Has Any Ramsey Defender Ever Given an Explanation for the Pineapple?

[robotdog]

4 TRIP DeMUTH: Okay. So do you think that

5 that's pineapple in there?

6 PATSY RAMSEY: I don't know. It could be.

 

[LI_Mom]

I think that I will start using that as an excuse, when I do something stupid. When my husband says...."WHY did you do THAT?", I will say..."I don't know, I am just a fruitcake".

Better yet.....

tell him a small foreign faction did it & YOU'RE innocent. lol

 

[robotdog]

or the grand daddy of them all

that patsy was famous for

the most horrible thing in her whole life and she answers

"I DONT KNOW" 4685 times

 

[LI_Mom]

Yes, JB was much more stronger and powerful than most little 6 year old girl. I think that I read where she won a few "strong man" competitions. She proudly dispayed those tropies with her pageant ones... So, I can see how the intruder would have to entice her with pineapple. Can you believe these people that actually think that the intruder served her pineapple?

LOL!!!

Yeah, I heard the mystery Santa Bear was actually a prize for winning the "Boulder's Little Miss Strong Man" competition? lol

 

[Wudge]

SNIP

As for Mike Nifong I could have told you within the first month that it was a false accusation...no legitimate rape victim tells that many mutually exclusive contraditory stories.

When any person's story doesn't match the evidence and/or their behavior is totally off the charts for what one would expect its a good bet they're hiding something. That goes the same for the false rape accuser at Duke and for Patsy and John Ramsey.

I dont assess evidence in the Salem, 1692, manner.

Richard Jewell (Olympic Park bombing) was persecuted for his behavior. Scott Hornoff (Victoria Cushman) was persecuted and prosecuted for his behavior. The Aisenbergs (baby Sabrina) were persecuted for their behavior. John Mason (runaway bride) was persecuted for his behavior. The Smarts (Elizabeth Smart) were persecuted for their behavior. Gary Condit (Chandra Levy) was persecuted for his behavior. Cynthia Sommer (Todd Sommer) was persecuted and prosecuted for her behavior. Cynthia George (Jeffrey Zach) was persecuted and prosecuted for her behavior. Steven Hatfill (anthrax case) was persecuted for his behavior. The VanDams (Danielle VanDam) were persecuted for their behavior. Reade Seligman, Collin Finnerty and David Evans (Duke lacrosse rape case) were persecuted for their behavior. Richard Ricci (Elizabeth Smart) was persecuted for his behavior. Sandra Murphy and Rick Tabish (Ted Binion) were persecuted and prosecuted for their behavior. The McCann's (Madeline McCann) are still being persecuted for their behavior.

(There's a reason they stopped hanging witches; the Judges were the real witches.)

 

[BBB167893]

Pardon me if I don't rely on Steve Thomas. Federal Judge Judith Carnes did not either. She used Fleet White's deposition to support her decision.

Don't waste my time with that bulls**t.

The motive for the Ramseys to have lied about the pineapple would be?

Because it screws up their whole narrative, that's why. Too easy.

Make sure you give that thought to Wendy Murphy.

I think she came up with it in the first place!

I never try to explain what fruitcakes do.

Oh, yeah, easy way out.

First, the speed at which foods move through the digestive tract is highly variable. Solid foods move slower, high fibre foods (like pineapple) move slower. Medications can affect the speed--does anyone know if JonBenet were being given any sort of medication for the bedwetting problem?

Pretty sure she wasn't.

If I purchase a product, I keep the receipt.

Yeah, but that's you, Wudge. I only keep receipts for electronics and whatnot.

Mary Lacy's exoneration of the Ramsey's is on par with Mike Nifong being positive a gang rape occured....it's a worthless PR move that has nothing to do with actual evidence.

That's not just my opinion, either.

Looking at any single piece of evidence in a vacuum has a highly liklihood of producing a wrong result, whether for guilt or innocence. It's also a tactic used by defense attorney's to create reasonable doubt where no doubt should exist.

Yeah, you have to take a holistic approach to this case.

Ah, yes, the old "witch-hunting" bit. YAWN.

 

[robotdog]

LOL!!!

Yeah, I heard the mystery Santa Bear was actually a prize for winning the "Boulder's Little Miss Strong Man" competition? lol

be right back, i just drenched my monitor with spit

:behindbar

 

[Medea]

I dont assess evidence in the Salem, 1692, manner.

(There's a reason they stopped hanging witches; the Judges were the real withches.)

From what I can tell of your posts you don't think anyone is guilty and you 100% discount any and all circumstantial evidence and you always choose to interpret any evidence as favoring the innocence of any named suspects and always believe its the 'unknown fruitcake' who can't be found and you are willing to espouse any number of far fetched scenarios...such as an intruder feeding JonBenet Ramsey pineapple before assaulting and killing her...if the most reasonable and probable explanation could remotely be considered evidence of guilt.

 

[BBB167893]

It all comes down to Occam's Razor: which is easier for a reasonable person to believe?

-The Ramseys fed it to her and lied

-Or a fruitcake fed it to her, waited the full two hours, then killed her?

 

[Wudge]

I would like to know the answer to this too. I have never read anything about a container being in her room, in any interviews for example. But, I am sure that if it had of contained pineapple, the juice would have still been in it, and there would have been a way to have test the contents.

Their was a tupperware container in JonBenet's room; but given that BPD was incompetent, no one knows what was in it or why it was there.

HTH

 

[Wudge]

From what I can tell of your posts you don't think anyone is guilty and you 100% discount any and all circumstantial evidence and you always choose to interpret any evidence as favoring the innocence of any named suspects

SNIP

You think incorrectly.

As for favoring a defendant in our system of jurisprudence, they are entitled to that prejudice.

HTH

 

[BBB167893]

I know. "Innocent until proven guilty."

Not "innocent no matter what."

 

[Medea]

You think incorrectly.

As for favoring a defendant in our system of jurisprudence, they are entitled to that prejudice.

HTH

Yes, at the outset of a trial the defendant is presumed innocent. That's it. Once the evidence is presented their presumption of innocence can go right out the window. The purpose of the presumption of innocence is so that the mere fact of being accused and charged is not held against the defendant. Again. that's it.

Twisting evidence to always favor innocence and refusing to look at the totalilty of evidence or choosing the improbable over the probable explanation and doing all kinds of mental gymnastics in order to hold onto the idea of 'reasonable doubt' was never the intention of the system.

 

[BBB167893]

Sadly, the lawyers do a lot of things that the legal system wasn't meant for. I go back to Shakespeare.

 

[Grainne Dhu]

Even for groceries? Why? Not everybody does that, you know. I could understand it if you kept the receipt for ....a new tv...for example....but, for groceries???

A data point: my mother has kept every single receipt she has gotten for anything since the day she stepped foot in this country in 1950 (as a legal immigrant and she was naturalised nearly 50 years ago).

When the IRS selected my parents for a random audit, she was able to show them receipts for every single deduction she took and a whole pile of "maybes" that she hadn't counted as deductions.

The audit ended up with the IRS owing my parents over $4000.

They've never been audited again but my mom is ready. <snicker>

Following her example, I keep all my receipts for everything. The IRS has never audited me but I'm ready and waiting!

 

[Solace]

You think incorrectly.

As for favoring a defendant in our system of jurisprudence, they are entitled to that prejudice.

HTH

Absolutely, until proven beyond a reasonable doubt that they are guilty and since the Court's are not going to do that, we are presenting evidence here and from that evidence some of us have concluded that they are in it up to their ears and then some.

I feel sorry for Berke. He is going to be an absolute mess when he is 40. He had to have heard some things.

 

[Grainne Dhu]

Yes, at the outset of a trial the defendant is presumed innocent. That's it. Once the evidence is presented their presumption of innocence can go right out the window. The purpose of the presumption of innocence is so that the mere fact of being accused and charged is not held against the defendant. Again. that's it.

I thought the presumption of innocence was due to the impossibility of proving a negative.

For instance, I think you were abducted by aliens on this date in 1997--prove you weren't! It's impossible to do so unless I happened to pick a date that you have proof of your whereabouts for the entire 24 hours.

Even an alibi does not prove a negative--it is proof of a positive assertion which is inconsistent with the accusation. For instance, if someone is accused of leaving a fingerprint at a bank robbery in New York City but they can prove through work records, eyewitness testimony from a variety of people and photographs that they were in San Francisco at the time of the bank robbery, they have not proven they didn't rob the bank. What they have proven is that they were elsewhere at a time that makes it impossible for them to have been at the crime scene.

 

[BBB167893]

You can't prove a negative, GD. That is part of it. But some of it does have to do with stigma. Don't forget, in olden days, they used to brand people as ex-cons by cutting off body parts. You can't fix that.

 

[Medea]

I thought the presumption of innocence was due to the impossibility of proving a negative.

For instance, I think you were abducted by aliens on this date in 1997--prove you weren't! It's impossible to do so unless I happened to pick a date that you have proof of your whereabouts for the entire 24 hours.

Even an alibi does not prove a negative--it is proof of a positive assertion which is inconsistent with the accusation. For instance, if someone is accused of leaving a fingerprint at a bank robbery in New York City but they can prove through work records, eyewitness testimony from a variety of people and photographs that they were in San Francisco at the time of the bank robbery, they have not proven they didn't rob the bank. What they have proven is that they were elsewhere at a time that makes it impossible for them to have been at the crime scene.

Huh?

When you are a criminal defendant the state is not trying to prove a negative, they are trying to prove a specific crime was committed by said defendant based on legally admissable evidence.

The defendant has to prove nothing, he or she doesn't even have to put on any defense whatsoever. The burden of proof is on the state. The defendant doesn't have to prove a negative or a positive, doesn't have to prove their innocence or prove that somebody else did it. They don't need an alibi.

The presumption of innocence is so that the charges are decided based only on evidence that is presented at court and being charged, arrested, etc. doesn't count as evidence, neither does gossip, rumor or anything that isn't part of a trial.

If 'proving a negative' was the legal standard then nobody would ever get convicted of any crime at all because there is always going to be an alternative theory that cannot conclusively be disproven.

John Cuey could have claimed that his confession was coerced and that somebody else in the trailer framed him. If he had used that defense, it would be impossible to fully disprove this theory, so by that yardstick then he should have been acquitted. Thankfully, his lawyers had some decency and didnt' advance such a defense.

 

[Wudge]

Absolutely, until proven beyond a reasonable doubt that they are guilty and since the Court's are not going to do that.

SNIP

We agree. That's good.