Patsy Ramsey

[Meara]

Originally Posted by Meara
Here's our exchange upthread at #358:

<snip>
SS
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.

SS
Because they didn't think she would. That does not mean she didn't. I think my kids wouldn't do a lot of things on their own and then one day they do.

Because they didn't think she would. That does not mean she didn't.
True. But it's highly improbable. JBR has never opened the walk-in fridge before, but on Christmas night, the night of the day when she's been up since the crack of dawn, when she is so exhausted that she falls asleep on the ride home, doesn't awaken when she's carried up to bed and has her clothing changed - this is the night she suddenly gets up and all by herself for the first time goes downstairs, opens the fridge, gets the pineapple, gets the milk or cream, gets a bowl, serves herself, puts the rest of the pineapple and milk/cream back in the fridge, and eats at a glass top table, all without leaving a drop of milk/cream or juice, or waking anyone, and apparently without eating any of the milk or cream, either? What are the odds? And that's what we have to work with, probability, because no one knows absolutely. Even without the parents' statements, it is completely reasonable to say the odds against are quite high, certainly greater than 50%. In short, not bloody likely.


I think my kids wouldn't do a lot of things on their own and then one day they do.
You are saying, in effect, that your experience with your children makes you a better judge of what JBR might have done than her own parents were. Well, okay, maybe. But, since personal experience doesn't automatically rise to the level of a universal principle, you'd need to demonstrate how your experience and the Ramsey's are comparable. Did you and the Ramseys supervise your 6 1/2 year old daughters the same way? Did your 61/2 year old daughter ever surprise you by being able to open a walk-in fridge by herself, or by accomplishing a task requiring similar manual strength and dexterity? Did you have a 6 1/2 year old daughter who did things in the middle of the night that you didn't think she'd do, without waking anyone? Without connections of this kind established, this works as opinion only, not as an argument. If it's only opinion, well and good. If you want to argue the point, I'm afraid it's up to you to make your case, not for others to disprove it.

 

[SweetT]

I can say when I was ten I got appendicitis.. I threw up and there were whole beans in my uh not to be gross but in my vomit a lot of them. . My mother was shocked cause we hadn't had beans for two days.. How'd that happen? I hadn't snuck around and eaten them. After reading about this pineapple it seems such a thing would be impossible but it did happen.

 

[Tawny]

I can say when I was ten I got appendicitis.. I threw up and there were whole beans in my uh not to be gross but in my vomit a lot of them. . My mother was shocked cause we hadn't had beans for two days.. How'd that happen? I hadn't snuck around and eaten them. After reading about this pineapple it seems such a thing would be impossible but it did happen.

The appendix is part of the digestive system. It's likely that the inflammation of the appendix during appendicitis caused your digestive system to work improperly.

 

[Flatlander]

While I think that most parents in this situation would send their kid off at some point, I can't get past that in the hours after finding one child kidnapped that they left their other child upstairs alone.... Did not ask him if he had heard anything when he was the closest to jbr's room. Did not feel the need to keep him close. Did not feel the need to wake him up to make sure he was ok.

Well considering he asked "what did you find" on the 911 call we can assume that he didn't sleep through the entire morning.
It is very possible that BR and JBR went down to the basement to find other toys; which were partially unwrapped in the wine cellar. Somehow JBR got a train track impression on her back from the train room. BR's Swiss Army knife is found in the wine cellar as well as hi-tech boot imprints which he owned. BR could have possibly gotten carried away in his "play" with JBR. The housekeeper had caught them both and both children screamed at her to leave them alone? So if BR decided to shut up JBR when she screamed possibly with a golf club located within arms reach he could have dealt the deadly blow.
Obviously the garrote was a coverup as was the random note for a kidnapping by a foreign fraction that never bothered to call and left their ransom at the house?
BR probably called PR in when he realized he hit JBR to hard in the head. The rest follows suit.
There was no need to protect BR from anything except the law.

 

[RANCH]

The appendix is part of the digestive system. It's likely that the inflammation of the appendix during appendicitis caused your digestive system to work improperly.

Are you sure about it being likely? I looked at the symptoms of appendicitis and I didn't see anything about a slowing of digestion.

What Are the Symptoms of Appendicitis?

The classic symptoms of appendicitis include:

Dull pain near the navel or the upper abdomen that becomes sharp as it moves to the lower right abdomen. This is usually the first sign.
Loss of appetite
Nausea and/or vomiting soon after abdominal pain begins
Abdominal swelling
Fever of 99-102 degrees Fahrenheit
Inability to pass gas

Almost half the time, other symptoms of appendicitis appear, including:

Dull or sharp pain anywhere in the upper or lower abdomen, back, or rectum
Painful urination
Vomiting that precedes the abdominal pain
Severe cramps
Constipation or diarrhea with gas

http://www.webmd.com/digestive-disorders/digestive-diseases-appendicitis

 

[Tawny]

Not sure what other explanation there could be for days old beans still being in a stomach, unless SweetT is misremembering. JMO.

I'm not really sure what else to say on the subject of the pineapple. The topic has been exhausted, and people are still refusing to acknowledge the science behind human digestion (in regards to the pineapple, not the beans/appendicitis )

 

[TaylurRose02]

I can say when I was ten I got appendicitis.. I threw up and there were whole beans in my uh not to be gross but in my vomit a lot of them. . My mother was shocked cause we hadn't had beans for two days.. How'd that happen? I hadn't snuck around and eaten them. After reading about this pineapple it seems such a thing would be impossible but it did happen.

Do you remember eating them quickly? Yes, it does happen when the digestive system is slowed. High fiber foods take longer to digest to begin with. When you had your appendicitis the blockage likely caused the undigested food to come up with your vomit. One of the major causes of an appendicitis is blockage of the appendix.

 

[Anti-K]

Because they didn't think she would. That does not mean she didn't.
True. But it's highly improbable. JBR has never opened the walk-in fridge before, but on Christmas night, the night of the day when she's been up since the crack of dawn, when she is so exhausted that she falls asleep on the ride home, doesn't awaken when she's carried up to bed and has her clothing changed - this is the night she suddenly gets up and all by herself for the first time goes downstairs, opens the fridge, gets the pineapple, gets the milk or cream, gets a bowl, serves herself, puts the rest of the pineapple and milk/cream back in the fridge, and eats at a glass top table, all without leaving a drop of milk/cream or juice, or waking anyone, and apparently without eating any of the milk or cream, either? What are the odds? And that's what we have to work with, probability, because no one knows absolutely. Even without the parents' statements, it is completely reasonable to say the odds against are quite high, certainly greater than 50%. In short, not bloody likely.


I think my kids wouldn't do a lot of things on their own and then one day they do.
You are saying, in effect, that your experience with your children makes you a better judge of what JBR might have done than her own parents were. Well, okay, maybe. But, since personal experience doesn't automatically rise to the level of a universal principle, you'd need to demonstrate how your experience and the Ramsey's are comparable. Did you and the Ramseys supervise your 6 1/2 year old daughters the same way? Did your 61/2 year old daughter ever surprise you by being able to open a walk-in fridge by herself, or by accomplishing a task requiring similar manual strength and dexterity? Did you have a 6 1/2 year old daughter who did things in the middle of the night that you didn't think she'd do, without waking anyone? Without connections of this kind established, this works as opinion only, not as an argument. If it's only opinion, well and good. If you want to argue the point, I'm afraid it's up to you to make your case, not for others to disprove it.

I don’t think anyone is suggesting that Jonbenet got the pineapple out of the fridge, put it in the bowl, etc...
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

I can say when I was ten I got appendicitis.. I threw up and there were whole beans in my uh not to be gross but in my vomit a lot of them. . My mother was shocked cause we hadn't had beans for two days.. How'd that happen? I hadn't snuck around and eaten them. After reading about this pineapple it seems such a thing would be impossible but it did happen.

I think we’ve all seen something like this – either we’ve experienced it ourselves or noticed it when one of children vomited in the middle of the night – hours and hours and hours later something comes up that should have been long gone. This is because illness can slow down or stop the digestive process. In some cases a person’s emotional state can impact the process. Eating “disorders,” dietary habits, state of rest, and who knows what else can have an effect.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

The problem will always be connecting the ingestion of pineapple to the crime and there just isn’t any way of doing that.

Even if RDI were true, that still wouldn’t mean that the parents knew anything about when or under what circumstances Jonbenet ate that piece. And, the fact that she ate it doesn’t tell us anything more than that.

Some people like the short transit times. 30 minutes. You can do a lot in 30 minutes. You could walk a cpl kilometers (about a mile) in a half hour – drive a lot further. You could watch an episode of Big bang Theory (sans commercials) and have 9 minutes left over to make it back to bed and fall asleep.

A shorter transit time means ingestion probably occurred after midnight – later, even. Of course, it just not make sense that the family would still be up after midnight, snackin’ and such, or doing anything – not on that night, anyway. However, this fits quite nicely with the idea that she woke up after everyone else was sleeping, ate the pineapple on her own, without anyone knowing then returned to sleep.

Not only is it unlikely that the family was up snackin’ and such after midnight, but now we have to also believe that the children were not put to bed after snacking. Because 30 minutes must go by before Jonbenet is attacked and the digestive process stopped.

The pineapple is a red herring of sorts, and it seems like it should tell us something, but it doesn’t. She ate it.
...

AK

 

[Mama2JML]

Greetings, Mama. A few points about your reference...

The last two time periods are irrelevant to the discussion because they are related to the process after food has emptied from the small intestine. The pineapple was found in the duodenum. The first two time periods are going to depend largely on the amount of food consumed and what it consisted of. This is the problem with using average time periods. If the pineapple was consumed by itself in a period of time well after any other foods, it would take less time to pass because it would be the only thing in the stomach being processed. If, OTOH, it was consumed within at short time frame along with other foods (cracked crab, cake, candy, whatever) it would be mixed in with those other foods in the stomach. The stomach doesn&#8217;t separate each food type from one another and process them individually. It would all be processed closely together, and the mass of ingested and mixed food would be passed on to the small intestine in smaller amounts. The foods with higher fiber content (pineapple, for instance) would take no longer to pass through the stomach than other foods, but they will be less digested than the other foods. This is why some foods might be mixed together and not necessarily passed in the same order as consumption.

The above referenced article also says (and this is important on either side of the argument):

Studies of gastrointestinal transit have clearly demonstrated two related phenomena important to understanding this process:

1. Substances do not move uniformly through the digestive system.
2. Materials do not leave segments of the digestive tube in the same order as they arrive.
​

In other words, a meal is typically a mixture of chemically and physically diverse materials, and some substances in this mixture show accelerated transit while others are retarded in their flow downstream.
​

What it does not say, but should be apparent, is that large amounts of ingested food will take longer to process completely. With lesser amounts consumed, the process will be much quicker. Every mouthful of food swallowed is called a bolus. In the stomach, each bolus begins the digestion process and (depending on its content) will be effected more or less by the chemicals and enzymes in the stomach. Once it passes out of the stomach into the small intestine, it is called chyme (the semifluid mass of partly digested food expelled by the stomach into the duodenum). From Wikipedia:

&#8220;It results from the mechanical and chemical breakdown of a bolus (a mass of food that has been chewed to the point of swallowing) and consists of partially digested food, water, hydrochloric acid, and various digestive enzymes. Chyme slowly passes through the pyloric sphincter and into the duodenum, where the extraction of nutrients begins. Depending on the quantity and contents of the meal, the stomach will digest the food into chyme in anywhere between 40 minutes to a few hours.&#8221;
​

(The duodenum is simply the first section of the small intestine. It&#8217;s also known, and referred to in JonBenet&#8217;s AR, as the &#8220;proximal portion of the small intestine.&#8221; Its name comes from the Latin for &#8220;12 finger widths&#8221; -- the physician&#8217;s reference to its length.)

​

While it is true to state as a generality that foods can take up to a certain length of time to process, taken into consideration should be the total amount of food being processed for a more accurate time estimate. With little else found in JonBenet&#8217;s upper digestive tract, it is unrealistic to assume it could have been consumed on the upper limits of digestive time periods. Therefore, it was most likely consumed within only a couple of hours of her death when the digestive process ceased.



Lagniappe:

If it is helpful to know exactly how digestive tract content is examined in an autopsy, the following describes the process (copied from A Text-book of Legal Medicine and Toxicology, by Walter Stanley Haines, and Frederick Peterson):

The stomach and duodenum may be examined in situ by making an incision with the enterotome, or by continuing the incision eventually already made into the duodenum in examining the patency of the bile-ducts, from the pylorus along in the anterior wall, a little below and parallel with the lesser curvature and out through the part of the esophagus that still remains. Care should be taken to empty the stomach before the incision becomes so large that the contents cannot be retained by holding up the margins of the opening. Simultaneously the duodenum, or that part not already exposed, may be examined by cutting it open with the enterotome, the hepatic flexure of the colon, and the transverse colon being first loosened and turned downward.

In the majority of medicolegal cases, and especially when poisoning is not definitely excluded from the start, the stomach and duodenum are to be removed unopened from the body. A ligature is placed around the lower end of the esophagus, the diaphragm being divided so as to expose this part of the esophagus freely, and then the attachments along the lesser and greater curvatures are divided, the duodenum is dissected loose, and a double ligature placed securely at its lower end, between which it is then cut across. After emptying the contents into a suitable jar, the organs may be incised as above and the mucous membrane examined.
​

Probably more than anyone wanted to know, but we may as well put it out there so we understand what was done to look at the contents. There&#8217;s a lot more about the autopsy process that I&#8217;m sure no one would want to hear about.

The duodenum is the MOST proximal portion of the small intestine, but Dr. Meyer didn't use the term "duodenum"? He noted the location simply as "proximal". The jejunum is considered proximal as well, right?
:waitasec:

ETA: We don't know when the pineapple exited the stomach, do we? What's the transit time of pineapple through the proximal portion of the SI?

 

[DeeDee249]

Could someone refresh my memory because I can't remember if the green fecal matter found in the large intestine was determined to be the crab or a different food source if identified at all?

The "soft green fecal material" found in the lower intestine and noted as such in the autopsy report was never determined to be anything specific. I doubt it was ever tested, because food at that point in the digestive process has been broken down to the point of making identification unlikely.
One thing to note- at the moment of death, primary flaccidity causes the bladder to void any urine present. ALWAYS. In a healthy person, kidneys are always filtering waste and there is always a least SOME urine present in the bladder, even of someone has urinated prior to death.
But as far as fecal matter, that depends on the location of feces in the digestive tract. JB did not release feces at death, only urine. The fecal material seen at the autopsy had not moved down far enough to be voided when the sphincter relaxed at death. No fecal matter was noted in the rectum, anus or anywhere else except the lower intestine. This makes me wonder about whether JB had soiled her pants that night after she got home. A pair of black pants with feces or heavy fecal staining was seen in an autopsy photo on the floor. Police discussed these with Patsy, who said they were "black play pants" (as opposed to the black velvet dressy pants JB wore to the White's). From the photo it is hard to tell about the fabric, but I believe Patsy pointed out a different black pair of pants, possibly on the spare twin bed in JB's room, that she said were the velvet pants.
The coroner never noted feces in the rectum, anus, or anywhere in her excretory system that might suggest she had a bowel movement close to the time of death.

 

[DeDee]

No. The stomach empties into the duodenum, then passes into the jejunum, then, finally, into the ileum; therefore, the duodenum is proximal to the stomach.

 

[Tawny]

The problem will always be connecting the ingestion of pineapple to the crime and there just isn’t any way of doing that.

Even if RDI were true, that still wouldn’t mean that the parents knew anything about when or under what circumstances Jonbenet ate that piece. And, the fact that she ate it doesn’t tell us anything more than that.

Some people like the short transit times. 30 minutes. You can do a lot in 30 minutes. You could walk a cpl kilometers (about a mile) in a half hour – drive a lot further. You could watch an episode of Big bang Theory (sans commercials) and have 9 minutes left over to make it back to bed and fall asleep.

A shorter transit time means ingestion probably occurred after midnight – later, even. Of course, it just not make sense that the family would still be up after midnight, snackin’ and such, or doing anything – not on that night, anyway. However, this fits quite nicely with the idea that she woke up after everyone else was sleeping, ate the pineapple on her own, without anyone knowing then returned to sleep.

Not only is it unlikely that the family was up snackin’ and such after midnight, but now we have to also believe that the children were not put to bed after snacking. Because 30 minutes must go by before Jonbenet is attacked and the digestive process stopped.

The pineapple is a red herring of sorts, and it seems like it should tell us something, but it doesn’t. She ate it.
...

AK

That's the entire point, I believe. The pineapple itself tells us nothing.

The lies about the pineapple tell us more than the actual snack does. JMO

 

[gramcracker]

Are you sure about it being likely? I looked at the symptoms of appendicitis and I didn't see anything about a slowing of digestion.

that's because symptoms and results are very different things

appendicitis symptoms are observed externally while the results occur/are observed internally. vomiting whole/undigested food reveals the otherwise unobserved internal result

 

[Anti-K]

But, the lies seem to be a matter of RDI interpretation, than they are a matter of fact.
...

AK

 

[lawstudent]

The house was huge, it's very possible that they wouldn't have heard her. To be honest I don't get how they could set up their house that way, because it was so big, the kids were sitting ducks.

That's a good point - I don't quite understand the dimensions of the house. I grew up in a fairly big house, but by no means a mansion. It was still really easy to hear everything going on. But in this case the kids weren't even on the same floor as the parents' bedroom, right?

And kids of controlling parents act all sorts of different ways but especially if they were weren't allowed to have something. I remember once as a kid sneaking a box of cookies and eating them all knowing full well we'd get busted by my psycho mother. It's possible.

That's true - my mom was really nervous about my weight, and she bought something I liked but I was only supposed to have it at certain times, but when she was out I opened the box and ate some. I was a teenager I think. I actually hoped I wouldn't be caught, but she immediately noticed the box had been opened and had a fit and needless to say that didn't happen again...I think we all test boundaries, but I don't know if that is so at 6 years old. It took me a lot longer to start doing that.

I don't think it's the only explanation. And I don't think they would have adhered to it so firmly. They did after all have lawyers to consult. A lawyer would tell them to say they don't remember and not to carve it in stone that way. And as far as flustered goes, people act like this was just BAM dumped on them the night of their crime. It took quite some time for the results to come back in. In the interim they had the bowl on the table with Pineapple in it. There's a reality there. If they realized they had forgotten they fed her they could say "I remember earlier her asking for pineapple and I said no, I guess she snuck down and got some."

It's true they had a while to come up with answers, but my point is that I don't think the pineapple even registered with them until they were questioned. Why would they be worried about it? Most people don't think about stomach contents in a death unless it is a poisoning. The only reason it was an issue is because it threw a kink in the timeline, but it just probably was not even considered as a possible flaw in the story because its value is so indirect. And assuming someone else was over there doing the cleaning up after the trauma, they probably didn't put it away, so they just probably never thought of it again. I think by the time they realized it was a problem, they were being asked about it, and it would have looked weird to say um let me check with my attorney.

Well let's think of it really. If an intruder came into the house to rob them and they found her awake eating pineapple then they'd not have anticipated that. They might have taken the opportunity for revenge.

Or she snuck down and ate pineapple and went back up to bed before the intruder got there. That's a real possibility. It doesn't take hours to eat a snack.

The second one is possible though still seems like a stretch for a 6 year old. The first one doesn't make any sense to me because the idea of this being 'revenge' for something makes no sense to me - I believe that person would have been caught if that were so. You could go with the idea that someone came in to do a robbery and she was unexpectedly up and then something happened because she would recognize him, or something weird like that. But I just think anyone close enough to kill her out of revenge or to conceal an identity woudl have been caught by now

 

[InstantProof]

:twocents:

What I always find so ironic with regard to these discussions is that EVERYONE brings some sort of bias to the table. EVERYONE.

It could be a bias regarding how they feel the Rs should have behaved, or it might be an inability to believe that good people, with no outward signs of dysfunction could be capable of harming their child. It could even be based on an instinctive distrust of law enforcement.

Either way to deny it is disingenuous, and to continually remark that a particular bias is somehow more "right" than another, or that it's based on dislike does nothing to further the discussion.

Speaking for myself, I for years believed the Rs were innocent. It wasn't until I delved into the case, and studied the evidence that I came to the conclusions I have. It's getting pretty tiresome to be told that opinion is based on nothing more than dislike of the Ramsey family.

:seeya:

When this case was first in the news, and then in and out of the news for years to follow, I thought the parents were probably innocent and that anyone who thought they were guilty were just taking the beauty pageant thing and blowing it out of proportion. I felt bad for the family. Looking at the case closer now, there is very little I am convinced of, but I do find it difficult to view the details as anything but people trying to cover for themselves (or maybe someone else). It doesn't translate to anything else for me, although I really have no clue what actually happened.

 

[RANCH]

that's because symptoms and results are very different things

appendicitis symptoms are observed externally while the results occur/are observed internally. vomiting whole/undigested food reveals the otherwise unobserved internal result

Okay. How do we know that the result of having appendicitis is a slowing of digestion?

Maybe Sweet T's slow digestion of the beans was for some other reason. Maybe JBR experienced something similar with the pineapple.

JMO.

 

[DeDee]

That's a good point - I don't quite understand the dimensions of the house. I grew up in a fairly big house, but by no means a mansion. It was still really easy to hear everything going on. But in this case the kids weren't even on the same floor as the parents' bedroom, right?

The Ramsey's lived in a Tudor style home built in 1927. Patsy spent $700,000 renovating by adding an entire third floor along with other changes like concreting the walls in the windowless room of the basement. Not sure if the sunroom was original to the plans but Patsy likely added this room. Weren't there also two bedroom apartments over their garage that are seldom mentioned?

Tudor:
The style of large houses moved away from the defensive architecture of earlier moated manor houses, and started to be built more for aesthetics. For example, quadrangular, 'H' or 'E' shaped floor plans became more common.[2] It was also fashionable for these larger buildings to incorporate 'devices', or riddles, designed into the building, which served to demonstrate the owner's wit and to delight visitors. snip[3]

During this period the arrival of the chimney stack and enclosed hearths resulted in the decline of the great hall based around an open hearth that was typical of earlier Medieval architecture. Instead, fireplaces could now be placed upstairs and it became possible to have a second story that ran the whole length of the house.[4] Tudor chimney-pieces were made large and elaborate to draw attention to the owner's adoption of this new technology.[1] The jetty appeared, as a way to show off the modernity of having a complete, full-length upper floor.[1]

That's true - my mom was really nervous about my weight, and she bought something I liked but I was only supposed to have it at certain times, but when she was out I opened the box and ate some. I was a teenager I think. I actually hoped I wouldn't be caught, but she immediately noticed the box had been opened and had a fit and needless to say that didn't happen again...I think we all test boundaries, but I don't know if that is so at 6 years old. It took me a lot longer to start doing that.

JB could not open the commercial refrigerator in their kitchen. She wasn't tall enough and strong enough to pull the handle on the heavy door forward. She could open the small frig on the 2nd floor near her bedroom tho.

The Ramsey children didn't really seem to have limits/boundaries on anything. They were never spanked, TMK. Neither parent hollered or screamed at them. BR whittled all over the house. JB dropped her dirtied pants on the floor. And whether or not SS ever admits it, feces was smeared on a box of chocolates in JBs bedroom.

OTOH, prob due to her own health scare, Patsy was health conscious in that her children were fed a diet of fresh fruits like pineapple.

It's true they had a while to come up with answers, but my point is that I don't think the pineapple even registered with them until they were questioned. Why would they be worried about it? Most people don't think about stomach contents in a death unless it is a poisoning. The only reason it was an issue is because it threw a kink in the timeline, but it just probably was not even considered as a possible flaw in the story because its value is so indirect. And assuming someone else was over there doing the cleaning up after the trauma, they probably didn't put it away, so they just probably never thought of it again. I think by the time they realized it was a problem, they were being asked about it, and it would have looked weird to say um let me check with my attorney.

The Ramsey's knew about the pineapple before they were questioned by LE about it. Patsy admitted she read it in a tabloid. The media made a big deal out of it. Patsy said to LE that she couldn't understand why the big fuss but it was not her set up. If the Rs backtracked at that point in their story of JB being asleep, then, their entire story would begin to fall apart by leaving open too much opportunity.

Didn't they have to change their version once it was discovered BR was heard on the 911 call?