The Importance of the Pineapple

[Ellie9]

All the pineapple tells me is that JBR ate pineapple after eating crab at the party and it likely came from the bowl which was left out in the kitchen and which had her mother's prints on it, meaning that JBR was awake at some point after getting home.

I agree with this except that I think PRs prints could have happened when she put the clean bowl away originally. In a seemingly traditional family like this PR makes the most sense as the person to put dishes away.

She could have served too, but in this one case there appears to be another possible explanation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[UKGuy]

If Patsy did serve it and she lied, it's still weird just how much is in there. A mom would know that's just way too much at once for a six year old. This seems more like a Burke thing.

I'm not sure if Burke did anything that night that harmed her, but it really looks more like the work of a child than a parent who would at least know better than to fill the bowl that much. And use a giant spoon too.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ellie9
I'd go with OliviaG1996, I remember Patsy saying she purchased the pineapple from Safeway.


Remember JonBenet never finished all her pineapple some was left in her bowl.


OliviaG1996's version is how I would interpret the evidence, it also agrees with Kolar's view that it started in the breakfast bar, why who knows?

.

 

[UKGuy]

All the pineapple tells me is that JBR ate pineapple after eating crab at the party and it likely came from the bowl which was left out in the kitchen and which had her mother's prints on it, meaning that JBR was awake at some point after getting home.

TeaTime,
For sure, and this is what contradicts the Ramsey version of events.

.

 

[UKGuy]

If Patsy did serve it and she lied, it's still weird just how much is in there. A mom would know that's just way too much at once for a six year old. This seems more like a Burke thing.

I'm not sure if Burke did anything that night that harmed her, but it really looks more like the work of a child than a parent who would at least know better than to fill the bowl that much. And use a giant spoon too.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ellie9,
One interpretation is that Burke served JonBenet the pineapple straight from the fridge, and made himself a drink of tea, sipping it whilst chatting to JonBenet?

.

 

[Anti-K]

Anti-K,

Thats a third party quote, Burke Ramsey stated that JonBenet walked into the house, only Ramsey apologists wish it were otherwise.


JonBenet never awoke and decided to snack pineapple, read my lips, she could not reach it to serve herself, and the kitchen tables were all cleared by Patsy, as per her interview, so there was no pineapple already awaiting in a bowl. Patsy said she served no pineapple so who does that leave?

In an IDI scenario the pineapple snack is contradictory.

.

No, you’re wrong; that was a first-person quote. Thomas wrote it in his book. He wrote that Burke said jbr walked to bed even though he had repeatedly said in an earlier interview that she had been carried to bed. From this Thomas concluded that Burke must have been confused.

Both Thomas and Kolar accept that Jbr was carried to bed. They think she woke up, or was woken up later…

Look, I understand what you’re saying and I think I even understand the reasoning, but I don’t find it very persuasive. Too much is based on knowing things that we cannot know. I’m going to pass over this for now, ‘cause I sort of just went over it all, but I do want to ask about something, and this is for anyone.

Let’s pretend jbr is dead by 1:00 am. Let’s give 1 ½ hours transit time for the pineapple. So, she ate it at 11:30. The Ramseys arrived home at, iirc, 9:30. That’s two hours. It just doesn’t seem believable for them to still be up that late, that long after coming home considering the day behind them and the day ahead.

So, anyway, she eats the pineapple at 11:30, but isn’t murdered until 1:00 (I think transit ended with head blow, but… ). Are we supposed to believe that she was still up – they – that they were all still up at 1:00?

And, with an hour and a half between eating and dying, how are we to believe that one is connected to the other. I mean, how many things can happen in an hour and a half?
…

AK

 

[Anti-K]

My guess is that PR bought the pineapple already cut from Safeway and upon bringing it home, sometime before the 26th, emptied the pineapple that came packaged in a plastic container from Safeway into that white bowl and placed it in the refrigerator (most likely sealed with plastic wrap). Maybe she did this because she planned to serve the pineapple at the party on the 23rd but forgot? In my opinion, the bowl of pineapple that was found next to the glass was not out for the guests at the party to eat because if it was, I would expect many more fingerprints on it than just BR's and PR's. I think BR took the bowl out of the fridge and gave it to JBR as was, after placing the big spoon in the bowl.

It looks more like the bowl was meant to be served out of instead of eaten out of.
…

AK

 

[Anti-K]

My guess is that PR bought the pineapple already cut from Safeway and upon bringing it home, sometime before the 26th, emptied the pineapple that came packaged in a plastic container from Safeway into that white bowl and placed it in the refrigerator (most likely sealed with plastic wrap). Maybe she did this because she planned to serve the pineapple at the party on the 23rd but forgot? In my opinion, the bowl of pineapple that was found next to the glass was not out for the guests at the party to eat because if it was, I would expect many more fingerprints on it than just BR's and PR's. I think BR took the bowl out of the fridge and gave it to JBR as was, after placing the big spoon in the bowl.

But, if it’s possible for jbr to eat or be served out of the bowl without getting her fingerprints on it, then someone else could eat or be served out of the bowl without getting their fingerprints on it.
…

AK

 

[Fides]

I agree with Anti-K that the simplest explanation for the pineapple is that it was a typical bowl of fruit, innocently left out on the table, and JonBenet ate a few bits of it by herself while the rest of her family slept. It is certainly the most logical stance for any IDI to take.

Sorry to bang this particular gong again, but the problem is not this simple, logical explanation that any IDI would accept. The problem is the parents, the original IDIs, who do not accept that explanation.

I have already cited some of Patsy's words on the subject. John also had strong opinions on the pineapple, particularly on the size of the bowl:

Comments about the pineapple pulled from John Ramsey’s interview with Lou Smit and Mike Kane
June 23, 24, 25, 1998 - Boulder, Colorado

First section of interview:

“That’s a big bowl”
“That’s a huge bowl”
“That’s a big bowl”
“I can’t imagine that the kids would have anything like that at any time”
“That’s a big bowl”
“For someone who’s there and to get out that big of a bowl and put that much pineapple in it and just leave it. That doesn’t make sense”
“That is a huge bowl of pineapple”
“They wouldn’t have fixed themselves that big a bowl”

Second section, regarding speaking with Patsy:
“I think I mentioned that I was puzzled by the bowl, the large bowl of what appeared to be pineapple”
“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. Than that she got up in the middle of the night and had a big bowl of pineapple and went back to bed or we got her up”

Third section, after speaking to lawyer about possibility of Santa Bill in the house:
“She wouldn’t have gotten up and just gone down and fixed herself a big bowl of pineapple in my opinion she’s never done that that I recall. She was dead tired. And she wouldn’t do that.”
“If we said JonBenet ate pineapple between 9 PM when she went to bed and when we found her, that is the only way that’s plausible to me that she could have eaten. Is someone she knew and trusted and said let’s go downstairs, there is a surprise.”

___

So this continues to be the fascinating part, that the parents deny the simple, innocent explanation. They deny the tidbit JonBenet secretly eats in the night, the IDI explanation. In fact, both parents go out of their way to make the bowl sound bizarre, odd, huge, strange. They state categorically that JonBenet did not get up by herself and have a snack in the night. In fact, in the first part of the interview John GUARANTEES that JonBenet did not eat pineapple after she got home.

This interview takes place a year-and-a-half after her murder, a time when the Ramseys have had many months to process the many many things that happened in their house that night without their knowledge. This is not a distracted John forgetting to tell the police that the window was open the morning he discovered his daughter was missing. This is a grieving parent who reads true crime for a hobby and who has had a long time to think about what happened in his home while he slept

There is no part of these interviews that makes sense unless John and Patsy have an ulterior motive for distancing themselves from the simple IDI explanation for the pineapple. Their daughter was brutally slain while they were sleeping, yet the big thing they cannot accept is that she ate a few bites of fruit without their knowledge?

The only explanation that makes sense to me is if they knew Burke served the pineapple. They frequently repeat that they did not get up and give JonBenet pineapple, but I am unable to find a single instance of them stating that Burke did not do so.

I suspect that in these interviews they are still looking to avoid obstruction of justice charges. The grand jury did not return with their decision until October of 1999. Burke would not have been held responsible for any part, so they needed to protect themselves. I hypothesize that this was a strategy: they could minimize their prior knowledge by claiming that they did not connect that bizarre huge bowl with anything either of their children would do. And indeed, John says exactly that in the first part of the interview - “I can’t imagine that the kids would have anything like that at any time.” Pretty strong words for a man who presumably had no idea what happened in his house the night of December 25.

The problem with the pineapple is the parents.

 

[Cranberry]

The June 1998 interview with Patsy re Burke:

18 TOM HANEY: Had JonBenet and Burke been up in
19 the night, would Burke have maybe fixed that for her
20 knowing she wanted something like that?
21 PATSY RAMSEY: I don't know. That is
22 stretching it.
23 TOM HANEY: To what?
24 PATSY RAMSEY: I mean, I would have heard
25 them. Burke would have gotten up and banged around
0486
1 getting cupboards open and getting stuff in the
2 refrigerator.
3 TOM HANEY: Well, if he banged around two
4 floors away, would you have heard that?
5 PATSY RAMSEY: I hope I would have.
6 TOM HANEY: You wouldn't hear JonBenet's
7 toilet flush one floor away.
8 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, that was at the opposite
9 end of the house. The kitchen is down under my --
10 TOM HANEY: It is kind of central, is it?
11 PATSY RAMSEY: Yeah. I just -- he has -- I
12 have never known him to fix his sister, in the middle
13 of the night, something to eat. That would be unusual.
14 TOM HANEY: Okay.
15 PATSY RAMSEY: Okay.
16 TOM HANEY: Could it have happened?
17 PATSY RAMSEY: Anything could have happened.
18 I mean, we know something strange happened that night,
19 but this looks weird to me. That is all I have. That
20 is all I know. That looks strange to me.
21 And if there was pineapple in her stomach and
22 that pineapple, that is -- I would like to know when
23 somebody first saw that there, you know, because there
24 were a lot of people floating around there.
25 PATRICK BURKE: Is this a good time for a
0487
1 break?
2 TOM HANEY: I have a couple of questions.

 

[UKGuy]

I agree with Anti-K that the simplest explanation for the pineapple is that it was a typical bowl of fruit, innocently left out on the table, and JonBenet ate a few bits of it by herself while the rest of her family slept. It is certainly the most logical stance for any IDI to take.

Sorry to bang this particular gong again, but the problem is not this simple, logical explanation that any IDI would accept. The problem is the parents, the original IDIs, who do not accept that explanation.

I have already cited some of Patsy's words on the subject. John also had strong opinions on the pineapple, particularly on the size of the bowl:

Comments about the pineapple pulled from John Ramsey’s interview with Lou Smit and Mike Kane
June 23, 24, 25, 1998 - Boulder, Colorado

First section of interview:

“That’s a big bowl”
“That’s a huge bowl”
“That’s a big bowl”
“I can’t imagine that the kids would have anything like that at any time”
“That’s a big bowl”
“For someone who’s there and to get out that big of a bowl and put that much pineapple in it and just leave it. That doesn’t make sense”
“That is a huge bowl of pineapple”
“They wouldn’t have fixed themselves that big a bowl”

Second section, regarding speaking with Patsy:
“I think I mentioned that I was puzzled by the bowl, the large bowl of what appeared to be pineapple”
“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. Than that she got up in the middle of the night and had a big bowl of pineapple and went back to bed or we got her up”

Third section, after speaking to lawyer about possibility of Santa Bill in the house:
“She wouldn’t have gotten up and just gone down and fixed herself a big bowl of pineapple in my opinion she’s never done that that I recall. She was dead tired. And she wouldn’t do that.”
“If we said JonBenet ate pineapple between 9 PM when she went to bed and when we found her, that is the only way that’s plausible to me that she could have eaten. Is someone she knew and trusted and said let’s go downstairs, there is a surprise.”

___

So this continues to be the fascinating part, that the parents deny the simple, innocent explanation. They deny the tidbit JonBenet secretly eats in the night, the IDI explanation. In fact, both parents go out of their way to make the bowl sound bizarre, odd, huge, strange. They state categorically that JonBenet did not get up by herself and have a snack in the night. In fact, in the first part of the interview John GUARANTEES that JonBenet did not eat pineapple after she got home.

This interview takes place a year-and-a-half after her murder, a time when the Ramseys have had many months to process the many many things that happened in their house that night without their knowledge. This is not a distracted John forgetting to tell the police that the window was open the morning he discovered his daughter was missing. This is a grieving parent who reads true crime for a hobby and who has had a long time to think about what happened in his home while he slept

There is no part of these interviews that makes sense unless John and Patsy have an ulterior motive for distancing themselves from the simple IDI explanation for the pineapple. Their daughter was brutally slain while they were sleeping, yet the big thing they cannot accept is that she ate a few bites of fruit without their knowledge?

The only explanation that makes sense to me is if they knew Burke served the pineapple. They frequently repeat that they did not get up and give JonBenet pineapple, but I am unable to find a single instance of them stating that Burke did not do so.

I suspect that in these interviews they are still looking to avoid obstruction of justice charges. The grand jury did not return with their decision until October of 1999. Burke would not have been held responsible for any part, so they needed to protect themselves. I hypothesize that this was a strategy: they could minimize their prior knowledge by claiming that they did not connect that bizarre huge bowl with anything either of their children would do. And indeed, John says exactly that in the first part of the interview - “I can’t imagine that the kids would have anything like that at any time.” Pretty strong words for a man who presumably had no idea what happened in his house the night of December 25.

The problem with the pineapple is the parents.

Fides,

I agree with Anti-K that the simplest explanation for the pineapple is that it was a typical bowl of fruit, innocently left out on the table, and JonBenet ate a few bits of it by herself while the rest of her family slept. It is certainly the most logical stance for any IDI to take.

Yet its not the simplest since it requires lots of hand-waiving and qualifications regarding when the pineapple was placed on the table.

Whereas the RDI explanation is the simplest, i.e. JonBenet arrived back from the White's, shortly afterwards she snacked pineapple. Also the pineapple in the bowl was tested forensically and compared with that of her stomach and it matched.

So to speculate about an IDI scenario amounts to smoke and mirrors to cover for the lack of forensic evidence in any IDI theory.

.

 

[OliviaG1996]

But, if it’s possible for jbr to eat or be served out of the bowl without getting her fingerprints on it, then someone else could eat or be served out of the bowl without getting their fingerprints on it.
…

AK

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'.

 

[OliviaG1996]

No, you’re wrong; that was a first-person quote. Thomas wrote it in his book. He wrote that Burke said jbr walked to bed even though he had repeatedly said in an earlier interview that she had been carried to bed. From this Thomas concluded that Burke must have been confused.

Both Thomas and Kolar accept that Jbr was carried to bed. They think she woke up, or was woken up later…

Look, I understand what you’re saying and I think I even understand the reasoning, but I don’t find it very persuasive. Too much is based on knowing things that we cannot know. I’m going to pass over this for now, ‘cause I sort of just went over it all, but I do want to ask about something, and this is for anyone.

Let’s pretend jbr is dead by 1:00 am. Let’s give 1 ½ hours transit time for the pineapple. So, she ate it at 11:30. The Ramseys arrived home at, iirc, 9:30. That’s two hours. It just doesn’t seem believable for them to still be up that late, that long after coming home considering the day behind them and the day ahead.

So, anyway, she eats the pineapple at 11:30, but isn’t murdered until 1:00 (I think transit ended with head blow, but… ). Are we supposed to believe that she was still up – they – that they were all still up at 1:00?

And, with an hour and a half between eating and dying, how are we to believe that one is connected to the other. I mean, how many things can happen in an hour and a half?
…

AK

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.

 

[Ellie9]

In other words, to make their explanation short and sweet, they agreed to just say she was asleep.

This is really the only thing that makes sense concerning this topic. I try to give IDI theories a full chance, because who knows what really happened that night and looking at anything with bias is bad 'cyber investigating' hehe. But for this pineapple thread there really is no other good explanation other than the R's were holding back information for some reason.

 

[Fides]

Fides,

Yet its not the simplest since it requires lots of hand-waiving and qualifications regarding when the pineapple was placed on the table.

Whereas the RDI explanation is the simplest, i.e. JonBenet arrived back from the White's, shortly afterwards she snacked pineapple. Also the pineapple in the bowl was tested forensically and compared with that of her stomach and it matched.

So to speculate about an IDI scenario amounts to smoke and mirrors to cover for the lack of forensic evidence in any IDI theory.

.

UKGuy,

Thank-you for your post. I apologize for my lack of clarity. The "simple" explanation I refer to - that JonBenet got up in the night and ate a bit of pineapple - presupposes the truth of the parents' report that she went directly to bed. Their report is at least partially supported by Burke, who stated that she went up the stairs under her own power, but still went to bed. So 18 months later it was too late to change that stance, which I have no reason to believe is false. She went to bed when she got home. The pineapple must have come later, but for some reason the parents insist it could not.

The "pineapple in the night by herself" scenario is not a difficult stance for the parents to take if they normalize the pineapple. For example, "Sure, the kids could have gotten all that out late Christmas afternoon while Patsy was busy getting ready for the party. We wouldn't normally put pineapple in a cereal bowl like that but the kids might, and Burke did have a lot of friends over. And we left for the Whites' in a bit of a rush so probably no one noticed it. Or who knows, maybe Burke got hungry after we tucked him in and got up and made a snack. And maybe later JonBenet woke up in the night and went to the bathroom, felt hungry and ran down to see if any food was around. Oh my God, I bet that's when the *advertiser censored* grabbed her. She must have fought him and he hit her on the head."

So simple. There are many IDI scenarios they can hypothesize if they accept her wandering the house alone at night. But they don't do that, not in any way. They look at the pictures and make the snack sound like it came from outer space, like it was nothing in which their children would have ever participated. My question is, why? It is 100 times more logical for their children to make the snack than it is for members of a foreign faction to do so!

The only answer I can conjure, again, is to protect themselves from obstruction charges if their son admits to preparing the snack (say, prior to hitting his sister on the head and trying to cover up the head bash). If that happens, in the future John can say things like: "Oh my God, the kids made that snack? JonBenet got out of bed? She was afraid of the dark, I never imagined she would do that! And that table looked so weird when you asked me about it I never imagined they would have made such a mess or used such a huge bowl or spoon. And making tea in a glass is really dangerous, we never would have allowed that. All of that is just not anything that I have ever seen the kids do before!" {As I very clearly stated to you in those interviews several months ago}

Distance, distance, distance. Because though the law would automatically save their son, they also needed to be saved in order to raise him. The Grand Jury is chugging along, and Patsy and John have no guarantees regarding what their young son will ever say to anyone, particularly to a scary Grand Jury. It is why they repeatedly say they never talk to Burke about any of this. They say they don't want to upset him, but if BDI is true that is not the only reason they don't talk to him. They have to behave as if all this is just so strange, so bizarre, it is outside the realm of their imagination, particularly John. He is the one who can plead total confusion in the future.

In my theory of the crime Patsy was the note-writer and second crime scene stager, so she will be the adult furthest in the soup. John has a chance if he avoids the appearance of actively misleading the police, which is why he is so careful to say that the Santa Bill idea is his lawyer's. This man is bright and exceedingly careful, and his words carry meaning. The words he uses to describe the snack scene are not accidental. His words are also more evidence that he was not directly involved - otherwise I wager he would be willing to invent intruder theories out of whole cloth if he was facing first degree murder charges.

In short, John and Patsy's agenda is far more complex than just finding an intruder, and their words betray that agenda. That is, of course, if any of my armchair detective musings are true.

 

[Fides]

The June 1998 interview with Patsy re Burke:

18 TOM HANEY: Had JonBenet and Burke been up in
19 the night, would Burke have maybe fixed that for her
20 knowing she wanted something like that?
21 PATSY RAMSEY: I don't know. That is
22 stretching it.
23 TOM HANEY: To what?
24 PATSY RAMSEY: I mean, I would have heard
25 them. Burke would have gotten up and banged around
0486
1 getting cupboards open and getting stuff in the
2 refrigerator.
3 TOM HANEY: Well, if he banged around two
4 floors away, would you have heard that?
5 PATSY RAMSEY: I hope I would have.
6 TOM HANEY: You wouldn't hear JonBenet's
7 toilet flush one floor away.
8 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, that was at the opposite
9 end of the house. The kitchen is down under my --
10 TOM HANEY: It is kind of central, is it?
11 PATSY RAMSEY: Yeah. I just -- he has -- I
12 have never known him to fix his sister, in the middle
13 of the night, something to eat. That would be unusual.
14 TOM HANEY: Okay.
15 PATSY RAMSEY: Okay.
16 TOM HANEY: Could it have happened?
17 PATSY RAMSEY: Anything could have happened.
18 I mean, we know something strange happened that night,
19 but this looks weird to me. That is all I have. That
20 is all I know. That looks strange to me.
21 And if there was pineapple in her stomach and
22 that pineapple, that is -- I would like to know when
23 somebody first saw that there, you know, because there
24 were a lot of people floating around there.
25 PATRICK BURKE: Is this a good time for a
0487
1 break?
2 TOM HANEY: I have a couple of questions.

Thank you Cranberry. This fits very well with the idea that they neither confirmed nor denied that Burke had anything to do with the pineapple.

 

[Fides]

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.

Olivia, I agree. Her extreme sleepiness when they got home may or may not have been true, but it was important to their story that they say it was true. I personally think they really were up on the third floor and did not know what was going on downstairs.

 

[Cranberry]

Thank you Cranberry. This fits very well with the idea that they neither confirmed nor denied that Burke had anything to do with the pineapple.

Here are more questions further down in the interview:

11 TRIP DEMUTH: And you said you would think
12 you would hear Burke if he got up and went down to the
13 kitchen and fixed something. Has he ever gotten up in
14 the night and gone down into the kitchen?
15 PATSY RAMSEY: I hear him get up and go to
16 the bathroom. I can hear him urinating in the
17 bathroom.
18 TRIP DEMUTH: My question is, does he ever go
19 to the kitchen in the middle of the night and get
20 something to eat?
21 PATSY RAMSEY: No. Not that I was aware of,
22 that scenario -- sorry -- is farfetched.
23 TRIP DEMUTH: We need to explore these
24 things.
25 PATSY RAMSEY: I know we do. This is good.
0494
1 TRIP DEMUTH: What about JonBenet, did she
2 ever get up in the middle of the night to go down to
3 the kitchen to get something to eat? In your
4 experience has she ever done that before?
5 PATSY RAMSEY: No.
6 TRIP DEMUTH: If she was going to snack, what
7 would she snack on during the day? You said there was
8 plenty of other things around, what would that be?
9 PATSY RAMSEY: She liked grapes. I had a
10 basket that I would keep raisins and those fruit
11 roll-up things, you know.
12 TRIP DEMUTH: Where were the grapes?
13 PATSY RAMSEY: Grapes would be like -- I
14 mean, I don't know that I had grapes that day. That is
15 what she liked to snack on.
16 TRIP DEMUTH: Where would you have kept
17 those?
18 PATSY RAMSEY: I would have kept those
19 probably on the counter there somewhere.
20 TRIP DEMUTH: Which counter?
21 PATSY RAMSEY: The center island.
22 TRIP DEMUTH: In the kitchen?
23 PATSY RAMSEY: In the kitchen.
24 TRIP DEMUTH: Okay.
25 PATSY RAMSEY: But I can't -- I can't imagine
0495
1 she would go downstairs to get something to eat. More
2 likely she would come upstairs and say, I'm hungry, for
3 me to go. Just it doesn't fit.
4 TRIP DEMUTH: Okay. All right. That's it.
5 Thank you very much.

 

[Anti-K]

I agree with Anti-K that the simplest explanation for the pineapple is that it was a typical bowl of fruit, innocently left out on the table, and JonBenet ate a few bits of it by herself while the rest of her family slept. It is certainly the most logical stance for any IDI to take.

Sorry to bang this particular gong again, but the problem is not this simple, logical explanation that any IDI would accept. The problem is the parents, the original IDIs, who do not accept that explanation.

I have already cited some of Patsy's words on the subject. John also had strong opinions on the pineapple, particularly on the size of the bowl:

Comments about the pineapple pulled from John Ramsey’s interview with Lou Smit and Mike Kane
June 23, 24, 25, 1998 - Boulder, Colorado

First section of interview:

“That’s a big bowl”
“That’s a huge bowl”
“That’s a big bowl”
“I can’t imagine that the kids would have anything like that at any time”
“That’s a big bowl”
“For someone who’s there and to get out that big of a bowl and put that much pineapple in it and just leave it. That doesn’t make sense”
“That is a huge bowl of pineapple”
“They wouldn’t have fixed themselves that big a bowl”

Second section, regarding speaking with Patsy:
“I think I mentioned that I was puzzled by the bowl, the large bowl of what appeared to be pineapple”
“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. Than that she got up in the middle of the night and had a big bowl of pineapple and went back to bed or we got her up”

Third section, after speaking to lawyer about possibility of Santa Bill in the house:
“She wouldn’t have gotten up and just gone down and fixed herself a big bowl of pineapple in my opinion she’s never done that that I recall. She was dead tired. And she wouldn’t do that.”
“If we said JonBenet ate pineapple between 9 PM when she went to bed and when we found her, that is the only way that’s plausible to me that she could have eaten. Is someone she knew and trusted and said let’s go downstairs, there is a surprise.”

___

So this continues to be the fascinating part, that the parents deny the simple, innocent explanation. They deny the tidbit JonBenet secretly eats in the night, the IDI explanation. In fact, both parents go out of their way to make the bowl sound bizarre, odd, huge, strange. They state categorically that JonBenet did not get up by herself and have a snack in the night. In fact, in the first part of the interview John GUARANTEES that JonBenet did not eat pineapple after she got home.

This interview takes place a year-and-a-half after her murder, a time when the Ramseys have had many months to process the many many things that happened in their house that night without their knowledge. This is not a distracted John forgetting to tell the police that the window was open the morning he discovered his daughter was missing. This is a grieving parent who reads true crime for a hobby and who has had a long time to think about what happened in his home while he slept

There is no part of these interviews that makes sense unless John and Patsy have an ulterior motive for distancing themselves from the simple IDI explanation for the pineapple. Their daughter was brutally slain while they were sleeping, yet the big thing they cannot accept is that she ate a few bites of fruit without their knowledge?

The only explanation that makes sense to me is if they knew Burke served the pineapple. They frequently repeat that they did not get up and give JonBenet pineapple, but I am unable to find a single instance of them stating that Burke did not do so.

I suspect that in these interviews they are still looking to avoid obstruction of justice charges. The grand jury did not return with their decision until October of 1999. Burke would not have been held responsible for any part, so they needed to protect themselves. I hypothesize that this was a strategy: they could minimize their prior knowledge by claiming that they did not connect that bizarre huge bowl with anything either of their children would do. And indeed, John says exactly that in the first part of the interview - “I can’t imagine that the kids would have anything like that at any time.” Pretty strong words for a man who presumably had no idea what happened in his house the night of December 25.

The problem with the pineapple is the parents.

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

 

[Anti-K]

The June 1998 interview with Patsy re Burke:

18 TOM HANEY: Had JonBenet and Burke been up in
19 the night, would Burke have maybe fixed that for her
20 knowing she wanted something like that?
21 PATSY RAMSEY: I don't know. That is
22 stretching it.
23 TOM HANEY: To what?
24 PATSY RAMSEY: I mean, I would have heard
25 them. Burke would have gotten up and banged around
0486
1 getting cupboards open and getting stuff in the
2 refrigerator.
3 TOM HANEY: Well, if he banged around two
4 floors away, would you have heard that?
5 PATSY RAMSEY: I hope I would have.
6 TOM HANEY: You wouldn't hear JonBenet's
7 toilet flush one floor away.
8 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, that was at the opposite
9 end of the house. The kitchen is down under my --
10 TOM HANEY: It is kind of central, is it?
11 PATSY RAMSEY: Yeah. I just -- he has -- I
12 have never known him to fix his sister, in the middle
13 of the night, something to eat. That would be unusual.
14 TOM HANEY: Okay.
15 PATSY RAMSEY: Okay.
16 TOM HANEY: Could it have happened?
17 PATSY RAMSEY: Anything could have happened.
18 I mean, we know something strange happened that night,
19 but this looks weird to me. That is all I have. That
20 is all I know. That looks strange to me.
21 And if there was pineapple in her stomach and
22 that pineapple, that is -- I would like to know when
23 somebody first saw that there, you know, because there
24 were a lot of people floating around there.
25 PATRICK BURKE: Is this a good time for a
0487
1 break?
2 TOM HANEY: I have a couple of questions.

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

 

[Anti-K]

Fides,

Yet its not the simplest since it requires lots of hand-waiving and qualifications regarding when the pineapple was placed on the table.

Whereas the RDI explanation is the simplest, i.e. JonBenet arrived back from the White's, shortly afterwards she snacked pineapple. Also the pineapple in the bowl was tested forensically and compared with that of her stomach and it matched.

So to speculate about an IDI scenario amounts to smoke and mirrors to cover for the lack of forensic evidence in any IDI theory.

.

No hand-waiving and qualifications regarding when the pineapple was placed on the table” is required. We simply say that the bowl was already out, before the Ramseys went to the White’s. Mrs Ramsey cleared the table after breakfast was finished. Somewhere in the hours between that clearing and when they left the house, someone or someones put that bowl there. Maybe it was Burke.

25 TOM HANEY: When was the last time you recall
0473
1 that table being cleaned off?
2 PATSY RAMSEY: After -- well, we would have
3 eaten pancakes together at that table on Christmas
4 morning. And then I would have cleaned the table up.
<snip>
9 TOM HANEY: And you said that earlier you
10 cleaned the table off after the breakfast.
11 PATSY RAMSEY: Yes.
…

AK