DNA - conclusive?

[aussiesheila]

If I may, I'd like to answer that one. (Hope you don't mind, BC) The reason the pineapple suggests no intruder is because it is highly unlikely that JB would sit at the breakfast table with a total stranger and eat pineapple. The fact that she did that (if you take it as fact as I do), implies she was in the company of family or friend.

Thanks for the reply Voice of Reason.
Yes I quite agree with what you say, but I am trying to suggest something a little different. I am saying that maybe a person who would later be involved in the activities in the basement that led to JonBenet's death brought the pineapple, and that JonBenet sat down and ate it with him and was comfortable doing so because she KNEW him and she knew him very well. He might even have been the very person who had promised a few days earlier to visit her after Christmas. I am even wondering if the pineapple was drugged since I would think there would have been a reason for bringing the pineapple and that is the best reason I can think of. I don't suppose they thought of doing any drug tests on it, I have never heard of any and they probably didn't so we will probably never know.

 

[aussiesheila]

That is correct AussieSheila.

Thank you for replying bensmom98. It was a bit pointless, my post, because the DNA evidence seems to be non-evidence anyway. I'm not sure why BlueCrab was talking about the DNA but he goes into things in great detail and maybe he is onto something that I don't know about and I thought it important that if he is wrong on something that it is pointed out to him.

 

[BlueCrab]

I don't think this is quite accurate BlueCrab. As I understand it mitochondrial DNA is inherited from the mother, so regardless of whether you are male or female your mitochondrial DNA will be identical to your mother's. Thus neither JR JeffR or JAR would have Ramsey mDNA, JR and JeffR would have their mother's mDNA, JAR would have his mother's (John's first wife) mDNA and Burke and Patsy would have Nedra's mDNA. Also if they determined from the DNA that the individual was male then it must have been nuclear DNA that was analysed because you could not tell from mitochondrial DNA whether it came from a male or a female.

aussiesheila,

I agree with you; and I was wrong. If they determined the donor of the DNA was male, then the mitochondrial method of DNA extraction couldn't have been used. They had to have used nuclear DNA.

I was trying to probe the possibility of tricky DNA terminology being used by the authorities to hide the truth without telling a flat-out lie.

 

[Watching you]

This is not an accurate statement since forensic anthropologists can determine race from bones. The differences are small, but they do show up in bone structure. And no, this has nothing to do with DNA, but does relate to the erroneous comment that we are all the same under our skin.

Rainsong

Perhaps I should have qualified that statement for you, Rainsong, since it seems you didn't understand we were speaking in DNA terms. For DNA purposes, we are all the same under our skin.

Yes, I knew about the bones.

 

[IrishMist]

I am even wondering if the pineapple was drugged since I would think there would have been a reason for bringing the pineapple and that is the best reason I can think of. I don't suppose they thought of doing any drug tests on it, I have never heard of any and they probably didn't so we will probably never know.

I don't think an intruder brought the pineapple, because the fingerprints on the bowl were Paty's and Burke's.

 

[Moab]

This is not an accurate statement since forensic anthropologists can determine race from bones. The differences are small, but they do show up in bone structure. And no, this has nothing to do with DNA, but does relate to the erroneous comment that we are all the same under our skin.

Rainsong

I thought the title of the thread was DNA...not bones. I would assume WY was referring to DNA...not bones!

 

[BlueCrab]

I am saying that maybe a person who would later be involved in the activities in the basement that led to JonBenet's death brought the pineapple, and that JonBenet sat down and ate it with him and was comfortable doing so because she KNEW him and she knew him very well.

aussiesheila,

That intruder scenario is not very likely because, first of all, the pineapple was fresh pineapple, not canned (canned pineapple would have been easier for an intruder to bring into the house). Patsy admits she buys fresh pineapple, cut into chunks, at Safeway. Secondly, the pineapple chunks were in one of Patsy's small sausa bowls she kept stored in an upper cabinet in the kitchen. The huge serving spoon sticking out of the bowl was also Patsy's. So where is the container the intruder used to transport the pineapple into the house?

Also, BR's fingerprints were on the bowl of pineapple. The only other prints on the bowl were Patsy's, but it would, of course, have been Patsy who took the bowl from the dishwasher and stored it in the overhead cabinet at an earlier date -- so her prints on the bowl are understandable. So that leaves BR as the handler of the bowl that night.

Finally, in addition to the bowl of pineapple on the breakfast room table, there was a glass with a spent tea bag in it also on the table. BR was the resident tea drinker. The bowl of pineapple and the empty tea glass were at the same positions at the table where JB and BR normally sat at the table.

I think the evidence is compelling that JB snacked on pineapple from the refrigerator that PR had purchased from Safeway, and BR sipped on tea as they sat at the breakfast room table in the middle of the night after the parents had gone to bed.

BlueCrab

 

[tipper]

Didn't Patsy say it was some sort of decorative or display bowl? Also, I would think if a kid was sitting down eating pineapple (as opposed to snarfing a piece in passing) they would eat more than just one.

 

[Cranberry]

Didn't Patsy say it was some sort of decorative or display bowl? Also, I would think if a kid was sitting down eating pineapple (as opposed to snarfing a piece in passing) they would eat more than just one.

In the DOI book when Patsy was asked about the pineapple she was shown a picture of a white bowl.

 

[BlueCrab]

Didn't Patsy say it was some sort of decorative or display bowl? Also, I would think if a kid was sitting down eating pineapple (as opposed to snarfing a piece in passing) they would eat more than just one.

tipper,

Patsy said the little bowls were originally bought for sausa. They are smaller than a cereal bowl.

Please provide a source that says only one piece of pineapple was eaten by JonBenet. That's a rumor, and this is the first time I have heard it. The pineapple was the first thing that JonBenet ate since the cracked crab meal at the White's (there was nothing else in her small intestine), and she would have eaten more than just one chunk after not eating for 6 hours or more. JonBenet ate the cracked crab meal somewhere between 6 and 7 PM.

JonBenet died about one hour after eating the pineapple, so judging roughly from where the cracked crab meal was in her digestive system (it was in her large intestine) and where the pineapple was in her digestive system (at the beginning of the small intestine), and no food in between those two locations in the intestines, she likely ate the pineapple around midnight and the time of death was probably around 1:00 AM.

BlueCrab

 

[tipper]

You're right. All these years I'd been reading "fragmented piece" when in fact, it says "fragmented pieces." Must have been distracted by ST's matching rind.

 

[Voice of Reason]

Also, BR's fingerprints were on the bowl of pineapple. The only other prints on the bowl were Patsy's, but it would, of course, have been Patsy who took the bowl from the dishwasher and stored it in the overhead cabinet at an earlier date -- so her prints on the bowl are understandable. So that leaves BR as the handler of the bowl that night.

Has anyone ever asked Burke about the pineapple? I agree that Patsy's prints can very easily be innocent, but unless Burke helped out unloading the dishwasher, he should hold a rather definitive answer to the mystery of this pineapple. I would imagine he's been asked, and I'm assuming his answers have not been released. Anyone have any insight?

 

[UKGuy]

Has anyone ever asked Burke about the pineapple? I agree that Patsy's prints can very easily be innocent, but unless Burke helped out unloading the dishwasher, he should hold a rather definitive answer to the mystery of this pineapple. I would imagine he's been asked, and I'm assuming his answers have not been released. Anyone have any insight?

As per BlueCrab's BDI he may have eventually confessed his part and as a child he has been given protection from being publicly identified.

Its possible Burke was briefed in advance with non-committal answers, and BPD received no leads at all.

Also Burke may have served himself some pineapple independently of JonBenet receiving her snack.

A large spoon and bowl is characteristic of situations where communal serving is expected. Was there some form of social gathering or party?

A much more intriguing mystery is why JonBenet's fingerprints are not recorded as being present either on the bowl or the spoon. Did she eat with her hands only, scooping from the bowl, or was she served a portion?

If she was served a portion and it was handed to her, need she have consumed it downstairs, it may have been brought to her upstairs, lets consider a friend of Burkes may have been with JonBenet upstairs, and Burke was honoring a promise of a treat!

Apart from the staging I believe some of the invited guests washed and cleaned up that morning, possibly inadvertently destroying forensic evidence!

 

[aussiesheila]

aussiesheila,That intruder scenario is not very likely because, first of all, the pineapple was fresh pineapple, not canned (canned pineapple would have been easier for an intruder to bring into the house). Patsy admits she buys fresh pineapple, cut into chunks, at Safeway. Secondly, the pineapple chunks were in one of Patsy's small sausa bowls she kept stored in an upper cabinet in the kitchen. The huge serving spoon sticking out of the bowl was also Patsy's. So where is the container the intruder used to transport the pineapple into the house?BlueCrab

Could the intruder/invitee have brought in the fresh (already cut up?) pineapple in a plastic bag, emptied it into one of Patsy's bowls with the huge serving spoon, then stuffed the plastic bag in his trouser pocket?

Also, BR's fingerprints were on the bowl of pineapple. The only other prints on the bowl were Patsy's, but it would, of course, have been Patsy who took the bowl from the dishwasher and stored it in the overhead cabinet at an earlier date -- so her prints on the bowl are understandable. So that leaves BR as the handler of the bowl that night.BlueCrab

No prints on the bowl or spoon other than those you mention? But Father Christmases wear white gloves don't they? Even when they are inside the house.

Finally, in addition to the bowl of pineapple on the breakfast room table, there was a glass with a spent tea bag in it also on the table. BR was the resident tea drinker. The bowl of pineapple and the empty tea glass were at the same positions at the table where JB and BR normally sat at the table.BlueCrab

Yes quite likely Burke was there and drank the tea. Otherwise it could have been the gloved one.

I think the evidence is compelling that JB snacked on pineapple from the refrigerator that PR had purchased from Safeway, and BR sipped on tea as they sat at the breakfast room table in the middle of the night after the parents had gone to bed.BlueCrab

Yes I agree with you about JonBenet snacking on the pineapple (I can't get it out of my head that it was probably drugged, even though I've heard nothing mentioned like that). Yes it would have been in the middle of the night after John had gone to bed. I'm just not sure about Patsy. If I had to guess I would say she was in the kitchen too.

this is just my opinion

 

[Lacy Wood]

A lot of thought and analysis has dealt with the pineapple and tea glass on the table. Isn't it puzzling they didn't just put them away in the frequently proposed staging of events after JonBenet's death that included the composition of a complex ransom note etc? [As most know, my theory is that the note was written earlier for a planned harmless abduction and rescue justifying a quick departure from Colorado and giving JonBenet a dramatic story for future pageants up to Miss America. Then, accident, or an accomplice who unexpectedly brutalized JonBenet, produced a scene partly planned and part panic.]

Here's a completely different thought that came out of a case 35 years ago. A man alledgedly killed his 2 children and wife. The wife and 1st child were killed in a rage. Then to stage the scene as as an intruder crime, he killed the sleeping 2nd child and stabbed himself. He was convicted. It was noted by observers that he did not show any emotion (or remorse) over the wife or 1st child, but was invariably emotional in speaking of the apparently unprovoked murder of the 2nd child. (If you recall the case then you also know the 1st child was alledgedly killed over a bedwetting episode in the parents bed.) Other cases over the years have led me to expand on the thought and consider that sometimes the very same person who in anger kills a spouse or child, and seems unemotional, might well have been devastated if accident or someone else killed that same person. This for what it's worth suggests a sort of self justifying defense mechanism in some individuals. How, or if, it applies here is just a thought.

 

[tipper]

A lot of thought and analysis has dealt with the pineapple and tea glass on the table. Isn't it puzzling they didn't just put them away in the frequently proposed staging of events after JonBenet's death that included the composition of a complex ransom note etc? [As most know, my theory is that the note was written earlier for a planned harmless abduction and rescue justifying a quick departure from Colorado and giving JonBenet a dramatic story for future pageants up to Miss America. Then, accident, or an accomplice who unexpectedly brutalized JonBenet, produced a scene partly planned and part panic.]

Here's a completely different thought that came out of a case 35 years ago. A man alledgedly killed his 2 children and wife. The wife and 1st child were killed in a rage. Then to stage the scene as as an intruder crime, he killed the sleeping 2nd child and stabbed himself. He was convicted. It was noted by observers that he did not show any emotion (or remorse) over the wife or 1st child, but was invariably emotional in speaking of the apparently unprovoked murder of the 2nd child. (If you recall the case then you also know the 1st child was alledgedly killed over a bedwetting episode in the parents bed.) Other cases over the years have led me to expand on the thought and consider that sometimes the very same person who in anger kills a spouse or child, and seems unemotional, might well have been devastated if accident or someone else killed that same person. This for what it's worth suggests a sort of self justifying defense mechanism in some individuals. How, or if, it applies here is just a thought.

Good point about why they didn't clean up the pineapple/tea.

My difficulty with your Abduction for Effect scenario is

1. JonBenet was doing well in the pageants. That wouldn't generate any sense of needing to create a dramatic story.
2. From everything I've read Patsy wasn't an overbearing stage mother. People comment on how generous she was in helping other kids. Both she and JonBenet had reputations for being gracious competitors.
3. The pageants weren't the be-all end-all in their lives. It was simply an activity she participated in and didn't participate in when family events conflicted with pageant dates.
4. An abduction carries with the the very likely possibility of a sexual assault. I don't think being a child rape victim is a tag many mothers would hang around their child's neck and think it was a positive label. Especially when it comes to beauty pageants.

RE the MacDonald case - You should read Fatal Justice. Going just on Fatal Vision I was completely convinced of MacDonald's guilt. After reading Fatal Justice, if even half of what it says is true, I think the man should have at least a new trial.

 

[Lacy Wood]

Thanks for your comments Tipper.

My thought about the pageants projected toward the Miss America pageant which some think was in Mom's mind. You may have noticed that you can't be Miss America anymore without an issue to overcome such as a disease, handicap, ethnic "liability" or something similar. Being a kidnap survivor might make up for being an issueless white rich girl.

I have not read "Fatal Justice". I'll check the library.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Thanks for your comments Tipper.

My thought about the pageants projected toward the Miss America pageant which some think was in Mom's mind. You may have noticed that you can't be Miss America anymore without an issue to overcome such as a disease, handicap, ethnic "liability" or something similar. Being a kidnap survivor might make up for being an issueless white rich girl.

I have not read "Fatal Justice". I'll check the library.

IMO, this fake kidnapping idea joins many other wishful thinkers.

Wishful thinking is when you take a brutal killing by a child killer still on the loose, an unpopular idea for obvious reasons, and wrap it up to make it look like a rich family's scandal.

 

[Voice of Reason]

IMO, this fake kidnapping idea joins many other wishful thinkers.

Wishful thinking is when you take a brutal killing by a child killer still on the loose, an unpopular idea for obvious reasons, and wrap it up to make it look like a rich family's scandal.

I don't subscribe to Lacy Wood's "pageant-stunt theory", but I think that most agree that this was not, and probably never was, a kidnapping. Your "foreign faction" theory, IMO, is equally ludicrous. I think it is fair to say that the Ramseys, their supporters, their worst enemies, and most members of LE, both in Boulder and the FBI, agree with me on that one.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I don't subscribe to Lacy Wood's "pageant-stunt theory", but I think that most agree that this was not, and probably never was, a kidnapping. Your "foreign faction" theory, IMO, is equally ludicrous. I think it is fair to say that the Ramseys, their supporters, their worst enemies, and most members of LE, both in Boulder and the FBI, agree with me on that one.

What about the killer's statement that referenced a foreign faction? That's quite a move tossing that one in the trash. Its the only fact-based direction to go. There has been no published evidence to suggest otherwise.