PDA

View Full Version : has this case been discussed in comparison?


txsvicki
02-21-2004, 10:59 PM
While watching Court tv tonite, I saw a program about a 9yr old Illinois girl who was supposedly taken from her home during the nite and was found dead in her pajamas and with her comforter. There was a broken basement window and the parents were blamed but the mom was acquitted and the dad later won his appeal and cleared. The beginning of this program compared this crime to the Jon Benet Ramsey case. Has the forum ever discussed and compared the two crimes?

vicktor
02-22-2004, 12:34 AM
It sounds like the case you are referring to is the Dowaliby case. If so, I started a thread a couple of months back-- carbon copy case--which discussed some of the similarities between the cases, as you have noted.

Ivy
02-22-2004, 12:52 AM
Hi, txsvicki.

Are you referring to the Dowaliby case (http://www.law.northwestern.edu/depts/clinic/wrongful/exonerations/Dowaliby.htm)? If you are, then yes, the case has been compared to the JonBenet case and discussed here at WS. On the surface, there are some similiarities between that case and the JonBenet case.

In each case, the victim's parents and brother are the only other people besides the victim known to have been in the house when the victim was taken from her bed.

In both cases, law enforcement suspected the parents.

JonBenet and Jaclyn were both sexually assaulted and strangled.

But...

Jaclyn's vaginal injuries were apparently far worse than JonBenet's, which were minimal and thought to have been caused by digital penetration or from the broken handle of an art brush. I seem to recall reading (or hearing) that Jaclyn was strangled manually, not with a ligature as JonBenet was. Also, Jaclyn's skull wasn't fractured, though JonBenet's was.

Only in the JonBenet case was there a "ransom note." (A link to Patsy Ramsey's handwriting exemplars can be found at the bottom of Shylock's posts. It's obvious to many of us here that Patsy penned the note.)

JonBenet's body was found in the basement of her home only hours after her death, whereas Jaclyn Dowaliby's body was found in a field several miles from her home, four days after her disappearance.

~~~~~

Based only on flimsy evidence (a broken basement window thought to have been broken from the inside and a wacko witness who said he recognized the possible perp's nose as being Jaclyn's step father's), David Dowaliby, Jaclyn's step father, was tried and convicted for her murder in 1990. He was exonerated after having served 18 months in prison. No one else has ever been charged with Jaclyn's murder. Some people still believe that one or both of the Dowalibys are guilty.

IMO

txsvicki
02-22-2004, 01:20 AM
Yes, it was the Dowaliby case. Sorry, I couldn't exactly remember how the last name was spelled. This program said that due to the hot weather and decomposition of the body, that the coroner thought she had probably been strangled and couldn't tell if she had been sexually assaulted. I'll try and look up the old thread. Thanks.

Ivy
02-22-2004, 11:08 AM
A glaring difference between the Dowaliby case and the JonBenet case is that in the JonBenet case, the body was left in the house along with a ransom note. I'm convinced that the note's sole purpose was to provide "proof" that the intruder existed.

IMO

Cherokee
02-22-2004, 01:29 PM
A glaring difference between the Dowaliby case and the JonBenet case is that in the JonBenet case, the body was left in the house along with a ransom note. I'm convinced that the note's sole purpose was to provide "proof" that the intruder existed.

IMO

Absolutely right, Ivy.

This IS the glaring difference between the two cases.

The Dowaliby girl was removed from her home and found dead in a field several miles from her home.

JonBenet was found dead IN her home.

The "ransom note" was written for one purpose, and one purpose only ... to try to explain why JonBenet was found dead in the Ramsey home.

Imagine the Ramseys having to explain JBR's dead body WITHOUT a "ransom note."



IMO

Britt
02-22-2004, 01:32 PM
This IS the glaring difference between the two cases.

The Dowaliby girl was removed from her home and found dead in a field several miles from her home.

JonBenet was found dead IN her home.

The "ransom note" was written for one purpose, and one purpose only ... to try to explain why JonBenet was found dead in the Ramsey home.

Imagine the Ramseys having to explain JBR's dead body WITHOUT a "ransom note."
Exactamundo, Cherokee and Ivy.

The cases are not comparable.

gretchen
02-22-2004, 04:22 PM
A glaring difference between the Dowaliby case and the JonBenet case is that in the JonBenet case, the body was left in the house along with a ransom note. I'm convinced that the note's sole purpose was to provide "proof" that the intruder existed.

IMO

I completely agree with your post. Yes, the ransom note was left for the sole purpose of "proving" an intruder committed this crime.
How many children are found dead in their home along with the "war and peace" of ransom notes?

Ivy
02-22-2004, 05:07 PM
gretchen, I don't recall ever hearing of a case in which a body was left in the house with a ransom note, let alone a loooong one. But what choice did the Rs have but to try to point the finger at an intruder by way of a note? "He" left no hair, fibers, or prints (or DNA, imo).

I think it's possible that when the note was being written, the Rs were at least considering the idea of removing JonBenet's body from the house... maybe in a suitcase... and leaving it someplace where a search team would find it, but for any of a variety of reasons, they changed their minds. Yet regardless of whether they dumped the body or left it in the house, they still had to come up with evidence of an intruder. That's why, imo, the note was essential. I think that if Patsy and John (I think they both decided on what the note should say) hadn't been so distraut and so desperate to convince LE an intruder had killed JonBenet, and too hurried to think clearly, the note might have been shorter and less rambling, and therefore a bit more convincing.

IMO

SisterSocks
02-22-2004, 05:35 PM
gretchen, I don't recall ever hearing of a case in which a body was left in the house with a ransom note, let alone a loooong one. But what choice did the Rs have but to try to point the finger at an intruder by way of a note? "He" left no hair, fibers, or prints (or DNA, imo).

I think it's possible that when the note was being written, the Rs were at least considering the idea of removing JonBenet's body from the house... maybe in a suitcase... and leaving it someplace where a search team would find it, but for any of a variety of reasons, they changed their minds. Yet regardless of whether they dumped the body or left it in the house, they still had to come up with evidence of an intruder. That's why, imo, the note was essential. I think that if Patsy and John (I think they both decided on what the note should say) hadn't been so distraut and so desperate to convince LE an intruder had killed JonBenet, and too hurried to think clearly, the note might have been shorter and less rambling, and therefore a bit more convincing.

IMO

I disagree with your post Ivy. You leave no room for Fence Sitters as myself.
It appears alot of tunnel vison was used .
Socks

TLynn
02-23-2004, 01:59 PM
That's because there is no room for "fencesitters."

Blue fibers from inside the suitcase were consistent with fibers found on JonBenet. It's quite possible they tried to put her in the suitcase to get her out of the house. It's really not tunnel vision at all - just following the clues.

LovelyPigeon
02-23-2004, 03:49 PM
Here's what Smit, who made the information about fibers in the suitcase and fibers on JonBenét said. Don't confuse the dark fibers on JonBenét's vaginal area with other fibers found on her clothing and on the duct tape.

NARRATOR: Smit says in the room in the basement where there was evidence of a break-in, something else significant was found.

LOU SMIT - There were items in that suitcase which contained fibers which were found on the outside of the clothing of JonBenét. Is it possible that her killer tried to put JonBenét in that suitcase? Is it possible that he tried to take her out this window in this suitcase? Could it have been a kidnapping followed by a murder? Very easily it could have been. Perhaps he had intended to take JonBenét out that window and he just couldn't get her out, and he decided to kill her.

Shylock
02-23-2004, 04:19 PM
LOU SMIT - "Perhaps he had intended to take JonBenét out that window and he just couldn't get her out, and he decided to kill her."

More likely that John wanted to get the body out of the house to make it look like a real kidnapping and failed to fit her body in the suitcase. Or maybe he DID get her into the suitcase and then realized that if a neighbor saw him driving in and out in the middle of the night the whole setup would have been over REAL quick.

SisterSocks
02-23-2004, 05:35 PM
More likely that John wanted to get the body out of the house to make it look like a real kidnapping and failed to fit her body in the suitcase. Or maybe he DID get her into the suitcase and then realized that if a neighbor saw him driving in and out in the middle of the night the whole setup would have been over REAL quick.

It appears to me that John did exactly what any man would have done if his daughter was kidnapped... Had Pats call the police ,John got money together from Westmoreland in Atlanta. etc....

Your statement about John wanting to get the body out ---has been written many time and after reading it over the years, I have come to the conclusion its simply not correct.

I feel sure that John didn't harm or kill JB.


Socks

Shylock
02-23-2004, 06:20 PM
I feel sure that John didn't harm or kill JB.

You may be right. But there is no way to know what John's involvement in the cover up was. That was my point. John might have tried to get the body out of the house in the suitcase as part of the staging.

LovelyPigeon
02-23-2004, 07:01 PM
It seems that putting JonBenét into the suitcase is something that a few posters agree with Lou Smit about. The disagreement is over who tried to put her inside.

I've long thought that one reason the killer might not have left the house with a still-alive JonBenét is that something happened as he was ready to exit...something like hearing something in the neighborhood...a car door slam, a person's voice carry through the night air..or difficulty getting a body out the window, whether in a suitcase or not.

The same neighbors or passersby that some RDIs think might have kept a parent from taking the body from the house might have been reason for an intruder not to.

BlueCrab
02-23-2004, 07:04 PM
LOU SMIT - There were items in that suitcase which contained fibers which were found on the outside of the clothing of JonBenét.


For crying out loud, there was no intent to put JonBenet in the suitcase. There were ITEMS in the suitcase which contained the fibers -- it wasn't the suitcase that contained the fibers. If someone tried to put a 45-pound child in the suitcase they would had to have removed the bulky blanket and the other items.

The fibers from JonBenet's clothing were likely on the BLANKET, which means she had been on the blanket, not in the suitcase.

JMO

LovelyPigeon
02-23-2004, 07:11 PM
Rather than a blanket being in the suitcase there was a duvet cover and pillow sham.

Fibers do transfer quite easily from item to item, person to person, item to person, person to item. It's likely that if the items in the suitcase were taken out, and JonBenét put into the suitcase there would be fibers from those items left in the suitcase that would transfer to JonBenét's clothing. And probably vice versa.

BlueCrab
02-23-2004, 10:06 PM
Rather than a blanket being in the suitcase there was a duvet cover and pillow sham.

Fibers do transfer quite easily from item to item, person to person, item to person, person to item. It's likely that if the items in the suitcase were taken out, and JonBenét put into the suitcase there would be fibers from those items left in the suitcase that would transfer to JonBenét's clothing. And probably vice versa.

Smit said the fibers from JonBenet's clothing were on the ITEMS in the suitcase.

JMO

Toltec
02-23-2004, 10:33 PM
I disagree with your post Ivy. You leave no room for Fence Sitters as myself.
It appears alot of tunnel vison was used .
Socks

And just what is your vision SS? You somehow manage to post over and over again with no real theories or quotes from any of the books on JB? Do you own any of the books? Have you read them?

Shylock
02-23-2004, 10:53 PM
Smit said the fibers from JonBenet's clothing were on the ITEMS in the suitcase.

Remember that Smit thinks and talks like a hick with an 8th grade education.

"There were items in that suitcase which contained fibers which were found on the outside of the clothing of JonBenét."

Just what DOES that mean? It could go either way. Were COMMON fibers found on the items in the suitcase and JB's clothing? OR were fibers from the construction of the suitcase items found on her clothing?

Someone should email Smit and ask him what he seen.....LOL

TLynn
02-24-2004, 01:03 AM
If the intruder had pulled out the items in the suitcase to put JonBenet in - do you really think he'd take the time to put them back into the suitcase?!

True, if she were going to be put in the suitcase, they would take the items out - but who'd put them back in?

Also, it's quite possible, as Bluecrab suggests, JonBenet was on the blanket and then the blanket was put into the suitcase.

The theory of an intruder putting JonBenet in the suitcase and then gave up because it didn't fit through the window makes no sense -- there were plenty of exits in that house.

Arielle
02-24-2004, 08:50 AM
I just had a weird thought while reading this thread. What if JonBenet had been placed in the suitcase and as "whoever did it" tried to lift the suitcase out the window (up the stairs, or wherever), the suitcase came open and she tumbled out, thus hitting her head on something (hard enough to crack her skull). This would possibly explain why she was not removed in the suitcase (because it wouldn't stay shut with her inside) and was left in the house afterall. This works for either an intruder or a family member who wished to take the body out of the house. It does not address the excellent point of somebody taking the time to put the things back into the suitcase, presumably folding them as well. I agree, that if this were done, it points more to a family member than an intruder.

candy
02-24-2004, 09:24 AM
That program was on the Dowaliby case and it was on A & E. I saw it too.
It's a mirror image of the Ramsey case. Unsurprisingly, Ramsey lawyer Mike Bynum used the Dowaliby case to put the fear of God into the Boulder DA's office from ever charging the Ramseys:
http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/extra/ramsey/0809jon.htm

Cutter knew a lot about the Dowaliby case and always believed like the police and DA's office that the parents were still the perps, even though they got off just like the Aisenbergs. In all three cases, (Dowaliby, Aisenberg, Ramsey) an "intruder "has never been found.

Like the Aisenberg case, I applaud the Chicago police for trying to bring justice for the victim by charging the only suspects ever the parents. Even if they got off later, it's better than never charging the ONLY suspects ever.

BlueCrab
02-24-2004, 09:39 AM
Thank you TLynn and Arielle. It doesn't make much sense for the killer to have put JonBenet into the suitcase, and the fiber evidence also suggests it didn't happen that way.

The fiber evidence more strongly suggests JonBenet had been lying on the comforter or had been wrapped in the comforter. IMO she had been lying on it.

Killers don't spread comforters on the floor to kill their victims. The comforter was more likely placed on the basement floor for consensual sex or for forced sexual assault. The Dr. Seuss book in the suitcase suggests it wasn't the first time JonBenet had seen the contents of the suitcase.

JMO

little1
02-24-2004, 02:13 PM
Hi, txsvicki.

Are you referring to the Dowaliby case (http://www.law.northwestern.edu/depts/clinic/wrongful/exonerations/Dowaliby.htm)? If you are, then yes, the case has been compared to the JonBenet case and discussed here at WS. On the surface, there are some similiarities between that case and the JonBenet case.

In each case, the victim's parents and brother are the only other people besides the victim known to have been in the house when the victim was taken from her bed.

In both cases, law enforcement suspected the parents.

JonBenet and Jaclyn were both sexually assaulted and strangled.

But...

Jaclyn's vaginal injuries were apparently far worse than JonBenet's, which were minimal and thought to have been caused by digital penetration or from the broken handle of an art brush. I seem to recall reading (or hearing) that Jaclyn was strangled manually, not with a ligature as JonBenet was. Also, Jaclyn's skull wasn't fractured, though JonBenet's was.

Only in the JonBenet case was there a "ransom note." (A link to Patsy Ramsey's handwriting exemplars can be found at the bottom of Shylock's posts. It's obvious to many of us here that Patsy penned the note.)

JonBenet's body was found in the basement of her home only hours after her death, whereas Jaclyn Dowaliby's body was found in a field several miles from her home, four days after her disappearance.

~~~~~

Based only on flimsy evidence (a broken basement window thought to have been broken from the inside and a wacko witness who said he recognized the possible perp's nose as being Jaclyn's step father's), David Dowaliby, Jaclyn's step father, was tried and convicted for her murder in 1990. He was exonerated after having served 18 months in prison. No one else has ever been charged with Jaclyn's murder. Some people still believe that one or both of the Dowalibys are guilty.

IMO


I thought the police could not verify a cause of death, and I thought they could not say fro sure wehter or not she was sexually assaulted due to the decomposition of her body??

little1
02-24-2004, 02:15 PM
And just what is your vision SS? You somehow manage to post over and over again with no real theories or quotes from any of the books on JB? Do you own any of the books? Have you read them?
Books don't really make that much of a difference. One could read many different versions of the death.

SisterSocks
02-24-2004, 04:38 PM
That's because there is no room for "fencesitters."

Blue fibers from inside the suitcase were consistent with fibers found on JonBenet. It's quite possible they tried to put her in the suitcase to get her out of the house. It's really not tunnel vision at all - just following the clues.


Tlynn. :eek: Are you saying that Fence sitters should not post?

Not have an opinion ?

Come on, get past it.


In my view you have lots of vision problems with this case--- Fibers are not .


Have a good day ,
Thanks for replying.

Socks

SisterSocks
02-24-2004, 04:41 PM
You may be right. But there is no way to know what John's involvement in the cover up was. That was my point. John might have tried to get the body out of the house in the suitcase as part of the staging.


N0 way John covered up..... Patsy maybe for burke or JAR ---But not John.
MHO
Socks

SisterSocks
02-25-2004, 01:47 PM
Books don't really make that much of a difference. One could read many different versions of the death.


Thank you Little 1 :blowkiss:
Toltec hates me he has been attacking me for years. He thinks I have no vision....

TLynn
02-25-2004, 03:16 PM
Actually, Sistersocks, I replied last night - but I don't see it. Not as much energy today. (Sorry, if I posted somewhere else or don't see it.)

Let's just say - I have NEVER felt someone shouldn't post and yes, I have an opinion after six years or so of following this case and respect other opinions as well.

Tunnel vision is not an appropriate word for someone who is trying to develop a theory from "clues" as I believe Ivy's first post was about. Fence sitting when specifically addressing an element is (IMO) not forming an opinion.

Take the fibers being found on JonBenet being consistent with those in the suitcase and try to define an opinion and/or theory about it. That's what I meant about no room for fence sitters - which seems to be ignoring evidence because you want to "fence sit." That, to me, is tunnel vision.

Thank you -

little1
02-25-2004, 04:09 PM
Thank you Little 1 :blowkiss:
Toltec hates me he has been attacking me for years. He thinks I have no vision....


It's cool, I don't post on this board much, but the similarities between these 2 crimes made me stop and think.

Books are great (I personally have about 276 that I read over and over again--don't ask me why I counted them, I needed more bookshelve space and went off on a tangent) I have a few books on this case myself--from ALL angles. Reading them all, and many of the posts here has shown me that anyone can take legitimate facts and base them on their theory of what happened.