The Suitcase - Duvet, Sham & Dr. Suess

[Chrishope]

: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:.

It can drive you crazy.

 

[midwest mama]

It can drive you crazy.

Now I pick up my waiting copy of "The Other Side of Suffering". I have not had the guts to get started on it because the publishing of it is what got me riled enough about JB's case to start posting. But I figure, OK, if I have to just back off for a while and let some of my quirky obsessions have a break, then I will just try to take an objective look at what Mr. Ramsey has had to say.

On page 12, he is recounting making the plans for the ransom money and is now just waiting for the ransom call. Which is not coming. He says:
"I remember last summer when I got locked out of the house; I broke a pane in a basement window, reached in and pulled open the latch, and was able to climb inside. Patsy had asked our cleaning lady's husband to fix that window. Had it been fixed? I rush downstairs to check. No. The pane is still broken. The window stands wide open. A big old Samsonite suitcase is set beneath the window. Who put that there? The suitcase is like a stool to climb up and crawl out the window. ......I rush up the stairs. I tell one of the policemen about the window. I can barely form the words. I'm sick to my stomach. I have to keep my wits about me...."

Does this sound like the other police and witness accounts we have?

Then, on pg. 15, JR says this: "The female detective asks me to take someone with me and go through the entire house to see if anything is unusual or out of place. Okay, sure. We decide to work from the bottom up since the third floor has no access to the outside. "Right. Basement first," and we head down the stairs. My legs are trembling and I stumble on the stair. I regain my balance. I head down the basement stairs and into the room where Burke's electric train is set up. I show my friend the broken window, which is still open, the samll splinters of glass on the floor and on the suitcase. This isn't right. The suitcase shouldn't be here. Did the kidnapper take my child out the basement window? My friend didn't tell me he had already noted the open window when he was down here earlier. I'm feeling dizzy."

So which is it, the window was broken earlier, and the glass didn't get cleaned up, and there is a suitcase sitting there that shouldn't be there, but if it was just recently put there, how could glass from a window broken BEFORE it was put there, end up on it - as JR said just a few pages later?? If the suitcase had been there all along and had glass on it from JR breaking the window in the summer, why did he then wonder why the suitcase was there and say it wasn't right??

And if have to recant a bit on my former truce. I will accept that JB was not in the suitcase after she was finally dead. But I can also accept that JB might have been carried from her bedroom to the basement in that suitcase being unconscious, but still alive. There was activity involving her death which connects to the basement near the paint tray, and I believe she could have been removed from the suitcase alive, and the final evils against her happened in the basement, with the suitcase being carelessly abandoned.

If the suitcase was abandoned and left below the window, in order for it to have glass found on and near it, the window had to have been broken that night, and not earlier in the summer. And it would have been done intentionally in order to provide and entry/exit for an intrude/kidnapper.

 

[Nom de plume]

Now I pick up my waiting copy of "The Other Side of Suffering". I have not had the guts to get started on it because the publishing of it is what got me riled enough about JB's case to start posting. But I figure, OK, if I have to just back off for a while and let some of my quirky obsessions have a break, then I will just try to take an objective look at what Mr. Ramsey has had to say.

On page 12, he is recounting making the plans for the ransom money and is now just waiting for the ransom call. Which is not coming. He says:
"I remember last summer when I got locked out of the house; I broke a pane in a basement window, reached in and pulled open the latch, and was able to climb inside. Patsy had asked our cleaning lady's husband to fix that window. Had it been fixed? I rush downstairs to check. No. The pane is still broken. The window stands wide open. A big old Samsonite suitcase is set beneath the window. Who put that there? The suitcase is like a stool to climb up and crawl out the window. ......I rush up the stairs. I tell one of the policemen about the window. I can barely form the words. I'm sick to my stomach. I have to keep my wits about me...."

Does this sound like the other police and witness accounts we have?

Then, on pg. 15, JR says this: "The female detective asks me to take someone with me and go through the entire house to see if anything is unusual or out of place. Okay, sure. We decide to work from the bottom up since the third floor has no access to the outside. "Right. Basement first," and we head down the stairs. My legs are trembling and I stumble on the stair. I regain my balance. I head down the basement stairs and into the room where Burke's electric train is set up. I show my friend the broken window, which is still open, the samll splinters of glass on the floor and on the suitcase. This isn't right. The suitcase shouldn't be here. Did the kidnapper take my child out the basement window? My friend didn't tell me he had already noted the open window when he was down here earlier. I'm feeling dizzy."

So which is it, the window was broken earlier, and the glass didn't get cleaned up, and there is a suitcase sitting there that shouldn't be there, but if it was just recently put there, how could glass from a window broken BEFORE it was put there, end up on it - as JR said just a few pages later?? If the suitcase had been there all along and had glass on it from JR breaking the window in the summer, why did he then wonder why the suitcase was there and say it wasn't right??

And if have to recant a bit on my former truce. I will accept that JB was not in the suitcase after she was finally dead. But I can also accept that JB might have been carried from her bedroom to the basement in that suitcase being unconscious, but still alive. There was activity involving her death which connects to the basement near the paint tray, and I believe she could have been removed from the suitcase alive, and the final evils against her happened in the basement, with the suitcase being carelessly abandoned.

If the suitcase was abandoned and left below the window, in order for it to have glass found on and near it, the window had to have been broken that night, and not earlier in the summer. And it would have been done intentionally in order to provide and entry/exit for an intrude/kidnapper.

All excellent points! However, I feel you are being unfair to JR. How do you expect him to keep all of his lies straight after all these years MWM?

 

[Chrishope]

Now I pick up my waiting copy of "The Other Side of Suffering". I have not had the guts to get started on it because the publishing of it is what got me riled enough about JB's case to start posting. But I figure, OK, if I have to just back off for a while and let some of my quirky obsessions have a break, then I will just try to take an objective look at what Mr. Ramsey has had to say.

On page 12, he is recounting making the plans for the ransom money and is now just waiting for the ransom call. Which is not coming. He says:
"I remember last summer when I got locked out of the house; I broke a pane in a basement window, reached in and pulled open the latch, and was able to climb inside. Patsy had asked our cleaning lady's husband to fix that window. Had it been fixed? I rush downstairs to check. No. The pane is still broken. The window stands wide open. A big old Samsonite suitcase is set beneath the window. Who put that there? The suitcase is like a stool to climb up and crawl out the window. ......I rush up the stairs. I tell one of the policemen about the window. I can barely form the words. I'm sick to my stomach. I have to keep my wits about me...."

Does this sound like the other police and witness accounts we have?

Then, on pg. 15, JR says this: "The female detective asks me to take someone with me and go through the entire house to see if anything is unusual or out of place. Okay, sure. We decide to work from the bottom up since the third floor has no access to the outside. "Right. Basement first," and we head down the stairs. My legs are trembling and I stumble on the stair. I regain my balance. I head down the basement stairs and into the room where Burke's electric train is set up. I show my friend the broken window, which is still open, the samll splinters of glass on the floor and on the suitcase. This isn't right. The suitcase shouldn't be here. Did the kidnapper take my child out the basement window? My friend didn't tell me he had already noted the open window when he was down here earlier. I'm feeling dizzy."

So which is it, the window was broken earlier, and the glass didn't get cleaned up, and there is a suitcase sitting there that shouldn't be there, but if it was just recently put there, how could glass from a window broken BEFORE it was put there, end up on it - as JR said just a few pages later?? If the suitcase had been there all along and had glass on it from JR breaking the window in the summer, why did he then wonder why the suitcase was there and say it wasn't right??

And if have to recant a bit on my former truce. I will accept that JB was not in the suitcase after she was finally dead. But I can also accept that JB might have been carried from her bedroom to the basement in that suitcase being unconscious, but still alive. There was activity involving her death which connects to the basement near the paint tray, and I believe she could have been removed from the suitcase alive, and the final evils against her happened in the basement, with the suitcase being carelessly abandoned.

If the suitcase was abandoned and left below the window, in order for it to have glass found on and near it, the window had to have been broken that night, and not earlier in the summer. And it would have been done intentionally in order to provide and entry/exit for an intrude/kidnapper.

We know how the suitcase got under the window - FW set it there. He said so. We know how the glass got on the suitcase - FW picked it up off the floor (or was it the window ledge?) and set it on the suitcase. He said so.

There is no way broken glass was still on the floor from the previous summer, not when the kids played in the area. It would have been cleaned up, and a good job would have been done.

IMO there is no way the window remained unfixed from summer through Christmas. The window was broken the night of the 25th/morning of the 26th.

While it's possible that JB was placed in the suitcase, unconscious but alive, and taken downstairs, I'm not sure why this would be done. It's easier just to carry her down, sans suitcase.

I'm not really sure she'd actually fit in the suitcase, but let's say yes, for the time being. Does the killer know she isn't dead? He must, as there would be no reason to take her out later if she's dead. At least there is no reason not to put her back, after garrotting her, if the suitcase is the planned method of removing the body from the home. We know she wasn't in the suitcase when JR "found" her, so either the suitcase was never part of the plan, or the plan changed, but why would it change?

If the killer didn't know she's dead, when placing her in the suitcase, how could he be sure she wouldn't regain consciousness while being twisted like a pretzel to fit into the suitcase? She'd have to be folded like origami to fit.

If she'd been placed in the suitcase to be carried from her room to the basement the sham and duvet would have had to be removed up stairs. That would mean JR would have to go back up and get them, then carry them down and put them back in the suitcase. That would also mean he put the book in the suitcase which must mean it was in the suitcase when it was upstairs - otherwise why do it? Which doesn't solve the riddle of why a Dr. Seuss book is in the suitcase in the first place.

If it was a joint venture (and it wasn't) there was no reason to put her in the suitcase. At least no reason having to do with hiding the body from view of the other parent.

If it's JDI, and PR woke up and came in the BR while JR was stuffing JBR into the suitcase, how was he going to explain it?

I don't see much reason to suspect she was ever placed in the suitcase before death. DeeDee makes it clear to us that she was never placed in the suitcase after death.

The desire to involve the suitcase comes from three places -

1) LS tries to sell the theory that the intruder climbed out the window by standing on the suitcase. We know that isn't true because a) FW says he placed the suitcase there, b) there is a more stable chair in the same room, and c) the grate and web are in place making it obvious no one left via the window.

2) CBI thinks that the fibers from the sham/duvet are on JB's top. However, as the Rocky Mountain News reported on 4 May, 2001, the FBI disagrees. We have a split of opinion by two expert agencies. Even is CBI is right and the FBI is wrong, we still don't know where the sham/duvet were in the hours before the murder. We don't know if the transfer method was primary or secondary. We can't rule out innocent transfer well before the murder took place. It's as meaningless as all the other fiber evidence. JR's prints, if they are in fact on the suitcase, are not suspicious because it's an ordinary object commonly kept in his home, and he's explained handling the suitcase in months past. Which brings us to

3) The desire of internet sleuths to catch a Ramsey in a lie. But there is no reason at all why a man couldn't pick up a suitcase and move it from one part of his house to another. So no lie has been proven. Nor should a lie be assumed, as difficult as that is when listening to JR. Fingerprints don't have time stamps so he could have handled the suitcase for the first time ever the night of the murder. Or he could have moved it months before, just as he claims. No way to tell.

So, the most sensible thing to do is say that the suitcase may or may not have been involved in the crime, and there is no way to tell. It's a time waster and an energy waster. There is no reason to speculate that JBR may have been placed in the suitcase at any time because we cannot confirm or falsify such a claim. We cannot solve the crime by looking at the suitcase.


I give you credit for being willing to read the R's book. You must be absolutely dedicated to the case. I wouldn't touch their book with latex gloves on.

 

[midwest mama]

Chrishope - Your post makes so much sense. If it would have been possible to solve the crime by nailing down whether or not the suitcase was used for any purpose connected to JB while the crime was happening, I suppose someone from one of the forensic teams would have done it. It does consume time and energy to try to reason why the suitcase gets the attention it does in this case, other than the fact that Lou Smit made it part of the intruder theory. But he could not have done that if the suitcase had not been in the position it was.

Too much is made of the suitcase in accounts related to this crime for me to be able to dismiss it as being not relative. The fact that John himself brings it up within the first few pages and there is conflicting information makes me suspect that there is a reason his mind must keep dealing with it. I suspect JR had intended to remove JB from the house in that suitcase to dump her body. Something foiled his plan, and even so it worked out in his favor. Of course we cannot know, at this point, the reason why she ended up being found in the WC within the white blanket, but the suitcase and all the various accounts for the reason it was where it was is just one more thing that moves me away from Burke being involved, or Patsy having anything to do with her death.

Patsy was packing for the Disney trip using suitcases. Too obvious of a connection to her. I think she would have made sure, if having to use the suitcase for anything related to the crime, she would have returned it to the packing area to remove any suspicion from it.

Yes, thank you, I am very dedicated to learning whatever I can about this case - even everything that came from the mouths and minds of the Ramseys via their own accounts. The more I can learn about any discrepancies between what is known according to police or other credible sources and what the Ramseys reported through their writings, the clearer I become on who I suspect killed JB and why. If I never learn the truth or hear it from a confessed killer or through a trial, I will at least satisfy my own mind and ease the repulsion I feel in my heart for this crime.

Bottom line - I'll keep the suitcase in the back of my mind as I go about taking as deep a look as I possibly can into whatever information is out there about the happenings on 15th street the night of 12-25-96 and into the early morning of 12-26-96. And while I suppose the suitcase evidence may never expose the real killer, I sure do wish that suitcase could talk because I think it would have lots to tell about JB's death.

 

[Chrishope]

Chrishope - Your post makes so much sense. If it would have been possible to solve the crime by nailing down whether or not the suitcase was used for any purpose connected to JB while the crime was happening, I suppose someone from one of the forensic teams would have done it. It does consume time and energy to try to reason why the suitcase gets the attention it does in this case, other than the fact that Lou Smit made it part of the intruder theory. But he could not have done that if the suitcase had not been in the position it was.

It's in the position it was because FW put it in that position.

Too much is made of the suitcase in accounts related to this crime for me to be able to dismiss it as being not relative. The fact that John himself brings it up within the first few pages and there is conflicting information makes me suspect that there is a reason his mind must keep dealing with it.

The R books come out quite some time after LS has begun pushing the intruder standing on the suitcase theory. That's why JR keeps mentioning it, because he has a famous and respected detective pushing this theory. He wants to keep that theory out there and make it seem credible.

If I recall correctly, he says nothing about the suitcase on the morning of the 26th. He's also at pains to tell police he himself broke the window. He doesn't want anyone thinking about the incomplete intruder staging on the morning of the 26th.

I suspect JR had intended to remove JB from the house in that suitcase to dump her body.

Well, his plan had to include dumping the body. I'm not sure why he'd need to use a suitcase, but I guess he had to get her out some way. I think he'd have to bring the suitcase back so it's not linked with the crime. Either that or tell the police the suitcase is missing thereby blaming the kidnappers for taking her out in the suitcase.

Something foiled his plan,

Well certainly the 911 call foiled the overall plan, but by the time PR found the note the body should have been in the suitcase, if that was part of the plan. It's difficult to see what changed his plan vis-a-vis the suitcase.

and even so it worked out in his favor. Of course we cannot know, at this point, the reason why she ended up being found in the WC within the white blanket, but the suitcase and all the various accounts for the reason it was where it was is just one more thing that moves me away from Burke being involved, or Patsy having anything to do with her death.

I agree that PR/BR had nothing to do with it.

Patsy was packing for the Disney trip using suitcases. Too obvious of a connection to her. I think she would have made sure, if having to use the suitcase for anything related to the crime, she would have returned it to the packing area to remove any suspicion from it.

That makes sense.

Yes, thank you, I am very dedicated to learning whatever I can about this case - even everything that came from the mouths and minds of the Ramseys via their own accounts. The more I can learn about any discrepancies between what is known according to police or other credible sources and what the Ramseys reported through their writings, the clearer I become on who I suspect killed JB and why. If I never learn the truth or hear it from a confessed killer or through a trial, I will at least satisfy my own mind and ease the repulsion I feel in my heart for this crime.

Bottom line - I'll keep the suitcase in the back of my mind as I go about taking as deep a look as I possibly can into whatever information is out there about the happenings on 15th street the night of 12-25-96 and into the early morning of 12-26-96. And while I suppose the suitcase evidence may never expose the real killer, I sure do wish that suitcase could talk because I think it would have lots to tell about JB's death.

Just remember when you look for discrepancies that JR is telling one story the morning of the 26th, and a very different story after LS joins the RST.

 

[midwest mama]

It's in the position it was because FW put it in that position.

Just remember when you look for discrepancies that JR is telling one story the morning of the 26th, and a very different story after LS joins the RST.

Wise advise, and respectfully taken.

You might consider this interesting from TOSOS, just read today (as I said, I have to go slowly with this book), pg 20 (JR is relating info about Pam's trip to the house to gather things):
"Pam wanted to stay in the playroom, wait for Burke and JonBenet to come running in, pull out a book to read to them, Dr. Seuss, maybe, but with the police officer behind her, she kept moving, through the hall, past the upstairs laundry area, toward John Andrew's room."

My internal red light went off twice during this once sentence, over the two bolded bits of info (BBM). What??????

JR had already said that Pam went first to their room to gather personal items for them - clothes, hygiene products, etc. Then to Burke's room for his things. To think she was going to JAR's room for more clothes maybe that Patsy had gathered for the Disney trip - why????

And to bring up the Suess book - that is pure guilty conscience IMHO!! A whole slew of kids books, I would presume, and he references that one?
Give me a break.

 

[DeDee]

Wise advise, and respectfully taken.

You might consider this interesting from TOSOS, just read today (as I said, I have to go slowly with this book), pg 20 (JR is relating info about Pam's trip to the house to gather things):
"Pam wanted to stay in the playroom, wait for Burke and JonBenet to come running in, pull out a book to read to them, Dr. Seuss, maybe, but with the police officer behind her, she kept moving, through the hall, past the upstairs laundry area, toward John Andrew's room."

My internal red light went off twice during this once sentence, over the two bolded bits of info (BBM). What??????

JR had already said that Pam went first to their room to gather personal items for them - clothes, hygiene products, etc. Then to Burke's room for his things. To think she was going to JAR's room for more clothes maybe that Patsy had gathered for the Disney trip - why????

And to bring up the Suess book - that is pure guilty conscience IMHO!! A whole slew of kids books, I would presume, and he references that one?
Give me a break.

From The Other Side of Suffering:

"Pam wanted to stay in the playroom, wait for Burke and JonBenet to come running in, pull out a book to read to them, Dr. Seuss, maybe, but with the police officer behind her, she kept moving, through the hall, past the upstairs laundry area, toward John Andrew's room."

Perhaps the reason John Ramsey can be so bold and cocky about the Dr. Seuss book, that we now know to actually be the adult Dr. Seuss book of nude drawings, is because he had reason to believe the title was never going to be released to the public and it was most likely redacted from [almost] all LE reports.


Interesting it would be to find a motion suppressing the title of this book.


omo

 

[Anti-K]

I didn’t realize that the title of the Dr Seuss book had been released. When did this happen? What? Confused.
...

AK

 

[Mama2JML]

I didn’t realize that the title of the Dr Seuss book had been released. When did this happen? What? Confused.
...

AK

It hasn't been released. Speculation.

 

[questfortrue]

It hasn't been released. Speculation.

The reference for the “adult” Seuss book was from something which looked like an authentic LE Report. I initially thought it was real until I looked this up. It was from Anatomy of a Cold Case, directed by Lawrence Schiller. This was the program which triggered Tricia to email Schiller and point out a number of the inaccuracies. What was authentic in Schiller’s enactment/documentary and what was imagined, IDK (didn’t see the program); but I’m sure it is not a “real” LE report, just a reproduction to make it look as though it is real. Interesting that LE did not want the Seuss book title released, but maybe someone spilled something to Schiller? Dunno. Speculations.

 

[DeDee]

The reference for the “adult” Seuss book was from something which looked like an authentic LE Report. I initially thought it was real until I looked this up. It was from Anatomy of a Cold Case, directed by Lawrence Schiller. This was the program which triggered Tricia to email Schiller and point out a number of the inaccuracies. What was authentic in Schiller’s enactment/documentary and what was imagined, IDK (didn’t see the program); but I’m sure it is not a “real” LE report, just a reproduction to make it look as though it is real. Interesting that LE did not want the Seuss book title released, but maybe someone spilled something to Schiller? Dunno. Speculations.

While it is certainly understandable that a television/movie director would want the script for Anatomy of a Cold Case or any other production to be as authentic as possible, are you suggesting that, Schiller, on purpose and intentionally, used false documents that are only known to us due to captured screenshots?

And that Tricia emailed Schiller about inaccuracies in the Cold Case documentary that may nor may not have included the subject of the adult Dr. Seuss book?


As I recall the mid-90s, the internet was budding and blooming yet not many had access to it. ACR took copious screenshots, with dedication, because

a) she had a computer with a hobby tracking trials.

b) there was no youtube, photo bucket or storage clouds available ATT and

c) taking screenshots in 1997-98 was about the only way to transfer televised news or other programming into the technology we have available today.


CourtTV got its big boost from covering the JonBenet murder. Hours upon hours of JonBenet's murder was reported by them and other televised programs then documented by ACR.

I believe this screen capture to be a true and actual copy of an investigator's tool until such a time when it is discovered otherwise or, as you already mentioned, maybe Schiller knew something more.

There is always hope of locating the video from whence this SS came.

 

[Nom de plume]

While it is certainly understandable that a television/movie director would want the script for Anatomy of a Cold Case or any other production to be as authentic as possible, are you suggesting that, Schiller, on purpose and intentionally, used false documents that are only known to us due to captured screenshots?

And that Tricia emailed Schiller about inaccuracies in the Cold Case documentary that may nor may not have included the subject of the adult Dr. Seuss book?


As I recall the mid-90s, the internet was budding and blooming yet not many had access to it. ACR took copious screenshots, with dedication, because

a) she had a computer with a hobby tracking trials.

b) there was no youtube, photo bucket or storage clouds available ATT and

c) taking screenshots in 1997-98 was about the only way to transfer televised news or other programming into the technology we have available today.


CourtTV got its big boost from covering the JonBenet murder. Hours upon hours of JonBenet's murder was reported by them and other televised programs then documented by ACR.

I believe this screen capture to be a true and actual copy of an investigator's tool until such a time when it is discovered otherwise or, as you already mentioned, maybe Schiller knew something more.

There is always hope of locating the video from whence this SS came.

WHY would LE release this to Lawrence Schiller? And WHY hasn't anyone else seen this?

Try checking Youtube for Anatomy of Cold Case.

Even if it was an adult Dr. Seuss book, there was another meant for high school/college kids. At this point, it's pure speculation that it was an adult Dr. Seuss book. All we know for sure is that it was Dr. Seuss. Just because something is on TV it doesn't mean it's true.

 

[questfortrue]

While it is certainly understandable that a television/movie director would want the script for Anatomy of a Cold Case or any other production to be as authentic as possible, are you suggesting that, Schiller, on purpose and intentionally, used false documents that are only known to us due to captured screenshots?

And that Tricia emailed Schiller about inaccuracies in the Cold Case documentary that may nor may not have included the subject of the adult Dr. Seuss book?


As I recall the mid-90s, the internet was budding and blooming yet not many had access to it. ACR took copious screenshots, with dedication, because

a) she had a computer with a hobby tracking trials.

b) there was no youtube, photo bucket or storage clouds available ATT and

c) taking screenshots in 1997-98 was about the only way to transfer televised news or other programming into the technology we have available today.


CourtTV got its big boost from covering the JonBenet murder. Hours upon hours of JonBenet's murder was reported by them and other televised programs then documented by ACR.

I believe this screen capture to be a true and actual copy of an investigator's tool until such a time when it is discovered otherwise or, as you already mentioned, maybe Schiller knew something more.

There is always hope of locating the video from whence this SS came.

First, I’m not accusing Schiller of any falsification. There are, however, some inaccuracies and distortions in his production which Tricia pointed out, and I won’t go into those. I also know from ST’s book that many things were leaked, even though LE is certainly not in the habit of giving out actual reports to producers of TV documentary enactments. Was it a copy of a report which was given to the R’s through their lawyer? Or did the reporter JS have a copy of this report and gave a copy to Schiller? Who would know? It is also a possibility that all the info in the screen shot is true, but that the screen shot is a “simulated” report, not the actual report.

If Schiller had in his possession a copy of an actual report, I’d be a little surprised, but not totally, since a lot of info got out. If someone told Schiller this, and he or the Court TV editor constructed a report for TV purposes, again, it may be accurate or it might not be. Would depend who told him. (As an example, someone apparently told Schiller, and it’s in the documentary, that the DNA was sourced to a Caucasian male. Scientifically speaking, not possible to source race from DNA.)

FWIW, I still look at this as a great find on your part, but I know to be careful with info from TV productions which are dramatized for affect. Nom’s post much more concise than me! :seeya:

JMHO

 

[DeDee]

WHY would LE release this to Lawrence Schiller? And WHY hasn't anyone else seen this?

Try checking Youtube for Anatomy of Cold Case.

Even if it was an adult Dr. Seuss book, there was another meant for high school/college kids. At this point, it's pure speculation that it was an adult Dr. Seuss book. All we know for sure is that it was Dr. Seuss. Just because something is on TV it doesn't mean it's true.

No no no no no, Nom de plume. It was not an adult Dr Seuss book. It was the adult Dr. Seuss book. There was always just the one adult Dr. Seuss book of nude drawings published. IIRC, the 1st printing was for 10,000 copies that flopped at the time yet copies are sought by collectors today. JAR's suitcase most likely contained the 1987 edition.

WHY hasn't anyone else seen this?

I cannot answer for anyone else. Does anyone actually believe that the book title information was imparted at the drop of a hat? In checking my previous posts, there is at least one where I used the phrase "the adult Dr. Seuss book" that received no comments about the subject.

Further, otg shared that another poster, Midwest mama, had guessed the same thing last February only she did not have the screenshot to go with it.

Try checking Youtube for Anatomy of Cold Case.

Weeks ahead of you in that endeavor.

Even if it was an adult Dr. Seuss book, there was another meant for high school/college kids.

There is a well-known children's Dr. Seuss book that an older age group likely continues to enjoy. However, the nude drawings in the adult book makes so much more sense for the old mystery. Why else keep the title secreted from the public?

I have the good fortune to live in America where we are free to believe what we want about the murder of the young murder victim, JonBenet. This DeDee chooses to believe the adult Dr. Seuss book was inside JAR's hard, blue, seven pound, Samsonite luggage.

Period.

 

[ZBob]

A question on the book title.

I have seen it referenced that somehow the R's wanted the title suppressed. I have also seen it referenced that it would be great to find evidence of a legal filing to suppress the title (which would then possibly support speculation on this being the adult book).

However, could it also be that this was reported as being a Dr. Seuss book without identifying the specific title and thus this has turned into a larger conspiracy that may not have factual backing? If there is only one adult book and many children's books it would seem something should indicate the exception item of the adult book being the item in question (a legal filing might do this).

I only submit this because this topic has generated a bunch of posts but some basic questions asked within some of them have not been cleanly answered from what I have seen.

 

[Anyhoo]

No no no no no, Nom de plume. It was not an adult Dr Seuss book. It was the adult Dr. Seuss book. There was always just the one adult Dr. Seuss book of nude drawings published. IIRC, the 1st printing was for 10,000 copies that flopped at the time yet copies are sought by collectors today. JAR's suitcase most likely contained the 1987 edition.



I cannot answer for anyone else. Does anyone actually believe that the book title information was imparted at the drop of a hat? In checking my previous posts, there is at least one where I used the phrase "the adult Dr. Seuss book" that received no comments about the subject.

Further, otg shared that another poster, Midwest mama, had guessed the same thing last February only she did not have the screenshot to go with it.



Weeks ahead of you in that endeavor.



There is a well-known children's Dr. Seuss book that an older age group likely continues to enjoy. However, the nude drawings in the adult book makes so much more sense for the old mystery. Why else keep the title secreted from the public?

I have the good fortune to live in America where we are free to believe what we want about the murder of the young murder victim, JonBenet. This DeDee chooses to believe the adult Dr. Seuss book was inside JAR's hard, blue, seven pound, Samsonite luggage.

Period.

Before I am going to believe this I need a clear and verified source for it. Until then I agree it is just speculation as M2M said.

 

[DeDee]

A question on the book title.

I have seen it referenced that somehow the R's wanted the title suppressed. I have also seen it referenced that it would be great to find evidence of a legal filing to suppress the title (which would then possibly support speculation on this being the adult book).

However, could it also be that this was reported as being a Dr. Seuss book without identifying the specific title and thus this has turned into a larger conspiracy that may not have factual backing? If there is only one adult book and many children's books it would seem something should indicate the exception item of the adult book being the item in question (a legal filing might do this).

I only submit this because this topic has generated a bunch of posts but some basic questions asked within some of them have not been cleanly answered from what I have seen.

ZBob, I do hope you receive reasonable responses to the question submitted. Please be patient as there are many of us who are attempting to absorb this little clue and where this piece of evidence fits into the puzzling CS.


Those of us who have been involved with this case, since the beginning, in one way or another, since Dec. 1996, know the significance of learning the title to the adult Dr. Seuss book that was found in JAR's suitcase.


The title of the Dr. Seuss book has always been secreted from the public as previously explained in recent posts. Why was the title withheld? We never really understood any of the reasons provided; however, the decision, demand, or order, not to disclose was respected.


There are items redacted from the Search Warrants that to this very day, eighteen years later, we still do not know what those item(s) are. After 17 or 18 years of not knowing something then it begins to carry its own importance. One day the identity of those redacted items will be made known.

...referenced that it would be great to find evidence of a legal filing to suppress the title

Obtaining the motion to suppress, or anything similar, or the video where the screen capture originated, would be helpful for any doubters re: the actual book title. JSYK, the video most likely was converted to cd about six years ago.


Also, to the best of my current knowledge, anyone who attended the JonBenet Ramsey internet subculture meeting, in CO, many years ago, had a chance to win a copy of the video as a door prize. IIRC, Tricia Griffith was present as an organizer/speaker/hostess. In that capacity, she would have presented the VHS videos to 10 lucky door prize winners during their meeting. Perhaps someone still has a copy.


There is much information available regarding the evidence in this case. We just have to find it. For JonBenet.

omo

 

[questfortrue]

Just for background - PR Interview June 23 1998

20 TOM HANEY: If there was something in it it
21 would belong to John Andrew then?
22 PATSY RAMSEY: Yeah.
23 TOM HANEY: Did John Andrew have a Dr. Seuss
24 book.
25 PATSY RAMSEY: Did John Andrew have a Dr.
0416
1 Seuss book? (Inaudible).
2 TOM HANEY: Or when he was older, like now?
3 PATSY RAMSEY: I hope not. He is supposed to
4 have college books, not Dr. Seuss books.
5 Why would you ask such a question?
6 TOM HANEY: Well, that is because in that
7 suitcase was a Dr. Seuss book.
8 PATSY RAMSEY: What book was it? Did it have
9 any kid's name in it?
10 TRIP DEMUTH: That I don't know. I think it
11 had John Andrews' name in it.

 

[DeeDee249]

Like so many things in this case, it is what the Rs and their lawyers DON'T want the public to know that fairly screams their involvement.
I, like many others, have long known about a Dr Seuss book being in the suitcase with the comforter/duvet. But never knew the title. The comforter was said to be from his dorm room and likely brought home for laundering over the Christmas break. There is nothing unusual about that, nor is there anything unusual about dried semen being found on the bedding of a young man.
What WOULD have been suspicious is a CHILDREN's Dr Seuss book along with it. The "adult" Dr Seuss book would not be unusual (though I find ALL Dr Seuss books creepy, that's just me).
So the Rs taking special measures to keep the title of the book secret suggests, to me anyway, that it was a children's book, and what I take from LE's comments to Patsy, it was a book that had JAR's name in it, possibly a book he had as a child himself.
Try as we have over the years, there is no way I can see that ties that suitcase to the crime except in the minds of Lou Smit and the RST who so quickly jumped on Smit's fantasy that an "intruder" used it to climb on with a much-more-stable chair right nearby.
Dried semen cannot be "dated"- cannot be linked to the time of the crime. It belongs to a family member, who had a legitimate reason to have it there (brought home for laundering). Had it belonged to someone else who did NOT reside in the home, it would bear more suspicion. Had it matched the "rogue TDNA" even more suspicious. But the semen belonged to the owner of the bedding, and its presence is not unusual.
This does not mean to say that I do not feel it is possible JAR molested JB on that comforter and the semen is from that- it certainly could be the case. What I am saying is that there is no way to prove that or legally tie it to her molestation/death.
There has been information from time to time that one of JB's hairs was also on that bedding, but I do not think that has been confirmed.