Smit's argument: A hard-sided suitcase was discovered below the open window. The killer, figuring
it was safe to go out the way he came in, may have used it to boost himself up.

Ease of exit: Smit has gone in and out of the window with and without using a suitcase. "With a
suitcase, it's a lot easier."

Out of place: John Ramsey said the suitcase was not in that area of the basement before, suggesting
that someone moved it there. In addition, if the suitcase had been under the window for a long time,
dust and debris would have collected on it. But little was there.

Glass shard: A pea-size piece of glass was found on top of the suitcase, within what might be a
partial footprint. Smit surmises the glass may have come off the intruder's shoe as he stepped on the
suitcase to get out.

Response: Police have said privately that what looks like a footprint on the suitcase isn't a footprint.

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/cr/cda/article_print/1,1250,DRMN_15_408302,00.html

He had been in that house on many occasions - he had been in all the rooms at one time of another, I believe. So if his hair or prints were in there it wouldn't be hard to explain that - - but I think he was scared someone might twist innocent "evidence" into something damning.

As for him touching stuff - - it seems they all touched stuff - - the cops didn't protect it and the civilians just didn't understand. Fleet moved the suitcase, John closed the window. Priscilla was serving food and cleaning up the kitchen. Barbara Fernie was fussing around as well.

Their prints can be explained away - even their hair - - but if their DNA or handwwriting matches - - that is another story.

If I thought I'd "found something" suspicious or worthy of regard, I feel sure I'd go tell a policeman and drag him over to it, if necessary.

But what about the suitcase and glass bits would make Fleet want to move the suitcase in the first place?

If the suitcase had a purpose, of these two choices, I say it was for exiting, not for leaving with the body. There were two means of death, not accidental in nature. This indicates the killer didn't plan to take JonBenet with him.

Maybe the perp's original idea was not to haul her away in the suitcase but to leave her body in it. For some reason this didn't work out to his satisfaction. He then changed his mind and left her in the windowless room?

I wonder if they did microscopic analysis on the top of the suitcase---and found any of the mold from the cellar floor on it? How the suitcase was taken in as evidence so material on it would be preserved?

I don't think the perp thought past taking JBR---and the alarm stickers may have thrown him off----he didn't know if the alarm was on or not.

What I think is more important than the suitcase, is, JB's dna on the contents of the suitcase.

How did it get there?

But I wonder why she was left in the middle of the floor and not hidden better than she was. John saw her almost immediately upon opening that door.

Ok-- here's my idea: Maybe she was in the suitcase and when Fleet went down there the first time--he removed her and dragged her to the spot John found her in. Then placed the suitcase near the window to make it look like someone stepped on it.

That would explain why her arms were above her head.

This scenario only works in my mind, if he's not the actual killer, but one of his Calif. friends is.

If someone wearing a HiTec boot had used that suitcase to boost himself up onto the window sill, there'd be a LOT more evidence than simply a piece of glass on the top. I think Smit came up with that unlikely theory when he realized there was only one alternative: John was lying about when the window had been broken. More smoke and mirrors. More misdirection from team Ramsey.

Someone may have staged it though. But not John.

that evidence showed that she had been laying on the floor for a long time. Had she been in any other position, (and that means hanging up as well) evidence would have showed that she had been moved sometime after death because where the blood would pool in the body would've been non-consistant with her laying on the floor. As far as I know, it wasn't.

It would have been a good idea to hide the body in a suitcase {under their noses but unseen}. If he attempted that and failed, I have to wonder why he didnt put her inside a cupboard or the freezer rather than just on the floor in the winecellar?

Lou Smit does not manufacture evidence.

Take your misinformation elsewhere, Dusty.

Inside the suitcase: A pillow sham, a comforter and a Dr. Seuss book were found inside the suitcase. These items belonged to John Andrew, John Ramsey's older son.
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.

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.
************

**I believe the word *hand* is a typo- the duct tape was from her mouth not her hand.
BUT it is very clear that Lou Smit did NOT make anything up. He disclosed the opposing statments of the CBI and FBI and none of those were HIS statements.

But that's just my take...

The acclaimed play "ROPE" of 1929 detailed the story of Leopold and Loeb with one notable exception-the body was placed in a shipping trunk and left near the grieving family, unbeknownst to them.

In addition, the two boys were able to establish a false address in order to rent the get-away car by checking into a hotel with a suitcase full of books. The perp may have tried to place her in the suitcase to mimic this aspect of the L&L murder and failing that, threw her in the windowless room. The room worked pretty well in that two people, French and Fleet, both missed finding her there, and she wasn't discovered until 1:00 pm. Otherwise, when Fleet moved the suitcase, as he said he did early that morning, he would have noticed it weighing a lot more than normal-probably opened it, curious as he was.

The suitcase may have been a step up to the window to aid an emergency escape but I don't think it was ever expected to go out the window. It was too easy to go out the side door.

Now, I ask you, what would a kidnapper do with this suitcase at 2:00 am-dragged it down the alley and to his car parked two miles away? Burglars don't park at the house they are breaking into. Why would this perp be any different? It would not have been an easy carry; it would have attracted the attention of anyone still awake at that hour. Doesn't seem plausible to me.

Another reason, among many, that shows me he intended to kill her not kidnap her.

This perp seems to be careful not to carry evidence on him---makes me wonder if he wasn't arrested before....knew the things that could convict him.

If that is the case, then fibers that match were on the killer and carried to wherever that person went.

If Patsy, there should be fibers where she was - - maybe on the chair in the sunroom?

The articles in the suitcase belonged to JAR - - he carried them to CO from GA but didn't want to use them in the dorm so stored them in that suitcase. Unless the killer handled the duvet then went to the sunroom, none of those fibers should have been there. Right?

Just thinking...

There are some who have suggested that the pairs of marks on JonBenét's face and back were made when she was put into that suitcase found under the basement window. But the marks on her body were made while she was alive, not after she was dead. Livor mortis settling to her back and the right side of her face would have caused any marks made after death by lying atop of snaps or buckles (or anything else that poked into her skin) to appear WHITE, not dark.

Blood pooling (livor mortis) settles to the lowest area and the pooled blood in the body causes the skin to appear dark red, rust or purple color. Anything poking upward when the body was placed on the floor (or in a suitcase) would prevent the blood from pooling in that area, leaving a white area the shape and size of the "probe". The pairs of marks on JonBenét would have been white, not the dark reddish/rust color we see in the autopsy photographs.

One blue suitcase (21PP)

This could indicate someone on foot---someone that panicked and killed her--and was going to remove her body from the house...but when he couldn't get her out of the window in the suitcase, he just tossed her in the cellar room. I don't think he originally wanted to leaved her body in the house. IMO, I think he reacted in panic.

Ditto to that.

You know, I was reading a portion of PMPT (paperback) in which Schiller says the woman - Melody Stanton? - who originally heard the scream on the night of the murder was getting nervous and her statement was beginning to wobble. (Not a quote - paraphrasing.) Masked Man's later interview with her notwithstanding, I still think she heard a scream the night of the murder, and, I believe as far as the perp was concerned, that scream was not supposed to happen. I would imagine he thought that a stun gun would paralyze a victim, just as most of us did before getting an education in stun guns.

The scream would have been the source of the panic, just like most of us thought years ago. He dropped what he was doing and left, dragging the body out of sight in case someone came flying down the stairs to investigate. A quick, vicious head blow for insurance, and he was gone.

People with suitcases at Christmas is very average, very so-what.

Inside the suitcase: A pillow sham, a comforter and a Dr. Seuss book were found inside the suitcase. These items belonged to John Andrew, John Ramsey's older son. 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. Smit wonders if the intruder, intending to kidnap JonBenet, tried to put her inside the suitcase so he wouldn't be seen carrying a small girl through the area, but she wouldn't fit or he couldn't boost himself and the suitcase out of the window.

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.

"May I suggest this suitcase? ... Surprise!"

Even though this part of his fantasy would have been unfulfilled, nobody recognizes his failure.

Maybe she was never even near the suitcase...

Whether this was because he had no vehicle or place nearby to which he could take her I do not know.

Certainly a suitcase is less alarming than a young girl being carried along in the dead of night, but each would be memorable if he had been seen by a neighbor and each would have attracted the interest of a passing police cruiser.

If the fiber evidence is interpreted as supporting a failed attempt to put her into the suitcase, I think the reason is more likely to have been that of concealment than that of ease of removal.

Perhaps there was a contemplation of the effect on the parents when they eventually opened that suitcase, perhaps not. Certainly it would be consistent with the tone of the note and the senseless waiting by the telephone.

Certainly the suitcase does seem to have been positioned so as to be able to function as a step and I also think that it was actually used as a step. So it is likely that both entry and exit was through the window. The scuff mark being made on the way in, and the suitcase-step being used on the way out.

Does anyone know if there was ever any inquiry into why this particular suitcase? From any other suitcases that might have been stored in the area? Size, weight, sturdiness?

Maybe the fibers came from an outfit he wore that night inside the house, maybe a santa suit? And maybe he rolled the suit up in the comforter and stuffed it into the suitcase.