The Suitcase - Duvet, Sham & Dr. Suess

[Chrishope]

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

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

Yes, they could have blamed the "kidnapper" for the use of the suitcase.

At any rate, we know the suitcase wasn't used in the crime, as the body was never dumped. It may have been considered as a vessel, or maybe not. The duvet may have been considered as something to cover up the body, or maybe not. We don't even know that it wasn't cross-contaminated; BPD didn't exactly run a professional crime scene investigation.

Basically the suitcase can't tell us anything. We won't solve the crime by analyzing every detail about it. The fiber evidence is meaningless. Why a college boy has a duvet and a Dr. Seuss book in his suitcase is pure speculation. Nothing much to be gained from delving into the suitcase, IMO.

 

[UKGuy]

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

Chrishope,
mmm, you continue with predictable howlers. The suitcase belongs to JR? Get a life.

The suitcase might be the smoking gun hence JR's reticence.

 

[Peepers McPeep]

:truce: You are both beautiful.

 

[Chrishope]

Chrishope,
mmm, you continue with predictable howlers. The suitcase belongs to JR? Get a life.

The suitcase might be the smoking gun hence JR's reticence.

It belongs to someone in the Ramsey family, therefore there is nothing incriminating about his fingerprints being on it. Really, you are being silly about this. There is no reason for JR to have worried about his prints being on any part of the suitcase.

 

[UKGuy]

It belongs to someone in the Ramsey family, therefore there is nothing incriminating about his fingerprints being on it. Really, you are being silly about this. There is no reason for JR to have worried about his prints being on any part of the suitcase.

Chrishope,
Well finding someones fingerprints at a crime-scene, family member or not, is a pretty good reason to ask some questions.


.

 

[Chrishope]

Chrishope,
Well finding someones fingerprints at a crime-scene, family member or not, is a pretty good reason to ask some questions.


.

Finding the home owner's prints on a normal household item, regularly kept in the household is unexceptional. There is nothing that can be determined from that, no matter what his answers are.

 

[UKGuy]

Finding the home owner's prints on a normal household item, regularly kept in the household is unexceptional. There is nothing that can be determined from that, no matter what his answers are.

Chrishope,
Why do you persist with your fallacious reasoning? As an example, that you cannot determine anything from some evidential item, does not mean no other person can make cogent inferences form the same evidence resulting in progress.

If the suitcase in question had personally belonged to JR, then you might be on stronger ground with your assertions.

Unfortunately this is not the case and Locard's Principle applies.



.

 

[Chrishope]

Chrishope,
Why do you persist with your fallacious reasoning? As an example, that you cannot determine anything from some evidential item, does not mean no other person can make cogent inferences form the same evidence resulting in progress.

If the suitcase in question had personally belonged to JR, then you might be on stronger ground with your assertions.

Unfortunately this is not the case and Locard's Principle applies.



.

No one in the universe can determine anything from JR's prints on the suitcase. There are too many plausible believable explanations for his prints being there. It's just a suitcase, regularly kept at JR's house. It' doesn't have to belong to JR personally. It's in his home, and available for his use. And even if he never used it personally, there isstill no reason to be suspicious of his prints on the handle, or the latch. You can speculate all day long, but you can't say anything definite about why his prints are there. You can't prove he never used it on a business trip. You can't prove he didn't bring it down the basement from the upstairs laundry, as he claimed. Your "cogent inferences" amount to nothing but wild speculation. There is nothing even slightly suspicious about his prints on the suitcase.

If the suitcase didn't belong to a member of the household, and had only been in the house since the day before, you'd have something. But of course you don't have anything.

 

[DeeDee249]

Finding the home owner's prints on a normal household item, regularly kept in the household is unexceptional. There is nothing that can be determined from that, no matter what his answers are.

Not true. Finding the homeowner's prints on a household item used in a CRIME can absolutely be used to link that person to the crime. For example, finding a homeowner's prints on a knife found to have stabbed a victim to death will certainly cause the owner to be a suspect. In the JB case, finding the parents' prints on items USED IN THE CRIME (like the duct tape, paint tote, NEW panties, and garrote knot and white blanket which had Patsy's hair and the pink nightie, which had her and BR's DNA) can be used to point to their involvement.
However, the suitcase is more problematic and Chrishope has a very valid point. If it could definitely be linked to the crime itself, then their prints on the handle can indicate possible participation in the crime. But since the suitcase is only linked to the crime scene (by its presence there) and not the crime itself- it can't really link anyone to the crime. Had JAR's semen been FRESH instead of dried- he'd have been arrested for sure. Or if there had been evidence linking JB directly to the suitcase, such as blood or urine (rather than just a child's book) then we would have proof that the suitcase was part of the actual crime.

 

[UKGuy]

No one in the universe can determine anything from JR's prints on the suitcase. There are too many plausible believable explanations for his prints being there. It's just a suitcase, regularly kept at JR's house. It' doesn't have to belong to JR personally. It's in his home, and available for his use. And even if he never used it personally, there isstill no reason to be suspicious of his prints on the handle, or the latch. You can speculate all day long, but you can't say anything definite about why his prints are there. You can't prove he never used it on a business trip. You can't prove he didn't bring it down the basement from the upstairs laundry, as he claimed. Your "cogent inferences" amount to nothing but wild speculation. There is nothing even slightly suspicious about his prints on the suitcase.

If the suitcase didn't belong to a member of the household, and had only been in the house since the day before, you'd have something. But of course you don't have anything.

Chrishope,
You have moved from the realm of the reasonable to that of the unreasonable. What you suggest is plainly bonkers, any further elucidation on this subject might reflect negatively on your state of mind!

 

[midwest mama]

:worms: More thoughts about the suitcase. If anyone has Kolar's book, please look at the photo on pg. 31. It sure looks to me like something caused that rectangular dent, and I can easily envision a suitcase being set up there and then flipped open. If there was an attempt to or success at putting JB in that suitcase and taking her down to the basement, I believe it was in an attempt to then try to put her into the crawl space, to be kept hidden until her body could be gotten rid of.

I doubt the crawl space opening from the train room was large enough to let a suitcase of that size through, so I think JB could have then been removed from the suitcase and eventually stashed into the WC, with the suitcase attempt being ditched. Putting the suitcase under the window then helped to create an intruder theory.

 

[Chrishope]

:worms: More thoughts about the suitcase. If anyone has Kolar's book, please look at the photo on pg. 31. It sure looks to me like something caused that rectangular dent, and I can easily envision a suitcase being set up there and then flipped open. If there was an attempt to or success at putting JB in that suitcase and taking her down to the basement, I believe it was in an attempt to then try to put her into the crawl space, to be kept hidden until her body could be gotten rid of.

I doubt the crawl space opening from the train room was large enough to let a suitcase of that size through, so I think JB could have then been removed from the suitcase and eventually stashed into the WC, with the suitcase attempt being ditched. Putting the suitcase under the window then helped to create an intruder theory.

If someone was trying to create an intruder theory, why wouldn't they use the nearby chair as a "climbing tool" rather than the suitcase? If the intruder wanted to climb up to the window to get out, he'd use the relatively stable chair, not the tottering suitcase. So if the idea was to create a believable intruder scenario, then stager would use the chair. (Goes w/o saying that a believable intruder through the window staging would also have to include removing the grate and spider web)

Additionally, it's not until LS is hired that anyone is pretending the "intruder" stood on the suitcase. It's not something that was concocted for the police to believe on the morning of the 26th. The suitcase as climbing tool was concocted months later by LS.

My guess is the suitcase probably would fit in the crawl space. The whole purpose of a crawl space is so that a grown man can get in there to work on pipes or whatever the crawl space affords access to. I believe the police found a canvas bag in the craw space and took it into evidence. That would indicate someone had been in there. I don't know the exact dimensions of the suitcase, or the crawl space door, but from the photos I've seen of the suitcase, it doesn't appear any larger than a man on his hands and knees, which is how one would get into the crawl space.

From the floor plans, all I see over the space is a dinning room. Shouldn't be any pipes from the dining room. Then again, maybe the main waste pipe to the sewer? Electrical wires?

Speculating on the suitcase won't get us anywhere. It may or may not have played any role at all. There is no way to know. Nothing but pure speculation.

What we do know is that the body was found in the WC. If the killer wanted to hide the body in the crawl space there was nothing stopping him. It didn't have to be in the suitcase in order to be placed in the crawl space, did it?

 

[Chrishope]

Not true. Finding the homeowner's prints on a household item used in a CRIME can absolutely be used to link that person to the crime. For example, finding a homeowner's prints on a knife found to have stabbed a victim to death will certainly cause the owner to be a suspect. In the JB case, finding the parents' prints on items USED IN THE CRIME (like the duct tape, paint tote, NEW panties, and garrote knot and white blanket which had Patsy's hair and the pink nightie, which had her and BR's DNA) can be used to point to their involvement.
However, the suitcase is more problematic and Chrishope has a very valid point. If it could definitely be linked to the crime itself, then their prints on the handle can indicate possible participation in the crime. But since the suitcase is only linked to the crime scene (by its presence there) and not the crime itself- it can't really link anyone to the crime. Had JAR's semen been FRESH instead of dried- he'd have been arrested for sure. Or if there had been evidence linking JB directly to the suitcase, such as blood or urine (rather than just a child's book) then we would have proof that the suitcase was part of the actual crime.

Exactly - the suitcase cannot be linked to the crime. You said it better than I did.

It is an artifact, at the crime scene. It may have been involved, or may not have been.


As you state - again better than I did- even if it could be linked, fingerprints only indicate "possible" involvement. JR could make up most any story as to how his prints got on the suitcase to explain their presence. It wouldn't be at all unusual to find his prints on it, given it's an item regularly kept in his house.

 

[Chrishope]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/07/18/new-clues-in-jonbenet-ramsey-murder.html

Looking at the video from the Daily Beast, the suitcase doesn't not seem exceptionally large. I'd guess about knee high to a 6' man? Much narrower than a man's shoulders. I don't see why it wouldn't fit into the crawl space. I'm searching for some photo of the crawl space accesss.

 

[UKGuy]

Exactly - the suitcase cannot be linked to the crime. You said it better than I did.

It is an artifact, at the crime scene. It may have been involved, or may not have been.


As you state - again better than I did- even if it could be linked, fingerprints only indicate "possible" involvement. JR could make up most any story as to how his prints got on the suitcase to explain their presence. It wouldn't be at all unusual to find his prints on it, given it's an item regularly kept in his house.

Chrishope,
You really must not fall into the trap of assuming since others agree with your reasoning that you are correct.

If JR's fingerprints are to be found on an obect related to the death of JonBenet, then by basic forensic principles this will link him with her homicide.

When forensic evidence can be attributed to either primary or secondary sources, primary origin is preferred so it can be eliminated. In the instance where this is unavailable forensic evidence will link the parties involved directly with the alleged crime.

This elucidates Locards Principle, the assumption that forensic evidence may arrive via secondary or other means is precisely that, i.e. a secondary assumption.

Artifact is that with no linkage, so if JonBenet's fibers were not found in the suitcase then it is artifact.

If you wish to assume that forensic evidence has arrived in a secondary or alternative manner, this does not not disconfirm any primary means of transfer.

Any assumption of secondary transfer, is just that, an assumption, it is no imrovement on that of primary transfer, unless corroborated with other forensic evidence.



.

 

[Chrishope]

Chrishope,
You really must not fall into the trap of assuming since others agree with your reasoning that you are correct.

If JR's fingerprints are to be found on an obect related to the death of JonBenet, then by basic forensic principles this will link him with her homicide.

When forensic evidence can be attributed to either primary or secondary sources, primary origin is preferred so it can be eliminated. In the instance where this is unavailable forensic evidence will link the parties involved directly with the alleged crime.

This elucidates Locards Principle, the assumption that forensic evidence may arrive via secondary or other means is precisely that, i.e. a secondary assumption.

Artifact is that with no linkage, so if JonBenet's fibers were not found in the suitcase then it is artifact.

If you wish to assume that forensic evidence has arrived in a secondary or alternative manner, this does not not disconfirm any primary means of transfer.

Any assumption of secondary transfer, is just that, an assumption, it is no imrovement on that of primary transfer, unless corroborated with other forensic evidence.



.

Just the fact that she's his daughter and is dead in his house makes him a suspect and "links" him to her homicide, even if his prints are nowhere to be found in the house or on any object. What we are concerned with is the value of fingerprint evidence, and that value is minimal, as there are many ways, and importantly, many times, when JR could have touched the suitcase. Unfortunately, fingerprints don't have time stamps.

DeeDee is correct, the suitcase is not linked to the crime, merely to the crime scene.

I am not expressing a preference for any method of transfer, I'm merely pointing out that we cannot know the method. Therefore we cannot know whether or not the suitcase was involved in the crime.

What we do know, factually, is that the body was not in the suitcase when JR "found" her in the WC.

We also know that the suitcase was regularly in the house. Therefore JR's prints, if they are on the suitcase, could have been from weeks/months/years before.

 

[Chrishope]

:worms: More thoughts about the suitcase. If anyone has Kolar's book, please look at the photo on pg. 31. It sure looks to me like something caused that rectangular dent, and I can easily envision a suitcase being set up there and then flipped open. If there was an attempt to or success at putting JB in that suitcase and taking her down to the basement, I believe it was in an attempt to then try to put her into the crawl space, to be kept hidden until her body could be gotten rid of.

I doubt the crawl space opening from the train room was large enough to let a suitcase of that size through, so I think JB could have then been removed from the suitcase and eventually stashed into the WC, with the suitcase attempt being ditched. Putting the suitcase under the window then helped to create an intruder theory.

Exploring your thoughts a bit further -

If there were success at placing her in the suitcase, but it wouldn't fit in the crawlspace, why remove her? Why not just put the suitcase, containing the body, in the WC?

 

[DeeDee249]

Exploring your thoughts a bit further -

If there were success at placing her in the suitcase, but it wouldn't fit in the crawlspace, why remove her? Why not just put the suitcase, containing the body, in the WC?

JB was never in the suitcase. The body has only ONE livor pattern. And if the perp(s) had waited past he point where livor was fixed- which means a second pattern would not have formed anyeay- by then rigor mortis would have begin to set it, and it would have been impossible to "fold" her into the suitcase or bend her joints without "breaking" rigor. And once broken, it will not re-form. Since she was in full rigor when found- and since the coroner found NO evidence that rigor had been deliberately (or accidentally) broken by someone else, we must accept that she was NOT placed in the suitcase at any time. Also, because BOTH livor and rigor indicate she was placed in the position she was found in - on her back, legs straight out, head turned to the right- we must accept that she was placed in that position, but not necessarily in that exact spot within minutes of her death.

 

[Chrishope]

JB was never in the suitcase. The body has only ONE livor pattern. And if the perp(s) had waited past he point where livor was fixed- which means a second pattern would not have formed anyeay- by then rigor mortis would have begin to set it, and it would have been impossible to "fold" her into the suitcase or bend her joints without "breaking" rigor. And once broken, it will not re-form. Since she was in full rigor when found- and since the coroner found NO evidence that rigor had been deliberately (or accidentally) broken by someone else, we must accept that she was NOT placed in the suitcase at any time. Also, because BOTH livor and rigor indicate she was placed in the position she was found in - on her back, legs straight out, head turned to the right- we must accept that she was placed in that position, but not necessarily in that exact spot within minutes of her death.

You're right, and I accept that. I'm just wondering what MWM thinks - if the suitcase didn't fit in the crawl space why is that a reason to remove her from the suitcase? I'm trying to understand why she's thinking along those lines.

Your livor/rigor analysis is good. We can say JBR was never in the suitcase.

Even w/o your analysis I never really saw much reason to speculate that the body was placed in the suitcase. Your analysis puts an end to such speculation. She was never in the suitcase.

 

[midwest mama]

You're right, and I accept that. I'm just wondering what MWM thinks - if the suitcase didn't fit in the crawl space why is that a reason to remove her from the suitcase? I'm trying to understand why she's thinking along those lines.

Your livor/rigor analysis is good. We can say JBR was never in the suitcase.

Even w/o your analysis I never really saw much reason to speculate that the body was placed in the suitcase. Your analysis puts an end to such speculation. She was never in the suitcase.

:truce: OK, I'm going with you guys on this. Your reasoning and DeeDee's livor/rigor pattern info wins out beyond my compulsive belief that the suitcase was somehow involved in moving JB from her bedroom down to the basement. The chair WOULD have been a better choice for an intruder POE theory, for sure, also.

There are so many things that just make no sense in this case -- and I will add the suitcase with the odd assortment of JAR's things in it being found in the train room, to my list of senseless Ramseycase things to ignore.

Along with that I'll have to take this information with a grain of salt, and just trust that we will never know for sure about those fibers:
http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682473/Fiber Evidence#FibersfromShamDuvet
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.”

God help me, this case is making me :banghead::banghead::banghead:.