JonBenet Ramsey's father calls beauty pageants "very bizarre"

[dodie20]

We can't know for sure whether BR had pineapple with JB at the same time she did or not, but we can be sure he handled the bowl, as his prints are on it. We know his prints were on the glass too, but we can't be sure whatever was in the glass was drunk at the same time as the pineapple. Nor can we be sure there was actually tea in the glass. Tea could have been brewed in a mug or cup and the spent tea bag simply placed in the empty glass. I don't know whether that tea bag/glass is still in evidence, but both are an excellent place to test for Touch DNA.
I recall one of the parents saying that JB wouldn't have been able to reach the pineapple where it was kept in the walk-in-fridge. But it was not mentioned whether BR would have been able to reach it. I will concede that BR may have gotten the pineapple bowl from the fridge for he and BR without the parents' knowledge, but my gut feeling tells me that Patsy was the one who got the pineapple out and she is denying it because she HAS to- if they are going to stick to their story about JB being carried asleep into the house and not waking up. We already know BR contradicted his parents about that, as well as contradicting his parents' saying he did not own Hi-Tec shoes- he told investigators he DID own such a pair.

he also contradicted his parents about sleeping through everything, until they woke him up to leave. IMO, PR distanced herself from the pineapple because admitting to it, would put somebody awake, very near the time of death. Saying that she prepared the snack but then instantly went into such a sound sleep, that she didn't hear her daughter being murdered, would be a hard sale... especially since the strangulation and actual death happened some time after the initial head bash. That doesn't leave much time between the digestion and head bash. Do you know about how much time passed between the digestion and actual death? I was wondering if we took the time of eating the pineapple and then added about 90 minutes, (the time between the bash and strangulation), how much time was left for the head bash? In other words, start from the end and work backwards... strangulation -digestion-head bash=time of snack. moo

 

[dodie20]

The way I see it, the only reason to deny the pineapple is because the Rs "story" was that she fell asleep in the car, was carried into the house and put to bed still asleep and they never saw her alive again. With her eating the pineapple, it places her awake after they got home. In the aftermath of the discovery of the pineapple (and the report that it matched exactly the pineapple in the bowl) the Rs were faced with a dilemma. They never in a million years gave a thought to that pineapple snack that night because they thought no one would ever know about it. When it showed up in JB, they HAD to deny it- or else admit they lied about her being asleep the whole time. The discovery of that pineapple was a big shock to them.
They also lied about BR being asleep the whole time after they "found" the note too. Later, in one of his statements, JR did admit that BR had been awake at some point, but they thought it best to just say he was asleep so he "wouldn't be bothered" by police.
Imagine- your daughter is kidnapped and later found murdered by "intruders" with he brother right down the hall and you don't want him "bothered" about what he may have seen or heard.

I responded to your other post before I read this one. Did you read JR's statements about the pineapple? so weird. I wonder why they didn't just say that yes, it was possible that JB sneaked down for a snack, and maybe a stalker saw her through a window? I would believe that story before the stuff he said about her getting older and thinking about things, and being scared. I guess the reason was because of the fingerprints. moo

 

[UKGuy]

I responded to your other post before I read this one. Did you read JR's statements about the pineapple? so weird. I wonder why they didn't just say that yes, it was possible that JB sneaked down for a snack, and maybe a stalker saw her through a window? I would believe that story before the stuff he said about her getting older and thinking about things, and being scared. I guess the reason was because of the fingerprints. moo

dodie20,
Of course , 100% agree on that. So why did Patsy deny knowledge of it?


What all this tells me is that Burke Ramsey never told his parents about the pineapple snack.

The parents cobbled their version of events together and told Burke what his role and answers were to be, but in ignorance about the pineapple snack, decided JonBenet was put to bed on arrival back from the Whites.

Both parents would never consent to this if either knew JonBenet snacked pineapple, since neither could be certain it would not show up in the autopsy or that the breakfast bar might corroborate that JonBenet was awake and not asleep as agreed.

When asked about the pineapple snack Burke Ramsey said he could not remember!


.

 

[txsvicki]

The main thing about the pineapple is that it shows things happened quickly after arriving home that night. What bothers me about it is that it could show that Burke wwas having a snack that got interrupted and him sent to his room and now he's looking like the killer.

 

[Chrishope]

The way I see it, the only reason to deny the pineapple is because the Rs "story" was that she fell asleep in the car, was carried into the house and put to bed still asleep and they never saw her alive again. With her eating the pineapple, it places her awake after they got home. In the aftermath of the discovery of the pineapple (and the report that it matched exactly the pineapple in the bowl) the Rs were faced with a dilemma. They never in a million years gave a thought to that pineapple snack that night because they thought no one would ever know about it. When it showed up in JB, they HAD to deny it- or else admit they lied about her being asleep the whole time. The discovery of that pineapple was a big shock to them.
They also lied about BR being asleep the whole time after they "found" the note too. Later, in one of his statements, JR did admit that BR had been awake at some point, but they thought it best to just say he was asleep so he "wouldn't be bothered" by police.
Imagine- your daughter is kidnapped and later found murdered by "intruders" with he brother right down the hall and you don't want him "bothered" about what he may have seen or heard.

Right, but my question is this - why did they choose the story -"She was asleep in the car and carried to bed" in the first place? They knew she had been whacked on the head with something heavy. They knew a cord had choked the remaining life out of her. The body was going to be found because it was still in the house. If they were working together they had to know there would be an autopsy. So, why not just say the family came home, JB was hungry, she had a snack of pineapple, then went to bed. Later, the boogeyman got her. The intruder theory isn't less believable just because she had a snack before going to bed.

 

[Chrishope]

dodie20,
Of course , 100% agree on that. So why did Patsy deny knowledge of it?


What all this tells me is that Burke Ramsey never told his parents about the pineapple snack.

The parents cobbled their version of events together and told Burke what his role and answers were to be, but in ignorance about the pineapple snack, decided JonBenet was put to bed on arrival back from the Whites.

Both parents would never consent to this if either knew JonBenet snacked pineapple, since neither could be certain it would not show up in the autopsy or that the breakfast bar might corroborate that JonBenet was awake and not asleep as agreed.

When asked about the pineapple snack Burke Ramsey said he could not remember!


.

Exactly. So either both parents were ignorant of the pineapple, in which case they might not even be lying (then again they might be) or one parent was ignorant and the other had to go along with that ignorance. If they were working together and knew of the pineapple, the story they told the cops would include the pineapple.

But here some people's fingerprint "logic" presents a problem. PRs prints are on the bowl. So she was there, preparing and serving the snack (because as some believe fingerprints indicate presence at the time of the snack) If you place PR there, then she could not have been a co-conspirator in the cover up, because the pineapple isn't part of the story.

The alternative is to admit that fingerprints could be there from earlier, which also applies to BR's prints, meaning we don't know if the snack was freshly prepared after returning home, or left out from earlier, or was taken from the 'fridge, by BR w/o the parents knowledge - or a half dozen other scenarios.

 

[Chrishope]

The main thing about the pineapple is that it shows things happened quickly after arriving home that night. What bothers me about it is that it could show that Burke wwas having a snack that got interrupted and him sent to his room and now he's looking like the killer.

Things did move fast. About 3 hours from coming home to death. If we believe the 90 minute interval between the bash on the skull and the strangulation, things were moving even faster. An hour and a half after coming home she has a skull fracture.

 

[UKGuy]

Exactly. So either both parents were ignorant of the pineapple, in which case they might not even be lying (then again they might be) or one parent was ignorant and the other had to go along with that ignorance. If they were working together and knew of the pineapple, the story they told the cops would include the pineapple.

But here some people's fingerprint "logic" presents a problem. PRs prints are on the bowl. So she was there, preparing and serving the snack (because as some believe fingerprints indicate presence at the time of the snack) If you place PR there, then she could not have been a co-conspirator in the cover up, because the pineapple isn't part of the story.

The alternative is to admit that fingerprints could be there from earlier, which also applies to BR's prints, meaning we don't know if the snack was freshly prepared after returning home, or left out from earlier, or was taken from the 'fridge, by BR w/o the parents knowledge - or a half dozen other scenarios.

Chrishope,
I'm assuming both parents were ignorant.

But here some people's fingerprint "logic" presents a problem.

Not really, since we can have Burke present without Patsy. Fingerprints, just like fibers do not mandate presence. If you then add in the teabag, his fingerprint on the glass, and Burke's distinct loss of memory regarding the pineapple snack, then his fingerprint on the bowl can suggest his presence.

If you also cross reference with the parents then Patsy's ignorance bears this out.

In other words that Burke served up the pineapple to JonBenet and had a drink of tea in the same timeframe, is a working hypothesis, that is confirmed both by forensic evidence and the parents version of events.

IMO this information is just as important as the size-12's!



.

 

[Chrishope]

Chrishope,
I'm assuming both parents were ignorant.


Not really, since we can have Burke present without Patsy. Fingerprints, just like fibers do not mandate presence. If you then add in the teabag, his fingerprint on the glass, and Burke's distinct loss of memory regarding the pineapple snack, then his fingerprint on the bowl can suggest his presence.

If you also cross reference with the parents then Patsy's ignorance bears this out.

In other words that Burke served up the pineapple to JonBenet and had a drink of tea in the same timeframe, is a working hypothesis, that is confirmed both by forensic evidence and the parents version of events.

IMO this information is just as important as the size-12's!



.

Sure it's a working hypothesis. But there is a problem, because if PR doesn't have to be present at the snack, despite her prints on the bowl, then BR doesn't have to be present either. Thus the bowl could have been out from earlier in the day, or JB could have opened the 'fridge and simply grabbed pineapple from the bowl with her fingers, or a dozen other possibilities.

The truth is the prints only tell us who handled the bowl, and the glass, not at what time.

Rather than trying to use the fingerprints to prove who was present at the snack and who wasn't (and after all, JBs prints aren't on the bowl and we know she ate pineapple) it's better to look at other factors.

If PR prepared the snack I'd expect at the very least 2 spoons. More likely separate bowls as well. And spoons of the correct size for eating. That there is one bowl, and one over sized spoon suggests to me that BR probably made the snack for himself. JB may have eaten a few pieces from BR's bowl. Maybe using his spoon, maybe using her fingers.

 

[UKGuy]

Sure it's a working hypothesis. But there is a problem, because if PR doesn't have to be present at the snack, despite her prints on the bowl, then BR doesn't have to be present either. Thus the bowl could have been out from earlier in the day, or JB could have opened the 'fridge and simply grabbed pineapple from the bowl with her fingers, or a dozen other possibilities.

The truth is the prints only tell us who handled the bowl, and the glass, not at what time.

Rather than trying to use the fingerprints to prove who was present at the snack and who wasn't (and after all, JBs prints aren't on the bowl and we know she ate pineapple) it's better to look at other factors.

If PR prepared the snack I'd expect at the very least 2 spoons. More likely separate bowls as well. And spoons of the correct size for eating. That there is one bowl, and one over sized spoon suggests to me that BR probably made the snack for himself. JB may have eaten a few pieces from BR's bowl. Maybe using his spoon, maybe using her fingers.

Chrishope,
Of course Burke might not have been there. Why don't we just mandate neither Burke or Patsy was present since as you suggest fingerprints do not carry a time?

Burke has corroborating evidence, Patsy does not. Its that simple.


Your alternative scenario does not explain all the facts, it just contradicts my interpretation. In a panglossian world of first order logic that is nice, but does not allow for much progress.

.

 

[BOESP]

Right, but my question is this - why did they choose the story -"She was asleep in the car and carried to bed" in the first place? They knew she had been whacked on the head with something heavy. They knew a cord had choked the remaining life out of her. The body was going to be found because it was still in the house. If they were working together they had to know there would be an autopsy. So, why not just say the family came home, JB was hungry, she had a snack of pineapple, then went to bed. Later, the boogeyman got her. The intruder theory isn't less believable just because she had a snack before going to bed.

It's called the "I don't know nothing about birthing no babies" explanation.

Or, "It's better to keep your mouth closed and let others think you a fool than to open your mouth and prove it."

It made things simpler. There would be less to explain. It removed them from JonBenet with the least amount of contact prior to her death.

 

[dodie20]

The main thing about the pineapple is that it shows things happened quickly after arriving home that night. What bothers me about it is that it could show that Burke wwas having a snack that got interrupted and him sent to his room and now he's looking like the killer.

Whatever happened, IMO, BR at least knows what happened in the kitchen, before being sent to his room. At most, he was involved. If he wasn't involved, I wonder if he has ever read JB's autopsy report and seen that hole in her skull? and realized that's not what killed her? Regardless of what happened to cause the head bash, JB's death was no accident caused by rage. IMO, PR wrote the note, so in my mind, there's no way to remove her from being involved. The others are iffy, but I do believe BR knows something. MOO.

 

[qtc]

I read that burke doesnt remember whether he at pineapple that night. He had ramnesia too. I would love to see the grand jury testimony he gave and how many "I dont know/I dont remember's" he gave for answers.

Didnt John say (not that we can trust anything they say) that burke didnt like pineapple. He had rather have something sweet like candy???

 

[ILikeToBendPages]

I read that burke doesnt remember whether he at pineapple that night. He had ramnesia too. I would love to see the grand jury testimony he gave and how many "I dont know/I dont remember's" he gave for answers.

Didnt John say (not that we can trust anything they say) that burke didnt like pineapple. He had rather have something sweet like candy???

In one interview with LE, Pasty said that Burke had a sweet tooth and wouldn't want the pineapple. I wonder if Burke wanted some of JonBenet's chocolate stash. Pasty said JonBenet had a special box in her room that she kept it in.

I wonder what was smeared with poop? On FFJ someone posted that the candy in her room was Milk Duds.

 

[midwest mama]

I read that burke doesnt remember whether he at pineapple that night. He had ramnesia too. I would love to see the grand jury testimony he gave and how many "I dont know/I dont remember's" he gave for answers.

Didnt John say (not that we can trust anything they say) that burke didnt like pineapple. He had rather have something sweet like candy???

Not sure about JR saying that, but here's a comment from another author's posting on another site in Oct 2010:

Patsy cut the pineapple for JonBenet, why were Burke Ramsey’s fingerprints on the bowl when he hated pineapple?

So, it seems Burke should have said, "No, I didn't eat pineapple - I don't even like pineapple." Unless complicity was guiding his thoughts and tongue?

Kolar said in his book it was a box of candy in JB's room that was found with feces on it.

 

[DeeDee249]

Patsy's comment about BR preferring chocolate to pineapple was just another way for her to distance her son from the events of the night. Her comment has no bearing on whether BR did or did not eat pineapple. Maybe he did, maybe not, and just because he liked chocolate better doesn't mean he wouldn't have had any pineapple.

 

[midwest mama]

Patsy's comment about BR preferring chocolate to pineapple was just another way for her to distance her son from the events of the night. Her comment has no bearing on whether BR did or did not eat pineapple. Maybe he did, maybe not, and just because he liked chocolate better doesn't mean he wouldn't have had any pineapple.

So, could he have enticed JB to the dining area with the pineapple?

Or maybe JB went to tell Burke she was hungry, and he offered to help her with a snack, choosing the pineapple with cream because it was handy in the refrigerator?

If both the kids were up still goofing around with Christmas gifts, and Patsy was upstairs doing trip things, the pineapple treat might have seemed like a good snack idea?

Using a large serving spoon is something a child would do.

 

[DeeDee249]

So, could he have enticed JB to the dining area with the pineapple?

Or maybe JB went to tell Burke she was hungry, and he offered to help her with a snack, choosing the pineapple with cream because it was handy in the refrigerator?

If both the kids were up still goofing around with Christmas gifts, and Patsy was upstairs doing trip things, the pineapple treat might have seemed like a good snack idea?

Using a large serving spoon is something a child would do.

Yes, it is a something a child would do. As Patsy pointed out- "I wouldn't do this set-up" (the big serving spoon in the small bowl). But - that could be Patsy distancing BR from the pineapple as well. Really, at the end of the day it doesn't matter. We have the FACT that JB did eat pineapple that night after returning home, I feel fairly certain her parents knew she was awake, whether or not they knew she ate the pineapple. We KNOW no intruder fed her pineapple. So who she was with really doesn't mean much. Her parents and brother KNOW what happened that night, to varying extent, and we will never know who was with her when she ate it. I am sure that was one of the questions the BPD wanted to ask BR when they requested he speak to them this past year, and I an SURE that was one question he (and his lawyers) did not want him to answer.

 

[Chrishope]

Whatever happened, IMO, BR at least knows what happened in the kitchen, before being sent to his room. At most, he was involved. If he wasn't involved, I wonder if he has ever read JB's autopsy report and seen that hole in her skull? and realized that's not what killed her? Regardless of what happened to cause the head bash, JB's death was no accident caused by rage. IMO, PR wrote the note, so in my mind, there's no way to remove her from being involved. The others are iffy, but I do believe BR knows something. MOO.

BR knows whether or not the window in the basement was broken months before, or the night of the murder.

 

[Chrishope]

It's called the "I don't know nothing about birthing no babies" explanation.

Or, "It's better to keep your mouth closed and let others think you a fool than to open your mouth and prove it."

It made things simpler. There would be less to explain. It removed them from JonBenet with the least amount of contact prior to her death.

Yeah, I agree with you on that. That's why I think it's unlikely they knew anything about the pineapple.