Patsy Ramsey

[Venom]

If it walks like a duck.......

So lets just say it wasn't pineapple. If PR and JR both deny having any knowledge of the pineapple sitting on the table, how in the world did it get there? An intruder wouldn't sit there and snack on it.

 

[Anti-K]

IMO the pineapple was put in the bowl and left out from earlier in the day – before they all left for the Whites. No one remembers doing it. The intruder had nothing to do with it. Jonbenet ate the pineapple before he came along.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

The pineapple does not contradict anyone’s version of events.

The evidence suggests that Jonbenet ate the pineapple without anyone knowing about it. If she went straight to bed and if no one knows anything about it, than we must entertain the possibility that she awoke and ate the pineapple – just a piece, it seems – sometime after everyone else was sleeping. 30 minutes, or possibly two hours later...

I don’t know if this is what happened, but I know that it could have happened and I know that it’s consistent with the evidence as we know it (IOWs, no contradiction).
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Also, on the pineapple: we don’t know what time Jonbenet ate it and we don’t know what time she was attacked (wounded to such degree as to halt digestion). So, all we have is a range of time that could have passed between those two events. What happened during that time? We don’t know.

As to the range of time: some experts say that there are too many variables to make a certain determination - onset of illness, excitement/stress, exhaustion/sleep, other items ingested, factors peculiar to the individual, etc.

I think that in most cases with most people we could say that the pineapple would have went from here to there in an hour and a half (the shortest time given by a BPD expert), and in rarer cases with certain people it could have been ingested as early as 4:30 (the longest time given by a BPD expert). I don’t know which one of these Jonbenet was, and neither does anyone else.

Here are a few, possible and “innocent” explanations for the pineapple:
1) jonbenet eats the pineapple before leaving for the White’s, a quick bite on her way out the door – at least one Boulder expert said that this was possible
2) jonbenet takes a small piece with her when they leave for the White’s, like candy, tucked into a box, a bag, a baggie, a container, a pocket, whatever was handy. She eats it at the Whites or in the car before falling asleep on the way home
3) jonbenet having fallen asleep earlier than usual and having ate little at the White’s, wakes up at home, in bed and hungry and “finds” that stashed or left over piece somewhere in her room. yum, yum.
4) jonbenet, having fallen asleep earlier than usual and having ate little at the White’s, wakes up at home, in bed and hungry and maybe still thinking about Christmas, wanders downstairs and sees the pineapple in the bowl, left there from earlier in the day, and she has a piece, but still tired wanders off back to bed
...

Fingerprints on the bowl only tell us that Mrs Ramsey and Burke both touched the bowl. The fingerprints don’t tell us when they touched the bowl, or who put the pineapple in the bowl and they don’t tell us anything about the circumstances under which Jonbenet ate the pineapple.

There is no evidence to show that she was served – served into/onto what? She ate a piece, a very small amount, she didn’t make a meal of it, it wasn’t a snack – it was a piece. She could have eaten it on her own, without anyone being aware of it, as long as there was pineapple in the bowl (or, anywhere!).
...

There is a discrepancy between Burke’s version and the parent’s: awake vs asleep. If we believe Burke’s version, than Jonbenet was awake, but she still went straight to bed. There is no version wherein Jonbenet does not go straight to bed, or wherein pineapple is served up and/or eaten.

In his book, p. 317, Steve Thomas explained the discrepancy like this: “I felt that this poor kid [Burke] was confused and that he really had no idea what had happened that night.”
...

AK

 

[Tawny]

We DO know what time she ate it. Food digests at a certain basic rate, and each food has different digestion times. If she ate it way earlier in the day, it wouldn't even be in her body anymore. That's science and it's been backed up by expert medical examination.

That's how they find time of death for a lot of deaths.

 

[Mama2JML]

We DO know what time she ate it. Food digests at a certain basic rate, and each food has different digestion times. If she ate it way earlier in the day, it wouldn't even be in her body anymore. That's science and it's been backed up by expert medical examination.

That's how they find time of death for a lot of deaths.

We know she ate the pineapple after 4 pm. This doesn't help identify the murderer.

 

[otg]

what are the "bonita papers" and why are they so controversial?

When the Bonita Papers were written, they were based on the police files that existed at the time, because those files had been given to the three attorneys who were working pro bono for the BPD. Those lawyers were Daniel Hoffman (not Darnay), Robert Miller, and Richard Baer. Hoffman's paralegal secretary (Bonita Sauer) copied those files with the intent (supposedly) of putting them together for a book when all the dust settled. Unfortunately for her, she shared those files with some of her relatives, and one of them (a nephew) saw an opportunity for himself and sold copies of those files to National Enquirer. Its editor, Don Gentile, then used them to release a book (JonBenet, the Police Files). No one can say that the Bonita Papers are the ultimate source for information today, because some of the things police knew (or thought they knew) at the time may have changed since their writing (1999). But much of the information contained in them has since been confirmed by other media sources, and some of it has been overshadowed by additional evidence that wasn't known at the time.

The Bonita Papers were not an official release of police files. Indeed, they contained information that the police wanted kept confidential at the time. So some people will try to say they mean nothing and are unreliable (especially if they provide information detrimental to the ition that person is trying to convey). But the information in them is based on the evidence investigators had at the time of their writing. It's up to the individual to decide how much credence they wish to place on the information. If you care to read or search for information in them, they can be found here:

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/for...uot-Unedited-Notes-From-Ramsey-Case-Documents

 

[Anti-K]

We DO know what time she ate it. Food digests at a certain basic rate, and each food has different digestion times. If she ate it way earlier in the day, it wouldn't even be in her body anymore. That's science and it's been backed up by expert medical examination.

That's how they find time of death for a lot of deaths.

Oh. Okay. So, what time did she eat it?
...

AK

 

[otg]

a DA can issue subpoenas -- check google.
the reason ST/BPD did not seek a judge out was answered here: Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - phone records

I had to fact check you on that bbm, Red (forgive me). You are correct. What I found was that not only can a DA issue a subpoena, but any lawyer can (under most circumstances) issue a subpoena. The reason is that a practicing attorney is considered an officer of the court (the same reason a lawyer is not required to take an oath when called to testify in court). As an "officer of the court", they have the authority to issue subpoenas (in most states). Details of that authority can vary from state to state. (A policeman is not considered an officer of the court, and therefore needs to get a DA or a Judge to sign off on it.)

 

[Venom]

Why the personal attacks about what time she ate the pineapple?
:notgood:

 

[2 percent]

It doesn't matter. The pineapple doesn't tell us who killed JonBenét.

It does tell us the Ramseys lied. Lies in murder cases are important.

 

[Anti-K]

Why the personal attacks about what time she ate the pineapple?
:notgood:

Personal attacks are as disturbing as false accusations, which are in themselves a form of person attack.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

It does tell us the Ramseys lied. Lies in murder cases are important.

No lie is revealed by the fact that Jonbenet ate pineapple.
...

AK

 

[pukasonqo2]

When the Bonita Papers were written, they were based on the police files that existed at the time, because those files had been given to the three attorneys who were working pro bono for the BPD. Those lawyers were Daniel Hoffman (not Darnay), Robert Miller, and Richard Baer. Hoffman's paralegal secretary (Bonita Sauer) copied those files with the intent (supposedly) of putting them together for a book when all the dust settled. Unfortunately for her, she shared those files with some of her relatives, and one of them (a nephew) saw an opportunity for himself and sold copies of those files to National Enquirer. Its editor, Don Gentile, then used them to release a book (JonBenet, the Police Files). No one can say that the Bonita Papers are the ultimate source for information today, because some of the things police knew (or thought they knew) at the time may have changed since their writing (1999). But much of the information contained in them has since been confirmed by other media sources, and some of it has been overshadowed by additional evidence that wasn't known at the time.

The Bonita Papers were not an official release of police files. Indeed, they contained information that the police wanted kept confidential at the time. So some people will try to say they mean nothing and are unreliable (especially if they provide information detrimental to the ition that person is trying to convey). But the information in them is based on the evidence investigators had at the time of their writing. It's up to the individual to decide how much credence they wish to place on the information. If you care to read or search for information in them, they can be found here:

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/for...uot-Unedited-Notes-From-Ramsey-Case-Documents

thank you!
will go and check that link


lupus est homini *advertiser censored*, non *advertiser censored*, non quom qualis sit novit

 

[Tawny]

She ate the pineapple after 10-11pm. That's been proven time and again.

Which means she was awake when they arrived at home.

Why are they lying about that? It's a relevant piece of the puzzle. Lying about her being awake when they get home is an attempt to obstruct or obscure the truth of what actually happened that night.

Could her being awake be irrelevant to the murder? Absolutely. As has been stated time and time again. So... if it's irrelevant to the murder, why are they lying?

 

[SweetT]

I guess its always possible that JB went downstairs after everyone thought she was asleep and ate some pineapple, it doesn't seem the parents were very attentive to their surroundings or what the kids were doing all the time. Does anyone know if the parents drank at the party that night with the Whites? Or if so how much?

 

[lawstudent]

If she ate it at the party or found it in her room, what's with the unexplained bowl in the kitchen? What makes it strange is the Ramseys initial failure to mention that someone had obviously set up a snack the night before - not that it seemed like valuable info, but I'm sure the police were grilling them about a timeline and who may have gotten up to get a snack. Then it matches what she had in her stomach. I still have no idea what went on in this case, but it's odd.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

If she ate it at the party or found it in her room, what's with the unexplained bowl in the kitchen? What makes it strange is the Ramseys initial failure to mention that someone had obviously set up a snack the night before - not that it seemed like valuable info, but I'm sure the police were grilling them about a timeline and who may have gotten up to get a snack. Then it matches what she had in her stomach. I still have no idea what went on in this case, but it's odd.

The point is if they fed her the Pineapple because she was up and then killed her they would have removed the pineapple bowl and the spoon. It fits better with an intruder did this. But yet there it was. Who knows who put it there or if she ate some of THAT pineapple. But it sure does not work with an RDI theory. Not applying common sense.

 

[Tawny]

Common sense says if there is a bowl of pineapple in the kitchen of the victim's home, the victim ate the pineapple that was in the kitchen, yet that keeps getting denied.

 

[Anti-K]

She ate the pineapple after 10-11pm. That's been proven time and again.

Which means she was awake when they arrived at home.

Why are they lying about that? It's a relevant piece of the puzzle. Lying about her being awake when they get home is an attempt to obstruct or obscure the truth of what actually happened that night.

Could her being awake be irrelevant to the murder? Absolutely. As has been stated time and time again. So... if it's irrelevant to the murder, why are they lying?

So, she ate it at 10? Or, 11? Or, 11:30, or, 12:00, or 12:22, or 12:45, or, 1:11....? See, we don’t know. And, according to at least one BPD expert she could have eaten it as early as 4:30.

None of this means that she was awake when the Ramseys arrived home. It might mean that she woke up later, after everyone else was sleeping. Or, that she ate it as early as 4:30.
...

AK