The Importance of the Pineapple

[UKGuy]

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

Anti-K,
If IDI the parents need not know anything about the pineapple snack.

If RDI the parents need not know anything about the pineapple snack.

The latter is consistent with BDI and BR being airbrushed from the case on legal terms due to his age.

.

 

[Annapurna]

Backwoods, I have to imagine if someone was trying to "force feed" her to revive her, she would have choked. With her head wound it is unlikely she would have stayed conscious for long, or wanted to eat if she did stay awake for a few moments. Its more likely that she was fed before this due to the level of digestion.

Red herring might be right. As this thread shows there is room for innocent explanations. However it does throw the R's story into question.

Also, we're not still debating the stun gun are we? A stun gun WOULD NOT render her unconscious. All it would do is make her scream in pain! Why would someone trying to be sneaky do that? Just to cause her pain? But then that puts them at an even more massive risk than the rest of the ridiculous amount of time they're supposed to have hung around the house. And no, she wasn't gagged when that happened as we know there is no evidence she moved her mouth after the tape was applied. There is a good deal of forensic evidence based reasoning as to why those marks could not be "stun gun" marks. Most importantly Lou Smit (the source of this nonsense) was basing his reasoning on faulty information. The marks are not the right distance apart. The autopsy he compared her wounds to (known stun gun marks) were pictures taken SIX MONTHS after the guy was interred! Harold Boggs? Idk if I'm remembering that name correctly. If you look at the pictures taken when the marks were fresh, it looks nothing like jb's marks. The fresh marks are large, red and obviously burns. JB's marks were noted as abrasions by the ME. Unless you believe he was totally incompetent (tbh I wouldn't blame you for that conclusion, he made some big mistakes), he would have noticed the difference between abrasions and burns, that sounds like autopsy 101.

Anyways, tangent.

 

[Anti-K]

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

The pineapple isn’t a problem at all for IDI because it has not been shown to be connected to the crime in any way.
…

AK

 

[Anti-K]

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.

Thanks, but I’m not trying to remove the absurdity. I agree with you, here. If they could sleep through the murder, they could sleep through someone eating pineapple.

But, of course, when it comes to the pineapple they are saying more than that wouldn’t sleep through it. they are saying the kids wouldn’t do it, etc. IMO the Ramseys are being truthful as far as they know, but they’re probably also wrong. because if they were going to lie, you know what that lie would be: yes, sometimes the kids do things like this.
…

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Anti-K,

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.

.

I have lots of IDI theories. But, I don’t even need one. I’m not the one accusing someone of murder – you are. So, you need to prove your position and I get to disprove it. Cool eh? BTW, so far, you’re not doing very well.

As to the last thing eaten – things don’t leave the stomach in the same order that they enter, so – maybe you’re right but maybe you’re wrong.

Since the process is conditional, yes, it is possible for her to have eaten it before going to the Whites as explained here: http://tinyurl.com/jxxh5n5
…

AK

 

[OliviaG1996]

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.

It probably was me, however, I proposed the idea that maybe the pineapple was intended to have been served at the party, but was forgotten about and left in the refrigerator. It would surprise me if PR still couldn't remember the pineapple being in her fridge even after being showed pictures and being reminded about it by LE.

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 know if the Kleenex box was tested for prints or not, but perhaps it was left there by friends who were there to comfort PR while at the house the morning of the 26th.

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

BBM: There's only two reasonable explanations for this: Either JBR was served the bowl of pineapple by someone who didn't know she wasn't hungry but JBR decided to have a few bites of one of her favorite fruits anyway or the pineapple was served for someone else and JBR took a few bites out of their bowl.

If her stomach was rumbling enough to get out of bed, and only took those few bites because the pineapple was going bad, why wouldn't she grab something else to eat? And why would she eat more than one chunk if she could taste the rottenness (?) of the first piece? Why ingest the first piece at all, for that matter?

I know no one can have definite answers to these questions, just food for thought (or fruit for thought :drumroll for what we think would make the most sense.

 

[UKGuy]

I have lots of IDI theories. But, I don’t even need one. I’m not the one accusing someone of murder – you are. So, you need to prove your position and I get to disprove it. Cool eh? BTW, so far, you’re not doing very well.

As to the last thing eaten – things don’t leave the stomach in the same order that they enter, so – maybe you’re right but maybe you’re wrong.

Since the process is conditional, yes, it is possible for her to have eaten it before going to the Whites as explained here: http://tinyurl.com/jxxh5n5
…

AK

Anti-K,

I have lots of IDI theories. But, I don’t even need one.

You have no coherent IDI theory, and you do need one, otherwise you are just functioning as the resident naysmith.

I get to disprove it. Cool eh?

You have yet to disprove anything. You failed to produce any reference to the gender DNA test, never mind the general results. Not really Cool at all, do not forget members will read your posts, so I will be at liberty to call you out on that when you cite dna results.

maybe you’re wrong.

Sure, maybe I am, you have yet to prove I am!

.

 

[Anti-K]

Anti-K,

You have no coherent IDI theory, and you do need one, otherwise you are just functioning as the resident naysmith.


You have yet to disprove anything. You failed to produce any reference to the gender DNA test, never mind the general results. Not really Cool at all, do not forget members will read your posts, so I will be at liberty to call you out on that when you cite dna results.



Sure, maybe I am, you have yet to prove I am!

.

Resident naysmiths are fine. You can call me whatever you like.

The male DNA is a well known fact. It isn’t disputed anywhere and everyone associated with the investigation including your buddy pal Kolar accepts it. Asking someone to source this is like asking someone to source the color of the sky.
…

AK

 

[BOESP]

The pineapple isn’t a problem at all for IDI because it has not been shown to be connected to the crime in any way.
…

AK

The pineapple may not have anything to do with the crime but the digestion of the pineapple certainly interferes with the timeline based on Ramsey statements/depositions (unless you want to allow for ifs, ands, or buts, in the Ramsey story).

 

[BOESP]

Resident naysmiths are fine. You can call me whatever you like.

The male DNA is a well known fact. It isn’t disputed anywhere and everyone associated with the investigation including your buddy pal Kolar accepts it. Asking someone to source this is like asking someone to source the color of the sky.
…

AK

Yeah, well, until that DNA is matched to someone it doesn't mean a thing as far as proving either or any Ramsey was innocent in child abuse resulting in the death of a child (per the Grand Jury) nor does it negate evidence suggesting their involvement, such as: the ransom note, behaviors, changing stories with each telling, opportunity, fiber evidence, evidence of staging per the FBI, and others mentioned here over the years (decades).

You might want to read the government link I posted earlier in the DNA thread today. It will give you lots to think about as to why the DNA may not be the silver bullet IDIs want it to be (golden bullet is more like it).

 

[Anti-K]

It probably was me, however, I proposed the idea that maybe the pineapple was intended to have been served at the party, but was forgotten about and left in the refrigerator. It would surprise me if PR still couldn't remember the pineapple being in her fridge even after being showed pictures and being reminded about it by LE.



I don't know if the Kleenex box was tested for prints or not, but perhaps it was left there by friends who were there to comfort PR while at the house the morning of the 26th.



BBM: There's only two reasonable explanations for this: Either JBR was served the bowl of pineapple by someone who didn't know she wasn't hungry but JBR decided to have a few bites of one of her favorite fruits anyway or the pineapple was served for someone else and JBR took a few bites out of their bowl.

If her stomach was rumbling enough to get out of bed, and only took those few bites because the pineapple was going bad, why wouldn't she grab something else to eat? And why would she eat more than one chunk if she could taste the rottenness (?) of the first piece? Why ingest the first piece at all, for that matter?

I know no one can have definite answers to these questions, just food for thought (or fruit for thought :drumroll for what we think would make the most sense.

Well, it certainly is a fascinating topic.

But, for me, it is also fascinating the way people seem to be able to decide what other people should remember and how they should remember it. I may never understand that one.

But, isn’t it weird that prints on the tissue box are never mentioned? Did they just not look for any?

Anyway, was she served pineapple or did there just happen to be pineapple there, in the bowl? Because, IMO, the bowl and spoon look more like they were for serving than like they were for eating.

BTW, was it really one of her favorite fruits? Because, I have a voice in the back of my head saying, myth, myth. But, I know that the voices are not always right. I feel lazy, right now. I don’t want to look it up.

Why would she eat so little if she was hungry? I don’t know, but it seems that she only ate a little. Sometimes people just nibble. Maybe she nibbled on a found piece, served out for someone, on something, somewhere; a left-over on a plate – passing by, grab, nibble carry on… what if she woke up and wandered downstairs thinking about Santa’s supposed second visit, or wanting to look at the gifts, the tree, the whatever, saw the pineapple, had a piece, wandered off… did you ever just think you were hungry but then realized that you weren’t…
…

AK

 

[Anti-K]

The pineapple may not have anything to do with the crime but the digestion of the pineapple certainly interferes with the timeline based on Ramsey statements/depositions (unless you want to allow for ifs, ands, or buts, in the Ramsey story).

“ifs, ands, or buts” are always permissible; they’re a fact of life. The digestion of the pineapple doesn’t interfere with the Ramsey timeline because it could have been eaten after the Ramseys had gone to sleep.
…

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Yeah, well, until that DNA is matched to someone it doesn't mean a thing as far as proving either or any Ramsey was innocent in child abuse resulting in the death of a child (per the Grand Jury) nor does it negate evidence suggesting their involvement, such as: the ransom note, behaviors, changing stories with each telling, opportunity, fiber evidence, evidence of staging per the FBI, and others mentioned here over the years (decades).

You might want to read the government link I posted earlier in the DNA thread today. It will give you lots to think about as to why the DNA may not be the silver bullet IDIs want it to be (golden bullet is more like it).

I did read “the government link [you] posted earlier in the DNA thread today.” Well, I skimmed it because it is not new to me. I’ve read it more then a cpl times.

The DNA is not a bullet of any kind, but it is exculpatory evidence for everyone it does not match. Disagreeing with this very basic and fundamental truth doesn’t change anything. It is trace evidence found in incriminating locations which means that it could have been left by her killer and attempts to trace it to an innocent source have all, so far, failed.

The DNA represents a person who needs to be identified and investigated before we say that he is innocent.
…

AK

 

[UKGuy]

I did read “the government link [you] posted earlier in the DNA thread today.” Well, I skimmed it because it is not new to me. I’ve read it more then a cpl times.

The DNA is not a bullet of any kind, but it is exculpatory evidence for everyone it does not match. Disagreeing with this very basic and fundamental truth doesn’t change anything. It is trace evidence found in incriminating locations which means that it could have been left by her killer and attempts to trace it to an innocent source have all, so far, failed.

The DNA represents a person who needs to be identified and investigated before we say that he is innocent.
…

AK

Anti-K,
More vacuous reasoning from the member with no IDI theory.

but it is exculpatory evidence for everyone it does not match.

The dna does not match JR, PR or BR, yet anyone of them might have killed JonBenet!

.

 

[andreww]

I did read “the government link [you] posted earlier in the DNA thread today.” Well, I skimmed it because it is not new to me. I’ve read it more then a cpl times.

The DNA is not a bullet of any kind, but it is exculpatory evidence for everyone it does not match. Disagreeing with this very basic and fundamental truth doesn’t change anything. It is trace evidence found in incriminating locations which means that it could have been left by her killer and attempts to trace it to an innocent source have all, so far, failed.

The DNA represents a person who needs to be identified and investigated before we say that he is innocent.
…

AK

John Ramsey couldn't have said it any better. But that DNA doesn't exonerate anyone unless you can prove it was left by the killer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BOESP]

“ifs, ands, or buts” are always permissible; they’re a fact of life. The digestion of the pineapple doesn’t interfere with the Ramsey timeline because it could have been eaten after the Ramseys had gone to sleep.
…

AK

I'd find your response comical except that a six-year-old child died and the Grand Jury believed there was enough evidence to take both adult Ramseys to court. If the Ramseys hadn't lied and if the Ramseys had cooperated from the git-go like most parents of dead children then maybe things would have turned out differently, but they didn't. Imo, they were too busy covering for themselves. I call that cowardly.

You can contort the possibilities every which way to Sunday. What is publicly known and what was known to the Grand Jury suggests one or both adult Ramseys were involved.

 

[BOESP]

I did read “the government link [you] posted earlier in the DNA thread today.” Well, I skimmed it because it is not new to me. I’ve read it more then a cpl times.

The DNA is not a bullet of any kind, but it is exculpatory evidence for everyone it does not match. Disagreeing with this very basic and fundamental truth doesn’t change anything. It is trace evidence found in incriminating locations which means that it could have been left by her killer and attempts to trace it to an innocent source have all, so far, failed.

The DNA represents a person who needs to be identified and investigated before we say that he is innocent.
…

AK

BBM: I agree, except it should read before he is proven innocent or guilty. A presumption of guilt based on the logic used for this DNA argument is, at best, uninformed.

I'm bothered that so many wanting to excuse the Ramseys from culpability seem willing to lay guilt on an unknown person based on only one piece of precarious evidence.

The DNA in question does not exonerate the Ramseys.

 

[OliviaG1996]

Well, it certainly is a fascinating topic.

But, for me, it is also fascinating the way people seem to be able to decide what other people should remember and how they should remember it. I may never understand that one.

I wonder if PR's psychiatrist at the time, Dr. Samuel "Sammy" Brown in Atlanta has ever shed any light on PR's memory or any disorders she may have had. If her memory was severely affected by this trauma, why wouldn't her doctor contact LE?

The fact remains, her and BR's fingerprints were on the bowl. How they got there should've been asked and answered whether it was thought the pineapple was connected to the murder or not.

But, isn’t it weird that prints on the tissue box are never mentioned? Did they just not look for any?

Very weird. Maybe none were found to report? I know they didn't do any tests for saliva on the bowl and glass, so it wouldn't surprise me if the Kleenex box wasn't tested.

Anyway, was she served pineapple or did there just happen to be pineapple there, in the bowl? Because, IMO, the bowl and spoon look more like they were for serving than like they were for eating.

Again, I think it was BR who gave JBR the pineapple, as it appeared in the fridge (potentially intended to be served at the party in the white bowl). Maybe he was too lazy to serve her some pieces in another bowl so he just used that one. There's no evidence that the pineapple was anywhere other than the refrigerator before the Rs came home from the Whites'.

BTW, was it really one of her favorite fruits? Because, I have a voice in the back of my head saying, myth, myth. But, I know that the voices are not always right. I feel lazy, right now. I don’t want to look it up.

Not a myth:

From Patsy Ramsey BDA interview - June 23, 1998 (BBM):

1 TOM HANEY: Again, JonBenet you said couldn't
2 reach the bowl. If she wanted pineapple, would she get
3 it out herself.
4 PATSY RAMSEY: Out of the refrigerator, I
5 don't -- no. That wouldn't be something she would
6 really go to.
7 TOM HANEY: Did she like pineapple?
8 PATSY RAMSEY: She liked it.

From JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation by Steve Thomas (pg. 4)

Her [JonBenet's] hair, which would go dishwater dirty during the Colorado winter, would blaze back blond in the Michigan sunshine, with some help from a bottle, and she wore it in a ponytail or a braid. Her favorite foods were macaroni and cheese and fresh fruit, and she loved pineapple.

...

Why would she eat so little if she was hungry? I don’t know, but it seems that she only ate a little. Sometimes people just nibble. Maybe she nibbled on a found piece, served out for someone, on something, somewhere; a left-over on a plate – passing by, grab, nibble carry on… what if she woke up and wandered downstairs thinking about Santa’s supposed second visit, or wanting to look at the gifts, the tree, the whatever, saw the pineapple, had a piece, wandered off… did you ever just think you were hungry but then realized that you weren’t…
…

AK

Can't say I've ever experienced that, but I can't speak for everyone. I just think it's telling that BR was protected so much from all of this, he was never interviewed by LE about the pineapple or anything else.

 

[andreww]

Why would she eat so little if she was hungry? I don’t know, but it seems that she only ate a little. Sometimes people just nibble. Maybe she nibbled on a found piece, served out for someone, on something, somewhere; a left-over on a plate – passing by, grab, nibble carry on… what if she woke up and wandered downstairs thinking about Santa’s supposed second visit, or wanting to look at the gifts, the tree, the whatever, saw the pineapple, had a piece, wandered off… did you ever just think you were hungry but then realized that you weren’t…
…

AK

I think the answer kind of puts the boots to one of your theories that she woke up hungry and went to get a snack. If she did, she certainly would have eaten more than a bite.

 

[andreww]

Anyway, was she served pineapple or did there just happen to be pineapple there, in the bowl? Because, IMO, the bowl and spoon look more like they were for serving than like they were for eating.

Almost like they'd been used to serve pineapple at the Christmas party right?

That's what I don't get about you or your pals. Mr. and Mrs. Ramsey. You all just ignore the fact that it is there and wash yourselves of any ownership. If Patsy had said something like "I don't remember having or buying pineapple, but as its in the bowl that I would have used at the Christmas party, it is possible that it was left over from that even.", I might believe her. But its like the flashlight and everything else, deny, deny, deny.

And whose fault was her memory anyway? She was the one that refused interviews for 3 months. And don't give me that "holding the body ransom crap either, that wouldn't have happened until about four or five days after her death. Where were they on day 2, day 3, or day 1 for that matter?