Misinformation On Other Forums

[BlueCrab]

The pineapple is one of the most important clues in the Ramsey murder -- it's powerful evidence suggesting there was no intruder.

According to John Meyer, the pathologist on the case, the pineapple was eaten about 2 hours before JonBenet died. And the best estimate of time of death is around 1:00 A.M. on the 26th since JonBenet was in full rigor when found at 1:05 P.M. -- 12 hours later. This means JonBenet likely ate the pineapple around 11:00 P.M. on the 25th -- 2 hours before she died.

JonBenet couldn't have eaten the pineapple at the White's house or before going to the White's house. She had eaten a cracked crab dinner at the White's and this meal was in her large intestine and identified in the autopsy as soft green fecal matter. The pineapple was still in the "proximal" portion of JonBenet's small intestine. IOW, it had just left the duodenum, which is a short section that connects the small intestine to the stomach.

The small intestine is tubular, about 15-20 feet long with numerous folds, and connects to the large intestine, which is about another 5-10-feet long but larger in diameter. It would have been impossible for the cracked crab meal, eaten 4 or 5 hours earlier and now in the large intestine and almost fully digested, to have passed by the pineapple, still in the small intestine and almost totally undigested. The pineapple still had a slow 25-foot-long journey facing it before it could get to where the cracked crab meal was.

Thus, JonBenet had to have eaten the pineapple approximately one hour after the parents had gone to bed that night. And JonBenet would not have snacked on pineapple in the middle of the night with an intruder. Even John Ramsey says that would have been impossible -- JonBenet would have screamed bloody murder.

And the evidence further suggests she ate the pineapple at the breakfast room table with Burke because Burke's fingerprints were on the bowl of pineapple sitting on the table, a glass with a spent tea bag in it was also on the tablel (JonBenet doesn't drink tea but Burke does), and the glass was in front of Burke's normal place at the table.

The pineapple is a crucial piece of evidence that tends to eliminate the intruder theory and points to Burke as the perpetrator.

JMO

 

[vicktor]

So now we have an intruder, who removes a bowl of pineapple from the Ramsey refrigerator (leaving no prints). Transfers some of the pineapple into a tupperware bowl instead of just taking the whole bowl with him. Walks up stairs, wakes her up and feeds her the pineapple, making sure she eats every piece leaving none in the tupperware.

And pigs fly...

Yes, the more complicated its made the less likely it begins to sound.

Simplest senario: Jb wakes up and hears John and Burke downstairs. She gets up and passes by them hardly noticed, saying I'm thirsty. She sits down gets a drink and eats some pineapple, while John and Burke are busy, then returns to bed after 10 min. The Ramseys tell a white lie, saying she didn't get up. Later, it comes back to be a point(obviously) of major contention.

 

[sissi]

It was consumed two hours before her death? NOWHERE has Meyer stated this.
I will go along with Misty,the pineapple may not be connected to the crime.
Please let's not assume green fecal matter is the cracked crab, the timeline for that is off as well. If the detectives are "running" with the pineapple as being so important ,I would suggest they take a short lesson on the digestion process.
IMO

 

[Shylock]

Please let's not assume green fecal matter is the cracked crab

Sissi wake up! They went to a DINNER PARTY. Besides being served dinner, it was Christmas and there must of been a ton of other treats that kid love around to eat. Everything she ate that night was already fecal matter in her digestive tract.

But you're right: The pineapple is NOT connected to the crime. Pineapple certainly didn't cause her death. All the pineapple does is prove the Ramseys are liars and are trying to hide the truth about what REALLY happened when they got home that night.

They lied about what happened when they got home that night--the pineapple proves it. And they lied about what happened the next morning--the 911 tape proves it.

 

[Shylock]

Thus, JonBenet had to have eaten the pineapple approximately one hour after the parents had gone to bed that night.

I agree with everything you wrote BC, except for the above. I don't think either parent EVER went to bed that night. After the accident took place, they spent the entire night concocting their story and staging the coverup.

 

[Nehemiah]

Yes, the more complicated its made the less likely it begins to sound.

Simplest senario: Jb wakes up and hears John and Burke downstairs. She gets up and passes by them hardly noticed, saying I'm thirsty. She sits down gets a drink and eats some pineapple, while John and Burke are busy, then returns to bed after 10 min. The Ramseys tell a white lie, saying she didn't get up. Later, it comes back to be a point(obviously) of major contention.

But Vicktor, why would they tell a white lie about that? I know that it could happen....but why do that at all? It goes back to the fact that if one can't be believed about the little things, then how can one be believed about the "big" things? I think all the R's inconsistancies make them very suspect in the eyes of the public. Don't you?

IMO

 

[Cain]

...And that's the kind of detail an "accidental murderer" never would think of. You could be all nigth staging an cleaning the most obvious clues; spots of blood, broken things, etc, but, not being a detective, you wouldn't realise the pinneaple, last meal behind all previous meals, and speaking volumes to the forensic doctors.

I think that when someone lies about minor aspects on an story, what's he's really doing is revealling how things happened. What you want to obscure is, precisely, the road to the truth, because you feel that from this litle fact somebody could deduce the real and complete and global truth.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just my opinion,rigth or wrong. I've been wrong an right in te past, and I'll be in the future, but I fear I'll never know for sure if I'm rigth or wrong about this case.

 

[Toltec]

Patsy claims that Priscilla White fixed a plate of cracked crab especially for JonBenet because "my kids like seafood"....

PR: Well, we had, um, I think we had cocktails, kind of, she had some cracked crab...and we sampled some of that and I remember she kind of, for some reason, made a little plate for JonBenet, or I remember her making a special plate for JonBenet, for some reason so she would have some crab...'cause my kids like seafood and, uh, we nibble on that and, I uh, we had dinner and I can't remember what we had."

PR: 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."

TD: You remember that.

PR: I remember that. Well, I thought that is nice to make sure that we don't devour it before the kids got some, but she specifically mentioned JonBenets name. And at that time it kind of, you know, flew over. But then when you are trying to remember things later, it seems, you know, strange.

STRANGE? Nothing strange about a woman who thinks of her daughters best friend while serving cracked crab.

 

[Toltec]

JonBenet was struck over the head with her fathers flashlite...the flashlight John used earlier that day to check on his plane. He must have placed it on the kitchen counter when he got home. Another possiblity is that he used it to put presents in the car that night.

John's flashlite was not in the drawer where it belong...it was found on the kitchen counter WITH FINGERPRINTS WIPED OFF THE FLASHLITE AND BATTERIES!!!

IMO

 

[BlueCrab]

I agree that whomever molested her prior to her murder also inflicted the acute injuries; however, her hymen was intact. Not all hymens are represented the same way.

Misty,

The hymen was gone:

PMPT pb, pg 56 "What remained of the hymen was a rim of tissue running from the 10 o'clock to the 2 o'clock position."

JMO

 

[Misty]

Well, Bluecrab, we're just gonna have to agree to disagree on this one. PMPT was an excellent book, but does have errors.

 

[Britt]

I think that when someone lies about minor aspects on an story, what's he's really doing is revealling how things happened. What you want to obscure is, precisely, the road to the truth, because you feel that from this litle fact somebody could deduce the real and complete and global truth.

Very well put, Cain. The Ramseys' invented stories had the kids asleep (not to mention John's melatonin high...lol) throughout the relevant time period, in order to avoid even going there with LE. Pal, you don't want to go there... you're going down the wrong path, buddy...

PR: ...and I remember she kind of, for some reason, made a little plate for JonBenet, or I remember her making a special plate for JonBenet, for some reason so she would have some crab...

"For some reason"... "for some reason"... lol... oh, what was that shifty Priscilla really up to?

PR: ...but she specifically mentioned JonBenets name. And at that time it kind of, you know, flew over. But then when you are trying to remember things later, it seems, you know, strange.

STRANGE? Nothing strange about a woman who thinks of her daughters best friend while serving cracked crab.

lol... Thanks, Toltec. These passages where Patsy tries to frame Priscilla are a hoot.

 

[Nehemiah]

I think that when someone lies about minor aspects on an story, what's he's really doing is revealling how things happened. What you want to obscure is, precisely, the road to the truth, because you feel that from this litle fact somebody could deduce the real and complete and global truth.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just my opinion,rigth or wrong. I've been wrong an right in te past, and I'll be in the future, but I fear I'll never know for sure if I'm rigth or wrong about this case.

I agree with you, Cain.

 

[ayjey]

BlueCrab posted:

"And the evidence further suggests she ate the pineapple at the breakfast room table with Burke because Burke's fingerprints were on the bowl of pineapple sitting on the table, a glass with a spent tea bag in it was also on the tablel (JonBenet doesn't drink tea but Burke does), and the glass was in front of Burke's normal place at the table."

Wow, I've followed this case for a long time but this is the first I remember hearing about this.

I too feel that Burke was somehow involved but this is even more convincing, if true.


(I suppose the RST will counter with Patsy's cleaning habits, ie.,this was left from Christmas morning.)

And I have a 9 y/o g'son so I'm well aware of what a 9 year old is capable of.

 

[BlueCrab]

BlueCrab posted:

"And the evidence further suggests she ate the pineapple at the breakfast room table with Burke because Burke's fingerprints were on the bowl of pineapple sitting on the table, a glass with a spent tea bag in it was also on the tablel (JonBenet doesn't drink tea but Burke does), and the glass was in front of Burke's normal place at the table."

Wow, I've followed this case for a long time but this is the first I remember hearing about this.

I too feel that Burke was somehow involved but this is even more convincing, if true.


(I suppose the RST will counter with Patsy's cleaning habits, ie.,this was left from Christmas morning.)

And I have a 9 y/o g'son so I'm well aware of what a 9 year old is capable of.

ayjey,

From the 1998 interviews Trip DeMuth was questioning Patsy Ramsey and viewing a crime scene photo of the bowl of pineapple and the waterglass with a spent tea bag in it on the table in the breakfast room:

TD: "So you only ate dinner in this room then?"

PR: "Yeah."

TD: "Did you have seats that everbody gravitated to?"

PR: "Yeah."

TD: "Could you tell us which seats?"

PR: "This is mine."

TD: "The one on the right of the table as you look at photo 415."

PR: "This is John's."

TD: "On the left of the table."

PR: "Burke's."

TD: "Burke is the closest to us in picture 415, and JonBenet sat in the chair furthest from us in photo 415. That would be the chair closest to the kitchen; right?"

PR: "Right."

The glass was in front of Burke's place at the table.

JMO

 

[vicktor]

But Vicktor, why would they tell a white lie about that? I know that it could happen....but why do that at all? It goes back to the fact that if one can't be believed about the little things, then how can one be believed about the "big" things? I think all the R's inconsistancies make them very suspect in the eyes of the public. Don't you?

IMO

Nehemiah, there are things I could speculate about. Maybe when they got home, JB and Patsy had an argument about JB going to bed. Its possible they might have lied to avoid this being known. Could be a very small chance that JB got up as others were getting ready for bed and wasn't seen. Maybe Burke said something different when first questioned by the BPD on the 26th and so Patsy and John decided to stick with their original statement, rather than admitting that they had stretched the truth.

Yes, I suppose they do look suspect to the public. There also have been lots of people convicted of outlandish and absurd charges, who told the truth, didn't hide anything and protested their innocence. The preschool child abuse cases in the 80's. A case I was a juror on where a father was convicted of sodomizing his 3 and 5 year old sons with an object where the only thing that indicated he might have done it was that he was gay, and was getting divorced from his wife.

 

[Nehemiah]

Nehemiah, there are things I could speculate about. Maybe when they got home, JB and Patsy had an argument about JB going to bed. Its possible they might have lied to avoid this being known. Could be a very small chance that JB got up as others were getting ready for bed and wasn't seen. Maybe Burke said something different when first questioned by the BPD on the 26th and so Patsy and John decided to stick with their original statement, rather than admitting that they had stretched the truth.

Yes, I suppose they do look suspect to the public. There also have been lots of people convicted of outlandish and absurd charges, who told the truth, didn't hide anything and protested their innocence. The preschool child abuse cases in the 80's. A case I was a juror on where a father was convicted of sodomizing his 3 and 5 year old sons with an object where the only thing that indicated he might have done it was that he was gay, and was getting divorced from his wife.

Yes, I can agree with you. Everything they have said has been placed under a microscope. For whatever reasons, it appears they have been very inconsistent. This doesn't make them guilty of murder, but it does color the way the public perceives them in the arena of credibility. As Jayelles has always said, perhaps they have been inconsistent because they don't want their family perceived in various ways. I think that is plausible. At least their statements give us something here to discuss.

IMO

 

[sissi]

Ya all know I believe the Ramseys have a valid reason for forgetting "anything", they were traumatized by the murder of their child. I can't give this same pass for Steve lying in his deposition.

Off the subject, Wecht is taking the odds and will run to the bank again ,he knows the case was crap against the Ramseys,and that the "real" killer will never be caught.
Is this not being a liar? To use his skills and expertise would be fair in describing injuries ,offering opinions on cause of death ,etc.. but he was NOT there,he is using information provided to him by the same department he refers to as inept to slander the Ramseys. He's building on the information that he admits is crap? to make another buck! Wecht quote “The next question is, will something new break? My answer is most probably no.
“It’s painful to say that, but I don’t want to kid myself or others or say something just because it makes me feel better. I don’t believe there’s any outside intruder that came down the chimney or up through a sewer, so sooner or later they’re going to find something.
“No, I don’t think so. The case was so botched investigatively, legally, procedurally; the degree of obfuscation, confusion, the amount of ineptitude — all of these were so great that I don’t think anything’s going to change it.”

He's feels safe!

Another side note, in Shapiro's writing describing McElroy, he stated that McElroy was investigated in January "97....this is an error...the "inept" BPD sat on information for over a year before investigating him in January '98. Yep they really wanted to find the intruder,they let every lead sit for years , while they tried to fit a noose around Patsy. IMO JMO
Anyone with an ounce of interest in this case can check quickly the way the "suspects" were treated. Example, Santa was spotted outside of a storage unit with rope that appeared similar to that in the garrotte, however, when approached he got angry enough to scare off the police, they, later went to his home where Janet handed them a piece of rope to compare. Not a match,case closed. Kid gloves?
You betcha! Every lead that didn't end at the Ramsey door was treated with apologies galore, "forgive us ,this is our job,we know you are innocent",they went through a few motions years too late with attitudes formed. There really was no police investigation, the ones that could have solved it just "knew " Patsy was the killer. IMO JMO
As for Wecht, is media *advertiser censored* a bad term? JMO