If JonBenet's death was an accident...

[MurriFlower]

Camelid made me laugh.

I guess where I was heading was no so much whether it was RDI or IDI, but once again searching for explanation of facts.

The pineapple presence is a fact.
The pineapple in a semi-digested form is also a fact.
The death somewhere between 12-2am is a fact.
So in reality, what I am attempting to establish is not just whether the Ramsey's lied or were untruthful about JB being awake and chowing down on a bowl of pineapple, but what the 'other' story is for what happened with it as there is a clear blurring between what's happened and what is KNOWN to have happened.

No horses being backed here I'm afraid, try not to get sucked into where you think my questions might be heading
Aussie Aussie Aussieeeeeee

Yes, I think it's a mistake to think everything must be a clue, just like an Agatha Christie book. Some things are Red Herrings, some are just co-incidental or are unrelated. You are a dyed-in-the-wool RDI, so it's no surprise where your questions are heading. RDI, RDI, RDI.

Ooi, Ooi, Oooiiiii!!!!

 

[gngr~snap]

Look, Llama, I don't think you're such a bad Camelid, you are an Aussie after all, but you've just backed the wrong horse here!

I have no idea if the pineapple is significant in the crime or not. Did the parents feed it to her? If so, why? And why would they say she was asleep if she wasn't? They could have just said she asked for a snack and went to bed. I can't see the harm in that or why it would matter. It adds or subtracts nothing from their guilt/innocence.

As far as the IDI theory is concerned, I think there is a possibility. Firstly, and most likely, is that there was more than one IDI and one was a 'friendly' ('inside job'), who knew well JBR liked pineapple. He/She put a dash of GHB (you will be aware of a well published GHB related death here) in to the pineapple (acidic fruit masks the soapy taste) and took a very happy compliant JBR off to the basement to tie up and hide her in order to get the ransom as I've previously suggested. GHB without alcohol is quite safe apparently, because of how it works may even be a drug of preference for pedophiles, and wears off without hangover. Perfect if you want to keep someone quiet for a few hours, or molest them a little bit. Oh, and of course, no drugs were found in her body. That would not be a surprise considering the length of time from death to autopsy, and that GHB has to be specifically tested for because it apparently leaves the body rapidly.

Or, the pineapple could simply have nothing to do with the murder at all. JBR woke up after the family fell asleep, (maybe wanted a pee) and afterwards thought she'd go downstairs for something to eat/drink. Perhaps she got it out of the fridge herself, or maybe it was there on the table from earlier, and she just helped herself.

So, as far as the pineapple is concerned, I think from an RDI point of view it has much less value as evidence (why would they feed it to her and why would they then lie about it) than it does from an IDI stance (where it may be part of the planned crime).

ok I'll think out of the box
IDI- Gbh... why hope for an item in the Ramsey's fridge? Just bring your own. Candy or koolaid seems more likely. Then when she's "out " just take her it allows extended time. Was this ID trying to get caught or just derive pleasure from completing the deed inside the home? IDI's have no reason to cover the crime up, usually they walk away leaving the victom as is
just my thought
MOO

 

[MurriFlower]

ok I'll think out of the box
IDI- Gbh... why hope for an item in the Ramsey's fridge? Just bring your own. Candy or koolaid seems more likely. Then when she's "out " just take her it allows extended time. Was this ID trying to get caught or just derive pleasure from completing the deed inside the home? IDI's have no reason to cover the crime up, usually they walk away leaving the victom as is
just my thought
MOO

Hi Gingr thanks for expanding your mind beyond the square,

I think this person was very well aware of what was in the fridge.

There was never any intention to 'take her'. The object was to get money from the Rs, but also there was a desire to humiliate them. There was a certain pleasure derived from violating their private space and taking the thing most precious, of course that was a big part of it. This person did not like them very much. The murder was not planned, this was done by someone this person trusted to help them (may have even suggested the plan) and who was very close. Unfortunately, to turn them in was not an option. Luckily, the incompetence of the BPD assurred that no incriminating evidence was ever found. Why? Well, because they were looking elsewhere!

 

[mcsmom]

Has it been considered that the 12-14 underwear could have been previously laundered and considerably shrank in size?
From experience I always buy 100% cotton a size or two larger for this reason.

 

[DeeDee249]

ok I'll think out of the box
IDI- Gbh... why hope for an item in the Ramsey's fridge? Just bring your own. Candy or koolaid seems more likely. Then when she's "out " just take her it allows extended time. Was this ID trying to get caught or just derive pleasure from completing the deed inside the home? IDI's have no reason to cover the crime up, usually they walk away leaving the victom as is
just my thought
MOO

Absolutely NO drugs (from Kool-Aid or any other source) was found when toxicology tests were done on JB. NONE. No alcohol either.

 

[DeeDee249]

Has it been considered that the 12-14 underwear could have been previously laundered and considerably shrank in size?
From experience I always buy 100% cotton a size or two larger for this reason.

Of course it has been considered. Believe me, EVERY possibility has been considered. There are ways to test if garments have been laundered- a small amount of detergent or dryer sheet residue remains on clean clothes after laundering. LE described these panties as NEW. Unlaundered, right out of the package. It was obvious to those who were there that these panties were far too large for her. This wouldn't have been apparent until she was taken to the morgue and the autopsy performed, at which time her body was undressed and the clothing put in evidence, where (hopefully) it still is. There were several others besides the coroners at the autopsy- Detectives Arndt and Trujillo among them. They would have seen as soon as the long johns were removed that the panties were too large and obviously not for a chid that size. Patsy did admit buying them, no mystery there. The only issue is who put them on, when and why.
As far as the DNA on the clothing (and ONLY on the clothing) there is a matter that I mention from time to time here. There was a young man who worked for the morgue who was arrested for tampering with the "morgue log" (written record of bodies brought in). He would also have had access to JB's body at some point while at the morgue. He was someone who possibly had a morbid curiosity or even a sick pervert who enjoyed "playing" with the dead, but I always wanted to have HIM tested to see if his DNA matched that found on the panties and longjohns. Some people are sick enough to have wanted to take a peek at a poor dead baby lying in a morgue drawer. He may have pulled her bottoms down. That may be one way to resolve the puzzle of the rogue DNA.

 

[wonderllama]

Okay, so back to the Pineapple....

If there were no drugs or anything found in JB's system, that rules out being drugged...unless it was an Olympic Athlete who broke in and they included a masking agent in the mixture. Oh, and just for the sake of being facetious, as you think there was more than one Intruder, perhaps it was a swim team.

So what now Murri? No drugs means what?

Also, I think you'd agree that something that is unexplained (ie: how pineapple got into the victim when she was supposed to be asleep at the time according to her parents) may not be a clue per se, but it is an unanswered event, and given that it is important to set timelines in place to establish what happened and when, as well as to establish the credibility of all people giving evidence, I expect you would still think it is important to clear this situation up....don't you agree? You know....as someone who wishes to solve the crime and all?

 

[cynic]

There is no standard sizing that covers the whole of the US, each company publishes their own size chart. It only takes a google so one doesn't have to live in the US to find this out, it's not like I'm from another planet. I've already posted (on another thread) several different size charts from various companies that sell girls underwear in the US that are exactly the same as the Bloomingdales size chart.

Yes, various companies publish size charts as a guideline for customers. Most will place a caveat such as the one in the Bloomingdale chart that you cited.
“Sizing varies greatly between designers. If you are familiar with a designer, please order the size that you normally do. If not please match your measurements to the size guides below.”

Here is a chart from Amazon.com, which is involved in the sale of vast quantities of clothing (among other things.)
Notice the match between age and size which many parents use a guideline for shopping for clothes.

Here is another

And more

I could go on, but the fact of the matter is that we know that St. Eve produced “Days of the Week” panties for Bloomingdales. These panties carried a St. Eve tag and were branded across the back with the name “Bloomies.”
These panties were group sized; Small 4/6, Medium 8/10, Large 12/14.
Patsy purchased at least one pack of 12/14’s for her niece and possibly an appropriately sized pack for Jonbenet, which would be 4/6.
Jayelles over at FFJ purchased both a small and large pack of these and proceeded to measure and experiment with them on her 6 year old daughter.
Here are links to her work:
[ame="http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=7107"]The Gigantic (Girls Size 12-14) "Bloomies" Underwear Found On JonBenet - Forums For Justice[/ame]

[ame="http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=7128"]Girls Size 12-14 "Bloomies" Modeled On a Six-Year-Old Like JonBenet - Forums For Justice[/ame]

My experiments confirmed the size difference between size 6 and size 12, using the brand Hanes.
[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5962495&postcount=1"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - The oversized Bloomingdale’s panties.[/ame]
I also documented the lies of PR during questioning.

RDI will never accept it because they want to continue to believe that JBR was redressed by her parent(s), (in 'enormous' sized panties) so it's just as a matter of course that I continue to correct this misconception regarding the size.

There is no misconception, they were significantly oversized (12/14) panties designed for a 12 year old girl for whom they were purchased (Jenny.)

I believe she put the panties on herself the previous night before going to the Whites and yes, even if she couldn't read, she could find a printed 'Wednesday' in a pack of seven day-of-the-week panties. The panties were not in the drawer, but packed by PR for the holidays. The evidence for this is there was not one pair of correct sized panties (or unstained ones for that matter) found in her drawer.

This is the evidence for your theory? The drawer contained appropriately sized panties for a six year old girl. Even PR acknowledged that size 6 was appropriate for JonBenet.

 

[MurriFlower]

Yes, various companies publish size charts as a guideline for customers. Most will place a caveat such as the one in the Bloomingdale chart that you cited.“Sizing varies greatly between designers. If you are familiar with a designer, please order the size that you normally do. If not please match your measurements to the size guides below.”
Here is a chart from Amazon.com, which is involved in the sale of vast quantities of clothing (among other things.)
Notice the match between age and size which many parents use a guideline for shopping for clothes.

Yes, my precise point. Most clothing for children marked 12 will be for a 12 year old. HOWEVER, Bloomingdales own size chart says that size 12 is suitable for a 9-10 year old. There is NO SIZE 12/14.

It is not important how many size charts from other companies that you choose to post as evidence that some companies (perhaps even the company that manufactured these particular panties) do sell this size. I can post an equal number (and have already done so, so I won't waste time doing it again) with the exact same sizing of Bloomingdales. What is important is the size that was on the panties that JBR was wearing. Bloomingdales would have obtained from the manufacturer the size that they retail as per their size chart. Just the same as any Asian company that produces clothing for the UK or Australia or Europe would size their garments and tag them according to their customers specifications.

I could go on, but the fact of the matter is that we know that St. Eve produced “Days of the Week” panties for Bloomingdales. These panties carried a St. Eve tag and were branded across the back with the name “Bloomies.”
These panties were group sized; Small 4/6, Medium 8/10, Large 12/14.
Patsy purchased at least one pack of 12/14’s for her niece and possibly an appropriately sized pack for Jonbenet, which would be 4/6.

We know st.eve produced panties for Bloomingdales as did other companies. What we don't know is who produced the actual panties she was wearing and what size they were.

I've looked at these and NONE OF THEM has the same print that was on the panties described by the Medical Examiner (rosebuds). In fact, they each have a different print, so we have no idea if they were even made by the same company. If Jayells for example purchased a pack of panties size 6 (as per the Bloomingdales size chart) and another pair of size 12/14 (even from the same manufacturer, but using the Amazon chart you posted), then the size difference would be enormous.

Jayelles over at FFJ purchased both a small and large pack of these and proceeded to measure and experiment with them on her 6 year old daughter.
Here are links to her work:
The Gigantic (Girls Size 12-14) "Bloomies" Underwear Found On JonBenet - Forums For Justice[/FONT]

Girls Size 12-14 "Bloomies" Modeled On a Six-Year-Old Like JonBenet - Forums For Justice

The picture shown on a home made dummy (and not a very well made one either), is meaningless.


I've always been amused by this picture posted by Jayells and taken at the same time the st.eve 12/14 tag was shown.

Notice how it is only the larger panties that has the tag exposed rather than both pairs? I've always thought this is suspicious, because the smaller may not be the correct size, as JBR could have worn size 6, 6X, 7 & 8, which all fall within her age grouping, but may not support the poster's theory.

My experiments confirmed the size difference between size 6 and size 12, using the brand Hanes.
Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - The oversized Bloomingdale’s panties.I also documented the lies of PR during questioning.
There is no misconception, they were significantly oversized (12/14) panties designed for a 12 year old girl for whom they were purchased (Jenny.)

Yes, there is a misconception, actually about the size and which size chart they were appropriate for, otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion.

This is the evidence for your theory? The drawer contained appropriately sized panties for a six year old girl. Even PR acknowledged that size 6 was appropriate for JonBenet.

Evidence is right there. There were only stained size 6 panties in her drawer. RDI has said it themselves. BPD said they were all in the drawer. NO MENTION has ever been made of them finding panties (except for a dirty pair on the bathroom floor) in any other location in the house. JBR could have worn anything from a size 6 to a size 8, according to the Bloomindales size chart.

 

[MurriFlower]

Okay, so back to the Pineapple....

If there were no drugs or anything found in JB's system, that rules out being drugged...unless it was an Olympic Athlete who broke in and they included a masking agent in the mixture. Oh, and just for the sake of being facetious, as you think there was more than one Intruder, perhaps it was a swim team.

Now there was me saying what a nice little Camelid you were, and then you go off down the sarcasm route. How do we know it wasn't a group of College boys with a mini laboratory in their dorm? Perhaps they couldn't even swim. The neighbour was a qualified Pharmacist, perhaps he had a sideline in 'designer' drugs. I mean really, why would you pick on the swim team when we all know about the cyclists?

So what now Murri? No drugs means what?

Well, it means my little Camel, that they did not FIND any drugs, not that there were none given to her. Perhaps you'd like to educate yourself about GHB and how it is a naturally occurring substance and how quickly it leaves the body and how difficult it is to trace and how you need to be looking for it specifically and using special laboratory equipment?

Also, I think you'd agree that something that is unexplained (ie: how pineapple got into the victim when she was supposed to be asleep at the time according to her parents) may not be a clue per se, but it is an unanswered event, and given that it is important to set timelines in place to establish what happened and when, as well as to establish the credibility of all people giving evidence, I expect you would still think it is important to clear this situation up....don't you agree? You know....as someone who wishes to solve the crime and all?

I would agree if this something unexplained had anything at all to do with the crime, or there was some reason for feeding it to her, or if by telling a lie about feeding it to her, they gained something. Just that is inconsistent does not point to the guilt of any party. If she was awake when they came home, and ate pineapple, and went to bed, and then was dead in the morning would not make the slightest difference to whether the parents were guilty or innocent. They might not remember if they turned out the light, or shut the door, in fact, even if they did or did not, there is nothing to say JBR didn't get up and do this herself later. Same with the pineapple. Unexplained does not necessarily equal suspicious.

 

[wonderllama]

Oh I agree unexplained doesn't equal suspicious but when the unexplained event takes place during a crucial period in someone's life/death it's probably worth sussing out.

 

[Agatha_C]

Oh I agree unexplained doesn't equal suspicious but when the unexplained event takes place during a crucial period in someone's life/death it's probably worth sussing out.

So right you are Wonder. Unexplained does not equal suspicious. Now if we could only get IDI to admit the very same when it comes to the touch DNA, we might have something, dont you think Wonder (LOL).

 

[Tadpole12]

http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682505/Second-Floor#Size46Panties


Kane Claim. In the August 28, 2000 interview with Patsy Ramsey, deputy DA Michael Kane asserted that of the 15 pairs of underwear taken from JBR's underwear drawer in the bathroom, "every one of those was either a size four or a size

http://boards.library.trutv.com/archive/index.php/t-280451.html

23 Q. What size underpants would you
24 normally buy for her?
25 A. 8 to 10.

 

[Agatha_C]

http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682505/Second-Floor#Size46Panties


Kane Claim. In the August 28, 2000 interview with Patsy Ramsey, deputy DA Michael Kane asserted that of the 15 pairs of underwear taken from JBR's underwear drawer in the bathroom, "every one of those was either a size four or a size

http://boards.library.trutv.com/archive/index.php/t-280451.html

23 Q. What size underpants would you
24 normally buy for her?
25 A. 8 to 10.

Yet, they didnt find size 8 or 10s, instead they found 4 and 6s. So Patsy bought size 8 to 10s for JBR, she was found in the only pair of size 12s and LE only found size 4 and 6. We'll be arguing the panties until the second coming. LOL

 

[SunnieRN]

Yes, I think it's a mistake to think everything must be a clue, just like an Agatha Christie book. Some things are Red Herrings, some are just co-incidental or are unrelated. You are a dyed-in-the-wool RDI, so it's no surprise where your questions are heading. RDI, RDI, RDI.

Ooi, Ooi, Oooiiiii!!!!

It amazes me that if something does not fit into a theory that you randomly toss to and fro, that you arbitrarily state that it is a red herring, incidental or unrelated. jonBenet was proven to eat pineapple, two hours, in approximation, of her time of death. No one drugged her. She had on undies that were many sizes too large for her.

FACTS, that most reasonable, intelligent human beings, trying to solve a MURDER, would call clues!

Denying the facts does nothing to enhance your random, ever changing theories.

 

[SunnieRN]

This is but ONE example of your 'theories' that is NOT even in the realm of possibility. DeeDee and others, have stated MANY times, that there were NO drugs found in JonBenet. NONE! The R's insinuated someon (the White's), may have drugged her, with crab. Nope, nosey, nippers, or whatever it is you like to say. Did you read the autopsy report? NO DRUGS. NO GBH!

Look, Llama, I don't think you're such a bad Camelid, you are an Aussie after all, but you've just backed the wrong horse here!

I have no idea if the pineapple is significant in the crime or not. Did the parents feed it to her? If so, why? And why would they say she was asleep if she wasn't? They could have just said she asked for a snack and went to bed. I can't see the harm in that or why it would matter. It adds or subtracts nothing from their guilt/innocence.

As far as the IDI theory is concerned, I think there is a possibility. Firstly, and most likely, is that there was more than one IDI and one was a 'friendly' ('inside job'), who knew well JBR liked pineapple. He/She put a dash of GHB (you will be aware of a well published GHB related death here) in to the pineapple (acidic fruit masks the soapy taste) and took a very happy compliant JBR off to the basement to tie up and hide her in order to get the ransom as I've previously suggested. GHB without alcohol is quite safe apparently, because of how it works may even be a drug of preference for pedophiles, and wears off without hangover. Perfect if you want to keep someone quiet for a few hours, or molest them a little bit. Oh, and of course, no drugs were found in her body. That would not be a surprise considering the length of time from death to autopsy, and that GHB has to be specifically tested for because it apparently leaves the body rapidly.

Or, the pineapple could simply have nothing to do with the murder at all. JBR woke up after the family fell asleep, (maybe wanted a pee) and afterwards thought she'd go downstairs for something to eat/drink. Perhaps she got it out of the fridge herself, or maybe it was there on the table from earlier, and she just helped herself.

So, as far as the pineapple is concerned, I think from an RDI point of view it has much less value as evidence (why would they feed it to her and why would they then lie about it) than it does from an IDI stance (where it may be part of the planned crime).

 

[DeeDee249]

Here's the WHOLE enchilada as far as the pineapple is concerned. Ready?

JB was awake at some point when they got home. She wanted a snack. Patsy got the bowl of pineapple from the fridge. Patsy's prints were on the bowl, as was BR's. NOT JB's. Fruit is a good choice for a bedtime snack. Nothing odd there. Patsy gives the pineapple to JB, she eats it. This is around 10-11 pm. BR is likely there as well, possible he eats some too. The teabag/glass may or may not be his.
This simple activity of a bedtime snack is over, done with and out of mind. Unimportant.

Until pineapple was found inside JB's digestive tract at the autopsy.

NOW- it becomes IMPORTANT. Important because the Rs had already said she was asleep when they got home and was not seen awake/alive again. Important because they never even thought about pineapple turning up in an autopsy report. Important because NOW they have to admit she was awake after they said she wasn't. They'd have to admit they lied about it. If they lied about this, it implies they may have lied about other things. It was simply easier to say she was asleep the whole time, just as the Rs admitted it was easier to say BR was asleep the whole time the next morning (JR later admitted he wasn't asleep, but they felt it "was better to say he was asleep to keep him out if it". Right. The only possible witness to your daughter's kidnapping.
It was so much easier to say you don't know HOW she got the pineapple inside her. Deny you even bought the pineapple. Deny you even own the bowl (later seen in a photo taken at a party just 3 days before and which matched other china in the home). Just say "we don't know".
That's it. The whole she-bang. The pineapple was an innocent part of the evening which became not-so-innocent when it was found inside a dead child who wasn't supposed to be awake to eat it.

 

[eileenhawkeye]

I'm beginning to wonder if JonBenet snuck downstairs for a late night pineapple snack. Patsy heard some noise, grabbed the flashlight, and went downstairs to investigate. Then, Patsy was like, "JonBenet, what are you doing up this late?" and maybe JonBenet gave her a little attitude and Patsy got angry and hit JBR with the flashlight? Or maybe JonBenet and Burke both snuck downstairs (with the flashlight) and they got into an argument and Burke hit JonBenet with the flashlight?

I think the pineapple plays a big role in what happened that night. I highly doubt JonBenet ate the pineapple, went back to bed, and then the murder occurred. It's related somehow to her murder.

 

[DeeDee249]

I'm beginning to wonder if JonBenet snuck downstairs for a late night pineapple snack. Patsy heard some noise, grabbed the flashlight, and went downstairs to investigate. Then, Patsy was like, "JonBenet, what are you doing up this late?" and maybe JonBenet gave her a little attitude and Patsy got angry and hit JBR with the flashlight? Or maybe JonBenet and Burke both snuck downstairs (with the flashlight) and they got into an argument and Burke hit JonBenet with the flashlight?

I think the pineapple plays a big role in what happened that night. I highly doubt JonBenet ate the pineapple, went back to bed, and then the murder occurred. It's related somehow to her murder.

I just can't see Patsy bashing JB with the flashlight for being "sassy". And I can't see her bashing JB 'accidentally" or thinking she was someone else. I can see BR bashing her in an argument. But what makes the most sense to me is the scream, then the head bash to silence her. Not to kill her (though it did) but to shut her up FAST.
I don't think JB ate the pineapple and went back to bed either. I do think it was eaten for innocent reasons- a genuine bedtime snack. Kids don't eat much proper food at a party, especially where there are other kids. They were said to have been playing all evening, which is why JR ASKED PW to save some crab for her. The kids obviously weren't sitting down and eating with the adults.
I don't think eating the pineapple itself has anything to do with her death or the crime. The LIE about eating the pineapple, however, has everything to do with it.

 

[qtc]

DeeDee, you said that JBs prints were not on the bowl. If she gotten the snack herself, wouldnt her prints be on the bowl?

What else is known about the pineapple? Was it already in the bowl in the fridge, or was it opened the same time it was going to be eaten?

I am just trying to think about when it was possibly consumed. If JB and/or Burke got up for whatever reason, and she wanted the pineapple, would she (or they) sit in the dark and eat it? No one (the neighbors), to my knowledge, said anything about lights being on late, but I believe something was said about weird lighting (like a flashlight) was seen.

My thoughts are going every which way and I am having a hard time writing them down in a coherent way.