JBR, the Pineapple, & Benzos: Wendy Murphy on Tricia's True Crime Radio 7/28

[BOESP]

I have no clue how my amended post got posted after the first post (e-i-e-i-o). I thought I was editing the post. Time to take a break.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

A reason to lie is because both adult Ramseys had already stated JonBenet was asleep when they arrived home and she was put to bed without awakening. Per usual, their statements don't match the publicly known timeline. Both adults gave accounts of their activities before they went to bed, which suggests they were up and active during the time frame JonBenet ate the pineapple. JonBenet had to have eaten that pineapple shortly after arriving home, based on scientific testing of the location of her stomach contents. The pineapple had just left her stomach and entered the first inch or two of her small intestine and there it stopped because she died. The pineapple in the bowl and in JonBenet's duodenum were physically and chemically consistent right down to the rind, according to statements in Steve Thomas's book. It was natural pineapple, prepared at the grocery, according to Patsy. It doesn't matter if Burke, JonBenet, Patsy or John got the pineapple out of the refrigerator. It's the conflicting timeline and testimonies that's important.

So the pineapple came home already prepared and could be eaten out of the container?
How does ST back this up? With evidence or conjecture?
Thanks for going through this with me!

 

[BOESP]

I understand your reasoning.. But to me it just makes no sense to lie about it. There would be no reason to. She came home, ate a snack and went to sleep.. Still innocuous.

I just don't see the reason if they had anything to do with the pineapple to lie.

The reason is because they would be caught in a lie. A detective catching someone in a lie during an investigation into your child's death is a big no-no. JonBenet could not have been asleep and in bed (and stayed in bed as the Ramseys stated) and also eaten pineapple at the same time. How could they explain the fact that they knew she ate it without admitting they had lied about her being fast asleep in bed.

 

[BOESP]

So the pineapple came home already prepared and could be eaten out of the container?
How doyes ST back this up? With evidence or conjecture?
Thanks for going through this with me!

If you haven't already, I'd recommend reading Thomas's book. It is at most libraries. Thomas backs it up by stating that Patsy is the one who told him about the pineapple in the refrigerator and where it came from. As to the pineapple in the bowl on the table, Patsy said she had no idea how it got there and "it isn't my set-up." By set-up, she meant she would never use that particular bowl and spoon to serve pineapple. Yet her fingerprints are on the bowl as are Burke's. The pineapple in the refrigerator, the pineapple in the bowl on the table, and the pineapple in JonBenet's duodenum were tested and were forensically consistent with each other. If you don't want to believe what Thomas wrote that's fine.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

If you haven't already, I'd recommend reading Thomas's book. It is at most libraries. Thomas backs it up by stating that Patsy is the one who told him about the pineapple in the refrigerator and where it came from. As to the pineapple in the bowl on the table, Patsy said she had no idea how it got there and "it isn't my set-up." By set-up, she meant she would never use that particular bowl and spoon to serve pineapple. Yet her fingerprints are on the bowl as are Burke's. The pineapple in the refrigerator, the pineapple in the bowl on the table, and the pineapple in JonBenet's duodenum were tested and were forensically consistent with each other. If you don't want to believe what Thomas wrote that's fine.

I am not too keen on ST at this point. Maybe that will change but for now, It is what it is.
Thanks for the information. Even though her finger prints were there that does not mean a lot to me. She could have handled the bowl any time. Same with Burke. But thank you for the clarification.
I have a list of books to read on my vacation this year. ST's , PMPT, KOLAR, and the Ramsey's book. I can not remember what it is called.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

The reason is because they would be caught in a lie. A detective catching someone in a lie during an investigation into your child's death is a big no-no. JonBenet could not have been asleep and in bed (and stayed in bed as the Ramseys stated) and also eaten pineapple at the same time. How could they explain the fact that they knew she ate it without admitting they had lied about her being fast asleep in bed.

It just does not ring to me to be a big deal. I know.. Maybe I am the only one, But I just don't think that the two cancel something out.

 

[Venom]

The reason is because they would be caught in a lie. A detective catching someone in a lie during an investigation into your child's death is a big no-no. JonBenet could not have been asleep and in bed (and stayed in bed as the Ramseys stated) and also eaten pineapple at the same time. How could they explain the fact that they knew she ate it without admitting they had lied about her being fast asleep in bed.

:goodpost:

Exactly the point I was trying to make.

 

[RiverRat]

Whoever wrote that ransom note had to of been on something, imo.

And then some...just how expiriMENTAL were the treatments Patsy went though?! Tranq conversations have always hopped in and out of this case so this is no huge surprise IF true. This is the first I have heard someone of Windy's
league Speaking It as if it were True though!

RR 2013!

 

[cynic]

And then some...just how expiriMENTAL were the treatments Patsy went though?! Tranq conversations have always hopped in and out of this case so this is no huge surprise IF true. This is the first I have heard someone of Windy's
league Speaking It as if it were True though!

RR 2013!

It seems that a lot of people were surprised to hear Wendy speaking so authoritatively about it.

 

[cynic]

There is an old thread relating to this subject.

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=42754"]Wendy Murphy: Klonopin + pineapple? - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

 

[cynic]

I don’t enjoy doing this because I have a great deal of respect for Wendy Murphy.
Unfortunately, she made a number of statements that cannot be supported from the evidence.

WM said, in essence, that the indictment of John and Patsy by the grand jury precludes Burke from having any involvement in JonBenet’s death.
The focus of the grand jury was not on Burke. Why would they focus on someone who according to Colorado law was unable to form criminal intent because he was under the age of 10?
The grand jury indictment of the parents simply means that there was evidence to show their culpability and participation, but that in no way implies that Burke therefore had no involvement.

WM said that the “first three search warrants were for child *advertiser censored*.”
That is not true; the fifth search warrant was for child *advertiser censored*, and a single search warrant for child *advertiser censored* in a case were a child was sexually assaulted along with evidence of chronic abuse is hardly extraordinary.

WM claimed that JonBenet died of a benzodiazepine overdose.
Benzos can be detected by toxicology screening for up to six weeks.
It’s also true that Benzos can be missed in preliminary drug screens and as a result I can’t say that Wendy is wrong, but her statement is nothing more than speculation.
From JonBenet’s autopsy report we see the following:
TOXICOLOGIC STUDIES
blood ethanol - none detected
blood drug screen - no drugs detected

WM further implies that the pineapple was tested and the results not released.
The pineapple was tested and the results discussed in Steve Thomas’ book but the intent of the testing was not to screen for drugs. That would be a waste of time and money because the tox screen from the autopsy revealed that drugs were never an issue.
The pineapple was tested to determine consistency with what was found in the digestive tract of JonBenet.
The following is from Steve Thomas
The stomach was empty, but the coroner found what appeared to be chunks of pineapple in the upper digestive tract. This also would be tested in an effort to determine to what extent the food had been digested, a key indicator in helping establish the time of death. Police would need to identify what she had eaten the day before, when, and where.
JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation, Steve Thomas, page 46

Our experts studied the pineapple in the stomach and reported that it was fresh-cut pineapple, consistent down to the rind with what had been found in the bowl. It was solid proof that it wasn’t canned pineapple, and what were the chances that an intruder would have brought in a fresh pineapple to cut up for his victim?
JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation, Steve Thomas, page 215

WM said that “the parents were asked at length about benzodiazepines in the home…why they were there, and why they had so many…”
I would hardly say that there was an inordinate focus on drug-related questioning, certainly nothing resembling what WM was implying. Furthermore, the focus of the questions seemed to center on possible effects on judgment and ability to remember details as the interviews were months and years after the fact.
Some examples below:

TT: Okay. The Ativan and the Paxel, um . . .
PR: The Paxel is an anti-depressant.
TT: Um hum. Either one of them, do you think either one of them’s kind of, uh, changing your thought process or clouding your mind, memory, anything like that?
PR: No.
TT: Okay. It’s not, not effecting any judgment or anything like that?
PR: No, huh uh.
Patsy – 1997 Interview

10 THOMAS HANEY: Do you have any side
11 effects if you take any or all of these things,
12 if you take any one by itself do you get side
13 effects? If you take a combination of the
14 Prozac and Benadryl and Ativan?
15 PATSY RAMSEY: No, I think that's
16 kind of (INAUDIBLE).
17 THOMAS HANEY: Okay. Do you think
18 that it affects your ability to understand
19 questions?
20 PATSY RAMSEY: No.
21 THOMAS HANEY: To answer?
22 PATSY RAMSEY: No.
23 THOMAS HANEY: It hasn't affected
24 you (INAUDIBLE)?
25 PATSY RAMSEY: No.
0211
1 THOMAS HANEY: Just a couple of
2 more quick ones here. Prior to the bout with
3 cancer, have you had any psychiatric or
4 psychological treatment complications?
5 PATSY RAMSEY: No.
Patsy Ramsey - 1998 interview

21 MIKE KANE: Any other medications along
22 that line that she's taking?
23 JOHN RAMSEY: No, I don't think --
24 MIKE KANE: Not now?
25 JOHN RAMSEY: Well, earlier on, we also
0424
1 took, it was like, I could never have been a
2 doctor.
3 MIKE KANE: Xanax?
4 JOHN RAMSEY: No. Klonopin.
5 MIKE KANE: Klonopin?
6 JOHN RAMSEY: Klonopin. And that was kind
7 of on an as needed basis for a while. It was kind
8 of a quick, picker upper, I guess.
9 MIKE KANE: Prior to this, had she ever
10 been on any medication, I mean, would you know
11 that?
12 JOHN RAMSEY: Yeah, yeah. She was very
13 healthy?
14 MIKE KANE: Has she lost consciousness or
15 anything?
16 JOHN RAMSEY: No.
John Ramsey - 1998 interview

WM said that JonBenet died “from respiratory failure which you know is true because she had shaken impact injuries in her eyes…which is why she had those perimacular folds in the retina…”

The assertion that there were, “perimacular retinal folds,” is nowhere to be found in the evidence. Wendy Murphy is NOT a case “insider,” and has no access to evidence in the JonBenet case over and above what any member of the general public has.
JonBenet did not have perimacular retinal folds according to the autopsy and it is not mentioned by either Steve Thomas or James Kolar. I can only be left to conclude that she is perhaps confusing the evidence in the JonBenet case with one of the many other cases involving child abuse that she is familiar with.
The only phenomenon relating to the eyes described in the autopsy report is as follows and reveals that only petechial hemorrhaging was found which in this case is found because JonBenet was asphyxiated.
In the lateral aspect of the left lower eyelid on the inner conjunctival surface is a 1 mm in maximum dimension petechial hemorrhage. Very fine, less than 1 mm petechial hemorrhages are present on the skin of the upper eyelids bilaterally as well as on the lateral left cheek. On everting the left upper eyelid there are much smaller, less than 1 mm petechial hemorrhages located on the conjunctival surface. Possible petechial hemorrhages located on the conjunctival surface. Possible petechial hemorrhages are also seen on the conjunctival surfaces of the right upper and lower eyelids, but livor mortis on this side of the face makes definite identification difficult.

The only place in the entire autopsy report that describes anything else that might be construed as injury relating to violent shaking would be the paired (minimal) contusions on the tips of the right and left temporal lobes of the brain. It’s possible that this might have been caused by shaking, however, it would be more likely attributed to incidental injury relating to the skull fracture which, of course, would have caused movement of the brain within the skull.
On the right cerebral hemisphere underlying the previously mentioned linear skull fracture is an extensive linear area of purple contusion extending from the right frontal area, posteriorly along the lateral aspect of the parietal region and into the occipital area. This area of contusion measures 8 inches in length with a width of up to 1.75 inches. At the tip of the right temporal lobe is a one-quarter by one-quarter inch similar appearing purple contusion. Only very minimal contusion is present at the tip of the left temporal lobe. This area of contusion measures only one-half inch in maximum dimension.

Lastly, her comments about James Kolar obviously come from a complete ignorance of who he is and his motivation for writing the book. She should have said that she is unaware of his book and his credentials, and is therefore unable to comment, rather than launch into a baseless personal attack.

 

[BOESP]

It just does not ring to me to be a big deal. I know.. Maybe I am the only one, But I just don't think that the two cancel something out.

It doesn't cancel out anything. It just proves they didn't provide a straight-forward story to the cops.

My last comment on this comes from Lou Smit, who was 100% pro-Ramsey and a retired detective and police chief; Smit told John Ramsey the pineapple was a bugaboo in the case. Smit was saying the pineapple should not have been inside JonBenet if everything the Ramseys had told investigators about that night (after arriving home) was the truth.

The transcript is at acandyrose.com between Lou Smit and John Ramsey.

 

[eileenhawkeye]

John and Patsy have said on numerous occasions that Priscilla White made JonBenet a special plate of crab, and apparently, that was strange to them. Were they trying to imply that if there was any benzos in JBR, that's where it came from? It seems that they are trying to make it sound like the Whites drugged her.

Trip DeMuth: "Was JonBenet hungry at the time? Did she eat the cracked crab?"

Patsy Ramsey: "I just remember Priscilla... said, 'I know your kids like seafood. I will hold this little plate out for JonBenet to make sure she gets some.'"

Trip DeMuth: "You remember that?"

Patsy Ramsey: "I remember that. Well, I thought that waas nice to make sure that we don't devour it before the kids get some, but she specifically mentioned JonBenet's name. And at the time it kind of, you know, flew over. But then when your trying to remember things later, it seems, you know, a little strange."

PATSY RAMSEY: Well, my children

10 both like seafood and she wanted to make sure

11 that -- my presumption was she didn't want us

12 all to eat and the kids not get any. But why

13 she said specifically JonBenet, and not Fleet

14 and Burke, I don't know. It's not one of the

15 things you remember and go you, you know. I

16 mean like don't think about it at the time.

In retrospect, he thought it "strange" that Priscilla White fixed her a plate of cracked crab.

 

[BOESP]

[snip]

1 THOMAS HANEY: Just a couple of
2 more quick ones here. Prior to the bout with
3 cancer, have you had any psychiatric or
4 psychological treatment complications?
5 PATSY RAMSEY: No.
Patsy Ramsey - 1998 interview

[snip]

Now that's an interesting turn of phrase!

Btw, good post, Cynic. Thanks for taking time to extract all that.

 

[bettybaby00]

I don’t enjoy doing this because I have a great deal of respect for Wendy Murphy.
Unfortunately, she made a number of statements that cannot be supported from the evidence.


Lastly, her comments about James Kolar obviously come from a complete ignorance of who he is and his motivation for writing the book. She should have said that she is unaware of his book and his credentials, and is therefore unable to comment, rather than launch into a baseless personal attack.

Snipped:

I've always liked her as well, but she lost major cred points for me in attacking Kolar in such a manor!

 

[Harmony 2]

Of course. But SOMEONE other than JB put the bowl on the table- and the only two sets of prints were Patsy & BR. JB's prints were not on there. The thing with prints is that they can't actually be identified as having been left at a specific time. Could Patsy have left her prints when she handled the bowl some other time? Sure. BR's too. However the lack of JB's prints mean someone else had to have put the bowl where she had access to it. You have to look at all the clues together- separately it might seem to have no link. But it is a FACT that JB had the pineapple in her digestive system, and it is a fact that it was matched to the pineapple in the bowl and other pineapple in the fridge. One of the two people whose prints were on that bowl provided the pineapple she ate that night.

Regarding JB's prints not being on the bowl, I found this interesting:

page 35
http://www.sweethaven02.com/CrimeScene/CSI_Forensics.pdf

The disappearance of children's latent prints
In 1995, researchers at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, at the instigation of Detective Art Bohanan of the Knoxville Police Department, discovered that children's fingerprints are considerably more short-lived than adult fingerprints. The rapid disappearance of children's fingerprints was attributed to a lack of the more waxy oils that become present at the onset of puberty. The lighter fatty acids of children's fingerprints evaporate within a few hours. As of 2010, researchers at Oak Ridge National Laboratory are investigating techniques to capture these lost fingerprints.

 

[nannymo]

BBM. I'm curious. What do you see as staged events that might make it look like an intruder did it? And what events do you see that suggest an intruder actually did it? TIA

Oh I don't believe there was an intruder. I don't know a lot about this case other than what little I have read here. I always felt the Ramsey's were of the mindset that an intruder killed JBR-that was what I meant by my comment.

The staging I have always thought was the suitcase under the window, the ransom note and just the Ramsey's story about an intruder. I really don't feel there is any evidence of an intruder. Sorry I didn't make myself clear.

I just can't see them leaving laced pineapple behind for investigators to find, but it certainly is an interesting scenario to pursue. I would love to hear what Kolar thinks about this information. I have read his book and I was listening the other night to Tricia's show when Wendy said what she did. I too was shocked at some of her comments that evening.

 

[nannymo]

Could it be possible that PR & JR are telling the truth about the pineapple and JB being asleep. This is only my opinion. I have no links to back this up but can see it going like this:

JB is zonked out, JR carries her up to bed. PR & JR go about their business of packing and go to bed. BR waits for Mom & Dad to go to bed (or at least go to their room and THINK the kids are fast asleep). BR wakes JR in the wee hours of the morning, gets her a snack, curious playtime begins, something goes wrong and parents are awakened. They go straight to the "crime scene". JBR is unresponsive and this is when all the rest of the cover up takes place. Maybe they never even saw the bowl of pineapple or thought about it as the kitchen was not where everything happened.

I am just using my imagination here and trying to consider what the possible explanation of the pineapple is. Maybe they aren't lying about the pineapple, just trying to save their only surviving child. I also am of the mindset BDi and this is the closest scenario I can come up with without having read and studied ALL of the evidence. I have to admit I am not familiar with Thomas' book. I will have to go read it now....

 

[ktgirl]

I don’t enjoy doing this because I have a great deal of respect for Wendy Murphy.
Unfortunately, she made a number of statements that cannot be supported from the evidence.

WM said, in essence, that the indictment of John and Patsy by the grand jury precludes Burke from having any involvement in JonBenet’s death.
The focus of the grand jury was not on Burke. Why would they focus on someone who according to Colorado law was unable to form criminal intent because he was under the age of 10?
The grand jury indictment of the parents simply means that there was evidence to show their culpability and participation, but that in no way implies that Burke therefore had no involvement.

WM said that the “first three search warrants were for child *advertiser censored*.”
That is not true; the fifth search warrant was for child *advertiser censored*, and a single search warrant for child *advertiser censored* in a case were a child was sexually assaulted along with evidence of chronic abuse is hardly extraordinary.

WM claimed that JonBenet died of a benzodiazepine overdose.
Benzos can be detected by toxicology screening for up to six weeks.
It’s also true that Benzos can be missed in preliminary drug screens and as a result I can’t say that Wendy is wrong, but her statement is nothing more than speculation.
From JonBenet’s autopsy report we see the following:
TOXICOLOGIC STUDIES
blood ethanol - none detected
blood drug screen - no drugs detected

WM further implies that the pineapple was tested and the results not released.
The pineapple was tested and the results discussed in Steve Thomas’ book but the intent of the testing was not to screen for drugs. That would be a waste of time and money because the tox screen from the autopsy revealed that drugs were never an issue.
The pineapple was tested to determine consistency with what was found in the digestive tract of JonBenet.
The following is from Steve Thomas
The stomach was empty, but the coroner found what appeared to be chunks of pineapple in the upper digestive tract. This also would be tested in an effort to determine to what extent the food had been digested, a key indicator in helping establish the time of death. Police would need to identify what she had eaten the day before, when, and where.
JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation, Steve Thomas, page 46

Our experts studied the pineapple in the stomach and reported that it was fresh-cut pineapple, consistent down to the rind with what had been found in the bowl. It was solid proof that it wasn’t canned pineapple, and what were the chances that an intruder would have brought in a fresh pineapple to cut up for his victim?
JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation, Steve Thomas, page 215

WM said that “the parents were asked at length about benzodiazepines in the home…why they were there, and why they had so many…”
I would hardly say that there was an inordinate focus on drug-related questioning, certainly nothing resembling what WM was implying. Furthermore, the focus of the questions seemed to center on possible effects on judgment and ability to remember details as the interviews were months and years after the fact.
Some examples below:

TT: Okay. The Ativan and the Paxel, um . . .
PR: The Paxel is an anti-depressant.
TT: Um hum. Either one of them, do you think either one of them’s kind of, uh, changing your thought process or clouding your mind, memory, anything like that?
PR: No.
TT: Okay. It’s not, not effecting any judgment or anything like that?
PR: No, huh uh.
Patsy – 1997 Interview

10 THOMAS HANEY: Do you have any side
11 effects if you take any or all of these things,
12 if you take any one by itself do you get side
13 effects? If you take a combination of the
14 Prozac and Benadryl and Ativan?
15 PATSY RAMSEY: No, I think that's
16 kind of (INAUDIBLE).
17 THOMAS HANEY: Okay. Do you think
18 that it affects your ability to understand
19 questions?
20 PATSY RAMSEY: No.
21 THOMAS HANEY: To answer?
22 PATSY RAMSEY: No.
23 THOMAS HANEY: It hasn't affected
24 you (INAUDIBLE)?
25 PATSY RAMSEY: No.
0211
1 THOMAS HANEY: Just a couple of
2 more quick ones here. Prior to the bout with
3 cancer, have you had any psychiatric or
4 psychological treatment complications?
5 PATSY RAMSEY: No.
Patsy Ramsey - 1998 interview

21 MIKE KANE: Any other medications along
22 that line that she's taking?
23 JOHN RAMSEY: No, I don't think --
24 MIKE KANE: Not now?
25 JOHN RAMSEY: Well, earlier on, we also
0424
1 took, it was like, I could never have been a
2 doctor.
3 MIKE KANE: Xanax?
4 JOHN RAMSEY: No. Klonopin.
5 MIKE KANE: Klonopin?
6 JOHN RAMSEY: Klonopin. And that was kind
7 of on an as needed basis for a while. It was kind
8 of a quick, picker upper, I guess.
9 MIKE KANE: Prior to this, had she ever
10 been on any medication, I mean, would you know
11 that?
12 JOHN RAMSEY: Yeah, yeah. She was very
13 healthy?
14 MIKE KANE: Has she lost consciousness or
15 anything?
16 JOHN RAMSEY: No.
John Ramsey - 1998 interview

WM said that JonBenet died “from respiratory failure which you know is true because she had shaken impact injuries in her eyes…which is why she had those perimacular folds in the retina…”

The assertion that there were, “perimacular retinal folds,” is nowhere to be found in the evidence. Wendy Murphy is NOT a case “insider,” and has no access to evidence in the JonBenet case over and above what any member of the general public has.
JonBenet did not have perimacular retinal folds according to the autopsy and it is not mentioned by either Steve Thomas or James Kolar. I can only be left to conclude that she is perhaps confusing the evidence in the JonBenet case with one of the many other cases involving child abuse that she is familiar with.
The only phenomenon relating to the eyes described in the autopsy report is as follows and reveals that only petechial hemorrhaging was found which in this case is found because JonBenet was asphyxiated.
In the lateral aspect of the left lower eyelid on the inner conjunctival surface is a 1 mm in maximum dimension petechial hemorrhage. Very fine, less than 1 mm petechial hemorrhages are present on the skin of the upper eyelids bilaterally as well as on the lateral left cheek. On everting the left upper eyelid there are much smaller, less than 1 mm petechial hemorrhages located on the conjunctival surface. Possible petechial hemorrhages located on the conjunctival surface. Possible petechial hemorrhages are also seen on the conjunctival surfaces of the right upper and lower eyelids, but livor mortis on this side of the face makes definite identification difficult.

The only place in the entire autopsy report that describes anything else that might be construed as injury relating to violent shaking would be the paired (minimal) contusions on the tips of the right and left temporal lobes of the brain. It’s possible that this might have been caused by shaking, however, it would be more likely attributed to incidental injury relating to the skull fracture which, of course, would have caused movement of the brain within the skull.
On the right cerebral hemisphere underlying the previously mentioned linear skull fracture is an extensive linear area of purple contusion extending from the right frontal area, posteriorly along the lateral aspect of the parietal region and into the occipital area. This area of contusion measures 8 inches in length with a width of up to 1.75 inches. At the tip of the right temporal lobe is a one-quarter by one-quarter inch similar appearing purple contusion. Only very minimal contusion is present at the tip of the left temporal lobe. This area of contusion measures only one-half inch in maximum dimension.

Lastly, her comments about James Kolar obviously come from a complete ignorance of who he is and his motivation for writing the book. She should have said that she is unaware of his book and his credentials, and is therefore unable to comment, rather than launch into a baseless personal attack.

PERFECT rebuttal, Cynic.
And I too really like WM. I just think she's wrong here. And I was shocked by how sure she was of all this info that I'd never heard/read about before.

 

[BOESP]

Could it be possible that PR & JR are telling the truth about the pineapple and JB being asleep. This is only my opinion. I have no links to back this up but can see it going like this:

JB is zonked out, JR carries her up to bed. PR & JR go about their business of packing and go to bed. BR waits for Mom & Dad to go to bed (or at least go to their room and THINK the kids are fast asleep). BR wakes JR in the wee hours of the morning, gets her a snack, curious playtime begins, something goes wrong and parents are awakened. They go straight to the "crime scene". JBR is unresponsive and this is when all the rest of the cover up takes place. Maybe they never even saw the bowl of pineapple or thought about it as the kitchen was not where everything happened.

I am just using my imagination here and trying to consider what the possible explanation of the pineapple is. Maybe they aren't lying about the pineapple, just trying to save their only surviving child. I also am of the mindset BDi and this is the closest scenario I can come up with without having read and studied ALL of the evidence. I have to admit I am not familiar with Thomas' book. I will have to go read it now....

BBM. I don't think so since when Burke was questioned he stated that JonBenet was awake and that she walked into the house on her own when they got home. Also that she walked upstairs on her own.

You could be right but I can't see two kids who got up very early for Christmas, played all day, ran around visiting all evening until arriving home approximately at 9:30PM and having to get up to leave very early the next morning really not wanting to stay in bed once they got to bed.