The Importance of the Pineapple

[Anti-K]

Hi, Anti-K.

At a party where there were over 10 guests, it would be more than unlikely that not one person other than PR and BR left their fingerprints on that bowl.

The main thing that keeps me placing BR in the dining room with JBR after coming home from the Whites' is that his fingerprints were not only on the bowl, but were on the glass as well. If his prints were only on the bowl, placing him in the dining room would be more difficult. I understand that fingerprints are not time-stamped, but PR insisted that she cleared the table before leaving for the Whites'.

The point remains, if jbr could eat out of that bowl without leaving fingerprints on it, anyone could eat out of that bowl without leaving fingerprints on it.

Of course, we can’t say that people would touch the bowl or eat any pineapple from it just because it was set out for them. it could have been set out, and neglected and then – forgotten.

Also, as far as I know, she only said that the table was cleared after breakfast (see above post). Anything could have happened after that; right?
…

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Investigators have said she could've died at early as 10:00 P.M. but for argument's sake, say she died at 1:00 A.M..

JBR could've walked up the stairs, had interactions with one/more of the Rs, perhaps played with some of her new toys, and been put to bed. Like you've said, she could've still been thinking about Christmas (or BR could've, for that matter) and woke BR up/been woken up by BR around 11:30 P.M. to have a snack and investigate the basement for more presents. Whether the R parents were up and awake at this time or not, IMO, is irrelevant because they could've been notified either way that JBR had been knocked unconscious. Maybe the R parents omitted the part where JBR walks up the stairs because the more they distanced themselves from JBR, the better? In other words, to make their explanation short and sweet, they agreed to just say she was asleep.

Actually, investigators said TOD between 10:00 pm and 6:00 am. I used 1:00 because, in my experience, it is the most widely accepted TOD. I was being speculative.
.

I don’t see any reason to accept the “walked-upstairs” version, because it seems that Burke told conflicting versions and the person reporting them – Thomas - dismissed the “walked-upstairs” version as being the result of confusion. RDI-Diehards Thomas and Kolar seem to believe the parents version. So, what is the reason for rejecting it?

In both versions jbr goes straight to bed. So, regardless of which of these two versions one chooses, jbr had to have gotten up AFTER she was put to bed. What did she do after she got up? I don’t know, but she might have had a bite of pineapple.
…

AK

 

[KayCherry]

The pineapple could surely have been "not" put away, after Patsy cleaning up as they kids/parents, may have continued to pick and eat before leaving for the White's. Lots of times, I put away and clear 'just about everything'... Either way, the fact is it was out and how the parents deny they got it out and have say the kids wouldn't do such a thing. That, to me, is the ridiculous part. Of course kids can and will/ get food out, eat food that was left out/ are capable of this task... JBR probably didn't eat anything at the White's. Sounds to me like she was not looked after too well there, and probably ran wit the pack of kids, or behind them, not feeling well. This case consumes me and is utterly frustrating. It's not far off to say they went down and had some. PERIOD.

 

[Ellie9]

Okay I think with the pineapple and the Ramsey's repeatedly saying the children don't go downstairs, I have a theory.

Their not trying to prove intruder evidence here. They're covering for Burke. A good portion of the time when they give strange responses that could have pointed to an intruder all they do is make sure everyone knows how much Burke wasn't involved.

Here are three examples.

PR claims she could hear everything in her bedroom, including when Burke goes to the bathroom by his room. But she didn't hear any scream or anything from jonbenet. She's covering for Burke, here, rather than focusing on any intruder.

Patsy and John say Burke was asleep. The end of the 911 call specialists heard his voice. By saying he's asleep they're covering for Burke.

And the pineapple, of course. The easy way out is to say sometimes the kids get food. They refuse this again and again. They are not trying to prove intruder here but they're trying to prove BURKE would never go anywhere, or without them hearing.

I think honestly all the times that they seem to fall to give good intruder evidence for their cover up its always because covering the son's non involvement is their first priority.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[OliviaG1996]

The point remains, if jbr could eat out of that bowl without leaving fingerprints on it, anyone could eat out of that bowl without leaving fingerprints on it.

Of course, we can’t say that people would touch the bowl or eat any pineapple from it just because it was set out for them. it could have been set out, and neglected and then – forgotten.

Also, as far as I know, she only said that the table was cleared after breakfast (see above post). Anything could have happened after that; right?
…

AK

No one present at the party has stated anything about the pineapple being anywhere at the party. Therefore, we can't assume it was out for the guests to eat.

Who do you believe took out the bowl of pineapple and/or glass after PR cleared the table? Also, if JBR was hungry enough to get up in the middle of the night, why did she only have a select few chunks of pineapple?

I've learned that pineapple takes 2-3 days to go bad after it has been cut. Is there a reason whoever placed the pineapple in the fridge 2-3 days before JBR ate it forgot enough about its purchase and placement to be completely puzzled as to how it made its way into the Ramsey household? I know trauma has a way of messing with one's memory, but if PR genuinely forgot about making a trip to the grocery store days before her daughter's murder, it's a wonder she remembered her own name.

 

[OliviaG1996]

Actually, investigators said TOD between 10:00 pm and 6:00 am. I used 1:00 because, in my experience, it is the most widely accepted TOD. I was being speculative.
.

By saying TOD could've been at any time between 10:00 P.M. and 6:00 A.M., that includes 10:00 P.M. and any time until 6:00 A.M. with 10:00 P.M. being the earliest estimated TOD. Sorry if I was unclear.

I don’t see any reason to accept the “walked-upstairs” version, because it seems that Burke told conflicting versions and the person reporting them – Thomas - dismissed the “walked-upstairs” version as being the result of confusion. RDI-Diehards Thomas and Kolar seem to believe the parents version. So, what is the reason for rejecting it?

If BR's version is true, the Rs lied. If BR's version is false, PR and JR remembered an event before JBR's murder correctly. RDI (or IDI) could've happened whether JBR arrived home asleep or not, so neither event changes the outcome. I have a different theory than both Thomas and Kolar, so I don't agree with every interpretation of the evidence they have.

In both versions jbr goes straight to bed. So, regardless of which of these two versions one chooses, jbr had to have gotten up AFTER she was put to bed. What did she do after she got up? I don’t know, but she might have had a bite of pineapple.
…

AK

If JBR went straight to bed, that's correct.

 

[UKGuy]

Okay I think with the pineapple and the Ramsey's repeatedly saying the children don't go downstairs, I have a theory.

Their not trying to prove intruder evidence here. They're covering for Burke. A good portion of the time when they give strange responses that could have pointed to an intruder all they do is make sure everyone knows how much Burke wasn't involved.

Here are three examples.

PR claims she could hear everything in her bedroom, including when Burke goes to the bathroom by his room. But she didn't hear any scream or anything from jonbenet. She's covering for Burke, here, rather than focusing on any intruder.

Patsy and John say Burke was asleep. The end of the 911 call specialists heard his voice. By saying he's asleep they're covering for Burke.

And the pineapple, of course. The easy way out is to say sometimes the kids get food. They refuse this again and again. They are not trying to prove intruder here but they're trying to prove BURKE would never go anywhere, or without them hearing.

I think honestly all the times that they seem to fall to give good intruder evidence for their cover up its always because covering the son's non involvement is their first priority.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ellie9,
Even the investigators do not ask too many difficult questions about Burke Ramsey, including no follow up on particular lines of question.

Just thought I'd toss this out there, from memory JR said he and BR constructed some toy in the basement, but why the basement late on Christmas Night, why not bring it upstairs where it is nice and warm?

.

 

[Ellie9]

Ellie9,
Even the investigators do not ask too many difficult questions about Burke Ramsey, including no follow up on particular question lines.

Just thought I'd toss this out there, from memory JR said he and BR constructed some toy in the basement, but why the basement late on Christmas Night, why not bring it upstairs where it is nice and warm?

.

I agree it looks really suspicious. The only toy to construct in the basement should be the bike for JB, but she was riding it around on Christmas day.

Burke got his Nintendo that year. As a fellow gamer fan, any kids with a new gaming system will be obsessed with that for weeks at least. As well he was reported as telling Fleet all about his new Nintendo games.

Maybe he got a new train thing? I think his train room was in the basement they say. So if there is a good explanation I'm going to say the train room is the only one that makes sense.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[UKGuy]

By saying TOD could've been at any time between 10:00 P.M. and 6:00 A.M., that includes 10:00 P.M. and any time until 6:00 A.M. with 10:00 P.M. being the earliest estimated TOD. Sorry if I was unclear.



If BR's version is true, the Rs lied. If BR's version is false, PR and JR remembered an event before JBR's murder correctly. RDI (or IDI) could've happened whether JBR arrived home asleep or not, so neither event changes the outcome. I have a different theory than both Thomas and Kolar, so I don't agree with every interpretation of the evidence they have.


If JBR went straight to bed, that's correct.

OliviaG1996,
The timing aspect is a red herring, since we know. i.e. its not IDI speculation, that the last thing JonBenet ate was the pineapple, so this rules out eating any prior to leaving for the White's!

So its irrelevant if it was lying out available all afternoon without Patsy's knowledge, this demonstrates why IDI have no coherent theory and simply concentrate on the forensic evidence.

Common sense mandates that even if JonBenet was put straight to bed asleep, the pineapple tells you she was awake to eat the pineapple.

Yet Burke Ramsey says she walked into the house!

.

 

[UKGuy]

I agree it looks really suspicious. The only toy to construct in the basement should be the bike for JB, but she was riding it around on Christmas day.

Burke got his Nintendo that year. As a fellow gamer fan, any kids with a new gaming system will be obsessed with that for weeks at least. As well he was reported as telling Fleet all about his new Nintendo games.

Maybe he got a new train thing? I think his train room was in the basement they say. So if there is a good explanation I'm going to say the train room is the only one that makes sense.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ellie9,
Seems like an alibi was being constructed here, also explains away any forensic evidence queries about the train-room.

.

 

[Fides]

The denial is not as final as some seem to think:
16 TOM HANEY: Could it have happened?
17 PATSY RAMSEY: Anything could have happened.
18 I mean, we know something strange happened that night,
…

AK

We agree. My point when I responded to Cranberry was the same as yours: they neither confirm nor deny Burke's involvement in the pineapple snack. Within these interviews they do deny their own involvement.

 

[Fides]

I understand the problem you’re having with the Ramseys more-or-less closing the door on the obvious, innocent explanations for the pineapple. However, I don’t really find it that strange. Sure, if they knew about the pineapple, then one of these easy-outs should have been seized upon. But, if they didn’t know anything about it… ?

If she had lived, then one night jbr surely would have gotten out of bed while everyone was sleeping and maybe she’d help herself to a quick snack, or something or whatever. This is how it is with life. One day it’s something that she had never done, and the next day it’s routine and normal behavior. It all starts somewhere and there is nothing to say that it couldn’t have started for her, on that night.

Of course, I bring my own life and experiences to the discussion, and it seem to me that children are always capable of doing (and saying) all manner of things that their parents would be surprised by. So, although I do not think she is lying, I don’t necessarily accept it when the parents say that their kids wouldn’t do this, or weren’t able to do that.

I can understand, if IDI, the Ramseys not taking the easy-out simply because they don’t know the easy-out to be true. They don’t remember seeing the set-up, or setting it up and they don’t know who did it. it looks strange – to all of us!! – and, they can’t figure it out. I can understand them wondering if it was somehow related to the crime (IDI). I can see them wanting investigators to wonder if it might somehow be related to the crime (IDI). But, if RDI, they take the easy-out. IMO
…

AK

AK – I usually find your responses well-reasoned, but not this one.

What an odd phrase to use for your own reasonable explanation for the pineapple, an “easy-out.” This is not a trick question, the Ramseys know about the pineapple. They say they have been asked about it and they have read about it prior to these interviews. JonBenet Ramsey is the youngest child of four children for John and two for Patsy. Surely the ability to get out of bed in the night is something they have experienced in a child in the past? This notion cannot be a shocking surprise to them. She is not in a crib, she is not locked in her room, the house is enormous and she presumably runs around the place all day long with no one following her. The idea that she ate a bit of fruit without their knowledge is not an “easy out;” it is a logical option on the menu of choices for the origin of pineapple found high in her digestive tract.

As you say, if IDI, we can presume that the Ramseys did not know anything about any of it. They don’t know! Who can say? It is all so odd! If IDI they are simply trying to help uncover the truth of this horrible night, right? All options are on the table since they know nothing!

And yet, when presented with evidence of a pineapple snack, John Ramsey emphatically rules out JonBenet eating the fruit on her own AND the possibility of an intruder feeding it to her. She would scream “bloody murder!” A phrase he uses twice. He strongly insists that neither can be true, after 18 months of thinking about all the mysteries of the night. And that, in my opinion, is a very strange, very unhelpful stance for someone who we presume knows nothing about any of it. He is given some hard forensic evidence, and his reaction is “no way!” He is not, as you say, “…wondering if it was somehow related to the crime (IDI)” or “…wanting investigators to wonder if it might somehow be related to the crime (IDI).”

No, AK, John did not do that. He insists JonBenet would not get out of bed and eat pineapple on her own. He insists he and Patsy did not give it to her. He insists that JonBenet would have screamed “bloody murder” rather than chew a little pineapple with an intruder. He wonders if the forensics are wrong. He does not accept the conclusions when given the digestion timeline.

So no, AK, I don’t agree with your conclusions nor do I see them relating to my original post. There is no “wondering” from John or Patsy about how the pineapple relates to the crime. There is a lot of arguing and denial about all the innocent AND criminal meanings related to the pineapple. This is a man who insists that a bowl of pineapple is “huge” or “big” no less than seven times in the first few minutes on the topic. A type of bowl, we find out from his wife, that his kids typically use for their cereal. Not a really weird enormous bowl, but a bowl he has probably seen many many times.

And that, again, is the problem with the pineapple: the parents. There is no wondering, AK, until the Santa Bill topic is brought up at the very end. There is a very clear, united stance on the pineapple, and the stance is:
“Regarding JonBenet eating pineapple I will guarantee you it was not after she came home”
“There is no way she could have eaten any”
“I know it didn’t happen after she went to bed. So there has to be another answer to that question.”

 

[Anti-K]

Okay I think with the pineapple and the Ramsey's repeatedly saying the children don't go downstairs, I have a theory.

Their not trying to prove intruder evidence here. They're covering for Burke. A good portion of the time when they give strange responses that could have pointed to an intruder all they do is make sure everyone knows how much Burke wasn't involved.

Here are three examples.

PR claims she could hear everything in her bedroom, including when Burke goes to the bathroom by his room. But she didn't hear any scream or anything from jonbenet. She's covering for Burke, here, rather than focusing on any intruder.

Patsy and John say Burke was asleep. The end of the 911 call specialists heard his voice. By saying he's asleep they're covering for Burke.

And the pineapple, of course. The easy way out is to say sometimes the kids get food. They refuse this again and again. They are not trying to prove intruder here but they're trying to prove BURKE would never go anywhere, or without them hearing.

I think honestly all the times that they seem to fall to give good intruder evidence for their cover up its always because covering the son's non involvement is their first priority.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Wanting to protect Burke from suspicion seems like a pretty innocent and normal thing to do, so I don’t think this theory of yours has any value when it comes to determining anything RDI (or, IDI).
…

AK

 

[Anti-K]

No one present at the party has stated anything about the pineapple being anywhere at the party. Therefore, we can't assume it was out for the guests to eat.

Who do you believe took out the bowl of pineapple and/or glass after PR cleared the table? Also, if JBR was hungry enough to get up in the middle of the night, why did she only have a select few chunks of pineapple?

I've learned that pineapple takes 2-3 days to go bad after it has been cut. Is there a reason whoever placed the pineapple in the fridge 2-3 days before JBR ate it forgot enough about its purchase and placement to be completely puzzled as to how it made its way into the Ramsey household? I know trauma has a way of messing with one's memory, but if PR genuinely forgot about making a trip to the grocery store days before her daughter's murder, it's a wonder she remembered her own name.

Oops. I’m sorry. I thought it was you who brought up the possibility of the bowl being left out from the party. Anyway, I’m trying not to assume anything.

I don’t know that the bowl and the glass are associated. What about the Kleenex? And, whose prints were on that? Was the setup a set up or is it the accumulation of objects over time?

I don’t have any answers. I see questions. did you know that the digestive process – the transit time we so often argue over – is a conditional thing and that expert opinion here is what happens in most cases but not what happened in this case. Did you know that these transit times are conditional and that individualistic and that this process, these transit times can be effected and thereby slowed, even stopped? can we rule out the possibility that jbr ate the pineapple before going to the Whites, that an ailment was settling in, that the stress and excitement of the day, the disruption in routine, etc all added up into, this food stops right here, I’m not eating anymore. stay tuned for progress. Can we really say that something like that didn’t happen? I don’t know. we’re not talking about the average, or the mean, or the majority, we’re talking about jbr. Can we really rule out the possibility?

Anyway, I really apologize for going on forever and I know I didn’t even answer your questions. But, I do want to take the time to say that I like that question, “why did she only have a select few chunks of pineapple?”

Maybe, because the pineapple had been left out for a couple days and it didn’t taste so good. But, I don’t know. Regardless if when she had it or who gave it to her, etc., “Why did she only have a select few chunks of pineapple?” This wasn’t a snack. It seems something much less than that.
…

AK

 

[Anti-K]

OliviaG1996,
The timing aspect is a red herring, since we know. i.e. its not IDI speculation, that the last thing JonBenet ate was the pineapple, so this rules out eating any prior to leaving for the White's!

So its irrelevant if it was lying out available all afternoon without Patsy's knowledge, this demonstrates why IDI have no coherent theory and simply concentrate on the forensic evidence.

Common sense mandates that even if JonBenet was put straight to bed asleep, the pineapple tells you she was awake to eat the pineapple.

Yet Burke Ramsey says she walked into the house!

.

No. The timing used was NOT IDI speculation. It was pure nonpartisan speculation based upon an assumed presumption of RDI: if TOD was x time, and if transit time is y time then A time passed between arriving home and ingestion and B time passed between ingestion and end of ingestion (head blow, or death). The speculation was as to what happened during A and B if x and y are given the times most commonly used/accepted. This speculation has nothing to do with IDI or RDI, it is simply, what do you think happened during that time? And, why would they be up at those hours?
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

AK – I usually find your responses well-reasoned, but not this one.

What an odd phrase to use for your own reasonable explanation for the pineapple, an “easy-out.” This is not a trick question, the Ramseys know about the pineapple. They say they have been asked about it and they have read about it prior to these interviews. JonBenet Ramsey is the youngest child of four children for John and two for Patsy. Surely the ability to get out of bed in the night is something they have experienced in a child in the past? This notion cannot be a shocking surprise to them. She is not in a crib, she is not locked in her room, the house is enormous and she presumably runs around the place all day long with no one following her. The idea that she ate a bit of fruit without their knowledge is not an “easy out;” it is a logical option on the menu of choices for the origin of pineapple found high in her digestive tract.

As you say, if IDI, we can presume that the Ramseys did not know anything about any of it. They don’t know! Who can say? It is all so odd! If IDI they are simply trying to help uncover the truth of this horrible night, right? All options are on the table since they know nothing!

And yet, when presented with evidence of a pineapple snack, John Ramsey emphatically rules out JonBenet eating the fruit on her own AND the possibility of an intruder feeding it to her. She would scream “bloody murder!” A phrase he uses twice. He strongly insists that neither can be true, after 18 months of thinking about all the mysteries of the night. And that, in my opinion, is a very strange, very unhelpful stance for someone who we presume knows nothing about any of it. He is given some hard forensic evidence, and his reaction is “no way!” He is not, as you say, “…wondering if it was somehow related to the crime (IDI)” or “…wanting investigators to wonder if it might somehow be related to the crime (IDI).”

No, AK, John did not do that. He insists JonBenet would not get out of bed and eat pineapple on her own. He insists he and Patsy did not give it to her. He insists that JonBenet would have screamed “bloody murder” rather than chew a little pineapple with an intruder. He wonders if the forensics are wrong. He does not accept the conclusions when given the digestion timeline.

So no, AK, I don’t agree with your conclusions nor do I see them relating to my original post. There is no “wondering” from John or Patsy about how the pineapple relates to the crime. There is a lot of arguing and denial about all the innocent AND criminal meanings related to the pineapple. This is a man who insists that a bowl of pineapple is “huge” or “big” no less than seven times in the first few minutes on the topic. A type of bowl, we find out from his wife, that his kids typically use for their cereal. Not a really weird enormous bowl, but a bowl he has probably seen many many times.

And that, again, is the problem with the pineapple: the parents. There is no wondering, AK, until the Santa Bill topic is brought up at the very end. There is a very clear, united stance on the pineapple, and the stance is:
“Regarding JonBenet eating pineapple I will guarantee you it was not after she came home”
“There is no way she could have eaten any”
“I know it didn’t happen after she went to bed. So there has to be another answer to that question.”

No, I don’t say, if IDI, we can presume that the Ramseys did not know anything about any of it.

Independent of position, I’m presenting reasons why they might say that they did not know anything about it. For example, they might truly not know anything it and maybe AFTER a considerable period of time and consideration none of the explanations made sense to them or seemed believable to them. Perhaps, over that period of time they even considered that the pineapple might be related to the murder, that an intruder was somehow responsible for it. Why not? Lots of people have considered it.
…

AK

 

[Ellie9]

But little girls who can eat pineapple are little girls who can scream. Little girls who were stunned with a gun can't snack on anything at all. And with the ingestion of food offered by an intruder, she can't have had duct tape on her mouth either.

The police tested and questioned anyone who jonbenet could have known and trusted. Everything came back negative.

It was said the food in her stomach was still kind of rigid. They gave the window of two hours between eating and time of death.

There was no intruders prints on the bowl. But Ramsay prints were there.

The pineapple snack is truly a big problem for anyone who thinks a stranger did this. Everyone the Ramsey's knew, people jonbenet would know, were drilled with questions, gave alibis and also were excluded from DNA.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Fides]

No, I don’t say, if IDI, we can presume that the Ramseys did not know anything about any of it.

Independent of position, I’m presenting reasons why they might say that they did not know anything about it. For example, they might truly not know anything it and maybe AFTER a considerable period of time and consideration none of the explanations made sense to them or seemed believable to them. Perhaps, over that period of time they even considered that the pineapple might be related to the murder, that an intruder was somehow responsible for it. Why not? Lots of people have considered it.
…

AK

For several rounds of questions, both parents insist that JonBenet could be murdered in their home while they slept but could not eat pineapple while they slept. This is, despite your valiant efforts, an absurd stance.

 

[Backwoods]

I've wondered, since it seems JonBenet ingested only a small amount of pineapple...and that the remnants found at autopsy seemed to have been poorly chewed -- if the pineapple might have been something someone (I don't know who) gave her, maybe almost force-fed her, to attempt to revive her from...something (I don't know what, but from some state of injury before her death).

 

[UKGuy]

No. The timing used was NOT IDI speculation. It was pure nonpartisan speculation based upon an assumed presumption of RDI: if TOD was x time, and if transit time is y time then A time passed between arriving home and ingestion and B time passed between ingestion and end of ingestion (head blow, or death). The speculation was as to what happened during A and B if x and y are given the times most commonly used/accepted. This speculation has nothing to do with IDI or RDI, it is simply, what do you think happened during that time? And, why would they be up at those hours?
...

AK

Anti-K,

No. The timing used was NOT IDI speculation.

I never said it was. READ MY LIPS, I said it was a RED HERRING.

You do not have an IDI theory at all, all you do is critique the forensic evidence, i.e. this might not have been present, this might have been there later, expert opinion say X, etc.

You do not need to speculate on timing at all, its redundant thinking, vacuous reasoning, why because the last thing JonBenet ate was the pineapple from the bowl, matched forensically by BPD. It was the last item in her digestive tract sitting on top of whatever she consumed at the White's etc.

It follows JonBenet never ate this pineapple prior to leaving for the White's otherwise it would have been digested and feature lower in her digestive tract.

.