scuffmark on wall/suitcase

Discussion in 'JonBenet Ramsey' started by Toltec, Oct 6, 2003.

  1. Toltec

    Toltec New Member

    Messages:
    1,644
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Does anyone know when the Ramseys had the basement painted? I ask this because of the scuff mark on the wall. Steve Thomas is questioning John about the last time he went through the basement window.

    NE page 133...

    ST: Tom, let me just ask John this. Do you sit down and slide through, buttocks first if you will, through a window like that or, do you recall how you went through the actual window, John?

    JR: I don't...remember. Seems like, I mean, I don't remember, but I think I would probably have gone in feet first.

    ST: Feet first backwards?

    JR: Yeah.

    ST: And when you went through in your underwear, were you wearing shoes...?

    JR: I still had my shoes on, yeah.

    ST: And were those with a suit, were they business shoes?

    JR: They were probably, probably those shoes.

    ST: Okay. And what are those shoes?

    JR: Business shoes...shoes that I wear with a suit, just a pair of business shoes, dress shoes.


    Okay....if the Ramseys had not painted their basement after the summer of 1996, then it is possible that John is responsible for the scuff mark on the wall under the basement window.

    And then John talks about the suitcase. I believe they both claimed that it belonged to JAR. But this is what John says about the suitcase that kind of raised an eyebrow.

    NE: page 128

    JR: Because (there) was a new Samsonite suitcase sitting right under the window,...

    Okay, maybe I'm reading it all wrong but John said it was a NEW suitcase?
     
  2. Loading...


  3. Toltec

    Toltec New Member

    Messages:
    1,644
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So what has been discovered as evidence of an intruder really is not.

    HI-TEK bootprint belongs to Burke.

    Hair belongs to Melinda.

    Scuff mark under basement window belonging to John.

    Palm print on wine cellar door belongs to Patsy.

    Pineapple belongs to Ramseys.

    Ransom Note pad and pen belonging to Ramseys.

    Swiss Army knife belongs to Burke

    Paring knife belongs to Ramseys.

    Flashlight belongs to John.

    So...let's say that that leaves the duct tape and cord. Let's presume that it is a real kidnapping. Duct tape and cord is all the kidnapper needs...but OOPS, he forgets the ransom note. So what does this foreign faction kidnapper do instead? He decides that he wants to molest the victim, strangle her and hit her over the head? Then he decides to write a ransom letter to John?

    WHY? Did JonBenet recognize the foreign faction kidnapper?

    Now John wants to know WHY....not WHO!
     
  4. Seeker

    Seeker Former Member

    Messages:
    3,475
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Good questions Toltec! I think John could have been responsible for that scuffmark as well. Remember he was sneaking into the house in the dark...like that makes sense anyway, so I don't think he would know if he had scuffed the wall or not when he did.

    I think you have something switched. Wasn't it reported to be Melinda's palmprint & Patsy's hair? The hair was supposedly from her arm or something?

    As for the suitcase I don't know. I would consider any suitcase under a few years old to be "new". Maybe the word was used subjectively.
     
  5. FULTON

    FULTON New Member

    Messages:
    61
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I remember reading it was Patsy's arm hair and Melinda's palm print on the door jam.
     
  6. SisterSocks

    SisterSocks What a wild and crazy trip its been

    Messages:
    297
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Tol can you give me a source, for Burke BEING the owner of the Hi tec Boots?
    Thanks in advance,
    Socks
     
  7. Seeker

    Seeker Former Member

    Messages:
    3,475
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Wasn't that reported in the same article as the arm hair and palmprint? If I remember correctly the article said this info came from a "source" not from BPD or DA's office...I seem to remember it being in the Daily Camera...
     
  8. sissi

    sissi Former Member

    Messages:
    1,832
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Before I think about all of this,I am concerned about the police giving out information for so many months saying, NO ONE could fit through that window. It follows "No footprints in the snow",why were they so free to start a media frenzy that would implicate the Ramseys ,when they KNEW both of these statements were false.
    JMO IMO
     
  9. Britt

    Britt New Member

    Messages:
    1,911
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Didn't that come out in a John Ramsey deposition? Or maybe it was his interview in Atlanta, August 2000... something like that.
     
  10. Britt

    Britt New Member

    Messages:
    1,911
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Actually, it wasn't that no one could fit through the window. It was that no one could fit through the window and leave no trace of having been there. It was too small not to have left physical evidence of squeezing through it - y'know, like fibers, swipe marks, fresh tracking from outside, etc.
     
  11. Nedthan Johns

    Nedthan Johns New Member

    Messages:
    1,371
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    A simple test of John's shoes to the skuff mark would have answered this question, and of course was one of many things NOT done in this case. Given the fact that the Ramsey's didn't even bother to fix the broken window, the chances are very good that this scuff mark belongs to John

    LOL what do you want to bet those shoes were stollen by the Ramsey's second intruder along with Patsy's fake jewelry?
     
  12. Nedthan Johns

    Nedthan Johns New Member

    Messages:
    1,371
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Toltec: JR: Because (there) was a new Samsonite suitcase sitting right under the window,...

    Okay, maybe I'm reading it all wrong but John said it was a NEW suitcase?

    Ned; So many things about this case, I keep missing, perhaps that is why it is such a challenge after all these years LOL
    Never read that John stated it was a NEW suitcase. IN fact I thought it was an older model. Funny John can remember if the suitcase was new or not, but can't remember the exact events of that morning.

    This brings me to several questions. If it was NEW and JAR was still in Georgia, why didn't he have the suitcase with him? And if it was new and not being used, why wouldn't the Ramsey's have packed it for the trip to Mich.? As i have stated many many times before this suitcase is a HUGE clue in this case and most certainly IMO holds the key to the marks on JB's back and face. New American Touristor suitcase, so let me go and research 1995-1996 cases be back
     
  13. Nedthan Johns

    Nedthan Johns New Member

    Messages:
    1,371
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The Ramsey's suitcase was similar to this one shown here:
    javascript:update('http://i10.ebayimg.com/03/i/00/c1/73/01_1.JPG',%202,%20false);

    Unfortunatly you cannot see the other side of that divider in the second shot. The suitcase I had found in a thrift store, when flipped over there was a buckle with flat prongs, which I believe made the marks to JB's back. I cannot prove this of course without a suitcase to compare and have yet to be able to return to this thrift shop to buy it. I have asked before, but now that we have new posters, does anyone have a American Touristor/Samsonite suitcase. FYI Samsonite bought out American Touristor I had found out in my first search efforts. The Ramsey's bag actually has an American Touristor logo on it.
     
  14. Nedthan Johns

    Nedthan Johns New Member

    Messages:
    1,371
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
  15. Nedthan Johns

    Nedthan Johns New Member

    Messages:
    1,371
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Look closely at the two clasp marks at the top of that case above, even if JB was laid over the suitcase could it be possible to leave imprint marks like those on her back? I believe so
     
  16. Nedthan Johns

    Nedthan Johns New Member

    Messages:
    1,371
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2196298274&category=11236

    The suitcase measures about 27 1/2" x 18 3/4" x 8".

    On the inside there is a elastic pouch on the side. On the other side is a zippered removable pouch. In the center are two cloth ties. This suitcase measures about 24" x 16" x 7".


    This is closer to the case that the Ramsey's owned, however, this case is missing the straps that I had observed in the Touristor case in the Thrift shop. The clasp on the buckle was approximately the same distance across as the marks on JB's back. I pushed the buckle into my arm hoping that upon arriving at home an hour later they would still be present to measure. The had disappeared, however I wonder in a child that was dead or had been lying on the buckle for quite some time, would the marks disappear? Now I once had all the information regarding the measurements of the suitcase, but it is all stored away on CD's now and finding it would take days. Since I know first hand that a child JB's age would fit inside the case, due to my experiement, does anyone know off hand the measurements? Tlynn and Britt are always good for digging up info? How bout it Britt? ;)
     
  17. Nedthan Johns

    Nedthan Johns New Member

    Messages:
    1,371
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I don't know why I didn't think of this before but I found the American Tourister outlet on line and have e-mailed their customer service department asking them for inside photos of this suitcase if they have them, which I would imagine they would. I also have their toll free phone number to follow up. Any info anyone has on this suitcase please post. Lou Smit didn't have much info on the case when I spoke with him, and the case is still in the hands of the BPD, I had e-mailed Mark Beckner when he was in charge of the case with my theory years ago. He responded and gave thanks, but gave me no further clues.

    I am absolutely convinced that JB was placed in that suitcase in the Ramsey household. Most likely Patsy was packing upstairs. I mean come on what millionaire do you know who packs their clothes in trash bags, I didn't buy that chit for nothing. This suitcase was most likely in JAR's room, which might indicate why Lou thinks an intruder was in that room, some disturbance there, carpet control samples were taken. The suitcas could have been means of transporting JB or hiding her from Burke or John or both.

    Why is it that one of the experts was quoted as saying that the marks on JB's face appear to be SNAPS? How did he come to this conclusion? And how does a suitcase that the Ramsey's say is normally kept UNDER their stairs make it's way down to the basement and placed under the window? There were many other things the Ramsey's could have grabbed in order to accomplish a set up. Why the suitcase? Because it was USED, part of the crime. Why was it that fibers from the duvet cover inside were said to match those on JB, yet the FBI I believe said they may not be an exact match? Yet Lou believes she was in that case?

    Next to the ransom note and pineapple, I believe this suitcase is extremely important to solving this case.
     
  18. sissi

    sissi Former Member

    Messages:
    1,832
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I went back to the picture of Lou Smit going in the basement through the window,it appears there isn't much of a drop. This isn't to say it was impossible to leave a scuff mark,however,going out to achieve footing one would have to place their foot on the wall,coming in it could happen,but it wouldn't be necessary to do so. The clues here are the placement of the suitcase,the contents of the suitcase , not the mark.

    Burke owned hi-techs? I can find nowhere,in any of the mainstream reading anything to indicate this is so.

    The hair belonged to Melinda? Once again,I can find nothing to indicate this as fact.

    If the hi-techs belonged to Burke, he certainly wouldn't have had them on,on Christmas day. If the hair belonged to Melinda,it would serve to take away one clue,nothing more.

    The duct tape,stun gun,and cord are HUGE clues.
    These are the typical items known to be carried in the commission of a crime,and are often found in the trunks of cars belonging to suspects. The fact that these things can not be sourced is big. IMO JMO
     
  19. Barbara

    Barbara New Member

    Messages:
    741
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    "...The duct tape,stun gun,and cord are HUGE clues."

    The stun gun is nothing more than one persons opinion. Even Lou Smit has backpeddled on this. It is not a fact.
     
  20. sissi

    sissi Former Member

    Messages:
    1,832
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You are right,it is not a fact, it is an assumption ,most of this case is loaded with them. Is anyone willing to list the actual facts? There are about three.
    IMO
     
  21. Toth

    Toth Inactive

    Messages:
    968
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    LOL, Sissi... you are right there.
    However the stun gun, cord and tape are hardly mere assumptions. There is a reasonable basis and considerable merit in not quibbling but going forward with the investigation.
    If instead of a stun gun it turns out to actualy be trained mosquitoes, I will be in total shock. Meanwhile, please don't say anything about 'one person's assumptions' several agreed on the stun gun theory.
    The tape is known to have been recently manufactured and its not really an item that one buys to wrap Christmas presents with.
    The cord segment seems unrelated to anything in the house too.

    When confronted with what looks like a stun gun, what experienced people say is a stun gun and what would meet the Frye test for testimony in a federal court, I see no reason to keep going on about 'stun gun not proven'.

    As for the scuff mark. True. Its not 'proven' in any way. I think it more likely the intruder's entry mark than his exit mark, but I can't prove that it was not there for many months. It certainly appears to be freshly made in all the photos and video clips.

    When a suitcase is out of place and positioned near a window and there is a scuff mark on the wall, I see no need to go around cackling "only a theory, not proven". I simply assume its a scuff mark made by the intruder, probably upon entry but possibly upon exiting the premises.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice