Dynamic88,
Patsy is stating flat out that she did not feed pineapple to JonBenet.
She may not have.
Synchronised or not that JonBenet has snacked pineapple undermines the R's version of events. It does not quite contradict it, since an intruder may have provided JonBenet with the pineapple snack. What it clearly tells us is that neither parent was aware of the pineapple snack, otherwise it would have been factored into the R's version of events.
You're assuming that "the R's" are working together on their story. That may be true, but it needn't be. It's possible one parent knew all about it but did not dare to explain to the other how he/she knew about it. What it clearly tells us is that they are not working together on their story, otherwise they'd do as you suggest - factor it into their version of events.
A pineapple snack is not an indictable offense so admitting knowledge of its occurrence only means that and no more, i.e. either parent could have produced some reason for JonBenet snacking pineapple were they in possession of said facts. That they did not suggests the opposite!
If one parent served JBR pineapple it's not the police he/she needs to worry about, it's the other parent.
Conclusion: neither parent was aware of the pineapple snack.
Neither parent being aware is one valid conclusion. Another valid conclusion is that one parent was aware of the snack and one was not. The guilty parent couldn't tell the innocent parent about the snack, thus incorporating it into "their" story unless the innocent parent were willing to help the guilty one cover up the murder.
Agreed. Only if Patsy is not assisting in the coverup, yet we know from other evidential factors that all three R's were colluding in a cover-up, that Patsy goes out on limb over the size-12's underlines her attempt to explain away forensic evidence that is not consistent with an intruder scenario.
We don't really know much about the size 12s other than the story Patsy tells police doesn't make much sense in light of the fact that the police didn't find any 12s in the drawer. But if it's JDI then John could have taken the size 12s from the drawer (for some reason of his own -perhaps preferring to open the package in the basement). Obviously he can't tell Patsy. IOWs her story could be true, as far as her knowledge of the panties goes. I don't particularly think that's true, but it's at least a possibility.
Conclusion: if the case is JDI then JR prepared the pineapple snack but cannot tell Patsy this, and cannot reveal that JonBenet is wearing size-12's!
Or BR prepped the snack and it's completely unrelated to the murder. In such a case JR couldn't incorporate it even if he was aware of it because he's not supposed to be aware of it.
If JDI, then the fact that JB is wearing size 12s will, w/o doubt, be discovered at autopsy, so JR can't help that being revealed. What he can't reveal is that he's the one that dressed her in size 12s.
So why is Patsy attempting to explain away the size-12's on the basis she placed them into JonBenet's underwear drawer, whilst accepting JonBenet was present when she purchased the size-12's as a gift for her niece Jenny, but invoking memory loss if purchased size-12's or size-6 Bloomingdale underwear for JonBenet?
Conclusion: Patsy is presenting an explanation for an event she knows nothing about, since the case is JDI, i.e. abductio ad absurdum, or we have reduced the case to the absurd!
Patsy simply doesn't remember whether she bought 6s for JBR as well as 12s for Jenny. It wouldn't matter whether she remembered buying the 6s or not. If she did buy them, and the Wed. pair is missing, her failed memory doesn't change the fact. If she didn't buy them, there are no Wed. 6s to go missing so what does it matter if she recalls that she didn't buy any for JBR?
She doesn't seem to me to be explaining away the 12s she seems to be trying to convince police they were in the drawer, which is at odds with the results of the police search. But, Patsy has a long time to get a story worked out, and she knows before she sits down to answer questions that the police couldn't have found size 12s in the drawer if they were never there, so it's a pretty stupid lie to be telling. She's smart enough to come up with something better. So I think you're partly right, she's trying to explain something she doesn't fully know about.
(Not really. We don't know who got the pineapple snack together, or why. It may actually be unrelated to the murder.) (my comment)
oh but we do, we know it was neither of the parents,
No, we don't know that. We know that both don't have knowledge of the snack. But one might w/o being able to tell the other.
and it cannot be unrelated to the death of JonBenet, since the parents version of events say that JonBenet was placed in bed asleep, so the pineapple snack and her death must follow a particular related sequence, as per the autopsy and an absence of indicative lividty markers.
It can very easily be unrelated if Burke prepped the snack. The sequence is just that, a time sequence. The snack came first, then the murder. They could be related, but they needn't be.
In other words we know who killed JonBenet and staged her death, who colluded to make sure this was the outcome. Alike Alex Hunter we cannot conclusively prosecute the case, yet using the same methods as Sherlock Holmes we know enough to know who did it.
.
Unfortunately we don't, otherwise it wouldn't be a cold case and would be prosecuted. If JR and PR are working togehter, why don't they have a story for the pineapple? either a) it was prepped by BR and may have nothing to do with the murder (unless you favor BDI) or b) one parent knows of the pineapple but cannot reveal that knowledge to the innocent parent.
Why does Patsy tell a story about putting the size 12s in the drawer if she is in on the coverup (or she's the murderer and JR is assisting the cover up) ? She's had ample time to tell a story that jibes with the search, and if they are both involved, there is no reason for one to keep the 12s secret from the other?
On the other hand, why does Patsy back up JR's story about the window, a story that imo is clearly a fabrication?
The window story would seem to indicate they are collaborating. John is clearly lying, and PR is clearly backing his story.
Patsy's story of the size 12s would seem to indicate non-collaboration, or at least a failure to come up with a convincing story. Since her story is at odds with the evidence and she'd know that if she never put the 12s in the drawer, why is that her story if they are collaborating? Why wouldn't they put the remaining pack of size 12s back in the drawer? Or fabricate a better story?
The pineapple would seem to indicate that at least one and possibly both parents don't know about the snack. If neither knows, then it's obvious why it's not incorporated into their version of events. If neither knows, and it's not BDI (and it isn't) then the snack is unrelated to the murder. If JR knows about the snack and Patsy doesn't, that also explains why it's not incorporated - JR has to feign ignorance of the snack.
So we have both parents in sync about the window.
We have neither admitting to any knowledge of the snack, though we can't say this is because neither knows or only one knows. But clearly both are not aware of the snack, otherwise they tell the police JBR had a snack then went to bed.
We have one parent saying nothing about the size 12s (JR) and the other (PR) claiming they were in the drawer which she'd know to be at ods with the evidence if she redressed the body, or if she and John were sharing their knowledge of the size 12s.
It's easy to come up with a plausible explanation for Patsy not knowing what happened to the size 12s in the drawer, and not knowing about the snack, in a JDI scenario. But then it's hard to see why she'd back up the window story.
If they are collaborating on the coverup it's easy to see why she backs the window story but hard to see why they don't have a "JBR had a snack then went to bed story", and why Patsy would tell the police she put the 12s in the drawer if she knows the evidence doesn't support that story.
So, we don't really know quite who did what or what's going on. If they are collaborating on the coverup (regardless of who committed the murder) and they are sharing info, then we should have sync on the window (we do) the 12s should have been put in the drawer (they weren't or the entire pack was removed) and we should have a story that JBR had a snack before bed, which we don't have. It seems to me one has more knowledge of events than the other. Otherwise we'd have 3 in sync stories instead of one in sync, one at odds with the evidence, and a flat denial of any knowledge of the snack.
Sorry the post was so long, I didn't have time to edit for brevity and clarity. Hope it made sense.
