The motive of this case is baffling- unless it was an abduction. If it was jealousy- as a previous post suggested- it would presumably indicate a peer or someone relatively young was involved. So perhaps it lead to some sort of altercation and possibly his death, whether accidental or not. If that was the case, it seems unlikely he/they would have the capability to dispose of the body unless Jamie was led away to the woods like someplace out of sight or a peer had access to a car to drive him somewhere. Overall it makes sense he was abducted by car and the bike was thrown into the canal. He obviously didn't get too far from his home so was this person involved someone local or even someone he knew?
It is interesting that the distinguishing Tour de France decal on the bike was removed and yet, the bike itself was discovered immediately.
*Did the boy who found and kept the bike take it off?
*Whoever it was, why not just trash the bike somewhere where it could never be found?
*Would the abductor even consider removing the decal?
*If a local or peer was the culprit, would he remove the decal but yet, still be amateurish enough to not consider that everyone would still recognize it as James' bike? Unless the person was from out of town or did not know that the bike was unique.
Good questions. Since I lived in Rocky Hill at that time as a child it's crazy to think that the killer might have been a local person. My suspicions lean somewhat towards the 23 year-old man who was the last person known to have seen Jamie alive, just a mile from his house. I have to wonder how well he was questioned or scrutinized by the police, since they clearly bungled the case from the start by somehow failing to connect the almost immediate reporting of the bike being found and then treating the case as a runaway after Jamie's parents mentioned his plan to ride the bike to Florida (even though it's preposterous to think anyone would attempt to ride a bike to Florida with just the clothes on their back).
It appears to me that these desperate parents were trying to figure out what could have happened and so they mention to the cops that Jamie had said he was going to ride his bike to Florida and the cops just seem to have dismissed all other possibilities including Foul Play and stupidly ran with the runaway angle from the get-go.
So I just wonder how well the 23-year old was questioned or scrutinized since the cops were presuming that the case was about a runaway. The 23 year old was from out of town visiting. Did he see a crime of opportunity and follow Jamie after the encounter and abduct him? The fact that it was still daylight when he disappeared makes you wonder how someone could have abducted him and taken his bike as well without being seen. That was a big racing bike which could not easily be placed inside a car. Jamie was a big kid, 6 feet, 150 pounds.
As far as a person disposing the bike where it couldn't be found, if it was thrown into the canal which is apparently where it was found (in shallow water) then that's pretty much what was attempted. Otherwise, what would you do with that bike to hide it? Kind of hard to bury it. If you're trying to ditch it quickly, throwing it into the canal was the best option I would say.
I remember seeing Jamie riding that bike. I also remember he was more or less considered a troubled teen, a loner. Everybody bought the idea that he had run away on that bike because of his reputation as being somewhat troubled. Or maybe it was just that he was different. I was friends with his younger brother and when over at their house Jamie was not very social and seemed like he was angry. I had other friends who had big brothers and they were more "normal" so to speak, they would engage with you even if it was to harass you. I don't remember Jamie as having friends in the neighborhood or being social. I'm wondering if in fact as you suggested he was being stalked by someone loval who knew that he was a loner and knew that he rode his bike often and felt there was an opportunity there. But if that was the case you would think he would have planned the disposal of the bike better than just tossing it in the canal. That leads back to the idea that it was a crime of opportunity.
The road where Jamie was last seen less than a mile from his house was what we used to call "the back road." It connected Rocky Hill to Princeton. It was like a country road. But there were houses on the road, it wasn't completely in the middle of nowhere but there would be opportunities even in daylight to grab someone without being seen. Perhaps someone followed him from Princeton down that road and waited for their opportunity. But in order to do that, how are you going to take a good-sized 15 year old teenager and his large racing bike and get all of that into a car, quickly? Leads you to believe that the abductor, if it happened that way, was driving a van.
Another possibility is that after having the encounter with the 23 year old on Mt. Lucas road, Jamie for some reason decided not to go the short distance of less than a mile to his house and instead decided to ride his bike the five miles to the area near the canal where his bike was found. Perhaps in that out of the way area he ran into someone or several people who committed foul play, maybe even kids his age or older.
There were some crazy, rough teenagers who lived around Rocky Hill during that time. I suppose it's conceivable that maybe they just happened upon him in this area and were jealous of this kid with this nice bike and roughed him up or tried to steal the bike and things got out of hand and they ended up killing him. But then you have to wonder as you said how a bunch of teenage hoodlums would have had the wherewithal to dispose of a body so completely.
If they had thrown his body into the canal without weighting it down you would think it would have floated to the surface and been found. If they weighted it down and threw it in where the bike was found you would think when the cops finally discovered that the bike had been found there and dragged the river, they would have found the body, even though it was weeks later.
And that's the real tragedy right there, how the cops somehow failed to connect the report of the bike being found (which was made a day after Jamie went missing) to Jamie's disappearance. At that point you would have had a fresh crime scene which may well have yielded evidence that could have led to the culprit, and who knows possibly even to Jamie if he may have still been alive.
The decal removal is puzzling as you pointed out. I thought that the kid who found the bike may have removed it thinking he was going to keep the bike, but then why would he report having found the bike immediately? Sure he kept if after that, which is also bizarre. Bad enough that the cops didn't connect the initial report of the bike with Jamie but why would cops tell a kid who reported finding a bike to just jeep it?
Whoever the culprit was, you have to wonder why they would take the decal off at all if you're going to throw the bike in the canal? As you said, it would be easy to identify it is Jamie's bike with or without the decal. The only reason I would think someone would remove the decal is the scenario of a group of teenage hoodlums coming up on Jamie and bullying him and trying to steal his bike and maybe tearing it off in front of him as part of their torment. Or again if it was a bunch of scared idiot hoods who just killed someone they might have ripped the decal off stupidly thinking it would prevent identification of the bike.
It really makes no sense of why anyone would rip off that decal unless it was just a gesture either of meanness or panic. But again, I cannot imagine this was teenage hoods who did it, even just one. I don't see how a teenage kid could have disposed of a body so completely. If it was several kids you have to wonder how they could keep it a secret for 50 years.
It would seem that it had to be an adult who committed the abduction. My guess would be it was done with a van, the bike was disposed of in the canal and Jamie's body was buried somewhere away from the canal.
Whatever happened it was and still is a horrible crime. Jamie's parents were wonderful people as was his brother. I just can't imagine the horror of those in his family never knowing what happened to him. His parents went to their graves not knowing.
