Known rope in the house

[midwest mama]

Why, then, did CSI spend so much time videotaping that broken window if was obvious that this wasn't a point of entry and exit? If I recall, they spent much more time on that window than all of the rest of the messy room? Remember, this was videotaped that night several hours after the body was removed from the home. This was before Lou Smit arrived on the scene. Before, as you say, John began pushing the window.

Because they had to substantiate the fact that it WAS NOT a point of entry and exit if the case went to trial with an indictment against the Ramseys. Showing the implausibility of an intruder using the window would have made for a better case against the R's, which is where LE stood, from almost the first few hours after the crime, based on their inspection.

There was mention of leaks to the RST from within LE. If someone informed the R's that there was a solid piece of film evidence about the window that could be used against them, I think they would have then gone into damage control to try to introduce 'reasonable doubt', and hence, Lou Smit and JR doing their best!

 

[midwest mama]

Of course not- no one can. We have only his word.

Good one! :floorlaugh: Is 'Pinocchio' a synonym for JR? :liar:

 

[midwest mama]

If you think John was the perp, who was he trying to pin it on, Patsy?[/QUOTE

Maybe. If he could have molested and killed his daughter to keep her from telling the truth about him, do you think he might have been able to frame a wife that he considered could be facing a death sentence soon from an incurable (though in remission) cancer?

Or, he may have had another 'patsy' in mind - he did give several of them a good try. Even his best friend.

People with the ability to evolve from a home garage business to a billion dollar revenue enterprise have what it takes to get where they want to go.

And if they don't want to go somewhere, like death row, I imagine they also would stop at nothing to circumvent that likelihood.

Simply expressed, a criminal is capable of criminality.

 

[txsvicki]

Another thing about the suitcase was that the cat in the hat book was supposedly inside. John always said such weird things, almost like he gives clues. In his suffering book he describes the aunt Polly or whatever her name is, coming to the house after the murder. He talks of her wishing things were the same and she were reading the cat in the hat to both kids. It's just another weird comment that I noticed and maybe some type of cover for the suitcase suspicion or to mess with the minds of those who still follow the case.

 

[midwest mama]

Chrishope,
Well how relevant is this: John moves the suitcase down to the basement, what!

I think this is the first time I remember him doing any domestic chores?

Moving stuff about the house was normally delegated to the housekeeper. e.g., Patsy's paint tote.

The best rationale I can come up with, is that they intended to dump JonBenet outdoors and place some of the objects dumped into the wine-cellar, inside that suitcase and deposit it all far away from the house.

When they decided to restage either the suitcase was redundant and left in place, or it was emptied into the wine-cellar, then placed at that angle to window?

What does John care about JAR's suitcase? I think the suitcase was to be used to relocate either crime-scene objects or JonBenet?


.

Fact: There is forensic evidence of fibers "consistent with" those from inside the suitcase, found on JB's body.

Supposition: If JR had been able to execute the "demands' of the ransom note (if the 911 call was not made when it was that morning) he could have easily gotten rid of that suitcase when he went to 'deliver the money'.

He ran out of time to get all the window staging done and get back upstairs, showered, etc. before Patsy would get up and head downstairs. With the suitcase there by the window, he knew he'd be able to grab it easily when he went back down to finish staging the broken window after getting Patsy and Burke safely stashed with friends, while he took care of the ransom demands.

Maybe even have stashed it in his plane to be disposed of well away from Boulder one day in the future. A suitcase in his plane would not seem suspicious to anyone, especially if the whole ransom scene played out, and JB was 'picked up' already murdered. BPD would have no immediate reason to check his plane. :moo:

 

[midwest mama]

Another thing about the suitcase was that the cat in the hat book was supposedly inside. John always said such weird things, almost like he gives clues. In his suffering book he describes the aunt Polly or whatever her name is, coming to the house after the murder. He talks of her wishing things were the same and she were reading the cat in the hat to both kids. It's just another weird comment that I noticed and maybe some type of cover for the suitcase suspicion or to mess with the minds of those who still follow the case.

From what I've read, the title of the Dr. Seuss book has never been officially revealed. Some of us have speculated about it being "Cat In the Hat", because of some comparisons to theories about this case and Cat wearing a bow around his neck. Do you have a source for the book name?

I did not read JR's "Suffering" book, purposefully. Agree totally with you that it is WEIRD about a statement JR connected to a family member and reading the Cat In the Hat. Another thing to add to my "JR's mind is really garbled up" opinion.

 

[txsvicki]

No, and sorry. I was thinking those books are all cat in the hat and not sure what book was in the suitcase and now not sure if John said Dr. Suess or cat in the hat. It was definitely one or the other though. No way would i buy his book, but believe i read a free excerpt on amazon.

 

[Chrishope]

If you think John was the perp, who was he trying to pin it on, Patsy?

I don't think he was trying to pin it on a specific person.

Why, then, did CSI spend so much time videotaping that broken window if was obvious that this wasn't a point of entry and exit? If I recall, they spent much more time on that window than all of the rest of the messy room? Remember, this was videotaped that night several hours after the body was removed from the home. This was before Lou Smit arrived on the scene. Before, as you say, John began pushing the window.

One reason is that it takes long to show the window that other parts of the messy room. We saw, for the first time, that there was a chair nearby. A chair LS never showed us in his cropped photos. A chair that is much more practical than a suitcase as an object to stand on to get the the window sill. It's necessary to show the size of the break, to show how the window swings in, and to show the remnants of spider web.

You almost sound as if you think the window actually could have been a POE. So I'm asking, what do you think? With grate in place, the web intact, the dirt on the sill very little disturbed, do you think it's an entry/exit point?

 

[Chrishope]

Chrishope and all others who don't believe John wanted Fleet to see the
broken window before discovering the body. I quote from ST's book:

"Each window had four panes, and Fleet White, having been down there earlier, pointed out the baseball-sized hole in the upper left pane of the middle window. "DAMN IT, I HAD TO BREAK THAT," JOHN RAMSEY SAID, adding that it had happened the previous summer when he kicked in the window to get into the house after locking himself out. SHOULD HAVE FIXED IT THEN, HE NOTED, TAPPING HIS FOREHEAD". (emphasis mine)

Please read the capitalized part of John's words and tell me John wasn't implying that the intruder could have come in through that window.

I'm sorry but I'm going to have to ask again why a man of at least average intelligence needs to have it implied to him that a broken window, the opening of which is large enough for a man to get through, could be a possible entry point. It's almost as if you think FW/LE would never have figured out that someone could have come through the window if it were not for JR's story.

This isn't advanced physics. The window glass is broken, and the frame swings in, and the opening is big enough for a man to get through. Anyone with a normal IQ over the age of 6 will make the connection that it could be an entry point. Do you think JR figured he was dealing with people who were mentally retarded?

Why else would John say, "DAMN IT" when Fleet pointed out the broken window? Do you think John was mad at himself because the heating bill was high????? Of course not! After Fleet pointed out an obvious point of entry, John is mad at himself. Not content with just that, John adds: "SHOULD HAVE FIXED IT THEN"....and then he taps his head.

JR is letting FW know the window wasn't broken last night.

His daughter is missing. Do you suppose John was tapping his head and swearing and exclaiming he should have fixed the window because bugs were getting in or an intruder might have come in through that way???? Do you think, WITH HIS DAUGHTER MISSING, that John was mad at himself because cold air was coming in the house or that an intruder might have come in through there?

Are you IDI? JBR isn't missing, she's dead in the WC and JR full well knows that. He also knows the time has come that he must "discover" the body. It could be as UKGuy suggests that he is prepping FW to think about an intruder before the body is found. But absolutely JR is not trying to suggest to FW that somone might have come in the window because that is no more necessary than saying water is wet, or the sky is blue.

I'm not sure FW examines the window with the same care as the police. But if he did, then it's obvious to him the kidnappers didn't come through the window. The problem for JR is that the window isn't a plausible entry/exit, therefore he needs to have a story about why the glass is broken -otherwise it's obviously a failed attempt at staging. His story needs to point away from him having broken it the night before.

It's so obvious what John was trying to do that detectives grilled John, at a later interview, about just how John crawled through that window...they grilled him at length.

I don't think any of the police questioning could be described as "grilling". Polite, tentative, questions submitted to the defense lawyers, in writing, prior to the interview is not "grilling".

They never did get a good answer out of him. He might have come home in a cab, or maybe not. He might have stripped off to his skivvies, but doesn't quite recall. He might have put his shoes back on, and jumped down the window well, and stood with his back to the window and kicked out the top pane. He's not quite sure he can recall exactly, despite saying that he might have done this on one or even two prior occasions, not counting the most recent break in.

Let me just ask you. Do you think JR broke the window back in July/Aug?

 

[Chrishope]

Chris, before discovering a body in your own home, a body which is going to, immediately bring all kinds of suspicion on you or a family member, you might want to take away some of that suspicion by pointing out a possible point of entry...

Body in basement, broken window in basement. Remember, John didn't know FW had been in the basement and had, already, seen the broken window.

Repeat: Body in basement, broken window in basement. I discover body, FW wonders about the broken window a few feet around the corner...

Again, why is there a need to point out to reasonably intelligent adults that a large window with a moveable frame and a broken pane might be an entry point?

It doesn't take away any suspicion because it's not a plausible POE. In fact if he doesn't explain the broken window it tends to make him look more suspicious. What his story accomplishes is that it explains why the glass is broken. He needs the police and FW to understand that the glass was not broken the night before (even though, in reality, it was).

 

[Chrishope]

Fact: There is forensic evidence of fibers "consistent with" those from inside the suitcase, found on JB's body.

Supposition: If JR had been able to execute the "demands' of the ransom note (if the 911 call was not made when it was that morning) he could have easily gotten rid of that suitcase when he went to 'deliver the money'.

He ran out of time to get all the window staging done and get back upstairs, showered, etc. before Patsy would get up and head downstairs. With the suitcase there by the window, he knew he'd be able to grab it easily when he went back down to finish staging the broken window after getting Patsy and Burke safely stashed with friends, while he took care of the ransom demands.

Maybe even have stashed it in his plane to be disposed of well away from Boulder one day in the future. A suitcase in his plane would not seem suspicious to anyone, especially if the whole ransom scene played out, and JB was 'picked up' already murdered. BPD would have no immediate reason to check his plane. :moo:

I thought there was some dispute about the fiber evidence. Didn't the FBI say the fibers were not consistent? Or has this been cleared up in Kolar's book?

 

[OpenMind4U]

skip

JR is letting FW know the window wasn't broken last night.

skip

Are you IDI? JBR isn't missing, she's dead in the WC and JR full well knows that. He also knows the time has come that he must "discover" the body. It could be as UKGuy suggests that he is prepping FW to think about an intruder before the body is found. But absolutely JR is not trying to suggest to FW that somone might have come in the window because that is no more necessary than saying water is wet, or the sky is blue.

I'm not sure FW examines the window with the same care as the police. But if he did, then it's obvious to him the kidnappers didn't come through the window. The problem for JR is that the window isn't a plausible entry/exit, therefore he needs to have a story about why the glass is broken -otherwise it's obviously a failed attempt at staging. His story needs to point away from him having broken it the night before.



I don't think any of the police questioning could be described as "grilling". Polite, tentative, questions submitted to the defense lawyers, in writing, prior to the interview is not "grilling".

They never did get a good answer out of him. He might have come home in a cab, or maybe not. He might have stripped off to his skivvies, but doesn't quite recall. He might have put his shoes back on, and jumped down the window well, and stood with his back to the window and kicked out the top pane. He's not quite sure he can recall exactly, despite saying that he might have done this on one or even two prior occasions, not counting the most recent break in.

Let me just ask you. Do you think JR broke the window back in July/Aug?

Chrishope, you said something very important and please allow me to use your logic to convince you otherwise.

JR is letting FW know the window wasn't broken last night.

Let's say you come home and find your house has been robbed. You called the police. Police asked you if your doors have been closed? You said, I checked ALL doors before I left. They were closed for sure!...(now, let's say that you just remembered of your basement window you left opened before you left). Question: would you mention about your opened basement wondow to police right away or would wait? And if you would 'wait' then for WHAT reason?

Now, back to Ramsey. It's very important to remember :
- JR was in the basement and saw this broken window between 9am-11am (after FW);
- from 6:00am till 1:00pm, the police are there to investigate the KIDNAPPING.

WHAT was the reason to NOT tell the police that one of your basement window is broken (regardless, if it was broken by you or not)?

Let me just ask you. Do you think JR broke the window back in July/Aug?

IMO, absolutely NOT!

 

[Chrishope]

Chrishope, you said something very important and please allow me to use your logic to convince you otherwise.



Let's say you come home and find your house has been robbed. You called the police. Police asked you if your doors have been closed? You said, I checked ALL doors before I left. They were closed for sure!...(now, let's say that you just remembered of your basement window you left opened before you left). Question: would you mention about your opened basement wondow to police right away or would wait? And if you would 'wait' then for WHAT reason?

Yes, you'd tell the police about the window, but if the cops looked around the house they'd see it anyway. There would be no need to tell them. It would occur -even to BPD- that someone might have come in through an open window.

Now, back to Ramsey. It's very important to remember :
- JR was in the basement and saw this broken window between 9am-11am (after FW);
- from 6:00am till 1:00pm, the police are there to investigate the KIDNAPPING.

WHAT was the reason to NOT tell the police that one of your basement window is broken (regardless, if it was broken by you or not)?

The police have seen the broken window shortly after 6am. French and Riechenbach both look through the house, inside. Riechenbach walks around outside. What need is there to tell the police about a broken window that they have already seen? The police know the window is broken. They also know, after looking for just a few minutes, that the window was not used by an intruder.

Even if JR is pretending that he first knows of the broken window between 9-11 am, he still knows that the police have already seen it. If the police aren't making an issue of it, why bring it up?

It's not clear, to me, whether or not the police talked to JR about the window that morning. I don't recall anything from ST's book about JR being questioned about it by officers on the scene. It seems a natural enough question. Yet, as far as I know, the police didn't ask about it until April '97. By the time JR is first interviewed the police know of the story about forgetting the key and JR breaking in. Did they get the story from FW? Or did they get it from JR that morning? (If JR told the police the same story, that morning, that may account for why he and PR were not arrested)

If JR wants people (FW/LE) to consider that an intruder came in through the window -something blindingly obvious as a possibility, and at the same time completely implausible given the grate, the web, and the condition of the sill, then why not just say "Hey, there's a broken window. Maybe the kindappers came in that way". Why is there a need to "back date" the breaking of the glass? If anyone would be willing to believe the window was an entry point, why not also let them think it was broken the night before, by the intruder?

The reason of course is that it's obvious the window wasn't used as an entry/exit. Why then, is the glass broken? It's the "back dating" that is important.

 

[learnin]

Because they had to substantiate the fact that it WAS NOT a point of entry and exit if the case went to trial with an indictment against the Ramseys. Showing the implausibility of an intruder using the window would have made for a better case against the R's, which is where LE stood, from almost the first few hours after the crime, based on their inspection.

There was mention of leaks to the RST from within LE. If someone informed the R's that there was a solid piece of film evidence about the window that could be used against them, I think they would have then gone into damage control to try to introduce 'reasonable doubt', and hence, Lou Smit and JR doing their best!

Exactly. CSI was trying to show that the window was not a point of entry.
The argument is that any one (even the stager) would know that window wasn't a point of entry. Not so. If CSI has to spend a lot of time on that window to prove it wasn't a point of entry, then, why should we think that John would not try to suggest that it was a point of entry??

What is the purpose of the wrist ligatures? Was the stager trying to say that JBR was bound by her kidnappers? If so, why were they tied so loosely?

We can't look at this crime scene and say: "Well, the stager wouldn't use the broken basement window as a point of entry and exit because it's obvious that there were spider webs...etc." or, for instance: "Well, the stager wasn't using the wrist ligatures to stage a binding because they weren't tied tight enough."

Stagers make mistakes and this is why LE can tell that staging has occurred.

 

[learnin]

If you think John was the perp, who was he trying to pin it on, Patsy?[/QUOTE

Maybe. If he could have molested and killed his daughter to keep her from telling the truth about him, do you think he might have been able to frame a wife that he considered could be facing a death sentence soon from an incurable (though in remission) cancer?

Or, he may have had another 'patsy' in mind - he did give several of them a good try. Even his best friend.

People with the ability to evolve from a home garage business to a billion dollar revenue enterprise have what it takes to get where they want to go.

And if they don't want to go somewhere, like death row, I imagine they also would stop at nothing to circumvent that likelihood.

Simply expressed, a criminal is capable of criminality.

I have no problem with a theory which says that JR was trying to pin it on his wife. I'm open to variable theories. I'm just trying to determine chris' theory.
I've often wondered if JR might have done the whole thing but then we have that ransom note which, I believe, all experts determined that John didn't write it...That's a major problem with this theory.

 

[midwest mama]

I have no problem with a theory which says that JR was trying to pin it on his wife. I'm open to variable theories. I'm just trying to determine chris' theory.
I've often wondered if JR might have done the whole thing but then we have that ransom note which, I believe, all experts determined that John didn't write it...That's a major problem with this theory.

100% correct that clearing JR from writing the ransom note was probably the biggest break JR got enabling him to fly under the radar.

Here are some things to consider:

>After analysis by qualified individuals, the note was determined to be written by someone attempting to disguise their writing.

>The RST team hired their own 'experts' who came forth quickly dispelling JR, and there were experts not on the RST team who gave opinions that the note sounded as if it were written by a female. Even though Patsy scored a 4.5 out of 5 as not being the author, we must conclude that she was the only one not ruled out. But, 4.5 out of 5 NOT the author??

>Three other handwriting experts, Fausto Brugnatelli, Bart Bagget, and Sheila Lowe, all stated JR was likely the writer of the note, though Mr. Bagget noted known lack of availability of JR's exemplars to use. Why were there several other people who were asked to give repeated samples, and JR was not pressed to provide as much comparison material? Why would they have eliminated him so easily with little exemplar material when it was known the writer was attempting to disguise his/her writing?

>This is from Kolar's book, pg 366: Author's note: I spoke again to SSA Fitzgerald in March, 2012. He had since retired from the FBI and indicated that he had written to Chief Beckner in early 2009, not long after Boulder Police had taken back the case from the DA's Office. He was offering to put together a samll team of forensic linguistic experts from around the nation to take another objective look at the ransom note. One of his peers from the United Kingdom had volunteered to participate as well, and it was posed to Chief Beckner that the analysis work would be performed pro-bono. Chief Beckner reportedly thanked the agent, but for unknown reasons, turned down the offer.

If I were on a jury and all of the above facts were presented to me, I could be convinced that there is a possibility JR wrote that note. hwow:

 

[midwest mama]

I thought there was some dispute about the fiber evidence. Didn't the FBI say the fibers were not consistent? Or has this been cleared up in Kolar's book?

Will browse the Kolar book, but for now, here's this:

Fibers from Sham & Duvet
Where Found. A sham and duvet were found in the suitcase beneath the train room window.
Match to Fibers on JBR? "A CBI examiner issued a report indicating fibers from the pillow sham and comforter were found on JonBenet's shirt, on her vaginal area, on the duct tape from her hand, on the hand ligature and inside the body bag." This is the lab report referenced in the Carnes opinion: "A lab report indicated that fibers from the sham and duvet were found on the shirt that JonBenet was wearing when she was found in the wine cellar. (SMF P 147; PSMF P 147.)" (Carnes 2003:Note 32, p. 68).
Fibers on JBR Unmatched? However, it also has been reported “FBI analysis: FBI examiners said the fibers on JonBenet came from a source other than the pillow sham and comforter -- but none of them matched anything else in the house. "If the FBI examiner is right, the killer had to take that piece of material out with him," Smit said.”

And this from an Interview of Steve Thomas during the Wolf civil action:

15 Q. And CBI had at one point come up
16 with a conclusion that there was a
17 consistency between fibers found on a blanket
18 in the suitcase that matched fibers on
19 JonBenet's body or were consistent with, is
20 that the right term?
21 A. I heard Mr. Smit and Mr. DeMuth
22 refer to that but I didn't hear Trujillo ever
23 offer a report or an explanation concerning
24 that.
25 Q. But the FBI disagreed with the

247
1 CBI, didn't they?
2 A. On what point?
3 Q. On the question of whether there
4 were fibers inside materials found in the
5 suitcase found under the window in the
6 basement consistent with fibers found on
7 JonBenet?
8 A. No, I'm aware of Smit and DeMuth's
9 position or stating this consistency of these
10 fibers, but I'm not aware of a disagreement
11 between the FBI and that finding.

Carnes and Thomas account for the CBI lab report validity, and Thomas is not aware of an FBI report. Smit used the 'reported' FBI findings to bolster his intruder theory, which has since been debunked. I will opt on the side of the CBI Lab Report on this one, without any other validated LE statements in support of a 'reported' report.

 

[Whaleshark]

I have no problem with a theory which says that JR was trying to pin it on his wife. I'm open to variable theories. I'm just trying to determine chris' theory.
I've often wondered if JR might have done the whole thing but then we have that ransom note which, I believe, all experts determined that John didn't write it...That's a major problem with this theory.

Chris' theory is the DocG theory. The DocG theory is JR did it, wrote the note, and Patsy is not part of it, and neither is Burke, and that JR planned to get them out of the house while he went through the literal motions of the RN and to get rid of the body.... since you asked....


....And, I would say, again, it would behoove more of us to consider the possibility that not only the wording, but the actual letters/words of the RN were written by both of them, not just one or the other.

 

[learnin]

I don't think he was trying to pin it on a specific person.



One reason is that it takes long to show the window that other parts of the messy room. We saw, for the first time, that there was a chair nearby. A chair LS never showed us in his cropped photos. A chair that is much more practical than a suitcase as an object to stand on to get the the window sill. It's necessary to show the size of the break, to show how the window swings in, and to show the remnants of spider web.

You almost sound as if you think the window actually could have been a POE. So I'm asking, what do you think? With grate in place, the web intact, the dirt on the sill very little disturbed, do you think it's an entry/exit point?

The basement window was a potential point of entry and exit as were most doors and windows in the house. This is why LE investigated doors and windows. Based on the evidence collected by LE, I do not think the basement window was used as an entry or exit place that night.

But it doesn't matter what I think after the fact. What matters is what the stager of this crime scene thought at the moment of staging.

 

[learnin]

I'm sorry but I'm going to have to ask again why a man of at least average intelligence needs to have it implied to him that a broken window, the opening of which is large enough for a man to get through, could be a possible entry point. It's almost as if you think FW/LE would never have figured out that someone could have come through the window if it were not for JR's story.

No one needed John to suggest the window could be an entry point. As you say, any dummy would wonder about it. John needed for FW to see the possible entrance before he discovered the body. Dead body in basement. John discovers it. John looks suspicious. John needs an intruder.

This isn't advanced physics. The window glass is broken, and the frame swings in, and the opening is big enough for a man to get through. Anyone with a normal IQ over the age of 6 will make the connection that it could be an entry point. Do you think JR figured he was dealing with people who were mentally retarded?

I agree exactly. The window was an obvious, suspicious, possible place of entry. What is more, it was ready made for the stager. Since it was most likely already broken, why not use it especially when you know the body is going to be found in the basement?

JR is letting FW know the window wasn't broken last night.

I agree that JR is letting FW know the window wasn't broken that night. But, his swearing and tapping himself on the forehead and his, "I should've fixed the damned thing.", tells me that he was also telling FW: "Damn, I shoulda fixed that broken window."

Are you IDI?

No. I have several theories, the most probable, IMO, is BDI and John is trying
to get him off the hook.

"JBR isn't missing, she's dead in the WC and JR full well knows that.

Precisely. But if John is going to act like a man whose daughter has been kidnapped, then, a broken basement window is the least of his worries! So, why is John making a fuss about that broken window? When FW pointed it out, John should've said: "Yea, I broke it last summer." If John, as you say, knew his daughter's body was in that wine cellar (and I believe he did), then, it becomes obvious as to why he said: "Damn! I should've had that repaired."

The problem for JR is that the window isn't a plausible entry/exit, therefore he needs to have a story about why the glass is broken -otherwise it's obviously a failed attempt at staging. His story needs to point away from him having broken it the night before.

You've been arguing that it was obvious the window was not an entry or exit point. So, why would John have to claim he broke it the summer before so that police wouldn't think he staged it? As you say, with spider webs, grate in place, window sill dirt not disturbed, it should've been obvious it was an old break. The least he should've said was: "Yea, I broke that last summer", and then gone on.

I don't think any of the police questioning could be described as "grilling". Polite, tentative, questions submitted to the defense lawyers, in writing, prior to the interview is not "grilling".

Let's say that the investigators belabored the point of how John came through the window.

They never did get a good answer out of him. He might have come home in a cab, or maybe not. He might have stripped off to his skivvies, but doesn't quite recall. He might have put his shoes back on, and jumped down the window well, and stood with his back to the window and kicked out the top pane. He's not quite sure he can recall exactly, despite saying that he might have done this on one or even two prior occasions, not counting the most recent break in.

Let me just ask you. Do you think JR broke the window back in July/Aug?

Since John was totally all over the place about how he got through that window, I would say no.