Intruder theories only - RDI theories not allowed! *READ FIRST POST* #2

[tovarisch]

andreww,
BBM: ITA. JonBenet's last meal was the pineapple snack, since that was the remains at the top of her digestive system. Which should scupper all those who want to say the bowl of pineapple in the breakfast bar represents leftovers from earlier that day!

.

Four scientists as we learned so far, gave the time of emptying stomach 100% and food remaining in the small intestine as 5-12 hours. They have not conspired against RDI.

 

[andreww]

No. I simply disagree with andreww's assessment of the 'facts' and his resulting conclusions.

It seems reasonable to accept (as fact) that JonBenét ate some quantity of pineapple within hours of her demise, but I find it unreasonable for one to propose that we can definitively conclude much beyond this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

First, Fleet may not have recalled whether or not pineapple was served but Prescilla White, who likely was in charge of food, said it wasn't.

From what I have read, according to the experts, that pineapple was about 1.5 hours in to her system. That means it was eaten after they arrived home. This also means that if it were an intruder who fed her, they would have kept her alive in that house for at least 90 minutes. Common sense dictates that this is not a very likely scenario. If it were a kidnapping, why not walk out the front door with her? If it were a sexual assault, why would it take so long, and why bother with the ransom note.

What I see here is a lot of amateur detectives trying to grasp at any possible straw in order to prove the Ramsey's innocence. But if you put all those straws together, the resulting story makes no sense. Stun gunned, then fed pineapple, then she has her hair done. Then the head bash. Why? Why not use the stun gun then the garrote? Why climb out that tiny window? Why did they know exactly where to look for the flashlight? Why write a three page ransom note and not kidnap her?

The evidence against the Ramsey's on the other hand is compelling. Their own son said JB walked in to that house. The pineapple in her stomach and coincidentally a bowl of pineapple on the counter. Patsy's morning timeline being out of whack. The lies about Burke being sound asleep that morning.

I could go on and on but in my opinion this case is pretty clear. We'll never know what happened that night but it definitely was a Ramsey who did it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[andreww]

Four scientists as we learned so far, gave the time of emptying stomach 100% and food remaining in the small intestine as 5-12 hours. They have not conspired against RDI.

If I've learned anything it's that you can always find an expert to say what you want him to say. The crab was gone, fully digested. The pineapple was fresh and whole. That indicates it was in her for far shorter a time than the crab eaten about 5 hours earlier.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[tovarisch]

If I've learned anything it's that you can always find an expert to say what you want him to say. The crab was gone, fully digested. The pineapple was fresh and whole. That indicates it was in her for far shorter a time than the crab eaten about 5 hours earlier.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What is your source for " fresh and whole " ?

 

[Global Justice Ops]

She did not eat the pineapple at the Whites. Why would the fruit become separate from the crab and remain in the intestines and the crab already become fecal matter?

It's matters because the pineapple was found in her system and a bowl of pineapple that no one can account for is present at the crime scene.

 

[Mama2JML]

She did not eat the pineapple at the Whites. Why would the fruit become separate from the crab and remain in the intestines and the crab already become fecal matter?

It's matters because the pineapple was found in her system and a bowl of pineapple that no one can account for is present at the crime scene.

Did JonBenét eat at the Whites' house?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[aussiesheila2]

Article is approved for studying))))))...
What we got from it, figure #7, solid food in 1 y.old boy. Author gave a digesting time for 57% of total ingested food 120 minutes, 2 hours. 43% remained in stomach. Author did not cleared when all 100% would be processed down from stomach. I guess we need to add more hours.
Not only this. Our child, I mean JB, was dying for 1 hour or 1 hour 30 minutes, when her digestion was tremendously affected, if not zeroed.
We need to add those hours to the formula.
Let`s add: 2 hours for 57% (your author)+ 1 hour ( my guess for leftovers 43%)+ 1,30 (slowed, stop digesting due to dying)= 5 hours, at least.
Science is stubborn thing.

Tsarovisch, you looked at the wrong figure. I said Figure 6, not Figure 7, which you must have looked at and have based your reply on by mistake.

The reason I referred you to Figure 6 was that it dealt with liquids as well as solids. I wanted you to see that emptying times for liquids are much shorter than emptying times for solids. I see this as pertinent to our discussion as gastric emptying times for fruit are much shorter than times for other solids. In fact IMO gastric emptying times for fruit are so short as to be comparable to those of liquids (as shown in Figure 6)

This is because fruit does not undergo any digestive process in the stomach. It is mainly water anyway, the rest being simple sugars and cellulose. Cellulose as we all know passes though the gut without undergoing any digestion whatsoever and sugars are not broken down until they reach the intestine. In other words there is no need for them to be retained in the stomach for any longer than is required for the stomach to pump them straight through. So I think you are way off track by insisting on a long digestion time for the small amount of pineapple that JonBenet ate based on studies of digestion times of relatively large solid meals, which have probably been done with adults who IMO have longer digestion times than children anyway.

Also your statement that JonBenet’s digestion was tremendously affected for an hour and 30 minutes prior to her death is pure supposition, not scientific fact at all. You don’t know what state she was in for the last hour and 30 minutes before she died and you don’t know how much or even whether at all her digestion was affected during this time.

 

[otg]

Article is approved for studying))))))...
What we got from it, figure #7, solid food in 1 y.old boy. Author gave a digesting time for 57% of total ingested food 120 minutes, 2 hours. 43% remained in stomach. Author did not cleared when all 100% would be processed down from stomach. I guess we need to add more hours.
Not only this. Our child, I mean JB, was dying for 1 hour or 1 hour 30 minutes, when her digestion was tremendously affected, if not zeroed.
We need to add those hours to the formula.
Let`s add: 2 hours for 57% (your author)+ 1 hour ( my guess for leftovers 43%)+ 1,30 (slowed, stop digesting due to dying)= 5 hours, at least.
Science is stubborn thing.

Despite having several posters on both sides of "the fence" trying to point out where your conclusions about the timing of gastric emptying is wrong, you continue to look for and pick out only the information which might add to your preconceived contention -- even when it is a stretch on upper limits of time, in adults or infants instead of a child, and relating to full meals instead of a small snack. You also don't understand (or won't accept as fact) that the digestion process continues as long as the person is alive, regardless of their level of consciousness. There is nothing "scientific" about selecting only the information that supports just one side of an argument -- even if it comes from a "scientific" source. All you've succeeded in doing is demonstrating that you've made up your mind about this and won't consider any information which disagrees with you. I'll leave this discussion to you and others.

I think, in light of all this, you should consider the quote you use at the end of your posts, tovarisch. And actually, the entire correct quote is:

“Everything must be taken into account. If the fact will not fit the theory -- let the theory go.”

 

[tovarisch]

Despite having several posters on both sides of "the fence" trying to point out where your conclusions about the timing of gastric emptying is wrong, you continue to look for and pick out only the information which might add to your preconceived contention -- even when it is a stretch on upper limits of time, in adults or infants instead of a child, and relating to full meals instead of a small snack. You also don't understand (or won't accept as fact) that the digestion process continues as long as the person is alive, regardless of their level of consciousness. There is nothing "scientific" about selecting only the information that supports just one side of an argument -- even if it comes from a "scientific" source. All you've succeeded in doing is demonstrating that you've made up your mind about this and won't consider any information which disagrees with you. I'll leave this discussion to you and others.

Greeting in a new year to everyone!
We all heroes here, we carrying a heavy task of solving unsolvable on our shoulders voluntary, and we are unstoppable.

To OTG:

I`m not abandoning my theory, after what I have learned from the experts, no way. Several independent experts concluded in their researches that food remains in the small intestine up to 12 hours, you know I respect the time and efforts they all devoted to their research and I will take it into consideration.
I take it into consideration and apply to JB` case, WITHOUT trying to twist, or fit, I simply apply, and I see that pineapple could come into small intestine much earlier in a day, together with the heavy pancake lunch.

You are free to believe that pineapple came as a late night snack as quick as 2 hours. Even I cannot mathematically agree, it does not fit formula that I shown from SEVERAL experts, but you somehow believe it`s possible. You have not provided any experts proven chart including your believe that dying people digest at the same rate. On my side, I looked for expertise I I found out that dying people are not digesting.

No, I`m not abandoning my theory not because it fits my IDI, but because your theory is nor excusive, according to the experts, and even your theory contradicts what I see in the experts charts.

I want to leave this topic to everybody`s own believe. I want to move on new topic that bothered me for a while, my next post.

 

[tovarisch]

What bothered me for a while, it`s Santa Claus letter to JB, ending "I love you all".

The letter bothers me in several ways, and I`m bringing it here for the mutual discussion.

1. I need help with English. When I translate in my head into my native language, the words I love you all towards 6 y.o., it makes me wonder. In my language it sound very bizarre, very sexual and very prohibited, ever, to express to a child that is not your own. No one in their own mind, who does not want to be confronted by angry parents of a child, would ever put it in a letter to a child. Mother-father- brother-sister could write like this, but it would follow with a words like : your little nose, your smiley eyes, and so on...
The only I love your all I can imaging could have been in a letter from lover to lover, with hidden playful emphasis on the sexual matter.
What about English?
Please, help me, it is a proper wordings in English towards 6yo?

2. The letter from Santa was torn into the pieces and in waist basket in JB`s room. JB could not read. It seams to me who ever introduced this letter to JB, HAD READ IT to her. She did not like the content obviously. Or she did not like the person. What do you think, people-could it have been it was read to her by the author? Could it be that he read and torn it to destroy the nasty letter?

3. Who was the author? Is it proven fact that Reinhold the Santa brought this letter? And I mean it-- was it 100% proven ?

 

[andreww]

Andreww~

Your 'facts' are presumptions. We don't know what (if anything) JonBenét ate @ the Whites' house, so we certainly don't know that 'it' had been fully digested. AND, according to his sworn testimony in Wolf v. Rs, FW couldn't recall if pineapple was served at his home on the 25th.

When, where, how, or with whom this occurred, are all unknowns.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We do know that she ate crab at the Whites. She was observed doing so and even asked to take some home.

 

[andreww]

What is your source for " fresh and whole " ?

PMPT Page 433

Meyer noted in his report that the pineapple in JonBenét's small intestine was in near-perfect condition -- it had sharp edges and looked as if it had been recently eaten and poorly chewed.

Based on the condition of the pineapple in her intestine, the experts estimated that JonBenét had eaten it an hour and a half or two hours before she died, most likely after the family returned home that night. If she had eaten the pineapple after 10:30 P.M., that made the approximate time of death not earlier than midnight."

 

[UKGuy]

Four scientists as we learned so far, gave the time of emptying stomach 100% and food remaining in the small intestine as 5-12 hours. They have not conspired against RDI.

tovarisch,
You are debating the wrong point. the issue is not timing, it is what did JonBenet last eat? The forensic evidence tells us it was pineapple.

Nobody can prove beyond doubt when JonBenet was killed, thereby offering a benchmark for eating the pineapple, but we do know she ate pineapple in her own house at the breakfast bar, shortly before dying!

.

 

[Mama2JML]

What bothered me for a while, it`s Santa Claus letter to JB, ending "I love you all".

The letter bothers me in several ways, and I`m bringing it here for the mutual discussion.

1. I need help with English. When I translate in my head into my native language, the words I love you all towards 6 y.o., it makes me wonder. In my language it sound very bizarre, very sexual and very prohibited, ever, to express to a child that is not your own. No one in their own mind, who does not want to be confronted by angry parents of a child, would ever put it in a letter to a child. Mother-father- brother-sister could write like this, but it would follow with a words like : your little nose, your smiley eyes, and so on...
The only I love your all I can imaging could have been in a letter from lover to lover, with hidden playful emphasis on the sexual matter.
What about English?
Please, help me, it is a proper wordings in English towards 6yo?

I interpret the context of the snippet "loves you all" written in the card/note to be a christmas greeting to the family & not to be sexual in nature.

2. The letter from Santa was torn into the pieces and in waist basket in JB`s room. JB could not read. It seams to me who ever introduced this letter to JB, HAD READ IT to her. She did not like the content obviously. Or she did not like the person. What do you think, people-could it have been it was read to her by the author? Could it be that he read and torn it to destroy the nasty letter?

3. Who was the author? Is it proven fact that Reinhold the Santa brought this letter? And I mean it-- was it 100% proven ?

I have some of the same questions. Puzzling topic for sure...



From the 2001 deposition of Steve Thomas in Wolf v. Ramseys:

"6 Q. (Lin Wood) Was there a note from Bill

7 McReynolds found torn up in JonBenet's trash

8 can in her room?

9 A. (Steve Thomas)I have heard that.

10 Q. Did you ever check to see if that

11 were true?

12 A. I think I was told that it was

13 some sort of card.

14 Q. From Bill McReynolds?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Was it ever fingerprinted, do you

17 know?

18 A. Detective Trujillo would know that.

19 I don't.

20 Q. Did you ever try to find out?

21 A. No.

22 Q. Did you ever try to find out what

23 the card said?

24 A. I recall at one time. I don't

25 now."​

From John Ramsey's 06.25.98 interview w/BDA:

"22 LOU SMIT: What do you see in these photographs Mr. Ramsey?
23 JOHN RAMSEY: I am not really
24 sure. I guess it looks like Christmas, I am not
25 sure. Message that's kind of written in a fancy
0551
1 -- printed in fancy letter style.
2 LOU SMIT: Have you ever seen
3 a letter like that?
4 JOHN RAMSEY: It doesn't look
5 familiar. I can't tell.
6 LOU SMIT: I can tell you
7 that --
8 JOHN RAMSEY: It says
9 somebody loves you all. Merry Christmas.
10 LOU SMIT: I can tell you
11 that these items were found in the trash
12 can in your daughter's room and it was
13 torn up.
14 JOHN RAMSEY: Do you know
15 what the word before "loves" is? Somebody
16 loves you all?
17 LOU SMIT: I am sure that
18 that has been looked at very closely. It
19 appears to be a Santa Claus letter.
20 JOHN RAMSEY: (MULTIPLE
21 SPEAKERS). Friend, enjoy your holidays,
22 Christmas (INAUDIBLE). Well, it doesn't
23 look like anything I have seen before.
24 LOU SMIT: Okay.
25 JOHN RAMSEY: And I don't
0552
1 know what it would be doing, you know,
2 torn up in -- looks like it's torn down
3 here, maybe. On the right side.
4 LOU SMIT: You have no reason or no
5 idea how it may have gotten there?
6 JOHN RAMSEY: No.
7 LOU SMIT: Okay. Again these are
8 two photographs for the camera. Okay. That's
9 all I have for now. And if you think of
10 anything in regards to this, I would appreciate
11 it if you would -- (INAUDIBLE)."​

From Patsy Ramsey's 04.30.97 interview w/BPD:

"Tom Trujillo: JonBenet got a letter from the secret Santa. Do you know who the secret Santa was?
PR: Ah, secret Santa. Where did she get the letter?
TT: I’m not sure that she got the letter.
PR: In school or, they had a secret, I know a secret sister thing at the pageant in the summer time, but I don’t remember it being any secret Santa.
TT: Any secret Santa that she talked about or anything like that?
PR: No. Burke had a little secret something at school around Christmas time, he had to bring a little gift for her, and kept getting it. But I don’t remember any of this secret Santa.
TT: Did he do anything like that in school?
PR: Not that I remember.
TT: But Burke did have a secret Santa?
PR: Burke had a little secret. He was supposed to bring a little gift, I think, little finger gifts, and he forgot, you know. He had some little girl and he forgot about it until the last day. But I don’t remember JonBenet having that."​

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[tovarisch]

tovarisch,
You are debating the wrong point. the issue is not timing, it is what did JonBenet last eat? The forensic evidence tells us it was pineapple.

Nobody can prove beyond doubt when JonBenet was killed, thereby offering a benchmark for eating the pineapple, but we do know she ate pineapple in her own house at the breakfast bar, shortly before dying!

.

1.Who are "we" ? that know that she ate pineapple shortly before dying?
2. When you say JB`s is dying do you mean when he head`d been crack in half , or do you disregard it ? And it`s 1 or 1.30 hours, before the garrote.
3. What is your source other than Meyer`s autopsy report?
4. Please, do not refer me to the books. It`s LITERATURE.

 

[tovarisch]

PMPT Page 433

Meyer noted in his report that the pineapple in JonBenét's small intestine was in near-perfect condition -- it had sharp edges and looked as if it had been recently eaten and poorly chewed.

Based on the condition of the pineapple in her intestine, the experts estimated that JonBenét had eaten it an hour and a half or two hours before she died, most likely after the family returned home that night. If she had eaten the pineapple after 10:30 P.M., that made the approximate time of death not earlier than midnight."

I did not know about other Meyer`s report other than his autopsy report. Where could I see the second one?
Do not refer me to the books pages, or we will soon start refer each other to the Nation Enquire pages.
If this second report exists, it should be available as the first one does. Stamped and signed. Official document. Visible by itself.

 

[tovarisch]

In my past life I have been a financial auditor. I quitted after a short time , because people hate you, they want either to bribe you or threaten you. That's` funny.
Would you admit that auditor is an investigator in some sense?
When you are investigator of any sort, that's how you work professionally. First, you look at the evidences, in my case financial reports, signed and stamped. If you find something inconsistent , does not match, or incorrect, you go to the source, meaning main accountant or president of the company and you ask your question. You interview them and wright down their answers, they sign it. You go back and look again at the reports, if you are not satisfied you go back to the source, and I repeat to the source, and you go after them again and again. You became real bulldog inside, even outside you are friendly smiling and your eyes are clear and blue.
If you are a professional, and you find something is inconsistent or incorrect, YOU DO NOT go to their retired employee, who become a writer of this nice company history, and ask him a question, and rely on his opinion. Or to their public relation department and ask them what do they think, why their financial reports do not match. And rely on their opinion.
You work ONLY with the factual evidence, and go to the source if you need more . Source means people who has authority to sign their answers under the law. The law.

 

[andreww]

In my past life I have been a financial auditor. I quitted after a short time , because people hate you, they want either to bribe you or threaten you. That's` funny.
Would you admit that auditor is an investigator in some sense?
When you are investigator of any sort, that's how you work professionally. First, you look at the evidences, in my case financial reports, signed and stamped. If you find something inconsistent , does not match, or incorrect, you go to the source, meaning main accountant or president of the company and you ask your question. You interview them and wright down their answers, they sign it. You go back and look again at the reports, if you are not satisfied you go back to the source, and I repeat to the source, and you go after them again and again. You became real bulldog inside, even outside you are friendly smiling and your eyes are clear and blue.
If you are a professional, and you find something is inconsistent or incorrect, YOU DO NOT go to their retired employee, who become a writer of this nice company history, and ask him a question, and rely on his opinion. Or to their public relation department and ask them what do they think, why their financial reports do not match. And rely on their opinion.
You work ONLY with the factual evidence, and go to the source if you need more . Source means people who has authority to sign their answers under the law. The law.

Thats a very true thought, but we might as well completely stop talking about this case if we are only going to discuss released court documents or police evidence. So many players in this case gave interviews on TV or in the tabloids and some even wrote books on the subject. Whether Meyer gave info in the autopsy report or in a television or book interview is of little relevance. Its still his opinion and I'll take it for what it is worth.

 

[tovarisch]

Thats a very true thought, but we might as well completely stop talking about this case if we are only going to discuss released court documents or police evidence. So many players in this case gave interviews on TV or in the tabloids and some even wrote books on the subject. Whether Meyer gave info in the autopsy report or in a television or book interview is of little relevance. Its still his opinion and I'll take it for what it is worth.

Andreww,

Meyer`s autopsy report info is relevant, it was signed by him while have been a state employed professional. State employed, state paid, it`s significant.
I ask you a favor. I do not have PMPT book.
I want to see with my own eyes the quote from this book. Not so much about the size and edges of pineapple chunks, it`s been posted already, but very much about that coroner Meyer said so. I want to see that Schiller stated that coroner Meyer said to us that ......
If you have the book, please give me the wordings that it was Meyer who provided info on size and shape.
Thank you in advance.

 

[andreww]

Sorry, I don't have the book. That quote was copied and pasted from a website.