has this case been discussed in comparison?

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?

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.

Hi, txsvicki.

Are you referring to the Dowaliby case? 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

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.

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

Ivy said:

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

Click to expand...

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

Cherokee said:

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."

Click to expand...

Exactamundo, Cherokee and Ivy.

The cases are not comparable.

Ivy said:

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

Click to expand...

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?

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

Ivy said:

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

Click to expand...

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

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.

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.

LovelyPigeon said:

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."

Click to expand...

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.

Shylock said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

SisterSocks said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

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.

LovelyPigeon said:

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

Click to expand...

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

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.

LovelyPigeon said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

JMO

SisterSocks said:

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

Click to expand...

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?