Patsy Ramsey

Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Pineapple doesn't take more than maybe 3 hours to metabolize in the slowest metabolic system. It doesn't matter WHO you are.
 
Tawny said:
Pineapple doesn't take more than maybe 3 hours to metabolize in the slowest metabolic system. It doesn't matter WHO you are.
Click to expand...

Actually it does. It would depend on what was in the stomach before, If that person has digestive issues or conditions. It does matter.
 
the quotes I posted earlier indicate that the whites were questioned about pineapple being served that night, and the answer was "no."

What's interesting to consider is that the Rs became aware of a great deal of info regarding the case prior to being questioned, which included autopsy info. Any questions they answered on the 26th were posed in the context of a kidnapping. Once her body was found, focus turned toward LE trying to secure the crime scene and clearing the house, and explaining to JR that they couldn't leave the state.

Completely distancing themselves from any knowledge of a post party snack effectively removes the Rs "from the scene of the crime." Perhaps they didn't want to say "well maybe she snuck down later and made a snack" b/c that could lead to questions about whether or not Burke was with her.
 
ScarlettScarpetta said:
Actually it does. It would depend on what was in the stomach before, If that person has digestive issues or conditions. It does matter.
Click to expand...



If you could provide me with some links to research that indicates such, it would help tremendously. Everything I've read contradicts that, so I'm eager to see what variations would contribute to hours and hours for digestion of pineapple. Thanks!
 
bettybaby00 said:
the quotes I posted earlier indicate that the whites were questioned about pineapple being served that night, and the answer was "no."

What's interesting to consider is that the Rs became aware of a great deal of info regarding the case prior to being questioned, which included autopsy info. Any questions they answered on the 26th were posed in the context of a kidnapping. Once her body was found, focus turned toward LE trying to secure the crime scene and clearing the house, and explaining to JR that they couldn't leave the state.

Completely distancing themselves from any knowledge of a post party snack effectively removes the Rs "from the scene of the crime." Perhaps they didn't want to say "well maybe she snuck down later and made a snack" b/c that could lead to questions about whether or not Burke was with her.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't. It can not be both ways.. that they planned this well enough to not get caught but then lied about something obvious. It is obvious that they did not lie. They did not try and cover it up, They just didn't know she ate it.
 
There is no doubt in my mind that Patsy fed her daughter happiness with "Patsy's good silver" in the form of fresh pineapple chunks soaked in milk soon before JBs death. JB ate very little of it and did not chew it well.

Someone with pyloric stenosis would empty their stomach contents very slowly but that is a treatable condition with surgical stent implant surgery that JB did not require.

Patsy did not want to remove the pineapple happiness set up on the table. It was a small part of her clever little clues. Pasty relished in the fact that it garnered so much attention and admitted as much in her interview. She read about it in a tabloid. Ya know those tabloid stories she denied ever reading/following.
 
ScarlettScarpetta said:
No it doesn't. It can not be both ways.. that they planned this well enough to not get caught but then lied about something obvious. It is obvious that they did not lie. They did not try and cover it up, They just didn't know she ate it.
Click to expand...

That they weren't caught is not a credit to their well planning. This was so terribly planned that maybe some people think it can only mean they did not do it?
As for the pineapple, I do not see it as something obvious, JonBenet may have done a number of things when she got home that had nothing to do with the crime later in the night so there was no reason for the parents to think of it unless they actually sat there and thought about her digestive track.
 
Anti-K said:
BBM

“Based on the condition of the pineapple in her intestine, the experts estimated that jonbenet had eaten it an hour and a half or two hours before she dies, most likely after the family returned home that night. However, one Boulder medical examiner stated it could have been eaten as early as 4:30 p.m. – before the Ramseys left their home for a dinner at the White’s. If Jonbenet had eaten the pineapple after 10:30 p.m., that made the approximate time of death not earlier than midnight.” PMPT; p. 777-778

...



AK
Click to expand...


Thank you for the link..
Interesting ...not buying she at it before the Whites....but it's very interesting;)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
ScarlettScarpetta said:
<snip>

I don't see how people think it is weird that they don't remember her eating it. She is 6 not 3. She can get food for herself and she can feed herself. So that she got it and ate it and they did not know, Does not strike me as odd at all.
Click to expand...


Here's our exchange upthread at #358:

SS

<snip>

I don't know why people think that there is no possibility she got [the pineapple] herself. My kids go in the fridge and get things all the time without me knowing.

M
I believe people tend to discount the possibility because both parents do in their 1998 statements. John says he didn't think JBR could open the walk-in fridge door. Patsy says no, JBR wouldn't have gotten the pineapple herself.
 (BBM)

So what's odd is that, to get the pineapple herself, JBR would have had to get it from the fridge, and neither parent supported that theory.
 
Meara said:
Here's our exchange upthread at #358:

SS

<snip>

I don't know why people think that there is no possibility she got [the pineapple] herself. My kids go in the fridge and get things all the time without me knowing.

M
I believe people tend to discount the possibility because both parents do in their 1998 statements. John says he didn't think JBR could open the walk-in fridge door. Patsy says no, JBR wouldn't have gotten the pineapple herself.
 (BBM)

So what's odd is that, to get the pineapple herself, JBR would have had to get it from the fridge, and neither parent supported that theory.
Click to expand...

A walk-in fridge? Is that like a walk-in refrigerator you see in large commercial settings? Is that what the Ramsey's had in their home and where the pineapple was stored?
 
ScarlettScarpetta said:
I don't see how people think it is weird that they don't remember her eating it. She is 6 not 3. She can get food for herself and she can feed herself. So that she got it and ate it and they did not know, Does not strike me as odd at all.
Click to expand...


I think this depends on how people were raised. At 6, I was not allowed to go into the fridge and feed myself and never considered it, either at home or at my grandparents'. My mom controlled all of that until I was well into my teens. That may seem weird to some people, but it depends on how controlling your parents were. Since this family seemed to be rather controlling and the parents indicate she wouldn't have gotten it herself, that means something to me. In other families whose kids had more freedom, it would not. It is possible they just did not know, but because that was not a possibility for me at 6 years old, it strikes more of a chord with me. If she did commonly get stuff herself, I agree it is not suspicious.
 
RANCH said:
A walk-in fridge? Is that like a walk-in refrigerator you see in large commercial settings? Is that what the Ramsey's had in their home and where the pineapple was stored?
Click to expand...

Hi, RANCH. Here's a photo of the refrigerator for you. The fresh pineapple was stored there.

lkitchenbestFS.jpg



And here's a plan of the first floor of the house, showing the relative size of the fridge. It's on the left end of the kitchen.

18218d1213072009-jonben-t-ramsey-floor-plans-floor1.jpg
 
2 percent said:
Then why not say "we had pineapple in the house, she could have had some"?

This lie is very telling
Click to expand...

In what way? What does this lie "tell."

I mean why would they lie? If she ate it and they knew it, they'd have to realize that they autopsy would show it. So why not simply say, "oh she must have gotten it and eaten it herself?"

Why insist that she couldn't have done that when it's completely reasonable to assume that she could have done it.

I don't get what the lie supposedly indicates here? People who lie to cover up crimes will attempt to guide the "theory" and "thought process" of the police.

The Ramseys in several situations have denied something that made them look worse, not better.

Example They said the house didn't look like someone had broken in, they said all the doors were locked.

If they did it, they could have easily said "I must have forgotten to lock the back door"

Example, They said they didn't feed her pineapple and that she couldn't have gotten it herself.

Why? Why not just lie and say "She's only done it once before, it's not something she normally would do, but there was an incident a few weeks ago where she got up and ate something on her own in the morning."

She's 6 not 3, it's entirely possible that she could have gotten it and fed herself.


So IMHO these two examples point to them not covering up.

How in your opinion does it point to them trying to cover it up? I don't get it? :waitasec:
 
The reason it seems suspicious is kind of being lost in this debate.

The pineapple itself doesn't matter.

If you believe RDI, I'm sure that would have been the last thing on their minds, as it wasn't incriminating and a whole lot of other stuff had to be dealt with. I don't think they'd be thinking about it being found in her stomach and causing any problems, but if they did, I think they would indeed just make up a plausible story - "we gave her some pineapple and she went to bed shortly after." There's no reason for them to deny the obvious when they could easily explain it.

The problem is that it gives the impression (which may be completely incorrect, but it still stands out) that they had a narrative for what happened- a prepared story. They get it all nailed down about what they will say about putting her to bed and finding the ransom note and the timeline and all that, and say she was asleep and went right to bed, because that's an easy, safe story. They forget she had a quick snack the night before because there were so many other details to focus on. After being insistent that she'd gone straight to bed, they get caught off guard by the questions about when she would have had the snack, because if they acknowledge it, it looks like they are changing the story. Obviously, denying it also comes across badly, but they were so committed to the narrative that they deny it because they are flustered, instead of trying to make up some reason they forgot to mention that.

It's the fact that the snack isn't in their story that is weird - if they had said JB was up and out of sight while they cleaned up presents, it would be more plausible that she just got it herself or something. But when you say a child went right to bed, that story is now pretty limited and you can't say that you just forgot that a particular thing happened. Anything that occurred would directly contradict going right to bed. And if it had somehow slipped their mind or they knew she sometimes got up for a snack, you'd expect them to be like "oh, yeah, that pineapple, she must have had a bite on her way upstairs" not "no." It just seems like they have a story prepared - that's what makes it suspicious. Not telling, but curious.
 
lawstudent said:
The reason it seems suspicious is kind of being lost in this debate.

The pineapple itself doesn't matter.

If you believe RDI, I'm sure that would have been the last thing on their minds, as it wasn't incriminating and a whole lot of other stuff had to be dealt with. I don't think they'd be thinking about it being found in her stomach and causing any problems, but if they did, I think they would indeed just make up a plausible story - "we gave her some pineapple and she went to bed shortly after." There's no reason for them to deny the obvious when they could easily explain it.

The problem is that it gives the impression (which may be completely incorrect, but it still stands out) that they had a narrative for what happened- a prepared story. They get it all nailed down about what they will say about putting her to bed and finding the ransom note and the timeline and all that, and say she was asleep and went right to bed, because that's an easy, safe story. They forget she had a quick snack the night before because there were so many other details to focus on. After being insistent that she'd gone straight to bed, they get caught off guard by the questions about when she would have had the snack, because if they acknowledge it, it looks like they are changing the story. Obviously, denying it also comes across badly, but they were so committed to the narrative that they deny it because they are flustered, instead of trying to make up some reason they forgot to mention that.

It's the fact that the snack isn't in their story that is weird - if they had said JB was up and out of sight while they cleaned up presents, it would be more plausible that she just got it herself or something. But when you say a child went right to bed, that story is now pretty limited and you can't say that you just forgot that a particular thing happened. Anything that occurred would directly contradict going right to bed. And if it had somehow slipped their mind or they knew she sometimes got up for a snack, you'd expect them to be like "oh, yeah, that pineapple, she must have had a bite on her way upstairs" not "no." It just seems like they have a story prepared - that's what makes it suspicious. Not telling, but curious.
Click to expand...

Precisely.
 
The Bonita papers:

Inside the room, investigators found the white blanket that John said had been wrapped around JonBenet, and the piece of black duct tape which had covered her mouth. .They also found bundled inside the blanket a child's pink Burble nightgown. A red Swiss army knife was also found lying in the corner of the room away from the blanket. On the floor outside the door to the cellar was a paint tray and acrylic painting supplies. One of the detectives observed a wooden handle to a paint brush, the type used by artists, which appeared to be broken and a piece missing. The floor of the wine cellar was vacuumed to collect any trace evidence. The black duct tape, blanket, nightgown, knife, broken paint brush and paint tray, and vacuumed particles were all collected and logged into evidence.

The housekeeper had taken BR Swiss Army knife from him and hide it in the cabinets of the 2nd story laundry room. She told no one where she it hide it.
Any IDI out there that can explain this one?
 
Man, the more I look at that floor plan..the more i realize what an effin' maze that house was!! How could a complete stranger navigate that place!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 149 more.
Total: 1,716 (members: 150, guests: 1,566)

Online statistics

Members online
150
Guests online
1,566
Total visitors
1,716
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
606,583
Messages
18,206,332
Members
233,895
Latest member
lizz28
Back
Top