Ask Super

[UKGuy]

Camper,
If a visitor had brought the pineapple, then it begs more questions than answers.

Are Patsy's and Burke's fingerprints the only fingerprints on the bowl, are there any fingerprints on the serving spoon, if so, whose?

As I recall there were no fingerprints found on the spoon.


Why has the visitor left no trace behind?
WELL the visitor did IF IF he/she left the pineapple.

And like her urine-soaked longjohns, why leave forensic evidence lying on the kitchen table, if you know it is directly linked with a visitor and the death of JonBenet?
Because the visitor ?, was not forensically trained, and did not connect the pineapple dots.

I know you did not mean the longjohns were left on the kitchen table - did YOU?
End of quoted post and my answers in blue.

.

Camper,

I know you did not mean the longjohns were left on the kitchen table - did YOU?

No this is today's unintended funny

If Patsy's fingerprints were not on that bowl, or even Burkes, and say one of JonBenet's then the visitor scenario would be strong.

So Patsy either left evidence undisturbed that there had been a visitor on plain view or neglected to point out its significance that someone else had prepared and served the pineapple?


.

 

[Camper]

Camper,


No this is today's unintended funny

If Patsy's fingerprints were not on that bowl, or even Burkes, and say one of JonBenet's then the visitor scenario would be strong.

So Patsy either left evidence undisturbed that there had been a visitor on plain view or neglected to point out its significance that someone else had prepared and served the pineapple?

.

Welll, consider this, Patsy's fingerprints could have BEEN on the bowl taking it from the dishwasher or hand washing the bowl and putting it away. Burkes could have been on the bowl from getting it down for the visitor.

IF IF the visitor were a 'friend' of Burkes bringing the pineapple, perhaps flaky thought on MY part, BUT PR disclaims knowledge of any pineapple at all.

SO from PR's positional view to LE, she did not know about ANY pineapple bowl or spoon. Leaving pineapple in plain sight could have been the one mistake by the R's in the 'protection coverup' of SOMEONE. I really doubt that the 'perpetrator' knew in advance that forensics would find partially undigested pineapple in the 'victim'.

No pineapple wrappings were found in the home, IF IF IF I remember correctly, am I right - I unlike others who have been here forever, did not keep records of the case. I function totally from memory.

.

 

[rashomon]

I already did over at FFJ, rash.

I have just read it on FFJ. Thanks so much, Dave!

 

[JMO8778]

Someone said the pineapple was bought already cut up...no wrappings? Or were some found and that evidence not released?
Also...most grocery stores itemize receipts nowdays...was it ever recorded where and when PR bought the pineapple?Or was it an item someone had brought to the party on the 23rd,or maybe given as an xmas gift?I know it's not unusual to give food items as gifts,like from gourmet places and or in gift baskets and such.

 

[icedtea4me]

Someone said the pineapple was bought already cut up...no wrappings? Or were some found and that evidence not released?
Also...most grocery stores itemize receipts nowdays...was it ever recorded where and when PR bought the pineapple?Or was it an item someone had brought to the party on the 23rd,or maybe given as an xmas gift?I know it's not unusual to give food items as gifts,like from gourmet places and or in gift baskets and such.

Patsy said she bought the fresh pineapple in a plastic container at Safeway. I believe it had already been cored and the outer rind was removed.


-Tea

 

[BBB167893]

I have just read it on FFJ. Thanks so much, Dave!

Always pleased to oblige!

 

[Eagle1]

A bag from Safeway was found in the trash, and I'm assuming it was an individual plastic pineapple container rather than a bag for misc. groceries. Someone correct this if you know something different.

"Not forensically trained", I like that expression. If there was an intruder he may not have been, f. trained, and neither were Burke and JonBenet.

If the parents did the staging, leaving the garrotte would be to make it look like a criminal pervert did it. Not saying they did the staging or not, since I wasn't there, no opinion.

Whether involved or not, and in some way they may have been, by allowing something they shouldn't have, and by not running the ALARM because JonBenet had once set it off and caused a big commotion, all the shock and confusion would cause some deer-in-the-headlights "lies", whether deliberate or just nervous memory lapses and mistakes. I know I would sure goof up a lot in such a circumstance. Absolutely, no question about it. I know I would not be credible at all. Even in normal circumstances I may not always be a good communicator, I'm always considering so many sides of a question. This case is not simple.

 

[Tricia]

I'm just wondering about the Grand Jury - did they vote or not? Why were we told they did, only now to hear they didn't? Where is the info they didn't coming from? What's the real story?

Don't mean to steal Super Dave's thunder and maybe he already answered this one but....Nowhere has any official EVER stated that the Grand Jury ACTUALLY voted.

I would bet my life they did not vote. All Alex Hunter said was there was no indictment. Hunter didn't say, "The Grand Jury voted and chose not to indict the Ramseys." Hunter thought out his statement very carefully as not to lie to the people.

The Grand Jury did not vote. Show me where Alex Hunter or Michael Kane said other wise and I'll change my tune.

 

[BBB167893]

Well, you didn't steal it, but it's somewhat muted now.

But a few weeks ago, O'Reilly had some Crimelibrary correspondent on his show discussing the Midyette case, and he revealed that all three GJs called in Boulder all ended the same way: no indictment. That. I'd say, swings it over our way.

 

[Nuisanceposter]

Thank you very much, Tricia and SuperDave. The IDI want to make such a big deal about the GJ not returning an indictment, and how that means there wasn't enough evidence against the Rs...now we can see that returning with no indictment means nothing, especially when there's no proof the GJ even got a chance to vote in the first place, and have never come back with in indictment.

 

[coloradokares]

Well, you didn't steal it, but it's somewhat muted now.

But a few weeks ago, O'Reilly had some Crimelibrary correspondent on his show discussing the Midyette case, and he revealed that all three GJs called in Boulder all ended the same way: no indictment. That. I'd say, swings it over our way.

No GJ has ever indicted. But also I have yet to find the GJ voted in the matter of JBR.

 

[BBB167893]

Glad I could help.

 

[Ames]

SuperDave,

Are you related to the Super Bowl, in any way? This has been bothering me now, for quite some time.

 

[JMO8778]

I've always wondered if he was related to SuperDave,the stuntman.

 

[Ames]

I've always wondered if he was related to SuperDave,the stuntman.

My guess is that he is related to both..the SUPER Bowl...AND SuperDave, the stuntman....probably one in the same....:crazy:

 

[BBB167893]

Sorry to disappoint you, but neither.

And if I had a nickel for every time I've been asked, I'd be rich!

 

[philamena]

SuperDave,
I have a question for you,I'm not new to the JBR case but am new to the discussion here. Did you know the Ramsey's or anyone else involved in the case or the investigation? Just wondering where you got your knowlege about the case.

 

[BBB167893]

Nope. Same as everyone else: books, TV pieces, etc.

 

[JMO8778]

Well,if you were Steve Thomas,would you tell us?

 

[Ames]

Well,if you were Steve Thomas,would you tell us?

I am going to start calling him SUPERIORDave....because he is so knowledgeable about this case....AND I AGREE with everything he says.