About the pineapple

[sandover]

This has probably been said a thousand times by many other posters that know much more about this case then I will ever know, but I will say it anyway just in case it hasnt been said.

The reason the lies about the pineapple are because somebody (one of the parents ) knew that the autopsy would show the pineapple and the medical people would be able to figure out a pretty accurate time of death.

And so, if the parents said the kids had pineapple at say 10:45 or 11:00
and then had to get ready for bed, brushing teeth, going to bathroom, comb hair or whatever and then went to bed at 11:15 - 11:30 and THEN the medical people said the time of death occured between say 12:00 - 2:00 AM

well HOUSTON we have a problem

because it would be a tough sell to the police if the kids went to bed at 1130
and time of death was tooooo close to the time they went to bed.
the longer the time before the body was found the better for the
killer/cover-uppers

its plain as day the parents are involved to high heaven, the whole thing stinks

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the Ramseys not hear about the pineapple in the digestive tract till much later? Meaning, presumably they were telling friends from the morning of December 26 onwards that JonBenet was asleep when they got home, they all had gone right to sleep... This was just part of their general coverup, had nothing to do with the pineapple (they weren't experts on digestive processes)...

It seems odd to think they KNEW that the pineapple would be found in her digestive tract in the chaos of killing her that morning -- it would seem to me they simply came up with their story regardless of that fact.

Then, when confronted later with the fact of the pineapple and then the pictures, they simply had to say that they had no idea how it got there...

The transcript with JR in particular when he is questioned about the pineapple is astonishing. It shows that they were in no way prepared to talk about this. PR got to prepare her answers a bit because JR went home that night and told her about the photographs (which I believe they'd never seen before) but even her answers about the pineapple seem off.

So I guess what seems a bit weird to me is that the Ramseys would tell Burke to say "Tell the police you went right to bed" and that he would listen to them and not mention the pineapple given the implicit instruction in being told to just say he went right to bed. I wonder if Burke was asked about this in the grand jury.

IMO, if Burke ever admitted that he had a pineapple snack that night -- well, that's all you need to know. The Ramseys are definitively guilty.

Have there ever been rumors about how/when Burke was questioned about the pineapple?

 

[robotdog]

you could very will be correct, nothing surprises me with these people. ( the parents). they are crafty and its difficult to believe a single thing they said or say today.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the Ramseys not hear about the pineapple in the digestive tract till much later? Meaning, presumably they were telling friends from the morning of December 26 onwards that JonBenet was asleep when they got home, they all had gone right to sleep... This was just part of their general coverup, had nothing to do with the pineapple (they weren't experts on digestive processes)...

It seems odd to think they KNEW that the pineapple would be found in her digestive tract in the chaos of killing her that morning -- it would seem to me they simply came up with their story regardless of that fact.

Then, when confronted later with the fact of the pineapple and then the pictures, they simply had to say that they had no idea how it got there...

The transcript with JR in particular when he is questioned about the pineapple is astonishing. It shows that they were in no way prepared to talk about this. PR got to prepare her answers a bit because JR went home that night and told her about the photographs (which I believe they'd never seen before) but even her answers about the pineapple seem off.

So I guess what seems a bit weird to me is that the Ramseys would tell Burke to say "Tell the police you went right to bed" and that he would listen to them and not mention the pineapple given the implicit instruction in being told to just say he went right to bed. I wonder if Burke was asked about this in the grand jury.

IMO, if Burke ever admitted that he had a pineapple snack that night -- well, that's all you need to know. The Ramseys are definitively guilty.

Have there ever been rumors about how/when Burke was questioned about the pineapple?

 

[DeeDee249]

I don't think the parents thought the pineapple would be found in the autopsy at all. I think they simply needed to distance themselves from the whole thing because they needed to say she was not awake when they got home- and I think that was all it was. I actually think they were shocked when the pineapple was identified in the autopsy. When asked about it, since they had already said that she remained asleep, they HAD to deny knowing about the pineapple or risk having to admit they lied about her being awake.
It served their purposes more to lie about her being asleep than to lie about her eating pineapple. They chose the lie that benefitted them the most.
And that pineapple snack- and BRs presence at that table with her as she ate it- are behind his refusal (and his lawyers refusal to allow him) to speak with police now.

 

[sandover]

And that pineapple snack- and BRs presence at that table with her as she ate it- are behind his refusal (and his lawyers refusal to allow him) to speak with police now.

The burden of the truth in BR's psyche is a weight I am glad I will never have to know.

 

[azwriter]

I don't think the parents thought the pineapple would be found in the autopsy at all. I think they simply needed to distance themselves from the whole thing because they needed to say she was not awake when they got home- and I think that was all it was. I actually think they were shocked when the pineapple was identified in the autopsy. When asked about it, since they had already said that she remained asleep, they HAD to deny knowing about the pineapple or risk having to admit they lied about her being awake.
It served their purposes more to lie about her being asleep than to lie about her eating pineapple. They chose the lie that benefitted them the most.
And that pineapple snack- and BRs presence at that table with her as she ate it- are behind his refusal (and his lawyers refusal to allow him) to speak with police now.

I really do not think the parents gave any thought to Pineapple and an autopsy as an after effect. I would think whatever happened to JonBenet was shock enough that John and Patsy would not even recall her snacking on anything. After all, these are not master criminials. What would they really know about what is looked at or found in an autopsy.

I think they just plain forgot that part of the evening. But you're right, they had to deny any and all about her eating pineapple mainly because it just did not fit in with the original story the parents related to the cops. JonBenet was asleep when they arrived home and was put straight to bed still "zonked out." To say "oh yes, she did have pineapple..." puts an entire new set of questions in front of the parents; creates new circumstances to be questioned about.

That original arriving home story served the purpose of allowing Patsy and John and for that matter Burke to distance themselves from her during the evening and night. She's home, asleep, put to bed and we had nothing more to do with her the rest of the night.

Their story wasn't perfect but what the heck, they were never charged anyway.
jmo

 

[robotdog]

yes, that is where I was trying to go. They put "sleeping and carried in the house and went right to bed" out there because they cant have kids up eating till 11 30 or midnight and then the time of death be 1:00 AM because it doesnt leave enough time for an "INTRUDER" to come in do their mastermind work.
:waitasec:

 

[robotdog]

I say it again, these people are crafty in the worst way

 

[Noodles]

Wasnt sure where to put this, its just a general comment about JonBenet.

I didnt get serious into this case until much later. I would see things here and there on the net and click to read about updates and whatnot throughout the years. About six months ago I stumbled on pics of the autopsy and other stuff. And once I saw that autopsy pic of her tiny hand with that heart drawn on her palm, I felt this horrible sense of loss. I love true crime and look at pics all the time on various sites. But there was something about that pic that really touched me. Her hand just looked so very fragile. I get the feeling her life wasnt all some want us to believe. What a horrible end to such a beautiful child.

 

[azwriter]

Wasnt sure where to put this, its just a general comment about JonBenet.

I didnt get serious into this case until much later. I would see things here and there on the net and click to read about updates and whatnot throughout the years. About six months ago I stumbled on pics of the autopsy and other stuff. And once I saw that autopsy pic of her tiny hand with that heart drawn on her palm, I felt this horrible sense of loss. I love true crime and look at pics all the time on various sites. But there was something about that pic that really touched me. Her hand just looked so very fragile. I get the feeling her life wasnt all some want us to believe. What a horrible end to such a beautiful child.

Noodles, I would suggest general comments and feelings about little JonBenet would fit any thread regardless of the specific topic. I could feel your sadness in your post.

What keeps my mind working on this case is trying to list the people who would have access to JonBenet in an intimate way. She was 6, how many people did she know, how big was her world of people who were close and private to her, giving them ongoing opportunity to sexually abuse her, as the evidence states.

She was active in pageants. So she would be around costume makers; dance teachers; photographers and so on. But, would she ever be in a situation to be alone with them over a long period of time since the evidence showed her abuse was on going?

Ok, there are aunts, uncles, grandparents, step siblings. Unless they were babysitting her, I can see where she would be a victim in their charge. I would think she would be around these people mainly in the presence of her immediate family member - mom, dad and Burke.

If we are to believe an intruder in the home abused her on Christmas night, we would have to believe that same person had been with her before. Was this intruder able to come and go from the house at will without her parents knowledge in order to sexually abuse her in the past?

I can't come up with anyone other than her parents and Burke, along with her doctor who would be afforded the time and opportunity to be in the perfect situation to abuse her. Can anyone else make a list of possible abusers?

jmo

 

[UKGuy]

I don't think the parents thought the pineapple would be found in the autopsy at all. I think they simply needed to distance themselves from the whole thing because they needed to say she was not awake when they got home- and I think that was all it was. I actually think they were shocked when the pineapple was identified in the autopsy. When asked about it, since they had already said that she remained asleep, they HAD to deny knowing about the pineapple or risk having to admit they lied about her being awake.
It served their purposes more to lie about her being asleep than to lie about her eating pineapple. They chose the lie that benefitted them the most.
And that pineapple snack- and BRs presence at that table with her as she ate it- are behind his refusal (and his lawyers refusal to allow him) to speak with police now.

DeeDee249,

I don't think the parents thought the pineapple would be found in the autopsy at all

I think the evidence rather suggests that the R's gave the pineapple no thought at all!

As I mentioned in a previous post:

I don't know if you recall reading this, but JR said that they KNEW BR was awake that morning but felt is was "easier" just to say he was asleep the whole time so he "wouldn't be bothered" being questioned.

Which demonstrates that JR saw BR as a weak link, no wonder he moved him out of the house ASAP.

Now assuming your quote is correct, then this shows JR invoking a rationale for Burke being asleep. In other words he was attempting to cover all bases, possibly in a ad-hoc manner, e.g. he was outlining the staging as paternal concern.

Now if we return to the subject of the pineapple and you are either JR or PR conducting crime-scene staging, and part of the staging requires JonBenet to be redressed as if kidnapped directly from her bed, then surely one of the most important things to do, is to remove any prior evidence that JonBenet walked about the house the previous night?

Now this was likely done at the primary crime-scene, since we really only know about the wine-cellar, which is a secondary crime-scene, and could really be classified as a dump site, even in staging terms, since the R's would claim it was an intruder who left JonBenet there.

To underline the evidential point, JonBenet, her pink barbie-nightgown, barbie-doll, along with the partially opened Christmas gifts, were dumped into the wine-cellar, and the flashlight was wiped clean, suggesting forensic awareness on behalf of the stager.

Yet the breakfast bar was left intact, strange, yes, no?

Another point is this, if everything occurred around 1:00 AM approximately, and JonBenet was quickly relocated down to the wine-cellar, then this leaves the R's a good four hours to check and complete any staging. Yet the breakfast bar was left untouched, ignore the pineapple at autopsy, JonBenet's fingerprints and dna are all over the bowl and large spoon, so its removal is paramount if the R's wish to claim JonBenet was placed sleeping directly to bed, on returning from the White's.

So we have critical forensic evidence left in place, and a large time gap in which to adjust the evidence to suit the Ramsey's version of events, yet this was not accomplished?

Three staging errors can be listed: the size-12's, breakfast bar artifacts, and JR stating he knew Burke was awake. What is interesting is JR's response vs PR's, e.g. JR concocts some rationale, whilst PR constructs a falsifiable explanation.

So what was going on in the five hours between the death of JonBenet and the 911 call? We know all the evidence was not removed, some was even added, e.g. size-12's, why the glaring omission? It looks to me as if we are missing something, or there is evidence which we are unaware about?




.

 

[sandover]

So what was going on in the five hours between the death of JonBenet and the 911 call? We know all the evidence was not removed, some was even added, e.g. size-12's, why the glaring omission? It looks to me as if we are missing something, or there is evidence which we are unaware about?.

Yes, there is something maddening about this.

One explanation: the Ramseys did truly love their daughter and although she was killed in an accident and then "finished off" and staged, they were so unconsciously guilty that they left vital clues in the HOPES OF BEING CAUGHT. This is a Freudian interpretation, but we do see evidence of it often with serial killers who leave clues that lead police to them (like the BTK killer)...

If you don't buy the "unconscious guilt/desire to be caught" explanation, it could be that there is some scenario we have yet to figure out. One possibility is that Patsy's fingerprints were on the bowl from its being removed from a dishwasher or touched in a cabinet, whereas Burke and JonBenet got the snack themselves at some point that night. If Burke accidentally killed JonBenet elsewhere and the parents had to "stage" the entire crime in just a few short hours, it's possible that they overlooked certain things (like the pineapple and tea) that they were not directly involved with.

But it is hard to believe that PR got the pineapple snack together late that night and that they didn't take care of that evidence. Unless you find compelling (as I do) the idea that (like with the handing over of the practice note) a part of the Ramseys WANTED to be caught...

 

[DIRK SCHILLER]

sorry, I don^t get it, what^s the difference JBR did not go to bed and had pineapple snack and then went to bed?
this not change anything because a perp. would have had enough time to kill her, so why the whole lie?

 

[UKGuy]

Yes, there is something maddening about this.

One explanation: the Ramseys did truly love their daughter and although she was killed in an accident and then "finished off" and staged, they were so unconsciously guilty that they left vital clues in the HOPES OF BEING CAUGHT. This is a Freudian interpretation, but we do see evidence of it often with serial killers who leave clues that lead police to them (like the BTK killer)...

If you don't buy the "unconscious guilt/desire to be caught" explanation, it could be that there is some scenario we have yet to figure out. One possibility is that Patsy's fingerprints were on the bowl from its being removed from a dishwasher or touched in a cabinet, whereas Burke and JonBenet got the snack themselves at some point that night. If Burke accidentally killed JonBenet elsewhere and the parents had to "stage" the entire crime in just a few short hours, it's possible that they overlooked certain things (like the pineapple and tea) that they were not directly involved with.

But it is hard to believe that PR got the pineapple snack together late that night and that they didn't take care of that evidence. Unless you find compelling (as I do) the idea that (like with the handing over of the practice note) a part of the Ramseys WANTED to be caught...

sandover,

One explanation: the Ramseys did truly love their daughter and although she was killed in an accident and then "finished off" and staged, they were so unconsciously guilty that they left vital clues in the HOPES OF BEING CAUGHT. This is a Freudian interpretation, but we do see evidence of it often with serial killers who leave clues that lead police to them (like the BTK killer)...

The Freudian interpretation is apt, since its focus is on repressed sexuality, so it could be a factor here.

If you don't buy the "unconscious guilt/desire to be caught" explanation, it could be that there is some scenario we have yet to figure out. One possibility is that Patsy's fingerprints were on the bowl from its being removed from a dishwasher or touched in a cabinet, whereas Burke and JonBenet got the snack themselves at some point that night. If Burke accidentally killed JonBenet elsewhere and the parents had to "stage" the entire crime in just a few short hours, it's possible that they overlooked certain things (like the pineapple and tea) that they were not directly involved with.

Yes I think its possible that Burke and JonBenet snacked themselves, and the parents overlooking it could have occurred. Whatever happened I do not think the primary crime-scene is linked in any form with the breakfast bar, since the lattter was left intact, suggesting ignorance or indifference?

But it is hard to believe that PR got the pineapple snack together late that night and that they didn't take care of that evidence. Unless you find compelling (as I do) the idea that (like with the handing over of the practice note) a part of the Ramseys WANTED to be caught...

Well many people find it hard to believe that Patsy might redress JonBenet in Bloomingdales size-12, and apply a garrote, using one of her own paintbrush handles. I think the breakfast bar is alike the size-12's, its an anomally, out of place, in the general scheme of things. Other than a BDI I do not think i have seen it factored into any theory, including Steve Thomas', so maybe there might be something in the BDI theory after all?



.

 

[UKGuy]

sorry, I don^t get it, what^s the difference JBR did not go to bed and had pineapple snack and then went to bed?
this not change anything because a perp. would have had enough time to kill her, so why the whole lie?

DIRK SCHILLER,
Not sure precisely what you are asking, but the whole lie is in place to substantiate the R's version of events which is at variance with the forensic evidence, e.g. pineapple snack.

1. JonBenet goes straight to bed, is kidnapped and killed.

2. JonBenet never goes to bed, eats pineapple, then is killed.

3. That is JonBenet can go to bed, rise and eat pineapple then be killed.

The parents are claiming option 1. occurred. Most other RDI theories assume option 2. and some assuming option 3.



.

 

[Whaleshark]

when talking about patsy using her own paintbrush for the garrotte, and/or them using any materials of their own in the murder/staging -- who else's are they going to use? unless they go out and go to a store on xmas late at night (which is not going to be open) they don't really have much choice to use their own materials in their own house, do they?

 

[UKGuy]

when talking about patsy using her own paintbrush for the garrotte, and/or them using any materials of their own in the murder/staging -- who else's are they going to use? unless they go out and go to a store on xmas late at night (which is not going to be open) they don't really have much choice to use their own materials in their own house, do they?

Whaleshark,

who else's are they going to use?

Anything else, other than Patsy's paintbrush, e.g. they could bring their own rod.

Just as the IDI tell us the nylon cord arrived in the house courtesy of the intruder, why not a rod?

IMO its obvious the staging is mainly Patsy's.




.

 

[Whaleshark]

when i said whose stuff are 'they' going to use, i meant 'they' as in Pasty/The Ramseys in the staging of the crime... not an IDI.

Patsy and the Ramseys have to use their own stuff anyway to stage, don't they, since it's the middle of the night on Xmas night: places are closed, it's the holiday, and time is running out....?

 

[Mendara]

I used to be an IDI believer, but after thinking hard about what the intruder had to accomplish in order to commit this crime without leaving a single trace, well it all seemed to be too much to have to accept.

Seems we first have to believe that an intruder had no plans on Christmas night and that he was not obviously missing from his home. That he chose this night out of all nights when a family would be home late and may not even be home and just in time too because they were leaving the next day, so intruder had really great information or he is just lucky. Could have missed the Ramseys by a day.

How did he get in the house without being seen?

Did he come into the house after all of the Ramsey's went to bed, how long do we think this intruder was watching the house that night? All day on CHRISTMAS DAY, did he follow them home? Is he a neighbor? Okay so if the intruder is a neighbor he sees them get home and he goes over there, if not he followed them home. if not lets assume he was waiting for them tog et home, either way he had to be watching.

He gets into the house with no forced entry. We are to believe he came in through a small window he knew would be open and knew where it would lead, but he didn't make a sound or disturb anything, like a ninja (and we have to assume he was a normal/average size man to fit through this window and in good shape) If not the window as the point of entry then was he already in the house earlier? How did he get in? Again was he not missing from his own life? We have to assume this intruder is a loner, who had the opportunity to devote lots of time to watching the house and researching his point of entry.

Then you are asking me to believe he tip toed to JB's room, knowing exactly where it was without waking anyone up and instead of carrying her out of the house and taking his business elsewhere where he could take his time. He decided to make his way back through the house into the kitchen and give her a snack of pineapple? Maybe he didn't give it to her, perhaps he was in the house for a completely different reason, nothing to do with JB (to rob the house christmas night and was caught in the kitchen by JB who went down with a flashlight to get a snack) which she ate. Maybe he hid in the dark while she ate it and then his plans changed?

If so he didn't carry her out of the house, but instead took her to the basement and again she didn't scream. He used items from the house to complete his murder, but without a fight (she didn't have defensive wounds) there was no struggle. He also changes her clothes? Why?

Instead of fleeing, he stays, he finds pad and pen (how long did it take him to find this in the dark?) and he writes a three page letter and then places it on the very staircase PR uses every morning. He doesn't leave a fingerprint, a hair, a fiber, a footprint..nothing. He is walking around the house and does not leave a single trace, he then leaves through the tiny window again without disturbing anything around it. What time was that? Seems like the intruder had to be in the house for a long period of time if we have to believe he did all of this.

Most importantly, this intruder committed a perfect home invasion, killed and molested a small child, left a chilling note in my opinion only reason for the INTRUDER to leave such a note was because he wanted to see the next day what would happend, the announcement that she was taken for ransom all the while he knows she is in the basement.

But after all this fame and the perfect crime.. HE DOES NOT STRIKE AGAIN? Seems someone as evil as this intruder would want to do this again. OR TAUNT them further. He put a lot of effort into this and yet he does not do this again? or tell anyone?

I left tons of other stuff out, but this is why I just can't accept the IDI. It is too much to have to believe.


Makes much more sense that it was someone in the house, the ransom note is a product of their panic and the plan and story to cover it up became just too unbelievable, because it is just that a story.



MO

 

[azwriter]

I used to be an IDI believer, but after thinking hard about what the intruder had to accomplish in order to commit this crime without leaving a single trace, well it all seemed to be too much to have to accept.

Seems we first have to believe that an intruder had no plans on Christmas night and that he was not obviously missing from his home. That he chose this night out of all nights when a family would be home late and may not even be home and just in time too because they were leaving the next day, so intruder had really great information or he is just lucky. Could have missed the Ramseys by a day.

How did he get in the house without being seen?

Did he come into the house after all of the Ramsey's went to bed, how long do we think this intruder was watching the house that night? All day on CHRISTMAS DAY, did he follow them home? Is he a neighbor? Okay so if the intruder is a neighbor he sees them get home and he goes over there, if not he followed them home. if not lets assume he was waiting for them tog et home, either way he had to be watching.

He gets into the house with no forced entry. We are to believe he came in through a small window he knew would be open and knew where it would lead, but he didn't make a sound or disturb anything, like a ninja (and we have to assume he was a normal/average size man to fit through this window and in good shape) If not the window as the point of entry then was he already in the house earlier? How did he get in? Again was he not missing from his own life? We have to assume this intruder is a loner, who had the opportunity to devote lots of time to watching the house and researching his point of entry.

Then you are asking me to believe he tip toed to JB's room, knowing exactly where it was without waking anyone up and instead of carrying her out of the house and taking his business elsewhere where he could take his time. He decided to make his way back through the house into the kitchen and give her a snack of pineapple? Maybe he didn't give it to her, perhaps he was in the house for a completely different reason, nothing to do with JB (to rob the house christmas night and was caught in the kitchen by JB who went down with a flashlight to get a snack) which she ate. Maybe he hid in the dark while she ate it and then his plans changed?

If so he didn't carry her out of the house, but instead took her to the basement and again she didn't scream. He used items from the house to complete his murder, but without a fight (she didn't have defensive wounds) there was no struggle. He also changes her clothes? Why?

Instead of fleeing, he stays, he finds pad and pen (how long did it take him to find this in the dark?) and he writes a three page letter and then places it on the very staircase PR uses every morning. He doesn't leave a fingerprint, a hair, a fiber, a footprint..nothing. He is walking around the house and does not leave a single trace, he then leaves through the tiny window again without disturbing anything around it. What time was that? Seems like the intruder had to be in the house for a long period of time if we have to believe he did all of this.

Most importantly, this intruder committed a perfect home invasion, killed and molested a small child, left a chilling note in my opinion only reason for the INTRUDER to leave such a note was because he wanted to see the next day what would happend, the announcement that she was taken for ransom all the while he knows she is in the basement.

But after all this fame and the perfect crime.. HE DOES NOT STRIKE AGAIN? Seems someone as evil as this intruder would want to do this again. OR TAUNT them further. He put a lot of effort into this and yet he does not do this again? or tell anyone?

I left tons of other stuff out, but this is why I just can't accept the IDI. It is too much to have to believe.


Makes much more sense that it was someone in the house, the ransom note is a product of their panic and the plan and story to cover it up became just too unbelievable, because it is just that a story.



MO

Interesting common sense post Mendara. Welcome to the RDI side of the world.

Let's not forget, the intruder in question also had to have known the layout of the house very well in order to find the wine cellar and know his way around the house. No bumping into furniture or walls.

As I have come to believe, the "wine cellar" wasn't well known to those outside the immediate family and friends.
Thanks for your post.

 

[Mendara]

Interesting common sense post Mendara. Welcome to the RDI side of the world.

Let's not forget, the intruder in question also had to have known the layout of the house very well in order to find the wine cellar and know his way around the house. No bumping into furniture or walls.

As I have come to believe, the "wine cellar" wasn't well known to those outside the immediate family and friends.
Thanks for your post.

Also if my little innocent daughter was murdered and molested in my own home under my nose and this killer was so brazen that he actually wrote me a letter and blamed me for his actions and just knowing how my beautiful baby was tortured. I WOULD NOT STOP UNTIL I FOUND HIM AND KILLED HIM!

My own father would not rest until I was avenged.

It seems JR fell flat in this regard and still does. He doesn't see to care.

MO -