Pineapple Rules Out Intruder

[BlueCrab]

,
The "giant" silver spoon proves nothing. Do you know how large the bowl was? If you don't you can't say how large the spoon was. You're guessing and stating as fact what is actually opinion.

TRIP DEMUTH: "What would you use these bowls for?"

PATSY RAMSEY: "I think I got those little bowls for like salsa, you know, salsa, chips and salsa ..... there were other bowls for cereal."

.....

PATSY RAMSEY: "This looks weird to me, a bowl with a huge spoon like that with pineapple in it."

.....

TOM HANEY: "You started to describe something."

PATSY RAMSEY: "That little bowl there, it is kind of like a little cereal bowl, but it has this huge spoon sticking out of it. This doesn't look right."

 

[RedChief]

TRIP DEMUTH: "What would you use these bowls for?"

PATSY RAMSEY: "I think I got those little bowls for like salsa, you know, salsa, chips and salsa ..... there were other bowls for cereal."

.....

PATSY RAMSEY: "This looks weird to me, a bowl with a huge spoon like that with pineapple in it."

.....

TOM HANEY: "You started to describe something."

PATSY RAMSEY: "That little bowl there, it is kind of like a little cereal bowl, but it has this huge spoon sticking out of it. This doesn't look right."

BlueCrab,

So now you've conveniently chosen to believe Patsy, the very person whom you've accused of lying again and again? When she says something favorable to your theory, you embrace it; when she says something counter to your theory, you reject it. I'm sure there's a term for this sort of selective use of the interview material, but I can't think of it at the moment...ummmm...maybe I can: ingenuity. What do you suppose Patsy meant by saying "this doesn't look right"?

It's good that you've quoted the transcript. The big spoon in the small dish MIGHT mean that it's the work of a kid...MIGHT. It doesn't DEMAND that it's the work of a kid. Obviously you think that's what it indicates, and you're entitled to your opinion; but, please, don't state opinion as fact. Also, the big spoon in the small dish, whether it spells K-I-D or not, says nothing about when the dish was placed there. How much fruit does it look like they consumed? They seem to have piled a lot more fruit into the bowl than they could eat. I thought JonBenet was a pineapple freak. How do you know the dish of fruit didn't come from the frig? You may have interpreted the prints correctly; I'll give you credit for that. Have you measured the cabinet heights; been in the house; know where stuff is kept? Also, it's entirely possible (the laws of physics aren't violated) that the kids were up eating pineapple that night after the parents went to bed. It's also possible that the kids weren't eating the pineapple at the same time, or that Burke ate no pineapple at all. Was he asked whether he had eaten pineapple that night? Would you have believed him if he had said no? That doesn't rule out intruder. The intruder could have come along after the kids were finished and went back to bed, or at any time after the kids were finished and went their separate ways. The only sure thing is, if an intruder were involved, he couldn't have killed the child after she was dead. If you estimate that she died at, say, midnight, then the killer must have begun his task before that (physics requires that). She had one hour (minimum) to digest the pineapple, so she could have eaten it at 11:00 PM. How is the intruder ruled out? The intruder could have been in the house waiting for the kids to finish eating their pineapple. All sorts of possibilities. You can't rule out the intruder with opinions; you need facts. And when you collect those facts and they point convincingly away from an intruder, I will be the first to congratulate you; that will mean that we've made significant progress.

Darn, I forgot, BlueCrab is no longer reading my posts. All that work for nothing....

 

[Bobbisangel]

Blue Crab,

"she refused" ? How does a 6yr old refuse ? Perhaps some of those bruises were the results of the "board of education" prior to dinner at the White's?

When my son was that age he had definete ideas about what he would wear and what he wouldn't. Rather than fight with him I let him wear what he wanted as long as it matched. You know the old saying "pick your fights wisely."

 

[Bobbisangel]

About the turkey dinner....duuuuuhhhhhh, ummmmmmm, "ah thiiiiink they had a turkey dinner". Hello? Wasn't he there? Didn't he eat any dinner or what? "I think"?

Forget it BC, IMO JR is a pathological liar and most probably the main brain behind the cover up of the murder.

I think what he was saying was that he didn't know if the kids ate the turkey dinner or not. Just like he didn't know if she ate the crab or not. When a bunch of people get together for holiday dinners the kids usually do their thing and they snack a lot before dinner. My grandaughter is five and she is never in one place more than a minute. She eats a little here and a little there and never a full plate of food. I doubt my daughter ever knows what she ate for sure.

 

[Bobbisangel]

Well I'm sure that I will get flamed for my opinion but I don't think the parents are guilty. I did at one time but I don't think so now. I listened to what Lou said about the mud or muddy smear, print, whatever it was on the wall below the basement window or on the sill. He says that the window was broken from the outside in because of where the glass was found.

Lou seems to be the only one who investigated this case that has any common sense and really looked at things relating to the case.

It may have been a known intruder or a stranger but I don't think it was the parents. About the pineapple....If the brother had been up with his sister eating pineapple he would have told someone. If someone came to the door and the kids let him/her in the brother would have told someone. I'm sure that the LE had a lot of questions for him. He may not know when she ate pinapple if she didn't eat it with him but those seem like pretty simple questions to ask him....in my opinion anyway.

 

[JBRMod2]

Well I'm sure that I will get flamed for my opinion

Nope. I don't care what a poster's opinion is -- flaming is not allowed on this forum. All opinions are welcome but posts containing flames will be deleted as they degrade the forum and make it an unpleasant place to be.

Further sanctions will be taken against repeat offenders. :slap:

 

[BlueCrab]

Also, the big spoon in the small dish, whether it spells K-I-D or not, says nothing about when the dish was placed there.

.....

Have you measured the cabinet heights; been in the house; know where stuff is kept?

TOM HANEY: "When was the last time you remember that table being cleaned off?"

PATSY RAMSEY: "We would have eaten pancakes together at that table on Christmas morning. And then I would have cleaned the table up."

TOM HANEY: "In the course of having the pancake breakfast, would a glass or bowl like that (inaudible)?

PATSY RAMSEY: "No."

TOM HANEY: "Would you have eaten there for lunch?"

PATSEY RAMSEY: "No, because I think we ate a late breakfast, because of -- and then we were going, you know, 4:00 or 5:00 to the White's for dinner, so we probably didn't even have lunch."

.....

TOM HANEY: "Those bowls, you described them being on the cabinet or a shelf, and you demonstrated it was higher. Is that something JonBenet could have reached?"

PATSY RAMSEY: "No."

TOM HANEY: "Could he (Burke) reach the bowl?"

PATSY RAMSEY: "He could reach the bowl."

 

[gaia]

Guess I watch too much CSI, but could or would the bowl of pineapple been tested to try to ascertain how long it had been sitting outside the refrigerator? Guess that's not too important, but if the bowl had been left out a long time - let's say all day - that kinda makes me think NO INTRUDER. I'm with so many who think an intruder just wouldn't take JB into the kitchen and let her eat some pineapple while he/she waited around.

 

[jaeger]

My definition of an intruder is the dictionary definition:

"to thrust oneself in without invitation, permission, or welcome"

A person INVITED into the house should not be considered an intruder; he would be considered a guest, or a visitor, or company, or he could be called some other innocent term. IOW, if JonBenet and/or Burke let the person into the house that night, then it was someone they knew and therefore the person they let in wasn't an intruder.

Just playing devil's advocate... couldn't it could have been someone who was technically an intruder, but JonBenet and Burke wouldn't have considered an intruder? A visit from a family friend, a neighbor, Santa Claus, etc., who would have had a reasonable (to the children) excuse for being there? Even if my child opened the door and let such a person into the house, I would still consider them an intruder if they had no reason or right to be there.

 

[BlueCrab]

Just playing devil's advocate... couldn't it could have been someone who was technically an intruder, but JonBenet and Burke wouldn't have considered an intruder? A visit from a family friend, a neighbor, Santa Claus, etc., who would have had a reasonable (to the children) excuse for being there? Even if my child opened the door and let such a person into the house, I would still consider them an intruder if they had no reason or right to be there.

jaeger,

I fully agree children may not act wisely in opening the door late at night to a person they recognize, even when that person wasn't expected. This would especially throw suspicion toward someone like Santa Bill McReynolds.

But the bowl of pineapple and glass of tea evidence strongly suggests Burke and JonBenet were downstairs together late at night for a reason, such as waiting for a specific someone to show up. It appears they were downstairs for a pre-planned reason -- whether it was to let someone in the house, or whether it was for hanky-panky reasons between just the two of them.

 

[RedChief]

Why not throw out the term, intruder, entirely, since it's ambiguous, and be specific about the unknown person or persons; i.e., the unsub. If you refer to the unsub as an uninvited guest, what do you mean? That, too, is ambiguous. Uninvited by whom? If the kids secretly let "Santa" in after the parents went to bed, then from the perspective of the kids, he isn't uninvited, or at least not unwelcome. But here, too, we run into difficulties. If he came without invitation, he's technically uninvited, but not necessarily unwelcome; at least not from the perspective of the kids. Also, we could refer to the unsub as a person unknown to the Parents; i.e., a stranger. Or, we could refer to the unsub as a person unknown to the kids. If we use the term, stranger/intruder, I suppose we're implying that neither the kids nor the parents knew him nor invited him nor welcomed him.

So when we refer to the unsub, we ought to be specific and not use these ambiguous terms that engender argument. Here's a hypothetical offered as an example to illustrate my point: A person, who was a complete stranger to both the parents and the children, entered the house uninvited and murdered JonBenet. Yes, this isn't as brief a desrcription as intruder, but it leaves no doubt in the mind of the reader who is being described as the unsub.

Needless to say, there are several pespectives regarding the intruder (the unsub): there is the perspective of John, and that of Burke and of Patsy and of JonBenet. There is the perspective of we who discuss the case which should be that the unsub is unknown to us; but could be someone we know or would recognize if we saw him or read about him or heard his voice. All those perspectives packed into one ambiguous term--intruder.

Let's get specific; use acronyms if necessary to facilitate the discussion.

It's only a suggestion...

 

[Seeker]

Seeker,

Sorry my friend, but there IS evidence of Burke and JonBenet being downstairs together.

Burke's fingerprints were on the bowl of pineapple. JonBenet wasn't tall enough to reach the bowls stored in the overhead kitchen cabinrt, but Burke was. So Burke was the only person who handled the bowl, other than when Patsy, at an earlier date, had put away the clean bowl in the kitchen cabinet. Burke was the resident tea drinker, so the glass with the tea bag in it points to him. And it appears JonBenet and Burke sat at their regular places at the breakfast room table as JonBenet ate the pineapple and Burke sipped the tea.

The fingerprint evidence, the glass of tea evidence, the height of the cabinets evidence, and the sitting places at the table evidence, puts Burke downstairs with JonBenet about one hour before she died. There's no video tape of it, but you gotta read whatever evidence is available and come up with the most likely scenario.

BlueCrab

There is no way to know what time the bowl of pinapple was placed on the table or exactly when the tea glass (why no prints if Burke used it?) was left there. None at all. They could have been put out there from earlier in the day before the Ramsey's went to the White's for dinner. Maybe the kids snacked earlier while Patsy was getting dressed and John was still at the airport hanger. See? You have no idea what time these items were put out on the table and kids are notorious for leaving things out.

There is a good chance that the kids did snack earlier in the day and just left everything where it was. If what we know about the Ramsey's style of living is accurate this would be a normal thing for the kids to do. Patsy probably wouldn't have noticed or cared if something was left out. Didn't LHP say the Ramsey's were rather lazy and dirty in their habits? That she would often come in to find stuff all over the place? Dirty dishes left everywhere and dirty clothes all over the place? Things were just left for her to pick up and clean up. Other housekeepers said the same thing didn't they?

If the muderer had the forsight to clean up other items then why leave the bowl and tea glass (sans prints) out? Esp if the glass was used by the same person that handled the bowl? You don't think they'd wipe the bowl clear of prints too?

Knowing kids and what they do your scenario doesn't work for me.
Also if it was Burke and JonBenet downstairs late at night, why would they need a flashlight? A kid at night, in their own home will flip on the lights to whatever room they enter. They'll often leave them on after they go out of that room too. I don't believe that Patsy or John would have done anything more than tell them to go back to bed if they were found downstairs so using a flashlight to be sneaky also doesn't work. Those kids weren't afraid of being punished...if they were JonBenet wouldn't have been so vocal.

Also you've completely ignorned the fibers that were found in JonBenet's bed and the garland found entangled in her hair.

There is another theory that she was actually killed while in her bed (after she had already gone down and ate some of the left out pineapple for a late night snack and gone back to her room) then carried down the stairs (getting garland tangled in her hair in the process) to the "wine" celler room by the murder. Then the staging is done (duct tape/gaffers tape and hands being tied). Then the murder accidentally left his/her flashlight on the counter after disgarding her body in the celler. He/she wrote and placed the note on the dimly lit spiral stairs and left through the closest door (or back upstairs if you think it was one of the other 3).

Melody Stanton was not sure when she heard, or thought she heard a childs scream when questioned later. If it was so cold for a "light dusting of snow" why is she leaving her window open? What normal person leaves their window open on a night that cold? Did she actually hear a scream or did she hear a car's tires screetching on the frosty/icy street while half asleep? She said she was awakened by it...not that she was already awake right?

 

[RedChief]

Using BC's statistics--and I don't dispute those--JonBenet died 1 to 3 hours after she ate the pineapple. There is no firm evidence that she ate the pineapple at the Whites' or in the car on the way home, or at any of the stops along the way, that I'm aware of. Maybe they kept pineapple in the glove compartment--just kidding.

So, she apparently ate it after she got home. If she ate it immediately upon arrival, her parents lied, 'cause they said she was asleep when they carried her from the car up to her room, and didn't awaken when they dressed her for bed. Interestingly, in DOI, John doesn't say when they got home, though he says they left the Whites' at approximately 8:30 PM. But, he does say they put JB in bed first, then he put Burke to bed at around 9:30 PM; so, I don't suppose JB was up eating pineapple from the bowl under discussion at that time.

John says that after putting Burke to bed, he went upstairs, got ready for bed, took a melatonin, set the alarm for 5:30 AM, got in bed, read a while, then fell asleep. How much time was consumed in all those activities? Here, again, we're forced to estimate (that is if we don't refer to the interview transcripts or police reports, etc.).

Let's say John was fast asleep by 10:00 PM. Patsy was already in bed , John said. Let's assume that she, also, was asleep by that time. Now we have two soundly sleeping parents, well out of earshot of any post tuck-in snacking going on in the kitchen.

Let's assume that the kids hopped out of bed shortly after John zonked out at 10:00 PM, raced to the kitchen, and began gorging themselves on pineapple and tea.

Since it takes a while for food to get from bowl to mouth to stomach, and there was more than 1 microgram of food consumed, let's estimate that the all the food consumed had entered JB's stomach by 10:15 PM.

One hour later or 3 hours later, depending on which figure you choose, JonBenet is dead. So, she is dead at 11:15 PM or 1:15 PM, your choice.

The unsub has plenty of time--from 1 hour to 3 hours, to arrive on the scene, nab JB, and kill her. How her body got down to the basement is anybody's guess.

Just my opinion....

 

[BlueCrab]

Pineapple, eaten by itself and on an empty stomach, would not likely take more than one hour to get to the proximal part of the small intestine.

This subject has been discussed in detail on this forum over the years, and I remember one poster providing a credible source that stated the pineapple could have taken as little as 30 minutes. Most sources say 1 to 2 hours. For several years I estimated 1 1/2 to 2 hours, but after more recent research and the discovery of what seemed highly credible information, I compromised my estimate down to "about 1 hour".

The 3 hour estimate is for a meal. But for fruit, when eaten by itself and on an empty stomach, the rate of digestion is very quick. JonBenet ate the pineapple on an empty stomach.

 

[Nehemiah]

If it was so cold for a "light dusting of snow" why is she leaving her window open? What normal person leaves their window open on a night that cold?

Seeker, I had questioned that very thing in the past, but later read where the Ramseys slept with their bedroom window open, also. Apparently, the heat is very dry so they open the window. We don't do that here in the South, but we have lots of humidity. Maybe someone who lives there will speak to this.

 

[jaeger]

Also, heat rises - to keep the ground floor comfortably warm during the day, you may have to put out enough heat to make the second floor uncomfortably warm at night. When I lived in a 2-story apartment, I never used the heat at night, and occasionally had to run a fan or open the window a crack to help dissipate the day's heat.

 

[BlueCrab]

Yes, the Ramseys also slept with the bedroom window ajar at night. So if it was JonBenet's scream, and Melody Stanton heard it, then why didn't the Ramseys also hear it?

I'm convinced John got up much earlier than 5:30 A.M. that morning. Could it have been the scream that got him out of bed? Did the killing take place immediately after the scream, to silence her?

 

[RedChief]

What is the maximum amount of time we can allow for the pineapple to be ingested, digested and enter the small intestine?

I thought we had already established that the statistics for stomach transit time are from 1 to 3 hours.

If we adopt, say, 15 min, just for the sake of discussion, then we have that JonBenet could have been killed 15 min after wolfing down the pineapple. If we have her eating the pineapple at 10:00 and gulping it down in short order, we have the pineapple in the stomach at 10:00 plus. Let's ignore the plus. Then we have her dead at 10:15 and that's mighty close to when the parents say they put her to bed. Surely no one thinks she'd have the pineapple digested in 15 minutes.

Of course, every time we adjust the transit time downward, we give the intruder theory less credibility. If we assume that JB ate the pineapple while being carried up the stairs, and that the transit time was zero, then the intruder theory is out the basement window. And we're guilty of pulling a Steve Thomas--trying to make square evidence fit into a round theory. Meaning no offense.

BTW, one of the more popular scenarios for IDI is that the unsub was in the house prior to the arrival of the Ramseys, and had finished writing his ransom note by that time, and had taken up a position in one of the rooms upstairs; possibly JAR's room. If that were so, all he'd have to do is wait there for his chance and spring into action. All he has to do to be included under the umbrella of possibilities, is kill JB within 1 to 3 hours after she eats the pineapple, whichever statistic you prefer.

If we return to the original statistics, which were adopted to prove the intruder theory false; we have, as I indicated, in a prior post, plenty of time for the unsub to spring into action once the coast is clear and nab and kill the girl. The only way you can rule out the intruder is to give him insufficient time and opportunity; the time being the interval between the time of ingestion of the pineapple plus X minutes or hours; the opportunity being without interference from parents or brother.

If JB was zonked when she was put to bed around 10:00, how is it that she's up immediately eating pineapple (the scenario least favorable to the IDI theoy)? If we give her a reasonable amount of time to awaken from her deep slumber (how much time would that be?), say 1 hour, following which she immediately gulps the pineapple, then we have her dead at midnight. Thats also compatible with her advanced rigor when she was found.

If she got some shut-eye on the way home (apparently did), maybe she would awaken or be awakened (by Burke or a noise) sooner than 11:00, and that would explain why she was up so soon after being tucked in.

However, if you prefer the longer transit time (3 hours), then the intruder pops back in through the window.

That's how I see it....

 

[BlueCrab]

What is the maximum amount of time we can allow for the pineapple to be ingested, digested and enter the small intestine?

RedChief,

The answer is about one hour. Three hours is out of the question.

Pineapple, when eaten by itself and on an empty stomach, passes quickly from the stomach and into the small intestine.

The stomach acids mix with the food to form a thick mixture of food and liquid called chyme. Most fruits mix with the acids quickly. However, if hard to digest foods such as meats are eaten, then the stomach takes much longer to form the chyme. The chyme is what actually enters the small intestine. The slow journey though about 15 to 20 feet of intestines is where the digestion actually takes place. Very little digestion occurs in the stomach.

 

[sissi]

Seeker,

The turkey (from the 1998 interviews):

LOU SMIT: "I would like to just know, perhaps, what you ate or whether the children ate, or if it was different, or how things were set up."

JOHN RAMSEY : "Well, all I can specifically remember was the cracked crab. I think they had a turkey dinner. But I think she made, she always makes these little hot dogs with barbecue sauce that the kids love."


The pineapple (from the 2000 interviews):

MIKE KANE: "Have you had any forensic people look into the issue of the pineapple that was found in JonBenet's digestive tract?"

LIN WOOD: "Let me ask you this, Michael. Are you stating as a matter of fact that it was pineapple without any question?"

MIKE KANE: "That was stated two years ago in the interview. Yes. There is no doubt about it."

LIN WOOD: "Are you stating it as fact?"

MIKE KANE: "Lou Smit told Mr. Ramsey that too."

LIN WOOD: "I just want to make sure it's clear that you're stating it as a matter of fact and not opinion that it is pineapple."

MIKE KANE: "It is pineapple."

BlueCrab

I don't like this, it is very clear that Michael Kane will NOT say this is a fact.
He circles and circles , then when asked ..is it fact..or ..opinion..michael states, "it is pineapple"....well now..is that an opinion or a fact?
I don't care who said it, who shared it, I want to know WHY Kane could not say, yes it's a fact!!
I have accepted it as fact, we all have, are we wrong?