The Importance of the Pineapple

[andreww]

Tea doesn't usually diffuse too well in cold water. At least not black tea like lipton.

andreww, the R's completely distanced themselves from every aspect of that setup. From the pineapple, to the very bowl it was in. If someone then went back on that story and said, "oh yeah I was there when these things were out". It would send up red flags for investigators. The R's lawyered up faster than you can say "reasonable doubt". One thing I'm sure the lawyers emphasized is not to change their stories. Or at least not to volunteer more info than necessary about key points in the case, which this was (the "bugaboo").

I get that 100%. Put in its simplest form, the Ramsey's plan was to say "we all came home and went straight to bed". The strategy is simple, easy to remember, and the stories of the four people don't contradict each other. But obviously there was much more than that happening when the arrived home.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[otg]

​
· I don’t think we’ll ever be able to match the tag on the teabag with a known brand. The designs on different brands marketed in 1996 are probably different from the designs of the same brands today. But really, would the brand of tea matter anyway?

· I always thought the teabag was most likely a used bag that had been brewed in a cup and then placed in an empty glass. When finished brewing, most people don’t want to drink their tea with the bag still in the cup. Not wanting to put a wet teabag in the garbage, doesn’t the person usually take it out and put it somewhere it doesn’t make a mess? Where better than a dirty glass left out from someone’s finished drink? The most likely candidate for who did this is Rev. Holverstock. In several different accounts, he was heating water in a microwave when Fleet came running up from the basement shouting for someone to call for help. Why would he be heating water if not to make a cup of hot tea? Instant coffee? I imagine that since Victim Advocates brought pastries, wouldn’t someone have made a pot of coffee? Is there anything else Rev. Rol might have been using a cup of heated water for?

· Hot drink containers (cups, mugs) have handles for a reason. No one wants to burn their fingers on the hot container. Hot tea was not brewed in the glass shown in the photos. If the glass was indeed not used to drink hot tea (which is what I believe), it was most likely used to drink something else -- something investigators would know had they tested the residue in the glass. But either they didn’t, or we simply don’t know what the results of testing were. (We do know they didn’t even test any of these things for DNA.) It’s for this reason I think the speculation about whether or not Burke (since his are the only fingerprints on the glass) would be drinking hot tea out of a tumbler or trying to brew tea using cold water is needless.

· Look at the location of the bowl of pineapple on the table. It isn’t sitting in the middle of one of the placemats. It’s sitting to the side of a single placemat as if it had been used to serve from, rather than to eat from. It has a bit larger spoon in it like one that might be used to serve portions, rather than to eat with. Obviously this doesn’t mean that this is what it was used for, but I’m simply suggesting we consider this as the more likely scenario.

· I believe these things weren’t paid much attention to during the first few hours of the investigation. It wasn’t until the AR mentioned the presence of pineapple in her digestive tract that one of the CSIs probably remembered seeing it lying out and took several photos of it from different angles, then bagged it and tagged it for processing in the lab. So by the time these photos were taken of the pineapple (assuming it had been set out late Christmas night), it had been sitting out for at least well over a day -- possible two. It’s not surprising then that what we see in the photos of it show the edges of the fruit beginning to turn brown. I doubt seriously it was served that way when it was being consumed.

· The presence of Patsy’s fingerprints on the bowl mean nothing. They could be there simply from her putting away the cleaned dishes after a cycle in the dishwasher. The presence of Burke’s fingerprints on both the bowl and the glass IS significant. Does anyone think his fingerprints might have gotten there from his putting away dishes?

· One more thought just to throw it out there and see if anyone else thinks it possible: Look at the photo of the glass. I only see one teabag label, but does it look to anyone else like there might be more than one teabag in in the glass? It certainly looks to me like there might be three distinct corners of three different teabags. Why did John assume the teabag represented “iced tea” instead of a single cup/glass of hot tea? Does anyone make iced tea with only one teabag?

 

[CorallaroC]

BBM
The story about Burke saying that jbr walked up the stairs originated with Thomas. From his book:
[Burke] said his sister fell asleep in the car on the way home but awakened to help carry presents into the house of a friend. When they got home, Jonbenet walked in slowly and went up the spiral stairs to bed, just ahead of Patsy. That was quite a difference from the initial and frequently repeated story that she was carried to bed. I felt that this poor kid [Burke] was confused and that he really had no idea what had happened that night.”” P. 317

This was not Burke’s first interview. Thomas makes reference to an earlier interview in the preceding paragraph. In this interview, Burke says that jbr walked up the stairs to bed.

Thomas writes that “[t]hat was quite a difference from the initial and frequently repeated story that she was carried to bed.” Who told the initial and frequently repeated story that she was carried to bed? Burke did, in an earlier interview and that is why when, now, in this interview when he says that she walked up the stairs, Thomas concludes that “this poor kid was confused.”

Only RDI posters make a big deal out of Burke saying that jbr walked up the stairs. Thomas shrugs it off, the kid was confused. No one associated with the investigation seems to take this story seriously; probably, because Thomas, et. al realize that Burke was confused. They believe he was confused because he told conflicting stories.

If Thomas thinks Burke was confused when he said that jbr walked up the stairs then he must think that jbr was carried up the stairs (where, according to Kolar, Patsy woke her).

Regardless, in every version told, there is no pineapple, there are no snacks, and jbr goes straight to bed.
...

AK

Pardon me for my delay responding to AK's post from Nov.25th, but it has bothered me since the day I read it and feel that we ought to clear this up a little. If one reads the full Thomas quote carefully - and better yet, refers to the book to read the quote in proper context - I believe most people will realize that when Thomas says "the initial and frequently repeated story that she was carried to bed. " Thomas is not referring to any previous statements made by BR. Clearly, Thomas is referring to the "initial and frequently repeated story" provided by the parents, repeated by the parents, and reported many times in the media.

I do not ever recall any report or quotation from any source stating that BR had ever said anything other than he remembered his sister slowly walking up the stairs after they arrived home. And I also do not ever recall BR saying anything about coming in the front door, which has been mentioned in error a few times in this thread.

In my opinion, Thomas is merely being diplomatic by saying that BR could have been "confused" because BR's statement clearly contradicts the parents' accounts of JBR being asleep when they arrived home and was carried up the stairs and put to bed.

If I am incorrect, I'm sure AK will figure out a way to set me straight. But if I am correct, then we should't let a misinterpretation of Thomas' quote slide by - nor should we perpetuate a myth that BR told conflicting stories in this case.

 

[Anti-K]

Pardon me for my delay responding to AK's post from Nov.25th, but it has bothered me since the day I read it and feel that we ought to clear this up a little. If one reads the full Thomas quote carefully - and better yet, refers to the book to read the quote in proper context - I believe most people will realize that when Thomas says "the initial and frequently repeated story that she was carried to bed. " Thomas is not referring to any previous statements made by BR. Clearly, Thomas is referring to the "initial and frequently repeated story" provided by the parents, repeated by the parents, and reported many times in the media.

I do not ever recall any report or quotation from any source stating that BR had ever said anything other than he remembered his sister slowly walking up the stairs after they arrived home. And I also do not ever recall BR saying anything about coming in the front door, which has been mentioned in error a few times in this thread.

In my opinion, Thomas is merely being diplomatic by saying that BR could have been "confused" because BR's statement clearly contradicts the parents' accounts of JBR being asleep when they arrived home and was carried up the stairs and put to bed.

If I am incorrect, I'm sure AK will figure out a way to set me straight. But if I am correct, then we should't let a misinterpretation of Thomas' quote slide by - nor should we perpetuate a myth that BR told conflicting stories in this case.

BBM
I addressed this when it was brought up by Cranberry in post # 129, this thread.

Here’s the passage in question:
"Burke Ramsey seemed to have recovered his memory, but to me he answers seemed awkward and he was clearly uncomfortable. When asked how he thought JonBenet had been killed, he replied, "I have no idea." In his first interview he had been explicit in describing what happened to her. He confirmed that her bed-wetting had been a big problem. With his legs pulled up and his chin on his knees, Burke said he played some Nintendo on the afternoon of December 25. When showed a photograph of the pineapple and bowl, he recognized the bowl. That showed it belonged in the house and not brought in by an intruder.

“He recalled nothing unusual at the Whites' party other than getting a mild shock from the electric deer fence outside. He said his sister fell asleep in the car on the way home but awakened to help carry presents into the house of a friend. When they got home, JonBenet walked in slowly and walked up the spiral stairs to bed, just ahead of Patsy. That was quite a difference from the initial and frequently repeated story that she was carried to bed. I felt that this poor kid was confused and that he really had no idea what had happened that night.” P. 317
.

Thomas is describing an interview with Burke. During this description, Thomas refers to Burke’s first interview (see BBM). There is no mention of, or reference to either parent in this passage, or to anything that either parent had to say. It is all about Burke and what he had to say.

In the interview that Thomas is describing, Burke says that jbr walked up the stairs to bed and Thomas thinks that Burke said this because he was confused. Why would Thomas think he was confused?
…

AK

 

[CorallaroC]

AK, I still strongly disagree with your interpretation of what Thomas is saying about BR's recollection of JBR walking up the stairs when the family arrived home that night. Please just focus on that.

1. I think you should re-read the whole chapter in Thomas' book pertaining to BR's interviews particularly his statement (which I believe was made to the GJ) that when the family arrived home, he remembers that his sister walked up the stairs. That is the issue I am concerned about getting straightened out on this thread.

2. Nowhere does Thomas say or imply that he had an actual interview with BR (if that is what you are suggesting, AK).

3. Nowhere does Thomas specifically state that BR made any statement to anyone that JBR was asleep and carried directly to bed.

4. Just because Thomas does not specifically state whose "initial and frequently reported story", I feel it is foolish to assume that he is referring to BR. Sometimes it just takes common sense to properly infer the meaning of a sentence.

5. You ask "why would Thomas think BR was confused?" You would need to ask Thomas.... but my opinion is still the same as I wrote, I believe Thomas is presenting his personal opinion in a diplomatic way.

 

[UKGuy]

BBM
I addressed this when it was brought up by Cranberry in post # 129, this thread.

Here’s the passage in question:
"Burke Ramsey seemed to have recovered his memory, but to me he answers seemed awkward and he was clearly uncomfortable. When asked how he thought JonBenet had been killed, he replied, "I have no idea." In his first interview he had been explicit in describing what happened to her. He confirmed that her bed-wetting had been a big problem. With his legs pulled up and his chin on his knees, Burke said he played some Nintendo on the afternoon of December 25. When showed a photograph of the pineapple and bowl, he recognized the bowl. That showed it belonged in the house and not brought in by an intruder.

“He recalled nothing unusual at the Whites' party other than getting a mild shock from the electric deer fence outside. He said his sister fell asleep in the car on the way home but awakened to help carry presents into the house of a friend. When they got home, JonBenet walked in slowly and walked up the spiral stairs to bed, just ahead of Patsy. That was quite a difference from the initial and frequently repeated story that she was carried to bed. I felt that this poor kid was confused and that he really had no idea what had happened that night.” P. 317
.

Thomas is describing an interview with Burke. During this description, Thomas refers to Burke’s first interview (see BBM). There is no mention of, or reference to either parent in this passage, or to anything that either parent had to say. It is all about Burke and what he had to say.

In the interview that Thomas is describing, Burke says that jbr walked up the stairs to bed and Thomas thinks that Burke said this because he was confused. Why would Thomas think he was confused?
…

AK

Anti-K,

He said his sister fell asleep in the car on the way home but awakened to help carry presents into the house of a friend. When they got home, JonBenet walked in slowly and walked up the spiral stairs to bed, just ahead of Patsy.

Note between JonBenet awakening, delivering presents, and walking up the spiral stairs, Burke Ramsey nowhere states JonBenet fell asleep.

frequently repeated story that she was carried to bed.

This story is the Ramsey Version of Events, i.e. the parents, not Burke Ramsey's!

Why would Thomas think he was confused?

Because his version of events varies from that of his parents. This is important because Burke Ramsey's Version of Events with regard to the Pineapple agrees with that of his parents, but does not agree with the forensic evidence.

Another point of disagreement in the Ramsey Version of Events is where it was claimed Burke Ramsey was asleep in bed the morning of 12/26/1996, later revised to Burke Ramsey being awake, once his voice was identified on the 911 call, and confirmed by the parents, thus the revision.

So we have Burke Ramsey's Version of Events varying from that of his parents, e.g. JonBenet walked up the spiral stairs, and the parents Version of Events varying from that of Burke Ramsey, e.g. he was asleep.


You are on a loser with your counterfactual fairy tales regarding the Ramsey Version of Events.

There is no forensic evidence linking to anyone outside of the Ramsey Household, hence the case is 100% RDI.

<modsnip>


.

 

[andreww]

I saw an episode of The First 48 Hours the other night and the detective was canvasing the neighbourhood looking for witnesses to a daytime murder. She stated that she preferred interviewing children as they tended to be far more accurate. Adults she said try to interpret what they see, or try to make sense of it. Children on the other hand simply tell you what they saw. They are not concerned about seeming silly or trying to make sense of it all. If Frankenstein was walking down the street, a child would say as much.

 

[InstantProof]

They lied about burke being asleep, they even had to admit that one, so their version of events that night are irrelevant.

 

[andreww]

They lied about burke being asleep, they even had to admit that one, so their version of events that night are irrelevant.

Thats the one thing that I find fascinating about this case IP. The Ramsey's have told a simple tale of the events of that evening, they carried JB up to bed then all pretty much retired right after. Via Burke's testimony and the pineapple evidence (not to mention lying about Burke being awake the next morning), it is clear that the Ramsey's fabricated some of what happened. However, when amateur sleuths put together their theories as to what happened that night, the will stick to the Ramsey version of events as closely as possible, only veering off course when it has been proven they were lying. In my opinion the Ramseys version of events is a complete fabrication and none of it is true. I think JB was wide awake and hungry by the time they got home. I don't think she went straight upstairs and I don't think she ever went to bed. I believe that whatever happened happened very shortly after they returned home, or at least things started spiralling out of control at that point.

As far as I am concerned you can chuck everything the Ramsey's have said out the window. The only value any of it has is to prove they were being untruthful and are thus likely to be the perpetrators of this crime.

 

[THE BUNK]

I saw an episode of The First 48 Hours the other night and the detective was canvasing the neighbourhood looking for witnesses to a daytime murder. She stated that she preferred interviewing children as they tended to be far more accurate. Adults she said try to interpret what they see, or try to make sense of it. Children on the other hand simply tell you what they saw. They are not concerned about seeming silly or trying to make sense of it all. If Frankenstein was walking down the street, a child would say as much.

Great show. I have seen that episode.

Children don't know what to lie about. They don't know about the risks of snitching or discretion. They will often say what is on their mind and be blunt about it. If they think some guy is a creep, they will tell you about it.

 

[Anti-K]

AK, I still strongly disagree with your interpretation of what Thomas is saying about BR's recollection of JBR walking up the stairs when the family arrived home that night. Please just focus on that.

1. I think you should re-read the whole chapter in Thomas' book pertaining to BR's interviews particularly his statement (which I believe was made to the GJ) that when the family arrived home, he remembers that his sister walked up the stairs. That is the issue I am concerned about getting straightened out on this thread.

2. Nowhere does Thomas say or imply that he had an actual interview with BR (if that is what you are suggesting, AK).

3. Nowhere does Thomas specifically state that BR made any statement to anyone that JBR was asleep and carried directly to bed.

4. Just because Thomas does not specifically state whose "initial and frequently reported story", I feel it is foolish to assume that he is referring to BR. Sometimes it just takes common sense to properly infer the meaning of a sentence.

5. You ask "why would Thomas think BR was confused?" You would need to ask Thomas.... but my opinion is still the same as I wrote, I believe Thomas is presenting his personal opinion in a diplomatic way.

Hi CorallaroC,

my interpretation could be wrong. Let me try to present a proper case. I&#8217;ll do that while addressing your five points.

1) Contractors have packed away ALL of my books and I don&#8217;t even know which box to look in, so I can&#8217;t re-read the whole chapter, but, the interviews referred to took place before the GJ. Although I don&#8217;t have access to my books I did find the relevant excerpts online, here: http://tinyurl.com/jg9om92 (the original url was 403 characters long!)

2) Nowhere does Thomas say or imply that he had an actual interview with BR. (total agreement)

3) Nowhere does Thomas specifically state that BR made any statement to anyone that JBR was asleep and carried directly to bed. (total agreement)

4) I also agree that it would be &#8220;foolish to assume that [Thomas] is referring to BR.&#8221; I am not assuming; I am reasoning: please go here http://tinyurl.com/jg9om92 You should be at the top of page 355. After the end of the second paragraph on that page, there is a page break. --------------- and another one after the end of the second paragraph on the following page. In between the page breaks Thomas talks about Burke and his interviews. Six paragraphs. 19 sentences. One sentence is ambiguous, every other sentence is about Burke and his interviews. Thomas talks about the parent&#8217;s interviews only AFTER the final page break. Since the ambiguity is placed within the context &#8211; the sole context (page breaks) &#8211; of Burke and his interviews I think it&#8217;s reasonable to argue that the "initial and frequently reported story" is, as is every other sentence in this passage, a reference to Burke and his interviews. I could be wrong, but that&#8217;s the reasoning.There&#8217;s a little more to it then that, if you&#8217;re interested.

5) tbh, I&#8217;m not sure what you mean by &#8220;Thomas is presenting his personal opinion in a diplomatic way.&#8221; So, no comment. However, as a bit of an aside, from this passage, Thomas did not believe Burke when Burke said that jbr walked upstairs. Thomas thought Burke was confused. Thomas and Kolar both believe that jbr went straight to bed. Every version of the story has jbr going straight to bed. Because of all this, I think it is reasonable to provisionally accept that jbr went straight to bed.
Now, did Burke tell two versions of the story? I don&#8217;t know, but I do know that I am, at least, interpreting this within the context that it was used. I could still be wrong.
&#8230;

AK

 

[andreww]

Thomas and Kolar simply might not have cared less. Both their theories had JB going to bed, so why argue the point?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[UKGuy]

Hi CorallaroC,

my interpretation could be wrong. Let me try to present a proper case. I’ll do that while addressing your five points.

1) Contractors have packed away ALL of my books and I don’t even know which box to look in, so I can’t re-read the whole chapter, but, the interviews referred to took place before the GJ. Although I don’t have access to my books I did find the relevant excerpts online, here: http://tinyurl.com/jg9om92 (the original url was 403 characters long!)

2) Nowhere does Thomas say or imply that he had an actual interview with BR. (total agreement)

3) Nowhere does Thomas specifically state that BR made any statement to anyone that JBR was asleep and carried directly to bed. (total agreement)

4) I also agree that it would be “foolish to assume that [Thomas] is referring to BR.” I am not assuming; I am reasoning: please go here http://tinyurl.com/jg9om92 You should be at the top of page 355. After the end of the second paragraph on that page, there is a page break. --------------- and another one after the end of the second paragraph on the following page. In between the page breaks Thomas talks about Burke and his interviews. Six paragraphs. 19 sentences. One sentence is ambiguous, every other sentence is about Burke and his interviews. Thomas talks about the parent’s interviews only AFTER the final page break. Since the ambiguity is placed within the context – the sole context (page breaks) – of Burke and his interviews I think it’s reasonable to argue that the "initial and frequently reported story" is, as is every other sentence in this passage, a reference to Burke and his interviews. I could be wrong, but that’s the reasoning.There’s a little more to it then that, if you’re interested.

5) tbh, I’m not sure what you mean by “Thomas is presenting his personal opinion in a diplomatic way.” So, no comment. However, as a bit of an aside, from this passage, Thomas did not believe Burke when Burke said that jbr walked upstairs. Thomas thought Burke was confused. Thomas and Kolar both believe that jbr went straight to bed. Every version of the story has jbr going straight to bed. Because of all this, I think it is reasonable to provisionally accept that jbr went straight to bed.
Now, did Burke tell two versions of the story? I don’t know, but I do know that I am, at least, interpreting this within the context that it was used. I could still be wrong.
…

AK

Anit-K,

Thomas did not believe Burke when Burke said that jbr walked upstairs.

This is patently false and a self-serving assumption on your part since it suits your counterfactual interpretation.

Thomas thought Burke was confused.

This is not the same as disbelieving Burke, and being confused does not invalidate the complete version of events.

Thomas and Kolar both believe that jbr went straight to bed.

This is not inconsistent with JonBenet walking up the spiral staircase, but it is with the parents version of events, due to JonBenet eating pineapple after arriving home.

You are misguided in conflating Thomas, Kolar and the parents version of events, they differ as Kolar outlines when he analyses the forensic evidence.

.

 

[otg]

Pardon me for my delay responding to AK's post from Nov.25th, but it has bothered me since the day I read it and feel that we ought to clear this up a little. If one reads the full Thomas quote carefully - and better yet, refers to the book to read the quote in proper context - I believe most people will realize that when Thomas says "the initial and frequently repeated story that she was carried to bed. " Thomas is not referring to any previous statements made by BR. Clearly, Thomas is referring to the "initial and frequently repeated story" provided by the parents, repeated by the parents, and reported many times in the media.

I do not ever recall any report or quotation from any source stating that BR had ever said anything other than he remembered his sister slowly walking up the stairs after they arrived home. And I also do not ever recall BR saying anything about coming in the front door, which has been mentioned in error a few times in this thread.

In my opinion, Thomas is merely being diplomatic by saying that BR could have been "confused" because BR's statement clearly contradicts the parents' accounts of JBR being asleep when they arrived home and was carried up the stairs and put to bed.

If I am incorrect, I'm sure AK will figure out a way to set me straight. But if I am correct, then we should't let a misinterpretation of Thomas' quote slide by - nor should we perpetuate a myth that BR told conflicting stories in this case.

I agree with your interpretation, CorallaroC, but I can see where AK might mistakenly think otherwise. Since he's been around so long (like others of us here), he should remember the early news reports that often repeated the parents' claim that a sleeping JonBenet was carried up the stairs to bed without ever having been wakened. This was not a claim ever reported as having been confirmed or stated by Burke. His first interview was with a child psychologist who had been tasked with determining if he (a minor child) was in danger living with his parents. This was required by CPS. It was not an investigative interview. Even so, some things came out that had bearing on what many now feel was knowledge about what happened. His next interview was actually his first with investigators asking about the events of that day. It was that interview in which he first revealed that JonBenet was awake at both the Stines' and then when they all arrived home and she walked up the stairs on her own.

As for Steve Thomas' expressed opinion that Burke was "confused", I think he was simply mistaken. Not unlike his being mistaken when he essentially gave John Ramsey "a pass" (on LKL) as far as his alleged involvement. Thomas bought into the "bedwetting scenario" presented by Dr. Krugman (who just happened to be an expert in -- guess what -- "toilet rage") and (IMO) he never seriously considered possible involvement by John or Burke. Burke's saying that JonBenet had walked up the stairs was a contradiction of the story presented by his parents and therefore wasn't important to his theory. In their attempt to tell him what to say and what not to say, the Ramseys probably didn't think to mention that he was to stick with the story that she was asleep when they got home.

Burke was the elephant in the room that most investigators didn't notice. If they even considered at first that he might be involved, they most likely dismissed it for the same reasons so many even here on this forum still continue to dismiss the idea. The other reason for not considering Burke's involvement is his legal status. I'm not trying to turn this into a post about Burke, but it's worth looking at whether or not Thomas simply dismissed him and therefore gave no credence to his contradiction. With that said, here's a Michael Kane quote from a CNN program:

KANE: Well I think that there’s-maybe we’re playing semantics here, but if there’s asuggestion that someone was targeted to the exclusion of anybody else, that’s what Itake exception to. The police investigation, contrary to what Mr. Wood said in the littleclip you just showed, the police investigation never excluded anybody with the exception of Burke Ramsey from the focus of the case. And so I don’t think that youcan say that the police investigation was just solely looking at the- at Mr. and Mrs.Ramsey.
​

http://www.acandyrose.com/20030717DanAbramsReport911Rope.htm​

 

[Anti-K]

Anit-K,

This is patently false and a self-serving assumption on your part since it suits your counterfactual interpretation.


This is not the same as disbelieving Burke, and being confused does not invalidate the complete version of events.


This is not inconsistent with JonBenet walking up the spiral staircase, but it is with the parents version of events, due to JonBenet eating pineapple after arriving home.

You are misguided in conflating Thomas, Kolar and the parents version of events, they differ as Kolar outlines when he analyses the forensic evidence.

.

You&#8217;re right, it doesn&#8217;t necessarily mean that Thomas did not believe Burke; but, it doesn&#8217;t mean that he believed Burke, either. He just thought Burke was confused.

Every version of the story has jbr going straight to bed. I think, but forget, that Kolar has her rising rather quickly, and Thomas not as quick (I really need a refresher on this part of it).
&#8230;

AK

 

[Anti-K]

I agree with your interpretation, CorallaroC, but I can see where AK might mistakenly think otherwise. Since he's been around so long (like others of us here), he should remember the early news reports that often repeated the parents' claim that a sleeping JonBenet was carried up the stairs to bed without ever having been wakened. This was not a claim ever reported as having been confirmed or stated by Burke. His first interview was with a child psychologist who had been tasked with determining if he (a minor child) was in danger living with his parents. This was required by CPS. It was not an investigative interview. Even so, some things came out that had bearing on what many now feel was knowledge about what happened. His next interview was actually his first with investigators asking about the events of that day. It was that interview in which he first revealed that JonBenet was awake at both the Stines' and then when they all arrived home and she walked up the stairs on her own.

As for Steve Thomas' expressed opinion that Burke was "confused", I think he was simply mistaken. Not unlike his being mistaken when he essentially gave John Ramsey "a pass" (on LKL) as far as his alleged involvement. Thomas bought into the "bedwetting scenario" presented by Dr. Krugman (who just happened to be an expert in -- guess what -- "toilet rage") and (IMO) he never seriously considered possible involvement by John or Burke. Burke's saying that JonBenet had walked up the stairs was a contradiction of the story presented by his parents and therefore wasn't important to his theory. In their attempt to tell him what to say and what not to say, the Ramseys probably didn't think to mention that he was to stick with the story that she was asleep when they got home.

Burke was the elephant in the room that most investigators didn't notice. If they even considered at first that he might be involved, they most likely dismissed it for the same reasons so many even here on this forum still continue to dismiss the idea. The other reason for not considering Burke's involvement is his legal status. I'm not trying to turn this into a post about Burke, but it's worth looking at whether or not Thomas simply dismissed him and therefore gave no credence to his contradiction. With that said, here's a Michael Kane quote from a CNN program:

KANE: Well I think that there&#8217;s-maybe we&#8217;re playing semantics here, but if there&#8217;s asuggestion that someone was targeted to the exclusion of anybody else, that&#8217;s what Itake exception to. The police investigation, contrary to what Mr. Wood said in the littleclip you just showed, the police investigation never excluded anybody with the exception of Burke Ramsey from the focus of the case. And so I don&#8217;t think that youcan say that the police investigation was just solely looking at the- at Mr. and Mrs.Ramsey.
​

http://www.acandyrose.com/20030717DanAbramsReport911Rope.htm​

Okay. I can go along with this. I&#8217;m going to say that my interpretation of that passage is probably wrong. This would leave us with Burke telling only one story about jbr going upstairs.

I don&#8217;t know if you&#8217;re right about Thomas being mistaken (Burke may have genuinely been confused), and I&#8217;m skeptical about the reason you suggest for the supposed mistake.

On this one, I&#8217;m always a little curious about why some people believe one version over the other. I know some of it is theory-driven, but maybe there&#8217;s something more.

Anyway, I provisionally concede on the issue of Burke telling contradictory stories about jbr going upstairs.
&#8230;

AK

 

[Tadpole12]

http://www.dailycamera.com/cu-news/...der-profs-plant-forensics-yield-crimefighting

Former CU-Boulder profs: Plant forensics yield crimefighting results
02/14/2016

"Internationally-renowned for pioneering the forensic analysis of stomach contents and fecal material, Bock and Norris have consulted in approximately a dozen local cases including the 1999 gang rape in Lefthand Canyon, the 1999 Mirabal murder in Longmont, and the JonBenet Ramsey case. Bock says "we have no trouble getting it (plant forensics) accepted into evidence."

Forensic Plant Science:

https://books.google.ca/books?id=lG...age&q=jonbenet ramsey Bock and Norris&f=false

"although her stomach contained no food, intestinal contents verified that she had eaten pineapple the night before as mentioned by her parents."

"We were also asked to compare wood fragments found in tissues examined at autopsy with a possible source found at the crime scene. Later, a Grand jury did issue an indictment but the Boulder District Attorney chose to disregard the indictment as he believed he could not get a conviction with the evidence available at the time."

 

[dogperson]

I just finished reading Kolar's book for about the third time. He didn't make much of Patsy's fingerprint being on the bowl except to say something like the bowl was presumably clean before the pineapple was put into it, but I couldn't tell if he thought Patsy got the bowl out that night. I was thinking that anyone who put clean dishes into a cabinet could put their fingerprints on them. Somebody has to take the clean dishes out of the dish drainer or dishwasher and although I think one or more of the housekeepers stated Patsy wasn't much of one to clean up after herself, she probably did wash a few dishes from time to time. Based on what I think happened that night and who I think was responsible for hitting JonBenet in the head, I don't think Patsy is the one who got the bowl out and served the pineapple. I don't think she was in the kitchen when this took place and I don't think she knew any pineapple had been gotten out until this problem came up later, or else she would have had a story in place for it. The fact that JBR had eaten pineapple caught her off guard and doesn't jive with the story of JBR being asleep when they got home.

 

[UKGuy]

I just finished reading Kolar's book for about the third time. He didn't make much of Patsy's fingerprint being on the bowl except to say something like the bowl was presumably clean before the pineapple was put into it, but I couldn't tell if he thought Patsy got the bowl out that night. I was thinking that anyone who put clean dishes into a cabinet could put their fingerprints on them. Somebody has to take the clean dishes out of the dish drainer or dishwasher and although I think one or more of the housekeepers stated Patsy wasn't much of one to clean up after herself, she probably did wash a few dishes from time to time. Based on what I think happened that night and who I think was responsible for hitting JonBenet in the head, I don't think Patsy is the one who got the bowl out and served the pineapple. I don't think she was in the kitchen when this took place and I don't think she knew any pineapple had been gotten out until this problem came up later, or else she would have had a story in place for it. The fact that JBR had eaten pineapple caught her off guard and doesn't jive with the story of JBR being asleep when they got home.

dogperson,
BBM: ITA. Patsy flat-out denied the pineapple snack, even saying some of the tableware was not hers.

Its a similar story with the size-12's, here Patsy has a story but it does not match the forensic evidence.

If Patsy does not know about the pineapple snack then neither does JR otherwise he would have factored it in to their version of events, particularly if the case is JDI.

Same with the size-12's. If the case was JDI, he would have told Patsy to invent some size-12 scenario, but he never since Patsy thinks the size-12's are in JonBenet's underwear drawer!

Looks as if the same person that made JonBenet a pineapple snack dressed her in the size-12's?

.

 

[Dynamic88]

dogperson,
BBM: ITA. Patsy flat-out denied the pineapple snack, even saying some of the tableware was not hers.

As I understand it she denied the "set up" was her's, meaning she wouldn't have served it that way. There wouldn't be much point denying the tableware was theirs as it likely matched with more tableware in the cupboards.

Its a similar story with the size-12's, here Patsy has a story but it does not match the forensic evidence.

If Patsy does not know about the pineapple snack then neither does JR otherwise he would have factored it in to their version of events, particularly if the case is JDI.

What the pineapple tells us clearly is that JR and PR do not have a synchronized story to explain it. If it's a JDI case then John might know of it even though Patsy doesn't. Likewise if it's PDI, Patsy might know whereas John may not. What we know is that both adults don't know about it, otherwise there would be a story that explains it, and both would tell the same story.

Same with the size-12's. If the case was JDI, he would have told Patsy to invent some size-12 scenario, but he never since Patsy thinks the size-12's are in JonBenet's underwear drawer!

If it's JDI and Patsy is not assisting in the coverup, then John couldn't tell her to invent a story about the size 12s. He couldn't admit to having any knowledge of the size 12s.

Looks as if the same person that made JonBenet a pineapple snack dressed her in the size-12's?

.

Not really. We don't know who got the pineapple snack together, or why. It may actually be unrelated to the murder.