Are the Ramseys involved or not?

[ILikeToBendPages]

Chrishope,

The wine-cellar is a staged crime-scene. The primary crime-scene is located elsewhere in the house.

The flashlight might be part of the primary crime-scene, so was wiped and cleaned to remove forensic traces, e.g. hair?



The garrote is staging, its not required to kill JonBenet, bare cumped hands or a plastic bag can accomplish this. So it was a deliberate decision to asphyxiate JonBenet, e.g. not unintentional, or an artifact of staging, someone wanted JonBenet dead!

It seems Patsy fabricated the wine-cellar staging, but it was John who wiped JonBenet down?

You could infer from the breakfast-bar BDI otherwise the R's would have cleaned it up to match their version of events?

The death of JonBenet is a sexually motivated homicide with one or more of the R's as prime suspects. With no forensic evidence linking to anyone outside the Ramsey house, this more or less points the finger at an R!

The bottom line is that JonBenet was killed just in case she talked!


.

In PMPT Linda Hoffman Pugh said that she told Pasty that they needed a laundry basket. She also said that John used the laundry chute for his clothes. Could Pasty of grabbed John's shirt out of the dirty clothes (either off the floor of the basement or on the second floor?) and used it to wipe JonBenet down then put the shirt back? And that was why John seemed surprised when told about the fibers from his shirt?

Every thing done to JonBenet after the head bash was misdirection. I don't know if they realized that calling 911 would lead to doctors finding about JonBenet previous / rough cleaning/sex abuse. If she was in a coma she'd been catheterized and that would of led back to John. I've wondered why there was no investigation into John or Pasty from Child Protective Services after the autopsy findings of the previous penetration/ sexual abuse and for Burke's safety, but then again they got outta Boulder pretty quick.

I tend to agree that JonBenet was strangled before hand in some manner (Pasty and that red turtleneck?)and that was the reason for the garrotte. Again misdirection. Why were photos taken of the small loom in JonBenet's bedroom? Were the loops used? Could JonBenet had them around her neck and Pasty of grabbed them and slammed her down in the bathroom?


I think it was on a Ramsey Case Encyclopedia that mentioned dark blue fibers. JonBenet wore a dark blue dress on the Monday the 23rd when the Ramsey's had the Santa Claus and gingerbread house party. Could they of come from it?

 

[UKGuy]

In PMPT Linda Hoffman Pugh said that she told Pasty that they needed a laundry basket. She also said that John used the laundry chute for his clothes. Could Pasty of grabbed John's shirt out of the dirty clothes (either off the floor of the basement or on the second floor?) and used it to wipe JonBenet down then put the shirt back? And that was why John seemed surprised when told about the fibers from his shirt?

Every thing done to JonBenet after the head bash was misdirection. I don't know if they realized that calling 911 would lead to doctors finding about JonBenet previous / rough cleaning/sex abuse. If she was in a coma she'd been catheterized and that would of led back to John. I've wondered why there was no investigation into John or Pasty from Child Protective Services after the autopsy findings of the previous penetration/ sexual abuse and for Burke's safety, but then again they got outta Boulder pretty quick.

I tend to agree that JonBenet was strangled before hand in some manner (Pasty and that red turtleneck?)and that was the reason for the garrotte. Again misdirection. Why were photos taken of the small loom in JonBenet's bedroom? Were the loops used? Could JonBenet had them around her neck and Pasty of grabbed them and slammed her down in the bathroom?


I think it was on a Ramsey Case Encyclopedia that mentioned dark blue fibers. JonBenet wore a dark blue dress on the Monday the 23rd when the Ramsey's had the Santa Claus and gingerbread house party. Could they of come from it?

ILikeToBendPages,

In PMPT Linda Hoffman Pugh said that she told Pasty that they needed a laundry basket. She also said that John used the laundry chute for his clothes. Could Pasty of grabbed John's shirt out of the dirty clothes (either off the floor of the basement or on the second floor?) and used it to wipe JonBenet down then put the shirt back? And that was why John seemed surprised when told about the fibers from his shirt?

NO, because it was not in place when BPD went hunting for forensic evidence to bag. They had to request the R's for the clothes they wore that night/morning.

Every thing done to JonBenet after the head bash was misdirection. I don't know if they realized that calling 911 would lead to doctors finding about JonBenet previous / rough cleaning/sex abuse. If she was in a coma she'd been catheterized and that would of led back to John. I've wondered why there was no investigationinto John or Pasty from Child Protective Services after the autopsy findings of the previous penetration/ sexual abuse and for Burke's safety, but then again they got outta Boulder pretty quick.

There was, the results are sealed, and the person charged with it is constrained by a confidentiality order!

I tend to agree that JonBenet was strangled before hand in some manner (Pasty and that red turtleneck?)and that was the reason for the garrotte. Again misdirection. Why were photos taken of the small loom in JonBenet's bedroom? Were the loops used? Could JonBenet had them around her neck and Pasty of grabbed them and slammed her down in the bathroom?

Possibly, but PDI does not explain away the abuse or the motive for killing her e.g. sexual abuse.

I think it was on a Ramsey Case Encyclopedia that mentioned dark blue fibers. JonBenet wore a dark blue dress on the Monday the 23rd when the Ramsey's had the Santa Claus and gingerbread house party. Could they of come from it?

But its now the 26th and surely she has bathed inbetween?

 

[Flatlander]

Did anyone ever "measure" the imprint of the High Tec shoe imprint in the wine cellar?

I think Pasty acknowledged that Burke had a pair of them. Were they ever accounted for? If JAR was there and could of been from him?

Why distance yourself from you daughter's photos? But an older brother might want to. I wonder if he was in there that afternoon and night and he was the one that abused JonBenet and he did the head bash when she screamed. Could Pasty of gone looking when she heard a scream? and found JAR with a comatose JonBenet and no clothes from her waist down? Could the comforter from his bed been used and he got JonBenet to come with him because he was going to read her a book? And that would account for the things in the suitcase? Was the suitcase going to be used to get JonBenet out of the house? Where was that suitcase usually stored? I wonder why John Ramsey wanted to be sure his golf bag was taken out of the house?

But that still doesn't explain evidence found in JonBenet's bed.

Just more random thoughts.

Burke owned Hi-Tec sneakers with the compass on them. He liked them because of the compass and flying.
Burke did have a pair of them as his friend DS helped point out to the Grand Jury: BR who testified to the grand jury was Doug Stine. Doug testified just prior to the GJ taking its 4-month break so investigators could follow up on what the 100 or so witnesses had told the jurors. The last witness to testify before the long break was Burke Ramsey. He testified for five hours on May 1, 1999.

ILikeToBendPages, I think this is interesting. I flop back and forth between Burke and JAR as the sexual perp. :
And CBI had at one point come up
16 with a conclusion that there was a
17 consistency between fibers found on a blanket
18 in the suitcase that matched fibers on
19 JonBenet's body or were consistent with, is
20 that the right term?
21 A. I heard Mr. Smit and Mr. DeMuth
22 refer to that but I didn't hear Trujillo ever
23 offer a report or an explanation concerning
24 that.
25 Q. But the FBI disagreed with the

247
1 CBI, didn't they?
2 A. On what point?
3 Q. On the question of whether there
4 were fibers inside materials found in the
5 suitcase found under the window in the
6 basement consistent with fibers found on
7 JonBenet?
8 A. No, I'm aware of Smit and DeMuth's
9 position or stating this consistency of these
10 fibers, but I'm not aware of a disagreement
11 between the FBI and that finding.

There are a lot of unusual leads to JAR as well in the scheme of things.

 

[ILikeToBendPages]

ILikeToBendPages,

NO, because it was not in place when BPD went hunting for forensic evidence to bag. They had to request the R's for the clothes they wore that night/morning.


There was, the results are sealed, and the person charged with it is constrained by a confidentiality order!


Possibly, but PDI does not explain away the abuse or the motive for killing her e.g. sexual abuse.


But its now the 26th and surely she has bathed inbetween?

Not necessarily. JonBenet hadn't had a bath for about twenty four hours before her death.

When did LE start collecting evidence? Was it before or after Pam Paugh's visit?

I wonder where the laundry chute ended?

If Pasty was rough when cleaning up JonBenet after a accident could she of left what looked like previous sexual contact and bruising? And that was what she was afraid of coming out? If Pasty did she would have to justify or give an explanation for violating her daughter. Something was used on JonBenet that night before she died and that was to direct them hopefully to an intruder? What is a pageants cleanse? Would that include an enema and/or a douche?

I love John explaining away why they picked December 25 a the day JonBenet died.

 

[LinasK]

In PMPT Linda Hoffman Pugh said that she told Pasty that they needed a laundry basket. She also said that John used the laundry chute for his clothes. Could Pasty of grabbed John's shirt out of the dirty clothes (either off the floor of the basement or on the second floor?) and used it to wipe JonBenet down then put the shirt back? And that was why John seemed surprised when told about the fibers from his shirt?

Every thing done to JonBenet after the head bash was misdirection. I don't know if they realized that calling 911 would lead to doctors finding about JonBenet previous / rough cleaning/sex abuse. If she was in a coma she'd been catheterized and that would of led back to John. I've wondered why there was no investigation into John or Pasty from Child Protective Services after the autopsy findings of the previous penetration/ sexual abuse and for Burke's safety, but then again they got outta Boulder pretty quick.

I tend to agree that JonBenet was strangled before hand in some manner (Pasty and that red turtleneck?)and that was the reason for the garrotte. Again misdirection. Why were photos taken of the small loom in JonBenet's bedroom? Were the loops used? Could JonBenet had them around her neck and Pasty of grabbed them and slammed her down in the bathroom?


I think it was on a Ramsey Case Encyclopedia that mentioned dark blue fibers. JonBenet wore a dark blue dress on the Monday the 23rd when the Ramsey's had the Santa Claus and gingerbread house party. Could they of come from it?

No the fibers, IIRC, were black from an Israeli-made shirt of John's. There is no innocent laundry explanation for those to end up in JB's panties, particularly when the size 12's hadn't been worn before.

 

[Whaleshark]

I thought we were establishing there for a while that the wine cellar was a dumping spot, and the body was what was staged.... not that the wine cellar was staging....

After all, she had to be hidden somewhere if she was supposed to be kidnapped/missing, especially if they were not going to put her outside in the elements....

All the stuff in the wine cellar - thrown in, hidden out of sight....

 

[UKGuy]

I thought we were establishing there for a while that the wine cellar was a dumping spot, and the body was what was staged.... not that the wine cellar was staging....

After all, she had to be hidden somewhere if she was supposed to be kidnapped/missing, especially if they were not going to put her outside in the elements....

All the stuff in the wine cellar - thrown in, hidden out of sight....

Whaleshark,
Yes you are correct. We are using staged wine-cellar crime-scene loosely. A better description might be JonBenet's homicide was staged but not the wine-cellar, which was really just a dump-site.

 

[UKGuy]

No the fibers, IIRC, were black from an Israeli-made shirt of John's. There is no innocent laundry explanation for those to end up in JB's panties, particularly when the size 12's hadn't been worn before.

LinasK,
And places John, like Patsy at the scene of the crime.

Here are three things that stand out as odd.

1. Size-12 Bloomingdales

2. Fibers from John;s shirt found on JonBenet.

3. Breakfast bar left as it was during the pineapple snack.


Now 2. is even more curious when you ask yourself: Why would John use his shirt to wipe down JonBenet, and what might it tell us?

Why not use another cloth, or tissue or wipes from the bathroom, what might constrain John to thinking Hey, I better use my expensive wool shirt to cleanup JonBenet. Also does this mean JonBenet was located where John was and that he was naked, e.g. he had already removed the shirt?

Somehow I do not see John going to wherever an injured JonBenet is situated and taking off his shirt to wipe her down, its possible, but seems unlikely.

Another scenario might be Patsy used John's shirt, which was located in their bedroom. Actually John might use his shirt to prevent blood being deposited as forensic evidence, a sort of emergency response to JonBenet bleeding?

.

 

[Whaleshark]

...Maybe he still had his shirt on when wiping her down with a different cloth, and the fibers transferred to her at that time.

 

[Chrishope]

The housekeeper said that most people didn't know the wineceller was there. You had to go through another room first- the door was not off the main basement areas. The calling in of the friends and clergy and victims' advocates literally minutes after being warned not to (under threat of JB's death) is to me, on of the main reasons why they did it. Because they had been warned not to. Therefore, if she turned up dead (and she was already dead) they could blame it on that. They even put it in the note that the house and phones were being monitored. It is pretty complicated to "monitor" a phone line unless the kidnappers were FBI, Police or worked for the phone company. This gave them the perfect explanation for their dead child- she was killed because they called people.
The other thing we can thank that posse of "friends" for is wiping down the kitchen counters - and area where both the potential weapon and pineapple evidence was located. Oops!

Well, it's certainly possible that they thought they'd be able to hide the body from police - though it's hard for me to imagine anyone thinking that the police wouldn't check/friends wouldn't check, dogs wouldn't check. If I were the Rs that night I'd have assumed the body would be found quickly.

Then next question is how were they going to explain the body showing up later? Or would they remove it? A reasonable person would assume police surveillance of the house and the Rs themselves. So how to explain the kidnapers returning the body?

What do you think of the phone call to highly placed people if those people couldn't even give them a rundown on police procedure?

 

[Chrishope]

Chrishope,

Lets put your disagreement to bed. Note there was condensed milk in the bowl, and a spoon was available. This is evidence contradicting any prior preparation, even if this assumption was false, and there was prior preparation, th eaddition of the condensed milk marks a particular point in time, e.g. not when it was prepared?

Logically we can't put it to bed because of the condensed milk. Condensed milk, just like any other food item, can be left out for hours and hours. Not safely of course, but who says the pineapple was intended as an after party snack ? It might have been, but just as easily could have been there from earlier in the day. We know PR wasn't much for picking up and cleaning up -that's what she had a housekeeper for.

As we've discussed before, one spoon indicates a snack for one child, not two. If it was specifically prepared for JB, and only for her, after the party, it's almost impossible that the Rs would not have thought of it as they staged the crime. It would be nice if we knew whether or not Burke ate pineapple too, or anyone else in the family for that matter.

How can you infer from a decision to quickly kill JonBenet that BDI is less likely? You could have Patsy staging for Burke?

Because if BDI what the Rs have initially is an accident, which would normally require a call to 911. Presumably only one parent knows of the chronic and acute abuse -though it's possible both know- so the abuser has to quickly decide to kill, which can't be an easy quick decision even if the abuser is desperate. Even if the abusing parent moves quickly to kill, it also requires quick agreement from the non-abusive parent. Or, if not agreement, before the killing, an agreement afterwards. So you have to imagine a situation in which the non-abusive parent consents to help the killing parent to cover up. And the agreement has to come fairly quickly, not after days, or even several hours. A couple hours at most, more likely within minutes. Seems quite a stretch to me.

If Burke hit her and caused the head damage (which I think is unlikely given the nature of the injury) then I'd expect PR would want to call 911. (Assuming she's not the abuser) PR has no reason to want to stage a kidnap/murder/molestationto save BR from -no legal consequence. Her instinct would be to get help, even if it appeared hopeless. Presuming a scenario in which JR is the abuser, he quickly decides to kill, then quickly secures PR's agreement/cooperation. I don't regard it as a likely scenario. Had Burke delivered the blow to the head, how would JR have convinced PR the best thing to do is strangle her to make sure she's dead then go through all that staging?

IOWs if BDI, I'd expect lengthy discussion before an agreement could be reached. In fact, I'd expect a 911 call long before the discussion got very far along. The fact that the strangulation follows quickly suggests to me the decision to kill has already been made and is not an ad-hoc response to an accident.

As long as I'm on the BDI topic, another problem is that JB is apparently suffering the effects of the acute abuse when she receives the blow to the head. So in practical terms, what is going on in the house? JR diddles JB then she goes off to play with BR who hits her with a golf club? Or does the abuse come after Burke hist her? JR sees she's comatose and figures the time is right for a little digital penetration? Am I missing something? This just isn't making sense to me.

If there were a guilty explanation for the touch dna, why has it not been found and why is there no similar touch dna anywhere else particularly in the wine-cellar, or JonBenet's bedroom, you might expect a surplus in the latter?

I don't mean to imply that the touch dna makes the intruder case a good possibility. More like it makes IDI a barely possible highly theoretical scenario. I'm just giving IDI's their due - there is dna from an unrelated male. You can only rule out IDI about 99%, not 100%

Sure but the person who killed JonBenet was not concerned with conjecture, but more with probability, and they reckoned if JonBenet remained alive she would talk with someone about her abuse, it was so extensive and familial, her killer knew she would talk. JonBenet might even have indicated she intended to talk, the desire to share and communicate is given, her killer would understand this and might have acted upon it?

So you think it might have been premeditated?


.[/quote]

 

[R.U.Kidding!]

There are certainly people who share your skepticism with respect to prior abuse; although, I happen to believe chronic abuse did exist and is a key component as to why the accident was covered up.
The visits to Dr. Beuf are meaningless to me, he was a family friend; additionally, he never did an internal on JB and never used a speculum on her. Without doing that, he would not have seen the evidence of abuse that was seen at the autopsy.

DIANE SAWYER: If there had been an abrasion involving the hymen, you would have seen it?
[FONT=Verdana[B]Dr. FRANCESCO BEUF: Probably. I can't say absolutely for sure because you don't do a speculum exam on a child that young at least unless it's under anesthesia.[/B]
Primetime Live, September 10, 1997

Have a look through these posts for reasons why I believe the way I do.

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Ramsey Project Rebuttal (Non Intruder Posters Only)

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Ramsey Project Rebuttal (Non Intruder Posters Only)

Just have a question about the level of sexual abuse at the autopsy. Was there significant evidence of sexual abuse by the coroner, since he did not have to use anesthesia to thoroughly examine that area once JBR was deceased, as Dr. Beuf may have had to use while she was alive.

 

[UKGuy]

Logically we can't put it to bed because of the condensed milk. Condensed milk, just like any other food item, can be left out for hours and hours. Not safely of course, but who says the pineapple was intended as an after party snack ? It might have been, but just as easily could have been there from earlier in the day. We know PR wasn't much for picking up and cleaning up -that's what she had a housekeeper for.

As we've discussed before, one spoon indicates a snack for one child, not two. If it was specifically prepared for JB, and only for her, after the party, it's almost impossible that the Rs would not have thought of it as they staged the crime. It would be nice if we knew whether or not Burke ate pineapple too, or anyone else in the family for that matter.

Because if BDI what the Rs have initially is an accident, which would normally require a call to 911. Presumably only one parent knows of the chronic and acute abuse -though it's possible both know- so the abuser has to quickly decide to kill, which can't be an easy quick decision even if the abuser is desperate. Even if the abusing parent moves quickly to kill, it also requires quick agreement from the non-abusive parent. Or, if not agreement, before the killing, an agreement afterwards. So you have to imagine a situation in which the non-abusive parent consents to help the killing parent to cover up. And the agreement has to come fairly quickly, not after days, or even several hours. A couple hours at most, more likely within minutes. Seems quite a stretch to me.

If Burke hit her and caused the head damage (which I think is unlikely given the nature of the injury) then I'd expect PR would want to call 911. (Assuming she's not the abuser) PR has no reason to want to stage a kidnap/murder/molestationto save BR from -no legal consequence. Her instinct would be to get help, even if it appeared hopeless. Presuming a scenario in which JR is the abuser, he quickly decides to kill, then quickly secures PR's agreement/cooperation. I don't regard it as a likely scenario. Had Burke delivered the blow to the head, how would JR have convinced PR the best thing to do is strangle her to make sure she's dead then go through all that staging?

IOWs if BDI, I'd expect lengthy discussion before an agreement could be reached. In fact, I'd expect a 911 call long before the discussion got very far along. The fact that the strangulation follows quickly suggests to me the decision to kill has already been made and is not an ad-hoc response to an accident.

As long as I'm on the BDI topic, another problem is that JB is apparently suffering the effects of the acute abuse when she receives the blow to the head. So in practical terms, what is going on in the house? JR diddles JB then she goes off to play with BR who hits her with a golf club? Or does the abuse come after Burke hist her? JR sees she's comatose and figures the time is right for a little digital penetration? Am I missing something? This just isn't making sense to me.


I don't mean to imply that the touch dna makes the intruder case a good possibility. More like it makes IDI a barely possible highly theoretical scenario. I'm just giving IDI's their due - there is dna from an unrelated male. You can only rule out IDI about 99%, not 100%


So you think it might have been premeditated?


.

[/QUOTE]


Chrishope,

Logically we can't put it to bed because of the condensed milk. Condensed milk, just like any other food item, can be left out for hours and hours. Not safely of course, but who says the pineapple was intended as an after party snack ? It might have been, but just as easily could have been there from earlier in the day. We know PR wasn't much for picking up and cleaning up -that's what she had a housekeeper for.

Are you seriously suggesting that JonBenet snacked on pineapple and condensed milk which had been left out for many hours? Condensed milk curdles quickly, more so with pineapple added. How do I know because as a child this was also a favorite snack of mine.

My point is the pineapple may have been prepared earlier, e.g. cut etc, but the condensed milk would almost certainly have been added at the point of consumption.

It follows either Burke or Patsy served up the pineapple snack to JonBenet after they arrived home.

As we've discussed before, one spoon indicates a snack for one child, not two. If it was specifically prepared for JB, and only for her, after the party, it's almost impossible that the Rs would not have thought of it as they staged the crime. It would be nice if we knew whether or not Burke ate pineapple too, or anyone else in the family for that matter.

Burke may have snacked pineapple, as may have Patsy or John, they could have placed their bowls in the sink to be washed?

Its not who ate pineapple that is important but who knew that the pineapple had been eaten, e.g. did Patsy prepare the snack?

I am inferring Patsy did not prepare the pineapple snack since neither she nor John factored this into their version of events. As it turns out the pineapple snack calls their version of events into question. That is Patsy was ignorant of JonBenet snacking pineapple, hence her total denial of ownership of the breakfast bar artifacts!

Contrast this with the size-12's, where she has a story to tell about giving JonBenet the size-12's. If she had known about the pineappple she could have dreamt up some tale about JonBenet and pineapple.

So it may not be important, e.g. just circumstantial detail in a homicide case, but it appears Burke and JonBenet had a nocturnal snack without their parents knowledge!

As long as I'm on the BDI topic, another problem is that JB is apparently suffering the effects of the acute abuse when she receives the blow to the head. So in practical terms, what is going on in the house? JR diddles JB then she goes off to play with BR who hits her with a golf club? Or does the abuse come after Burke hist her? JR sees she's comatose and figures the time is right for a little digital penetration? Am I missing something? This just isn't making sense to me.

Looks like you are missing something. BDI assumes Burke whacked JonBenet on the head or manually strangled her after sexually assaulting her. All after enjoying a secret pineapple snack, making Burke possibly the last person to see JonBenet alive?

Then however it sequences, along come the parents to effect the staging, possibly employing the flashlight and garrote etc.

So you think it might have been premeditated?

After JonBenet lapsed into a coma, someone calculated the odds, e.g. dial 911 or not, and they patently decided the latter, because they wanted to be certain that JonBenet would never talk!


.

 

[UKGuy]

...Maybe he still had his shirt on when wiping her down with a different cloth, and the fibers transferred to her at that time.

Whaleshark,
Yes could be, but there has been no mention of any other fibers from this other cloth. Also nothing has been said if the fibers from John's shirt had any blood cells on them?

 

[Chrishope]

Chrishope,

Are you seriously suggesting that JonBenet snacked on pineapple and condensed milk which had been left out for many hours? Condensed milk curdles quickly, more so with pineapple added. How do I know because as a child this was also a favorite snack of mine.

Yes, I'm seriously suggesting that she might have plucked some pineapple chunks out of the bowl, and I'm also suggesting -hard as it may be to believe- that a 6 year old may not have observed basic food safety rules.

My point is the pineapple may have been prepared earlier, e.g. cut etc, but the condensed milk would almost certainly have been added at the point of consumption.

Milk would not be added until the pineapple was meant to be consumed, but you are making a logical error in assuming it had to be after the party. The milk could have been added several hours before, when the snack was meant to be consumed. That it is still on the table may be due to poor housekeeping. We know the pineapple was on the table several hours before the crime scene photo was taken. It does not follow that the milk was added moments before the photo was taken. Likewise, it does not follow that the milk was added upon return from the party. Maybe. Maybe not. We don't know how long the pineapple had been out.

It follows either Burke or Patsy served up the pineapple snack to JonBenet after they arrived home.

No it doesn't follow. it's a possibility. That it had been out from earlier in the day is also a possibility.

One more point on the pineapple. If, as you assume (mistakenly in my view) that leaving the pineapple out was a staging error, how would the Rs have overlooked it if it had been prepared immediately upon return from the party, specifically for JB?

Burke may have snacked pineapple, as may have Patsy or John, they could have placed their bowls in the sink to be washed?

So everyone put their bowls in the sink except JB, and BR left his tea glass out too?

Its not who ate pineapple that is important but who knew that the pineapple had been eaten, e.g. did Patsy prepare the snack?

Actually it is important, because if other family members also ate pineapple after the party, it makes my theory -that it was left out from earlier in the day- much less likely.

I am inferring Patsy did not prepare the pineapple snack since neither she nor John factored this into their version of events. As it turns out the pineapple snack calls their version of events into question. That is Patsy was ignorant of JonBenet snacking pineapple, hence her total denial of ownership of the breakfast bar artifacts!

So who do you think prepared the snack ? I don't see Burke cutting pineapple.

If you think this, then it follows that JR/PR did not fix a pineapple snack for JB or BR after the party - if they had they'd almost certainly have remembered.

This leaves only three possibilities that I can see. BR fixed the snack, unbeknown to his parents, while they were still downstairs and awake, or BR fixed the snack later in the night while the parents slept, or it had been left out from earlier in the day and JB helped herself to a few chunks.

The first scenario is very unlikely, I think you'll agree. For the second scenario to work, the pineapple probably had to be cubed, by PR, sometime earlier that day. We can infer from the TOD/digestion timeline that she ate around 10pm, so the idea that BR made the snack later that night while the parents slept is not as likely.

Contrast this with the size-12's, where she has a story to tell about giving JonBenet the size-12's. If she had known about the pineappple she could have dreamt up some tale about JonBenet and pineapple.

Or, if what actually happened was that the family sat down to a pineapple snack, or just the kids, then the Rs simply tell the story "We came home had pineapple, put the kids to bed, and we don't know 'nuthin 'bout 'nuthin until the next morning".

So it may not be important, e.g. just circumstantial detail in a homicide case, but it appears Burke and JonBenet had a nocturnal snack without their parents knowledge!

Well, we know JB did. We don't know about BR.

Looks like you are missing something. BDI assumes Burke whacked JonBenet on the head or manually strangled her after sexually assaulting her. All after enjoying a secret pineapple snack, making Burke possibly the last person to see JonBenet alive?

Wow. I had assumed that most BDI theorists had JR doing the acute abuse as an attempt to cover up the chronic abuse. Do you think BR was strong enough to manually strangle her? Wouldn't he have had to do the head bash too, if he'd done the strangulation? We've already looked at the unlikely scenario of a late night (as in after the parents were in bed) snack.

Then however it sequences, along come the parents to effect the staging, possibly employing the flashlight and garrote etc.

Which is why BDI is so hard to take seriously, but maybe we'll save that for another thread.

After JonBenet lapsed into a coma, someone calculated the odds, e.g. dial 911 or not, and they patently decided the latter, because they wanted to be certain that JonBenet would never talk!
.

And both of them had to think this was the best course of action.

 

[DeeDee249]

Just have a question about the level of sexual abuse at the autopsy. Was there significant evidence of sexual abuse by the coroner, since he did not have to use anesthesia to thoroughly examine that area once JBR was deceased, as Dr. Beuf may have had to use while she was alive.

The coroner found evidence of both chronic (occurred at least one other time before that day) and acute (meaning that night). To do this, the coroner dissected her vagina, as is usually done in autopsies. He didn't just look the way you'd do if she was alive. He found that her hymen was eroded away. Not torn, but rubbed away. That took time- and more than one occasion- to happen. All the erosion was in the same spot on hymen, evidence of digital, not penile, penetration and indicated someone pressing on the same spot over a period of several times. There was also some bruising, and blood on a few areas inside vagina as well as evidence of her blood having been wiped from her thighs and pubic area. This area was also found to have dark fibers which the coroner said was evidence of having been wiped down with a cloth. The blood was from that night, and as some of it was described as "watery" or semi- liquid, it was fresh and had to have happened just before she died. Otherwise, it would be congealed as all blood in a deceased person would be after a while. But it was still fresh.
For the chronic abuse to have happened, it had to be someone with repeated, regular PRIVATE access to JB, as a 6-year old has few private contacts with people outside her family. Private being the key word. Kids that age are rarely alone with strangers.
By the way, her pediatrician Dr. Boef, admitted that he NEVER examined JB's vaginal area internally, which would have required use of a speculum and anesthesia. It is not part of a routine pediatric care and this instrument would not be part of a pediatricians' regular equipment. He had no way to see whether JB had any indication of sexual abuse. His statements that "he saw no evidence", while true, as so misleading as to be considered obstruction. Had be been questioned on the witness stand by a prosecutor who actually wanted to solve this case, he'd have been forced to admit that he saw no evidence because he never actually looked for it.

 

[DeeDee249]

I keep wondering why the Stines weren't called that morning. They lived a very short distance away, SS was already PR's bulldog? DeeDee249 what are your thoughts on this? Thanks

I think they weren't called that morning because they had already been called in the middle of the night. They had already left by the time everyone else was called. Of course, the TRUE unedited phone records would have shown this if true, but of course, a judge (who may also have not wanted this case to be solved) refused. I cannot thing of any other reason why SS would have been so virulent in her "protection" of Patsy unless her own son was there when JB died. Many people feel he may have been invited along on the trip. He was a few years older than BR and possibly saw JB in a "less sisterly" way.
SS went so far as to impersonate a police chief in emails to people. That alone is a criminal offense, yet no charges were filed against her. The Ss gave up their home and jobs and followed the Rs to Atlanta. Eventually the friendship soured (loved to have been a fly on the wall for that) and I read the two families were not in contact by the time Patsy died.
Lets not forget that Patsy's sister was also given special treatment by police. She was driven in a police car to the R home and allowed to roam the active crime scene to "get a few things for the funeral". The "few things" filled more than one police car. While doing this she was given a police jacket to wear so as "not to attract attention". This is also against the law- to impersonate an officer by wearing official clothing or uniforms. We really know it wasn't so she wouldn't attract attention- it was so no one would see that she was allowed to remove whatever she wanted from the house. This included a golf bag that was seen in crime photos standing right outside the wineceller door. JR specifically asked for it- even though it was December in Colorado and certainly not golf season. It is true he was headed to Atlanta but one would assume he had other things to do- like bury his daughter- to play golf and considering the R house was to be packed up by movers shortly it is suspicious that the golf bag couldn't wait.
This is what angers me when I see IDI asking "where is the rest of the cord and tape" etc. Ask Aunty P. She knows.

 

[UKGuy]

Yes, I'm seriously suggesting that she might have plucked some pineapple chunks out of the bowl, and I'm also suggesting -hard as it may be to believe- that a 6 year old may not have observed basic food safety rules.



Milk would not be added until the pineapple was meant to be consumed, but you are making a logical error in assuming it had to be after the party. The milk could have been added several hours before, when the snack was meant to be consumed. That it is still on the table may be due to poor housekeeping. We know the pineapple was on the table several hours before the crime scene photo was taken. It does not follow that the milk was added moments before the photo was taken. Likewise, it does not follow that the milk was added upon return from the party. Maybe. Maybe not. We don't know how long the pineapple had been out.



No it doesn't follow. it's a possibility. That it had been out from earlier in the day is also a possibility.

One more point on the pineapple. If, as you assume (mistakenly in my view) that leaving the pineapple out was a staging error, how would the Rs have overlooked it if it had been prepared immediately upon return from the party, specifically for JB?



So everyone put their bowls in the sink except JB, and BR left his tea glass out too?



Actually it is important, because if other family members also ate pineapple after the party, it makes my theory -that it was left out from earlier in the day- much less likely.



So who do you think prepared the snack ? I don't see Burke cutting pineapple.

If you think this, then it follows that JR/PR did not fix a pineapple snack for JB or BR after the party - if they had they'd almost certainly have remembered.

This leaves only three possibilities that I can see. BR fixed the snack, unbeknown to his parents, while they were still downstairs and awake, or BR fixed the snack later in the night while the parents slept, or it had been left out from earlier in the day and JB helped herself to a few chunks.

The first scenario is very unlikely, I think you'll agree. For the second scenario to work, the pineapple probably had to be cubed, by PR, sometime earlier that day. We can infer from the TOD/digestion timeline that she ate around 10pm, so the idea that BR made the snack later that night while the parents slept is not as likely.



Or, if what actually happened was that the family sat down to a pineapple snack, or just the kids, then the Rs simply tell the story "We came home had pineapple, put the kids to bed, and we don't know 'nuthin 'bout 'nuthin until the next morning".



Well, we know JB did. We don't know about BR.



Wow. I had assumed that most BDI theorists had JR doing the acute abuse as an attempt to cover up the chronic abuse. Do you think BR was strong enough to manually strangle her? Wouldn't he have had to do the head bash too, if he'd done the strangulation? We've already looked at the unlikely scenario of a late night (as in after the parents were in bed) snack.



Which is why BDI is so hard to take seriously, but maybe we'll save that for another thread.


And both of them had to think this was the best course of action.

Chrishope,

Yes, I'm seriously suggesting that she might have plucked some pineapple chunks out of the bowl, and I'm also suggesting -hard as it may be to believe- that a 6 year old may not have observed basic food safety rules.

So Patsy prepared the snack earlier then forgot to factor it in to the Ramsey's version of events.

I doubt this even more than JonBenet snacking on old, rejected pineapple.



.

 

[Chrishope]

Chrishope,

So Patsy prepared the snack earlier then forgot to factor it in to the Ramsey's version of events.

I doubt this even more than JonBenet snacking on old, rejected pineapple.



.

Makes sense doesn't it? If the pineapple was there from earlier, it had been forgotten about and the Rs were unaware that she'd snacked on any pineapple - thus it is not worked into their storyline.

If they prepared a snack after the party, they'd have known she ate pineapple, and would have worked into the story.

If one wants to claim that the Rs should have cleaned up the breakfast bar, then one has to account for why they did not. One reason would be they were unaware JB had pineapple after the party. There are a couple ways that could happen. One is that the snack was prepared for BR - since JBs prints are not on the bowl or glass, and there is only one spoon. JB then begged, borrowed, or stole some pineapple from BR W/O the parents knowledge. Personally I regard this as pretty likely, given what was found the next morning. (It's a wonder the guests didn't clean it up)

Another way the Rs could be unaware of the snack is if the pineapple had been out from earlier in the day.

That BR prepared the snack after the parents went to bed is very unlikely, unless there is some good reason to reject the normal timeline for digestion and the timeline for full rigor.

 

[R.U.Kidding!]

UGH! Dee,Dee you sure Know your facts. I must say i was not prepared for that information , Since it was not penile penetration would that mean the abuse may have been from her mother?? How very, very sad, For the outside world they looked like the perfect loving family. You just never know the MONSTER hiding in the closet.