Expanding Dr.Wecht's series of events...

[Agatha_C]

The suitcase is a ridiculous distraction in my opinion. There was a chair in the doorway of the room and a drum table. Why would this intruder use the suitcase, that according to John wasnt in that room before. He said its out of place, that it didnt belong there. Its not where it was usually kept. The intruder would have had to pass the chair and table crowding the doorway and go to another part of the basement to get the suitcase. I need an IDI to make sense of that. Help me to make sense of that please!!!!!!

For the record, I'm not calling IcedTeaForMe an IDI, just wanted to make sure thats understood...

Also ridiculous is Lou Smit, demonstrating how an intruder entered the basement window. Notice how he has the suitcase under the window upon entrance. If the intruder put the suitcase there, it wouldnt have been there when he first entered or at least thats what the homeowner claims, because it was out of place and did not belong there.

I really dont think that suitcase had any other purpose then confusion and distraction and its worked...... The intruder is team Ramsey's imaginary friend....

A call out for anyone that has a link to a video where Lou Smit shows the world how the intruder would have exited through the window. I have only seen videos where he shows how one could have entered. Which is funny in and of itself being that he goes on the idea that all men are the same size. What if this intruder were 6ft 3in and 250 pounds? I dont see a man much bigger than LS fitting in/out of that window.

 

[DeeDee249]

From what I recall, wasn't the butler kitchen door found unlocked and open? If so, then why wouldn't the perp have removed JonBenet through this egress? Then there is the matter of the suitcase under the broken basement window. It was found perpendicular to the window opening (i.e. short end facing the wall). If I was going to use a suitcase as a means to help me climb out a window, I'd have it parallel to the wall under it so I could stand with my feet side by side on it. (There is also the matter of Fleet White having said he had moved the suitcase, so it would need to be known how it was situated before he had done so.)

We have always had conflicting comments from JR about whether the doors in the house were locked or open. He had said they were locked, then he said they were open. The RST tried to point to wood splinters near one of the doors (and I think it was the Butler's Pantry door), but housekeeper LHP had said that door was like that for months, just like the broken window. But Smit and his bandwagon jumped all over these two bogus things as if they were PROOF of an intruder when there was nothing to suggest they even happened that day. To the contrary, JR ADMITTED breaking that window the previous summer while Patsy and kids were in Charlevoix and he forgot his key. Of course, the Rs made a BIG deal about how many people had keys to the house, yet JR had to climb in that window? Not to mention the spare key Patsy said was hidden in an outdoor statue.
The suitcase likely always was kept in the basement between trips back and forth to the college campus. I suppose they tried to say the intruder, in addition to all the other things he did that night, walked around the house to find a suitcase to climb out the window, when there was a chair and very probably some kind of stepladder in the basement.
Instead of watching that buffoon Smit climb IN the basement window, I'd much rather he have been made to climb OUT that window, using that suitcase to climb up on. THEN the world would have seen just how ridiculous and pathetic his claims were.

 

[Agatha_C]

Instead of watching that buffoon Smit climb IN the basement window, I'd much rather he have been made to climb OUT that window, using that suitcase to climb up on. THEN the world would have seen just how ridiculous and pathetic his claims were.

DeeDee,

:woohoo: Thats asking the hard questions that nobody on that case had the cojones to ask.....

 

[azwriter]

Well, I tend to agree. But let me play devil's advocate.

The details of the exchange could have been left sketchy because that would prevent police from knowing anything in advance. For example, if the transfer were specified in the RN, and let's say the instructions said to put the money in a trash barrel at such and such public park, then undercover cops would be staked out in the park to see who put things in the trash barrel. I can sort of see leaving these details out - but I can't really see putting the other details in - denominations of bills, type of bag, etc. Those details could have been part of the transfer instructions. So generally I think you're right. The transfer is sketchy while the other aspects are highly detailed because the author of the RN knows very well there is never going to be a transfer.


As to the meaning of "tomorrow" I'm less certain than you are that this indicates a fake - though it raises a red flag. It's just endlessly fascinating -to me anyway- how people will come up with different interpretations. What seems obvious to one person is mysterious to another, and vice versa. IOWs people think they are being clear, when they are not. But it's certainly possible that "tomorrow" was intended to be vague so that it would be confusing. As you say, the note would be found at the dawn of a new day, but then, it seems "obvious" that the note was left the night before, so "tomorrow" and "today" become the same? I can't decide if this is deliberate or just sloppy.

Good points all around. But I will vote on sloppy. Since I believe both parents are involved, I don't think they were mastermind criminals and were sure to make some mistakes: ie the pineapple, the too large underwear; an over the top "War of Peace" length ransom letter. just my O

 

[Chrishope]

Agatha_C,
You have to wonder why Lou Smit played the Intruder game. John with his story about breaking in to his own house, why did it matter? Who was he trying to convince, his daughter is dead and he wants to tell us about how he broke in, then gets Lou Smit to duplicate it and post the images for the media to use, duh!

.

You have to wonder why Lou Smit played the Intruder game.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

[Chrishope]

Chrishope,
tomorrow is fake is it not. Its just the authors way of suggesting the note was written on the 25th. The R's have to mask that it was written postmortem. That is the tense is present, JonBenet's existential aspect is alive, but the forensic evidence and autopsy clearly demonstrate that her existential aspect is dead, e.g. a temporal process has unfolded.

In other words an intruder killed JonBenet then wrote a ransom note, which is contradictory?

tomorrow cannot be the day succeeding the 26th because John found JonBenet on this day, which he would not have done if the plan was to wait until tomorrow?


.
.

I don't have any doubt that the RN was written postmortem, by PR.

I'm just pointing out that "tomorrow" can be taken to have different meanings, if one pretends it's a real RN written by an intruder. The intruder would know that the note would (likely) be found the morning of the 26th, so "tomorrow" could mean the 27th. Or, since the intruder would also know that even if it was found the morning of the 26th, it obviously was (supposedly - remember we are pretending it's a real RN) written the night of the 25th, so when they wake up and find the RN it's already "tomorrow" - e.g. the 26th.

It is of course vague because there would never be a call or an arrangement for a drop-off/exchange. But I can't see a real kidnapper saying "We'll contact you at 10:30 on the 26th" The real contact time probably would be at the kidnapper's discretion, and might depend on several variables. IOWs I don't think the RN is fake just because the contact time is vague and subject to multiple interpretations. It's fake because the body is in the house where it could easily and quickly be found - by competent searchers.

 

[LisaB]

You can't throw out the actual evidence to cater to a motive you deem logical.

...snip...

Dr. Wecht's theory also has flaws

... snip ...

unless Dr. Wecht believes Burke did it. Burke was too young to think things like that through, of course.

But Burke also couldn't carry JonBenet's limp body downstairs if she was attacked first upstairs

...snip...

Just a thought... If big brother told little sister that there were still some presents in the basement, she might have gone down to see. Sure enough, there WERE presents, and as she began to remove wrapping to see what was in them... SOMETHING happened.

There'd be no need to carry her to move her to the basement. She might even have been molested in her room, then lured downstairs with the promise of presents to calm her down.

 

[BBB167893]

It's hard for me to imagine two parents that doted on their child all of a sudden would hatch a plan to dump her like garbage on the side of a road in the middle of winter.

Now THAT is something you and I can agree on!

 

[Whaleshark]

Originally Posted by Maikai
"It's hard for me to imagine two parents that doted on their child all of a sudden would hatch a plan to dump her like garbage on the side of a road in the middle of winter."

Now THAT is something you and I can agree on!

true...but it's also hard to imagine sending a handicapped cancer-surviving child to be raped, murdered, and then dismembering the body and discarding it on the side of the road - as was done to Zahra Baker.

or that a mother could plan her children's murders and follow through - like Julie Scheneker did by writing the note, then shooting her teenagers in the face.

or keeping your own daughter locked in a dungeon for 24 years, raping her, and fathering six children with her - of which none of them ever saw the light of day either....

so i would say, anything is possible....