About the pineapple

[DeeDee249]

It is my fondest hope that the efforts of websites like this and people like us will one day help to solve this case. At the very least, we keep it current and still in people's minds, even if it is no longer on JR's mind (by his own admission, this case is "dead" to him. Interesting choice of words.)

 

[UKGuy]

It is my fondest hope that the efforts of websites like this and people like us will one day help to solve this case. At the very least, we keep it current and still in people's minds, even if it is no longer on JR's mind (by his own admission, this case is "dead" to him. Interesting choice of words.)

DeeDee249,
Its quite possible that a breakthrough might arise not through the case directly but through the evidence trail left by the cover up. All the telephone calls, the face to face meetings etc. These will be documented somewhere. The evidence of telephone calls are never deleted, the data will be in some federal depositary, consider possible calls to the Ramsey legal representatives, made prior to, possibly even the 911 call. If verified what might that suggest?


.

 

[Chrishope]

This case is dead. It will never be officially solved since there will never be a conviction. It's doubtful there would ever be an indictment.

For most people the touch dna is "evidence" of an intruder. At least it's enough for "reasonable" doubt. It would be absolutely impossible to convict JR.

The best we can hope for is a death bed confession, or perhaps BR knows the story and will tell it someday, many years from now.

 

[sandover]

consider possible calls to the Ramsey legal representatives, made prior to, possibly even the 911 call. If verified what might that suggest?.

This to me seems unlikely -- that level of conspiracy. I think this was way more spontaneous and improvisational, but as soon as the police messed things up and the Ramseys got their legal team going, it was going to be hard to ever charge them and certainly convict them. The "mess" of that morning on all fronts -- the mess of the police not responding appropriately and the mess made by the Ramsey legal team on purpose -- determined all that followed.

 

[KoldKase]

This to me seems unlikely -- that level of conspiracy. I think this was way more spontaneous and improvisational, but as soon as the police messed things up and the Ramseys got their legal team going, it was going to be hard to ever charge them and certainly convict them. The "mess" of that morning on all fronts -- the mess of the police not responding appropriately and the mess made by the Ramsey legal team on purpose -- determined all that followed.

I personally believe this "mess" the police made was enhanced considerably by the deliberate obstruction of the investigation by Alex Hunter.

I also think the ubiquitous power of Lockheed Martin may have been at work before the 911 call was made, in several ways. Hunter may have been on Team Ramsey by the time the body was found, if not earlier.

There are so many indications of this. If the BPD were inept in their initial "search" of the house, allowing the kidnap party to remain and contaminate the crime scene, that certainly hurt the case from the outset. But choosing to leave Linda Arndt alone in that huge house to deal with 9 adults while awaiting a kidnapper's call--which no one should have known for certain was never coming at that point--is a huge red flag about how this investigation was being run by someone who wasn't looking to help recover a kidnap victim.

That's my opinion, anyway. Once I read Thomas' book, wherein he revealed how much Alex Hunter was crippling the investigation with his refusal to get phone subpoenas, his determination to aid the Ramseys when they refused to talk to LE even WITH their lawyers unless THEIR demands were met by the BPD first, his insupportable decision to give all the evidence reports to the Ramsey lawyers as soon as the BPD got them, has me convinced Hunter's alliances and loyalties were not above board and certainly were not with the victim and the People of Boulder, whom he was supposed to represent.

 

[KoldKase]

DeeDee249,
Its quite possible that a breakthrough might arise not through the case directly but through the evidence trail left by the cover up. All the telephone calls, the face to face meetings etc. These will be documented somewhere. The evidence of telephone calls are never deleted, the data will be in some federal depositary, consider possible calls to the Ramsey legal representatives, made prior to, possibly even the 911 call. If verified what might that suggest?

This case is dead. It will never be officially solved since there will never be a conviction. It's doubtful there would ever be an indictment.

For most people the touch dna is "evidence" of an intruder. At least it's enough for "reasonable" doubt. It would be absolutely impossible to convict JR.

The best we can hope for is a death bed confession, or perhaps BR knows the story and will tell it someday, many years from now.

I don't think any Ramsey is ever going to tell the truth about what happened that night, or before that night, which I think set the events of Dec. 25th/26th in motion.

What I do hope is that some day, someone who has other knowledge will come forward. There are many, I'm convinced, who know plenty about the Ramseys and/or the evidence that would reveal much about this murder.

Some examples:

The Ramsey phone records were illegally obtained by a PI to sell to tabloids. But he got caught while impersonating John Ramsey on the phone to a hardware store employer in Boulder, trying to get some credit card records. He was subsequently arrested, prosecuted, and sentenced for these acts, and those phone records were marched past Thomas to the evidence room, Steve said in his book. Thomas was told then the Ramsey case investigators would never see those records--no subpoena, remember, thanks to Hunter. But somebody saw them, including the PI, lawyers and BPD investigators who worked that case. Were they destroyed? Are they still there? Three D.A.'s who all claim to have seriously investigated this murder know about these phone records. If they haven't yet, it's about time D.A. Garnet investigated and subpoenaed them, IMO, to find out what was on them. Barring that, maybe someone else who knows will one day tell the truth about what was on those records--before some powerful "fixers" had time to eradicate them.

I don't believe that the "garrote" tied on her neck and used to strangle JonBenet was constructed without some prior knowledge or practice at some part of it, if not all of it. I don't ascribe to the "erotic game" theory because the bruising on the neck doesn't support that, IMO, but the wrist "binding" still had a slip knot constructed on it, which is good evidence the ligature also was constructed with a slip knot as well, since it did strangle her. The rather intricate knot on the "handle" of the ligature is a common construction with many types of usage, including sailing, macramé, sports like fishing and hunting, climbing, etc. Is it not possible, or even probable, that someone close to the Ramseys saw one or more of them construct something using such knots in all their outdoor activities or in some other application?

There were a lot of children in the lives of the Ramseys at the time of the murder. Family, friends, school, pageants...JonBenet and Burke were active in many things, including Boy Scouts and neighborhood playtime. Children often see things we aren't aware they're observing. They also tell secrets to each other. Those children are now adults. I wonder if even one might have some reason to reveal some of those secrets or observations one day.

A lot of careers were ruined, a lot of reputations were besmirched because of Team Ramsey. Some of these people might decide to set the record straight one day.

And what kind of money could someone make selling case revelations and information long buried, if it was fact and not speculation?

Those are just a few examples of how we might see the truth about this murder emerge one day. I hope Tricia's "tease" involves something like this.

But a Ramsey coming forward with the truth, acting like they give a dam*? That would be a shocker.

 

[Chrishope]

I don't think any Ramsey is ever going to tell the truth about what happened that night, or before that night, which I think set the events of Dec. 25th/26th in motion.

What I do hope is that some day, someone who has other knowledge will come forward. There are many, I'm convinced, who know plenty about the Ramseys and/or the evidence that would reveal much about this murder.

Some examples:

The Ramsey phone records were illegally obtained by a PI to sell to tabloids. But he got caught while impersonating John Ramsey on the phone to a hardware store employer in Boulder, trying to get some credit card records. He was subsequently arrested, prosecuted, and sentenced for these acts, and those phone records were marched past Thomas to the evidence room, Steve said in his book. Thomas was told then the Ramsey case investigators would never see those records--no subpoena, remember, thanks to Hunter. But somebody saw them, including the PI, lawyers and BPD investigators who worked that case. Were they destroyed? Are they still there? Three D.A.'s who all claim to have seriously investigated this murder know about these phone records. If they haven't yet, it's about time D.A. Garnet investigated and subpoenaed them, IMO, to find out what was on them. Barring that, maybe someone else who knows will one day tell the truth about what was on those records--before some powerful "fixers" had time to eradicate them.

I don't believe that the "garrote" tied on her neck and used to strangle JonBenet was constructed without some prior knowledge or practice at some part of it, if not all of it. I don't ascribe to the "erotic game" theory because the bruising on the neck doesn't support that, IMO, but the wrist "binding" still had a slip knot constructed on it, which is good evidence the ligature also was constructed with a slip knot as well, since it did strangle her. The rather intricate knot on the "handle" of the ligature is a common construction with many types of usage, including sailing, macramé, sports like fishing and hunting, climbing, etc. Is it not possible, or even probable, that someone close to the Ramseys saw one or more of them construct something using such knots in all their outdoor activities or in some other application?

There were a lot of children in the lives of the Ramseys at the time of the murder. Family, friends, school, pageants...JonBenet and Burke were active in many things, including Boy Scouts and neighborhood playtime. Children often see things we aren't aware they're observing. They also tell secrets to each other. Those children are now adults. I wonder if even one might have some reason to reveal some of those secrets or observations one day.

A lot of careers were ruined, a lot of reputations were besmirched because of Team Ramsey. Some of these people might decide to set the record straight one day.

And what kind of money could someone make selling case revelations and information long buried, if it was fact and not speculation?

Those are just a few examples of how we might see the truth about this murder emerge one day. I hope Tricia's "tease" involves something like this.

But a Ramsey coming forward with the truth, acting like they give a dam*? That would be a shocker.

I'd be interested in hearing from FW or the Steins. That's probably about it.

I wouldn't put any stock in something "remembered" from childhood and just now being reported. Neither would I put any stock in what the PI has to say about the phone records - we know something about the PI's integrity. If a detective who worked on the case had something to say about it, I'd listen.

The knots don't prove, or even suggest, anything. Lot's of people can tie knots and lots of former Navy men (like me) can only tie a few basic knots -there aren't that many that most people really have a need for. IMO the "garrotte" does not show any advanced knot tying ability.

Money can be made selling "revelations" but it's a double edged sword. The same money can be made selling fabrications.

The case will never be proven, in an "official" sense. You can have your theory, just as you can speculate on who Jack the Ripper was. But actually proving "who done it" will never happen. We are forever mired in speculation and competing theories.

 

[sandover]

This is an evidence question. How do people explain the DNA under JB's fingernails and its relation to the rest of the DNA found later?

I believe RDI but I don't have a compelling theory for this, mostly because I don't know much about DNA. Could it simply be that in playing with someone she got DNA under her fingernails and that it got transferred to the rest of her during the staging (assuming her arms and hands were being moved by the stager, whether PR or JR, and that DNA was transferred onto the new dressings that way)?

 

[KoldKase]

This is an evidence question. How do people explain the DNA under JB's fingernails and its relation to the rest of the DNA found later?

I believe RDI but I don't have a compelling theory for this, mostly because I don't know much about DNA. Could it simply be that in playing with someone she got DNA under her fingernails and that it got transferred to the rest of her during the staging (assuming her arms and hands were being moved by the stager, whether PR or JR, and that DNA was transferred onto the new dressings that way)?

As many others have stated, there are an infinite number of ways the DNA could have gotten on those items of clothing, all but one innocently. While IDIs love to claim the fingernail DNA "matched" the other fragments found early on, plus the touch DNA, the truth is the fingernail DNA was only 1 to 3 markers reclaimed, and that's iffy at best. I've heard Dr. Lee say this, as well as other experts and detectives who worked on the case. There is no match at all with so few markers, especially when those markers could have been false, as well, because they were so weak.

If JB had gotten actual DNA under her fingernails from an intruder, it would seem logical that she'd have gotten fresh, full DNA profiles, rather than the damaged, nearly useless DNA they tried to recover with little success.

It's just my opinion, but the location of the DNA on the longjohns and underwear seem to me to imply that someone who handled them to process for evidence might have had contaminated gloves on and that left the "touch" DNA cells. We know Dr. Meyer worked with the blood drops in the panties to check if they aligned with any found on the genitals of the child, so he obviously handled the underwear closely. He or an assistant (which I've never heard any mention of) also undressed her. Furthermore, others who processed the evidence work in labs with lots of evidence from lots of cases. The sensitivity of DNA transference now dictating such strict and obsessive care with not contaminating evidence was not known when JB was murdered, not to the extent it is today.

We know DNA was still relatively new science at that time in criminal cases--the first use in the U.S. in a criminal trial was in 1987 or there-abouts. It was noted that there were questions raised about the fingernail DNA because Dr. Meyer used contaminated clippers to cut JB's fingernails, as well. DNA is so small, most of us can't even comprehend what it is: a hundred skin cells on the head of a pin would contain millions of strands of DNA.

So degraded DNA under the fingernails is truly not any kind of "match"; it's like saying all flowers which have pink in their colors are from the same plant.

In the past few years I've seen many articles which now illustrate how much DNA has become a double-edged sword in criminal cases. Unless there is other evidence which makes that DNA specifically related to the actual crime, as in being semen found in or on a rape victim, etc., there is no way to date it or even relate it to the crime. It by all means does not trump the plethora of other evidence we have in this case which ALL leads to the Ramseys.

 

[DeeDee249]

I am so tired of reading about the DNA "under her fingernails". I truly wish this was one lie we would never have to be asked about again.
That being said, I will repeat this again:
One person I would have liked to have seen tested against that DNA (and the results made public) was the young man who worked transporting bodies to the morgue. He was arrested for trying to sell the morgue log which recorded the arrival of JB's corpse at the morgue. A creep like that is just the kind of creep that would pull down JB's longjohns and panties to "take a peek".
This would certainly explain why those skin cells were found ONLY on those two articles of clothing and NO WHERE else on the body, crime scene or house.

 

[UKGuy]

I am so tired of reading about the DNA "under her fingernails". I truly wish this was one lie we would never have to be asked about again.
That being said, I will repeat this again:
One person I would have liked to have seen tested against that DNA (and the results made public) was the young man who worked transporting bodies to the morgue. He was arrested for trying to sell the morgue log which recorded the arrival of JB's corpse at the morgue. A creep like that is just the kind of creep that would pull down JB's longjohns and panties to "take a peek".
This would certainly explain why those skin cells were found ONLY on those two articles of clothing and NO WHERE else on the body, crime scene or house.

DeeDee249,
Keep repeating it. It will deter the IDI proponents from asserting the presence of the touch-dna proves that the Ramsey's must be innocent.




.

 

[KoldKase]

DeeDee249,
Keep repeating it. It will deter the IDI proponents from asserting the presence of the touch-dna proves that the Ramsey's must be innocent.




.

Oh, I think that's wishful thinking, there. The DNA is all they have left, so they're going to believe that Mary Lacy-invented red herring to the bitter end, IMO. :jail:

 

[BBB167893]

This is an evidence question. How do people explain the DNA under JB's fingernails and its relation to the rest of the DNA found later?

I believe RDI but I don't have a compelling theory for this, mostly because I don't know much about DNA. Could it simply be that in playing with someone she got DNA under her fingernails and that it got transferred to the rest of her during the staging (assuming her arms and hands were being moved by the stager, whether PR or JR, and that DNA was transferred onto the new dressings that way)?

Maybe not even during staging. She could have transferred it to herself.

 

[BBB167893]

Oh, I think that's wishful thinking, there. The DNA is all they have left, so they're going to believe that Mary Lacy-invented red herring to the bitter end, IMO. :jail:

Don't. I. Know. it! I just just spent a few hours' quality time with just such people. And it is NO GOOD to tell them anything.

 

[Chrishope]

Oh, I think that's wishful thinking, there. The DNA is all they have left, so they're going to believe that Mary Lacy-invented red herring to the bitter end, IMO. :jail:

Sure, as long as CODIS fails to find a match, they'll be able to hang on to the intruder theory.

But it's understandable. Most people can't imagine any innocent explanation for the DNA. People are told DNA is unique -like a fingerprint. It is unique, but it's not like a fingerprint. I can touch something you touched and transfer your DNA. I can't transfer your fingerprints.

And let's be fair. Conviction for murder is not by preponderance of the evidence. The standard is beyond a reasonable doubt, and the DNA is reasonable doubt. The only way to remove the reasonable doubt would be to identify the individual, and then prove that he couldn't have done it -because he wasn't in Boulder at the time, or because he worked in the morgue and touched the longjohns , or he was only 8 years old at the time, etc.

 

[KoldKase]

Sure, as long as CODIS fails to find a match, they'll be able to hang on to the intruder theory.

But it's understandable. Most people can't imagine any innocent explanation for the DNA. People are told DNA is unique -like a fingerprint. It is unique, but it's not like a fingerprint. I can touch something you touched and transfer your DNA. I can't transfer your fingerprints.

And let's be fair. Conviction for murder is not by preponderance of the evidence. The standard is beyond a reasonable doubt, and the DNA is reasonable doubt. The only way to remove the reasonable doubt would be to identify the individual, and then prove that he couldn't have done it -because he wasn't in Boulder at the time, or because he worked in the morgue and touched the longjohns , or he was only 8 years old at the time, etc.

And this is why DNA is now recognized as a double-edged sword in LE. It's such advanced science and still relatively new. Even experts have trouble keeping up with the implications, flaws in testing, and potential for contamination from pre-crime transference to lab processing.

"Touch" DNA hadn't even been admitted at trial when Lacy's "discovery" was blasted to the media world-wide...something that was so questionable on its face, the "exoneration" letter soon following was clear proof that Lacy fully believed she'd proved a negative: the Ramseys could not have committed this crime.

Mary Lacy not only overstepped her bounds and responsibilities as a prosecutor with her overt defense of the Ramseys while she was in office, but she blatantly and with full intent put the final nail in the coffin of this case. Why would any DA work so hard for child murder suspects, much less two DAs?

Of course there are many reasons, but it's all speculation so I'll just say that Hunter and Lacy were a child killer's best friends. They obstructed the case investigation and manufactured evidence to protect the Ramseys, IMO.

And don't even get me started on PERV Karr...good god. Lacy showed her colossal incompetence and unbridled biases with that one.

 

[Limaes]

Regarding the pineapple...It was in a serving bowl, with a serving spoon. Why do people not believe it's possible that it was still on the table because PR had served it to her family with lunch that day?

It was fresh pineapple and it makes sense to me that, because they were going away, it would go off before they got back so PR left it there, possibly for LHP to clean up when she got there on the 27th.

LHP: "I always came in the side door, and I'd walk right into the kitchen and not know where to start. Dishes all over. If they had Ovaltine, the jar would still be open. I always had to wipe the peanut butter off the counter. "

BR may not have had any at all after they got home from the W's. He may have lifted the bowl and helped himself at lunch time. He didn't need his mother to do it for him.

Perhaps JBR saw it still on the table when they got home and just grabbed some chunks out of the bowl with her fingers. I doubt her parents even knew she ate it that night. JMO

 

[BOESP]

<snip>...Perhaps JBR saw it still on the table when they got home and just grabbed some chunks out of the bowl with her fingers. I doubt her parents even knew she ate it that night. JMO

But both parents said JonBenet was asleep when they got home and that John carried her upstairs to bed then Patsy came up to get JonBenet ready for bed (or so they said).

IIRC, Patsy also said it wasn't her "set-up" and she didn't know whose bowl it was.

 

[Whaleshark]

But both parents said JonBenet was asleep when they got home and that John carried her upstairs to bed then Patsy came up to get JonBenet ready for bed (or so they said).

IIRC, Patsy also said it wasn't her "set-up" and she didn't know whose bowl it was.

Yeah, but Burke said she walked upstairs. And I believe an earlier version of John's story included reading to them before bed?

So, it's highly likely that she was not carried to bed asleep.

She probably did get a bite of pineapple if it was just on the table. Well, not probably - it was in her stomach, period.

'Patsy also said it wasn't her "set-up" and she didn't know whose bowl it was'

-- Yeah, even though her fingerprints were found on the bowl... and she didn't know her own kleenex box, yadda yadda.
An intruder is not bringing his own kitchenware into their house and putting ramsey fingerprints on it.

 

[UKGuy]

Regarding the pineapple...It was in a serving bowl, with a serving spoon. Why do people not believe it's possible that it was still on the table because PR had served it to her family with lunch that day?

It was fresh pineapple and it makes sense to me that, because they were going away, it would go off before they got back so PR left it there, possibly for LHP to clean up when she got there on the 27th.

LHP: "I always came in the side door, and I'd walk right into the kitchen and not know where to start. Dishes all over. If they had Ovaltine, the jar would still be open. I always had to wipe the peanut butter off the counter. "

BR may not have had any at all after they got home from the W's. He may have lifted the bowl and helped himself at lunch time. He didn't need his mother to do it for him.

Perhaps JBR saw it still on the table when they got home and just grabbed some chunks out of the bowl with her fingers. I doubt her parents even knew she ate it that night. JMO

Limaes,
You could interpret the evidence in many ways, but they all have to agree that JonBenet was wide awake and snacking pineapple, long after her parents said, she was placed sleeping to bed!


This contradicts the Ramsey version of events, and like the size-12's requires an intruder to explain it away. Or it was Burke who arranged the snack, or an unknown intruder dressed as Santa Claus?


.