Smit try to climb back through the ba...

Smit try to climb back through the basement window?

Posted in the JonBenet Ramsey Forum

JustWondering

Oak Hill, WV

#1 Jun 26, 2014
We know Lou climbed through the window into the basement, but did he attempt to climb back through the window to the outside? He claimed that the smudge on the wall under the window was the result of that feat and that the suitcase was positioned there to aid in the climb. But I do not remember him demonstrating how anyone could manage that. It would seem to me to be very difficult--especially if you were to leave behind no fibers or dna of any kind. Not to mention the fact that the window sill dust and spider webs were left undisturbed.

“If life gives you melons”

Since: Nov 06

You might be dyslexic

#2 Jun 27, 2014
JustWondering wrote:
We know Lou climbed through the window into the basement, but did he attempt to climb back through the window to the outside? He claimed that the smudge on the wall under the window was the result of that feat and that the suitcase was positioned there to aid in the climb. But I do not remember him demonstrating how anyone could manage that. It would seem to me to be very difficult--especially if you were to leave behind no fibers or dna of any kind. Not to mention the fact that the window sill dust and spider webs were left undisturbed.
I don't think he did, or at least he didn't film that part, but the scuff could have come from the heel of a shoe on someone climbing in too, couldn't it?
Just Wondering

Oak Hill, WV

#4 Jun 28, 2014
Legal__Eagle wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't think he did, or at least he didn't film that part, but the scuff could have come from the heel of a shoe on someone climbing in too, couldn't it?
I know, but in The Foreign Faction, Smit was represented as stating that the suitcase could have been used to climb up through the window and the scuff mark under the window was the result of that climb. Obviously, the intruder couldn't have situated the suitcase under the window from outside the home in order to climb down through. And if that was Smit's contention, why did he not try to climb back through that window? I hope that explains my interest.
real Topaz

AOL

#5 Jun 28, 2014
Legal__Eagle wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't think he did, or at least he didn't film that part, but the scuff could have come from the heel of a shoe on someone climbing in too, couldn't it?
so lame to stage exit with suitcase! LOL there were chairs and at least one stool in the basement, why use a virtually empty suitcase that'd TIP OVER once you 'shoved off'? Could it be the stager's recollection of another case where the basement window was used, complete with scuff marks and a suitcase nearby?
I've always enjoyed this particular part of JR's story. Stripping down to his underpants to crawl in, yet he couldn't recall which way he went in, feet first or on his belly. WHO wouldn't remember something like that?! WHO wouldn't mention a near naked break in to friends and family?! What a crock.
candy

East Lansing, MI

#6 Jun 28, 2014
Just Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
I know, but in The Foreign Faction, Smit was represented as stating that the suitcase could have been used to climb up through the window and the scuff mark under the window was the result of that climb. Obviously, the intruder couldn't have situated the suitcase under the window from outside the home in order to climb down through. And if that was Smit's contention, why did he not try to climb back through that window? I hope that explains my interest.
Probably because he could never get out that same window standing on the suitcase, it is too unstable and would fall over. The whole thing is comedy central from the Scams, look how pristine and clean the window is that Lou goes through compared to the window at the time of the murder and resulting mess in the basement that would have caused any intruder to fall and break his neck trying to maneuver their way around there, let alone, bring JonBenet BACK to that mess to kill her.

Lou was "out there" in a lot of his whacky "explanations". Going down the spiral staircase from JonBenet's bedroom, there is on the immediate right A DOOR TO THE OUTSIDE that any intruder could have used to LEAVE the residence. Why didn't he leave then? Lou said he thought the intruder thought that door was 'wired from the inside" designed to go off if you LEFT the house. Who ever heard of such a thing with young kids that go in an out of the house so much? Lou also didn't think JonBenet got the pineapple in her system from the OBVIOUS SOURCE, the bowl of fresh pineapple left on the breakfast room table. NO, Lou surmised that JonBenet took some pineapple up to her room in a tupperware container and consumed it at some previous point in time. Luckily, we have learnin's great experiment that proves that pineapple was consumed about a half hour before she was under attack.
JustWondering

Oak Hill, WV

#8 Jul 3, 2014
Exactly, Candy. If Smit was so confident that the "intruder" climbed in and out of the window, why did he, himself, not attempt to climb back through? Probably because it would be much more difficult to make an exit through the window than an entrance. And if the intruder didn't plan on climbing back out the window, why would he have bothered to put a suitcase there? And who, in their right mind, would even think of climbing back through a window with a child in tow? It would be impossible; and had they climbed in or out of the window, there would have been evidence of that climb left behind. Right? So why did Smit even consider that a valid argument?
jameson

Hickory, NC

#9 Jul 4, 2014
I went in AND out that window. The suitcase didn't fall over, it wasn't difficult to get through but there is no way the killer entered or left that way without leaving fibers or dna abehind. Shame the police didn't vacuum the window well right away.
Case File

Flint, MI

#10 Jul 4, 2014
jameson wrote:
I went in AND out that window. The suitcase didn't fall over, it wasn't difficult to get through but there is no way the killer entered or left that way without leaving fibers or dna abehind. Shame the police didn't vacuum the window well right away.
Window was not used.

“If life gives you melons”

Since: Nov 06

You might be dyslexic

#11 Jul 5, 2014
jameson wrote:
I went in AND out that window. The suitcase didn't fall over, it wasn't difficult to get through but there is no way the killer entered or left that way without leaving fibers or dna abehind. Shame the police didn't vacuum the window well right away.
Different suitcase = different scenario.

There was no way because there was no intruder.

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#12 Jul 7, 2014
Wasn't the suitcase perpendicular to the wall originally, before it was moved? I think it would be pretty difficult to get out the window with it like that. Not that I want to open that can of worms....

Why would an intruder fetch the suitcase from next to the water heater, bypassing the chair that John Ramsey said was outside the door, if all he wanted to do with it was step on it to get out the window?
Just Wondering

Oak Hill, WV

#13 Jul 8, 2014
jameson wrote:
I went in AND out that window. The suitcase didn't fall over, it wasn't difficult to get through but there is no way the killer entered or left that way without leaving fibers or dna abehind. Shame the police didn't vacuum the window well right away.
I should think it would be difficult to get in or out of that window without leaving something other than microscopic dna behind. Strings from shirts, pants, etc would probably have gotten snagged on glass or wood frame. Definitely, debris would have been pulled in from the outside to the inside. Fingerprints, definitely. Unless of course he was wearing gloves which, it seems, would make it more difficult to maneuver through the window since it might impede his ability to grasp? I agree with those that feel that the window was not utilized. So that leaves no known point of entry which more or less points to someone within the family.

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#14 Jul 10, 2014
Just Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
I should think it would be difficult to get in or out of that window without leaving something other than microscopic dna behind. Strings from shirts, pants, etc would probably have gotten snagged on glass or wood frame. Definitely, debris would have been pulled in from the outside to the inside. Fingerprints, definitely. Unless of course he was wearing gloves which, it seems, would make it more difficult to maneuver through the window since it might impede his ability to grasp? I agree with those that feel that the window was not utilized. So that leaves no known point of entry which more or less points to someone within the family.
I agree

It would be nearly impossible, especially considering this was winter, that no evidence would be around the window had someone entered or exited there. At the very least all that you have mentioned would be present. I believe it was a theory to be considered and dismissed once the facts were in, but anything that leads away from those in the house just never gets dismissed for obvious reasons

There is absolutely no evidence of an intruder coming or going from that house and the length of time that people are willing to take those barest and far fetched thread of anything at all to attempt to show an intruder is just plain denial and silly IMO but it will forever be continued
biz

Port Richey, FL

#15 Jul 14, 2014
Capricorn wrote:
<quoted text>
There is absolutely no evidence of an intruder coming or going from that house and the length of time that people are willing to take those barest and far fetched thread of anything at all to attempt to show an intruder is just plain denial and silly IMO but it will forever be continued
Not true. Neighbor heard what sounded like scratching of metal against pavement in the middle of the night, scuff mark on wall of OPEN window with suitcase underneath. A perfect step stool that was conveniently located to escape. There was no snow in the back of the house. Easy to walk up and not leave footprints. Baseball bat not belonging to Burke found outside in the side yard with fibers from basement on it. They were gone for many hours that night. Plenty of time for an intruder to come in and scope out the house. A neighbor also saw the butler pantry door left open in the morning. No one could confirm if the door was locked of not locked. There were SEVERAL window left unlocked. It would have been EASY for an intruder to enter any number of places.

“If life gives you melons”

Since: Nov 06

You might be dyslexic

#16 Jul 14, 2014
biz wrote:
<quoted text>
Not true. Neighbor heard what sounded like scratching of metal against pavement in the middle of the night, scuff mark on wall of OPEN window with suitcase underneath. A perfect step stool that was conveniently located to escape. There was no snow in the back of the house. Easy to walk up and not leave footprints. Baseball bat not belonging to Burke found outside in the side yard with fibers from basement on it. They were gone for many hours that night. Plenty of time for an intruder to come in and scope out the house. A neighbor also saw the butler pantry door left open in the morning. No one could confirm if the door was locked of not locked. There were SEVERAL window left unlocked. It would have been EASY for an intruder to enter any number of places.
The point in the post you quoted was there was no PROOF of an intruder, and you did not include any in your response. You gave scenarios and your opinion. That does not equal proof.

Everyone saw the butler door open - John, the police, Fernie, and probably others - but NO ONE can prove who left it open. It was after the first police responders were at and around the house. They could easily left it open as well. If you think a door was left open all night, then Patsy would have been aware of that cold air draft when she hopped down the stairs that morning and she never mentioned it.
C S I

Flint, MI

#17 Jul 14, 2014
Legal__Eagle wrote:
<quoted text>
The point in the post you quoted was there was no PROOF of an intruder, and you did not include any in your response. You gave scenarios and your opinion. That does not equal proof.
Everyone saw the butler door open - John, the police, Fernie, and probably others - but NO ONE can prove who left it open. It was after the first police responders were at and around the house. They could easily left it open as well. If you think a door was left open all night, then Patsy would have been aware of that cold air draft when she hopped down the stairs that morning and she never mentioned it.
The killer exited that door.
Just Wondering

Oak Hill, WV

#18 Jul 14, 2014
biz wrote:
<quoted text>
Not true. Neighbor heard what sounded like scratching of metal against pavement in the middle of the night, scuff mark on wall of OPEN window with suitcase underneath. A perfect step stool that was conveniently located to escape. There was no snow in the back of the house. Easy to walk up and not leave footprints. Baseball bat not belonging to Burke found outside in the side yard with fibers from basement on it. They were gone for many hours that night. Plenty of time for an intruder to come in and scope out the house. A neighbor also saw the butler pantry door left open in the morning. No one could confirm if the door was locked of not locked. There were SEVERAL window left unlocked. It would have been EASY for an intruder to enter any number of places.
There are a lot of "perhaps" where this crime scene is involved. But the elephant in the room, as far as any IDI theory is concerned, is the ransom note. It is completely, undeniably superfluous.

No need whatsoever for a ransom note in this crime from the perspective of an intruder/pedophile/murderer. The only people who could have benefited from a ransom note being found were the Ramseys, themselves. It allowed them to report their daughter as kidnapped instead of murdered. Without the note, they would have searched their home and found their child dead in the basement and the 911 call would have brought a different type of investigation. The Ramseys would have been immediately under suspicion for the murder of their child and questioning of the family would have begun immediately.

The ransom note not only bought them time, it helped delay a crime scene investigation for murder thereby allowing vital evidence to possibly be destroyed, and it, initially, drew suspicion away from them.

So, no matter where the suitcase was placed; whether there was no snow on the backside of the home; if the door to the pantry was found open; or that there was a skid mark on the wall under the window, the ransom note does NOT fit with the crime. It's sole purpose was to benefit the Ramsey family. And, it would appear that the one piece of evidence they thought would substantiate their claim of innocence, instead insinuates their guilt. However, it was a brilliant ploy on their part. It is one thing to feel a con has been pulled, but proving it is an entirely different matter.
Note

Flint, MI

#19 Jul 14, 2014
It was and is real.....

“If life gives you melons”

Since: Nov 06

You might be dyslexic

#20 Jul 15, 2014
biz wrote:
<quoted text>
Not true. Neighbor heard what sounded like scratching of metal against pavement in the middle of the night, scuff mark on wall of OPEN window with suitcase underneath. A perfect step stool that was conveniently located to escape. There was no snow in the back of the house. Easy to walk up and not leave footprints. Baseball bat not belonging to Burke found outside in the side yard with fibers from basement on it. They were gone for many hours that night. Plenty of time for an intruder to come in and scope out the house. A neighbor also saw the butler pantry door left open in the morning. No one could confirm if the door was locked of not locked. There were SEVERAL window left unlocked. It would have been EASY for an intruder to enter any number of places.
P.S.
Thanks for stirring up the spammers again!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

JonBenet Ramsey Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Do intruder theorists accept the ransom note at... 5 min rainbow 120
A staged crime scene leaves only two real possi... 6 min sheriffwydell 51
News Laurence L Smith Releases Updated Version of 'T... 12 min robert 60
For the BDI's 4 hr california_demon 26
Ramsey vs Duggar 4 hr Just Wondering 32
30 year cold case solved 6 hr moonjack 1
Do you think that... 17 hr Just Wondering 25
More from around the web