Patsy Ramsey

[bettybaby00]

June 1998 John Ramsey Interrogation by Lou Smit and Mike Kane (Questioning Regarding the Pineapple)

[COLOR=#FFFFF]0520
15 You have to ask Patsy. It was not easy, it was
16 like a freezer door, big walk-in freezer door,
17 it wasn't that easy to pop open.
18 But they certainly weren't above
19 going in the pantry, grabbing a box of cereal
20 and, you know, having cereal and stuff. So I
21 guess to say if it was, would not have been out
22 of the question that she grabbed some out of the
23 refrigerator in the day sometime, but I don't
24 know that she could get the door open.
25 But I mean, it's hard for to me to

0521
1 think that this intruder could have taken her
2 downstairs and fed her pineapple. I just can't
3 buy that.
4 LOU SMIT: See, that is the
5 thing, that's the one thing --
6 (MULTIPLE SPEAKERS).
7 On the counter you mean.[/COLOR]
8 LOU SMIT: We don't know.
9 The pineapple is inside her, so we have to
0 figure out how that pineapple got there.
11 There is one way it could get there, she
12 had to eat it at some point.
13 JOHN RAMSEY: Are you sure it was
14 pineapple?
15 LOU SMIT: Yes.
16 JOHN RAMSEY: No question?
17 LOU SMIT: No question. No
18 question. So that's always been the big
19 bugaboo.
20 JOHN RAMSEY: What's the -- is
21 there a time line based on where it was in the
22 digestive system?
23 LOU SMIT: That's always open
24 to people's opinions. But there is
25 various theories it could be anywhere from

0522
1 two hours to more than that. But again,
2 it is in her intestine.
3 JOHN RAMSEY: Well my -- my
4 amateur reasoning would be that she came
5 home at -- she was in bed, she was asleep
6 before we got home, which was, you know,
7 9:00, 9:15. I believe she was killed that
8 night.
9 LOU SMIT: What night?
10 JOHN RAMSEY: The 25th. If I have
11 my dates right. The 26th, evening of the 26th,
12 rather than early in the morning or the next
13 morning.
14 LOU SMIT: Think about the
15 date.
16 JOHN RAMSEY: Well okay, the 25th,
17 Christmas Day night. So if you said midnight,
18 that means there is three hours that I would say
19 there is no way she could have eaten any, as --
20 it's a time mark. I think Patsy -- see that
21 picture, asked to see if that bowl looks like
22 something that would have been in the
23 refrigerator and left out, did JonBenet grab a
24 bite when she left the house, I don't know. But
25 I know as a father and as sound asleep as she

0523
1 was, that she didn't get up, we didn't feed her
2 when we got home.
3 She wouldn't have gotten up, Patsy
4 didn't get up. She would have gotten up to feed
5 her. So that isn't an option in my mind. I
6 mean, it would be -- an intruder drug her down
7 there and tried to feed her something, she would
8 have screamed bloody murder. If she opened her
9 mouth to eat pineapple, she would have screamed
10 bloody murder.
11 LOU SMIT: But still it's a
12 fact that it's in there. There is nothing
13 that we can do to change that particular
14 fact.
15 JOHN RAMSEY: I understand.
16 LOU SMIT: So is there any
17 possibility at all that Patsy could have
18 done that, have gotten up and gone down
19 there?
20 JOHN RAMSEY: No.
21 LOU SMIT: Would you have known it
22 if she had?
23 JOHN RAMSEY: I wouldn't have
24 known it but she certainly would have said it.
25 I mean, there was no reason she would have (more at http://www.acandyrose.com/s-evidence-pineapple.htm )

By continuing to deny that they fed it to her serves to "prove" (in his mind) that after she was put to bed sound asleep, she wouldn't have gotten up. He also seems pretty adamant she couldn't open the fridge herself.

 

[Frigga]

... and the bowl out, with Patsy's fingerprints and the cup and tea bag with Burke's prints.

Kind of blows the whole "she was carried directly to bed and "zonked" out of the water- doesn't it.

Now the excuses for "of course Patsy's fingerprints would be there... she does the dishes... blah, blah, blah will begin again- and so it goes.

 

[ILikeToBendPages]

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.

According to LHP and other sitters and help, JonBenet and Burke both fended for themselves many times, leaving PBJ smeared on counters. So I don' think it's a matter of control.

IIRC the Ramsey's had two fridges, the one big walk in , and a regular one

 

[Chewy]

Lawstudent, is no longer a student
But a bonafide J.D.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Congratulations!

Then they should clearly know that me saying "I'd do it" or them saying "I wouldn't do it" is not EVIDENCE. And the only thing that proves anything is EVIDENCE. Not suspicion.

This repeated argument is a logical fallacy known as argument from incredulity. Just because you can't figure out how it could have happened doesn't mean it couldn't have happened.

 

[Chewy]

... and the bowl out, with Patsy's fingerprints and the cup and tea bag with Burke's prints.

Kind of blows the whole "she was carried directly to bed and "zonked" out of the water- doesn't it.

Now the excuses for "of course Patsy's fingerprints would be there... she does the dishes... blah, blah, blah will begin again- and so it goes.

Were Jonbenet's fingerprints on the bowl, the cup or the tea bag?

Was there pineapple residue in the bowl?

Those are questions about EVIDENCE not "hmmm my hinky meter doesn't believe them, I'll make up my own theory and go with that instead!"


If you look at the evidence there is pineapple on the table and Jonbenets fingerprints are not on the bowl. There is pineapple in her stomach. So it's clear she couldn't have gotten the bowl herself based on actual evidence not theory. Then we could argue that since Patsy's fingerprints are on the bowl she is the one who got the bowl. But this is not 100 percent because as has been pointed out before, she probably handled the dishes in her home enough to leave fingerprints on the bowl. This is why I asked pages ago, what were the positions of the fingerprints? If the fingerprints were glossed along the outside of the bowl, it could come from touching them in the cupboard. But they are around the bowl in such a way that indicates holding the bowl, then it would indicate something else.

This is why I and others continually ask for evidence to be posted.


ETA it's quite odd to read the John Ramsey interview and see it almost perfectly backs up the statements I've been saying, right down to the cereal. He also says she could have grabbed a bite before they left. All of it. Weird.


I think what people are trying to say is that John Ramsey is insisting they put her straight to bed as soon as they came home. If they didn't and they fed her pineapple and then some catastrophy happened and they killled her, they may have simply forgotten about the pineapple on the table in the other room out of sight and when confronted by the police about it they panicked and kept insisting they put her straight to bed. That much I understand.

However, IMO if you really want to analyze what happened you have to look at all possibilities. If you narrowly focus on one theory you are going to railroad the evidence into that theory. And we've all seen this happen many times in the past where evidence lined up to look ONE way has a totally different interpretation when viewed another way.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Congratulations!

Then they should clearly know that me saying "I'd do it" or them saying "I wouldn't do it" is not EVIDENCE. And the only thing that proves anything is EVIDENCE. Not suspicion.

This repeated argument is a logical fallacy known as argument from incredulity. Just because you can't figure out how it could have happened doesn't mean it couldn't have happened.

I think you're a little lost.
This isn't a court room




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Tawny]

Next, she could have eaten the pineapple BEFORE going to the party at the other house or after waking up from being home. It's possible.
:seeya:

RSBM.

No. It is not.

:seeya:

 

[lawstudent]

You keep insisting what "six year olds do" and I keep pointing out that just because your experience is different doesn't mean it's impossible to happen in a way that is different from your experience.

IMO this is something that should not have to be repeated over and over again because it's just common sense.

Next, she could have eaten the pineapple BEFORE going to the party at the other house or after waking up from being home. It's possible.

The only reason for discussing this would be to throw a flaw in the "story" of the Ramsey's timeline but that would ONLY work if it was IMPOSSIBLE for JBR to have done it herself. As I asked before, if it was IMPOSSIBLE for her to open the fridge it would be different.

So if someone can prove that the refrigerator would have been impossible for a small child to open, that's one thing. If there was no pineapple in the house then that would be impossible.

I really don't understand the logic behind the "well I would never go into a fridge as a 6 year old" being offered up as an argument. You're a law student right? Would that ever be allowed in a trial? "I don't believe it because when I was six I didn't do the same thing?"

:seeya:

I've said many times that some 6 year olds will, some won't. It was in response to your comment that kids get stuff out of the fridge all the time. What JB's habit was is relevant - was she a child who never took something without asking, or was that no big deal? It's not to say that JB couldn't have fed herself, but merely that the possibility that she could doesn't rule out everything else.

You say the only reason for it to throw a flaw into the timeline is if it was impossible for her to do it herself. Well, that would be the only way to conclusively prove a flaw in the timeline, but it still can be used as circumstantial evidence. "I would never go into the fridge" would of course not be allowed at trial - "Did JB ever go into the fridge on her own before?" would be. See the difference? The prosecution wouldn't be forced to ignore that issue because JB is capable of going into the fridge - that doesn't establish it's truth. The standard isn't that something only becomes suspicious if any alternative is impossible. It's not that IDI can only be established if RDI is impossible, or vice versa. It's all the circumstances put together and the jury drawing those inferences that are permitted. It may turn out to be relevant, or it may not be. A foundation would have to be laid in which the coroner explained his findings, the Ramsey's comments about the pineapple and her going straight to bed were admitted (if they didn't testify), and people at the party testified about the existence of pineapple.

I don't believe it is possible she ate it prior to the party if it was in her stomach, but obviously that's been argued ad nauseum, and that would be up to the coroner to establish. I do feel this pineapple thing has been overanalyzed only because we don't know what would have been revealed at trial as a possible explanation, so I don't feel it is some sort of smoking gun, but it is interesting.

I just saw a show in which a young military man struggling with his sexuality went home with a man he did not know, became sexually engaged with him, and then upon realizing what he had done, stabbed the guy to death and stole from him. They found him decades later, married with kids, no other crimes, no homosexual relationships that were known of. They found him because they were able to get a fingerprint into the database that had been updated, and he had an arrest for a minor crime as a teen.

They show up and start asking him every which say if he knew the guy, showing pictures, all that. He denies everything. They then produce a slip from the pawn shop where he sold some of the stolen items. It has his signature on it, and he admits that, but says he has no idea what the whole thing is about. He continues to deny ever meeting the guy, so when they reveal the fingerprint evidence, he admits he did go home with him, and the guy made a move on him and began attacking him. So he killed him in self defense and ran off. Then the cops ask where in that timeline he removed the car radio, rifled through the guy's wallet, etc. The guy then just gives in to avoid having to discuss any sexual aspect of the crime in a trial.

The point of that story is, this guy had so many years to think about how he'd respond if cops came knocking, and he forecloses any innocent explanation for having been with that guy, or to explain why his signature was on that slip, or to give a plausible explanation for how those items fit into the crime/timeline. There were other possible alternatives, but it was enough for him to realize he'd been trapped and had to plead guilty. That's why I said between the Ramseys lied and the intruder feeding her, I choose the former. I've seen enough people say really stupid incriminating things to police despite easy alternate explanations that it's not hard for me to believe at all. The reason I compared only those 2 things was because the poster I was responding to didn't think it was likely that JB got it herself.

And that concludes my commentary on this matter, which I'm sure you are grateful to hear. :twocents: (or more like 20 cents)

 

[2 percent]

Ah, but they didn’t deny that there was pineapple in the house. They denied feeding it to her. So, no lie was revealed.
...

AK

Not true. If I remember right at some point Patsy claimed no knowledge of pineapple in the house.

 

[2 percent]

Were Jonbenet's fingerprints on the bowl, the cup or the tea bag?

Was there pineapple residue in the bowl?

Those are questions about EVIDENCE not "hmmm my hinky meter doesn't believe them, I'll make up my own theory and go with that instead!"


If you look at the evidence there is pineapple on the table and Jonbenets fingerprints are not on the bowl. There is pineapple in her stomach. So it's clear she couldn't have gotten the bowl herself based on actual evidence not theory. Then we could argue that since Patsy's fingerprints are on the bowl she is the one who got the bowl. But this is not 100 percent because as has been pointed out before, she probably handled the dishes in her home enough to leave fingerprints on the bowl. This is why I asked pages ago, what were the positions of the fingerprints? If the fingerprints were glossed along the outside of the bowl, it could come from touching them in the cupboard. But they are around the bowl in such a way that indicates holding the bowl, then it would indicate something else.

This is why I and others continually ask for evidence to be posted.


ETA it's quite odd to read the John Ramsey interview and see it almost perfectly backs up the statements I've been saying, right down to the cereal. He also says she could have grabbed a bite before they left. All of it. Weird.


I think what people are trying to say is that John Ramsey is insisting they put her straight to bed as soon as they came home. If they didn't and they fed her pineapple and then some catastrophy happened and they killled her, they may have simply forgotten about the pineapple on the table in the other room out of sight and when confronted by the police about it they panicked and kept insisting they put her straight to bed. That much I understand.

However, IMO if you really want to analyze what happened you have to look at all possibilities. If you narrowly focus on one theory you are going to railroad the evidence into that theory. And we've all seen this happen many times in the past where evidence lined up to look ONE way has a totally different interpretation when viewed another way.

Why do you think anyone on this site hasn't looked at all possibities? Most of us have read more than one book on the case and read much of the available statements, interviews, etc.
I see posters constantly saying they used to think one way then the evidence in the case changed their mind. But even if that weren't true, there's no reason to think anyone came to an opinion without serious thought.

bbm
What evidence are you talking about?

 

[Chewy]

I've said many times that some 6 year olds will, some won't. It was in response to your comment that kids get stuff out of the fridge all the time. What JB's habit was is relevant - was she a child who never took something without asking, or was that no big deal? It's not to say that JB couldn't have fed herself, but merely that the possibility that she could doesn't rule out everything else.

You say the only reason for it to throw a flaw into the timeline is if it was impossible for her to do it herself. Well, that would be the only way to conclusively prove a flaw in the timeline, but it still can be used as circumstantial evidence. "I would never go into the fridge" would of course not be allowed at trial - "Did JB ever go into the fridge on her own before?" would be. See the difference? The prosecution wouldn't be forced to ignore that issue because JB is capable of going into the fridge - that doesn't establish it's truth. The standard isn't that something only becomes suspicious if any alternative is impossible. It's not that IDI can only be established if RDI is impossible, or vice versa. It's all the circumstances put together and the jury drawing those inferences that are permitted. It may turn out to be relevant, or it may not be. A foundation would have to be laid in which the coroner explained his findings, the Ramsey's comments about the pineapple and her going straight to bed were admitted (if they didn't testify), and people at the party testified about the existence of pineapple.

I don't believe it is possible she ate it prior to the party if it was in her stomach, but obviously that's been argued ad nauseum, and that would be up to the coroner to establish. I do feel this pineapple thing has been overanalyzed only because we don't know what would have been revealed at trial as a possible explanation, so I don't feel it is some sort of smoking gun, but it is interesting.

I just saw a show in which a young military man struggling with his sexuality went home with a man he did not know, became sexually engaged with him, and then upon realizing what he had done, stabbed the guy to death and stole from him. They found him decades later, married with kids, no other crimes, no homosexual relationships that were known of. They found him because they were able to get a fingerprint into the database that had been updated, and he had an arrest for a minor crime as a teen.

They show up and start asking him every which say if he knew the guy, showing pictures, all that. He denies everything. They then produce a slip from the pawn shop where he sold some of the stolen items. It has his signature on it, and he admits that, but says he has no idea what the whole thing is about. He continues to deny ever meeting the guy, so when they reveal the fingerprint evidence, he admits he did go home with him, and the guy made a move on him and began attacking him. So he killed him in self defense and ran off. Then the cops ask where in that timeline he removed the car radio, rifled through the guy's wallet, etc. The guy then just gives in to avoid having to discuss any sexual aspect of the crime in a trial.

The point of that story is, this guy had so many years to think about how he'd respond if cops came knocking, and he forecloses any innocent explanation for having been with that guy, or to explain why his signature was on that slip, or to give a plausible explanation for how those items fit into the crime/timeline. There were other possible alternatives, but it was enough for him to realize he'd been trapped and had to plead guilty. That's why I said between the Ramseys lied and the intruder feeding her, I choose the former. I've seen enough people say really stupid incriminating things to police despite easy alternate explanations that it's not hard for me to believe at all. The reason I compared only those 2 things was because the poster I was responding to didn't think it was likely that JB got it herself.

And that concludes my commentary on this matter, which I'm sure you are grateful to hear. :twocents: (or more like 20 cents)

Exactly, that's my only issue. Why continually discuss what you would have done as a 6 year old or what you believe a 6 year old would do when the only thing that matters is THIS SIX YEAR OLD???

I don't get it?

 

[Chewy]

I think you're a little lost.
This isn't a court room




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I know; it's a gossip site. I'm not lost at all. :seeya:

 

[TaylurRose02]

That's your way. I see it differently and apparently so did the Ramseys so it's irrelevant to discuss what they "should have done" because they didn't do it so what difference does it make.

Second we don't know every single thing that happened between the Ramseys and Burke, we only know what they told us. If they woke Burke up and he said he hadn't seen anything and had slept the whole night, I can see (although I wouldn't agree with it) a parent wanting to preserve that ignorance and prevent him from being forced into an interrogation.

Me personally, I'd be drilling the kid right in front of the police to see if he even "DREAMED" something that might have been influenced by something he overheard while asleep. IOW dreaming of Jonbenet crying or something like that.

Other people may have hypnotized him etc. But some people don't go for those ways of thinking and would just assume that it makes little difference and is grasping at straws.

Again, what you think they should have done is absolutely irrelevant IMO. The only thing that matters when discussing a crime is what actually did happen.

The difference is that there were behavioral indicators that seemed suspicious to myself and others. I don't like the term irrelevant when talking about a crime. There's a lot of small details that have the potential to help piece together a larger picture that we haven't connected yet. I think it's important to discuss the things seemingly unrelated to crime itself. The way we perceive their actions is pure opinion, but important nonetheless, IMO.

By the way, I don't think it's very productive to tell me that my opinion is irrelevant, then continue to discuss your own.

I can understand what you mean by your second point, but what I'm getting at is why they wouldn't want him questioned by professionals that are trained in getting information out of people. I could understand if it was further on in the crime and they didn't want him to have access to the gory details (I wouldn't want that either!). While it was still a supposed kidnapping the parents had no reason to not trust police authority and they called them for help. They then denied police access to one of the three witnesses in the home that night. Intruder or not, it doesn't look good which is why I find it important. You don't have to find it important, but because this is a discussion I have the right to expressing my own perceivement of the events of the crime just like you have.

Police questioning a child after the parents have is not grasping at straws. They have the means to ask open ended questions, read body language, etc...

I'm not arguing for how they should have acted, I'm arguing why what they did and the reasons behind it.

 

[BOESP]

Does anyone besides me see this portion of John Ramsey's statement as an "aha moment?"

3 JOHN RAMSEY: Well my -- my
4 amateur reasoning would be that she came
5 home at -- she was in bed, she was asleep
6 before we got home, which was, you know,
7 9:00, 9:15. I believe she was killed that
8 night.
9 LOU SMIT: What night?
10 JOHN RAMSEY: The 25th. If I have
11 my dates right. The 26th, evening of the 26th,
12 rather than early in the morning or the next
13 morning.
14 LOU SMIT: Think about the
15 date.
16 JOHN RAMSEY: Well okay, the 25th,
17 Christmas Day night. So if you said midnight,
18 that means there is three hours that I would say
19 there is no way she could have eaten any, as --
20 it's a time mark.

Patsy also said that JonBenet liked fresh pineapple, not canned. According to Steve Thomas's book fresh pineapple from a local "fresh market" was found in a container in a Ramsey refrigerator. This was said to be the pineapple which criminalists tested and found to be consistent with the pineapple found in JonBenet's duodenum.

Iirc, Patsy's timeline statements put her going to bed between 10 PM and 10:30 PM on December 25. John Ramsey, as stated above, believed JonBenet was killed prior to midnight then he, imo, stumbles around trying to incorporate Patsy into his version of events.

 

[2 percent]

Exactly, that's my only issue. Why continually discuss what you would have done as a 6 year old or what you believe a 6 year old would do when the only thing that matters is THIS SIX YEAR OLD???

I don't get it?

This speculation is like profiling...percentages, averages and statistics.
Children that age most likely would not wander the house alone at night - most certainly not in the dark. If they were hungry they would wake mom, not look for food on their own. The handle on that fridge is intimidating to a child unless they had used it before, possibly too tight for her too (meaning she may not have been strong enough to pop the lock mechanism much less the air seal). Why bother with the fridge when pantry items are usually easier to reach and less of a hassle.

Personally my triplets, when they were 6, were not allowed to feed themselves from the fridge or pantry unless they had permission (fruit was always in a bowl on the table). With this specific fridge with that handle and roominess they would not have been allowed to touch the fridge without supervision.

 

[2 percent]

I know; it's a gossip site. I'm not lost at all. :seeya:

:waiting:
C'mon...I understand some discussion doesn't meet your standard, but most of what is discussed here is obviously more than just gossip.

 

[Linda7NJ]

This speculation is like profiling...percentages, averages and statistics.

Children that age most likely would not wander the house alone at night - most certainly not in the dark. If they were hungry they would wake mom, not look for food on their own. The handle on that fridge is intimidating to a child unless they had used it before, possibly too tight for her too (meaning she may not have been strong enough to pop the lock mechanism much less the air seal). Why bother with the fridge when pantry items are usually easier to reach and less of a hassle.



Personally my triplets, when they were 6, were not allowed to feed themselves from the fridge or pantry unless they had permission (fruit was always in a bowl on the table). With this specific fridge with that handle and roominess they would not have been allowed to touch the fridge without supervision.

Mine did. I even encouraged it.

I kept plenty of healthy snacks & beverages low enough to easily reach too.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[THE BUNK]

Exactly, that's my only issue. Why continually discuss what you would have done as a 6 year old or what you believe a 6 year old would do when the only thing that matters is THIS SIX YEAR OLD???

To be fair, Jonbenet's situation is not like most six year olds. She's a pint sized beauty queen to wealthy parents. Her situation would not be like average six year olds.

 

[2 percent]

To be fair, Jonbenet's situation is not like most six year olds. She's a pint sized beauty queen to wealthy parents. Her situation would not be like average six year olds.

Which brings up something else....is anyone else having a hard time pinning down John and Patsy? Some things suggest Patsy was overprotective, some things suggest a little neglect. Now I'm not saying parents always stick to a routine or a philosophy of parenting, but most are consistent.
Like bathing regularly, bedtime. But I just don't feel like there was a lot of consistency.

And that thing about John reading to JB at night even if she was asleep...sorry but that's a little weird. Hollywood certainly gets a lot of mileage out of predators watching their prey sleep and that was the first thing I thought of.

 

[Mama2JML]

Which brings up something else....is anyone else having a hard time pinning down John and Patsy? Some things suggest Patsy was overprotective, some things suggest a little neglect. Now I'm not saying parents always stick to a routine or a philosophy of parenting, but most are consistent.
Like bathing regularly, bedtime. But I just don't feel like there was a lot of consistency.

And that thing about John reading to JB at night even if she was asleep...sorry but that's a little weird. Hollywood certainly gets a lot of mileage out of predators watching their prey sleep and that was the first thing I thought of.

BBM

Did Mr. Ramsey say he read a book to JonBenét, while she was asleep, after returning from the White's? If so, I agree 100%; WEIRD. Thus, suspicious, but I think this is a myth. Do you have a source to share?