The Pineapple Issue

[nuisanceposter]

You two buffoons are the last two people I'm going to waste my time debating this case with. Steve Thomas states more than once in his book that the tape had been used before, and there's a transcript from a show where Dr Lee comes right out and says the tape has been used before. I have the link somewhere in my list, but don't have the time right now to ferret it out. I suggest you spend some time with Google and figure it out on your own, if you care that much. I can't believe you guys had never heard the tape had been used before - that's pretty basic knowledge in this case, along with a perfect set of lip prints and bloody mucus on the tape, both of which indicate JonBenet did not struggle against it at all and it was applied after she was unconscious or dead.

the tape used on the other dolls, although black duct tape, did not match.

Where is your source for that? I can't find it anywhere with Google.

Is there any proof at all that any of those dolls in the Ramseys house had tape on them?

Ask bullmoose, he seems to know what testing was done on any tape that was found on any dolls.

As for knowing the dolls were removed:

http://www.geocities.com/pinker44/

In an unprecedented move, Mrs. Ramsey's sister; Pam Paugh, was allowed into an active crime scene; still under investigation, with the pretense of getting clothing for the funeral. The list of things removed included far more than mourning attire. A friend in the DA's office; Pete Hofstrom, may have inapropriately influenced this decision. It went so far as the sister impersonating a police officer wearing a jacket and badge so as not to arouse suspicion. With multiple unfamiliar investigative agencies present, her actions would have appeared and been considered official.

Two years later it was published she had removed several dolls from the American Girls Collection.


Add to that the curious circumstance of another Molly doll having been ordered to Access Graphics in the name of JonBenet Ramsey after she had been murdered, and there's something to seriously look into. Who ordered another doll in her name after she had been killed? And why?

[User615]

You two buffoons are the last two people I'm going to waste my time debating this case with. Steve Thomas states more than once in his book that the tape had been used before, and there's a transcript from a show where Dr Lee comes right out and says the tape has been used before. I have the link somewhere in my list, but don't have the time right now to ferret it out. I suggest you spend some time with Google and figure it out on your own, if you care that much. I can't believe you guys had never heard the tape had been used before - that's pretty basic knowledge in this case, along with a perfect set of lip prints and bloody mucus on the tape, both of which indicate JonBenet did not struggle against it at all and it was applied after she was unconscious or dead.



Where is your source for that? I can't find it anywhere with Google.



Ask bullmoose, he seems to know what testing was done on any tape that was found on any dolls.

As for knowing the dolls were removed:

http://www.geocities.com/pinker44/

In an unprecedented move, Mrs. Ramsey's sister; Pam Paugh, was allowed into an active crime scene; still under investigation, with the pretense of getting clothing for the funeral. The list of things removed included far more than mourning attire. A friend in the DA's office; Pete Hofstrom, may have inapropriately influenced this decision. It went so far as the sister impersonating a police officer wearing a jacket and badge so as not to arouse suspicion. With multiple unfamiliar investigative agencies present, her actions would have appeared and been considered official.

Two years later it was published she had removed several dolls from the American Girls Collection.


Add to that the curious circumstance of another Molly doll having been ordered to Access Graphics in the name of JonBenet Ramsey after she had been murdered, and there's something to seriously look into. Who ordered another doll in her name after she had been killed? And why?

That is a huge question...as to who ordered another doll....and why didn't JR report it to the police? That is one giant loose end that needs to be answered.

[Louisadelmar]

That is a huge question...as to who ordered another doll....and why didn't JR report it to the police? That is one giant loose end that needs to be answered.


The doll was delivered in early January. John Ramsey returned to work after Jan 30, 1997. Who opened the doll at Access and why didn't they report it to the police if it was suspicious? Personally, I think it falls into the same category as toys left by strangers at the death- or grave-site of other murdered children.


http://www.longmontfyi.com/ramsey/storyDetail97.asp?ID=44
1/30/1997
Ramsey to delay return to work
by Pam Regensberg
Daily Times-Call
BOULDER -- John Ramsey , the father of 6-year-old JonBenet Ramsey , likely will not return to work this week as he had previously planned, a family spokesman said Wednesday.
A threatening telephone call Friday to his computer business, Access Graphics, will keep the Boulder businessman away from the office a little while longer, media consultant Patrick Korten said from his Washington, D.C., office.
John Ramsey , 53, will return to work ``at some point, but I'm not predicting when,'' Korten said Wednesday.
Meanwhile, the company has tightened security at the Pearl Street business. Employees will be issued new security badges and will undergo safety techniques.
According to police reports, the male caller told a receptionist that if John Ramsey were allowed back to work this week, ``... you're all going to die'' and ``the building won't be here Monday.''
[…]

[nuisanceposter]

Saying he's returning to work after the 30th is not the same as saying he was never in the office any day between the murder and January 30th. I would guess John Ramsey or someone he sent was there at some point to receive the doll he knew was coming through UPS, and that's why no one ever reported it as suspicious to the police. Then JR officially returned to work after the 30th. If they were so concerned with these threatening calls, etc, why did they sit here and make public when JR will be expected back? "Hint to psychos - stop calling for now, JR won't be here to be threatened until next month. Go back to stalking him then since you know he'll be back."

Don't you think a Molly doll ordered with a money order in the name of JonBenet Ramsey to be sent to Access Graphics after she was murdered to be suspicious...especially knowing Pam Paugh removed American Girl dolls from the R house on Dec. 28th (which happens to be the same day the new doll was ordered?)

Considering the order was placed and addressed to AG just two days after the murder became public, and no one has ever questioned it or claimed responsibility for it, I doubt it was the gift of a random well-wisher. How would anyone even know if JB had an AG dolls, or go to the trouble of ordering it in her name to be sent to her father's office? Why not address it in the name of the Ramsey family instead of the name of the murdered child?

[Athena]

Both Steve Thomas and Dr Henry Lee said the tape had been used before.

That tape was manufactured in November of 96, right? Shurtape, wasn't it? Nedra Paugh bought a Molly doll for JonBenet in September of 96 and may have given it to her at Thanksgiving...which would be in November of 96.

http://jonbenetramsey.pbwiki.com/Fiber-Evidence


Pam Paugh was living in Atlanta when Nedra ordered the first Molly doll and was likely there for Thanksgiving 1996 when Nedra is suspected of presnted this doll to JonBenet.

http://www.topix.net/forum/news/jonbenet-ramsey/TLH2VNA0ASBGVEE8P



Uhhh, where's a source saying that the tape on the dolls was tested and did not match the tape over JB's face? Pam Paugh collected all of those dolls during her one-woman-raid in the Ramsey house. And then a new doll was ordered to AG in JonBenet's name, after JB was dead. Who ordered another Molly doll in her name to be sent to John's office?

And even if the tape on another one of the dolls didn't match the tape on her face, that doesn't meant the tape couldn't have come from one of the dolls. JonBenet didn't get all the dolls at the same time - you can hardly expect them to all have matching tape if she received them at different times and possibly in different locations.

The dolls don't come with duct tape on them -- it is suggested by the manufacturers to tape the string down. I also doubt that the dolls given as a gift would have been opened up to put tape on them so I would imagine it would have been after. So with all these dolls that tape was used on why wouldn't a roll of used tape be found?

Do you have a link to documentation that supports a doll being delivered to JR after JBR's death? For what purpose? Do you mean a doll that was removed from the home or a new one? This is not meant to be argumentative NP; where did this info come from?

[bullmoose]

You two buffoons are the last two people I'm going to waste my time debating this case with. Steve Thomas states more than once in his book that the tape had been used before, and there's a transcript from a show where Dr Lee comes right out and says the tape has been used before. I have the link somewhere in my list, but don't have the time right now to ferret it out. I suggest you spend some time with Google and figure it out on your own, if you care that much. I can't believe you guys had never heard the tape had been used before - that's pretty basic knowledge in this case, along with a perfect set of lip prints and bloody mucus on the tape, both of which indicate JonBenet did not struggle against it at all and it was applied after she was unconscious or dead.



Where is your source for that? I can't find it anywhere with Google.



Ask bullmoose, he seems to know what testing was done on any tape that was found on any dolls.

As for knowing the dolls were removed:

http://www.geocities.com/pinker44/

In an unprecedented move, Mrs. Ramsey's sister; Pam Paugh, was allowed into an active crime scene; still under investigation, with the pretense of getting clothing for the funeral. The list of things removed included far more than mourning attire. A friend in the DA's office; Pete Hofstrom, may have inapropriately influenced this decision. It went so far as the sister impersonating a police officer wearing a jacket and badge so as not to arouse suspicion. With multiple unfamiliar investigative agencies present, her actions would have appeared and been considered official.

Two years later it was published she had removed several dolls from the American Girls Collection.


Add to that the curious circumstance of another Molly doll having been ordered to Access Graphics in the name of JonBenet Ramsey after she had been murdered, and there's something to seriously look into. Who ordered another doll in her name after she had been killed? And why?
Its very hard to prove a negative; but if the tape on the other dolls matched the tape used on Jonbenet, you wouldn't need to Google for a link, it would have been big news, rightly so, as it would have proven the presence of the duct tape used on Jonbenet in the house. Further, it would have connected Patsy to that pesky missing roll that Synthroid Stevie spent so much time trying to tie her to. But he didn't, he couldn't match it. Why? Because there was no match; you can google it until the next upgrade and it won't be there; because there was no match.Even a buffoon can reason that out, right?:biggrin:

[aussiesheila]

I doubt that FW "messed with the crime scene" (i.e. JBs bed). Also, I believe JR was with FW when they went to get Burke up. Neither Ramsey has said that JBs bed looked any different than when they went to see if she was in her room. You know you are just grasping at straws here. :) IMO

FW could have interfered anytime with JonBenet's bedroom, and most probably did IMO, he interfered just about everywhere else. Also he could have gone into JonBenet's room at a completely different time from when he went into Burke's room to get him up. My guess is that he went up to JonBenet's bedroom immediately after he had been down to the basement and checked that her body was in the cellar, and that was at least an hour before they got Burke up.

I don't think the state of JonBenet's bed would have been something John made a mental note of; he knew she was missing and thought she had been taken by a kidnapper, why would he have any reason to commit the state of her bed to memory? As for Patsy, I wouldn't expect her to have necessarily told the truth in relation to how JonBenet's bed was found. Since I believe she was complicit in the cover up (albeit reluctantly) anything she said or didn't say in relation to the crime has to be viewed with suspicion, IMO .

[aussiesheila]

She would stop metabolizing anything in her system the minute she died. We know she died about 1-3 hours after eating the pineapple, so if drugs were on the pineapple there will still be some evidence of them regardless of when the autopsy was performed.
Yes there are some drugs that metabolize quickly, but that does not mean they escape the toxicology panel. Cocaine for example metabolizes very fast, so they test not only for the cocaine molecule, but for all of its metabolites (molecules break down into smaller metabolites, etc etc).

And yes, Boulder was a small town and if memory serves this was the first murder that year, BUT the great thing about drug testing is that they can and do save large amounts of a murder victims blood. And I guarantee that in a high profile case such as this, the blood was tested and retested and to this day, every time they make an advance in toxicology testing, they retest JBs blood. jmoOK elvis, if this is your considered medical opinion, I will go with it. So, any drug(s) she might have been given with the pineapple would still have been in her system at the time of the autopsy. The only drug we know was tested for was ethanol which came back negative. Unfortunately we have no idea of what other drugs were tested for and it very well could be that Meyer did not test for the specific drug she was given.

Saying there could have been drugs in the pineapple, is a big guess on my part, but attackers have been known to use drugs to subdue their prey, as have pedophiles. It seems to me that if it was an intruder who fed her pineapple, and I believe one did, then there had to be a reason for it. The pineapple being drugged is the best reason I have been able to come up with and I don't think that can be ruled out with our present state of knowledge.

[aussiesheila]

Okay I thought it was beaver hairs that were found. DOes someone want to explain to me how beavers (the animal) are used in kinky sex :eek: . Actually maybe I dont want to know...

And Aussiesheila, when you are talking about Santa being the perpetrator, are you referring to Bill McSomething (they guy who played Santa at the Xmas party)? My understanding is that he had just had bypass surgery. People who have just had bypass surgery are usually in pain for quite some time, and kinky sex is usually the last thing on their mind. jmoI read that there was animal hair (possibly beaver) on her hands. I don't think it was beaver, my guess it was rabbit or possibly hamster (which is what I think you call guinea pigs). Animal hair from a cute cuddly little rabbit that I think was brought to the house by Santa as a lovely surprise for JonBenet. I don't think the animal was used DURING kinky sex, I think it was used PRIOR to it. I think that while JonBenet was kneeling down on the basement floor over the box the rabbit was in and patting it, the rabbit was killed right in front her, the purpose being to terrorise her into submitting to the will of the pedophiles. Terrorise her I think it did, and IMO there is evidence for that in the urine stains on the crotch area and anterior legs of her longjohns. I don't know the name of the phenomenon, maybe it's just the ‘flight or fight’ response. I know alot of posters say she voided her bladder at the time of death, but I think it is more likely to have occured the way I have suggested. I would appreciate your medical opinion here, elvis.

As to B McR (yes he's the one), he didn't seem to be all that ill as far as I could tell. I know he had open heart surgery sometime in ’96 (he said it was in summer), but I don’t know what sort. Shortly after the murder, I don’t know how long after, he and his wife left for a trip to Spain, which surely he would have had to have been reasonably well to undertake. On his return he was interviewed for the January 31 edition of the Today Show with Katie Couric and made no mention of being in terrible pain although he did mention a near death experience during the surgery. Maybe he was just very stoic, hah. His wife said he was still a bit ‘wobbly’ at the time of the Christmas Party on the 23rd and she had to go with him to help hand out the presents. Of course, a person with a suspicious mind might think that was all for show. McSanta then appeared on the Geraldo Show on February 27 and Larry King Live on March 4. So, all in all I would say he sounded pretty robust, certainly robust enough to waggle his tongue a bit.

[aussiesheila]

Speaking of Santa, does anyone have any information other than the search warrant as to why the Ramseys had a Santa suit in their basement? Was it theirs? Was it found in the duffle bag that they claim is not theirs? This would be the bag that was found stuffed underneath the stairs area. Anyone besides me read about this?Yes, that Santa suit, it was on one of the search warrant lists, wasn't it? I wondered about that, but I've never seen any other reference to it. It is very strange. I can't imagine a perpetrator leaving behind such a suit if he was wearing it at the murder scene. I just didn't know what to make of it so I decided to conclude that it must have had nothing to do with the murder. Maybe Patsy bought it for John to wear for the Christmases before they hired McSanta. I was under the impression the suit was found in a basement cupboard, but I could be wrong.

Eagle was very interested in a duffle bag, which I thought it was found in the crawl space, in which case it could very well have been left behind by the previous owners of the house, I would have thought.

[aussiesheila]

I'm sorry but I have to say it. Your theory is so far out there that you may as well incorporate Martians into it.
The "intruder" brought a beaver into the house to be used to abuse JB? You think Patsy allowed a horde of people in for a "photo session" at 11:00 at night when everyone had to be up early to leave on their trip? You think she just fell asleep during it? Patsy wrote the ransom note because she was forced into it? By who? For what reason? And you honestly believe she would do that for anyone? She was going to redress her dead child in a Barbie nightgown?
I think you would be better off as a detective novel writer than an actual detective. I'm really sorry but sometimes I actually laugh out loud when I read your theory. :)

Maybe the beaver was brought in to gnaw the paintbrush into thirds.whitewitch, I have posted my theory over and over, I am surprised you have got the details so wrong.

I have never said they were beaver hairs, that was someone else's supposition. There were animal hairs found on JonBenet's hands, however. To the best of my knowledge that is a fact. I have suggested they were most likely rabbit hairs. Killing an animal in front of a child to terrorise it is not unheard of, the idea being that the person who seeks to take control of the child tells them "this will happen to you too, if you don't do as I say". This is not a figment of my imagination. I have read of it and spoken to people who have had animals killed in front of them. You might say they were lying and if this is what you choose to believe then that is fine by me.

I don't think Patsy let a 'horde' of people in and I have never stated such a thing. I have said that Patsy let one person in and that was Santa, the Santa who she had invited to her last three Christmas parties and who she regarded as a trusted friend and who she thought idolised and adored JonBenet. And yes, I think she fell asleep while waiting for the promised photographer to arrive. I have posted over and over how I think Santa talked her into allowing such a thing late at night and before they had to get up early the next day. If I thought you were really interested I'd go to the trouble of doing it again.

IMO it was FW who forced her to write the ransom note. The 'why' is because the pedophiles called him for help after they had "accidentally" killed JonBenet and neither he nor they wanted it to be apparent that pedophiles had killed her so they hatched a plan to make the murder look like a kidnapping. I think FW was able to force Patsy into writing the note because he was able to convince her that John would divorce her and get custody of Burke if he (F) was to tell John the role Patsy had in enabling pedophiles (including him) to have abused JonBenet for three years, which I think they did.

And yes, I do think Patsy was so obsessed with appearances that she would get the idea to change JonBenet's body out of a dirty top she wore yesterday and a pair of daggy longjohns to a pretty Barbie nightgown, that is, until she actually saw the body.

[aussiesheila]

I get the impressions he was obsessed with JB and other little girls who died (What was involvement with these girls before they died?). And what happened to his daughter and her friend that Christmas day years earlier is a mystery. IMO he may have been the one who molested his daughters friend and he somehow escaped being pointed too as a suspect.What can I say? I read about the McReynolds and to me they come up as weird, weird, weird. But I suppose there are other people to whom they seem just oh so sweet.

The coincidence about the play that Mrs McSanta wrote and JonBenet's murder is just too strange to be a coincidence IMO. I think he was in with a group of pedophiles at the time of his daughter's kidnapping, maybe there were things going on in HIS basement that his wife knew about, hence the play. Maybe during or after one of the sessions in his basement some opportunist kidnapped the two girls and took them away so he could abuse them for a bit longer on his own.

And I feel that his wife (Mrs. Santa) may well be aware of his history and jealous of his longings for little girls and she put an end to it with JB.I am quite sure that his wife (Mrs. Santa) knows ALL about little Willie. And I bet she just hates his guts, to put it crudely.

Mrs. Santa being a writer and movie critic, would explain the ransom notes length and content. Defiling JB would make her no longer the perfect little angel her husband thought she was.
This post is my off the path opinion. Your idea is very feasible IMO shill. Can you point to any evidence to suggest this is what might have happened?

[aussiesheila]

I didn't know that beavers were used in kinky sex. Gerbils, yes; beavers I don't think so.

I'd have toa gree about the heart surgery and the kinky sex, but it would depend on how long before he had had the surgery. After my husband had bypass surgery and fully recovered he was rejuvenated. ;)I hope you've read my answer about the animal being used PRE the sex, not DURING, Linda.

How long after surgery would you say your husband was fully recovered Linda? Four months? Five? Six? Or would it have been longer? Of course McReyolds was pretty old as well, which would have made things a bit worse, I imagine.

[aussiesheila]

Don't be mean to Aussiesheila... Her theory may be somewhat far-out but she's always kind and polite when posting.Thanks for caring Louisa, but they can be as mean as they like. It doesn't detract from my theory one little bit.

[aussiesheila]

My father had bypass surgery at age 48, and while he felt better, he was extremely weak for a long time afterwards. I doubt he could have managed to have picked up and carried around a six year old child just four months after his surgery, much less strangle her to death and bludgeon her head savagely. And this was when he was 48 years old, still so relatively young...what age was McReynolds when he had his bypass? 65? His writing didn't match, his DNA didn't match, they couldn't place him in the house that night through forensic evidence...imo, Santa Bill didn't kill JonBenet.In my theory Santa doesn't have to perform any of these exertions, there were three others to do all that. All he had to do was get down on his knees and nuzzle up to her. And afterwards roll her body up in the blanket as she lay on the floor of the cellar. Anyway, he was strong enough to go on a trip to Spain within days of the murder, so he couldn't have been all that frail. And then front up on television shows as soon as he got back.

[aussiesheila]

Reasons why I don't think McSanta was involved:-

1. I agree with Nuisance poster about his health. It takes a good 6 months to recover from major surgery. Heart problems necessitating by-pass aren't usually acute and affecting people of good health. McSanta was probably not in the best of health prior to his surgery. Undoubtedly he would have felt the benefit of his surgery, but I sincerely doubt he would have been in peak fitness just months afterwards. SDIs like to mention the fact that he carried a suitcase shortly afterwarsd when he was going on vacation, but I don't think you can compare the two. Carrying out a child murder would have been a high stress situation. Going on vacation is usually a pleasant thing.Considering all the physical feats he was able to perform quite adequately around the time of the murder, I am certain he would have been able to do what I have suggested wrt the abuse, the murder and the coverup.


2) McSanta wasn't a keyholder - he would have had to break in.

3) McSanta was a big man, I doubt he could have gotten in through the basement window.McSanta wouldn't have had to have had a key or to have come in the window if Patsy had let him in.


4) McSanta lived about 25-30 miles from the Ramseys and it was snowing that night.

I doubt he wold have run the risk of collapsing in the Ramsey house and being caught and I doubt he would have run the risk of venturing out in the snow and running the risk of getting stuck.So CW went for a drive in the country that afternoon according to the testimony he gave to BPD. What I don't think he told them was that he picked up his former tutor from the university, a man of similar interests, I think and driven him into Boulder at around 10 pm in his van IMO.

Since when have males not risked a lot to have illicit sex?

[aussiesheila]

I'm not sure what drug you have in mind, Aussiesheila, but it would have to be very potent...only a small bit of pineapple was in her intestine...probably about 1 chunk.
But I have to say that as far out there as your theory may be, you definitely thought of everything...most theories out there are incomplete.Oh I didn't know they had quantified the amount of pineapple in her intestine. Really was there only one chunk? As in the equivalent of say 30 cc? Where did you read this elvis?

[elvislives]

Oh I didn't know they had quantified the amount of pineapple in her intestine. Really was there only one chunk? As in the equivalent of say 30 cc? Where did you read this elvis?

Aussie- I can't remember where I read this but I'll try to find a link. I'm out of time now but I'll look later on.

[elvislives]

OK elvis, if this is your considered medical opinion, I will go with it. So, any drug(s) she might have been given with the pineapple would still have been in her system at the time of the autopsy. The only drug we know was tested for was ethanol which came back negative. Unfortunately we have no idea of what other drugs were tested for and it very well could be that Meyer did not test for the specific drug she was given.

Saying there could have been drugs in the pineapple, is a big guess on my part, but attackers have been known to use drugs to subdue their prey, as have pedophiles. It seems to me that if it was an intruder who fed her pineapple, and I believe one did, then there had to be a reason for it. The pineapple being drugged is the best reason I have been able to come up with and I don't think that can be ruled out with our present state of knowledge.


Aussie, you are correct that the only drugs they would detect are the ones that were tested for. So if a drug was used that cannot be detected via toxicology panel, it will obviously not be found (this used to be the case with succinol choline--an anesthesia drug that has been used by medical professionals to murder people). Anyway it is a drug that used to be impossible to screen for until recently they added a substance so that it can now be detected.
But you should also consider that IF a drug was used it could have been injected. That is the fastest way to get a drug into the system and is very difficult to detect if a small gauge needle was used.

p.s. I also heard on Catherine Crier live--don't ask me for a link because I saw it on tv. But Henry Lee said they tested for aspirin (which can 'thin' the blood and prevent coagulation) as the theory was out there that JB had been premedicated with something so her blood would not clot and therefore the sequence of events (head bash, strangulation) would be more difficult to be determined. According to the show, the 'blood thinner' test came up negative.

[Tober]

The Ramseys lied when they claimed they didn't give JonBenet pineapple (obviously). The Ramseys lied when they said they don't know where the pineapple came from (obviously). The reason only Burke's and Patsy's fingerprints were on the bowl is because one of them got it for JonBenet. Probably Patsy, as her statements pretty much eliminated Burke having done it. Like Patsy said, someone would had to have gotten it for JonBenet. Besides Burke's, Patsy's are the only fingerprints on the bowl. It was the same type of pineapple Patsy would buy at Safeway, it was in Patsy's bowl, Patsy didn't think it was odd, unusual, or out-of-place on Dec. 26, etc. The pineapple also means that the Ramseys are lying when they claim a sleeping JonBenet was put to bed and didn't awake. She consumed the pineapple a relatively short time after they arrived home. She had to be awake and out of bed for someone to get the pineapple for her (Burke or Patsy, probably Patsy). She had to be awake and out of bed to eat the pineapple (obviously), which contradicts the Ramsey's claims (obviously). This means JonBenet was awake and interacting with Patsy (and/or other family members) at a time when Patsy wants us to think JonBenet was asleep (that's why Patsy is lying). This post is my opinion.

[shill]

And Burke got the pineapple out along with the glass (obviously) because his fingerprints are the only ones on both the bowl and glass.
Patsy and John where sleeping and could not know(obviously) but only speculate that Burke and JB might not get up on there own.
Patsy and John told the truth about the pineapple (obviously).
Patsy and John do know what they themselves did (obviously) that night.

To ignore personal testimony of what a witness said they themselves did but accept testimony of what they speculate someone else might have did or didn't do, lacks total objectivity to what the evidence points to.
Picking and choosing the parts of the story you want to believe is just self serving spin.

[bullmoose]

The Ramseys lied when they claimed they didn't give JonBenet pineapple (obviously). The Ramseys lied when they said they don't know where the pineapple came from (obviously). The reason only Burke's and Patsy's fingerprints were on the bowl is because one of them got it for JonBenet. Probably Patsy, as her statements pretty much eliminated Burke having done it. Like Patsy said, someone would had to have gotten it for JonBenet. Besides Burke's, Patsy's are the only fingerprints on the bowl. It was the same type of pineapple Patsy would buy at Safeway, it was in Patsy's bowl, Patsy didn't think it was odd, unusual, or out-of-place on Dec. 26, etc. The pineapple also means that the Ramseys are lying when they claim a sleeping JonBenet was put to bed and didn't awake. She consumed the pineapple a relatively short time after they arrived home. She had to be awake and out of bed for someone to get the pineapple for her (Burke or Patsy, probably Patsy). She had to be awake and out of bed to eat the pineapple (obviously), which contradicts the Ramsey's claims (obviously). This means JonBenet was awake and interacting with Patsy (and/or other family members) at a time when Patsy wants us to think JonBenet was asleep (that's why Patsy is lying). This post is my opinion.So very many opinions[obviously] unproven[obviously], even substantiated by any corroborating evidence[even more obviously]. Isn't funny that the pineapple actually couldn't be traced back to the Ramseys? [Obviously] The BPD pored over the receipts at hardware stores in Boulder and Atlanta in their attempt to tie Patsy to the tape or cord, hundreds of manhours were spent, fruitlessly it turned out; it beggars the imagination to think they didn't go to Safeway in Boulder and do a receipt check on pineapple, again, fruitlessly. [Obviously] Patsy's bowl had Patsy's fingerprints on it. Duh! And Burkes! Didn't they live there? I bet Patsy washed the bowl and put it away last, so her prints would be on the bowl. [Obviously]In fact, isn't Tober's whole post just his theory, purely supposition?[Absolutely] Of course this is JMHO.:biggrin:

[Tober]

Isn't funny that the pineapple actually couldn't be traced back to the Ramseys?

Give me a break. The pineapple couldn't have been "more" the Ramsey's: 1) It was in their bowl; 2) Their spoon was in the bowl; 3) The bowl was on their table, in their home; 4) JonBenet consumed the very pineapple from that very bowl relatively shortly after they arrived home; 5) According to John and Patsy, JonBenet would have needed someone to get the pineapple for her. Only Patsy's and Burke's fingerprints were on the bowl. John and Patsy insist Burke wouldn't have gotten it for JonBenet. That leaves us with Patsy getting it for JonBenet (Patsy's fingerprints were on the bowl); 6) Since JonBenet consumed the pineapple relatively shortly after they arrived home, the obvious inference can be made that someone (Burke or Patsy, probably Patsy) got it for her relatively shortly after they arrived home; 7) The bowl of pineapple was with a glass that only contained Burke's fingerprints. It can be inferred that he drank from the glass and left it there after they arrived home but before he went to bed. It can be inferred that the pineapple was placed there around the same time as the glass. This timing is perfect for a before-bedtime children's snack shortly after they arrived home; 8) JonBenet liked pineapple; 9) It was the same type of pineapple Patsy would buy at Safeway (she may have purchased it with cash); 10) On Dec. 26, John and Patsy did not report the pineapple as being odd, unusual, or out-of-place. This post is my opinion.

[shill]

According to John and Patsy, JonBenet would have needed someone to get the pineapple for her. John and Patsy insist Burke wouldn't have gotten it for JonBenet. That leaves us with Patsy getting it for JonBenet John and Patsy also said they did not feed JB pineapple.
You've got horse blinders on so you see only what you want to.


someone (Burke or Patsy, probably Patsy) got it for her relatively shortly after they arrived home; 7) The bowl of pineapple was with a glass that only contained Burke's fingerprints. It can be inferred that he drank from the glass and left it there after they arrived home but before he went to bed. It can be inferred that the pineapple was placed there around the same time as the glass. This timing is perfect for a before-bedtime children's snack shortly after they arrived home;John and Patsy said they did not feed JB pineapple.
"According to John and Patsy, JonBenet would have needed someone to get the pineapple for her. John and Patsy insist Burke wouldn't have gotten it for JonBenet".
So their testimony is that when they got home, they did not feed JB pineapple and they did not see Burke feed JB pineapple and they did not see JB get herself pineapple, and yet you insist all of them were up when they arrived home and JB had pineapple and Burke tea before going to bed.
So your saying all three have kept this secret and have been lying all this time.

IMO Burke got up after everyone went to bed to play with his new toy. He got the bowl of leftover pineapple out of the refrigerator and made his tea and left it out. This would be his testimony to the GJ.

[aussiesheila]

Aussie, you are correct that the only drugs they would detect are the ones that were tested for. So if a drug was used that cannot be detected via toxicology panel, it will obviously not be found (this used to be the case with succinol choline--an anesthesia drug that has been used by medical professionals to murder people). Anyway it is a drug that used to be impossible to screen for until recently they added a substance so that it can now be detected.Now that's an interesting little snippet. I didn't know that. You say murder, not euthanase, how many cases have come to light? That sounds very nasty. You've probably never heard of the Bogle-Chandler murder in 1963 in Sydney. They were almost certainly poisoned but no poison was ever detected in either of their bodies and no-one has ever been charged with their murder. Does succinol choline make people violently ill?

But you should also consider that IF a drug was used it could have been injected. That is the fastest way to get a drug into the system and is very difficult to detect if a small gauge needle was used.No I don't think I would consider that, I can't see a way for them to do that without JonBenet being aware of it. As I am sure they had no intention of killing her and wanted to be able to go on abusing her I don't think they would have used this method.


p.s. I also heard on Catherine Crier live--don't ask me for a link because I saw it on tv. But Henry Lee said they tested for aspirin (which can 'thin' the blood and prevent coagulation) as the theory was out there that JB had been premedicated with something so her blood would not clot and therefore the sequence of events (head bash, strangulation) would be more difficult to be determined. According to the show, the 'blood thinner' test came up negative.I can't see the purpose of doing that.

I really wish we could find out what drugs the Boulder lav tested for back in 1996. I don't think they would have had a lab fitted out with state of the art equipment, but maybe they did. I wonder what the sophistication level their testing procedures were at?

I had been considering that JonBenet might have been given a benzodaizepine, but after your last post where you said that if she was given a drug there would have been the remains of it at the time of death about 2 hours later, I thought well maybe it wasn't a benzodiazepine, as they are such common drugs they surely would have tested for them.

I have done a bit of googling since and I am now wondering if it was one of those short-acting benzodiazepines. Two that I have come across that I think would have been around in 1996 are triazolam and midazolam which can be administered orally and have half lives of around 2.8 hours as opposed to the 30 to 40 hours of the longer acting benzos.

So what I am suggesting now is that maybe their test for benzodiazepines was not very sensitive and they would only have been able to detect high levels of the drug. If she had been fed a short acting one, maybe there wasn't enough for their tests to detect.

As you say, after an autopsy samples of body fluids are collected and stored for further testing. So I think by now they would have done testing with the most sensitive equipment available. I would love to know what they have found.

[Zoey]

Give me a break. The pineapple couldn't have been "more" the Ramsey's: 1) It was in their bowl; 2) Their spoon was in the bowl; 3) The bowl was on their table, in their home; 4) JonBenet consumed the very pineapple from that very bowl relatively shortly after they arrived home; 5) According to John and Patsy, JonBenet would have needed someone to get the pineapple for her. Only Patsy's and Burke's fingerprints were on the bowl. John and Patsy insist Burke wouldn't have gotten it for JonBenet. That leaves us with Patsy getting it for JonBenet (Patsy's fingerprints were on the bowl); 6) Since JonBenet consumed the pineapple relatively shortly after they arrived home, the obvious inference can be made that someone (Burke or Patsy, probably Patsy) got it for her relatively shortly after they arrived home; 7) The bowl of pineapple was with a glass that only contained Burke's fingerprints. It can be inferred that he drank from the glass and left it there after they arrived home but before he went to bed. It can be inferred that the pineapple was placed there around the same time as the glass. This timing is perfect for a before-bedtime children's snack shortly after they arrived home; 8) JonBenet liked pineapple; 9) It was the same type of pineapple Patsy would buy at Safeway (she may have purchased it with cash); 10) On Dec. 26, John and Patsy did not report the pineapple as being odd, unusual, or out-of-place. This post is my opinion.


John does state in one of his interviews that he does not remember the bowl being on the table. He also states that the spoon in the bowl looks odd, in that it looks like it is too big for the bowl, and too big for a kid to use. So (obviously) they thought it was odd, unusual and out-of-place. This post is my opinion.

[thewhitewitch1]

John does state in one of his interviews that he does not remember the bowl being on the table. He also states that the spoon in the bowl looks odd, in that it looks like it is too big for the bowl, and too big for a kid to use. So (obviously) they thought it was odd, unusual and out-of-place. This post is my opinion.


The Ramseys stated that a lot of things looked "odd". It all builds their case to point to an intruder. I will never believe an intruder brought pineapple with him and used Patsys serving bowl and spoon to feed it to JB. That is beyond belief. IMO

[elvislives]

Now that's an interesting little snippet. I didn't know that. You say murder, not euthanase, how many cases have come to light? That sounds very nasty. You've probably never heard of the Bogle-Chandler murder in 1963 in Sydney. They were almost certainly poisoned but no poison was ever detected in either of their bodies and no-one has ever been charged with their murder. Does succinol choline make people violently ill?

.


No. It is a neuromuscular block, which basically renders a patient completely immobile. It is useful during surgical procedures where it is imperative that the patient stay still (many forms of general anesthesia will make a pt unconscious and feel no pain, but they can still move). A lethal dose will stop the heart (which is a muscle).

It has been used in at least 3 murders that I am aware of. Two were doctors who murdered their wives, the third was a surgical tech who stole the drug to murder her husband then staged a fire--no smoke was found in his lungs, so they investigated further and found a needle mark on his body and used hypodermic needles in her trash. This was the case that caused the manufacturer to add a substance that now allows it to be detected.

[Zoey]

The Ramseys stated that a lot of things looked "odd". It all builds their case to point to an intruder. I will never believe an intruder brought pineapple with him and used Patsys serving bowl and spoon to feed it to JB. That is beyond belief. IMO

I did not mean to imply that I thought an intruder brought in the pineapple. After participating in the discussion of this forum, I tend to believe that it was probably brought in with the food for the party on the 23rd.

I also tend to agree with Shill in that Burke got some out as a late night snack and JB helped herself to a piece or two. IMO.

[thewhitewitch1]

I did not mean to imply that I thought an intruder brought in the pineapple. After participating in the discussion of this forum, I tend to believe that it was probably brought in with the food for the party on the 23rd.

I also tend to agree with Shill in that Burke got some out as a late night snack and JB helped herself to a piece or two. IMO.

I can believe this scenerio...however, if this is the case, why hasn't Burke told anyone about it? Why would he feel the need to hide the fact that he and JB got up and had a pineapple snack? I don't understand why he would have any need to deny this occured...unless something involving him and/or his parents happened shortly afterwards. Yes, that would be the murder of JB.

[Zoey]

I can believe this scenerio...however, if this is the case, why hasn't Burke told anyone about it? Why would he feel the need to hide the fact that he and JB got up and had a pineapple snack? I don't understand why he would have any need to deny this occured...unless something involving him and/or his parents happened shortly afterwards. Yes, that would be the murder of JB.

Is there the possibility that he has told someone, and that someone being the Grand Jury? Since we have no idea what questions were asked of him, we have no way of knowing what information he gave out, IMO.

[Athena]

Is there the possibility that he has told someone, and that someone being the Grand Jury? Since we have no idea what questions were asked of him, we have no way of knowing what information he gave out, IMO.

True Zoey. Also don't forget it wasn't until after his grand jury testimony that the Ramseys actualy found out in fact that he was awake that morning and pretending to be asleep; he finally admitted it. Up until that time he maintained he was sleeping. As a 9 year old boy the scenario probably frightened him immensely. Kids tend to want to "forget" what they choose not to remember. It helps them cope to pretend things didn't happen.

[shill]

I can believe this scenerio...however, if this is the case, why hasn't Burke told anyone about it? Why would he feel the need to hide the fact that he and JB got up and had a pineapple snack? I don't understand why he would have any need to deny this occured...unless something involving him and/or his parents happened shortly afterwards. Yes, that would be the murder of JB.

Unless you have some proof Burke was asked and denied having anything to do with the pineapple, how can you write this possibility off?

It's easy to have doubts when you're trying to fill in the blanks with guesses, even though there are real answers to those blanks that we don't have knowledge of.

[thewhitewitch1]

Is there the possibility that he has told someone, and that someone being the Grand Jury? Since we have no idea what questions were asked of him, we have no way of knowing what information he gave out, IMO.


Maybe he did but why would he not tell his parents this after the fact? That way they could lay to rest the pineapple "buggaboo" and dispell the idea that they lied about it.
Why would he save that info just for the Grand Jury?

[thewhitewitch1]

How do you know JB didnt wake up on her own and go to the kitchen and eat a pice of pineapple from the bowl sitting on the table---the bowl Burke got out earlier which is why his fingerprints are on it.

Maybe Burke and Patsy had no idea that JB ate a piece of pineapple from the bowl. How do you then say..okay she ate pineapple so a Ramsey must have killed her?

Because when the issue came up, wouldn't Burke have told someone that he was the one who put the bowl of pineapple there? The Rs denied all knowledge of even having pineapple or of any possibility of the kids having gotten up on their own and gotten it. Period.
If Burke did get the bowl of pineapple out, why on earth would he need to lie about it...unless he has a really good reason. IMO

[Louisadelmar]

They are still askiing about the pineapple iin Patsy's 2000 and 2001 interviews. Either they didn't ask Burke at the GJ or his answer didn't solve the mystery.

[shill]

Maybe he did but why would he not tell his parents this after the fact? That way they could lay to rest the pineapple "buggaboo" and dispell the idea that they lied about it.
Why would he save that info just for the Grand Jury?


The R's are questioned about the pineapple in June 1998, is this not the first time they become aware that the police think it is important. They might have thought to ask Burke about it after that point and maybe Burke was told by LE to not talk about it so they could sweat the parents out.
What do they say about it in DOI and when was it written?

[thewhitewitch1]

The R's are questioned about the pineapple in June 1998, is this not the first time they become aware that the police think it is important. They might have thought to ask Burke about it after that point and maybe Burke was told by LE to not talk about it so they could sweat the parents out.
What do they say about it in DOI and when was it written?


I don't have DOI.
Why wouldn't the Ramseys have just asked Burke about it themselves?

[shill]

I don't have DOI.
Why wouldn't the Ramseys have just asked Burke about it themselves?

They might have thought to after June 1998 when they were made aware of it as being something of importance.

[thewhitewitch1]

They might have thought to after June 1998 when they were made aware of it as being something of importance.

You would think it would have come up much sooner, what with the autopsy showing the pineapple in JBs intestines and the pineapple being in the house that morning. :shrug:
We know they took it in for evidence so they must have asked about it sooner...or so you'd think.

[shill]

You would think it would have come up much sooner, what with the autopsy showing the pineapple in JBs intestines and the pineapple being in the house that morning. :shrug:
We know they took it in for evidence so they must have asked about it sooner...or so you'd think.

The autopsy didn't say that the pineapple placed the time of death at aprx. 2 hrs after she ate it. They didn't know she ate the pineapple until the autopsy was done, LE took the pineapple into evidence before the autopsy. Connecting the dots came later with out the Ramseys being filled in to this info.
Just because we all have access to why the pineapple is important, it implied nothing and meant nothing to the Ramseys at the time.
It took me a while to get my head around why the pineapple was being made out to be such a big deal.
I hardly doubt that Patsy scrutinized the autopsy for what was in JB's stomach and intestines. Why would she care about that kind of info, let alone pay attention to it.
You forget we are all here scrutinizing every detail after it has been pointed out by someone as possibly questionable.
The LE were coming at them with questions that they felt needed answers, questions that would have no reason to be on the minds of the Ramseys because they didn't know it relevants.

[andU]

Just my thoughts: Could Burke have lied about it initially because he thought he may get into trouble with his parents? Maybe they weren't supposed to get up and eat during the night? ... maybe he was told to put it away when he was finished and didn't? .... then, he had to stick with that to keep from getting in trouble about lying to them in the first place.... but, when he was told that nothing he said in the GJ would be told to his parents, he fessed up with the truth. I'm trying to think like a kid here, that may not realize that eating the pineapple would in any way be involved with his sister's death, one who defied his parent's wishes, even though unintentionally, he had lied to them about it and needed to cover that by sticking to the lie. Christian parents feel very strongly about telling the truth.

[aussiesheila]

No. It is a neuromuscular block, which basically renders a patient completely immobile. It is useful during surgical procedures where it is imperative that the patient stay still (many forms of general anesthesia will make a pt unconscious and feel no pain, but they can still move). A lethal dose will stop the heart (which is a muscle).

It has been used in at least 3 murders that I am aware of. Two were doctors who murdered their wives, the third was a surgical tech who stole the drug to murder her husband then staged a fire--no smoke was found in his lungs, so they investigated further and found a needle mark on his body and used hypodermic needles in her trash. This was the case that caused the manufacturer to add a substance that now allows it to be detected.very interesting (and creepy)
at least it's safe now to marry a doctor
thanks elvis

[thewhitewitch1]

Just my thoughts: Could Burke have lied about it initially because he thought he may get into trouble with his parents? Maybe they weren't supposed to get up and eat during the night? ... maybe he was told to put it away when he was finished and didn't? .... then, he had to stick with that to keep from getting in trouble about lying to them in the first place.... but, when he was told that nothing he said in the GJ would be told to his parents, he fessed up with the truth. I'm trying to think like a kid here, that may not realize that eating the pineapple would in any way be involved with his sister's death, one who defied his parent's wishes, even though unintentionally, he had lied to them about it and needed to cover that by sticking to the lie. Christian parents feel very strongly about telling the truth.

If he was told to put it away when he was finished, wouldn't the Rs have known about his eating it?
Anything is possible but I am more concerned about the Rs steadfast postition that the kids would never have gotten up to eat in the middle of the night and also JRs comment about them not being able to open the walk-in fridge door. It's the fact that the Rs refuse for the possibility of these things that bothers me. It's as though they do not want LE to think or know that anyone in their family was up and about that night after 10:00. They were all asleep...period. Being asleep absoves them of having to explain anything further. IMO

[LindaA]

I hope you've read my answer about the animal being used PRE the sex, not DURING, Linda.

How long after surgery would you say your husband was fully recovered Linda? Four months? Five? Six? Or would it have been longer? Of course McReyolds was pretty old as well, which would have made things a bit worse, I imagine.


Yes, I did read your post. I was responding to the post that said they wanted to know how beavers were used in kinky sex. I don't know that they are, but I do know that gerbils are. (Don't ask!) I wasn't relating it to the JBR case at all. Your theory is very interesting, but i tend to think the hairs came from one of the paint brushes.

As for my husband who was 51 when he had bypass surgery -- I"d say he was pretty much recovered in 6 weeks to 2 months. But then with McReynolds, HMMV.

[elvislives]

The R's are questioned about the pineapple in June 1998, is this not the first time they become aware that the police think it is important. They might have thought to ask Burke about it after that point and maybe Burke was told by LE to not talk about it so they could sweat the parents out.
What do they say about it in DOI and when was it written?

The very earliest the BPD could have known the pineapple had any significance was after the autopsy was complete and they found pineapple in JB's small intestine.

You can ask most 9 year olds what they had for lunch today and many wont remember. If you ask them if they ate pineapple in their own home several days, weeks, or months before...I highly doubt they would remember. And the funny thing about kids is that when they don't remember things, they often make up an answer.

Unless Burke wasn't asked about this on 12/26, I don;t think you can count on his testimony one way or the other.

[thewhitewitch1]

The very earliest the BPD could have known the pineapple had any significance was after the autopsy was complete and they found pineapple in JB's small intestine.

You can ask most 9 year olds what they had for lunch today and many wont remember. If you ask them if they ate pineapple in their own home several days, weeks, or months before...I highly doubt they would remember. And the funny thing about kids is that when they don't remember things, they often make up an answer.

Unless Burke wasn't asked about this on 12/26, I don;t think you can count on his testimony one way or the other.


You would think he would remember getting up in the middle of the night and eating it with his sister, though...especially if this wasn't common practice.

[elvislives]

I hope you've read my answer about the animal being used PRE the sex, not DURING

I think I speak for the whole board, Aussie, that we all breathed a collective sigh of relief that this wasn't some new fetish ;)

Thanks for clarifying.

[elvislives]

You would think he would remember getting up in the middle of the night and eating it with his sister, though...especially if this wasn't common practice.

Imo if an IDI, then JB didn't have the snack with anyone. Burke got the pineapple out earlier in the eve for himself and left the bowl out on the table. Later on, JB wakes up...either independently or by some familiar intruder and walks downstairs past the bowl and pops a chunk into her mouth.

Either that or the Ramseys fed it to her, lied about it, then killled her.

[Tober]

Why is it that when John or Patsy Ramsey says something that works with your idiotic theory that you take it at face value?

When examining this case I have two things to work with: The evidence and what the Ramseys give me (actions, reactions, comments, statements). I have to try to "square" their statements with the known evidence. If that can't be done, then it's highly likely they are being deceptive. This post is my opinion.

[Sharon]

The autopsy report says it might be pineapple or vegetable, so maybe the whole debate is not even about pineapple in JBR upper intestines???? ie the autopsy as published for the public does not say it is definately pineapple. Or, is this considered undesputed?

Also, over & above the autopsy report I would like to offer my belief that no child would be hungry & walk downstairs in the middle of the night after a huge day of activity & a huge night of food & celebration.Maybe the person familiar with JBR did offer her a piece of pineapple as a pretence out loud of why they were going downstairs ie. come on little one, we`re going to have something to eat. The fact that JBR only had a tiny bit of fruit may have been because she was deep in sleep when given the food. Kids can eat or drink sometimes when asleep if they are hand fed.

I also think that being exhausted would have made JBR an easy victim. My kids when asleep are almost comatose if you try to stir them. I can easily imgine a sleeping child not stir while being carried downstairs, especially if it were by someone she knew. I also dont think there would be too much resistance to a garret if it were tied while the child slept. She might struggle but not fully like you would if you nwere wide awake. when you stir a sleep deprived young child they do anything to get back into their sleep.

just my opinion

[aussiesheila]

Your theory is very interesting, but i tend to think the hairs came from one of the paint brushes.I'm pretty sure I've read somewhere that they were unable to trace the hairs to anything in the house.

As for my husband who was 51 when he had bypass surgery -- I"d say he was pretty much recovered in 6 weeks to 2 months. But then with McReynolds, HMMV.I'm glad your husband ecovered so quickly LindaA. BMcR said he had his heart sugery that summer, so it had to be 4 to 7 months prior to the murder. Of course, I realise he was about 20 years older than your husband. Also we don't actually know what procedure he had, do we? Was it really bypass surgery?

[nuisanceposter]

The autopsy report says it might be pineapple or vegetable, so maybe the whole debate is not even about pineapple in JBR upper intestines???? ie the autopsy as published for the public does not say it is definately pineapple. Or, is this considered undesputed?
<snip>

Undisputed, as far as I'm concerned.


PMPT, hb, page 433, middle of the page:

"In the Ramseys' dining room, just steps away from the kitchen, the police had found a bowl with fresh pineapple in it. Meyer noted in his report that the pineapple in JonBenet's small intestine was in near-perfect condition - it had sharp edges and looked as if it had been recently eaten and poorly chewed."

ST's book, hb, page 192

"Our experts studied the pineapple in the stomach and reported that it was fresh-cut pineapple, consistent down to the rind with what had been found in the bowl. It was solid proof that it wasn't canned pineapple, and what were the chances that an intruder would have brought in fresh pineapple to cut up for his victim?"


On top of that last sentence of ST's, harkening to LS's "intruder brought the pineapple in a tupperware container," how could an intruder be sure that JonBenet would get up and eat pineapple? How could he be sure that she hadn't eaten a full meal at the Whites' party and would even be hungry enough to want to eat some fruit? Not to mention the Rs saying there was no way JonBenet would get up and go have a snack with a stranger. What six year old girl is so excited to see pineapple that she'll wake right up after being asleep and leave her nice warm bed to go sit down and eat some, disregarding any caution she should be feeling at seeing someone in her bedroom at a time when she's well aware no one should be in her bedroom?

[Sprocket]

They are still askiing about the pineapple iin Patsy's 2000 and 2001 interviews. Either they didn't ask Burke at the GJ or his answer didn't solve the mystery.

Not necessarily. They could be looking for either coorboration (sp?), or to see if she will lie about it.

[shill]

When examining this case I have two things to work with: The evidence and what the Ramseys give me (actions, reactions, comments, statements). I have to try to "square" their statements with the known evidence. If that can't be done, then it's highly likely they are being deceptive. This post is my opinion.

I think you'd be happier at WebSleuths where they understand your selective evidence that you attempt to make fit the suspect kind of logic.

[shill]

Also, over & above the autopsy report I would like to offer my belief that no child would be hungry & walk downstairs in the middle of the night after a huge day of activity & a huge night of food & celebration.
Are you saying the autopsy report showing all she had eaten was a crab cake, is wrong?
If JB had been eating all kinds of food and was not hungry, why would Mrs. White whip up a special plate of food she new JB liked? It sounds like JB wasn't eating and P. White made something she new she would eat.
I have a friend whose daughter was impossible to get her to eat sometimes when she was about JB's age.

[Sharon]

Shill, your friends must be living my life because my kids are tiny eaters & its a problem for us!!! We always have to prepare something specific to them & even help them eat,mouthful by mouthful, their desire is so low. Kids who are not big eaters usually want something easy to fill their stomaches when they are exhausted like a drink. Kids find it hard to chew when they are exhausted. imo!

If she was truely hungry why do you think there is so little of the pineapple (thanks for explaining Nusanceposter) in her stomache. Since there was such a big bowl, wouldnt she have eaten at least 2 pieces if she was truely hungry.

Do you see the possibility that (1) this was something that someone made her eat at the end of the party as in....you havent eatten anything, have something healthy.....and she might have eatten one piece to keep the peace...or (2) while asleep & being carried down she was fed one piece that she hardly chewed by swollowed whole as you might when you are tired/ asleep. The person feeding her may have just been playing out her fantasy of being the mum.....who knows.

[Zoey]

Shill, your friends must be living my life because my kids are tiny eaters & its a problem for us!!! We always have to prepare something specific to them & even help them eat,mouthful by mouthful, their desire is so low. Kids who are not big eaters usually want something easy to fill their stomaches when they are exhausted like a drink. Kids find it hard to chew when they are exhausted. imo!

If she was truely hungry why do you think there is so little of the pineapple (thanks for explaining Nusanceposter) in her stomache. Since there was such a big bowl, wouldnt she have eaten at least 2 pieces if she was truely hungry.

Do you see the possibility that (1) this was something that someone made her eat at the end of the party as in....you havent eatten anything, have something healthy.....and she might have eatten one piece to keep the peace...or (2) while asleep & being carried down she was fed one piece that she hardly chewed by swollowed whole as you might when you are tired/ asleep. The person feeding her may have just been playing out her fantasy of being the mum.....who knows.

Not to nit-pick, but the pineapple was not in her stomach, but her small intestine.

And if the bowl on the table is indeed the pineapple she ate, those were pretty big chunks in there. Plopping one in her mouth probably surficed and satisfied her craving, or she was interrupted when she was eating and one or two pieces was all she got, IMO.

[Sharon]

Yes, youre right about the `stomache`, my mistake...I think I need to have a rest!

And yes, the interpretations of how she got that small amount of pineapple in her upper intestine, seem endless. It is almost like we need some more pieces of the puzzle to even make sense of what we know. I admit to being baffled about this point & cannot think of any explainations that make sense.

I understand that the pineapple being in her upper intestine indicates that she was murdered 1-3 hours there after and that seems to be all we can get out of this for now.

[shill]

Yes, youre right about the `stomache`, my mistake...I think I need to have a rest!

And yes, the interpretations of how she got that small amount of pineapple in her upper intestine, seem endless. It is almost like we need some more pieces of the puzzle to even make sense of what we know. I admit to being baffled about this point & cannot think of any explainations that make sense.

I understand that the pineapple being in her upper intestine indicates that she was murdered 1-3 hours there after and that seems to be all we can get out of this for now.
It's important to the RDI camp because to them it proves the Ramseys are lying about the pineapple, therefore they are lying about everything.

[Sharon]

It's important to the RDI camp because to them it proves the Ramseys are lying about the pineapple, therefore they are lying about everything.

Could you please explain this?
Are they saying the R are lying about not knowing how it got there?

or are they saying the R. are lying about not knowing how or when JBR ate the pineapple?

which lie proves they are guilty overall. Also, is the lie more that JBR wasnt asleep when they got home??

Lastly, that night did JBR wet her bed or get up to go to the toilet?

TIA, Sharon

[LindaA]

Could you please explain this?
Are they saying the R are lying about not knowing how it got there?

or are they saying the R. are lying about not knowing how or when JBR ate the pineapple?

which lie proves they are guilty overall. Also, is the lie more that JBR wasnt asleep when they got home??TIA, Sharon

Yes, to all the above. They think the Rs were lying when they say that JBR was asleep when they got home and the pineapple proves she was not.

"Lastly, that night did JBR wet her bed or get up to go to the toilet? " This is the subject of quite a bit of discussion around here somewhere. The jury's still out on that one.

[Tober]

Sharon, the Ramseys are lying about not knowing where the pineapple came from: It was their pineapple, that's why it was in their bowl, on their table, with their spoon in the bowl, etc. They are lying about not giving JonBenet the pineapple: Burke or Patsy gave it to her, that's why their fingerprints were on the bowl. Patsy's statements essentially eliminate Burke as having given it to her, that leaves us with Patsy giving it to her shortly after they arrived home. That lie leads to another, that being that a sleeping JonBenet was put to bed and didn't awake: She was awake and out of bed shortly after they arrived home, which is how she was able to consume the pineapple that she would have needed someone to get for her. This post is my opinion.

[shill]

Patsy's statements essentially eliminate Burke as having given it to her

Her statement in no way, shape, or form eliminates Burke.
She does not know and could not know what Burke did that night and is only assuming he wouldn't get up in the night.
Only Burke knows what he did that night.

TOBER, put your money where your mouth is and please supply Burke's transcript saying he did not get up that night and get the bowl of pineapple out.

If you can't do that, you have no argument or legs to stand on.

[bullmoose]

Sharon, the Ramseys are lying about not knowing where the pineapple came from: It was their pineapple, that's why it was in their bowl, on their table, with their spoon in the bowl, etc. They are lying about not giving JonBenet the pineapple: Burke or Patsy gave it to her, that's why their fingerprints were on the bowl. Patsy's statements essentially eliminate Burke as having given it to her, that leaves us with Patsy giving it to her shortly after they arrived home. That lie leads to another, that being that a sleeping JonBenet was put to bed and didn't awake: She was awake and out of bed shortly after they arrived home, which is how she was able to consume the pineapple that she would have needed someone to get for her. This post is my opinion.Tober, you and I both know that the BPD spent a lot of time and money trying to prove a connection between that pineapple and the Ramseys; its true it was found in their bowl on their table, with their spoon in it; but the Ramseys always have maintained that they didn't know where it came from. And up until now, despite a labor intensive search through the receipts and chargeslips at the local Safeway, where it came from, no connection to the Ramseys has been found. Moreover, the package that the pineapple came from has not ever been located. The Ramseys would have had to have been smart and stupid at the same time to perform the scenario that Tober lays out. To make the proof of their purchase of fresh pineapple disappear and the package it came in, that would be genius; but to put the pineapple in the bowl would be stupid; why not leave it in the package it came in? You can assert that they are lying, but thats just your opinion; I believe them , of course thats JMHO

[Athena]

Sharon, the Ramseys are lying about not knowing where the pineapple came from: It was their pineapple, that's why it was in their bowl, on their table, with their spoon in the bowl, etc. They are lying about not giving JonBenet the pineapple: Burke or Patsy gave it to her, that's why their fingerprints were on the bowl. Patsy's statements essentially eliminate Burke as having given it to her, that leaves us with Patsy giving it to her shortly after they arrived home. That lie leads to another, that being that a sleeping JonBenet was put to bed and didn't awake: She was awake and out of bed shortly after they arrived home, which is how she was able to consume the pineapple that she would have needed someone to get for her. This post is my opinion.

I don't know where the pineapple came from - but again fingerprints on ANY glassware found in the home are not suspect. Just washing and drying dishes would leave fingerprints or just moving items around in a cupboard could account for fingerprints as well.

[Tober]

I don't know where the pineapple came from - but again fingerprints on ANY glassware found in the home are not suspect.

However, Burke's and Patsy's fingerprints on the bowl indicate that it was one of them who placed it on the table on the evening of Dec. 25, after they arrived home. John's and Patsy's statements essentially eliminate Burke as having done so, that leaves us with Patsy getting it for JonBenet shortly after their arrival home. JonBenet had to be awake and out of bed to consume the pineapple and to have someone (Burke or Patsy, probably Patsy) get it for her. That means the Ramseys are lying when they claim a sleeping JonBenet was put to bed and didn't awake. This post is my opinion.

[bullmoose]

Tober, you and I both know that the BPD spent a lot of time and money trying to prove a connection between that pineapple and the Ramseys; its true it was found in their bowl on their table, with their spoon in it; but the Ramseys always have maintained that they didn't know where it came from. And up until now, despite a labor intensive search through the receipts and chargeslips at the local Safeway, where it came from, no connection to the Ramseys has been found. Moreover, the package that the pineapple came from has not ever been located. The Ramseys would have had to have been smart and stupid at the same time to perform the scenario that Tober lays out. To make the proof of their purchase of fresh pineapple disappear and the package it came in, that would be genius; but to put the pineapple in the bowl would be stupid; why not leave it in the package it came in? You can assert that they are lying, but thats just your opinion; I believe them , of course thats JMHOI'll just let this post stand, Tober,your twisted reasoning is predicated on a supposition that is not a proven fact and is only meaningful to you. JMHO:biggrin:

[Sharon]

Does anyone know the approx. time of death? I guess not, or else we would know roughly when the pineapple was consumed.

The way I see it, the R. could be telling the truth about not knowing or remembering how the pineapple got there. It doesnt mean that they are lying.

possible explainations are

(1) caterers or friends brought it in to the house
(2) PR just forgot it was in the fridge & it got cut up mby caterers
(3) they just forgot in the confusion or otherwise
(4) fingerprints of others could have been there but not clear enough to identify.

Also the R. could be telling the truth about not feeding JBR pineapple when she got home

(1) she could have got up latter in the night & helped herself
(2)Bourke could have helped her
(3) intruder could have given her a piece

Its interesting because on another thread here, there is a letter written to the Bolder council about how guilty the R. are, but the writer believes that the R. are telling the truth about not feeding her pineapple.....so go figure!!

Ten years ago, would people have known about autopsies & stomach contents in relation to crimes & times of death??ie would it be common knowledge that the food eaten by a murder victim would tell a story?

[thewhitewitch1]

"Ten years ago, would people have known about autopsies & stomach contents in relation to crimes & times of death??ie would it be common knowledge that the food eaten by a murder victim would tell a story?"

Yes.
The time of her death was not in the autopsy report.
I found a link tonight that states that what we all saw is the full autopsy report. It was ordered to be released in full to the public. Now I just have to go dig up the link. :(

[Sharon]

So to clarify, you are saying that 10 years ago people understood that the food in your stomache could be studied in an autopsy to reveal info about the time of death??

So, if the R. were lying, it was because they understood that the pineapple would basically tell the time of the murder, and they want people to think the murder was latter than it possibly was????

Am I following this correctly? Because I would have thought 10 years ago when we didnt even have mobile phones that people wouldnt know or understand that forensic evidence was so telling???

[Zoey]

"Ten years ago, would people have known about autopsies & stomach contents in relation to crimes & times of death??ie would it be common knowledge that the food eaten by a murder victim would tell a story?"

Yes.
The time of her death was not in the autopsy report.
I found a link tonight that states that what we all saw is the full autopsy report. It was ordered to be released in full to the public. Now I just have to go dig up the link. :(


TWW, I understand they may be telling the public that that is indeed the full autopsy report, but it is not. I have seen two autopsy reports, and they are huge. Not 8 pages, but hundreds of pages.

They tell the public what they think the public wants to know, IMO.

[Zoey]

So to clarify, you are saying that 10 years ago people understood that the food in your stomache could be studied in an autopsy to reveal info about the time of death??

So, if the R. were lying, it was because they understood that the pineapple would basically tell the time of the murder, and they want people to think the murder was latter than it possibly was????

Am I following this correctly? Because I would have thought 10 years ago when we didnt even have mobile phones that people wouldnt know or understand that forensic evidence was so telling???


We had mobile phones ten (10) years ago. Don't you remember those big bag phones? Then they came out with the smaller cell phone, but it was still pretty big.

[thewhitewitch1]

TWW, I understand they may be telling the public that that is indeed the full autopsy report, but it is not. I have seen two autopsy reports, and they are huge. Not 8 pages, but hundreds of pages.

They tell the public what they think the public wants to know, IMO.

You may well be right. Does it make a difference, though on how indepth the autopsy was?
I get the feeling JBs wasn't all that indepth. She was buried only 4 days after her death. Don't more indepth autopsies take a bit more time? :confused:

[bullmoose]

You may well be right. Does it make a difference, though on how indepth the autopsy was?
I get the feeling JBs wasn't all that indepth. She was buried only 4 days after her death. Don't more indepth autopsies take a bit more time? :confused:Actually, tww1: I don't think the actual autopsy takes more than a couple hours; the studies of the tissue and fluids can take weeks. The fact that Jonbenet was buried after just four days was not remarkable in itself. When the issue of whether she had been tasered came up, it would indeed have been handy to have her body to inspect, but the issue wasn't raised for a couple months, I don't believe.

[Sharon]

We had mobile phones ten (10) years ago. Don't you remember those big bag phones? Then they came out with the smaller cell phone, but it was still pretty big.

Point taken.

But Im trying to think about things as they were then. We take so much forgranted now in terms of technology & information. Every 10 years technology (including forensic) changes beyond recognition.

[Athena]

TWW, I understand they may be telling the public that that is indeed the full autopsy report, but it is not. I have seen two autopsy reports, and they are huge. Not 8 pages, but hundreds of pages.

They tell the public what they think the public wants to know, IMO.

I believe it is a summary. JMO

[Athena]

You may well be right. Does it make a difference, though on how indepth the autopsy was?
I get the feeling JBs wasn't all that indepth. She was buried only 4 days after her death. Don't more indepth autopsies take a bit more time? :confused:

When an autopsy is conducted, body parts are removed from the body; sometimes they are put back and sometimes not. Some are kept out, tissue samples taken, etc for further examination, An autopsy takes approximately 2-6 hours. It is unfortunate they did not cut out the tissue with the marks that could have been stun gun marks but as a poster just previously pointed out it was not mentioned they could have been stun gun marks until a couple of months later thus the issue of exhumation.

JBR's funeral was 12/31/96 and there is nothing unusual about this. I believe I mentioned before that my brother was killed and he had to be autopsied but he was buried 6 days later; the extra day because there was a holiday in between where the gravediggers were off. In some religions, people are buried the same day or in the event of foul play as soon as possible following the autopsy.

[shill]

John's and Patsy's statements essentially eliminate Burke as having done so,
John's and Patsy's statement in no way, shape, or form eliminates Burke.
They do not know and could not know what Burke did that night and are only assuming he wouldn't get up in the night.
Only Burke knows what he did that night.

TOBER, put your money where your mouth is and please supply Burke's transcript saying he did not get up that night and get the bowl of pineapple out.

If you can't do that, you have no argument or legs to stand on.

[Tober]

So, if the R. were lying, it was because they understood that the pineapple would basically tell the time of the murder, and they want people to think the murder was latter than it possibly was????

Yes, an approximate time of death can be inferred based on the positions of both items of food material found in JonBenet's digestive tract (their positions individually and in relation to each other), those being the pineapple found in the proximal portion of her small intestine and the green fecal material found in her large intestine, which by inference was the crab she ate at the White's. The Ramseys "distance" themselves from certain items which were involved or may have been involved with the crime or relate to it in some way, items which they have an obvious connection to. That's one of the giveaways to their involvement. For example, they distance themselves from the pineapple and the flashlight, and Patsy distances herself from the basement and paint tote while wearing the sweater-jacket that she wore the night JonBenet was killed. Take the flashlight for instance: It's the exact model that the Ramseys owned, no other flashlight was found in the home, and yet they don't know if it's theirs or not. This post is my opinion.

[Sharon]

Yes, an approximate time of death can be inferred based on the positions of both items of food material found in JonBenet's digestive tract (their positions individually and in relation to each other), those being the pineapple found in the proximal portion of her small intestine and the green fecal material found in her large intestine, which by inference was the crab she ate at the White's. The Ramseys "distance" themselves from certain items which were involved or may have been involved with the crime or relate to it in some way, items which they have an obvious connection to. That's one of the giveaways to their involvement. For example, they distance themselves from the pineapple and the flashlight, and Patsy distances herself from the basement and paint tote while wearing the sweater-jacket that she wore the night JonBenet was killed. Take the flashlight for instance: It's the exact model that the Ramseys owned, no other flashlight was found in the home, and yet they don't know if it's theirs or not. This post is my opinion.


I see what you are saying.

Im surprised that they werent clever enough to `pretend` that JBR could have got up in the middle of the night without their knowledge & ate some pineapple. That would have solved the mystery & gotten everyone off their backs re. the pineapple. I wonder why they lied about her not eatting it when she came home but then were so stubborn about her not eatting it without their knowledge. If I was trying to cover up feeding someone pineapple because I knew it would tell clues about the murder, I would definately insinuate that that person ate it themselves.

[bullmoose]

I see what you are saying.

Im surprised that they werent clever enough to `pretend` that JBR could have got up in the middle of the night without their knowledge & ate some pineapple. That would have solved the mystery & gotten everyone off their backs re. the pineapple. I wonder why they lied about her not eatting it when she came home but then were so stubborn about her not eatting it without their knowledge. If I was trying to cover up feeding someone pineapple because I knew it would tell clues about the murder, I would definately insinuate that that person ate it themselves.Sharon, consider this possibility: the Ramseys were telling the truth. Despite a rather big effort by the BPD to tie that pineapple to the Ramseys by checking purchase receipts and charge slips from the Safeway store it came from, no ties were found. Further,no sign of the packing dish or plastic cover was ever found. Outside of the fact that the dish was a Ramsey dish with a fingerprint from Patsy on it[ She would be expected to leave prints, since she washed and dried the dish and put it away. The Ramseys didn't have to be lying; if they were telling the truth, of course they would be stubborn and stick to their [truthful] story. Tober uses innuendo quite well but doesn't have any concrete basis to any of his theories. JMHO

[bullmoose]

Yes, an approximate time of death can be inferred based on the positions of both items of food material found in JonBenet's digestive tract (their positions individually and in relation to each other), those being the pineapple found in the proximal portion of her small intestine and the green fecal material found in her large intestine, which by inference was the crab she ate at the White's. The Ramseys "distance" themselves from certain items which were involved or may have been involved with the crime or relate to it in some way, items which they have an obvious connection to. That's one of the giveaways to their involvement. For example, they distance themselves from the pineapple and the flashlight, and Patsy distances herself from the basement and paint tote while wearing the sweater-jacket that she wore the night JonBenet was killed. Take the flashlight for instance: It's the exact model that the Ramseys owned, no other flashlight was found in the home, and yet they don't know if it's theirs or not. This post is my opinion.Tober, if you can, will you tell me the model of the flashlight that you are talking about. I read that they had a maglite, so what size and model is it? Since it's the exact model, as you say , of the one the Ramseys owned, you must know.After all, how else could you make the claim? JMHO:biggrin:

[Sharon]

Sharon, consider this possibility: the Ramseys were telling the truth. Despite a rather big effort by the BPD to tie that pineapple to the Ramseys by checking purchase receipts and charge slips from the Safeway store it came from, no ties were found. Further,no sign of the packing dish or plastic cover was ever found. Outside of the fact that the dish was a Ramsey dish with a fingerprint from Patsy on it[ She would be expected to leave prints, since she washed and dried the dish and put it away. The Ramseys didn't have to be lying; if they were telling the truth, of course they would be stubborn and stick to their [truthful] story. Tober uses innuendo quite well but doesn't have any concrete basis to any of his theories. JMHO

I actually agree with your explaination. But I am curiouis about why Tober feels that the R. deliberately insisted that JBR could not have gotten the pineapple for herself. Im sure this is correct, but they could have lied and avoided much controversy, especially since he believed they were lying anyway. ie why did they not spin the story to suit their defence, it would have been very easy.

[Tober]

But I am curiouis about why Tober feels that the R. deliberately insisted that JBR could not have gotten the pineapple for herself.

Most likely because she really didn't get it for herself. The fingerprint evidence indicates that Burke or Patsy got it for her. The incident resulting in JonBenet's head injury took place relatively shortly after she consumed the pineapple. She had to be awake and out of bed to consume the pineapple and to have Burke or Patsy get it for her. That means she was awake and interacting with one or more of the Ramseys after their arrival home. That's what they are trying to avoid. By lying, they avoid any opportunity at all for an incident to have occurred, involving one of them, in which JonBenet was bludgeoned in the head. This post is my opinion.

[shill]

Tober you've had your head stuck in the tabloid pages to long and your mind has turned into a gossip machine.
Calling them liars is easy, proving they're liars you haven't done.

[Sharon]

Most likely because she really didn't get it for herself. The fingerprint evidence indicates that Burke or Patsy got it for her. The incident resulting in JonBenet's head injury took place relatively shortly after she consumed the pineapple. She had to be awake and out of bed to consume the pineapple and to have Burke or Patsy get it for her. That means she was awake and interacting with one or more of the Ramseys after their arrival home. That's what they are trying to avoid. By lying, they avoid any opportunity at all for an incident to have occurred, involving one of them, in which JonBenet was bludgeoned in the head. This post is my opinion.

Tober, Im following your argument. You`re saying they were all awake when they arrived home & B. or P. served JBR some pineapple...thus giving an earlier time of her death. One of the R. decided to purposely bludgeon her head or by accidentl split her skull open.

My question is....why did they deny that JBR could have got up & eatten some pineapple during the night? Thats what I would have said if I wanted to continue my coverup of a murder that I did. It would have served them well to lie at this point. Instead they kept saying that she couldnt have gotten up & eatten it by herself or with Burke. Why not continue lying since everything else they said was a lie??

[nuisanceposter]

Tober you've had your head stuck in the tabloid pages to long and your mind has turned into a gossip machine.
Calling them liars is easy, proving they're liars you haven't done.

The Ramseys have proven themselves to be liars better than anyone else could. First JonBenet was awake and JR read the kids a book, then he changed that story. First Patsy said she checked JB's room and then went downstairs, and then she changed that story. Both J&P told police and friends the doors were locked, then they changed that story. Patsy saw the heart on JB's hand on the morning of the 26th, then she changed that story. It goes on and on, until it's impossible to ignore that both John and Patsy Ramsey suffer from selective memory loss and contradict their own statements, and yes, have been caught telling lies. Then there's their odd behavior to consider. Why would they lie at all and try to distance themselves repeatedly if they don't know what happened to JonBenet and who did it to her?

[nuisanceposter]

My question is....why did they deny that JBR could have got up & eatten some pineapple during the night? Thats what I would have said if I wanted to continue my coverup of a murder that I did. It would have served them well to lie at this point. Instead they kept saying that she couldnt have gotten up & eatten it by herself or with Burke. Why not continue lying since everything else they said was a lie??


Probably because she wouldn't have gotten up to get herself something to eat. She was six years old - she was afraid of the dark, needing a flashlight beside her bed, and according to the Rs, she was unable to open the double doors on the fridge and too small to get the dishes. She also had an issue of bed-wetting, which indicates that she slept very deeply and did not awaken easily during the night, even when her bladder was full enough to need to release.

Why would she wake up to eat when her brain doesn't even wake her up to pee?

And if she woke up and was hungry, why would she go downstairs when she's scared of the dark and can't even open the fridge to get the fruit or the dish to put it in? And we know she didn't, since her prints aren't on the bowl.

She'd go and get someone to help her, such as...her mother or her brother - ironically the two people whose fingerprints were found on the bowl.

Once the Rs decided to say JonBenet was asleep when they got home and didn't wake up, they locked into that story as a way to avoid having to answer any number of other questions. But - JR told police on 12/26 that he read the kids a book and went to bed. He changed that story later on, claiming he'd been misunderstood, but in order to have been misunderstood, three different officers would have had to have misunderstood him three different times.

I think they completely forgot that JonBenet had eaten pineapple and it would be present in the autopsy, and had already decided to stick to the sleeping JB story...until they were told about the pineapple. Then they just stuck with the "she was zonked" and admitted she couldn't have fgotten the fruit herself because she couldn't have.

[Louisadelmar]

TT: Patsy, we’re going to try to go through, try to get through some of these questions the best we can (inaudible). Is JonBenet afraid of the dark, at all?
PR: Uh, not, I don’t I, think so, not that I know.

[nuisanceposter]

Patsy's infamous selective memory loss at work, or the truth? We'll never know. They said she couldn't get the fridge doors open, and her prints are nowhere to be found on the bowl. She didn't get that pineapple out for herself.

[Sprocket]

It just says it was fruit of vegetable matter. It could of been celery or something that she ate BEFORE or at the party.


This is not fact. It's opinion.

It would help if you were up to date on your case facts. Further testing requested by BPD identified it as the same fresh pineapple found in the bowl on the counter, down to the rind. Steve Thomas reported that. This has been hash out already on this thread, a gazillion post ago.

It's just your opinion that this pineapple should be still in her stomach. You haven't proveded one single forensic expert analysis on the digestion timeline to support your opinion.

Like I said, it would help if you actually knew the case facts.

[LindaA]

Actually, the autopsy report doesn't state for a fact that it was pineapple.

[thewhitewitch1]

Actually, the autopsy report doesn't state for a fact that it was pineapple.


I believe that was determined later after further testing.

[nuisanceposter]

I believe that was determined later after further testing.


Yes, the pineapple in JonBenet's intestine was in good condition with sharp edges, looking like it had been poorly chewed. The intestine pineapple was consistent down to the rind with the pineapple in the bowl. This info can be found in PMPT and ST's book. I've already posted the pages numbers for both books.

[Tober]

Tober you've had your head stuck in the tabloid pages to long and your mind has turned into a gossip machine.
Calling them liars is easy, proving they're liars you haven't done.

Can you please explain how it can be inferred that the Ramseys are being truthful when they claim: 1) They don't know where the pineapple came from; 2) They didn't get the pineapple for JonBenet; 3) They didn't place the bowl of pineapple on the table; 4) JonBenet was asleep when they arrived home and didn't awake? This post is my opinion.

[Tober]

I dont see why the pineapple is such a big deal.

The big deal is that it proves JonBenet was awake after their arrival home, which contradicts the Ramsey's claims that she was asleep. It proves she was out of bed and interacting with one or more of the Ramseys after their arrival home (Burke or Patsy got the pineapple for her), contradicting the Ramsey's claims that she was in bed and not interacting with them. This post is my opinion.

[shill]

Can you please explain how it can be inferred that the Ramseys are being truthful when they claim: 1) They don't know where the pineapple came from; 2) They didn't get the pineapple for JonBenet; 3) They didn't place the bowl of pineapple on the table; 4) JonBenet was asleep when they arrived home and didn't awake? This post is my opinion.

Burke got up to play with his newly assembled toy after J&P went to bed. He was hungry and thirsty so he got the bowl out of left over pineapple from the 23rd catered party and made his tea. He left it out and around midnight when JB has to pee, she woke up and peed (toilet bowl was full of pee). Having eaten hardly nothing all day(crab cakes only) she was hungry and went to the kitchen for a snack. There she found the bowl of pineapple out and reached in for a snack.

Your scenario Tober has Burke as an eyewitness to all these alleged lies J&P made.
Burke would have exposed J&P's lies through cross examination with the LE, it didn't happen, so J&P are proven to be telling the truth because of this.

[thewhitewitch1]

Burke got up to play with his newly assembled toy after J&P went to bed. He was hungry and thirsty so he got the bowl out of left over pineapple from the 23rd catered party and made his tea. He left it out and around midnight when JB has to pee, she woke up and peed (toilet bowl was full of pee). Having eaten hardly nothing all day(crab cakes only) she was hungry and went to the kitchen for a snack. There she found the bowl of pineapple out and reached in for a snack.

Your scenario Tober has Burke as an eyewitness to all these alleged lies J&P made.
Burke would have exposed J&P's lies through cross examination with the LE, it didn't happen, so J&P are proven to be telling the truth because of this.

The toilet full of "pee" could have been "peed" in at any point during that day and not flushed. It does not prove JB got up and peed.
If Burke got up to eat his pineapple and drink his tea, why has he not admitted it? If he can "forget" that part of the night or deny it consistantly when cross-examined, why couldn't he "forget" or deny anything else that happened that night? You have not proven anything. IMO

[SnarkyCow]

Burke got up to play with his newly assembled toy after J&P went to bed. He was hungry and thirsty so he got the bowl out of left over pineapple from the 23rd catered party and made his tea. He left it out and around midnight when JB has to pee, she woke up and peed (toilet bowl was full of pee). Having eaten hardly nothing all day(crab cakes only) she was hungry and went to the kitchen for a snack. There she found the bowl of pineapple out and reached in for a snack.

I'm curious.... If this is true, and you (universal "you") believe there was an intruder, do you believe he just sat, watched & waited for Burke & JonBenet to finish their snack, go to bed & have enough confidence in the situation to instinctively know when JB fell back asleep? Would an intruder be so sure, so confident, that JonBenet was asleep deeply enough to take her from her room without her making a fuss? And how would an intruder be sure that Burke was fast asleep as well so as not to hear anything?

[shill]

The toilet full of "pee" could have been "peed" in at any point during that day and not flushed. It does not prove JB got up and peed.Maybe, but most likely Patsy would have noticed (seen or smelled)at some point and flushed it. But there is pee in the bowl, which is consistant with JB getting up to pee in the middle of that night.

If Burke got up to eat his pineapple and drink his tea, why has he not admitted it? If he can "forget" that part of the night or deny it consistantly when cross-examined, why couldn't he "forget" or deny anything else that happened that night? You have not proven anything. IMO
Do you have anything that states Burke didn't admit to getting the bowl of pineapple and glass of tea? If you do, you will prove me wrong with that info, so put your money where your mouth is and post it!

He's going to remember being up with his parents and JB having tee and eating pineapple if it happened that way.

J&P testimony has not been challenged by the only other eyewitness testimony, Burke, who in most RDI theories is present and witness to all these alleged lies by his parents.
If you want to continue to believe all three are conspiring to lie about everything that happened that night, it's obvious why you don't have enough sense to see how foolish that is.

[shill]

I'm curious.... If this is true, and you (universal "you") believe there was an intruder, do you believe he just sat, watched & waited for Burke & JonBenet to finish their snack, go to bed & have enough confidence in the situation to instinctively know when JB fell back asleep? Would an intruder be so sure, so confident, that JonBenet was asleep deeply enough to take her from her room without her making a fuss? And how would an intruder be sure that Burke was fast asleep as well so as not to hear anything?
I think JB was killed between 2-3am. The killer probably didn't enter the house before 1am and would know nothing about Burke and JB getting up, snacking, and going to bed.

[Tober]

He was hungry and thirsty so he got the bowl out of left over pineapple from the 23rd catered party and made his tea.

I think it can be inferred that the pineapple had nothing to do with the Dec. 23 party: 1) John and Patsy don't offer the possibility that it was leftover from Dec. 23; 2) No caterers have come forward saying they brought in the pineapple or served it; 3) No Dec. 23 guests have come forward saying they brought in the pineapple or served it; 4) No Dec. 23 guests have come forward saying pineapple was served at that gathering; 5) No Dec. 23 guests have come forward saying they witnessed caterers bring in the pineapple; 6) No fingerprints were on the bowl except for Burke's and Patsy's; 7) Surely, had pineapple been served or brought in on Dec. 23, by a guest or caterers, the guest or the caterers would have said so; 8) The pineapple was the Ramsey's, that's why it was in their bowl, etc. This post is my opinion.

[shill]

I think it can be inferred that the pineapple had nothing to do with the Dec. 23 party: 1) John and Patsy don't offer the possibility that it was leftover from Dec. 23; 2) No caterers have come forward saying they brought in the pineapple or served it; 3) No Dec. 23 guests have come forward saying they brought in the pineapple or served it; 4) No Dec. 23 guests have come forward saying pineapple was served at that gathering; 5) No Dec. 23 guests have come forward saying they witnessed caterers bring in the pineapple; 6) No fingerprints were on the bowl except for Burke's and Patsy's; 7) Surely, had pineapple been served or brought in on Dec. 23, by a guest or caterers, the guest or the caterers would have said so; 8) The pineapple was the Ramsey's, that's why it was in their bowl, etc. This post is my opinion.

I know you don't have a single source showing that LE questioned others about the source of the pineapple or a statement from LE saying they have not been shown the pineapple came from the 23rd party.
Prove me wrong with a statement from LE saying the pineapple wasn't from the 23rd party.

[bullmoose]

I think it can be inferred that the pineapple had nothing to do with the Dec. 23 party: 1) John and Patsy don't offer the possibility that it was leftover from Dec. 23; 2) No caterers have come forward saying they brought in the pineapple or served it; 3) No Dec. 23 guests have come forward saying they brought in the pineapple or served it; 4) No Dec. 23 guests have come forward saying pineapple was served at that gathering; 5) No Dec. 23 guests have come forward saying they witnessed caterers bring in the pineapple; 6) No fingerprints were on the bowl except for Burke's and Patsy's; 7) Surely, had pineapple been served or brought in on Dec. 23, by a guest or caterers, the guest or the caterers would have said so; 8) The pineapple was the Ramsey's, that's why it was in their bowl, etc. This post is my opinion.6]Redux:The pineapple was not in the container it came, but was in the Ramseys bowl, where naturally their fingerprints might be expected; 7]Redux: nobody else that was there at the house saw or mentioned pineapple on or after Dec.23, surely they would have said so; raising the question of what became of its platter and cover it came with, that also surely would have prints, but which was never found.8] Redux: The Ramseys claim no knowledge of the pineapple or how it got into one of their bowls. The BPD was never able to connect the pineapple to the Ramseys by sales slips, grocery receipts, charge slips despite much cost and effort. In reality, the only thing for sure about the pineapple is that it was found in a bowl owned by the Ramseys. Whose pineapple it was has never been established. JMHO

[Tober]

In reality, the only thing for sure about the pineapple is that it was found in a bowl owned by the Ramseys. Whose pineapple it was has never been established.

JonBenet consumed the pineapple because it was theirs (the Ramseys). John himself said JonBenet would have screamed bloody murder if a stranger awoke her to feed her pineapple. She wasn't "awoken" to eat the pineapple, she was awake when she got home (based on the digestive tract evidence). Burke or Patsy (probably Patsy) got it for her, that's why their fingerprints were on the bowl. The reason the pineapple was in the Ramsey's bowl is because a Ramsey (Burke or Patsy, probably Patsy) put it there. The reason JonBenet's fingerprints weren't on the bowl is because, like John and Patsy said, she would have needed someone to get it for her. Burke or Patsy did (probably Patsy), that's why their fingerprints were on the bowl. Whichever one got it for her did so shortly after their arrival home (based on the physical, circumstantial, and digestive tract evidence). Burke or Patsy placed the bowl on the table, that's why their fingerprints were on it. One can make all the excuses they want about the pineapple (caterers, intruders, Santas, elves, housekeepers, etc.), but the reality is: 1) It was the Ramsey's pineapple; 2) A Ramsey (Burke or Patsy, probably Patsy) got it for JonBenet; 3) A Ramsey (Burke or Patsy) placed the bowl on the table; 4) JonBenet consumed the pineapple shortly after their arrival home, which means whoever got it for her (Burke or Patsy, probably Patsy) did so shortly after their arrival home; 5) JonBenet was awake when they got home, that's how she was able to consume the pineapple which she needed someone (most likely Patsy) to get for her; 6) The Ramseys are not being truthful when they claim a sleeping JonBenet was put to bed. This post is my opinion.

[LindaA]

I find the timeline a little hard to reconcile with the facts. If JBR ate the pineapple shortly after coming home, what was going on that kept her awake for the time it took for the pineapple to leave her stomach and travel to her small intestine? I'm surprised she could stay awake that long. Or do you believe her parents and/or brother were torturing her all that time? That makes no more sense then the theory that an intruder gave her a piece of it.

[rashomon]

I find the timeline a little hard to reconcile with the facts. If JBR ate the pineapple shortly after coming home, what was going on that kept her awake for the time it took for the pineapple to leave her stomach and travel to her small intestine? I'm surprised she could stay awake that long. Or do you believe her parents and/or brother were torturing her all that time? That makes no more sense then the theory that an intruder gave her a piece of it.
Christmas is a time where parents can hardly get their kids into bed. They are excited from the whole day, want to play with their presents, etc.
And who knows if that didn't trigger Patsy's rage: JBs refusal to go to bed when the family had to get up so early the next day ...

[nuisanceposter]

I find the timeline a little hard to reconcile with the facts. If JBR ate the pineapple shortly after coming home, what was going on that kept her awake for the time it took for the pineapple to leave her stomach and travel to her small intestine? I'm surprised she could stay awake that long. Or do you believe her parents and/or brother were torturing her all that time? That makes no more sense then the theory that an intruder gave her a piece of it.

She doesn't have to be awake for food to digest. She was clearly awake when she ate the pineapple, but she may have fallen asleep between when she ate it and when she attacked and killed.

[cami]

Well, I guess I will start sounding like a broken record but for the nth time. I will advance my theory about the pineapple again since we now have a thread specifically for it.

IMO...the pineapple was brought by a guest at the 12/23 party in the guest's container. At the end of the party, the guest transferred the pineapple to one of the Ramsey's bowls without touching the bowl, put plastic wrap on the bowl, put the bowl in the Ramsey's big refrigerator without touching the porcelain bowl itself thereby leaving no prints of the guest. On Christmas morning PR touches the sides of the porcelain when moving the bowl in the refrigerator to get the ingredients to make their usual Christmas breakfast which leaves her prints on it.

On Christmas afternoon Burke comes along looking for a snack because its a long time between Christmas breakfast and the Whites party, sees the bowl in the refrigerator, likes what he sees in it, takes it out, removes the plastic wrap and discards it because that darn plastic wrap clings to itself, pulls out a glass, makes him some makeshift iced tea, which PR has said he likes, leaves the bowl and the glass on the table and goes on to the FW party while nobody notices the bowl and glass since they aren't having meals in the breakfast room that evening or the next morning. This puts both PR and BR's prints on the items, accounts for the strange glass of tea and could account for the white stuff appearing in the bowl of fruit: it's mold that is forming after fruit sitting out in a warm house since Christmas afternoon until whenever the Crime Scene Photos are taken. (Or it could be just a funny reflection of the flash from the camera.)

Both Burke and the guest who brought the pineapple to the party simply remain quiet as they want to sit this one out and not get any more involved than they already are by being in the house on or close to those fateful days.

I am turning off the record player. :seeya: (at least for a while)

KingCoyote

But this scenario doesn't answer when JB ate the pineapple. Also, unless that entire bowl was covered in saran wrap, I find it highly unlikely a guest could keep his/her fingerprints off it. Was the bowl sitting out for the guest to use? Who got the bowl to give to the guest? Someone had to touch it to get it from dishwasher/sink to cupboard/counter.

[Sharon]

But this scenario doesn't answer when JB ate the pineapple. Also, unless that entire bowl was covered in saran wrap, I find it highly unlikely a guest could keep his/her fingerprints off it. Was the bowl sitting out for the guest to use? Who got the bowl to give to the guest? Someone had to touch it to get it from dishwasher/sink to cupboard/counter.

Someone correct me if I am mistaken here, but I remember reading that with fingerprints, they are refering to fingerprints that can be identified. So, there may well have been evidence of other finger prints but they were not of a quality to be able to be picked up or identified. Another thought is that the bowl was handled by someone else wearing gloves (purposely) or even washing up gloves.

[rashomon]

But this scenario doesn't answer when JB ate the pineapple. Also, unless that entire bowl was covered in saran wrap, I find it highly unlikely a guest could keep his/her fingerprints off it. Was the bowl sitting out for the guest to use? Who got the bowl to give to the guest? Someone had to touch it to get it from dishwasher/sink to cupboard/counter.
So true Cami: It doesn't answer when JB ate the pineapple. But that's the point in the discussion: one to two hours before her death JB ate some pineapple, and in view of the fact that there was a bowl of pineapple sitting out on the Ramsey kitchen table there is no question imo as to the origin of the pineapple.

KingCoyote: would a guest really do that? Put leftover pineapple which he had brought to the party in a bowl from the hosts' household and put it in their fridge without even asking their permission? I would never do that. Would anyone of you guys do this? Just curious.

[thewhitewitch1]

Jonbenet was in full rigor mortis when she was found at 1:00 p.m. Dec. 26th. Full rigor mortis takes 12 hours to set in and lasts for 24 hours before the muscles start to relax again. This places her death between 10:00 p.m. Dec. 25th to 1:00 a.m. Dec. 26th. Add in the pineapple and digestive process and you can approximate her death happening between midnight and 1:00 a.m.
This is assuming that she ate the pineapple from the bowl at home, which is a pretty safe assumption, unless you are in total denial. This means that she could not have been asleep, as the Ramseys claim...or that she woke up very shortly after being put to bed. The fingerprints tell us that someone got the bowl for her so she was up in the company of either Patsy, Burke, or both.
Yes, their fingerprints could have been on it from another time, but how unlikely is that considering the Ramseys claim to have no knowledge of the pineapple or how it got in that bowl and on the counter/table (forget which).
We have an approximate time of death and an approximate time in which JB ate the pineapple. If an intruder fed her pineapple, it would have had to have been very shortly after the R's returned home in order for this to fit with the digestion of the pineapple and the approx. time of death (as evidenced by the rigor mortis). I do not see how this short time span allows for an intruder to be so confident that everyone in the house is asleep so that he can safely carry out his dirty deeds. It is beyond my comprehension that he could or would suceed at doing this without someone hearing him. IMO

[Louisadelmar]

Jonbenet was in full rigor mortis when she was found at 1:00 p.m. Dec. 26th. Full rigor mortis takes 12 hours to set in and lasts for 24 hours before the muscles start to relax again. This places her death between 10:00 p.m. Dec. 25th to 1:00 a.m. Dec. 26th. Add in the pineapple and digestive process and you can approximate her death happening between midnight and 1:00 a.m.
[...]. IMO

I'd be curious to hear what Elvislives says about the 12 hour timetable. JonBenet only weighed 45 lbs and the room was warm. In addition she may have been physically exerting herself just prior to her death. If I have read various articles correctly, all those factors may have an effect on how quickly rigor sets in.

[rashomon]

Jonbenet was in full rigor mortis when she was found at 1:00 p.m. Dec. 26th. Full rigor mortis takes 12 hours to set in and lasts for 24 hours before the muscles start to relax again. This places her death between 10:00 p.m. Dec. 25th to 1:00 a.m. Dec. 26th. Add in the pineapple and digestive process and you can approximate her death happening between midnight and 1:00 a.m.
This is assuming that she ate the pineapple from the bowl at home, which is a pretty safe assumption, unless you are in total denial. This means that she could not have been asleep, as the Ramseys claim...or that she woke up very shortly after being put to bed. The fingerprints tell us that someone got the bowl for her so she was up in the company of either Patsy, Burke, or both.
Yes, their fingerprints could have been on it from another time, but how unlikely is that considering the Ramseys claim to have no knowledge of the pineapple or how it got in that bowl and on the counter/table (forget which).
We have an approximate time of death and an approximate time in which JB ate the pineapple. If an intruder fed her pineapple, it would have had to have been very shortly after the R's returned home in order for this to fit with the digestion of the pineapple and the approx. time of death (as evidenced by the rigor mortis). I do not see how this short time span allows for an intruder to be so confident that everyone in the house is asleep so that he can safely carry out his dirty deeds. It is beyond my comprehension that he could or would suceed at doing this without someone hearing him. IMO
That is exactly the issue, TWW: the pineapple evidence narrowed down the time line so much that it blew the Ramseys' story apart. That is why even Ramsey advocate Lou Smit called the pineapple evidence 'the big bugaboo' in this case.
[Whiskey]I dont see why the pineapple is such a big deal.
I hope you can see it now, Whiskey.

[LindaA]

I've always thought the pineapple was the big bugaboo in this case. Obviously some time had to have passed between her eating it and her death. But if, as most RDs assert, Patsy became enraged it must have followed shortly after the pineapple snack, otherwise why lie about it? Do we think JBR ate the pineapple, went to bed and slept for two hours, wet the bed, got her mother up, PR then became enraged and hit her and was immediately able to construct the garotte, carry JBR into the basement and carry out the rest of the crime? That makes just about as much sense as an intruder feeding it to her. I think the most likely thing is that Burke left the bowl out earlier in the day and JBR got up and helped herself just before encountering the murderer.
Ii think it is fairly likely that the pineapple was left behind by a caterer on the 23rd and PR didn't even realize it was there. I don't see anything strange about that. JMHO.

[aussiesheila]

They should also have saliva on the glass, which should be Burkes.
It would have been a huge mistake for an intruder to have drunk from that glass, even if he was wearing gloves to prevent fingerprints, because LE would obviously have a great DNA sample from him.

But what parent would knowingly allow their child to drink a caffeine beverage before bedtime?
I argue that Burke did this with out P or J knowing, so most likely after P and J were in bed. And Burke was most likely the one to get the bowl of pineapple
out after they went to bed, and that is why P and J never saw it.Interesting you should post this shill. I agree with you that whoever drank from that glass would have left saliva on the glass from which LE could have extracted DNA, at least as far as I know.

I don't think BPD ever did try to extract DNA from the edge of the glass. Or if they eventually did get around to trying, it was too degraded after the treatment the glass had been through to get fingerprints lifted from it, to be of any use.

I think this was just one of the many opportunities of finding intruder evidence that was lost because of the inept investigation by BPD, since I believe it was Santa who made that tea and drank it from that glass the night before he took JonBenet down to the cellar.

[aussiesheila]

My kids are grown now and they tell me I didn't have a clue about what they did in the night. Egg on my face!!!!!!!

We laught about it now!

packerYeah, the little *******s, mine have done that to me too.

Hey, I see from the preview you yanks edit out a term of endearment used in everyday speech here. What is the world coming to?

[Zoey]

So true Cami: It doesn't answer when JB ate the pineapple. But that's the point in the discussion: one to two hours before her death JB ate some pineapple, and in view of the fact that there was a bowl of pineapple sitting out on the Ramsey kitchen table there is no question imo as to the origin of the pineapple.

KingCoyote: would a guest really do that? Put leftover pineapple which he had brought to the party in a bowl from the hosts' household and put it in their fridge without even asking their permission? I would never do that. Would anyone of you guys do this? Just curious.


Yes, I would indeed do that and have done that many times, especially if I am helping clean up. I take food to family members for BBQ's, etc. I want to take my bowl home and feel since my family member was kind enough to invite me over, and I know they like what I brought, I take one of their bowls, empty mine out into theirs, and put it in their fridge, and I get to take my own bowl home.

[aussiesheila]

Actually there was a similar crime in the area. I can't remember all the details but I think it was about 6 months after the JBR murder, or maybe it was 6 months before. A woman was home with her young daughter...her husband was out of town and she neglected to turn on the alarm. Apparently she was a very light sleeper and heard "whispering" in her daughter's room. Turns out a man dressed in all black and a ski mask had broken into the home and was molesting her daughter in her bed with the mother in the next room. The mother interrupted the crime and the guy ran out and was never caught. The father of this girl has complained publicly that there was never any attempt by the BPD (in his opinion) to link the crimes.I think the reason for this elvis, is because the head of the investigation at BPD was under 'instructions' to steer well away from investigating any pedophile (or at least live ones) who might, under heavy questioning, give away information about other pedophiles in the Boulder area, some of whom DID do the Ramsey crime, IMO.

[aussiesheila]

Thank goodness Fleet White was there to help them.Watch your tongue shill.

[rashomon]

Yes, I would indeed do that and have done that many times, especially if I am helping clean up. I take food to family members for BBQ's, etc. I want to take my bowl home and feel since my family member was kind enough to invite me over, and I know they like what I brought, I take one of their bowls, empty mine out into theirs, and put it in their fridge, and I get to take my own bowl home.
I can understand the part about wanting to take one's tupperware container home, but still wouldn't you at least tell your hosts that you were going to put your leftover food in their fridge?
And let us not forget that this was a multimillionaire's party. Would any of these people even bother to keep leftover food? I doubt it.

[LindaA]

I think it would most likely have been a caterer and they commonly do this when cleaning up. I don't think this was a pot luck kind of affair.

[Tober]

There are essentially four options for the pineapple, two of them are offered by Patsy and John: 1) JonBenet consumed it at the White's; 2) An intruder gave it to her; 3) JonBenet got it for herself; 4) Burke or Patsy got it for her. Option #1 can be eliminated, she didn't eat it at the White's. Option #2 can be eliminated based on the circumstantial and fingerprint evidence. The digestive tract evidence also lends to eliminating option #2. In addition, it's logic-defying to think an intruder gave her the pineapple, there is nothing at all to support that. Option #3 can be eliminated. JonBenet ate the pineapple, but she didn't get it for herself, based on the fingerprint evidence. Like Patsy and John said, she would have needed someone to get it for her. JonBenet's fingerprints weren't on the bowl because she didn't get the pineapple for herself. There is nothing to support the idea that she got the pineapple for herself. The first three options being eliminated, that leaves us with option #4, which fits perfectly with the fingerprint and circumstantial evidence. The digestive tract evidence lends to support this also based on approximate timings. Bottom line: Burke or Patsy (probably Patsy) got the pineapple for JonBenet. The Ramseys are not being truthful when they claim a sleeping JonBenet was put to bed when they got home. She was awake when she got home, which is how she was able to consume the pineapple that Burke or Patsy (probably Patsy) got for her. This post is my opinion.

[thewhitewitch1]

I'd be curious to hear what Elvislives says about the 12 hour timetable. JonBenet only weighed 45 lbs and the room was warm. In addition she may have been physically exerting herself just prior to her death. If I have read various articles correctly, all those factors may have an effect on how quickly rigor sets in.


I would be interested in hearing what she has to say too. I don't know why it would make a difference because of what she weighed or how much she was exerting herself before she died, but maybe it does.
The room being warm (we are assuming here) may have sped up the process but I would think that it would have had to have been excessively warm. I know that outside elements can speed up or slow down the rigor process.
Elvis...? Are you in the building?

[shill]

Bottom line: Burke or Patsy (probably Patsy) got the pineapple for JonBenet. The Ramseys are not being truthful when they claim a sleeping JonBenet was put to bed when they got home. She was awake when she got home, which is how she was able to consume the pineapple that Burke or Patsy (probably Patsy) got for her. This post is my opinion.

You keep repeating it doesn't make it any more credible. You have shown nothing that shows Patsy, and not Burke, got the pineapple out or that Patsy knows about or fed JB pineapple.
So the Ramseys are telling the truth.

Why don't you save your breath until you find an official statement saying Burke didn't get up after his parents went to bed and get the pineapple out.

[Louisadelmar]

I would be interested in hearing what she has to say too. I don't know why it would make a difference because of what she weighed or how much she was exerting herself before she died, but maybe it does.
The room being warm (we are assuming here) may have sped up the process but I would think that it would have had to have been excessively warm. I know that outside elements can speed up or slow down the rigor process.
Elvis...? Are you in the building?

Somewhere a year or two ago I found and posted an article on the various factors in rigor mortis. I'll see if I can find it.

ADDED: Easier to find than I'd have thought.

http://www.dundee.ac.uk/forensicmedicine/notes/timedeath.pdf

POSTMORTEM CHANGES AND TIME OF DEATH
[…]
There is great variation in the rate of onset and the duration of rigor mortis.

Niderkorn's (1872) observations on 113 bodies provides the main reference database for the development of rigor mortis and is commonly cited in textbooks. His data was as follows (Ref. 19 at p. 31):

Number of Cases


Hours Post Mortem at which Rigor was Complete
[…] {Couldn't get the table to copy}

In this series, rigor was complete in 14% of cases at 3 hours post mortem and this percentage had risen to 72% at 6 hours and to 90% at 9 hours. By 12 hours post mortem rigor was complete in 98% of cases. (Note that this data is presented in a somewhat confusing way in Ref. 10 at p. 15). Against the background of this data it can be readily appreciated that the generally quoted rule of thumb that rigor commences in 6 hours, takes another 6 to become fully established, remains for 12 hours and passes off during the succeeding 12 hours, is quite misleading.

The intensity of rigor mortis depends upon the decedent's muscular development; consequently, the intensity of rigor should not be confused with its degree of development. In examining a body both the degree (complete, partial, or absent) and distribution of rigor should be assessed after establishing that no artefact has been introduced by previous manipulation of the body by other observers. Attempted flexion of the different joints will indicate the amount and location of rigor.

As a general rule when the onset of rigor is rapid, then its duration is relatively short. The two main factors which influence the onset and duration of rigor are (a) the environmental temperature, and (b) the degree of muscular activity before death. Onset of rigor is accelerated and its duration shortened when the environmental temperature is high. If the temperature is below 10oC it is said to be exceptional for rigor mortis to develop, but if the environmental temperature is then raised, rigor mortis is said to develop in a normal manner. (Ref. 19 at p. 31). Rigor mortis is rapid in onset and of short duration after prolonged muscular activity, e.g. after exhaustion in battle, and following convulsions. Conversely, a late onset of rigor in many sudden deaths might be explained by the lack of muscular activity immediately prior to death.

In addition to these two principal factors, other endogenous and environmental factors are claimed to influence the onset of rigor. Onset is relatively more rapid in children and the aged than in muscular young adults. It develops early and passes quickly in deaths from septicaemia or from wasting diseases. It is delayed in asphyxial deaths, notably by hanging or carbon monoxide poisoning, and also when death has been immediately preceded by severe haemorrhage. (Ref. 10 at p. 15).
[…]

[elvislives]

Can you please explain how it can be inferred that the Ramseys are being truthful when they claim: 1) They don't know where the pineapple came from; 2) They didn't get the pineapple for JonBenet; 3) They didn't place the bowl of pineapple on the table; 4) JonBenet was asleep when they arrived home and didn't awake? This post is my opinion.

Okay Tober, let me take a crack at this:

On the party on the 23rd the caterers bring food. (Btw, I don't cook so I use caterers for all home parties. Most people are probably familiar with 'professional' caterers..the ones who cater weddings and corporate events--everything is planned and organized, all employees are legit. Mom & Pop caterers are another story. You order some basic stuff, they bring that plus all sorts of other surprises to your house. Their 'staff' consists of a number of illegal immigrants who don't speak English (at least in my area) plus some relatives, neighbors, friends etc). The only thing professional about these people is that they wear gloves and clean up...plus they provide a great meal. So after the party, any leftovers or any ingredients used are put in my containers in my frig. Then they leave. I find all sorts of mystery foods in the frig in the days and weeks that follow.

Okay sorry for that diversion, just had to give some background on home caterers, in my experience. So anyway the caterers cater the party on the 23rd. Pineapple is either put out as a dish or used as a garnish or ingredient. The leftovers are dumped into the Ramsey bowl and put in the frig, unbeknownst to P or J. The caterers wear gloves (a dept of health statute in my city) which is why their fingerprints are not left. Patsy had either taken the bowl out of the dishwasher, or moved the pineapple bowl in the frig to get to the mustard (or whatever....in her case probably Grey Poupon) which is why her prints are on the bowl.

The eve of the 25th, Burke wants a snack so gets the pineapple out of the frig. In typical 9 year old boy fashion, he leaves it out on the kitchen table.

Around midnight, 1, or 2 JB gets up to pee, then goes downstairs to look at her new bike (or the Christmas tree, or some other gift). She walks past the table and grabs a piece out of the bowl, then goes on her way.

After playing with a toy, or looking in her stocking or whatever, she runs into the killer....


Okay, how'd I do??

[Zoey]

Okay Tober, let me take a crack at this:

On the party on the 23rd the caterers bring food. (Btw, I don't cook so I use caterers for all home parties. Most people are probably familiar with 'professional' caterers..the ones who cater weddings and corporate events--everything is planned and organized, all employees are legit. Mom & Pop caterers are another story. You order some basic stuff, they bring that plus all sorts of other surprises to your house. Their 'staff' consists of a number of illegal immigrants who don't speak English (at least in my area) plus some relatives, neighbors, friends etc). The only thing professional about these people is that they wear gloves and clean up...plus they provide a great meal. So after the party, any leftovers or any ingredients used are put in my containers in my frig. Then they leave. I find all sorts of mystery foods in the frig in the days and weeks that follow.

Okay sorry for that diversion, just had to give some background on home caterers, in my experience. So anyway the caterers cater the party on the 23rd. Pineapple is either put out as a dish or used as a garnish or ingredient. The leftovers are dumped into the Ramsey bowl and put in the frig, unbeknownst to P or J. The caterers wear gloves (a dept of health statute in my city) which is why their fingerprints are not left. Patsy had either taken the bowl out of the dishwasher, or moved the pineapple bowl in the frig to get to the mustard (or whatever....in her case probably Grey Poupon) which is why her prints are on the bowl.

The eve of the 25th, Burke wants a snack so gets the pineapple out of the frig. In typical 9 year old boy fashion, he leaves it out on the kitchen table.

Around midnight, 1, or 2 JB gets up to pee, then goes downstairs to look at her new bike (or the Christmas tree, or some other gift). She walks past the table and grabs a piece out of the bowl, then goes on her way.

After playing with a toy, or looking in her stocking or whatever, she runs into the killer....


Okay, how'd I do??

:beer: You did good!

[elvislives]

I would be interested in hearing what she has to say too. I don't know why it would make a difference because of what she weighed or how much she was exerting herself before she died, but maybe it does.
The room being warm (we are assuming here) may have sped up the process but I would think that it would have had to have been excessively warm. I know that outside elements can speed up or slow down the rigor process.
Elvis...? Are you in the building?

Right here. Okay, ambient temperature and body weight are huge factors that effect rigor (as is physical activity, but I dont think that's a factor here). I have a morbid interest in and therefore read a lot about 'medical crimes'...i.e medically trained people who commit murder and try and outsmart the investigators. One of the oldest tricks in the book is for them to try to confuse the time of death.

There are several cases where the killers cranked up the A/C in the room where the body was to delay the onset of rigor and post mortem decay. Or others where they turned up the heat to accellerate rigor. I wont bore you with all the details, but rigor is closely related to the decedents muscle....A 45 lb child in a warm room could go into full rigor mortis in just 6 hours. A 45 lb child in a cold room might take as long as 24 hrs for full rigor.

So if you're an rdi, the R's could have killed her right after they got home or right before calling the cops. If you're an idi, the intruder could have killed her anytime between 11pm-4 am.

[Tober]

Around midnight, 1, or 2 JB gets up to pee, then goes downstairs to look at her new bike (or the Christmas tree, or some other gift). She walks past the table and grabs a piece out of the bowl, then goes on her way.

The problem with that scenario is that JonBenet wouldn't awaken on her own to urinate, which is why she'd wet the bed. Patsy would normally awaken her around midnight to go to the bathroom. Sometimes when Patsy went to awaken her, she was too late and JonBenet had already wet the bed. Why on that particular night (of all nights) didn't Patsy awaken her around midnight, as was the usual routine? Was she just going to let her wet the bed? Why would Patsy do that, especially considering their planned trip? Additionally, JonBenet was afraid of the dark. There is nothing to indicate that it was common for her to go downstairs by herself, in the middle of the night, for a snack. Remember also, the Ramseys don't allow the possibility that JonBenet would have done that. They are "distancing" themselves from the pineapple. They won't even acknowledge that it was theirs. Also, as you know, a very important piece of timeline evidence is the green fecal material found in JonBenet's large intestine, which by inference, was the crab she ate at the White's. Both items of food material found in her digestive tract stopped in their respective places upon her death. Based on the green fecal material position in her digestive tract, in light of the pineapple position, I believe it can be reasonably inferred that JonBenet consumed the pineapple relatively shortly after their arrival home, and was killed relatively shortly after that. The staging would have taken a significant amount of time due to the tremendous psychological burden faced by the offender. I just don't see the initial action (the head blow) that led to the staging, happening much beyond midnight. This post is my opinion.

[thewhitewitch1]

Right here. Okay, ambient temperature and body weight are huge factors that effect rigor (as is physical activity, but I dont think that's a factor here). I have a morbid interest in and therefore read a lot about 'medical crimes'...i.e medically trained people who commit murder and try and outsmart the investigators. One of the oldest tricks in the book is for them to try to confuse the time of death.

There are several cases where the killers cranked up the A/C in the room where the body was to delay the onset of rigor and post mortem decay. Or others where they turned up the heat to accellerate rigor. I wont bore you with all the details, but rigor is closely related to the decedents muscle....A 45 lb child in a warm room could go into full rigor mortis in just 6 hours. A 45 lb child in a cold room might take as long as 24 hrs for full rigor.

So if you're an rdi, the R's could have killed her right after they got home or right before calling the cops. If you're an idi, the intruder could have killed her anytime between 11pm-4 am.

Thanks, Elvis. That does nothing as far as trying to pin-point her time of death, does it. :(
(BTW I have a morbid interest in the same thing as you.)

[Zoey]

The problem with that scenario is that JonBenet wouldn't awaken on her own to urinate, which is why she'd wet the bed. Patsy would normally awaken her around midnight to go to the bathroom. Sometimes when Patsy went to awaken her, she was too late and JonBenet had already wet the bed. Why on that particular night (of all nights) didn't Patsy awaken her around midnight, as was the usual routine? Was she just going to let her wet the bed? Why would Patsy do that, especially considering their planned trip? Additionally, JonBenet was afraid of the dark. There is nothing to indicate that it was common for her to go downstairs by herself, in the middle of the night, for a snack. Remember also, the Ramseys don't allow the possibility that JonBenet would have done that. They are "distancing" themselves from the pineapple. They won't even acknowledge that it was theirs. Also, as you know, a very important piece of timeline evidence is the green fecal material found in JonBenet's large intestine, which by inference, was the crab she ate at the White's. Both items of food material found in her digestive tract stopped in their respective places upon her death. Based on the green fecal material position in her digestive tract, in light of the pineapple position, I believe it can be reasonably inferred that JonBenet consumed the pineapple relatively shortly after their arrival home, and was killed relatively shortly after that. The staging would have taken a significant amount of time due to the tremendous psychological burden faced by the offender. I just don't see the initial action (the head blow) that led to the staging, happening much beyond midnight. This post is my opinion.


Just because a child is normally awaken to go to the bathroom so they don't wet the bed does not mean that at some point, they aren't going to learn to get up on their own. That is what potty training is all about. What you and every other RDI infer is that Patsy was going to have to wake JB up to go pee in the middle of the night for the rest of her life. Regardless of whether it was that night or another night, eventually she was going to learn to go on her own, IMO.

I am sure it was just the other day that someone posted an interview with Patsy wherein she states JB was not afraid of the dark, so IMO, we can infer that she could have very easily gotten up, gone to the bathroom and headed downstairs all on her own and in the dark, IMO, although there were christmas lights on, a light on in the hallway and a light on in the china/knick-knack cabinet at the bottom of the stairs. IMO, this would have lightened things up.

[Athena]

We had mobile phones ten (10) years ago. Don't you remember those big bag phones? Then they came out with the smaller cell phone, but it was still pretty big.

Following the April 3, 1973, public demonstration, using a "brick"-like 30-ounce phone, Cooper started the 10-year process of bringing the portable cell phone to market. Motorola introduced the 16-ounce "DynaTAC" phone into commercial service in 1983, with each phone costing the consumer $3,500. It took seven additional years before there were a million subscribers in the United States. Today, there are more cellular subscribers than wireline phone subscribers in the world, with mobile phones weighing as little as 3 ounces.

http://inventors.about.com/cs/inventorsalphabet/a/martin_cooper.htm

[Athena]

The problem with that scenario is that JonBenet wouldn't awaken on her own to urinate, which is why she'd wet the bed. Patsy would normally awaken her around midnight to go to the bathroom. Sometimes when Patsy went to awaken her, she was too late and JonBenet had already wet the bed. Why on that particular night (of all nights) didn't Patsy awaken her around midnight, as was the usual routine? Was she just going to let her wet the bed? Why would Patsy do that, especially considering their planned trip? Additionally, JonBenet was afraid of the dark. There is nothing to indicate that it was common for her to go downstairs by herself, in the middle of the night, for a snack. Remember also, the Ramseys don't allow the possibility that JonBenet would have done that. They are "distancing" themselves from the pineapple. They won't even acknowledge that it was theirs. Also, as you know, a very important piece of timeline evidence is the green fecal material found in JonBenet's large intestine, which by inference, was the crab she ate at the White's. Both items of food material found in her digestive tract stopped in their respective places upon her death. Based on the green fecal material position in her digestive tract, in light of the pineapple position, I believe it can be reasonably inferred that JonBenet consumed the pineapple relatively shortly after their arrival home, and was killed relatively shortly after that. The staging would have taken a significant amount of time due to the tremendous psychological burden faced by the offender. I just don't see the initial action (the head blow) that led to the staging, happening much beyond midnight. This post is my opinion.

It was Christmas Day; one of the most tiring days of the year especially for children and parents too for that matter. They were up early in the morning, up all day, went to the Whites for dinner, drove around a bit to hand out presents afterwards and they all went to bed.

Maybe the perp force-fed her while unconscious which would explain why their were sharp pieces found because they were not chewed nevermind digested. According to the forensic journal I read re: force-feeding some perps chew the food and then place it in the victim's mouth forcing it down to appear that it had been chewed by the victim. JMO

[thewhitewitch1]

It was Christmas Day; one of the most tiring days of the year especially for children and parents too for that matter. They were up early in the morning, up all day, went to the Whites for dinner, drove around a bit to hand out presents afterwards and they all went to bed.

Maybe the perp force-fed her while unconscious which would explain why their were sharp pieces found because they were not chewed nevermind digested. According to the forensic journal I read re: force-feeding some perps chew the food and then place it in the victim's mouth forcing it down to appear that it had been chewed by the victim. JMO


If she was unconscious, wouldn't she have choked on it?
What purpose would there have been for an intruder to force-feed her anything?

Also, regarding her bedwetting habit...regardless of whether or not she eventually had to learn to get up on her own, Patsy still stated that she had been waking her up at midnight to use the bathroom and I am pretty sure she meant right up until the time of her death. She was even taking those "Pull-Ups" on the Big Red Boat so JB wouldn't soil the mattress there. So on this one night, why would she NOT wake JB up to use the bathroom and risk having her pee in her bed? No one has had a good answer to that. IMO

[shill]

The problem with that scenario is that JonBenet wouldn't awaken on her own to urinate, which is why she'd wet the bed. Patsy would normally awaken her around midnight to go to the bathroom. Sometimes when Patsy went to awaken her, she was too late and JonBenet had already wet the bed. Why on that particular night (of all nights) didn't Patsy awaken her around midnight, as was the usual routine? Was she just going to let her wet the bed? Why would Patsy do that, especially considering their planned trip? Are you saying Patsy did this same routine every single day for how many years?
You should be asking why she just didn't set an alarm clock if it happened every single day.
I don't think it was an everyday event or always a problem. You infer to much from knowing very little about what went on everyday in their lives before this.

Additionally, JonBenet was afraid of the dark.
You must have missed the posted transcript here of Patsy being asked if JB was afraid of the dark.

[Tober]

You must have missed the posted transcript here of Patsy being asked if JB was afraid of the dark.

Sorry, Patsy's vague answer isn't enough for me. She's a murder suspect who has lied repeatedly since her daughter's death. I need to independently verify claims made by Patsy using evidence and/or the statements of a non-Ramsey to measure her claims against. This post is my opinion.

[Athena]

If she was unconscious, wouldn't she have choked on it?
What purpose would there have been for an intruder to force-feed her anything?

Also, regarding her bedwetting habit...regardless of whether or not she eventually had to learn to get up on her own, Patsy still stated that she had been waking her up at midnight to use the bathroom and I am pretty sure she meant right up until the time of her death. She was even taking those "Pull-Ups" on the Big Red Boat so JB wouldn't soil the mattress there. So on this one night, why would she NOT wake JB up to use the bathroom and risk having her pee in her bed? No one has had a good answer to that. IMO

Hey - I think my answer about it being Christmas day and everyone was wiped out was as good as any other I've read. :biggrin:

[shill]

Sorry, Patsy's vague answer isn't enough for me. She's a murder suspect who has lied repeatedly since her daughter's death.
Funny, her vague answers work when you need them to.
You think she has lied repeatedly, and yet it is unproven she has.

And if mistaken recollections are lies, then every single character mentioned in this case can be proven a liar if we had their transcripts and police reports to scrutinize.
I need to independently verify claims made by Patsy using evidence and/or the statements of a non-Ramsey to measure her claims against. This post is my opinion.

Good idea, let us know when you find the evidence to disprove her claims.

You might start with providing us a known statement that says Burke didn't get the bowl of pineapple out.
Oh that's right, you can't!
This post is my opinion that there is no logic to Tober's opinions.

[Sharon]

:beer: You did good!

Second that!!!!

Also guests who dont want to leave their platters behind will often transfer the leftovers into the hosts own dishes.

[Sharon]

If she was unconscious, wouldn't she have choked on it?
What purpose would there have been for an intruder to force-feed her anything?

Also, regarding her bedwetting habit...regardless of whether or not she eventually had to learn to get up on her own, Patsy still stated that she had been waking her up at midnight to use the bathroom and I am pretty sure she meant right up until the time of her death. She was even taking those "Pull-Ups" on the Big Red Boat so JB wouldn't soil the mattress there. So on this one night, why would she NOT wake JB up to use the bathroom and risk having her pee in her bed? No one has had a good answer to that. IMO

I can say that sometimes as a parent you just cant be bothered getting up even if you know they might wet the bed. Is it possible that JBR was wearing a pullup that night, meaning P. didnt have to deal with it that night?

Also, if JBR was asleep she still could have been fed one piece (small) and have eatten it by instinct. This could explain why the piece is hardly chewed.

The above is my opinion.

[Sharon]

[What purpose would there have been for an intruder to force-feed her anything?

Some have put forward the theory that she was taken by a familiar intruder who could have feed her the tiny morsel as part of his playing with her. Otherwise it is mind boggling to say the least.

It is clear that she ate very little of the pineapple. It makes me doubt that she ate it in hunger at any time. ie after coming home v. latter at night.

I have always doubted that a six year old would be hungry after a huge day of running around, parties etc. I think fatigue would have hit hard even if she had eatten very little during the day.

The above is just my opinion

[bullmoose]

Sorry, Patsy's vague answer isn't enough for me. She's a murder suspect who has lied repeatedly since her daughter's death. I need to independently verify claims made by Patsy using evidence and/or the statements of a non-Ramsey to measure her claims against. This post is my opinion.
Can't you just pull out your own notes to verify her veracity? Or are you inferring that she has repeatedly lied based upon the inferrence of what you or other inferers have inferred to? You demand that evidence be evidenced here to prove her veracity, which you never infer as verifiable--to you.For her to verify her veracity against what you flatly state, not just infer, that is that she was a liar, without any verification, just your constant inferences to some 'special' knowledge, would be unverifiable now that she's passed. But I can verify that I believe her over your 'inferences' past and present. The two chief detectives, Eller and Beckner, never point blank called her a murder suspect, but I can remember a detective that did, can you ? JMHO

[thewhitewitch1]

I can say that sometimes as a parent you just cant be bothered getting up even if you know they might wet the bed. Is it possible that JBR was wearing a pullup that night, meaning P. didnt have to deal with it that night?

Also, if JBR was asleep she still could have been fed one piece (small) and have eatten it by instinct. This could explain why the piece is hardly chewed.

The above is my opinion.

No, she was not wearing Pull-Ups that night.
Doesn't it stand to reason that since the Rs were leaving very early the next morning (and they gave themselves an entire hour to get ready..which is weird in itself) that Patsy would not want to have to deal with wet bedding first thing in the morning? Seems like the very fact that they were leaving so early and had so little time to get ready would be a very good reason to wake JB up to use the bathroom that night. I'd have waken her up before putting her to bed, if she was my child. That way Patsy wouldn't have had to get up at Midnight to wake her up. I find it hard to believe she chose to just "take her chances" on that one night. It was her habit to do this.
She's stated this herself.
In light of this, I don't think it is unreasonable to question whether JB wet the bed that night or if the Rs were lying about her being asleep. What do you think the chances are that on this one night, JB actually got herself up to use the bathroom? If she did, I guess we can add this to the long list of "coincidences".
Last, why would anyone want to stick a piece of pineapple in the mouth of a sleeping child? Athena, you would have this person be a criminal mastermind who obviously must have done this type of thing before. If that's the case, he'd have done it again. Isn't this what is known as a serial killer? There is no evidence that this person has done this type of thing either before or after JBs murder. IMO

[rashomon]

Okay Tober, let me take a crack at this:

On the party on the 23rd the caterers bring food. (Btw, I don't cook so I use caterers for all home parties. Most people are probably familiar with 'professional' caterers..the ones who cater weddings and corporate events--everything is planned and organized, all employees are legit. Mom & Pop caterers are another story. You order some basic stuff, they bring that plus all sorts of other surprises to your house. Their 'staff' consists of a number of illegal immigrants who don't speak English (at least in my area) plus some relatives, neighbors, friends etc). The only thing professional about these people is that they wear gloves and clean up...plus they provide a great meal. So after the party, any leftovers or any ingredients used are put in my containers in my frig. Then they leave. I find all sorts of mystery foods in the frig in the days and weeks that follow.

Okay sorry for that diversion, just had to give some background on home caterers, in my experience. So anyway the caterers cater the party on the 23rd. Pineapple is either put out as a dish or used as a garnish or ingredient. The leftovers are dumped into the Ramsey bowl and put in the frig, unbeknownst to P or J. The caterers wear gloves (a dept of health statute in my city) which is why their fingerprints are not left. Patsy had either taken the bowl out of the dishwasher, or moved the pineapple bowl in the frig to get to the mustard (or whatever....in her case probably Grey Poupon) which is why her prints are on the bowl.

The eve of the 25th, Burke wants a snack so gets the pineapple out of the frig. In typical 9 year old boy fashion, he leaves it out on the kitchen table.

Around midnight, 1, or 2 JB gets up to pee, then goes downstairs to look at her new bike (or the Christmas tree, or some other gift). She walks past the table and grabs a piece out of the bowl, then goes on her way.

After playing with a toy, or looking in her stocking or whatever, she runs into the killer....

Okay, how'd I do??
Very important issue in that context: has Burke ever been asked if he had pineapple from that bowl on that night/the night before?. For if he denied having eaten it from the bowl, he would have been lying (according to your scenario), and why should Burke be lying about this unless he was told to by his parents?

And if it was custom in the Ramsey household for caterers to put leftovers in their fridge, why didn't Patsy offer this as an explanation too: "Maybe the pineapple was from the caterers and they put it in my bowl?"
But she came up with nothing of the sort, only vehemently denied knowing anything about the pineapple in her bowl. And that is what makes her behavior so suspicious.
When confronted with the pineapple evidence, the Ramseys found themselves in a trap. For their story was that JB had been asleep when they got home, and they didn't have the presence of mind to think up a convincing explanation when confronted with the pineapple evidence. For unless the R's were avid crime/true crime fiction readers, chances are that they did not think for a minute about the pineapple becoming such damaging forensic evidence later.
"I swear you JB did not eat the pineapple after she got home", John Ramsey told Lou Smit.
Burke's testimony btw contradicts John's and Patsy's story, for he said that JB had been awake when the family got home and walked up the stairs in front of him.

[packer48]

No, she was not wearing Pull-Ups that night.
Doesn't it stand to reason that since the Rs were leaving very early the next morning (and they gave themselves an entire hour to get ready..which is weird in itself) that Patsy would not want to have to deal with wet bedding first thing in the morning? Seems like the very fact that they were leaving so early and had so little time to get ready would be a very good reason to wake JB up to use the bathroom that night. I'd have waken her up before putting her to bed, if she was my child. That way Patsy wouldn't have had to get up at Midnight to wake her up. I find it hard to believe she chose to just "take her chances" on that one night. It was her habit to do this.
She's stated this herself.
In light of this, I don't think it is unreasonable to question whether JB wet the bed that night or if the Rs were lying about her being asleep. What do you think the chances are that on this one night, JB actually got herself up to use the bathroom? If she did, I guess we can add this to the long list of "coincidences".
Last, why would anyone want to stick a piece of pineapple in the mouth of a sleeping child? Athena, you would have this person be a criminal mastermind who obviously must have done this type of thing before. If that's the case, he'd have done it again. Isn't this what is known as a serial killer? There is no evidence that this person has done this type of thing either before or after JBs murder. IMO

In addition to what you just said.........

I had a bed wetter, back then we didn't have pull-ups. Even so when my child wet the bed it was in the shower you go. Bed wetters can develope quit an oder if not bathed after sleeping a night in a pissy bed.

I too believe Patsy would have waken the child to go to the bathroom on arriving home.

JMHO

packer

[nuisanceposter]

I don't think she was asleep when they got home, and that's why Patsy didn't go wake her up at midnight as was her habit. Burke said she was awake and walked inside on her own...JR said he read the kids a book and went to bed only to change his story later. IMO, Patsy didn't wake her up to go to the bathroom because she was already awake to go when they got home.

We know Patsy didn't dress her in pull-ups that night because Patsy has been asked about getting JonBenet ready for bed and never said she dressed JB in pull-ups. She said they were taking some on their trip, but not that JonBenet had some on that night. Then again, Patsy didn't even notice if the underwear JB had on was the size she had in her drawers (4/6) or the size she was found dead in (12/14.)

The biggest problem I have with the pineapple being from the caterers is that this idea has only come about on message boards. The Ramseys never mentioned the pineapple coming from a caterer, and all of the investigators, including Lou Smit who called the pineapple "the big bugaboo" none have ever found a caterer connection. No one who was involved in catering the party, hosting the party, or visiting as a guest at the party, has ever come forward and said there was any pineapple there.

That's just too big to ignore, no matter how well the caterer theory explains the pineapple.

[elvislives]

Very important issue in that context: has Burke ever been asked if he had pineapple from that bowl on that night/the night before?. For if he denied having eaten it from the bowl, he would have been lying (according to your scenario), and why should Burke be lying about this unless he was told to by his parents?

And if it was custom in the Ramsey household for caterers to put leftovers in their fridge, why didn't Patsy offer this as an explanation too: "Maybe the pineapple was from the caterers and they put it in my bowl?"
But she came up with nothing of the sort, only vehemently denied knowing anything about the pineapple in her bowl. And that is what makes her behavior so suspicious.
When confronted with the pineapple evidence, the Ramseys found themselves in a trap. For their story was that JB had been asleep when they got home, and they didn't have the presence of mind to think up a convincing explanation when confronted with the pineapple evidence. For unless the R's were avid crime/true crime fiction readers, chances are that they did not think for a minute about the pineapple becoming such damaging forensic evidence later.
"I swear you JB did not eat the pineapple after she got home", John Ramsey told Lou Smit.
Burke's testimony btw contradicts John's and Patsy's story, for he said that JB had been awake when the family got home and walked up the stairs in front of him.


I don't think Burke's comments have ever been made public. That would certainly shed a lot of light on things.

And regarding why Patsy didn't offer up the caterers as an option: I frankly never gave any thought to what MY caterers have done UNTIL this issue came up on the board. Imo Patsy is a dingbat...maybe she didn't think of it.

[Louisadelmar]

Burke has said both she was awake and asleep. Eveb ST said he thought the boy was confused.

The only reason I think Burke didn't shed any light on the pineapple is (iirc) they were still asking about it after the GJ.

[elvislives]

The problem with that scenario is that JonBenet wouldn't awaken on her own to urinate, which is why she'd wet the bed. Patsy would normally awaken her around midnight to go to the bathroom. Sometimes when Patsy went to awaken her, she was too late and JonBenet had already wet the bed. Why on that particular night (of all nights) didn't Patsy awaken her around midnight, as was the usual routine? Was she just going to let her wet the bed? Why would Patsy do that, especially considering their planned trip? Additionally, JonBenet was afraid of the dark. There is nothing to indicate that it was common for her to go downstairs by herself, in the middle of the night, for a snack. Remember also, the Ramseys don't allow the possibility that JonBenet would have done that. They are "distancing" themselves from the pineapple. They won't even acknowledge that it was theirs. Also, as you know, a very important piece of timeline evidence is the green fecal material found in JonBenet's large intestine, which by inference, was the crab she ate at the White's. Both items of food material found in her digestive tract stopped in their respective places upon her death. Based on the green fecal material position in her digestive tract, in light of the pineapple position, I believe it can be reasonably inferred that JonBenet consumed the pineapple relatively shortly after their arrival home, and was killed relatively shortly after that. The staging would have taken a significant amount of time due to the tremendous psychological burden faced by the offender. I just don't see the initial action (the head blow) that led to the staging, happening much beyond midnight. This post is my opinion.

I don't know if you have children, Tober, but in my experience the one thing children are NOT is reliable. They are unpredictable (at least mine are). Sometimes they wet the bed, sometimes they don't. Sometimes they're tired after a long busy day, other times they aren't. Sometimes they go to sleep and sleep all night, sometimes they dont.

And part of the reason I tend to defend Patsy on this issue is because she has a housekeeping style sort of like mine (I like to call it 'relaxed'). I am not all that consistent with my interactions with my kids. I have stacks of crap all over the place. I have no idea what is in my frig or how it got there. When my kids wet the bed, I sometimes don't even change the sheets..I know this sounds negligent to some of you, but urine is actually sterile (that's how I rationalize anyway). I admit (since I'm anonymous here) that on multiple occasions when I knew I should be waking up a child to urinate, I was just too tired and figured...oh well, so what if they wet the bed. God forbid someone interprets my lazy housekeeping style as that of a murderer. I just don't think you can draw such conclusions based on such actions. jmo

[Louisadelmar]

I don't know if you have children, Tober, but in my experience the one thing children are NOT is reliable. They are unpredictable (at least mine are). Sometimes they wet the bed, sometimes they don't. Sometimes they're tired after a long busy day, other times they aren't. Sometimes they go to sleep and sleep all night, sometimes they dont.

And part of the reason I tend to defend Patsy on this issue is because she has a housekeeping style sort of like mine (I like to call it 'relaxed'). I am not all that consistent with my interactions with my kids. I have stacks of crap all over the place. I have no idea what is in my frig or how it got there. When my kids wet the bed, I sometimes don't even change the sheets..I know this sounds negligent to some of you, but urine is actually sterile (that's how I rationalize anyway). I admit (since I'm anonymous here) that on multiple occasions when I knew I should be waking up a child to urinate, I was just too tired and figured...oh well, so what if they wet the bed. God forbid someone interprets my lazy housekeeping style as that of a murderer. I just don't think you can draw such conclusions based on such actions. jmo

Yes! I think Patsy's housekeeping style was the same as many of us. I don't know whether it's 'lazy' so much as 'laid-back'. I can't imagine getting up and bathing a child in the middle of the night just because they'd wet the bed. Particularly if the child had its own routine worked out as to peeling off wet PJs, moving into a dry bed etc. I expect JonBenet would have had a bath at some point in CHX.

Of course, I think American kids are generally kept too clean and bathed too often so I'm probably in the minority anyway. :-)

[packer48]

Yes! I think Patsy's housekeeping style was the same as many of us. I don't know whether it's 'lazy' so much as 'laid-back'. I can't imagine getting up and bathing a child in the middle of the night just because they'd wet the bed. Particularly if the child had its own routine worked out as to peeling off wet PJs, moving into a dry bed etc. I expect JonBenet would have had a bath at some point in CHX.

Of course, I think American kids are generally kept too clean and bathed too often so I'm probably in the minority anyway. :-)

No bath in the middle of the night.

Like most of us that have expirience with bed wetters your not aware till morning.

Then its in the shower you go before school. I would have thought that Patsy would have went to extra lengths to have JBR potty in the night to save the time from having to bath her in the morning.

JMHO

packer

[Louisadelmar]

No bath in the middle of the night.

Like most of us that have expirience with bed wetters your not aware till morning.

Then its in the shower you go before school. I would have thought that Patsy would have went to extra lengths to have JBR potty in the night to save the time from having to bath her in the morning.

JMHO

packer

You are making the assumptionthat Patsy would have bathed her in the morning. I haven't seen anything to suggest that that is established.

[packer48]

You are making the assumptionthat Patsy would have bathed her in the morning. I haven't seen anything to suggest that that is established.

Your absolutly right.

I'm just going on personal expirience. Seems to me Patsy couldn't say the last time JB had a bath. EWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!

Bed wetters SMELL!

Maybe it wasn't a priority for them, like I said I'm going on my personal expirience.

JMHO

packer

[andU]

I don't know if you have children, Tober, but in my experience the one thing children are NOT is reliable. They are unpredictable (at least mine are). Sometimes they wet the bed, sometimes they don't. Sometimes they're tired after a long busy day, other times they aren't. Sometimes they go to sleep and sleep all night, sometimes they dont.

And part of the reason I tend to defend Patsy on this issue is because she has a housekeeping style sort of like mine (I like to call it 'relaxed'). I am not all that consistent with my interactions with my kids. I have stacks of crap all over the place. I have no idea what is in my frig or how it got there. When my kids wet the bed, I sometimes don't even change the sheets..I know this sounds negligent to some of you, but urine is actually sterile (that's how I rationalize anyway). I admit (since I'm anonymous here) that on multiple occasions when I knew I should be waking up a child to urinate, I was just too tired and figured...oh well, so what if they wet the bed. God forbid someone interprets my lazy housekeeping style as that of a murderer. I just don't think you can draw such conclusions based on such actions. jmo

I appreciate your honesty, Elvislives. I applaud you for your statements!

[shill]

Athena, you would have this person be a criminal mastermind who obviously must have done this type of thing before. If that's the case, he'd have done it again. Isn't this what is known as a serial killer? There is no evidence that this person has done this type of thing either before or after JBs murder. IMO

In this country maybe he hasn't repeated his crime, but in a third world country, (like Thailand) his crimes may remain hidden among the criminal elements that trade in child prostitution.
Or he may be able to act out his fantasies there with out killing the witness/victim.

[amethyst]

I don't know if you have children, Tober, but in my experience the one thing children are NOT is reliable. They are unpredictable (at least mine are). Sometimes they wet the bed, sometimes they don't. Sometimes they're tired after a long busy day, other times they aren't. Sometimes they go to sleep and sleep all night, sometimes they dont.

And part of the reason I tend to defend Patsy on this issue is because she has a housekeeping style sort of like mine (I like to call it 'relaxed'). I am not all that consistent with my interactions with my kids. I have stacks of crap all over the place. I have no idea what is in my frig or how it got there. When my kids wet the bed, I sometimes don't even change the sheets..I know this sounds negligent to some of you, but urine is actually sterile (that's how I rationalize anyway). I admit (since I'm anonymous here) that on multiple occasions when I knew I should be waking up a child to urinate, I was just too tired and figured...oh well, so what if they wet the bed. God forbid someone interprets my lazy housekeeping style as that of a murderer. I just don't think you can draw such conclusions based on such actions. jmo

My first post here......

Elvislives, I just want to say that I find your post refreshingly honest & straightforward & I appreciate it. Kids are SOOO unpredictable--you are so right in that statement. I also don't think that lazy housekeeper=murderer. Apples & oranges. I think you are just like many busy moms of today. Life is exhausting these days with kids, jobs, extra cirricular activities & the days of June Cleaver are loooong gone (if they ever really existed). No doubt your kids are loved immensely & in the end, that's all that really matters. Again, thank you.

[bullmoose]

My first post here......

Elvislives, I just want to say that I find your post refreshingly honest & straightforward & I appreciate it. Kids are SOOO unpredictable--you are so right in that statement. I also don't think that lazy housekeeper=murderer. Apples & oranges. I think you are just like many busy moms of today. Life is exhausting these days with kids, jobs, extra cirricular activities & the days of June Cleaver are loooong gone (if they ever really existed). No doubt your kids are loved immensely & in the end, that's all that really matters. Again, thank you.Amethyst, whether you take one side or the other here or are a fence setter, welcome to the board.:beer:

[packer48]

I don't know if you have children, Tober, but in my experience the one thing children are NOT is reliable. They are unpredictable (at least mine are). Sometimes they wet the bed, sometimes they don't. Sometimes they're tired after a long busy day, other times they aren't. Sometimes they go to sleep and sleep all night, sometimes they dont.

And part of the reason I tend to defend Patsy on this issue is because she has a housekeeping style sort of like mine (I like to call it 'relaxed'). I am not all that consistent with my interactions with my kids. I have stacks of crap all over the place. I have no idea what is in my frig or how it got there. When my kids wet the bed, I sometimes don't even change the sheets..I know this sounds negligent to some of you, but urine is actually sterile (that's how I rationalize anyway). I admit (since I'm anonymous here) that on multiple occasions when I knew I should be waking up a child to urinate, I was just too tired and figured...oh well, so what if they wet the bed. God forbid someone interprets my lazy housekeeping style as that of a murderer. I just don't think you can draw such conclusions based on such actions. jmo

Your right about one thing children are very unpreditable.

I'll bet MOST of us posting here don't/did'nt have the luxery of a housekeeper.

Working and raising children can be a mind boggleing thing.

PR had the luxery of a housekeeper, that alone can reduce a lot of stress in your day to day activitys.

I can only dream about the life style she had(excluding her cancer), for most of us we DO everything ourselves. Raising children, cleaning house, cooking, going to work.

GMAB

JMOP

packer

[andU]

Packer it sounds like you are envious.... I am thankful that I was able to raise my children (alone), and blessed that all three of them, although raised without knowing their father, are professionals and great parents of their children. I'm not putting Patsy down, but I'm also not envious. I am content to be what and where I am stationed in this life. When we die, we are just as dead as rich people, ya know?

[packer48]

Packer it sounds like you are envious.... I am thankful that I was able to raise my children (alone), and blessed that all three of them, although raised without knowing their father, are professionals and great parents of their children. I'm not putting Patsy down, but I'm also not envious. I am content to be what and where I am stationed in this life. When we die, we are just as dead as rich people, ya know?

Oh NO I'm not envious at all, she just don't have my symathy where taking care of her children are concerned.
When she states she don't know the last time JB bathed, to me that raised a red flag. Here you've got a bed wetter, that can stink to high heven if not bathed and she so concerned with partys and such she can't even make sure her daughter is taken care of.
Why didn't they have a nanny if they were so well off?

I raised 4 kids......ALL of them went to 4 year colleges and are doing excellent.
I was a stay at home mom. At times it was a real struggle.

I have no symothy for the rich and famous.........let them walk in my shoes.

I'm very PROUD of my children and what I did for them!

JMHO

packer

[andU]

Oh NO I'm not envious at all, she just don't have my symathy where taking care of her children are concerned.
When she states she don't know the last time JB bathed, to me that raised a red flag. Here you've got a bed wetter, that can stink to high heven if not bathed and she so concerned with partys and such she can't even make sure her daughter is taken care of.
Why didn't they have a nanny if they were so well off?

I raised 4 kids......ALL of them went to 4 year colleges and are doing excellent.
I was a stay at home mom. At times it was a real struggle.

I have no symothy for the rich and famous.........let them walk in my shoes.

I'm very PROUD of my children and what I did for them!

JMHO

packer

Thanks for clearing that up, perhaps I misread the tone of your post. I feel that wealthy folks miss a lot with their families, but then I've never been wealthy so I'm just thinking that if they had nannies, houskeepers, and the like, how would they know the habits of their children? If Patsy wasn't in charge of the children, she wouldn't know when JB took a bath last. I can't imagine not thinking about it, but if the responsibility had been seen to by household contractors, maybe it is just something that she didn't think about? I don't know.....

[packer48]

Thanks for clearing that up, perhaps I misread the tone of your post. I feel that wealthy folks miss a lot with their families, but then I've never been wealthy so I'm just thinking that if they had nannies, houskeepers, and the like, how would they know the habits of their children? If Patsy wasn't in charge of the children, she wouldn't know when JB took a bath last. I can't imagine not thinking about it, but if the responsibility had been seen to by household contractors, maybe it is just something that she didn't think about? I don't know.....

Your right.......how sad is that?

I'm thankful I raised my children to be what they are today.

I think Patsy was so full of herself in planning partys and xmas events with the tour of their house and everything else that was going on at that time, I can see where she would not have datails of JB last moments.

Jmho

packer

[bullmoose]

In this country maybe he hasn't repeated his crime, but in a third world country, (like Thailand) his crimes may remain hidden among the criminal elements that trade in child prostitution.
Or he may be able to act out his fantasies there with out killing the witness/victim.We can only guess, if this is the work of a serial killer, if he[probably a he] has struck again in this country. They can and do hide in plain sight and ply their grisly craft without that much chance of detection, because nobody, in law enforcement, ties the M.O.'s together; they rarely stay put to be caught. On my wedding day years ago, a girl I knew quite well was kidnapped, raped and murdered by a serial killer. She was taken from a lover's lane, her boyfriend ran into the night but she froze when accosted; six weeks later her corpse was found down an old mineshaft. Of course the police did not believe the story of her boyfriend, another friend of mine, and tried every trick in the book to sweat a confession from him, whom they believed to be her killer. No evidence of the real killer was found, so they lie detectored this guy repeatedly, telling everybody how badly he flunked the test. Even after her body was found 50 miles south of town, he was held to be the killer by many for years; then by chance they caught a serial killer disposing of a victim by tossing the body down a mineshaft; the M.O. matched perfectly, I heard the guy's gun matched the bullet found in the girl I knew. The guy was never even charged in the case, when caught in California they matched him to as many as a dozen cases there, he was only charged in a couple of them and got LWOP. But the LE buddies of this girl's father came and told the parents that their daughters murderer was caught, which comforted them somewhat. And the cops finally stopped bugging her boyfriend. My point is that they only figured out this guys pattern after they caught him in the act, he was living in Barstow, Cal. and roamed Nevada, S.California and Arizona for at least ten years and was only caught by chance, they weren't even looking for him. So whoever killed Jonbenet may be out there periodically killing still, the fact that no murder just like Jonbenet's has happened since doesn't mean the guy stopped, he may have just changed his MO sufficiently to not gain attention. JMO

[thewhitewitch1]

In this country maybe he hasn't repeated his crime, but in a third world country, (like Thailand) his crimes may remain hidden among the criminal elements that trade in child prostitution.
Or he may be able to act out his fantasies there with out killing the witness/victim.


That's one hell of a stretch and I don't believe it for one minute but it's a possibility, I suppose.
I just don't happen to believe JB was the victim of a sex crime.

[elvislives]

My first post here......

Elvislives, I just want to say that I find your post refreshingly honest & straightforward & I appreciate it. Kids are SOOO unpredictable--you are so right in that statement. I also don't think that lazy housekeeper=murderer. Apples & oranges. I think you are just like many busy moms of today. Life is exhausting these days with kids, jobs, extra cirricular activities & the days of June Cleaver are loooong gone (if they ever really existed). No doubt your kids are loved immensely & in the end, that's all that really matters. Again, thank you.

Welcome to the board, Amehyst. I am glad you appreciate my honesty....I think others are probably horrified. But I do my love my kids more than anything, and yes they are happy, healthy and well adjusted.

I just don't think its reasonable to use someone's housekeeping habits as evidence that they are murderers. We all have our own ways of doing things.

And Packer (and all other meticulous housekeepers out there), I swear that if you passed me and my children on the street, you wouldn't run because of the stench (just don't get too close to their mattresses ;) ). For you I 'm sure cleanliness is next to godlyness...but for me it's next to impossible (I have a kitchen magnet that says that ;) )

[elvislives]

We can only guess, if this is the work of a serial killer, if he[probably a he] has struck again in this country. They can and do hide in plain sight and ply their grisly craft without that much chance of detection, because nobody, in law enforcement, ties the M.O.'s together; they rarely stay put to be caught. On my wedding day years ago, a girl I knew quite well was kidnapped, raped and murdered by a serial killer. She was taken from a lover's lane, her boyfriend ran into the night but she froze when accosted; six weeks later her corpse was found down an old mineshaft. Of course the police did not believe the story of her boyfriend, another friend of mine, and tried every trick in the book to sweat a confession from him, whom they believed to be her killer. No evidence of the real killer was found, so they lie detectored this guy repeatedly, telling everybody how badly he flunked the test. Even after her body was found 50 miles south of town, he was held to be the killer by many for years; then by chance they caught a serial killer disposing of a victim by tossing the body down a mineshaft; the M.O. matched perfectly, I heard the guy's gun matched the bullet found in the girl I knew. The guy was never even charged in the case, when caught in California they matched him to as many as a dozen cases there, he was only charged in a couple of them and got LWOP. But the LE buddies of this girl's father came and told the parents that their daughters murderer was caught, which comforted them somewhat. And the cops finally stopped bugging her boyfriend. My point is that they only figured out this guys pattern after they caught him in the act, he was living in Barstow, Cal. and roamed Nevada, S.California and Arizona for at least ten years and was only caught by chance, they weren't even looking for him. So whoever killed Jonbenet may be out there periodically killing still, the fact that no murder just like Jonbenet's has happened since doesn't mean the guy stopped, he may have just changed his MO sufficiently to not gain attention. JMO

That's a facinating story and if you study any of the infamous serial killer cases...such as BTK for example, you will note that the family members or those closest to the victims are very often the prime suspects. I can't remember which victim it was, but one of btk's victim's husband was under a cloud of suspicion until btk was arrested and confessed to the murder. The police didn't connect the crimes because the MO was different.

The parents of Elizabeth Smart were also the prime suspects (btw I was sure they were involved). There are thousands of cases like that.

[amethyst]

Welcome to the board, Amehyst. I am glad you appreciate my honesty....I think others are probably horrified. But I do my love my kids more than anything, and yes they are happy, healthy and well adjusted.

I just don't think its reasonable to use someone's housekeeping habits as evidence that they are murderers. We all have our own ways of doing things.

And Packer (and all other meticulous housekeepers out there), I swear that if you passed me and my children on the street, you wouldn't run because of the stench (just don't get too close to their mattresses ;) ). For you I 'm sure cleanliness is next to godlyness...but for me it's next to impossible (I have a kitchen magnet that says that ;) )

Thanks for the welcome, elvislives! And thank you too, bullmoose!

Looking forward to posting here---

[aussiesheila]

That isn't true. There are alot of drugs they cant test for.I can't imagine why this would be so whiskey, unless you mean there are some drugs that pass out of the system so quickly they leave little trace by the time a body undergoes testing. Or perhaps you are referring to the situation that exists in the field of sport, where athletes use performance enhancing drugs and there is a huge underground industry (IMO) where new drugs of this type are developed for which tests have not yet been devised for sport regulators to use. My guess is that pedophiles would be very interested in new drugs for which tests have not yet been devised for forensic analysts to use

She could easily of been drugged, that is probabably why she didn't scream. Beside in 1996 the tests weren't that good.I happen to believe she was drugged. I think that Santa scooped a spoonful of pineapple from the bowl with that large spoon, added about 10 mls of a drug which was in liquid form to it, then spooned it into JonBenet's mouth himself. I think that he was using 'fantasy speak' while doing so, as in telling her it was a magic potion that would give her special powers or some such thing, and that is how he encouraged her to eat that spoonful. In addition to that, I think he had already sussed out that fresh pineapple was one of her favorite foods so had brought it with him in a sealed plastic bag in his Santa sack.

Bearing in mind that at the time the original autopsy was performed there was no particular reason to suspect that there would be any drugs in her system in that she didn't present as a victim of a drug overdose, rather she had simply been bashed and strangled. So I think that the tests that were initially run on her body were just routine tests and either were not specific or not sensitive enough to detect the drug that I think was there albeit in minute amounts, since IMO it was a rapid acting, short half life (6 hours) drug.

But I think that years later, after new investigators replaced the original RDI-focussed team, someone who thinks along the same lines as I do, got the bright idea to test the pineapple. And lo and behold, they found evidence of a sedating/anxiolytic/amnesic drug IMO. I think this is part of the body of evidence that has never been released to the public. I think this might have been one of the reasons why alarm bells started ringing when JMK in Thailand mentioned that she had been drugged, a fact that no-one outside LE was supposed to have known. Maybe under questioning he even named the specific drug.

PS I don't think JMK had anything to do with the murder. I think he just fantasized about it, after learning about the details of what happened from the underground, underworld pedophile grapevine network.

[aussiesheila]

Welcome to the board, Amehyst. I am glad you appreciate my honesty....I think others are probably horrified. Never elvis, even at my age I am still working on increasing my 'dirt-mess tolerance' level to even greater heights. And ever since I read that earlier post of yours, the "btw I don't cook..." one, dreaming of re-inventing myself, oh the bliss of it.

[Athena]

Welcome to the board, Amehyst. I am glad you appreciate my honesty....I think others are probably horrified. But I do my love my kids more than anything, and yes they are happy, healthy and well adjusted.

I just don't think its reasonable to use someone's housekeeping habits as evidence that they are murderers. We all have our own ways of doing things.

And Packer (and all other meticulous housekeepers out there), I swear that if you passed me and my children on the street, you wouldn't run because of the stench (just don't get too close to their mattresses ;) ). For you I 'm sure cleanliness is next to godlyness...but for me it's next to impossible (I have a kitchen magnet that says that ;) )

Same here. My magnet says "I clean every other day and this is not the day"

[Tober]

Had a serial killer murdered JonBenet, leaving the ransom note would qualify as "taunting." Had this type of serial killer perpetrated the crime, chances are he/she would have written again, eventually. Serial killers who taunt through writing, such as the Zodiac, the Unabomber Ted Kaczynski, and the Son of Sam David Berkowitz, can't resist the urge to write again. Had that type of killer murdered JonBenet, they most likely would have taunted again through writing or a phone call. Even if a serial killer (or any intruder for that matter) murdered JonBenet, the evidence against the Ramseys would still have to be explained in light of an intruder/serial killer committing the crime. If that were the case (highly unlikely), at minimum it would appear that the Ramseys covered-up the crime for this person (again, not likely, as the motivation to stage the crime would only be strong for someone covering for themselves and/or another family member whom would be suspected of the crime by circumstance, e.g. they lived in the home). At minimum, if someone other than a Ramsey killed JonBenet (again, highly unlikely in light of the evidence), there is still a lot of explaining to do. This post is my opinion.

[Athena]

<snip>Athena, you would have this person be a criminal mastermind who obviously must have done this type of thing before. If that's the case, he'd have done it again. Isn't this what is known as a serial killer? There is no evidence that this person has done this type of thing either before or after JBs murder. IMO

No mastermind TWW. What you have to remember is this is a person that appeared to be fascinated with movies of crime as indicated by the movie lines in that note. Doesn't have to be a serial killer either but who says he/she couldn't be? They don't know who the person is.

My idea of the killer is that of retaliation and a sadist:

I believe the perp who killed JonBenet did it in retaliation of a slight that occurred or was perceived to be done by John This killing was done with rage and JBR was just a symbol of the hatred he had for John. The ransom note was written to render John totally helpless and make the perp feel in control if even just once in his life. The ransom note was not written for any other reason to play with John's head and its meaning is known only to the killer. I believe JBR's death was triggered by the Access Grraphics memo which was released shortly before her death:

"By contrast, an anger-retaliatory rapist is just interested in anger, not so much sexual gratification. However, for a sadist, the aggression is eroticized. They take pleasure in the torment, anguish, distress, helplessness, and suffering of their victims. Victim selection is usually on the basis of the victim being a symbol of someone they want to punish. Age, appearance, and occupation are typical victim selection categories."


http://faculty.ncwc.edu/TOConnor/428/428lect13.htm

[Sharon]

I don't know if you have children, Tober, but in my experience the one thing children are NOT is reliable. They are unpredictable (at least mine are). Sometimes they wet the bed, sometimes they don't. Sometimes they're tired after a long busy day, other times they aren't. Sometimes they go to sleep and sleep all night, sometimes they dont.

And part of the reason I tend to defend Patsy on this issue is because she has a housekeeping style sort of like mine (I like to call it 'relaxed'). I am not all that consistent with my interactions with my kids. I have stacks of crap all over the place. I have no idea what is in my frig or how it got there. When my kids wet the bed, I sometimes don't even change the sheets..I know this sounds negligent to some of you, but urine is actually sterile (that's how I rationalize anyway). I admit (since I'm anonymous here) that on multiple occasions when I knew I should be waking up a child to urinate, I was just too tired and figured...oh well, so what if they wet the bed. God forbid someone interprets my lazy housekeeping style as that of a murderer. I just don't think you can draw such conclusions based on such actions. jmo

Thank you. I didnt know how to word it but you said it perfectly.
I am the same, or worse.

I am always consintrating on my renovations & would hardly know what is going on around me. I would never know exactly what my child ate for any meal, what cloths they wore etc. My memory is shocking at the best of times about anything let alone who was awake when I came home from a party. For me memories merge together like no ones business! And it wouldnt freak me out to risk a wet bed as I have many times. It just means some extra dry cleaning or an excuse to buy a new mattress. (Im being honest as Ive just trained my 4yo).

I cant remember what I got as presents for past birthdays or what I gave. I once locked my son in our car because I forgot about him when I went out.

I would definately be considered a murderer based on my memory & recall of events if I was in the same position as the R.

People on this board must think P. was a perfect person for the standard she is held up to be compared with. In real life people very rarely do or say the right thing, its called human error and everything is filled with human errors making our world very far from perfect.

The above is just my opinion

[Sharon]

No, she was not wearing Pull-Ups that night.
Doesn't it stand to reason that since the Rs were leaving very early the next morning (and they gave themselves an entire hour to get ready..which is weird in itself) that Patsy would not want to have to deal with wet bedding first thing in the morning? Seems like the very fact that they were leaving so early and had so little time to get ready would be a very good reason to wake JB up to use the bathroom that night. I'd have waken her up before putting her to bed, if she was my child. That way Patsy wouldn't have had to get up at Midnight to wake her up. I find it hard to believe she chose to just "take her chances" on that one night. It was her habit to do this.
She's stated this herself.
In light of this, I don't think it is unreasonable to question whether JB wet the bed that night or if the Rs were lying about her being asleep. What do you think the chances are that on this one night, JB actually got herself up to use the bathroom? If she did, I guess we can add this to the long list of "coincidences".
Last, why would anyone want to stick a piece of pineapple in the mouth of a sleeping child? Athena, you would have this person be a criminal mastermind who obviously must have done this type of thing before. If that's the case, he'd have done it again. Isn't this what is known as a serial killer? There is no evidence that this person has done this type of thing either before or after JBs murder. IMO

Great discussion points. I have my opinion on what could have played out that night, but like every one I am just guessing.

(1)Maybe P. was in the habit of waking JBR up but in reality did not do this consistantly ie every single night. I wonder if P. just took a chance on `that one night` or if she was inconsistant with her midnight wakings up.

(2) Maybe P. slept through by accident even if she did intend on waking up at midnight. Afterall it would have been a huge effort to get up if you were exhausted & perhaps had even had a bit to drink that night.

My own experience has been to take the risk & deal with it later because I love my sleep & can be quite lazy.

As for the pineapple, maybe the intruder was trying to ease her out of sleep by offering her a favourite food...which obviously didnt work because she probably couldnt get it down that late at night. hopefully she didnt wake up fully throughout the whole ordeal.

The above is my opinion only.

[Sharon]

Oh NO I'm not envious at all, she just don't have my symathy where taking care of her children are concerned.
When she states she don't know the last time JB bathed, to me that raised a red flag. Here you've got a bed wetter, that can stink to high heven if not bathed and she so concerned with partys and such she can't even make sure her daughter is taken care of.
Why didn't they have a nanny if they were so well off?

I raised 4 kids......ALL of them went to 4 year colleges and are doing excellent.
I was a stay at home mom. At times it was a real struggle.

I have no symothy for the rich and famous.........let them walk in my shoes.

I'm very PROUD of my children and what I did for them!

JMHO

packer

You should be extreemly proud as you are obviously a very capable mother but I challenge your point re PR? ie. that because she had a low priority for bathing her kids it is a red flag? I sometimes cant remember when my kids have last bathed (ok....Im not going to embaress myself anymore).

just my opinion

[Sharon]

I can't imagine why this would be so whiskey, unless you mean there are some drugs that pass out of the system so quickly they leave little trace by the time a body undergoes testing. Or perhaps you are referring to the situation that exists in the field of sport, where athletes use performance enhancing drugs and there is a huge underground industry (IMO) where new drugs of this type are developed for which tests have not yet been devised for sport regulators to use. My guess is that pedophiles would be very interested in new drugs for which tests have not yet been devised for forensic analysts to use

I happen to believe she was drugged. I think that Santa scooped a spoonful of pineapple from the bowl with that large spoon, added about 10 mls of a drug which was in liquid form to it, then spooned it into JonBenet's mouth himself. I think that he was using 'fantasy speak' while doing so, as in telling her it was a magic potion that would give her special powers or some such thing, and that is how he encouraged her to eat that spoonful. In addition to that, I think he had already sussed out that fresh pineapple was one of her favorite foods so had brought it with him in a sealed plastic bag in his Santa sack.

Bearing in mind that at the time the original autopsy was performed there was no particular reason to suspect that there would be any drugs in her system in that she didn't present as a victim of a drug overdose, rather she had simply been bashed and strangled. So I think that the tests that were initially run on her body were just routine tests and either were not specific or not sensitive enough to detect the drug that I think was there albeit in minute amounts, since IMO it was a rapid acting, short half life (6 hours) drug.

But I think that years later, after new investigators replaced the original RDI-focussed team, someone who thinks along the same lines as I do, got the bright idea to test the pineapple. And lo and behold, they found evidence of a sedating/anxiolytic/amnesic drug IMO. I think this is part of the body of evidence that has never been released to the public. I think this might have been one of the reasons why alarm bells started ringing when JMK in Thailand mentioned that she had been drugged, a fact that no-one outside LE was supposed to have known. Maybe under questioning he even named the specific drug.

PS I don't think JMK had anything to do with the murder. I think he just fantasized about it, after learning about the details of what happened from the underground, underworld pedophile grapevine network.

Your theory sure does fit in with the facts like no other!

Btw, could you imagine the crime being carried out in the same way but without the pedophile angle? I am curious because she doesnt seem to be molested in a way that perhaps a pedophile would carry out.

Mind you I know nothing about the activities or motives of pedophiles to be able to analyse this aspect of the crime.

just my opinion

[Sharon]

In this country maybe he hasn't repeated his crime, but in a third world country, (like Thailand) his crimes may remain hidden among the criminal elements that trade in child prostitution.
Or he may be able to act out his fantasies there with out killing the witness/victim.

Or he may not be alive.

jmo

[bullmoose]

Or he may not be alive.

jmoThat is certainly one possibility; but it was thought[hoped] that the Green River Killer had died, mainly because one of the many possible subjects of suspician had died. It seemed that he quit killing for many years; as it turned out, a truck painter named Gary Ridgway matched 20 year old DNA and confessed to 49 murders in King County, Washington, in exchange for LWOP instead of the death penalty. A lot of people said, 'Just King County?', its seems likely he did many more just in the Seattle-Tacoma area, but as you might imagine , he is mum about having done any others. I remember reading nearly 20 years ago that Ted Bundy, originally of Tacoma, Washington offered his help in catching the GR killer from Florida's death row; I sort of got the impression that Bundy was jealous of the GR killer notoriety and was afraid that he would exceed Bundy's total, officially 29 or 33, but probably many more. His tips on Ridgway were pretty good, but it was an old cases' DNA that broke the case. Personally I think the killer of Jonbenet may be someone like Ted Kyszinski, with an agenda that nobody would ever guess. Ted would go years between his bombings; true he kept making home made bombs, but the method that he had of selecting his victims makes no sense to me. The killer of Jonbenet may have picked her to kill for reasons that would not make even insane sense to us. Also, remember that Ted would often travel hundreds of miles to set up his crimes; if the killer of Jonbenet did, he could have gone to anywhere in the country to return to his home base. I just don't think he's dead, I think he is still gloating. JMHO

[shill]

Some one could of shot him as an intruder and it would go down as a B&E shooting in the police report.

[Sharon]

That is certainly one possibility; but it was thought[hoped] that the Green River Killer had died, mainly because one of the many possible subjects of suspician had died. It seemed that he quit killing for many years; as it turned out, a truck painter named Gary Ridgway matched 20 year old DNA and confessed to 49 murders in King County, Washington, in exchange for LWOP instead of the death penalty. A lot of people said, 'Just King County?', its seems likely he did many more just in the Seattle-Tacoma area, but as you might imagine , he is mum about having done any others. I remember reading nearly 20 years ago that Ted Bundy, originally of Tacoma, Washington offered his help in catching the GR killer from Florida's death row; I sort of got the impression that Bundy was jealous of the GR killer notoriety and was afraid that he would exceed Bundy's total, officially 29 or 33, but probably many more. His tips on Ridgway were pretty good, but it was an old cases' DNA that broke the case. Personally I think the killer of Jonbenet may be someone like Ted Kyszinski, with an agenda that nobody would ever guess. Ted would go years between his bombings; true he kept making home made bombs, but the method that he had of selecting his victims makes no sense to me. The killer of Jonbenet may have picked her to kill for reasons that would not make even insane sense to us. Also, remember that Ted would often travel hundreds of miles to set up his crimes; if the killer of Jonbenet did, he could have gone to anywhere in the country to return to his home base. I just don't think he's dead, I think he is still gloating. JMHO


Amazing explaination.You have just said everything that I was thinking but couldnt explain in so many words. Yes, I really do think the killer could be someone totally unknown to us. Especially in light of the fact that some killers get away with it countless times. eg Ridgway (how could he kill so many & not get caught till so late in his killing spree??? I guess LE can only do so much & are subject to human error all the time).

It is quite scary how easy it seems for some murderers to get away with it!

In reading some of the other info available on this site, it is clear to me that some people can & do murder without a blink. Even they often dont know why they do what they do....meaning its impossible to look for a motive with these `insane` or just evil people.

Who knows, maybe JR looked at a janiter the wrong way once, or someone got rejected for a job at his firm.....it might be as simple as that.

just my opinion

[LindaA]

And remember that Bundy committed his murders literally from corner to corner of the country -- from Washington State to Colorado and finally to Florida -- getting arrested in the middle, escaping from the courthouse and continuing east. His m.o. changed somewhere along the way, IIRC. He picked up girls feigning a broken arm at first, posed as a security guard at times, but in the Chi Omega crime he actually entered the sorority house and killed several girls as they lay sleeping. His final victim was a little girl, but his others has been college age or slightly older. If his crimes had received national coverage no one would have suspected it to be the same killer. The same could be true with JBR.

[Sharon]

And remember that Bundy committed his murders literally from corner to corner of the country -- from Washington State to Colorado and finally to Florida -- getting arrested in the middle, escaping from the courthouse and continuing east. His m.o. changed somewhere along the way, IIRC. He picked up girls feigning a broken arm at first, posed as a security guard at times, but in the Chi Omega crime he actually entered the sorority house and killed several girls as they lay sleeping. His final victim was a little girl, but his others has been college age or slightly older. If his crimes had received national coverage no one would have suspected it to be the same killer. The same could be true with JBR.

Well said.
Obviously what we think about what a murderer should do (ie leave his signiture on each murder so we can easily identify his handiwork) and what he actually does irl are two different things!!!

[aussiesheila]

Your theory sure does fit in with the facts like no other!

Btw, could you imagine the crime being carried out in the same way but without the pedophile angle? I am curious because she doesnt seem to be molested in a way that perhaps a pedophile would carry out.

Mind you I know nothing about the activities or motives of pedophiles to be able to analyse this aspect of the crime.

just my opinionWell thanks Sharon for replying to my post. I don’t get all that many replies you see, and so I have the distinct feeling that they don’t get read. BTW I enjoy reading your posts, you come across as very open minded.

Yes my theory does fit all the facts, doesn’t it? No-one has ever come out and said they agree with my theory, so I am the only one who believes it to be true. I am certain it is, but everyone seems to find it so over the top that it cannot be believed.

Actually, since you ask, no I can’t envisage the crime being carried out by anyone but pedophiles. The pedophiles I envisage as being the ones who I theorize as having organized a session of sexual abuse were the type who liked to abuse the same child over and over and so were very conscious of leaving no trace of their activities. I do not think they had any intention of killing JonBenet that night. I’m guessing that maybe they got their kicks from oral sex, from digital penetration, from watching her appear to have orgasms which they simulated by repeated tightening and loosening of the ‘garotte’ around her neck to produce muscular spasms, with the added thrill of doing it all within a group.

I think they organized the ‘event’ at the Ramsey Christmas party on the 23rd at which all but one was a guest. I think though, they made one terrible mistake in their planning, and that was they allowed a person who had gate crashed the party to join them. He was an unknown quantity, they knew nothing about his background, and IMO he turned out to be a sadistic killer. I think he was the one who brought the stun gun, I don’t think any of the others knew ahead of time he was going to bring that. In fact I think one of the pedophiles fled the scene early on through the train room window because he thought the use of the stun gun was just a bit too much. I think the sadistic gate crasher was the one who shoved the broken end of the paintbrush up her vagina, and when she screamed in pain because of it, I think he was the one who bludgeoned her over the head with a baseball bat.

[User615]

I just have to interject again that the work done on JBR does not appear to be that of an adult. I would think any man could control someone her age very easily. Breath play is something older people do, or someone young trying to imitate it. The lack of real penetration is also suspicious. The blow to the head is a panic move to me, from someone that is not able to control her. I just have to ask who fits in that catagorey, and each time it leads me back inside the home.

[thewhitewitch1]

Well thanks Sharon for replying to my post. I don’t get all that many replies you see, and so I have the distinct feeling that they don’t get read. BTW I enjoy reading your posts, you come across as very open minded.

Yes my theory does fit all the facts, doesn’t it? No-one has ever come out and said they agree with my theory, so I am the only one who believes it to be true. I am certain it is, but everyone seems to find it so over the top that it cannot be believed.

Actually, since you ask, no I can’t envisage the crime being carried out by anyone but pedophiles. The pedophiles I envisage as being the ones who I theorize as having organized a session of sexual abuse were the type who liked to abuse the same child over and over and so were very conscious of leaving no trace of their activities. I do not think they had any intention of killing JonBenet that night. I’m guessing that maybe they got their kicks from oral sex, from digital penetration, from watching her appear to have orgasms which they simulated by repeated tightening and loosening of the ‘garotte’ around her neck to produce muscular spasms, with the added thrill of doing it all within a group.

I think they organized the ‘event’ at the Ramsey Christmas party on the 23rd at which all but one was a guest. I think though, they made one terrible mistake in their planning, and that was they allowed a person who had gate crashed the party to join them. He was an unknown quantity, they knew nothing about his background, and IMO he turned out to be a sadistic killer. I think he was the one who brought the stun gun, I don’t think any of the others knew ahead of time he was going to bring that. In fact I think one of the pedophiles fled the scene early on through the train room window because he thought the use of the stun gun was just a bit too much. I think the sadistic gate crasher was the one who shoved the broken end of the paintbrush up her vagina, and when she screamed in pain because of it, I think he was the one who bludgeoned her over the head with a baseball bat.


With all due respect, I do not see how your theory fits "all of the evidence" or that it fits any of the evidence at all.
The idea that a bunch of pedophiles gathered at the Ramsey home for a ped-o-party with the entire family in the house is beyond ridiculous. The idea that Patsy gave her ok to have JB photographed at that time of night knowing they had to leave early the next morning (or at all) and just "falling asleep on the couch" while this bunch of people tortured and killed her daughter defies logic and belief.
The idea that Patsy would write a ransom note to cover for anyone besides a member of her family is ridiculous. She played no part in your pedo-theory so how could she be blackmailed into covering up for them?
Santa McReynolds co-operated with the LE and was not a suspect. He gave samples of everything asked of him and there was no connection. I believe the same would hold true for Fleet White. I don't know who else you named as the other peds.
There is no evidence that she had been molested and sexually abused over a long period of time...physically or mentally. If this was truely happening, she would have been a very disturbed little girl and would have shown signs. Other than the bed wetting, she did not.
I must say, you have a very vivid imagination, though.

[Sharon]

With all due respect, I do not see how your theory fits "all of the evidence" or that it fits any of the evidence at all.
The idea that a bunch of pedophiles gathered at the Ramsey home for a ped-o-party with the entire family in the house is beyond ridiculous. The idea that Patsy gave her ok to have JB photographed at that time of night knowing they had to leave early the next morning (or at all) and just "falling asleep on the couch" while this bunch of people tortured and killed her daughter defies logic and belief.
The idea that Patsy would write a ransom note to cover for anyone besides a member of her family is ridiculous. She played no part in your pedo-theory so how could she be blackmailed into covering up for them?
Santa McReynolds co-operated with the LE and was not a suspect. He gave samples of everything asked of him and there was no connection. I believe the same would hold true for Fleet White. I don't know who else you named as the other peds.
There is no evidence that she had been molested and sexually abused over a long period of time...physically or mentally. If this was truely happening, she would have been a very disturbed little girl and would have shown signs. Other than the bed wetting, she did not.
I must say, you have a very vivid imagination, though.

Her theory fits the pineapple mystery like no other imo!

[Tober]

The pineapple is no mystery at all. The only logical explanation for it that fits absolutely perfectly with all the pineapple-related evidence, without a single force-fit, is: 1) It was the Ramsey's pineapple; 2) Burke or Patsy (probably Patsy) got it for JonBenet shortly (as early as 9:30 p.m.) after their arrival home; 3) Burke or Patsy placed the bowl on the table; 4) JonBenet was awake when she got home, which is how she was able to consume the pineapple that Burke or Patsy (most likely Patsy) got for her; 5) JonBenet ate the pineapple because it was theirs (the Ramsey's), and because Burke or Patsy (probably Patsy) got it for her, and because she was awake when she got home. One can make all the far-fetched, logic-defying excuses they want about the pineapple on the Ramsey's behalf. That does not change the fact that in all these years, intruder theorists cannot demonstrate (using sound evidence) that there was ever an intruder in the home that night. Every piece of so-called intruder evidence has been refuted, sometimes in a matter of minutes. The idea that an intruder killed JonBenet does not square with the evidence (circumstantial, behavioral, physical, forensic). Even if an intruder killed JonBenet (very highly unlikely), the evidence against the Ramseys would still have to be explained in light of an intruder having killed her. If that were the case (very highly unlikely), at minimum, it would appear that the Ramseys covered-up the crime for that person. Even if an intruder killed JonBenet, there would still be lots of explaining to do regarding the Ramseys. Additionally, the motivation to stage the crime would only be strong for someone covering for themselves and/or another family member who would be suspected of the crime by circumstance, e.g. they lived in the home. The pineapple is no mystery. It shows a Ramsey gave it to JonBenet, a Ramsey placed it on the table, and most importantly, JonBenet was awake when she got home, which contradicts Patsy's and John's (prime suspects in JonBenet's homicide) claims. This post is my opinion.

[bullmoose]

The pineapple is no mystery at all. The only logical explanation for it that fits absolutely perfectly with all the pineapple-related evidence, without a single force-fit, is: 1) It was the Ramsey's pineapple; 2) Burke or Patsy (probably Patsy) got it for JonBenet shortly (as early as 9:30 p.m.) after their arrival home; 3) Burke or Patsy placed the bowl on the table; 4) JonBenet was awake when she got home, which is how she was able to consume the pineapple that Burke or Patsy (most likely Patsy) got for her; 5) JonBenet ate the pineapple because it was theirs (the Ramsey's), and because Burke or Patsy (probably Patsy) got it for her, and because she was awake when she got home. One can make all the far-fetched, logic-defying excuses they want about the pineapple on the Ramsey's behalf. That does not change the fact that in all these years, intruder theorists cannot demonstrate (using sound evidence) that there was ever an intruder in the home that night. Every piece of so-called intruder evidence has been refuted, sometimes in a matter of minutes. The idea that an intruder killed JonBenet does not square with the evidence (circumstantial, behavioral, physical, forensic). Even if an intruder killed JonBenet (very highly unlikely), the evidence against the Ramseys would still have to be explained in light of an intruder having killed her. If that were the case (very highly unlikely), at minimum, it would appear that the Ramseys covered-up the crime for that person. Even if an intruder killed JonBenet, there would still be lots of explaining to do regarding the Ramseys. Additionally, the motivation to stage the crime would only be strong for someone covering for themselves and/or another family member who would be suspected of the crime by circumstance, e.g. they lived in the home. The pineapple is no mystery. It shows a Ramsey gave it to JonBenet, a Ramsey placed it on the table, and most importantly, JonBenet was awake when she got home, which contradicts Patsy's and John's (prime suspects in JonBenet's homicide) claims. This post is my opinion.The last time I looked, a police dept. had to produce actual evidence of a crime being committed by one or more persons to effect an arrest, an indictnent, a trial and maybe a conviction. A crime was certainly committed, but the efforts of the Supersleuth Synthroid Stevie and the BPD have never been able to produce evidence sufficient to indict anyone, much less bring anyone to trial for a possible conviction. The arguments presented here by Tober remind me of the efforts of Synthroid Stevie to convict the Ramseys in the public mind, as opposed to the courts. I am sure that Thomas is very thankful for the help he received from such fine truth-seeking publications as the Globe and Enquirer to get his version of what happened out to the public, until such time as he could get his fearless expose of the evil Ramseys out in hardback and paperback form.Boiled down, Tober's argument is similar, that the Ramseys are guilty because they have never proven their innocence to Tober's satisfaction. I don't think they ever could;of course this is all JMHO.:biggrin:

[shill]

Every piece of so-called intruder evidence has been refuted, sometimes in a matter of minutes. The idea that an intruder killed JonBenet does not square with the evidence (circumstantial, behavioral, physical, forensic). This post is my small minded closed opinion.
Big claim to make since no one on these blog sites have access to "every piece of so-called intruder evidence"
If anything, there is a lot more evidence that is not been made public then has been made public.

And you or anyone else has still not shown any transcript of Burke denying he got the bowl of pineapple out. And why, because that info is unavailable, along with police reports and evidence logs, and much more.

[Tober]

Shill, you don't have the legal authority to quote my post and then add something in that I didn't write. You are on notice as of this moment that I require you to make the correction or I will contact the administator and consider filing a motion in court.

[shill]

Shill, you don't have the legal authority to quote my post and then add something in that I didn't write. You are on notice as of this moment that I require you to make the correction or I will contact the administator and consider filing a motion in court.

Go ahead you big crybaby! You're ruining this site for me anyways with your idiotic posts. Why don't you just go to WebSleuths where they will worship your opinion?

P.S. It's to late to correct it and I wouldn't correct it if I could anyways.

[thewhitewitch1]

On another note to Aussiesheila...

If Patsy knows who killed her daughter, why did she never tell anyone? Why did the Ramseys shell out all that money to hire PIs? She could have had them all in prison from the get-go and spared her family all of the "trauma" they've endured over the last decade.

[bullmoose]

On another note to Aussiesheila...

If Patsy knows who killed her daughter, why did she never tell anyone? Why did the Ramseys shell out all that money to hire PIs? She could have had them all in prison from the get-go and spared her family all of the "trauma" they've endured over the last decade.To Aussiesheila: I do read and enjoy your posts although my ideas differ from yours; just like here, maybe tww1 and I don't agree on too much, but I'm in agreement with what she says here.JMHO

[LindaA]

Shill, you don't have the legal authority to quote my post and then add something in that I didn't write. You are on notice as of this moment that I require you to make the correction or I will contact the administator and consider filing a motion in court.

You really need to lighten up and get a grip.

[LindaA]

On another note to Aussiesheila...

If Patsy knows who killed her daughter, why did she never tell anyone? Why did the Ramseys shell out all that money to hire PIs? She could have had them all in prison from the get-go and spared her family all of the "trauma" they've endured over the last decade.

Correct me if I'm wrong -- and I"m sure you will, even if I'm not -- but weren't you among those were saying the R's were guilty because they did nothing to find their daughter's killer? "shelling out all that oney to hire PIs" doesn't sound as if they did nothing.

[aussiesheila]

With all due respect, I do not see how your theory fits "all of the evidence" or that it fits any of the evidence at all.
My theory explains how she was taken silently from her bedroom without a struggle, it explains the reason for the bowl of pineapple on the table, why there was only a small amount of it in her intestine and why the need for the oversized spoon.

My theory explains why, in spite of it being a brutal murder, her body was wrapped 'lovingly' in her little white blanket and how the Barbie nightgown came to be lying beside her body in the cellar. My theory explains why the child had not been removed from the house, it explains why the body had been hidden and not just left where she had been killed, it explains the need for the coverup in the first place.

It explains the Maglite on the kitchen bench, the baseball bat in the yard, the disturbed bushes outside the basement toilet window, the suitcase under the trainroom window together with the scrape mark on the wall above, the lights on in the kitchen around midnight, the animal hairs found on her hands, the heart drawing on her hand, the overhead rigor position of her arms, the 'loose' wrist bindings, the handle on the garotte, the reason for the 15.5 inch length of cord between the wrist loops, why she came to have oversize panties on, who 'the walker' outside the Ramsey house was, what caused the scream, why she had urine stains on the anterior upper legs of her longjohns.

It is also the only theory that satisfactorily explains the timing of the head injury and the strangulation injury relative to one another such that they resulted in the injury outcomes that were observed at the autopsy.

The idea that a bunch of pedophiles gathered at the Ramsey home for a ped-o-party with the entire family in the house is beyond ridiculous.Could you give some kind of reason why you think this? I mean, a group of five men abusing a subdued child in the basement of an enormous house while an exhausted mother sleeps one storey above and a father 3 storeys above?. What is ridiculous about that?

The idea that Patsy gave her ok to have JB photographed at that time of night knowing they had to leave early the next morning (or at all) and just "falling asleep on the couch" while this bunch of people tortured and killed her daughter defies logic and belief.Have you actually ever bothered to read my detailed outline of how I think she gave her ok, whitewitch? I have posted it over and over, I'm sure you must have come across it. Would you please point out exactly which parts defy logic and belief, and more importantly, WHY?


The idea that Patsy would write a ransom note to cover for anyone besides a member of her family is ridiculous. She played no part in your pedo-theory so how could she be blackmailed into covering up for them?That's where you are wrong whitewhitch, in my theory she did play a part, albeit a small one, in the pedo abuse, and again I have posted details of how I believe she was blackmailed over and over. So, once again would you please point out exactly which parts are riduculous, and WHY?

Santa McReynolds co-operated with the LE and was not a suspect. He gave samples of everything asked of him and there was no connection.So there was no connection as far as the BPD looked, but they didn't look very far did they? Like they could have got a search warrant for his house to locate such things as a receipt for the fresh pineapple, a dirtied Santa suit, black balaclava, brown Santa sack, bottle of short-acting liquid benzodiazapene. THEN there might have been some connection.

I believe the same would hold true for Fleet White.Maybe if BPD had taken posession of his phone records they might have found a connection. As in a call received from the Ramsy house at around 3 am on the 26th, another call, outgoing this time, to Eller's residence at around 5 am. Maybe a few checks on his houseguest from CA. And what about the number he called when he raced to the phone in the study when coming up from the cellar ahead of John after the body had been found, could it have been Eller's number again? They would have all provided connections IMO. And what connection might have been found in those notes he was frantically scribbling had the BPD investigated those?

I don't know who else you named as the other peds.You mean you launch into a serious attack on my theory without even knowing such fundamental details? I mean who each one of them was are pretty important details in making the theory hang together. How can you justify criticising my theory when you don't even understand what it is?

There is no evidence that she had been molested and sexually abused over a long period of time...physically or mentally.My theory is consistent with the view of some medical experts who say it is their opinion that JonBenet suffered earlier sexual abuse.


If this was truely happening, she would have been a very disturbed little girl and would have shown signs. Other than the bed wetting, she did not.Bedwetting CAN be a sign of sexual abuse, as can pain on urination, vaginal redness, vaginal discharge, vague unexplained abdominal pains, sleeping poorly. JonBenet suffered from all of these continually during the 3 years leading up to her death.

[Tober]

You really need to lighten up and get a grip.

Now Linda, you know it's inappropriate to quote someone and add in something that they didn't write. Anyway, I'll give Shill a pass this time. I know it must be hard for IDIs not being able to reconcile reality (that no evidence exists which eliminates Patsy as having been involved in JonBenet's death) with wishful thinking (that Patsy "couldn't have done this"). Anyway, no IDI, as far as I'm aware, has come up with a logical explanation for the pineapple that fits with the evidence without requiring a stretch or a force-fit. The bottom line is that it was the Ramsey's pineapple. They're lying about not knowing where it came from and about JonBenet being asleep when they got home. Why would they lie about such things unless they have something to hide? This post is my opinion.

[nuisanceposter]

You really need to lighten up and get a grip.


No, LindaA, Shill needs to lighten up and get a grip. Ask him why he keeps getting banned from WS under his aliases - it's because the mods there won't tolerate his crap like the mods here do. Now ask him why he feels the need to conduct himself like that - Shill is the problem, not Tober.

No one is allowed to alter someone's post to make it read in manner that is designed to insult the person who said it, and you acting like that's okay and Tober is going too far by objecting to it is absolutely ridiculous.

How can you even defend that bullsh!t, or act like it's okay and Tober needs to let it go? Why should anyone here have to tolerate being mocked by someone who doesn't have the maturity and self-discipline to behave like an adult and not constantly resort to inciting and insulting others? Shill is violating the TOS, and you know it. Stop encouraging this juvenile and unacceptable behavior.

Anyway, I'll give Shill a pass this time. You're a far better person than the ones who seek to target you. I admire that.

[LindaA]

No, LindaA, Shill needs to lighten up and get a grip. Ask him why he keeps getting banned from WS under his aliases - it's because the mods there won't tolerate his crap like the mods here do. Now ask him why he feels the need to conduct himself like that - Shill is the problem, not Tober.

No one is allowed to alter someone's post to make it read in manner that is designed to insult the person who said it, and you acting like that's okay and Tober is going too far by objecting to it is absolutely ridiculous.

How can you even defend that bullsh!t, or act like it's okay and Tober needs to let it go? Why should anyone here have to tolerate being mocked by someone who doesn't have the maturity and self-discipline to behave like an adult and not constantly resort to inciting and insulting others? Shill is violating the TOS, and you know it. Stop encouraging this juvenile and unacceptable behavior.

You're a far better person than the ones who seek to target you. I admire that.

If Tober thinks that taking anyone to court over this is reasonable, he needs to get a life. I can just hear the judge now laughing him out of the courthouse! A report to the mods is appropriate, but legal action? Give me a frickin' break!! Shill does't need to lighten up at all. He was making light of Tober in the first place. Not saying that is appropriate, but certainly not lawsuit material. Let's get real here! DO we all own copyrights on what we post? I don't think so.

[LindaA]

Now Linda, you know it's inappropriate to quote someone and add in something that they didn't write. Anyway, I'll give Shill a pass this time. I know it must be hard for IDIs not being able to reconcile reality (that no evidence exists which eliminates Patsy as having been involved in JonBenet's death) with wishful thinking (that Patsy "couldn't have done this"). Anyway, no IDI, as far as I'm aware, has come up with a logical explanation for the pineapple that fits with the evidence without requiring a stretch or a force-fit. The bottom line is that it was the Ramsey's pineapple. They're lying about not knowing where it came from and about JonBenet being asleep when they got home. Why would they lie about such things unless they have something to hide? This post is my opinion.

What does all that blathering about IDIs and their inability to grasp reality have to do with your dragging anyone into court over a joke, albeit in inappropriate one? You take yourself far too sreiously. Lighten up, already! And your theory about Patsy skulking around in the bsement with a flashlight doesn't exactly show a grasp of reality either.

[nuisanceposter]

If Tober thinks that taking anyone to court over this is reasonable, he needs to get a life. I can just hear the judge now laughing him out of the courthouse! A report to the mods is appropriate, but legal action? Give me a frickin' break!! Shill does't need to lighten up at all. He was making light of Tober in the first place. Not saying that is appropriate, but certainly not lawsuit material. Let's get real here! DO we all own copyrights on what we post? I don't think so.

Is Shill violating TOS by altering Tober's post to insult him or not, Linda?

I see no reason to excuse or condone a person who intentionally insults others, even if it's supposedly in the form of a joke. It's not okay. There shouldn't even be a need to report anyone to the mods, in my opinion, because we should all be able to have a discussion without resorting to petty backstab tricks like altering other's posts.

I can't believe adults even need to debate something so basic. Give me a break, and grow up and get over your little "sides of the fence" alliance and be frickin FAIR for once.

[thewhitewitch1]

Correct me if I'm wrong -- and I"m sure you will, even if I'm not -- but weren't you among those were saying the R's were guilty because they did nothing to find their daughter's killer? "shelling out all that oney to hire PIs" doesn't sound as if they did nothing.


I am correcting you. :D
I once said that their reward offer meant nothing because it would never be claimed.

[thewhitewitch1]

Aussiesheila...I don't have time to answer all of your comments and I am sorry if I forgot details of your very long and involved theory.
My theory about all of the details that you mentioned can cover the Ramseys involvement just as well as yours covers this Santa Pedo fantasy.
For example...that Barbie nightgown that you keep mentioning...it was NOT JBs "favorite" nightgown. When asked about it, the Rs seemed quite confused about it. I believe they later stated that it may have been clothing that went on JBs lifesize Barbie. Please explain why Patsy would want to "redress" JB in a dolls clothing.
How do you know the extent that Santa McReynolds was investigated? Where is the evidence that 5 other people were in the basement abusing JB? Where is their hair, fiber, fingerprints, DNA? Do you really believe that all of this could occur without them leaving some of the above mentioned evidence behind? Do you think they vacuumed the entire basement before they left?
If the Ramseys didn't make their last stop to drop off gifts because it was late, why do you think Patsy would keep JB up to be photographed? Are a shirt and long-johns something Patsy would want JB to be photgraphed in?
Do you think Patsy wanted JB photographed with her hair in two pony-tails?
Have you ever even looked at the professional photos done of JB? The word "studio" comes to mind. Do you really think that Patsy would let her precious daughter be photographed without herself being present?
There is no way in hell that Patsy would cover for anyone outside her family for 10 years. I forgot what you said made Patsy involved with the pedos that she could be blackmailed for but unless she consented for this group of people to molest her daughter and these alledged peds have proof of it, no way would she continue to cover for them.
If Santa was going to bring in a food to entice JB, do you really think it would be pineapple? Wouldn't cookies, cake, brownies...anything sweet be easier to carry and offer more appeal to a child than pineapple? How could the peds know that Patsy would "fall asleep" so they could carry out their plans? What if she didn't? What if she sat there and watched the "photo session" the entire time?
Why would peds even choose Christmas night to have their secret molestation party especially in the Ramseys own home? Were they idiots?
I am sorry if I have missed details that you've already provided but your theory reads like a bad mystery novel and I have a hard time getting through those too.

[rashomon]

Around midnight, 1, or 2 JB gets up to pee, then goes downstairs to look at her new bike (or the Christmas tree, or some other gift). She walks past the table and grabs a piece out of the bowl, then goes on her way.

After playing with a toy, or looking in her stocking or whatever, she runs into the killer....

I can't find the post right now, but read here yesterday that Patsy said JB was afraid at night and would not have gone downstairs alone.

[Zoey]

I can't find the post right now, but read here yesterday that Patsy said JB was afraid at night and would not have gone downstairs alone.


Post #597, this thread, posted by Louisadelmar:

TT: Patsy, we’re going to try to go through, try to get through some of these questions the best we can (inaudible). Is JonBenet afraid of the dark, at all?
PR: Uh, not, I don’t I, think so, not that I know.

Apparently JB was notafraid of the dark.

[rashomon]

Post #597, this thread, posted by Louisadelmar:

TT: Patsy, we’re going to try to go through, try to get through some of these questions the best we can (inaudible). Is JonBenet afraid of the dark, at all?
PR: Uh, not, I don’t I, think so, not that I know.

Apparently JB was notafraid of the dark.
This was not the post I was referring to. I'm going from memory, and the gist of the post was Patsy saying JB would not have gone downstairs at night (for whatever reason).

[LindaA]

I am correcting you. :D
I once said that their reward offer meant nothing because it would never be claimed.
:lol:
Told ya.

[LindaA]

Is Shill violating TOS by altering Tober's post to insult him or not, Linda?

I see no reason to excuse or condone a person who intentionally insults others, even if it's supposedly in the form of a joke. It's not okay. There shouldn't even be a need to report anyone to the mods, in my opinion, because we should all be able to have a discussion without resorting to petty backstab tricks like altering other's posts.

I can't believe adults even need to debate something so basic. Give me a break, and grow up and get over your little "sides of the fence" alliance and be frickin FAIR for once.

I sid I think it was inappropriate, but taking him to court? Give me a break. That's just stupid. Not to mention childish. Maybe someone else here should grow up.

[shill]

Now Linda, you know it's inappropriate to quote someone and add in something that they didn't write. Anyway, I'll give Shill a pass this time. I know it must be hard for IDIs not being able to reconcile reality (that no evidence exists which eliminates Patsy as having been involved in JonBenet's death) with wishful thinking (that Patsy "couldn't have done this"). Anyway, no IDI, as far as I'm aware, has come up with a logical explanation for the pineapple that fits with the evidence without requiring a stretch or a force-fit. The bottom line is that it was the Ramsey's pineapple. They're lying about not knowing where it came from and about JonBenet being asleep when they got home. Why would they lie about such things unless they have something to hide? This post is my opinion.

I altered your disclaimer, not your opinion, boo hoo did you cry yourself to sleep?

You haven't shown that Burke has said he did not get the bowl of pineapple out so I don't know what you're talking about "reconciling reality" unless you were talking about yourself.

[shill]

No, LindaA, Shill needs to lighten up and get a grip. Ask him why he keeps getting banned from WS under his aliases - it's because the mods there won't tolerate his crap like the mods here do. Now ask him why he feels the need to conduct himself like that - Shill is the problem, not Tober. Very funny, I don't post at WS, but I am thinking of reporting you to the moderators for this slanderous post.
No one is allowed to alter someone's post to make it read in manner that is designed to insult the person who said it, and you acting like that's okay and Tober is going too far by objecting to it is absolutely ridiculous.
I altered their disclaimer, not their opinion.

How can you even defend that bullsh!t, or act like it's okay and Tober needs to let it go? Why should anyone here have to tolerate being mocked by someone who doesn't have the maturity and self-discipline to behave like an adult and not constantly resort to inciting and insulting others? Shill is violating the TOS, and you know it. Stop encouraging this juvenile and unacceptable behavior.

You and Tober both need a chill pill.

[Sharon]

Well thanks Sharon for replying to my post. I don’t get all that many replies you see, and so I have the distinct feeling that they don’t get read. BTW I enjoy reading your posts, you come across as very open minded.

Yes my theory does fit all the facts, doesn’t it? No-one has ever come out and said they agree with my theory, so I am the only one who believes it to be true. I am certain it is, but everyone seems to find it so over the top that it cannot be believed.

Actually, since you ask, no I can’t envisage the crime being carried out by anyone but pedophiles. The pedophiles I envisage as being the ones who I theorize as having organized a session of sexual abuse were the type who liked to abuse the same child over and over and so were very conscious of leaving no trace of their activities. I do not think they had any intention of killing JonBenet that night. I’m guessing that maybe they got their kicks from oral sex, from digital penetration, from watching her appear to have orgasms which they simulated by repeated tightening and loosening of the ‘garotte’ around her neck to produce muscular spasms, with the added thrill of doing it all within a group.

I think they organized the ‘event’ at the Ramsey Christmas party on the 23rd at which all but one was a guest. I think though, they made one terrible mistake in their planning, and that was they allowed a person who had gate crashed the party to join them. He was an unknown quantity, they knew nothing about his background, and IMO he turned out to be a sadistic killer. I think he was the one who brought the stun gun, I don’t think any of the others knew ahead of time he was going to bring that. In fact I think one of the pedophiles fled the scene early on through the train room window because he thought the use of the stun gun was just a bit too much. I think the sadistic gate crasher was the one who shoved the broken end of the paintbrush up her vagina, and when she screamed in pain because of it, I think he was the one who bludgeoned her over the head with a baseball bat.

I always read your posts and they are always worth the read!!!

I think most people know too little about peds to understand what they would or wouldnt do in a case like this....(well, speaking for myself maybe).

This case gets more unlikely no matter which angle you take. If it didnt really happen I would think it impossible to have happened (ie everything).

Do you think the R. were in on it? This is the angle that stops me thinking it was an ongoing ped ring. It does seem bazaar that they would allow this in their basement while everyone else slept???

But I dont particularly think anything was staged in terms of the murder weapons. I think what was there was used to murder JBR.

[Sharon]

Had a serial killer murdered JonBenet, leaving the ransom note would qualify as "taunting." Had this type of serial killer perpetrated the crime, chances are he/she would have written again, eventually. Serial killers who taunt through writing, such as the Zodiac, the Unabomber Ted Kaczynski, and the Son of Sam David Berkowitz, can't resist the urge to write again. Had that type of killer murdered JonBenet, they most likely would have taunted again through writing or a phone call. Even if a serial killer (or any intruder for that matter) murdered JonBenet, the evidence against the Ramseys would still have to be explained in light of an intruder/serial killer committing the crime. If that were the case (highly unlikely), at minimum it would appear that the Ramseys covered-up the crime for this person (again, not likely, as the motivation to stage the crime would only be strong for someone covering for themselves and/or another family member whom would be suspected of the crime by circumstance, e.g. they lived in the home). At minimum, if someone other than a Ramsey killed JonBenet (again, highly unlikely in light of the evidence), there is still a lot of explaining to do. This post is my opinion.

Tober I cant understand your reasoning, although I am always happy to be convinsed of a new idea.

You say even if an intruder murdered JBR the evidense shows that they covered up for the murderer, which proves that they must have done it. You have just argued a circle!!! ie They did it because they did it!!!!

But you are spot on about one thing....there is still a lot of explaining to do no matter who did it.

Also, other posters here have pointed out that serial murderers do not always repeat their signiture `moves`. Ted Bundy was one example that clearly confirmed that murderers dont always follow their urge to kill in the same way. I guess they get new urges.

[thewhitewitch1]

:lol:
Told ya.

Well, you did tell me to correct you if you were wrong, didn't you?
And you were. :punch:

[Tober]

You say even if an intruder murdered JBR the evidense shows that they covered up for the murderer, which proves that they must have done it. You have just argued a circle!!!

There is strong evidence that Patsy carried out most (possibly all) of the staging. There is fiber evidence that suggests John may have been involved in the staging and/or the sexual assault. Suppose it could be shown that an intruder was in the home that night. The evidence against the Ramseys would still have to be explained in light of an intruder having been in the home, which would raise more questions than answers. Did the intruder kill JonBenet and the Ramseys stage the crime, or would it be contended that the intruder killed JonBenet and staged the crime? If the latter, some questions would be: How was the intruder able to mimic Patsy's handwriting so well?--How did fibers from Patsy's sweater-jacket become deposited in both sets of neck ligature knots?--How did those same fibers become deposited in the paint tote, which was outside the body room?--How were those same fibers deposited onto the blanket which JonBenet's body was wrapped in?--How were John's shirt fibers deposited in JonBenet's panties and crotch area?--How was the intruder able to do everything that was done, without being detected?--After killing JonBenet, why didn't the intruder just leave?--Being that an intruder would already be from outside the home, why did the intruder need to stage the crime scene to focus attention away from the home?--Why was this intruder concerned with focusing attention away from JonBenet's head injury?--And so on... This post is my opinion.

[shill]

There is strong evidence that Patsy carried out most (possibly all) of the staging. There is fiber evidence that suggests John may have been involved in the staging and/or the sexual assault. Suppose it could be shown that an intruder was in the home that night. The evidence against the Ramseys would still have to be explained in light of an intruder having been in the home, which would raise more questions than answers. Did the intruder kill JonBenet and the Ramseys stage the crime, or would it be contended that the intruder killed JonBenet and staged the crime? If the latter, some questions would be: How was the intruder able to mimic Patsy's handwriting so well?--How did fibers from Patsy's sweater-jacket become deposited in both sets of neck ligature knots?--How did those same fibers become deposited in the paint tote, which was outside the body room?--How were those same fibers deposited onto the blanket which JonBenet's body was wrapped in?--How were John's shirt fibers deposited in JonBenet's panties and crotch area?--How was the intruder able to do everything that was done, without being detected?--After killing JonBenet, why didn't the intruder just leave?--Being that an intruder would already be from outside the home, why did the intruder need to stage the crime scene to focus attention away from the home?--Why was this intruder concerned with focusing attention away from JonBenet's head injury?--And so on... This post is my opinion.
You don't read anything but your own posts do you? It's all been explained rationally in prior posts.
I can only assume you choose to remain ignorant because you despise people like the Ramseys and only want to here words that will fuel your hate for them.
If only you could see the evidence trees from the Ramsey hate forest.
You really do belong with those hate mongering misguided freaks at WebSleuths.

[Sharon]

There is strong evidence that Patsy carried out most (possibly all) of the staging. There is fiber evidence that suggests John may have been involved in the staging and/or the sexual assault. Suppose it could be shown that an intruder was in the home that night. The evidence against the Ramseys would still have to be explained in light of an intruder having been in the home, which would raise more questions than answers. Did the intruder kill JonBenet and the Ramseys stage the crime, or would it be contended that the intruder killed JonBenet and staged the crime? If the latter, some questions would be: How was the intruder able to mimic Patsy's handwriting so well?--How did fibers from Patsy's sweater-jacket become deposited in both sets of neck ligature knots?--How did those same fibers become deposited in the paint tote, which was outside the body room?--How were those same fibers deposited onto the blanket which JonBenet's body was wrapped in?--How were John's shirt fibers deposited in JonBenet's panties and crotch area?--How was the intruder able to do everything that was done, without being detected?--After killing JonBenet, why didn't the intruder just leave?--Being that an intruder would already be from outside the home, why did the intruder need to stage the crime scene to focus attention away from the home?--Why was this intruder concerned with focusing attention away from JonBenet's head injury?--And so on... This post is my opinion.

Tober, I do see where you are coming from, I really do.

But, I still dont think any of us are so sure...so very sure, as to be able to bet on the lives of our own children on what exactly occured that night and by whom. And if any of us are that sure of exactly what happened, then I hope not to ever meet you irl!!!

I will also tell you why I cant debate with you in a meaningful way.... when you constantly ask why did abc do xyz ? ....you have already convicted the R. by the way you pose your question. Its like asking `why do you beat your wife?` or `have you stopped drinking & stealling from your work?`...or how was the intruder able to mimic PR handwritting so well...or any of your questions in the above quote.

You see, the questions cant be answered without guilt, as there is already conviction in the way the sentence is set up.
jmo
jmo.

[shill]

Tober,
I will also tell you why I cant debate with you in a meaningful way.... when you constantly ask why did abc do xyz ? ....you have already convicted the R. by the way you pose your question. Its like asking `why do you beat your wife?` or `have you stopped drinking & stealling from your work?`...or how was the intruder able to mimic PR handwritting so well...or any of your questions in the above quote.

You see, the questions cant be answered without guilt, as there is already conviction in the way the sentence is set up.
jmo
jmo.
Not to worry Tober, they like that presumed guilty tripe at WebSleuths. You'll make a great addition to that lynch mob.

[LindaA]

Sharon, you make excellent points in #731. Those who believe the R's to be guilty all seem to be so sure that they ridicule and belittle those of us who are not convinced. Tober is chief among them, yet he never answers questions we pose or provide any links to back up his statements of so-called fact. I have never been able to understand how people can be so sure of someone's guilt that they feel free to call them names and refer to those who thnk there is great deal of reasonable doubt the "Ramsey Spin Team."

I came here as a fence-sitter, but soon saw the same circular reasoning in the RDIs that you mention. The IDIs seem much more open minded. Most of them will say that while there seems to be no conclusive proof on the Rs guilt, there are things that bother them about the case. Since there is evidence we are not privy to, if shown evidence that inculpates the Rs, they would believe it. (Some here believe Tober is privy to that information or at least gives the impression that he is.) The IDIs say they would rather err on the side of the Rs' innocence than spend years condemning innocent people.

I have never read a post from an RDI other than DocG that gives a scenario that even comes close to fitting the evidence we do have. They are fond of throwing down the gauntlet to the IDIs to come up with one, and there have been some. Aussiesheila has posted one that does incorporated all the known evidence and it has been widely criticised. I've never seen an RDI theory that comes even close to hers in terms of fitting with the evidence. Yes, it does sound "out there" but it is quite possible that parts of it are correct, at least.

The problem with the fiber evidence is that the existence much of it is not fact. It is only referred to in transcripts of interviews with the Rs. It is not listed on evidence manifests for the most part. RDIs refuse to believe that anyone connected with LE would lie to someone they were questioning in order to obtain a confessions. PMPT contains in its first 100 pges several examples of time LE did just this when questioning friends and acquaintances of the Rs.

A further problem with the fiber evidence is that fibers from the parents of a child would naturally tend to be found on that child and in their home. Finally, RDIs refuse to recognize the fact that there were thousands of fibers taken from the crime scene that have not been sourced when they say there just was no evidence of an intruder.

The long and short of it, IMO, is that if one wishes to find the Rs guilty you can see that guilt in everything whether it is there or not.

[Sprocket]

or how was the intruder able to mimic PR handwritting so well...

Well, how was the intruder able to do this? Handwriting analysis is not an exact science, but what it does really well, is "exclude" individuals. By all the recognized experts in the field of document examination, Patsy could not be excluded as the author of the note.

The fact that she was in the home, (time, place, opportunity) puts the statistical possibility of Patsy writing the note more probable than it does with an intruder. The odds of an intruder, having handwriting (as well as wordage and phrasing, in essense language) so similar to Patsy's are so small that it would be an astronomical, one in a gazillion occurrence, for that stastical probability to happen.

Adding in the totality of the observed behavioral evidence and it shouldn't take a rocket scientist to come to a logical conclusion about the ransom note.

[User615]

Well, how was the intruder able to do this? Handwriting analysis is not an exact science, but what it does really well, is "exclude" individuals. By all the recognized experts in the field of document examination, Patsy could not be excluded as the author of the note.

The fact that she was in the home, (time, place, opportunity) puts the statistical possibility of Patsy writing the note more probable than it does with an intruder. The odds of an intruder, having handwriting (as well as wordage and phrasing, in essense language) so similar to Patsy's are so small that it would be an astronomical, one in a gazillion occurrence, for that stastical probability to happen.

Adding in the totality of the observed behavioral evidence and it shouldn't take a rocket scientist to come to a logical conclusion about the ransom note.
Does anyone ever get the feeling about the ransom note that one person was writing it and another dictating it to them?

[Sharon]

Well, how was the intruder able to do this? Handwriting analysis is not an exact science, but what it does really well, is "exclude" individuals. By all the recognized experts in the field of document examination, Patsy could not be excluded as the author of the note.

The fact that she was in the home, (time, place, opportunity) puts the statistical possibility of Patsy writing the note more probable than it does with an intruder. The odds of an intruder, having handwriting (as well as wordage and phrasing, in essense language) so similar to Patsy's are so small that it would be an astronomical, one in a gazillion occurrence, for that stastical probability to happen.

Adding in the totality of the observed behavioral evidence and it shouldn't take a rocket scientist to come to a logical conclusion about the ransom note.

I am no expert but we have discussed this recently here. It was shown that different experts had drastically different opinions as to who wrote the letter. Keep in mind that the pen used was not a fine tip, thus making it difficult for the experts to analyse.
Well, to sumarise, some experts thought PR could have wrote it, others thought JR could have written it. Some were certain it was written after JBR was already killed, others were certain that it was written well before any crime took place. The analysis inevitably reflected the experts prior belief in who did it.

Btw, many people couldnt be eliminated as the author, probably due to the way a thicker marker causes detail to be surpressed.
jmo

[Sharon]

Does anyone ever get the feeling about the ransom note that one person was writing it and another dictating it to them?

I get the feeling that 2 people were brainstorming together. I have given my reasons in an indepth post recently. I also feel it was written to taunt JR.
jmo

[User615]

I get the feeling that 2 people were brainstorming together. I have given my reasons in an indepth post recently. I also feel it was written to taunt JR.
jmo

Have you completely ruled out that JR was dictating it to PR?

[Sprocket]

. It was shown that different experts had drastically different opinions as to who wrote the letter. Keep in mind that the pen used was not a fine tip, thus making it difficult for the experts to analyse.

The pen was a "felt tip." Which experts agreed that because it was a "felt tip" it was hard to analyse? I've never heard that before.

I've only heard of one expert who's opinion was "drastically different," and that "expert" was not a certified document examiner.

[Sprocket]

The analysis inevitably reflected the experts prior belief in who did it.


How can you unequivically come to this conclusion about the thought/decision process of the examiners? What evidence do you base this on? This is an unsubstaniated statement, based on nothing we know about how document examiners work. In fact, it totally disagrees with the series of events of how Don Foster came to his conclusion.

[thewhitewitch1]

Does anyone ever get the feeling about the ransom note that one person was writing it and another dictating it to them?


I have always thought that. I think Patsy did the writing but the content was either dictated by JR or they both chose the wording. It seems to have the "feel" of being written by more than one person.

[Athena]

How can you unequivically come to this conclusion about the thought/decision process of the examiners? What evidence do you base this on? This is an unsubstaniated statement, based on nothing we know about how document examiners work. In fact, it totally disagrees with the series of events of how Don Foster came to his conclusion.

I will not venture into the "thought" processes of the examiners but I will say this. When doing a handwriting analysis the examiner is not supposed to know the identity of either the original writing or the samples submitted. This was not done in this case. Let's be honest -- examiners are human as well -- and unfortunately this was a highly-publicized case. Re: the felt-tip pen; it is a known fact that a felt-tip pen distorts handwriting. Part of handwriting analysis is pressure used in writing which could not be determined because of the type of pen that was used.

I'm not sure waht you are referring to when you talk about "the series of events of how Don Foster came to his conclusion." Don Foster was discredited though his own lack of objectivity. He was so sure Patsy did not write the note that he sent her a letter expressing he believed she did not write it 100% and then interjects himself into the case yet again and says he believed 100% she did write it. humbug.....

Out of the six original analysts hired early on; 4 were hired by the BPD; two independently by the Ramseys (total 6): ALL concluded: Patsy could not be excluded but it was HIGHLY UNLIKELY that she wrote the note. This is the phrase that RDI's forget to use accurately.

One thing about experts: alot of them testify based on whose paying their bills; of course there are some who would not put their repurtation or credibility on the line to do so but Foster wasn't one of them.

Patsy was also NOT the only one that could not be excluded. From the top of my head: Chris Wolf, Glenn Meyers and Merrick. As a a matter of fact, Merrick's handwriting was believed to be an EXACT match according to PMPT but he was not believed to be the killer.

Also re: the writiing of the note: Why is not possible the killer brought a note with him and copied it over with paper and pen from the Ramsey's home?

[Sharon]

The pen was a "felt tip." Which experts agreed that because it was a "felt tip" it was hard to analyse? I've never heard that before.

I've only heard of one expert who's opinion was "drastically different," and that "expert" was not a certified document examiner.

This is basic stuff about the thickness being hard to anaylse. Its not controversiol
imo.

[Athena]

LindaA: Re: Post# 733. Normally I don't "let" other people speak for me but your post says it well as far as this IDI is concerned. Thanks. :beer:

[Athena]

Another thing that bugs me about the pineapple issue: Patsy KNEW PRIOR TO her interrogation that pineapple was found. She had every opportunity to concoct a story and yet she NEVER WAVERERED that she did not know how the pineapple got there. JMO

[LindaA]

Thanks, Athena. I highly value your opinion.

[Sharon]

Have you completely ruled out that JR was dictating it to PR?

If you mean would I gamble my life on it...then no, anything in this crazy world is possible.

But I have reasons that JR wouldnt have written it like that. It reads to me like someone nasty, of low education, and of unstable emotions wrote that note. Its just brimming with nasty jibes & changes its tone throughout. Its either written by a multiple personality, or it had two people throwing in their 2 cents.

The first bit of the rn talks about respect for Js business & then it degenerates into stuff like `dont grow a brain` etc. I think it is quite a gruesome rn.

But, if you are saying the parents deliberately strangled their daughter & cracked her skull open....then I guess believing they wrote a rn would not be a stretch. This puts them into being phsycopaths imo.

I personally cant see them doing this out of the blue. They appear to be normal parents in the normal meaning of the word. I need to see more evidence that they are phsycopaths.
jmo

[elvislives]

I can't find the post right now, but read here yesterday that Patsy said JB was afraid at night and would not have gone downstairs alone.

Maybe. But I don't think you can use that to draw conclusions. As I child I was very afraid of the dark. I always had to sleep with a nightlight in my room and sometimes was too scared to get up and use the bathroom. But during the holidays, I would sometimes wake up at night and walk down stairs all by myself. There were usually Christmas lights on and I liked to look at them and the tree. I'm not really sure why I did this, other than I liked to look at the lights. And to this day I have never told my mother this...I'm sure she has no idea.

[Louisadelmar]

I'm looking for the quote re going downstairs. I think it was in reference to fixing herself a snack. Patsy didn't think she would have.

Here is a quote re being afraid.

TT: Patsy, we’re going to try to go through, try to get through some of these questions the best we can (inaudible). Is JonBenet afraid of the dark, at all?
PR: Uh, not, I don’t I, think so, not that I know.
TT: We talked early, didn’t have the night light thing plugged into the wall, and she normally slept with the bathroom light on, is that right?
PR: Yeah.
TT: Okay. Any reason for sleeping with the bathroom light on, or just, that’s her normal routine?
PR: Just in case she got up in the night, and that she wouldn’t bump into something…
TT: Okay. Was it the overhead lights or did she have…
PR: I have a (inaudible) little lamp in there, in the bathroom.
TT: Did she ever talk about hearing sounds at night that scared her? Or any noised that she would come talk to you guys about that scared her or anything like that?
PR: Not that I know of, no.

[Louisadelmar]

1 TOM HANEY: Okay, we are back on
2 tape. I have 10:30. And before we go into the
3 names that I mentioned, we do have a couple of
4 follow-up questions.
5 One, would the children normally go
6 downstairs if they woke up or would they stay on
7 their floor or--
8 PATSY RAMSEY: They would typically
9 stay on their floor. They had a TV, play room,
10 stay on that floor.
11 TRIP DeMUTH: So in the middle of
12 the night did they ever go downstairs, if they
13 woke up in the night would they go down into the
14 kitchen, let's say?
15 PATSY RAMSEY: I don't know.
16 TRIP DeMUTH: And could you hear
17 them go to the bathroom?
18 PATSY RAMSEY: I could hear
19 Burke go to the bathroom, because his
20 bathroom is sort of more toward the end of
21 our bedroom.
22 TRIP DeMUTH: How about
23 JonBenet?
24 PATSY RAMSEY: I wouldn't hear her
25 go.
0073
1 TRIP DeMUTH: Could you hear her
2 toilet flush or anything, the plumbing?
3 PATSY RAMSEY: Probably.
4 TRIP DeMUTH: Okay. Could you hear
5 the garage door from your bedroom go up and
6 down?
7 PATSY RAMSEY: No.
[…]
MSEY: She liked grapes. I had a
10 basket that I would keep raisins and those fruit
11 roll-up things, you know.
12 TRIP DEMUTH: Where were the grapes?
13 PATSY RAMSEY: Grapes would be like -- I
14 mean, I don't know that I had grapes that day. That is
15 what she liked to snack on.
16 TRIP DEMUTH: Where would you have kept
17 those?
18 PATSY RAMSEY: I would have kept those
19 probably on the counter there somewhere.
20 TRIP DEMUTH: Which counter?
21 PATSY RAMSEY: The center island.
22 TRIP DEMUTH: In the kitchen?
23 PATSY RAMSEY: In the kitchen.
24 TRIP DEMUTH: Okay.
25 PATSY RAMSEY: But I can't -- I can't imagine
0495
1 she would go downstairs to get something to eat. More
2 likely she would come upstairs and say, I'm hungry, for
3 me to go. Just it doesn't fit.
4 TRIP DEMUTH: Okay. All right. That's it.
5 Thank you very much.
6 TOM HANEY: It is about 11:00. We'll take a
7 break. (Whereupon, a break was taken and tape 3
8 concluded.)

[thewhitewitch1]

Show me a link that PROVES that. You cant because it is just YOUR opinion. FYI the experts are divided on everything in this case. Half the doctors say she ate the pineapple that day and the others say she ate it the day before!! It is not just MY opinin that that it would still be in her stomach. Many ME's from Boulder also say this. I didn't just pull this opinion out of thin air. YOU need to do YOUR homework,


Actually, it would help if you provided links to these "experts" because I have neither heard nor seen any ME from anywhere state that the pineapple could stay that long in a persons stomach.
I am asking nicely.

[LindaA]

Actually, it would help if you provided links to these "experts" because I have neither heard nor seen any ME from anywhere state that the pineapple could stay that long in a persons stomach.
I am asking nicely.

White, how long do you think it was between JBR eating the pineapple and her death?

[thewhitewitch1]

White, how long do you think it was between JBR eating the pineapple and her death?


I believe it was the 1 1/2 - 3 hour time span that seems to be the general concensus of most of the "experts".

[LindaA]

I believe it was the 1 1/2 - 3 hour time span that seems to be the general concensus of most of the "experts".

Okay, so do you think she went to bed after eating it and something happened later or do you think that when she ate the pineapple the incident began that led to her death? That she never went to bed? The timeline seems to indicate to me that she went to bed after eating it.

[thewhitewitch1]

Okay, so do you think she went to bed after eating it and something happened later or do you think that when she ate the pineapple the incident began that led to her death? That she never went to bed? The timeline seems to indicate to me that she went to bed after eating it.


I just said this in another thread so forgive me for repeating but I am now starting to think that she never even made it to bed. The way her bed looks in the crime photos just looks strange. The comforter is folded down, the pillow is at the wrong end of the bed and the pjs she wore the night before are on the bed.
You know, I honestly don't know. This is like putting together a puzzle where someone has mixed the pieces of another puzzle in the box. Nothing seems to fit....IDI or RDI.

[Athena]

Actually, it would help if you provided links to these "experts" because I have neither heard nor seen any ME from anywhere state that the pineapple could stay that long in a persons stomach.
I am asking nicely.

In all fairness to Whiskey - I had posted this somewhere else - dang if I can remember in which thread. In PMPT it is stated that a Boulder ME said she could have eaten it the pineapple as early as 4:30PM. The consensus among most experts however is 2-3 hours.

[Sharon]

I just said this in another thread so forgive me for repeating but I am now starting to think that she never even made it to bed. The way her bed looks in the crime photos just looks strange. The comforter is folded down, the pillow is at the wrong end of the bed and the pjs she wore the night before are on the bed.
You know, I honestly don't know. This is like putting together a puzzle where someone has mixed the pieces of another puzzle in the box. Nothing seems to fit....IDI or RDI.

Great analogy!!

[LindaA]

I just said this in another thread so forgive me for repeating but I am now starting to think that she never even made it to bed. The way her bed looks in the crime photos just looks strange. The comforter is folded down, the pillow is at the wrong end of the bed and the pjs she wore the night before are on the bed.
You know, I honestly don't know. This is like putting together a puzzle where someone has mixed the pieces of another puzzle in the box. Nothing seems to fit....IDI or RDI.

I couldn't agree more.

[Kor]

I just said this in another thread so forgive me for repeating but I am now starting to think that she never even made it to bed. The way her bed looks in the crime photos just looks strange. The comforter is folded down, the pillow is at the wrong end of the bed and the pjs she wore the night before are on the bed.
You know, I honestly don't know. This is like putting together a puzzle where someone has mixed the pieces of another puzzle in the box. Nothing seems to fit....IDI or RDI.

I thought JB's pjs wasn't put on because she was already aslept when she got home and she slept in what she already wore, except maybe one of parents took off shoes, jacket, and skirt? I am curious about the pjs part, like to know more details about it.

[LindaA]

I thought JB's pjs wasn't put on because she was already aslept when she got home and she slept in what she already wore, except maybe one of parents took off shoes, jacket, and skirt? I am curious about the pjs part, like to know more details about it.


The RDIs don't accept that story; they feel the Rs made it up to avoid getting caught in a web of lies.

[nuisanceposter]

The RDIs don't accept that story; they feel the Rs made it up to avoid getting caught in a web of lies.

It's also because JR said he read the kids a book, meaning JonBenet was awake to hear it, only to contradict his statements of 12/26 and claim he'd been misunderstood...by three different officers at different times. It's also because Burke said JonBenet was awake when they got home that night. It's also because JonBenet had to have been awake to eat the pineapple her parents said she couldn't have gotten for herself, backed up by none of her prints being found on the bowl.

Sadly, the Ramseys have been caught lying about many things pertaining to their daughter and what happened that night, when they could remember things, and I just don't see any reason for them to lie if they have no idea what happened or who did it.

They've proven themselves to be liars. Everything they say is suspect because of that.

[andU]

I just said this in another thread so forgive me for repeating but I am now starting to think that she never even made it to bed. The way her bed looks in the crime photos just looks strange. The comforter is folded down, the pillow is at the wrong end of the bed and the pjs she wore the night before are on the bed.
You know, I honestly don't know. This is like putting together a puzzle where someone has mixed the pieces of another puzzle in the box. Nothing seems to fit....IDI or RDI.

I agree, White, and I can't help thinking that is exactly why things are as they are: to make LE and us question our own theories. To have pointers going in all directions.... it is like meeting one's self coming back, as my dear mother used to say.

[thewhitewitch1]

I thought JB's pjs wasn't put on because she was already aslept when she got home and she slept in what she already wore, except maybe one of parents took off shoes, jacket, and skirt? I am curious about the pjs part, like to know more details about it.

I don't know if what the Ramseys said about what they put on her to sleep in that night is true or not. If she wasn't asleep, which is a possibility, then probably not. JR stated (though vaguely) that he thought he took off her coat once he brought her upstairs, but her coat was found in his car later.
The pjs on the bed were the pink ones she had worn the night before...or at least the top was on the bed. I didn't see the bottoms there.
The Rs said that they only changed her bottoms that night into the white long-johns, since she was asleep. They said they did not change her shirt.
Pictures from the Whites party could confirm this but unfortunately, we don't have access to those. Those pictures must contain some pretty important details or why else haven't they been released?