

[dodie20]

Just curious. Would the suitcase have fit through the window? I know JR said he fit, so I guess the case would, but I was just wondering.

 

[Whaleshark]

Whaleshark
Please continue. But we have discussed the friends over at 3am and the timeline before. Its incredibly detailed with a few police mistakes. Friends over early was a suggested reason for the flashlight being wiped down, and JR's cellphone records vanishing.

The other thing about the timeline is the time-lapse between JonBenet being whacked around 12:30am and 5:50am thereabouts when the 911 call was made. Thats more than enough time to stage everything.

One important thing to emerge is that we know someone had already staged a prior crime-scene, and possibly JR decided against it, in favor of the wine-cellar kidnapping, hence he has to invent a version of events to cover for the window etc?

I think the wine-cellar staging was really last-minute stuff. The R's went from IDI to Kidnapper Did It, real fast.

This is why we are discussing the suitcase, just in case it played a role, i.e. as vehicle to stage JonBenet's removal from the house?

.

I know timelines discussed at length before, and I do acknowledge considering the significance of everything, especially if her fibers are in the suitcase.

But if timeline suggests people there around 3 am or sometime before 5:30, then we should probably start considering more people in on the staging than just Patsy and John.... Especially when you read John Fernie's statement about his arrival that morning, and going to the back door and seeing the note inside the house laid out on the floor through the doors and being able to read it through the doors. Others have commented before about his 'eagle vision' and how it doesn't make sense...

I'm just saying if people really were there that early, we have not been factoring them into the scenarios - whether for staging, or other reasons... And what it means for the crime - why Ramseys might feel comfortable calling close friends at night to help, or if a few close friends were already over late, and something happened while they were still there...