For the last time, BURKE DIDN'T DO IT!!

[sissi]

You may continue to rely on what ever source you choose Arnd2it. You may want to share those sources, but again, an option.

 

[aRnd2it]

Sissi, have you heard of Google.com?
It's a good place to look up a quotation or a medical condition.
Give it a try.

 

[DocWatson]

Here's what I found on Google:
1) Pineapple is 85% water http://waltonfeed.com/self/h2ocont.html
2) However, the autopsy report says that the stomach contained only 8-10 cc
of "viscous to green to tan colored thick mucous material without particulate
matter" and the "proximal portion of the small intestine contains fragmented pieces of yellow to light green-tan apparent vegetable or fruit material which may represent fragments of pineapple" http://www.acandyrose.com/12271996jonbenet07.gif
3) What's a cc? About 0.06 of a cubic inch or, if you prefer, 7% of a
tablespoon. http://www.convert-me.com/en/convert/units/volume/volume.cc.en.html
Thus, at best, there was half a cubic inch or 70% of a tablespoon of "stuff" in her stomach and it didn't have particulate matter yet the small intestine containd fragmented pieces of (possibly) pineapple.

Unfortunately, the report says nothing about the quantity of material in the small intestine, so our ability to infer from this evidence is limited, but I infer from it that the lion's share of pineapple had been digested since a) the chunks, not just the liquid, already were present in the small intestine; b) because the residue in the stomach was reported to have no particulate matter, suggesting that all the chunky portions of the pineapple HAD been digested already; and c) the amount left in the stomach seemed to be pretty small: wouldn't a single pineapple chunk be at least 1/2 cubic inch in size? Given that she was eating out of a BOWL with a LARGE spoon, that suggests to me she had more than just 1 or 2 pieces [the only scenario this doesn't fit is one where Burke is eating the pineapple and JBR casually grabs a chunk or two out of the bowl while he's eating, but this of course doesn't fit well with either a parents-did-it or familiar intruder scenario. And let me preempt BC's self-congratulatory comments: even if this small bit of evidence may be slightly supportive of his BDI theory, there are plenty of other reasons to reject it.].

Finally, Sissi is right that if in the aftermath of eating the pineapple things got to "get exciting" (in various scenarios, this has a different meaning), then this would have had the effect of delaying digestion. In short, all your hand-waving doesn't help erase the hard physical evidence. If the pineapple is part of the murder scenario, then the late-night eating of the pineapple has to result in a pretty leisurely segue (a minimum of one hour, more likely 2+ hours) into whatever events led to the murder. I know of no credible RDI or friendly intruder scenario that is laid out in this fashion. Do you?

The victim is speaking to you: she's telling you the pineapple is not relevant. Why don't you listen to her?

 

[aRnd2it]

The victim is speaking to you: she's telling you the pineapple is not relevant. Why don't you listen to her?

Because the pineapple is VERY relevant. It proves the Ramseys lied about what happened when they got home that night. It proves Burke was correct when he told LE that his sister was awake and walked into the house on her own.

The pineapple and the 911 tape prove the Ramseys lied about what happened the night before, and the morning after, the crime.

The Ramseys would not be lying to protect an intruder.

 

[sissi]

Because the pineapple is VERY relevant. It proves the Ramseys lied about what happened when they got home that night. It proves Burke was correct when he told LE that his sister was awake and walked into the house on her own.

The pineapple and the 911 tape prove the Ramseys lied about what happened the night before, and the morning after, the crime.

The Ramseys would not be lying to protect an intruder.

No disrespect, but where did this information originate, Steve Thomas, the National Enquirer, leaks aimed at making the Ramseys look guilty, just like "no foot prints in the snow"? I have yet to read anything that indicates the Ramseys have lied.
edit..remember Dowaliby

 

[DocWatson]

But it really makes no sense to lie about this, especially if they have no way of controlling what Burke might say. WRT Burke, please remind me of source that he claimed she was awake (I quickly went back to Bonita Papers, for example, and didn't see this claim). If it comes from Steve Thomas, the I think it is questionable evidence as there have been other facts on which subsequent events have shown ST to be lying. But another interesting "fact" reported in Bonita Papers is that coroner himself stated pineapple had to have been ingested at least 2 hours before death. Guess he foolishly forgot to check with a real expert (you!) on this... LOL.

Which gets to the pineapple. If this is the only evidence you have for lying it is a thin reed and it makes no sense in terms of motivation. The Ramseys gain nothing by saying she was asleep when they got home as opposed to everyone had a small snack and then went to bed.

I don't find the 911 tape compelling. Dave on Webbsleuths has done the definitive analysis on this. You can choose to disagree, but the point is, I don't accept the tape as evidence of lying.

Did the Ramseys act suspicious? In my mind, no more suspicious than any couple strongly encouraged by friends to "lawyer up" and not take the risk of being railroaded by LE.

 

[sissi]

What I have always found interesting are the responses of many Steve followers. When Steve was asked UNDER OATH to give origins of information in his book, sometimes asked if he remembered items , he either proclaimed he heard it from x who heard it from officer y, and told it to him, or he would simply say he didn't recall. However odd this seemed to most of us, the "believers" stated clearly how well he did ,not answering because he didn't have to and that's all that was deserved. He was above it all, wasn't he!!

 

[sissi]

We can realize many of the leaks and lies provided to the media by the BPD were designed for a purpose.




THOMAS: I believe there were discussions with the FBI, yes, about how to exert some public pressure on people who were not cooperating, yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Were they also thinking that they might use the media to apply pressure so that there might be a possibility that one of the parents might confession involvement in the crime? Was there ever discussed?

THOMAS: That may have been some motivation.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you believe, from your recollections, that that was discussed?

THOMAS: I wouldn't disagree with it.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Who put the screen saver on at the Boulder Police Department that said, quote, "The Ramseys are the killers?"

THOMAS: I don't know who applied that to the computer screen.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did you think that was professional?

THOMAS: Sometimes police humor can be less than professional behind closed doors.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well did you suggest that it might be better to take that off since you were in the process of investigation and there were a number of suspects beyond the Ramseys?

THOMAS: I did not make that suggestion.

 

[aRnd2it]

What I have always found interesting are the responses of many Steve followers. When Steve was asked UNDER OATH to give origins of information in his book, sometimes asked if he remembered items , he either proclaimed he heard it from x who heard it from officer y, and told it to him, or he would simply say he didn't recall. However odd this seemed to most of us, the "believers" stated clearly how well he did ,not answering because he didn't have to and that's all that was deserved. He was above it all, wasn't he!!

Sissi, it's obvious you are really ignorant of how a deposition works. The least amount of information you hand over to the opposing side the better. The answers ST provided are exactly what any lawyer representing him would have put into his mouth if he could. Get a clue.

Sheeesh, you and DocWat are willing to bend any truth to try and put a little bit of phony logic into your Ramsey support.

 

[aRnd2it]

I don't find the 911 tape compelling. Dave on Webbsleuths has done the definitive analysis on this. You can choose to disagree, but the point is, I don't accept the tape as evidence of lying.

Dave on Webbsleuths???...LOL! What a crock of BS! And where exactly did "Dave" get a copy of the complete, un-edited, un-redacted, version of the 911 tape that Keenan has not released to the public and nobody has heard? You know, the version of the 911 tape that doesn't have the gap at the end which omits Burke's voice... Oh, I forgot, over on the Swamp if you don't have all the facts and information, you just fake the truth and make up the rest by lying.

 

[Jayelles]

What I have always found interesting are the responses of many Steve followers. When Steve was asked UNDER OATH to give origins of information in his book, sometimes asked if he remembered items , he either proclaimed he heard it from x who heard it from officer y, and told it to him, or he would simply say he didn't recall.

Sissi, I have to take exception with any insinuation that Officer X's word was a worthless source.

I've read ST's deposition and I know which parts you are referring to. I remember this precise discussion about them at jamesons. You have to remember that these guys were working as a team and they each had their own tasks to do and return results from. We're not talking about idle gossip from people who weren't directly involved in the case. We are talking about the say so of the guys who obtained the information at first hand - because that was the part of the investigation for which he/she had responsibility. If we start negating the value of all information unless it is obtained first hand - even if it is obtained directly from the people involved, then that is a very slippery slope IMO.

 

[Jayelles]

Dave on Webbsleuths???...LOL! What a crock of BS! And where exactly did "Dave" get a copy of the complete, un-edited, un-redacted, version of the 911 tape that Keenan has not released to the public and nobody has heard? You know, the version of the 911 tape that doesn't have the gap at the end which omits Burke's voice... Oh, I forgot, over on the Swamp if you don't have all the facts and information, you just fake the truth and make up the rest by lying.

You've given yourself away DocWatson, You're one of the Swampettes over here to spread the lies of your skanky leader. Now that we know where you get all your false information we can put it into the perspective it belongs--RST propaganda.

LOL Definitely something a little "fishy" about DocWatson.....

 

[sissi]

I can understand your belief in the system, it should work the way you say. I will say, in the area I live, as in most big cities, Baltimore, Philly, NewYork, the police do work as a team. Here the pooling of information, evidence, ideas, and personal considerations ,solve crimes every day. Where no one is allowed to consider themselves the most important cog in the wheel, homicide units work as a team, crimes get solved.
Interrogations are part of the process ,as well, and those of us that understand the way in which police gain information understand that the "low down" tactics are designed to make criminals confess. When the police say, only your prints are on the bowl, only your fibers are on the tape, only your fibers are in her panties, we can understand that these items are not factual, they are by design aimed at wearing a person down to the level of confession. HOWEVER, when this same information is released to the public, a public that is for the most part naive, it has the effect of swaying public opinion into believing "these WORDS" and believing in the guilt of the interrogated parties. This is where I see a failure in our system, from this very point, the media picks up, and the lying questions become a media truth, it then becomes the "facts" in which people believe. NO ONE realizes, or so it seems, that the police could in fact say, we found your semen on her panties and be within what the law allows in questioning a suspect. No it becomes the truth in too many minds, and serves no purpose in solving the crime, it just gives the public a "suspect" without having benefit of realizing most of what they believe is a LIE.

 

[aRnd2it]

Sissi, I have to take exception with any insinuation that Officer X's word was a worthless source.

Jayelles, Sissi is under the impression that Steve Thomas and Lin Wood should have sat next to each other in the deposition, pinching each other's cheeks and practicing secret handshakes. Sissi can't understand the fact that the whole idea during a deposition is to NOT give the opposing side any useful information.

If Thomas had answered one of Lin Wood's questions by saying, "Well gee Lin, I think I read that fact on the stall door in the second floor Mens room", his sarcasm would have gone right over some RST heads and they would be whining that Thomas' sources weren't reliable.

 

[sissi]

When a person is under oath to tell the truth, there is no room for sarcasm!

This is the law of the land, when sworn in to tell the truth. If one is asked a question to which he/she knows the answer and the response is "I don't know", that is a LIE.

oath: solemn usually formal calling upon God or a god to witness to the truth of what one says or to witness that one sincerely intends to do what one says (2) : a solemn attestation of the truth or inviolability of one's words

If you find Steve's comments deliberate lies, games, sarcasm ..whatever,then you are suggesting it is okay to lie.

 

[Jayelles]

I can understand your belief in the system, it should work the way you say. I will say, in the area I live, as in most big cities, Baltimore, Philly, NewYork, the police do work as a team. Here the pooling of information, evidence, ideas, and personal considerations ,solve crimes every day. Where no one is allowed to consider themselves the most important cog in the wheel, homicide units work as a team, crimes get solved.
Interrogations are part of the process ,as well, and those of us that understand the way in which police gain information understand that the "low down" tactics are designed to make criminals confess. When the police say, only your prints are on the bowl, only your fibers are on the tape, only your fibers are in her panties, we can understand that these items are not factual, they are by design aimed at wearing a person down to the level of confession. HOWEVER, when this same information is released to the public, a public that is for the most part naive, it has the effect of swaying public opinion into believing "these WORDS" and believing in the guilt of the interrogated parties. This is where I see a failure in our system, from this very point, the media picks up, and the lying questions become a media truth, it then becomes the "facts" in which people believe. NO ONE realizes, or so it seems, that the police could in fact say, we found your semen on her panties and be within what the law allows in questioning a suspect. No it becomes the truth in too many minds, and serves no purpose in solving the crime, it just gives the public a "suspect" without having benefit of realizing most of what they believe is a LIE.

Of course they are trying to wear the suspect down. Many good confessions from guilty persons have been extracted using these methods. It's a perfectly valid thing to do. If they didn't apply pressure to suspects, they would NEVER get confessions in many cases.

However, you appear to be suggesting that POlice only tell lies during interrogtions. Don't you think that if an interview is video taped and a confession were elicited under false pretenses, that the police would be risking a mistrial if the case came to court? (not sure if "mistrial" would be the correct outcome - but I am sure that any confession extracted under false pretenses would be unsafe).

 

[sissi]

I think we are talking about two very different circumstances, one the interrogation where anything goes, the other the deposition where one is sworn to tell the truth.
Yes, they can solicit a confession by hook or crook,it makes no difference whether there were lies or not, and has no bearing on a trial moving forward. My problem is the material that is released after such interrogations,released to the media ,where a public does NOT understand ,and is led to believe the very lies used by LE to force confessions, then forms opinions based on these same lies.
The other issue is the deposition, where the deposed is sworn to tell the truth, yet lies as well, and it's called "sarcasm". This should be a prosecutable offense.

 

[aRnd2it]

When a person is under oath to tell the truth, there is no room for sarcasm!
If you find Steve's comments deliberate lies, games, sarcasm ..whatever,then you are suggesting it is okay to lie.

It's a legal game. One side plays "Try to find out the facts" and the other side plays "You ain't getting nuthin' from me Chump".

If you have a problem with the process then you must think the Ramseys are the biggest liars in the world. During their interogations they played so stupid with "non-answers" that JR couldn't recognize the flashlight his son gave him as a present, and even claimed he couldn't recognize the family bowl and spoon sitting on the kitchen table.
Now those are REAL liars in YOUR book, sissi!

 

[Jayelles]

I think we are talking about two very different circumstances, one the interrogation where anything goes, the other the deposition where one is sworn to tell the truth.
Yes, they can solicit a confession by hook or crook,it makes no difference whether there were lies or not, and has no bearing on a trial moving forward. My problem is the material that is released after such interrogations,released to the media ,where a public does NOT understand ,and is led to believe the very lies used by LE to force confessions, then forms opinions based on these same lies.
The other issue is the deposition, where the deposed is sworn to tell the truth, yet lies as well, and it's called "sarcasm". This should be a prosecutable offense.

Depositions aren't made public here. We have a whole different legal system where EVERYTHING is classified until there is a trial. There is also a total media blackout on cases until the trial too.

I'd be wary of interpreting someone's words on the basis of a transcript. Sometimes you see something written down, but when it is spoken, it comes across very differently.

 

[TLynn]

From Doc Watson: I find it amusing to see Lou Smit ridiculed right and left for his various theories when he says things people don't like and then later used as an authority when he happens to say something that supports the cockamamie theories trotted out here. The fact that Lou Smit said the pineapple is problematic doesn't make it so.

What's wrong with that picture?

The problem with an intruder theory IS the pineapple. Smit's answer to it is - there was pineapple in tuberware up in JonBenet's room; she woke up that night and ate it.

So, even Smit admits the pineapple is problematic and comes up with a ridiculous scenerio to account for it.

Let us pray....