Patsy Ramsey

  • #1,421
Actually it does. It would depend on what was in the stomach before, If that person has digestive issues or conditions. It does matter.

Weeell, it would matter in this case IF JBR had digestive issues. Did she?
It IS a matter of fact that tough fibrous veggies and fruits leave the stomach rather quickly compared to meat or less fibrous vegetables and fruit and dairy. Those things can be almost completely broken up in the stomach. The pineapple would most certainly be digested (broken up) in the intestines.

If there was an ME that said she could have eaten the pineapple at 4:30 pm on Christmas Day, and the pineapple was only in her duodenum, then they'd have to move the time of death much much earlier than reported, and she probably wouldn't have been alive at the White's party.
 
  • #1,422
Man, the more I look at that floor plan..the more i realize what an effin' maze that house was!! How could a complete stranger navigate that place!!!

BUT! According to JR.."This was an inside job"!
 
  • #1,423
  • #1,424
  • #1,425
Even giving digestion time as much flexibility as possible, it was the only thing in her stomach, right? That indicates it is the last thing she ate, so if all the party food has been digested, and there's no evidence of pineapple at the party, she clearly ate it at home.
 
  • #1,426
I don't recall reading anything about the questioning of BR, and if he was there with JBR enjoying the pineapple. The glass with the teabag in it.....did they ask him if he had tea that evening, or did the parents tell him to say he was asleep, and didn't hear anything?
 
  • #1,427
I don't recall reading anything about the questioning of BR, and if he was there with JBR enjoying the pineapple. The glass with the teabag in it.....did they ask him if he had tea that evening, or did the parents tell him to say he was asleep, and didn't hear anything?

I don't believe anyone asked BR about that glass with the tea bag. His prints were on that glass as well as on the bowl of pineapple. I believe LE was not allowed to ask BR about it. Just a few years back, LE expressed a desire to speak to BR once again- not as a suspect (because he NEVER can be a suspect according to Colorado law) but just to clarify some things. BR's lawyer Lin Wood refused on his behalf, saying he had "nothing to add".
Odd how BR and his dad seem to have NO interest a all in trying to help police solve JB's murder, right? An innocent family would jump at the chance to have police revisit the case.
 
  • #1,428
The reason it seems suspicious is kind of being lost in this debate.

The pineapple itself doesn't matter.

If you believe RDI, I'm sure that would have been the last thing on their minds, as it wasn't incriminating and a whole lot of other stuff had to be dealt with. I don't think they'd be thinking about it being found in her stomach and causing any problems, but if they did, I think they would indeed just make up a plausible story - "we gave her some pineapple and she went to bed shortly after." There's no reason for them to deny the obvious when they could easily explain it.

The problem is that it gives the impression (which may be completely incorrect, but it still stands out) that they had a narrative for what happened- a prepared story. They get it all nailed down about what they will say about putting her to bed and finding the ransom note and the timeline and all that, and say she was asleep and went right to bed, because that's an easy, safe story. They forget she had a quick snack the night before because there were so many other details to focus on. After being insistent that she'd gone straight to bed, they get caught off guard by the questions about when she would have had the snack, because if they acknowledge it, it looks like they are changing the story. Obviously, denying it also comes across badly, but they were so committed to the narrative that they deny it because they are flustered, instead of trying to make up some reason they forgot to mention that.

It's the fact that the snack isn't in their story that is weird - if they had said JB was up and out of sight while they cleaned up presents, it would be more plausible that she just got it herself or something. But when you say a child went right to bed, that story is now pretty limited and you can't say that you just forgot that a particular thing happened. Anything that occurred would directly contradict going right to bed. And if it had somehow slipped their mind or they knew she sometimes got up for a snack, you'd expect them to be like "oh, yeah, that pineapple, she must have had a bite on her way upstairs" not "no." It just seems like they have a story prepared - that's what makes it suspicious. Not telling, but curious.


Interesting idea but completely implausible IMO. She could have easily been put straight to bed and woken up in the night and eaten the pineapple. By denying that she could have, it narrows the "narrative" in a way that is detrimental to them, not helpful. They didn't have to change their story at all. But they insisted she couldn't have gotten it herself.

[modsnip] :twocents:
 
  • #1,429
I don't believe anyone asked BR about that glass with the tea bag. His prints were on that glass as well as on the bowl of pineapple. I believe LE was not allowed to ask BR about it. Just a few years back, LE expressed a desire to speak to BR once again- not as a suspect (because he NEVER can be a suspect according to Colorado law) but just to clarify some things. BR's lawyer Lin Wood refused on his behalf, saying he had "nothing to add".
Odd how BR and his dad seem to have NO interest a all in trying to help police solve JB's murder, right? An innocent family would jump at the chance to have police revisit the case.
I don't think an "innocent family" that has been dragged through the mud in tabloids and the court of public opinion with such allegations that BR molested his sister and other such theories out there, who have additionally witnessed a complete mishandling of the case on the part of the police, would ever want to revisit this again.

In fact I think they might just find a way to make peace with the idea that they will never know what happened, just as many families of victims of crimes will do.

[modsnip]
 
  • #1,430
Interesting idea but completely implausible IMO. She could have easily been put straight to bed and woken up in the night and eaten the pineapple. By denying that she could have, it narrows the "narrative" in a way that is detrimental to them, not helpful. They didn't have to change their story at all. But they insisted she couldn't have gotten it herself.

[modsnip] :twocents:

Yeah, she could have gotten the pineapple herself. But then why did her parents say she wouldn't have?
 
  • #1,431
Yeah, she could have gotten the pineapple herself. But then why did her parents say she wouldn't have?

That's exactly my point. If it's all a big cover up then why wouldn't they just say "She must have gotten it herself."

How does it benefit them to say she couldn't have gotten it herself.


Several years ago I was in a situation where I had to call compliance and HR on my boss who was this insane tyrant at work. I worked as an Operations Manager for a large thrift store. He was the kind of guy who would punch walls and sexually harass the women. He would also suddenly change people's schedules at the last minute because he felt like leaving early. I had an incident where a woman was told to stay longer after he left and she had to scramble to make arrangements for someone to pick her child up from school.

About an hour after the pick up she gets a phone call from her friend who asks where she is?? Apparently she thought the mother had picked her daughter up because when she got to school the girl was gone and one of the children said "her mom took her" Well mom is at work and where is her kid?

She panicked full out in the store and I reached into the register and pulled out a 20 and said GO! Get a cab and GO now. She was hysterical. Since I didn't have any money my self I just "didn't ring up one item" So basically I stole the money from the register and then we put it back the next day by ringing in the item.

But when I called compliance down to the store they interviewed everyone about the goings on of the situation. And then the HR and interviewers took me into the back and kept asking me about "money" being taken from the register. I honest to God completely forgot doing it. I knew they knew something and I was going to give them full disclosure because I was quitting anyway. I just didn't want the jerk of a boss to continue in his ways.

What I found interesting is that I absolutely did not remember doing it. They kept asking and asking by jumping around the question. I even begged them saying "If someone says they saw me do it I believe them, I seriously just don't remember it. Can't you just tell me the details and I'll probably remember it."

Well they wouldn't and they left me in a room to fill out a paper and write down anything I had done in my work history that was against company policy. After a while of sitting there the entire incident came back full on full force. I was so absolutely excited that I remembered it and I know the younger guy there totally believed that I had suddenly remembered it. I was so happy to remember.


My point in this, is that it seems like a lot of people have this "television show" version of what would happen to a family "if their daughter was murdered in their home." There's no accounting for stress or just blanking out and not remembering.

There's nothing about the pineapple that is something that would sway the investigation if these people were truly liars and trying to convince people that they were innocent. There are too many things that are thrown down as evidence that they are "covering up." There's no real acceptance that they might have confused details or forgotten something. And I don't get it.

I like reality. If you are going to look at reality you need to look at all the possibilities, not just one set track of thinking that supports a preexisting idea.

So for example, in my case in the store, it's completely reasonable for the HR guy to think I was lying and pretending I didn't remember because I didn't want to admit that I had basically stolen money from the cash register. He really thought I was trying to cover up my behavior.

I can see why he'd think that but at the same time why would I call HR and Compliance down to the store to do an investigation if I was stealing? Hello?
 
  • #1,432
That's exactly my point. If it's all a big cover up then why wouldn't they just say "She must have gotten it herself."

How does it benefit them to say she couldn't have gotten it herself.


Several years ago I was in a situation where I had to call compliance and HR on my boss who was this insane tyrant at work. I worked as an Operations Manager for a large thrift store. He was the kind of guy who would punch walls and sexually harass the women. He would also suddenly change people's schedules at the last minute because he felt like leaving early. I had an incident where a woman was told to stay longer after he left and she had to scramble to make arrangements for someone to pick her child up from school.

About an hour after the pick up she gets a phone call from her friend who asks where she is?? Apparently she thought the mother had picked her daughter up because when she got to school the girl was gone and one of the children said "her mom took her" Well mom is at work and where is her kid?

She panicked full out in the store and I reached into the register and pulled out a 20 and said GO! Get a cab and GO now. She was hysterical. Since I didn't have any money my self I just "didn't ring up one item" So basically I stole the money from the register and then we put it back the next day by ringing in the item.

But when I called compliance down to the store they interviewed everyone about the goings on of the situation. And then the HR and interviewers took me into the back and kept asking me about "money" being taken from the register. I honest to God completely forgot doing it. I knew they knew something and I was going to give them full disclosure because I was quitting anyway. I just didn't want the jerk of a boss to continue in his ways.

What I found interesting is that I absolutely did not remember doing it. They kept asking and asking by jumping around the question. I even begged them saying "If someone says they saw me do it I believe them, I seriously just don't remember it. Can't you just tell me the details and I'll probably remember it."

Well they wouldn't and they left me in a room to fill out a paper and write down anything I had done in my work history that was against company policy. After a while of sitting there the entire incident came back full on full force. I was so absolutely excited that I remembered it and I know the younger guy there totally believed that I had suddenly remembered it. I was so happy to remember.


My point in this, is that it seems like a lot of people have this "television show" version of what would happen to a family "if their daughter was murdered in their home." There's no accounting for stress or just blanking out and not remembering.

There's nothing about the pineapple that is something that would sway the investigation if these people were truly liars and trying to convince people that they were innocent. There are too many things that are thrown down as evidence that they are "covering up." There's no real acceptance that they might have confused details or forgotten something. And I don't get it.

I like reality. If you are going to look at reality you need to look at all the possibilities, not just one set track of thinking that supports a preexisting idea.

So for example, in my case in the store, it's completely reasonable for the HR guy to think I was lying and pretending I didn't remember because I didn't want to admit that I had basically stolen money from the cash register. He really thought I was trying to cover up my behavior.

I can see why he'd think that but at the same time why would I call HR and Compliance down to the store to do an investigation if I was stealing? Hello?

I understand what you mean, but it's also important to remember that there was a multitude of inconsistencies and answers of "I don't recall."
For instance, John told police that he had checked the locks on the night of the murder, and later said he never did. Another example would be when Trujillo asked PR if BR was checked on and she said "I think he ran and checked on him...I think he ran and checked on him and he told me he was okay or whatever." Then PR told Haney and Demuth "I think I asked him to go run and check on Burke." But in DOI, it said "Both of us race to Burkes room at the far end of the second floor and find him apparently still asleep. Best not to arouse him until we figure out what's happening here." That's quite the chunk of their storyline to mix up.
There's a difference between fabrication and a poor memory. The micro-expression mistakes on television also make me think they are being deceptive. Their emotions and verbal expressions didn't add up for me as well. For example: Patsy warned parents to "hold their babies close" because there was a killer out there on television, yet the morning they discovered their daughter supposedly kidnapped by a foreign faction they sent their son to a friends house unprotected by police. Very odd. What also strikes me is the way JR reportedly fell apart at Beth's accidental death, but wasn't angry with the murderer who killed his 6 year old and how both parents just wanted to "get on with their lives." I'm not saying this is definitive proof of guilt, I'm just explaining why I don't believe that there's things they simply forgot. Their actions spell out deception, IMO.
 
  • #1,433
I understand what you mean, but it's also important to remember that there was a multitude of inconsistencies and answers of "I don't recall."
For instance, John told police that he had checked the locks on the night of the murder, and later said he never did. Another example would be when Trujillo asked PR if BR was checked on and she said "I think he ran and checked on him...I think he ran and checked on him and he told me he was okay or whatever." Then PR told Haney and Demuth "I think I asked him to go run and check on Burke." But in DOI, it said "Both of us race to Burkes room at the far end of the second floor and find him apparently still asleep. Best not to arouse him until we figure out what's happening here." That's quite the chunk of their storyline to mix up.
There's a difference between fabrication and a poor memory. The micro-expression mistakes on television also make me think they are being deceptive. Their emotions and verbal expressions didn't add up for me as well. For example: Patsy warned parents to "hold their babies close" because there was a killer out there on television, yet the morning they discovered their daughter supposedly kidnapped by a foreign faction they sent their son to a friends house unprotected by police. Very odd. What also strikes me is the way JR reportedly fell apart at Beth's accidental death, but wasn't angry with the murderer who killed his 6 year old and how both parents just wanted to "get on with their lives." I'm not saying this is definitive proof of guilt, I'm just explaining why I don't believe that there's things they simply forgot. Their actions spell out deception, IMO.



This reasoning just seems illogical and biased to me, of course they would send their son away from such a traumatic crime scene but a bias towards them twists it into something sinister when in every single other situation like it, the crime scene is contained. Children are sent to other locations. :waitasec::waitasec:
 
  • #1,434
Man, the more I look at that floor plan..the more i realize what an effin' maze that house was!! How could a complete stranger navigate that place!!!
He wouldn’t have to navigate the entire house.
...

AK
 
  • #1,435
  • #1,436
Even giving digestion time as much flexibility as possible, it was the only thing in her stomach, right? That indicates it is the last thing she ate, so if all the party food has been digested, and there's no evidence of pineapple at the party, she clearly ate it at home.
Her stomach contained “a small amount (8-10 cc) of viscous to green to tan colored thick mucous material without particulate matter identified.” so, maybe the pineapple wasn’t the last thing she ate. Some people have argues that the substance found could have been the crab or whatever that she consumed at the Whites. I have no opinion on that. Also, things don’t necessarily exit the stomach in the same order that they enter so...
...

AK
 
  • #1,437
Here's our exchange upthread at #358:

SS

<snip>

I don't know why people think that there is no possibility she got [the pineapple] herself. My kids go in the fridge and get things all the time without me knowing.

M
I believe people tend to discount the possibility because both parents do in their 1998 statements. John says he didn't think JBR could open the walk-in fridge door. Patsy says no, JBR wouldn't have gotten the pineapple herself.
(BBM)

So what's odd is that, to get the pineapple herself, JBR would have had to get it from the fridge, and neither parent supported that theory.


Because they didn't think she would. That does not mean she didn't. I think my kids wouldn't do a lot of things on their own and then one day they do.
 
  • #1,438
Interesting idea but completely implausible IMO. She could have easily been put straight to bed and woken up in the night and eaten the pineapple. By denying that she could have, it narrows the "narrative" in a way that is detrimental to them, not helpful. They didn't have to change their story at all. But they insisted she couldn't have gotten it herself.

Again, another example of bias towards the Ramseys being the impetus for judgment rather than evidence :twocents:



I agree there is a bias, but I don't understand what is "completely implausible" about what I said. I said it was curious, not telling, because I agree that people go way too hard on the family about things that could have other explanations, and I'm not convinced RDI.

At the same time, narrow my explanation down to one sentence: They said she went right to bed and was asleep from the car ride. (If that is correct, but that's what I see repeated).

That's a rather implausible thing to misremember, although possible. It would be hard to forget feeding her or leaving her alone somewhere before taking her to bed if you remember carrying her asleep right upstairs.

That leaves her getting up at night. It seems like quite a set up for her if that wasn't something she normally did - getting the bowl and all that out of a cabinet instead of sneaking down and grabbing a few pieces, but it is possible. There's a first time for everything. I know I definitely would not have done that as a kid, and my mom would be awake in a second if I was moving around, but obviously the Ramseys slept through whatever happened, based on their story. Yes, kids lot do a lot of things parents don't expect, but the kids of controlling parents actually generally don't, at least not until they are teens. Things that seem like nothing to some families seem like insanity to others - I know it sounds weird, but my parents would be flipping out if I got up in the middle of the night without permission and began eating as a child. Even now they'd come down and ask what the heck I was doing, and I'm 25. So it depends on the dynamics.

That said, my parents would also say "no, there's no way she would" - so that in some ways does go in the Ramseys favor, as you said. Why limit the story more by denying it? The only explanation would be that they were nervous and knew she wouldn't have done it, and kind of just got flustered. It's not a very good explanation - I agree it makes more sense that they were telling the truth on that from a logical perspective. But then add in the alternative - she got up herself and happened to run into an intruder who wanted her, or an intruder woke her and decided to serve her pineapple before assaulting her. I mean, that's even harder for me to believe. It's easier for me to believe that the Ramseys stupidly denied giving her pineapple, since people regularly say idiotic things in police interrogations even when there is a more believable alternative, than it is for me to believe an intruder served her pineapple in her own home and risked getting caught, which I don't think really ever happens.
 
  • #1,439
I agree there is a bias, but I don't understand what is "completely implausible" about what I said. I said it was curious, not telling, because I agree that people go way too hard on the family about things that could have other explanations, and I'm not convinced RDI.

At the same time, narrow my explanation down to one sentence: They said she went right to bed and was asleep from the car ride. (If that is correct, but that's what I see repeated).

That's a rather implausible thing to misremember, although possible. It would be hard to forget feeding her or leaving her alone somewhere before taking her to bed if you remember carrying her asleep right upstairs.

That leaves her getting up at night. It seems like quite a set up for her if that wasn't something she normally did - getting the bowl and all that out of a cabinet instead of sneaking down and grabbing a few pieces, but it is possible. There's a first time for everything. I know I definitely would not have done that as a kid, and my mom would be awake in a second if I was moving around, but obviously the Ramseys slept through whatever happened, based on their story. Yes, kids lot do a lot of things parents don't expect, but the kids of controlling parents actually generally don't, at least not until they are teens. Things that seem like nothing to some families seem like insanity to others - I know it sounds weird, but my parents would be flipping out if I got up in the middle of the night without permission and began eating as a child. Even now they'd come down and ask what the heck I was doing, and I'm 25. So it depends on the dynamics.

That said, my parents would also say "no, there's no way she would" - so that in some ways does go in the Ramseys favor, as you said. Why limit the story more by denying it? The only explanation would be that they were nervous and knew she wouldn't have done it, and kind of just got flustered. It's not a very good explanation - I agree it makes more sense that they were telling the truth on that from a logical perspective. But then add in the alternative - she got up herself and happened to run into an intruder who wanted her, or an intruder woke her and decided to serve her pineapple before assaulting her. I mean, that's even harder for me to believe. It's easier for me to believe that the Ramseys stupidly denied giving her pineapple, since people regularly say idiotic things in police interrogations even when there is a more believable alternative, than it is for me to believe an intruder served her pineapple in her own home and risked getting caught, which I don't think really ever happens.
There are a few more alternatives, one being: JonBenét ate the pineapple before leaving her home for the White's. ...according to at least two medical examiners consulted by the BPD/BDA.
 
  • #1,440
Pineapple does not take that long to leave the stomach. It is not possible. Research on the digestion times of various foods will explain that quite well, and the links have been provided numerous times. There are even numerous sites explaining the digestion time of pineapple specifically, among other specific examples of various foods.

She did not eat the pineapple before leaving for the party.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
127
Guests online
2,518
Total visitors
2,645

Forum statistics

Threads
632,179
Messages
18,623,226
Members
243,046
Latest member
Tech Hound
Back
Top