The Suitcase - Duvet, Sham & Dr. Suess

Discussion in 'JonBenet Ramsey' started by midwest mama, Feb 13, 2013.

  1. midwest mama

    midwest mama New Member

    Messages:
    1,289
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    At the request of OM4U, this thread is for discussion about the relevance of the suitcase found in the train room, which contained a duvet and sham identified as belonging to JAR, along with a Dr. Seuss book.

    The question is: how much of the crime itself can be attached to the suitcase and it's contents? Could any or all of it have been used at various steps throughout the crime, or was it brought in as staging after JB's death?
     
  2. Loading...


  3. dodie20

    dodie20 New Member

    Messages:
    5,077
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well, I'll go first. Since it was reported that JR said he read JB a bedtime story, I see this as a potential association with this book... especially, since he later changed the story, which IMO, could be seen as him distancing himself from the book. moo
     
  4. madeleine

    madeleine New Member

    Messages:
    4,970
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    you'd think that when molestation happens the perpetrator wouldn't use his room or the childs room when doing it....maybe it all happened in JAR's room?
    maybe these are some of the items they wanted to get rid of ?(along with the body)
    maybe he thought the suitcase would fit through the broken window?


    I read a RUMOR somewhere that JR gave FW a box with items through the broken window that morning....
     
  5. wengr

    wengr New Member

    Messages:
    230
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It has always felt like staging to me.
    I consider the suitcase itself to be staging. And staging is meant to be noticed by authories, so I suspect that the contents were either unknown to the stager or also meant to be found by authorities. A duvet from JAR might be a sensible choice because it may contain trace evidence of someone from outside the house.
    And the book I feel has no relation to the actual crime. I suspect it was placed there to suggest it was used as a lure or something to that effect.
     
  6. OpenMind4U

    OpenMind4U New Member

    Messages:
    733
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    DeeDee, MM and everyone,

    First of all, thank you MM for opening separate thread!!!
    Secondly, let's make sure everyone familiar with the FACTS and available Informations so we can have productive discussions.

    FACTS, INFORMATION, INTERVIEWS

    1. JB shirt and items in suitcase (duvet/sham) have forensic connection

    ...from another source....

    2. When suitcase was placed in basement?

    John Ramsey has testified that he, himself, took suitcase into the basement and store it in room close to the laundry. He has no knowledge what was inside of suitcase and he has no idea what 'duvet' means.

    JR interview June, 1998 (Police Files)

    3. When JB wore the Gap shirt?

    Patsy Ramsey Interview, April 1997, Police Files.

    ...from another PR interview, PR

    Now, when you know the FACTS and available Informations, let's talk how the context of the suitcase could relates to JBR murder.
     
  7. Nom de plume

    Nom de plume New Member

    Messages:
    730
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Have to disagree with you on #2. Just because John said he took the suitcase to the basement months before does not make it a fact.
     
  8. midwest mama

    midwest mama New Member

    Messages:
    1,289
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Thanks for taking the time to give us such good starting points with your reference postings, OM4U.

    Just to add my opinion, while the statements you posted are what we in the public know with regard to the suitcase, etc., only the forensic testing done can be considered factual, because it can be scientifically validated. Also, photo evidence can be trusted as fact, I believe.

    The other statements as to where the suitcase came from, who used it, what it was used for, how it got into the basement, when it got into the basement, and where it was placed in the basement are all pieces of information straight from the mouths of the Ramseys, mostly JR. Patsy did also offer some comments about it being and OLD suitcase that she saw by the boiler room, while JR stated (more than once) it was a NEW suitcase. (Husband will ask, "Did you get a new sweater?" - he doesn't remember seeing it before recently, and wife will say, "What, this old thing?" - cause she's had it 6 months and worn it 3 times. Ends up OLD and NEW is a matter of opinion, so I have to discount their take on the age of the suitcase.)

    Same thing with JB's clothing. Patsy gave the statements. Doesn't say exactly when they shopped, and where the Gap outfit was laid for storage before it went onto JB. Or if it was in her closet, or a drawer, or still in the shopping bag. All we really know for sure (pictures have confirmed) she wore the top/outfit to the Whites, and she was found dead in it.

    I think it will be important for us to remember there is a difference between the evidence that is a fact, and the evidence that is based on Ramsey statements. Anything that cannot be forensically or photographically validated should be considered speculation, and therefore subject to judgement of whether it is the truth or a lie. And, correct me if I'm wrong, but speculation is usually coupled with fact as the basis of us being able to come up with theories or scenarios which stimulate all of us to keep looking for more answers.

    The bumps in the road of this crime are numerous, thanks to the lies of the Ramseys, but we must keep going if we hope to get to our destination = Justice4JonBenet!
     
  9. OpenMind4U

    OpenMind4U New Member

    Messages:
    733
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    LOL....of course not!!!! A lot of LIES were getting from Ramseys mouth....but as of today, our discussions should be based on what we know, what was documented, what was available for us....not rumors like JR was giving FW some staff through the basement window.....this the point I'm trying to make! We can speculate but based on FACTS (see above post).

    jmo
     
  10. Nom de plume

    Nom de plume New Member

    Messages:
    730
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'm confused. In your above post you stated:

    FACTS

    1. JB shirt and items in suitcase (duvet/sham) have forensic connection

    2. When suitcase was placed in basement?

    3. When JB wore the Gap shirt?

    That looks like to me you belive all three of these things are facts. :waitasec: Sorry if I misunderstood.
     
  11. Darlene733510

    Darlene733510 New Member

    Messages:
    3,388
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Pr said the gap outfit JB wore to the Whites had a belt. Kind of off course pertaining to this thread, but I wonder if she could have first been strangled with the belt, and if it was taken as evidence ........or did it just disappear?
     
  12. OpenMind4U

    OpenMind4U New Member

    Messages:
    733
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    MM, agree on the above...but you should agree on bellow:)....

    [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact"]Fact - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

    I'll modify the word 'facts' to avoid the detour from the true purpose of this thread:)...
     
  13. UKGuy

    UKGuy Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    9,165
    Likes Received:
    74
    Trophy Points:
    48
    OpenMind4U,

    Well the White Gap Top had been purchased recently by Patsy, i.e. closer to one month, contrasted with JR stating he placed the suitcase in the basement approx. 3-months in the past?

    I think the suitcase was branded a Samsonite. If so these are quite spacious.

    When would JAR have last used the suitcase or its contents?



    .
     
  14. midwest mama

    midwest mama New Member

    Messages:
    1,289
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Oh, OM4U, you and I are such sticklers for detail, aren't we! And hence, that is why we are in the company of other fine posters here, who are working so hard to find that one little overlooked detail that just might pull this whole thing together enough for us to go storming into Beckner's office!:bud:

    Let's stick together, :grouphug: as those who don't want to let a little girl's horrible death end up being a forgotten, unsolved cold case
     
  15. OpenMind4U

    OpenMind4U New Member

    Messages:
    733
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    In IT (Information Technology, programming) world, we used to build the logical IF-THEN-ELSE statements to solve the giving problems...something like this:

    IF duvet was placed in suitcase 3 month prior JBR murder AND
    duvet never has been taken out from suitcase since AND
    PR bought GAP shirt 1 month prior JBR murder AND
    nobody stored GAP shirt in suitcase prior JBR murder THEN
    'forensic connection' = FALSE!;
    ENDIF

    Based on above statement, you can see how many 'and' assumptions should be made to proof that 'forensic connection' is impossible between GAP shirt and duvet if we'll believe-in/relay-on Ramsey's statements....:)

    Now, we need to think how many options, assumptions, scenarios can justify 'forensic connection = TRUE'.....IMO, to connect duvet to JBR murder, at the minimum, we need to assume that GAP shirt was washed before the murder or was brand new!!!! AND duvet/sham was NOT inside of suitcase on December 25 at 9:00pm. Agree?....otherwise, the duvet and GAP shirt 'met' each other much prior December 25.

    jmo
     
  16. OpenMind4U

    OpenMind4U New Member

    Messages:
    733
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Now, I would like to start discussion based on DeeDee reply from another thread. But before I say anything, I want to make sure for everyone to know that I'm very much respect DeeDee opinion, dedication and knowledge. DeeDee said:

    BBM. DeeDee, I do understand 'why' you so strongly believes in it. But what IF (huge 'if' speculation on my part) JB was placed in suitcase PRIOR strangulation??? Means, prior to her death? Is it possible that whoever placed her there was assuming that she's dead already?...just speculation...and hence, the ugly round mark on her cheek is the result of contact from suitcase inside snap-on button?....Isn't true that this round abrasion on her cheek must be happened before she dies?....is it possible???

    jmo
     
  17. dodie20

    dodie20 New Member

    Messages:
    5,077
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No JR saying something doesn't make it fact, but through his own words, he DID put that suitcase in his own hands. Him claiming he didn't know what was in it isn't fact either, but that doesn't make what he said the truth. What this looks like to me, is JR distancing... giving an explanation of how that suitcase couldn't have played a role in this crime because it had been in the cellar for months. But if the information about the duvet fibers is reliable, and if JB's blouse was newer than a couple of months, then his version of the story doesn't quite jibe with the evidence. What I see as important here though, is JR put the suitcase in his hands.
     
  18. OpenMind4U

    OpenMind4U New Member

    Messages:
    733
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Probably because his fingerpints are all over it, isn't? Otherwise, why wouldn't he distancing from it?....but IMO the problem is not the suitcase! The problem is in the context of it!

    The main thing which bothers me the most is why duvet was hidden inside? If forensic tests are true - and I have no reason to doubt this yet! - then why this particular piece of evidence needs to be hidden??

    Let's assume that JR was telling the truth, he took suitcase to basement (regardless when, 3 months ago or on 25th). The suitcase by itself supposedly plays role for IDI as RST suggested. If duvet has contact with JB during the murder then placing it inside of suitcase (hiding it!) contradicts IDI actions! The same way as the cleaning and redressing actions contradicts 'intruder' MOA.

    I don't remember who said this (Dr. Henry Lee?): the crime scene has 'staging inside of staging'. Kind of, one person was doing one kind of staging and another one 'overlaying' it with another one...do you know what I mean?

    This suitcase with duvet reminds me of 'staging inside of staging'. John is placing suitcase to point to 'intruder' and PR is hiding duvet inside because it relates to 'something which could not be named -SEX!'....

    jmo
     
  19. Magdalyn

    Magdalyn New Member

    Messages:
    2,571
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'm fairly new to the info revolving around the suitcase and its contents, but...

    I don't care when/why JR says he placed it there. The Ramseys can't even 'remember' whether JB was awake and read to the night she died, or asleep and carried to bed. :banghead:

    What I do know is the day/night before my family is about to leave on a trip, open suitcases in every bedroom abound. Sometimes extras/different options line the hall in case we've over/underestimated our needs.

    Patsy left the kitchen and much of the house a sty. I highly doubt the packing had been done to completion, perhaps not even started. Didn't she admit she stayed up that night 'to get things ready' for the trip? My husband does this. He puts off packing until just hours before we're going to leave, even a big trip.

    I don't know that JB would have been carried down in a suitcase, but I can certainly see him/her or them 'packing up' things that might be evidence, (look how handy it is we have open suitcases lying around!) hoping that it could come with them on their private plane for private dumping. Sure doesn't look suspicious that they're leaving the house to go on a trip with SUITCASES.

    Then it became clear they wouldn't be able to get the body OR the suitcase out of the house since the one detective was apparently never leaving....

    Just throwing spaghetti...:fence:
     
  20. UKGuy

    UKGuy Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    9,165
    Likes Received:
    74
    Trophy Points:
    48
    OpenMind4U,
    You do not require all the and statements, since one false element makes the remainder redundant. This heuristic is employed in conditional statements usually with the critical condition being evaluated first.

    So all you need is the fibers on the top and proof that the top is new or clean.

    Assuming there are fibers from the sham and duvet on the top, then because I'm assuming JonBenet wore clean clothes to the White's party, then they should not be there?

    Also I think Patsy stated she had purchased the White Gap Top recently when out shopping with JonBenet, at some nearby store?

    Thats two reasons for assuming the top was clean on JonBenet the night of the 25th?

    here are a few quotes relating to that purchase:

    Bonita Papers: Excerpt
    http://www.acandyrose.com/s-fleet-priscilla-white.htm
    Excerpts from National Enquirer book, "JonBenet, The Police Files" by Don Gentile and David Wright
    http://www.acandyrose.com/crimescene-christmasday.htm
    So I think the burden of proof rests with the fiber evidence if its credible then we have a forensic link.




    .
     
  21. dodie20

    dodie20 New Member

    Messages:
    5,077
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yes, JR through his own words, put the suitcase in his hands. Just like through his own words, he put a child's book in his hands, (That Night!). Just like through his own words, he put himself in the basement window and then down in the basement in his underwear. But, according to him, even if these things and places are related to the crime, HE's 's not, because he can explain it all away. IDK about all of this, because didn't Kolar say he didn't believe JR was involved? Did he spell out what led him to this conclusion, or was it simply his opinion? What about the suitcase and its contents? Did he see any connection to the crime? because really, it shouldn't be disregarded just because it doesn't fit into a certain theory. If the suitcase was involved, then so be it. Actually, my initial impression of the suitcase was that somebody might have been trying to set up JAR, but that opinion was based on just the fact that most of the stuff supposedly belonged to him. If it was a set-up, it was a pitiful attempt. moo
     

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