Pineapple Rules Out Intruder

[sissi]

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.

BC . you are stating the digestion time according to your source, with your guess that she had an empty stomach. My sources suggest a far different time span. Possibly one day we will get "my guy/your guy" in a court room and let them fight for credibility.
Why would Burke leave prints on his pineapple bowl, yet leave none on his glass?
and...where in the H*** did you get that deal about Patsy's bicycle?? That is not a FACT, nor even a good rumor.

 

[BlueCrab]

BC . you are stating the digestion time according to your source, with your guess that she had an empty stomach. My sources suggest a far different time span. Possibly one day we will get "my guy/your guy" in a court room and let them fight for credibility.
Why would Burke leave prints on his pineapple bowl, yet leave none on his glass?
and...where in the H*** did you get that deal about Patsy's bicycle?? That is not a FACT, nor even a good rumor.

Sissi,

o It's not a guess about JonBenet eating the pineapple on an empty stomach. It's in the autopsy report. Please read it. If that doesn't satisfy you, then call up the coroner, John Meyer, and tell him his autopsy report is wrong.

o Burke's fingerprints may very well have been on the waterglass as well as the bowl of pineapple. The cops have never said one way or the other about prints on the waterglass.

o In re' to the bicycle:

LOU SMIT: 'You know, I've looked at a lot of pictures in regard to this particular case and I can't remember seeing any bikes. What happened to the bikes?"

JOHN RAMSEY: "Well, they were in the garage, I guess. JonBenet rode her bike for a moment outside before we went to the White's; just around the patio. I'm sure that went back in the garage, Patsy's bike, I don't know, it could have gone in the garage. I don't remember."

LOU SMIT: "Have you seen it since, Patsy's bike?"

JOHN RAMSEY: "Yeah. We have it."

LOU SMIT: "(INAUDIBLE) took it?"

There were bicycle tracks in the snow across the Ramsey's lawn. Who was Lou Smit referring to when he asked, "(inaudible) took it?" The transcript reads like both John Ramsey and Lou Smit knew something more about Patsy's bike they were not revealing.

BlueCrab

 

[UKGuy]

Burke's fingerprints may very well have been on the waterglass as well as the bowl of pineapple. The cops have never said one way or the other about prints on the waterglass.
BlueCrab

BlueCrab,

Thanks for your posts.

I agree at some point after arriving home from the White's, JonBenet likely snacked pineapple SOMEWHERE in her house. The coroners autopsy strongly suggests this is beyond dispute.

Anything stated beyond this is simply speculation!

The lack of confirmatory forensic evidence that JonBenet sat down at that table and snacked pineapple, at any specific time with any particular person, means taken together it cannot be used as an assumption in forming conclusions about your BDI.

There is nothing in what is presented to us as being on the table, that allows us to conclude that either the pineapple was snacked THERE, OR that Burke drank from that glass, even if he did, he may not have drank from it IN the kitchen, and it may not have been at the SAME time JonBenet snacked her pineapple. In effect the two events, Tea Drinking and Pineapple Snacking, may be separated in time, e.g. they may be discontinuous.

One thing that has always been curious, was how did JonBenet consume her pineapple, did she place a hand into the bowl and scoop it out, or was it portioned to her in another dish or smaller bowl?

That large spoon in the bowl is a serving spoon or ladle, and I would suggest is strong evidence that the pineapple was portioned out into some other container.

If Burke's fingerprints are NOT on that tea glass, then his prints being on the bowl, which like Patsy's fingerprints, may have been impressed there on a prior occassion.

This actually means that its entirely possible that if you want to stick to a concurrent explanation of the forensic evidence on the table, then since there are no unknown fingerprints on the tea glass and none on the bowl, this is consistent with other aspects of JonBenet's homicide where forensic evidence has either been staged, removed, re-located, or as in the "Pineapple Session" being charitable- its absent. So whilst I am not an avid IDI person, the presented evidence appears to suggest no reason why the person who sipped tea whilst JonBenet snacked pineapple, was NOT an Intruder?

A simple alternative, using occams razor or KISS, is that the tea glass was filled, and the pineapple was served in the kitchen, but both may have been consumed elsewhere, even at different locations or points in time.

And depending on whichever theory you support you could suggest that the kitchen is simply a central returning point for dirty plates, cups and saucers etc, so the tea glass is returned and placed on the table. Or it has been relocated there as part of a cleanup from another location, ie forming part of the staging, and as indirectly intended to confuse and direct your focus away from the cleaned up area!

So where is the container from which JonBenet snacked her pineapple?

 

[BlueCrab]

BlueCrab,

Thanks for your posts.

I agree at some point after arriving home from the White's, JonBenet likely snacked pineapple SOMEWHERE in her house. The coroners autopsy strongly suggests this is beyond dispute.

Anything stated beyond this is simply speculation!

The lack of confirmatory forensic evidence that JonBenet sat down at that table and snacked pineapple, at any specific time with any particular person, means taken together it cannot be used as an assumption in forming conclusions about your BDI.

There is nothing in what is presented to us as being on the table, that allows us to conclude that either the pineapple was snacked THERE, OR that Burke drank from that glass, even if he did, he may not have drank from it IN the kitchen, and it may not have been at the SAME time JonBenet snacked her pineapple. In effect the two events, Tea Drinking and Pineapple Snacking, may be separated in time, e.g. they may be discontinuous.

One thing that has always been curious, was how did JonBenet consume her pineapple, did she place a hand into the bowl and scoop it out, or was it portioned to her in another dish or smaller bowl?

That large spoon in the bowl is a serving spoon or ladle, and I would suggest is strong evidence that the pineapple was portioned out into some other container.

If Burke's fingerprints are NOT on that tea glass, then his prints being on the bowl, which like Patsy's fingerprints, may have been impressed there on a prior occassion.

This actually means that its entirely possible that if you want to stick to a concurrent explanation of the forensic evidence on the table, then since there are no unknown fingerprints on the tea glass and none on the bowl, this is consistent with other aspects of JonBenet's homicide where forensic evidence has either been staged, removed, re-located, or as in the "Pineapple Session" being charitable- its absent. So whilst I am not an avid IDI person, the presented evidence appears to suggest no reason why the person who sipped tea whilst JonBenet snacked pineapple, was NOT an Intruder?

A simple alternative, using occams razor or KISS, is that the tea glass was filled, and the pineapple was served in the kitchen, but both may have been consumed elsewhere, even at different locations or points in time.

And depending on whichever theory you support you could suggest that the kitchen is simply a central returning point for dirty plates, cups and saucers etc, so the tea glass is returned and placed on the table. Or it has been relocated there as part of a cleanup from another location, ie forming part of the staging, and as indirectly intended to confuse and direct your focus away from the cleaned up area!

So where is the container from which JonBenet snacked her pineapple?

UKGuy,

The table in the breakfast room is not in the kitchen. The breakfast room is a room all by itself, but adjoining the kitchen. There's no table in the kitchen, just counters. The Ramseys normally snacked at the kitchen counters and ate sit-down meals, such as dinner, in the breakfast room. They seldom used the formal dining room.

Patsy insists she cleaned up the breakfast room table after they had a late breakfast of pancakes on Christmas morning. They had no lunch since they'd be going to the White's around 4:00. When they got home from the White's they went straight to bed without eating anything. Therefore, the bowl of pineapple and the glass with the spent tea bag in it appeared on the table sometime during the night after they all went to bed.

JonBenet liked pineapple, and Burke was a tea drinker. It's true that Burke and JonBenet could have come downstairs at separate times during the night, but it's not likely. The four Ramseys had specific seating places at the table. The tiny bowl (smaller than a cereal bowl) of pineapple, with the huge serving spoon sticking out of it, was on the table at JonBenet's normal place at the table, and the glass with the tea bag in it was at Burke's normal place at the table.

It's doubtful that JonBenet would have snacked on pineapple while an intruder sipped on tea, as they both sat at the breakfast room table.

JonBenet couldn't reach the bowls in the high kitchen cabinet, but Burke could, and Burke's fingerprints are on the bowl. If JonBenet was with an intruder then HIS fingerprints would be on the bowl, not Burke's. Burke's prints were on the bowl, therefore it is proper to assume that Burke was the person who obtained the bowl from the cabinet and, using the big serving spoon, dished pineapple from the Safeway container of fresh pineapple in the refrigerator into the small bowl and put it on the table in front of JonBenet. It's apparent JonBenet either used the giant serving spoon or used her fingers to eat the pineapple.

The evidence strongly suggests there was no intruder and that Burke and JonBenet were secretly downstairs together late at night after the parents had gone to bed.

BlueCrab

 

[sissi]

There isn't much more ,given what facts we have available, to offer for argument,we've all stated our case.
Myer's autopsy.. ."The stomach contains a small amount (8-10cc) of viscous to green to tan colored thick mucous material without particulate matter identified
How does this correlate to ...Jonbenet's stomach was empty when she ate the pineapple? It ,does however, suggest her stomach was nearly empty when she died.
Let's get really literal, viscous=birdlime, mistletoe
Take that and run with it! Makes the murder sound like a pagan sacrifice ..does it not? Viscotoxins? hmm..did the toxicological report look for this?
Availability at Christmas...hmmm
No, we don't "go there", if we don't then why should we consider far more difficult explanations?

I see nothing here, in the little back and forth discourse ,that indicates Patsy's bike was stolen.

 

[UKGuy]

BlueCrab,

Thanks for clarifying the Breakfast Bar/Kitchen distinction.

I am pretty certain you will not accept uncritically Patsy's "straight to bed" line.

Well you are allowing yourself some wiggle room here, or a lil inconsistency, if you say Burke's prints are on the bowl because he put it on the table that night/morning, but pass on Patsy's prints since they are from a prior session.

Why cannot it not be either the converse or an inclusive e.g. it was Patsy and JonBenet that were snacking, or Patsy, JonBenet AND Burke? Which would make sense if you think its a "Family Affair". I am simply using the same evidence that is placed in front of yourself?

Now absence of evidence is not evidence of absence is it? Just because an Intruders prints are not on the bowl, the spoon, or the tea glass, does not mean he was never there. He may have worn gloves or picked the bowl up using a dishcloth or a tea-towel, or if he was festively themed wearing santa mittens?

So whilst there is not much to rule an Intruder in, since the scene is suggestive of a cosy domestic snacking session, I can see no evidence to rule an intruder out, as per your topic title.

Your JonBenet Burke snacking session appears a fairly common sense explanation of the evidence. But with Burkes prints not on the tea-glass, and JonBenets not on the bowl , you might expect a fragment, if she was scooping pineapple using her hand. So I dont think there is enough to make a definitive case. Much as I would like to!

Were JonBenet's prints on the serving spoon ?

 

[pennygram]

:chicken:

It was about two weeks ago when our four year old had the stomach bug, during which time he vomited his six hour old dinner. I knew we had finished dinner at six, and he got up sick at midnight. Over at the other forum, it was suggested his digestion was slowed by illness. Another presented a medical paper describing the action of vomiting, and how contents from the small intestines can empty along with stomach contents. This happened, it was six hours, so I can safely say I have proof in the case of at least ONE child that food is still recognizable SIX HOURS after ingestion. Where was it? In his stomach or in his small intestine? I have no clue, but I do know it was not fully digested and was still recognizable.
I would bet Jonbenet ate that pineapple while running around the house before going to the Whites. I would suspect, as well, that IF she was stunned that this action would slow or stop digestion. Stunning turns sugars into lactic acid and stops the body's energy, can ya' digest without energy?
I wouldn't think so?
Is this where you post the reply, I am new and very confused.
ttp://www.securityprousa.com/stgunandtagu.html

 

[UKGuy]

I see nothing here, in the little back and forth discourse ,that indicates Patsy's bike was stolen.

Well for me this is the big hole in the BDI theory e.g. Why would the perpetrator sit and pen the "war and peace" of a ransom note, replete with popular allusions to movie themes and characters. And also make a financial ransom demand, even if its purpose is only as further staging, but to then not follow it through, and leave JonBenet where she was murdered or secret her down into the basement?

To leave on a bike when the person could have walked out the front door carrying JonBenet wrapped in a blanket, then dump her body a few blocks away. If that had been done, its likely this board would not exist, since we would all accept the ransom note and abduction as fact!

Anyway even if he/she left on a bike, whats wrong with strapping JonBenet to your back PAPOOSE style using a blanket and some CORD, then mounting the bike and doing what kids do world wide ride two to a bike?

Where are the photographs of these bike tracks, and where is the bike that corresponds to those tire tracks ??

 

[BlueCrab]

Myer's autopsy.. ."The stomach contains a small amount (8-10cc) of viscous to green to tan colored thick mucous material without particulate matter identified
How does this correlate to ...Jonbenet's stomach was empty when she ate the pineapple? It ,does however, suggest her stomach was nearly empty when she died.

sissi,

I have explained several times to you that the stomach continually manufactures hydrochloric acid and mixes it with water, mucous, and several kinds of enzymes to produce the fluid needed to mix with food and create chyme, the substance that enters the small intestine. That 8-10 cc's of acid was the only thing in JonBenet's stomach. There was no particulate matter (food) in the stomach.

BlueCrab

 

[sissi]

:chicken:

Penny, after the quote, just jump in

 

[sissi]

sissi,

I have explained several times to you that the stomach continually manufactures hydrochloric acid and mixes it with water, mucous, and several kinds of enzymes to produce the fluid needed to mix with food and create chyme, the substance that enters the small intestine. That 8-10 cc's of acid was the only thing in JonBenet's stomach. There was no particulate matter (food) in the stomach.

BlueCrab

I do understand that you are saying.. "her stomach was empty"!
However, you can't use an empty stomach after the pineapple as indicative of an empty stomach before the pineapple.

 

[BlueCrab]

I do understand that you are saying.. "her stomach was empty"!
However, you can't use an empty stomach after the pineapple as indicative of an empty stomach before the pineapple.

sissi,

The food goes from the stomach to the small intestine, where it has a several-hours-long winding trip before arriving at the large intestine. There was no food, other than the pineapple, in the small inestine. Therefore, JonBenet hadn't eaten for at least several hours prior to snacking on the pineapple.

The autopsy report makes it clear. The only food in JonBenets G.I. tract was the pineapple in the small intestine and the green fecal matter (the dinner at the White's) in the large intestine.

 

[RedChief]

I do understand that you are saying.. "her stomach was empty"!
However, you can't use an empty stomach after the pineapple as indicative of an empty stomach before the pineapple.

sissi,

There's a nice explanation of digestion at:

http://www.ibs-research-update.org.uk/ibs/digestion1ie4.html

They discuss gastric and colonic emptying on this site. The site is dedicated to the understanding and treatment of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS).

Highlights:

(1.) The average meal remains in stomach 1-3 hours. caveat--don't know if this applies to children.

(2.) In general, the greater part of a solid meal has emptied from the stomach within 3 hours (this is a repeat of the above with the "solid" distinction.)

(3.) Contents are moved through the small intestine in about 4 hours.

(4.) Up to 48 hours through colon.

(5.) Most of the digestion and absorption of the contents of the small intestine is done in the first 80 cm or so (31.5 in.) of the 4-6 meter long intestine.

(6.) TRANSIT SPEED THRU THE SMALL INTESTINE IS NOT CONSTANT; immediate response to eating is that the contents are held in the upper region to allow digestion and absorption to take place, following which transit through the remainder of the long tubular organ is quite rapid.

(7.) Many different factors influence emptying times including importantly the nutrient content of the meal; also factors that produce "gut reactions" such as verbal abuse, sexual abuse, physical abuse, emotional abuse, illness, exercise, stress generally and anxiety and depression.

Note: sexual abuse. Some have suggested this may have been a factor in her enuresis and bowel incontinence, but I don't suppose this is a good time to be opening that can of worms.

If we can apply the above to the child, JonBenet, we can deduce that the pineapple remained in her stomach for no longer than 3 hours (fruit is usually transformed into chyme and emptied into the upper intestine more rapidly than, say, vegetables or turkey.

We can't know for sure how long the pineapple had remained in the upper portion of the small intestine, however, as (6.) above says it's held there for some time while being absorbed and digested, however the pineapple appeared to be in relatively undigested condition; make of that what you will.

There was fecal material (the turkey, the cracked crab and the hot dog thingys, I assume) in the large intestine. The contents of the large intestine transit very slowly. We don't know where within the colon that material was located, so we are forced to assume it was near the entrance. It may have been nearer the rectum for all we know, but that is extremely unlikely given the colonic emptying time of up to 48 hr.

We can guess that the fecal material represents what she ate 7 hours or so before she died. If she ate 6-ish then she died at around 1 AM. If she ate 7-ish then she died at around 2 AM. These are ballpark figures.

We can guess that she ate the pineapple no sooner than 11 PM or 12 PM, depending on which of the two dinner times we choose.

Of course, in addition to the inexactness of the calculations based on transit times, we are faced with not knowing exactly when she ate at the Whites' and what she ate and how much. It appears that she did eat something while there; not pineapple.

If we assume for the sake of discussion that she was finishing her meal as she walked out the Whites' door headed for home (8:30 per John), then we calculate that she died at 3:30 AM. I don't suppose anyone would be happy to hear that.

That's how I see it.....

 

[sissi]

Red Chief, this points to Patsy and John telling the truth, Jonbenet was asleep when they arrived home, Patsy did not serve her a late snack of pineapple.
Someone gave her a snack (I'm assuming that she didn't throw up her dinner for the sake of this) at around 1 or 2 am and kept her alive for another two hours or so. Two hours is a long time to keep a child quiet in their own home before killing her, is it not?
The suitcase was packed, her barbie gown, blankie and a book were ready, to go where? On a magical trip to the north pole? Once outside and in the custody of the killer, she screamed, raged, and fought him, he didn't get very far, maybe into his car or into a nearby garage, before he murdered her. Why not leave her there, why carry her back in and dump her in that basement? I don't know, but it worked. Another coincidence I guess, that LHP had borrowed that suitcase in the past.
BTW I believe the wine cellar was cool, Fleet retrieved wine from that room on the 23rd, after 5:30, in the dark! (how did he do accomplish this feat that he couldn't reproduce on the 26th?) No one keeps wine in a hot room.

RC, the mailbox is full

 

[RedChief]

BTW I believe the wine cellar was cool, Fleet retrieved wine from that room on the 23rd, after 5:30, in the dark! (how did he do accomplish this feat that he couldn't reproduce on the 26th?) No one keeps wine in a hot room.

Sissi,

Roger that. But, didn't keep her alive for another two hours or so. Kept her alive for an hour or so. That's the fruit chyme transit time. Hey, that rhymes.

Also, it's not necessary that anyone kept her alive. All that is necessary is that she's killed about 1 hour after eating the pineapple. I think we can be pretty sure of that. No need for anyone to be feeding her pineapple, then hanging out with her for an hour. Comprende?

Here's a scenario: she, and possibly Burke, go downstairs and help themselves to the pineapple. They return to bed. One hour later, minus the amount of time spent in consuming the midnight snack, she's killed. These are ballpark figures. It's possible that they were accompanied by the phantom of the basement, but not necessary.

Guess I don't understand why you insist on JB being taken outside? The scream? If so, why not just leave her where she fell? Or pick her up and continue on? Why take the additional risk? The ransom? This is some brave guy.

What is the suitcase packed with? A pillow sham, JAR's semen-stained blanket and a Dr. Seuss book. Wow, just what you'd need in the frozen north. Maybe he'd placed the pillow sham over her head as a blindfold. What good is a sham without a sham?

"Laugh and run away..."--AW

 

[pennygram]

There was no intruder. JonBenet would not have sat down at the breakfast room table late at night, after the parents had gone to bed, and snacked on pineapple alone with an intruder one hour before she died. There's lots of evidence that Burke was with JonBenet when she snacked on the pineapple, not an intruder.

Yet, IMO, there was also evidence that a fifth person was in the house that night, and that's how all of the missing crime scene evidence disappeared (the roll of black duct tape, the white cord, the stun gun, the wipedown cloth, etc.)

The autopsy report stated JonBenet's stomach contained no food. However, there were fragments of (not well chewed) pineapple in the "proximal (beginning) portion" of the small intestine. There was no other food in the remainder of the small intestine. There was green fecal matter in the large intestine.

JonBenet died about 1 hour after eating the pineapple. Depending mainly on what is eaten and how much is eaten, food takes about 1 to 3 hours to leave the stomach and enter the small intestine. The food then takes about 4 to 8 hours to travel the length of the small intestine and enter the large intestine, and finally takes about 3 to 6 hours to travel the length of the large intestine before being evacuated. (The average meal takes about 13 hours from the time it is eaten to when it is totally digested and evacuated as fecal matter.)

Fruit, when eaten alone, digests very quickly. Thus, the pineapple would have been at the beginning of JonBenet's small intestine if eaten about 1 hour before she died. The cracked crab meal she ate at the White's dinner party around 6 or 7 that evening would have been the green fecal matter in the large intestine.

The bowl of fresh pineapple that JonBenet had snacked from was on the breakfast room table, as was a water glass containing a used tea bag, and a large box of Kleenex. A giant silver serving spoon stuck ridiculously out of the small white bowl containing the pineapple. Burke Ramsey's fingerprints were on the bowl. Burke was also the resident tea drinker.

The 4 Ramseys sat at their own places when dining in the breakfast room (they seldom used the formal dining room). The bowl of pineapple was near where JonBenet normally sat, and the empty water glass was near where Burke normally sat.

The fingerprints and the pineapple and the empty glass of tea at the table makes it obvious that Burke and JonBenet were likely together about 1 hour before JonBenet died. But why were they secretly downstairs in the middle of the night? Were they waiting for someone to show up who they both knew very well? Were they waiting for the fifth person in the house that night to make his appearance? Is that why the outside security light was turned off that night after being left on for years?

Were they innocently waiting for the killer?

BlueCrab

BlueCrab, do you have an idea who that 5th person was? Jonbenet was waiting on a secret visit, from Santa? From maybe the one she knew personally? A Santa could knock out a kid with a stun gun and stuff her in a large burlap sack on Christmas eve and walk down the street in costume without being questioned, not that the killer got that far. Digestion processes played a part in another family slaughter where dad was convicted and all on how fast pizza would digest, turned out he was innocent and released.:truce:

 

[BlueCrab]

BlueCrab, do you have an idea who that 5th person was? Jonbenet was waiting on a secret visit, from Santa? From maybe the one she knew personally? A Santa could knock out a kid with a stun gun and stuff her in a large burlap sack on Christmas eve and walk down the street in costume without being questioned, not that the killer got that far. Digestion processes played a part in another family slaughter where dad was convicted and all on how fast pizza would digest, turned out he was innocent and released.:truce:

pennygram,

Yes, I have an idea who that fifth (and perhaps sixth) person was. Burke and JonBenet may have been downstairs snacking on pineapple and sipping on tea while waiting for a secret late-night visit from Santa, but IMO that secret Santa wasn't Bill McReynolds. He was likely young and someone who knew the Ramseys and knew the house, but disliked John and what John and his family politically stood for.

In regard to the rate of digestion being used to help determine a timeline, I agree it can be questioned. A touch of diarrhea or a touch of constipation, or any other kind of temporary intestional problem, can throw off the estimates. However, the autopsy didn't reveal any abnormalities in JonBenet's digestional tract.

BlueCrab

 

[sissi]

pennygram,

Yes, I have an idea who that fifth (and perhaps sixth) person was. Burke and JonBenet may have been downstairs snacking on pineapple and sipping on tea while waiting for a secret late-night visit from Santa, but IMO that secret Santa wasn't Bill McReynolds. He was likely young and someone who knew the Ramseys and knew the house, but disliked John and what John and his family politically stood for.

In regard to the rate of digestion being used to help determine a timeline, I agree it can be questioned. A touch of diarrhea or a touch of constipation, or any other kind of temporary intestional problem, can throw off the estimates. However, the autopsy didn't reveal any abnormalities in JonBenet's digestional tract.

BlueCrab

I tend to AGREE with BLUE CRAB in that there is something to that expected "santa" visit that played into this crime. I believe on this issue, BC and RC agree as well. I think REDCHIEF made it clear the other day that semantics are getting in our way. An intruder can be defined as anyone the Ramsey adults did not expect nor invite into that house on that night. The secret of the santa visit , suggests Jonbenet knew someone was coming to visit, however because it was a "secret" I do NOT believe she told Burke. This visit was NOT to include Burke !
We do not know if McSanta said he was going to give her a special visit, or if someone else told her to expect this special visit . It has been clearly stated by the Ramseys that Jonbenet held McSanta as the "one true Santa", so I do doubt anyone else would have been acceptable to her. But again, another adult(as suggested by RC) could have set her up to expect a visit, yet provided another santa?
Could NI have played a part, surely he could have, but most likely given this information was fresh in her mind on the 24th, she was likely told at her party on the 23rd to expect this "special visit". Kids don't hold on to information very well over days, jmo.

 

[UKGuy]

sissi ,

You could be right about JonBenet NOT telling Burke. Because since Burke's prints are on that pineapple bowl, and there is a tea-glass there, we assume it was Burke who was there sipping tea?

But what if Burke was not there, say he was in his bedroom, or down in the basement.

And the person who sipped the tea with JonBenet was her secret special "santa" visitor. He/she does not need to be a santa, but he will be someone JonBenet trusts.

Given mcSantas ailments, age and general profile I dont think this fits him, there is too much physical stuff, never mind the mental agility required.

So who else had quality time with JonBenet, and would keep a secret for, who else knew the layout of the house and felt comfortable navigating their way around it?

Although Burke may have played some material part in JonBenet's murder I've yet to read anything substantial, his major crime is being her brother, and being on the same premises when his sister died!

So who else fits this profile, its not one a stranger would seem to fit?

 

[sissi]

UK , exactly! it's not a profile of a stranger. Was there a lure person or as RC suggests, an intermediary involved ,and if so, what was his purpose?
Do we suggest his purpose was to set Jonbenet up with a date for murder? Or perhaps he was in this to make money , he may have been set up as well. If so by whom? What was the "reason" for taking her? It may be different than the reason for killing her?