The Broken Window Redux: Part 3

Let's start all over from the beginning, only this time we'll assume, for the sake of argument, that John was telling the truth, and that he had indeed broken that window the previous summer. So now it's the morning after the assault, Patsy has called 911 and John, as he has testified, makes his way into the basement. As he enters the area with the broken window, it occurs to him that he himself must have broken it the previous summer, so maybe that break is irrelevant. But then he notices, according to his own testimony, that it is open. And for some reason he was never able to explain, he closes it.


He also notices a hard Samsonite suitcase placed flush against the wall just beneath the window. (And by the way, don't be misled by the photos that show the suitcase in a different position -- Fleet While also initially observed that the suitcase was flush against the wall, but according to his testimony he moved it while looking for pieces of glass.) He notices, also, what looks like a scuff mark on the wall just beneath the broken window. As he later (months later) testified, that suitcase did not belong there. And yes, it looked suspicious. It occurred to him that "the intruder" might have used it to boost himself out the window. And yet: he never reports any of this.

Now. How is that suitcase to be explained? What is it doing there? Who could have placed it there? And why? John suggested that "the intruder" placed it there, on his way out that window. But as we know, the police found no sign that anyone had passed through that window, either coming or going. As is clearly evident from crime scene photos, the thick layer of dust and dirt on the window sill was undisturbed. What is more, Lou Smit noticed, from careful examination of a photo, that a tiny shard of glass was sitting on top of the suitcase. If that window had been broken months earlier, how did that bit of glass get there?

Some have wondered aloud why John would have reported either the suitcase or the smudge on the wall if he were in the process of unstaging a previous staging. Similarly it's been argued that he would certainly have moved the suitcase at the very least, so it would not look so suspiciously like staging. These objections do seem reasonable yes, and I will return to them presently. However, regardless of how one might be able to explain why this and why that, all such questions pale before the fundamental question: what was the suitcase doing there in the first place, who put it there, and why.

Was it the intruder, as John claimed to have suspected and Lou Smit later argued? Well, as should by now be clear, based on a logical analysis of the case as a whole, no intruder theory makes sense. Besides, what purpose could it have served him? The state of the window sill tells us no one passed through that window, so it was clearly not used to boost anyone up and out. And obviously no one entered the window that way either, meaning any intruder would have needed a key. And an intruder with a key would have had no reason to bother squeezing himself through that narrow window. Enter via a door, exit via a door. If your intended exit point is locked, use your key to open it.

Could Patsy have placed it there, as part of an attempt to stage? Or Burke? Well, once again, what would be the point? Surely it wouldn't take the police very long to see through such obvious staging, given the clear evidence that no one passed through that window. So once again we are forced to ask: who placed that suitcase there and why?

And, for me, at this juncture, any possibility that John's story about breaking that window months earlier might be truthful simply collapses. Even if we want to give him the benefit of the doubt regarding all the many dubious aspects of his story, as summarized above, the presence of the suitcase flush against the wall under a broken window that no one could have passed through can only be explained as part of an attempt at staging that was never completed. And the only reason why it would not have been completed was that something must have gone wrong. And for the life of me, the only thing I can think of that could have gone wrong for the person who did the staging was Patsy's 911 call, which unexpectedly brought the police to the door before the staging could be completed.

So. Now we are finally in a position to recreate what most likely happened on the night of the murder and the following day. John, for whatever reason, most likely to prevent her from exposing him as an incestuous child molester, wakes his daughter, possibly abuses her sexually, and then bludgeons her, rendering her unconscious and dying. Then, aside from writing a phony "ransom note" to stage a kidnapping, he decides to stage a likely point of entry and exit for the intruding kidnapper. He opens the basement window from the inside and, using a hammer or similar instrument, breaks it from the outside window face so the glass will fall inward, onto the basement floor. He then finds an old suitcase belonging to his elder son and places it flush against the wall just under the broken window, to suggest that the intruder used it to boost himself up and out. Then, lifting his foot, he creates a smudge on the wall to reinforce the staging of a window exit. As his foot is lifted, a small shard of glass caught in the sole falls onto the suitcase, where it will be discovered at some later date by Lou Smit, who will attribute it to the nonexistent "intruder."

At this point his staging is incomplete, because clearly no one could have passed through a window encrusted with undisturbed dirt and dust. In order to complete his staging he will need to climb through that window himself. No point in trying that now, however, as Patsy would notice how messed up his clothing was and become suspicious. No matter, because, according to his plan, as outlined elsewhere on this blog, he would be able to complete the staging the following day, with Patsy and Burke out of the house. For now, however, he would have created a nice, convincing scene for Patsy's benefit, if, on the following morning, she might have some suspicions regarding whether or not her daughter had really been kidnapped. "Look what I found, Patsy. Come down here and see. A broken window with a suitcase under it. Looks like the kidnapper must have entered and left through this window, propping himself up with the suitcase."

Of course, this little scene never took place, because Patsy inadvertently foiled his plan by calling the police first thing in the morning. Caught off guard, John now realized that the police would soon see through his uncompleted staging. Once they inspected the window sill, noting the absence of any smearing or displacement of any dirt or dust, they would see both the broken window and the suitcase as a crude and amateurish attempt at staging by someone inside the house. Both he and Patsy would have been hauled to the police station and, in all likelihood, read their rights. The obviously staged scene at the window would probably have been sufficient evidence of guilt for them both to be indicted on the spot.

At this point, John's reason for concocting his little story about breaking in himself at an earlier date should be clear. Given the likelihood that the police weren't about to buy his incomplete staging, John decided to misdirect them by being "cooperative" and explaining away the broken window by claiming he himself broke it some time ago. There was only one problem: the broken window glass sitting on the floor of the basement. So, at the first opportunity he had, either before or after the police arrived, he would have rushed down to the basement, placed as much of the broken glass as he could quickly find into a paper or plastic bag, hide it in a corner of that crowded basement, and later, when he had more time, crush it with his foot and flush the tiny shards down the toilet.

Why didn't he also get rid of the suitcase or move it out of the way? No way to tell for sure, but we can certainly hazard a guess. My guess is that he must have been extremely rushed and in a panic. No time to think clearly. The most obvious thing was getting the glass out of sight and that he was able to do (though he missed some pieces). And don't forget, from all reports both a police officer and Fleet White were in that basement during roughly the same time frame, so John might have had to act very quickly and possibly never had a chance to deal with the suitcase. By the time he got around to answering some questions, months later, he would have learned that Fleet saw the suitcase sitting flush against that wall, directly under the window, so there would have been no point in denying that he saw it as well. But by concocting his own break-in story he successfully misdirected everyone away from the suitcase and everything else that looked suspicious by "helpfully" explaining it all away. "Now why would he tell a story like that if he'd been staging an intruder break-in at that window?" Why indeed!!!!

Now that my thinking regarding John's window story has been made as clear as I can probably ever make it, there remains the most puzzling issue of all: Patsy's testimony regarding her cleanup of the broken glass. If John's story is so clearly a fabrication, and she was totally innocent, then why would she have lied to support it?

(to be continued . . .)