You keep insisting what "six year olds do" and I keep pointing out that just because your experience is different doesn't mean it's impossible to happen in a way that is different from your experience.
IMO this is something that should not have to be repeated over and over again because it's just common sense.
Next, she could have eaten the pineapple BEFORE going to the party at the other house or after waking up from being home. It's possible.
The only reason for discussing this would be to throw a flaw in the "story" of the Ramsey's timeline but that would ONLY work if it was IMPOSSIBLE for JBR to have done it herself. As I asked before, if it was IMPOSSIBLE for her to open the fridge it would be different.
So if someone can prove that the refrigerator would have been impossible for a small child to open, that's one thing. If there was no pineapple in the house then that would be impossible.
I really don't understand the logic behind the "well I would never go into a fridge as a 6 year old" being offered up as an argument. You're a law student right? Would that ever be allowed in a trial? "I don't believe it because when I was six I didn't do the same thing?"
:seeya:
I've said many times that some 6 year olds will, some won't. It was in response to your comment that kids get stuff out of the fridge all the time. What JB's habit was is relevant - was she a child who never took something without asking, or was that no big deal? It's not to say that JB couldn't have fed herself, but merely that the possibility that she could doesn't rule out everything else.
You say the only reason for it to throw a flaw into the timeline is if it was impossible for her to do it herself. Well, that would be the only way to conclusively prove a flaw in the timeline, but it still can be used as circumstantial evidence. "I would never go into the fridge" would of course not be allowed at trial - "Did JB ever go into the fridge on her own before?" would be. See the difference? The prosecution wouldn't be forced to ignore that issue because JB is capable of going into the fridge - that doesn't establish it's truth. The standard isn't that something only becomes suspicious if any alternative is impossible. It's not that IDI can only be established if RDI is impossible, or vice versa. It's all the circumstances put together and the jury drawing those inferences that are permitted. It may turn out to be relevant, or it may not be. A foundation would have to be laid in which the coroner explained his findings, the Ramsey's comments about the pineapple and her going straight to bed were admitted (if they didn't testify), and people at the party testified about the existence of pineapple.
I don't believe it is possible she ate it prior to the party if it was in her stomach, but obviously that's been argued ad nauseum, and that would be up to the coroner to establish. I do feel this pineapple thing has been overanalyzed only because we don't know what would have been revealed at trial as a possible explanation, so I don't feel it is some sort of smoking gun, but it is interesting.
I just saw a show in which a young military man struggling with his sexuality went home with a man he did not know, became sexually engaged with him, and then upon realizing what he had done, stabbed the guy to death and stole from him. They found him decades later, married with kids, no other crimes, no homosexual relationships that were known of. They found him because they were able to get a fingerprint into the database that had been updated, and he had an arrest for a minor crime as a teen.
They show up and start asking him every which say if he knew the guy, showing pictures, all that. He denies everything. They then produce a slip from the pawn shop where he sold some of the stolen items. It has his signature on it, and he admits that, but says he has no idea what the whole thing is about. He continues to deny ever meeting the guy, so when they reveal the fingerprint evidence, he admits he did go home with him, and the guy made a move on him and began attacking him. So he killed him in self defense and ran off. Then the cops ask where in that timeline he removed the car radio, rifled through the guy's wallet, etc. The guy then just gives in to avoid having to discuss any sexual aspect of the crime in a trial.
The point of that story is, this guy had so many years to think about how he'd respond if cops came knocking, and he forecloses any innocent explanation for having been with that guy, or to explain why his signature was on that slip, or to give a plausible explanation for how those items fit into the crime/timeline. There were other possible alternatives, but it was enough for him to realize he'd been trapped and had to plead guilty. That's why I said between the Ramseys lied and the intruder feeding her, I choose the former. I've seen enough people say really stupid incriminating things to police despite easy alternate explanations that it's not hard for me to believe at all. The reason I compared only those 2 things was because the poster I was responding to didn't think it was likely that JB got it herself.
And that concludes my commentary on this matter, which I'm sure you are grateful to hear. :twocents: (or more like 20 cents)
