- Joined
- Oct 21, 2010
- Messages
- 708
- Reaction score
- 352
Did Patsy's fingerprints being on the bowl mean she had to have handled it that evening? Couldn't she have cut it earlier in the day or the day before?
RDI poll/the Stines
- Thread starter madeleine
- Start date
-
SC SC - Estafany Suriano Sanchez, 14, West Columbia, 30 Sept 2025
- Latest: GuyfromCanada
Chrishope,
Evidentially so!
Since it directly conflicts with the R's version of events. That you think other scenarios can be accomodated too, suggests whatever happened, we are all on the wrong track, otherwise we would have a nice, smooth linear sequence of events.
.
Chrishope,
It would probably take as long to cleanup the breakfast-bar as it did to stage the wine-cellar with JonBenet in place.
Patently if Patsy knew about JonBenet snacking pineapple, yet failed to cleanup, either she forgot or never had enough time to accomplish all the staging!
.
But semi-digested pineapple, chemically identical to that found in the bowl, was found in JonBenet's upper digestive tract. Lou Smit called it the "bugaboo," meaning it proved JonBenet was awake after the time they swore she had been put to bed.
Were other fingerprints found on the bowl? By all Internet reports, no.
Were other fingerprints found on the bowl? By all Internet reports, no.
Certainly. There is no way to "date" fingerprints per se, especially in the case of someone who lived in the home. But it does indicate that Patsy and/or BR, and NOT JB or an intruder, put that bowl on the table. But one thing cannot be disputed- the scientific proof that the pineapple WAS eaten THAT EVENING. Forensics doesn't lie and is not subject to people's theories. There would be no way to tell how long the pineapple sat on that table in the breakfast area, but that really isn't much of an issue anyway. Even if Patsy put the bowl there early in the day or even the day before, it doesn't change when JB ate it. She ate it AFTER they returned from the White's. I have explained previously how food doesn't "leap frog" over other food in the digestive tract and how digestion stops at the moment of death, but if anyone needs me to explain it again let me know.
The housekeeper LHP said that no one in the family ever put anything away. When she arrived in the morning, bread, butter, peanut butter, cereal, etc, was all over the counter. No one used hampers in the house either. Patsy and the kids simply dropped their dirty clothes on the floor wherever they took them off. JR sometimes used the laundry chute. So Patsy was not in the habit of putting things away. In the case of the pineapple, I feel the answer is very simple. They simply never thought pineapple would surface in her digestive tract at the autopsy. They never thought it would actually be identified. With so much else to do and the horror of the night, it simply wasn't something that they felt they had to put away or hide evidence of.
DeeDee249,
Possibly so. But it is still a major mistake not to remove physical evidence that Burke and JonBenet sat down at the breakfast bar, JonBenet's fingerprints and dna are all over the tableware. The pineapple residue simply offers the proof.
The R's said JonBenet was placed directly to bed, but the physical evidence in the breakfast bar suggests they are lying!
It is curious that Patsy and John might overlook the breakfast bar, but remember the Wednesday underwear. This suggests how important the underwear was, yet to me, it appears insignificant?
Whaleshark
New Member
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2011
- Messages
- 632
- Reaction score
- 7
Right, but if they don't know that the pineapple and tea were snacked on that night, then they don't know to remove it as evidence.... If they are always leaving stuff around as a family, the adult Ramseys might not consider it significant, because for all they might know, the tea and pineapple could have been consumed before they left to go to the Whites' for dinner.... is what DeeDee is saying. Just because the pineapple and tea are out, doesn't mean the adult Ramseys know that it was evidence from the evening, if they don't know that JonBenet ate some of it, even if they did know that she was awake.
It may not be a 'mistake' of the staging, if they didn't know it was evidence that proved Jonbenet was awake when they said she was asleep. They just might be ignorant of it, and it probably didn't look abnormal to them to have food left out, if they always did that, and expected the cleaning lady, or someone else to clean it up. They were most probably totally oblivious to its significance...
I also don't know that it's necessarily curious that they overlook the breakfast bar, if they just may not have known of its significance...as opposed to the underwear on JonBenet. JonBenet and the presentation of her person are the significant issue to them, and need explaining to do.... I don't know why to you the underwear appears insignificant. If there is blood and evidence wiped away down there, and on her body, and she has numerous injuries and is violated in her underwear area, I would say that something significant did happen in that area on her body and which required clean underwear and/or something to be done about the situation. If there were no injuries, blood smears, or any type of evidence of damage in her genital area, and it looked normal for a 6-year old, etc...then I would say that a strange pair of non-fitting underwear were even more out of place than they already are - but obviously she was injured there too, so something significant happened with that and probably did require the changing of underwear.
...Of course the next question is, ok, then why size 12s? Here we go speculating as to why again.... One person who may not understand the significance of the size issue, but just know that she needs clean underwear on and has to find some quickly, is BR. But again, if it was easy to answer the 'why' on the size 12s, we would already know the answer to that....
Is the size 12s that mysterious?
The Ramseys staged the crime to make it look like an intruder did it.
They portrayed the intruder, in the note, as a foreigner, anti-American, and psychopathically cruel.
Wouldn't the size 12s be logical for such a person? They'd not be concerned with a perfect fit. They'd be concerned with removing traces of themselves that might be on her panties.
So the size 12s might easily be part of the staging.
Also, the breakfast bar too might be part of the staging -- leaving it there like that, I mean. The Ramseys would not be thinking about the rate of digestion of pineapple in JonBenet. They had no need to "clean up" the pineapple because an intruder wouldn't go around cleaning up the kitchen. According to LHP they always left the house that way.
Another part of the staging was to claim JB went right to bed. So they had to act like the pineapple was not their doing once they learned that it had been discovered in JB's stomach.
No need to overthink things, Occam's razor suggests that the simplest explanations are the most likely to be true.
Whaleshark
New Member
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2011
- Messages
- 632
- Reaction score
- 7
If they wanted it to be part of the staging, Patsy wouldn't have said that JonBenet found those underwear in her own drawer and put them on herself.
And no, it is not logical that a cruel intruder is going to care about putting any underwear on the child at all....especially after threatening beheading and suffocating the child. If they are concerned about evidence they will remove the underwear and leave her without any... they are not going to completely redress the child.
The size 12s are not 'easily part of the staging'..... especially since they are not explained away as 'cruel and clever' like the Ramseys stated about other things that were obviously not left by an intruder either. The Ramseys even produced a package of size 12s later, to prove that JonBenet supposedly had them to get into...
...Except that they didn't wipe their fingerprints from the glass and bowl.... if they meant it as part of the staging (assuming they knew about it and planned that part of it as staging), wouldn't they have removed their fingerprints from it? Burke's and Patsy's fingerprints were on the bowl and glass. After all, there are no fingerprints on the flashlight (or batteries in it) that was left out.
Another part of the 'story' - or from the beginning, their story (if you're calling their story as part of the staging) was to claim that she went right to bed, yes, and once they did that, then anything proving that JonBenet was up is a contradiction to their story. So even if they did know that she had pineapple, they definitely can't claim they did.... so we are left to conjecture.
Well, but saying that the pineapple and tea and underwear are staging when their stories conflict on those items, and the Ramseys themselves don't necessarily point straight to the intruder on those items, but are caught in lies and ignorance and trying to explain those things away -- does not make it so simple.
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2010
- Messages
- 708
- Reaction score
- 352
Does it indicate that she or Burke put it on the table and not an intruder?
Keep in mind, the IDI team will have us believe that they touched the pen etc, killed JBR without leaving any fingerprints, so none being on the bowl doesn't discount Lord Byron of Nibblebotty Boulevard from putting the bowl on the bench either.
The eating part is something nobody can deny/argue.
The pineapple in JonBenet was directly linked to the pineapple in the bowl.
She ate it. It was the pineapple on the table. She ate it a few hours before she died. All indisputable facts.
So the issue becomes, did she eat alone, with a friend or with a stranger?
Whaleshark,
Sure and this might be the case?
Read again, its quite the opposite. This is the proof element in the physical evidence.
To me it looks as if either Patsy forgot about the breakfast bar or simply ran out of time. Patsy's fingerprint is on the bowl, I reckon it arrived there when she put the bowl on the table.
The underwear is insignificant since they do not corroborate anything, its like JonBenet being found with two non-matching socks?
By that I am not saying the size-12's are unimportant, just that its curious the stagers priority lies with something that will not make or break their version of events, but the breakfast bar artifacts do.
Here is another perspective, rather than think four hours ealier, e.g. close to JonBenet's initial injuries, that an Abduction Scenario was required. It looks as if it was all rushed through with little thought, precisely because the breakfast bar, and the size-12's were overlooked. These are both staging errors, not errors in the commission of a homicide.
.
I was not saying the pineapple could have been consumed before going to the White's. Quite the opposite. What I said was that it was possible the pineapple was left out before going to the White's, NOT that it may have been eaten then.
JB definitely ate the pineapple AFTER returning home, and within two hours she was dead.
Anything eaten earlier in the day would have moved beyond the small intestine (where the pineapple was found) into the large intestine and colon. There was "soft green fecal material" further down n her digestive tract, which was what was left of anything eaten at the White's or before. The pineapple was the last thing eaten before she died. The fact that it was still in the small intestine (to which food empties directly from the stomach) and still identifiable as pineapple proves it was eaten within 2 hours or so of death.
As for the tea- there is no way to prove when it was consumed or if it was consumed a the same time as the pineapple. There was a tea bag in the glass, but we don't know if the glass actually contained tea, or if the spent tea bag was simply placed in the glass. There is no way to prove that JB at pineapple with her brother. I hope this point would have been raised by the police if they had gotten their chance to question BR again, as they requested. And I am almost sure it is one of the reasons BR refused to be questioned. There would be no way to answer that question by saying "I don't remember". Long ago or not, 9 years old or not, he remembers whether he sat at that table with his sister that night. And THAT is what he doesn't want to say. He had already told the BPD his sister walked into the house, and his parents claimed she was carried in- there are already major discrepancies between his and his parents' stories. Not just that, but his owning the Hi-Tec shoes (he did) and whether he was asleep that morning.
JB definitely ate the pineapple AFTER returning home, and within two hours she was dead.
Anything eaten earlier in the day would have moved beyond the small intestine (where the pineapple was found) into the large intestine and colon. There was "soft green fecal material" further down n her digestive tract, which was what was left of anything eaten at the White's or before. The pineapple was the last thing eaten before she died. The fact that it was still in the small intestine (to which food empties directly from the stomach) and still identifiable as pineapple proves it was eaten within 2 hours or so of death.
As for the tea- there is no way to prove when it was consumed or if it was consumed a the same time as the pineapple. There was a tea bag in the glass, but we don't know if the glass actually contained tea, or if the spent tea bag was simply placed in the glass. There is no way to prove that JB at pineapple with her brother. I hope this point would have been raised by the police if they had gotten their chance to question BR again, as they requested. And I am almost sure it is one of the reasons BR refused to be questioned. There would be no way to answer that question by saying "I don't remember". Long ago or not, 9 years old or not, he remembers whether he sat at that table with his sister that night. And THAT is what he doesn't want to say. He had already told the BPD his sister walked into the house, and his parents claimed she was carried in- there are already major discrepancies between his and his parents' stories. Not just that, but his owning the Hi-Tec shoes (he did) and whether he was asleep that morning.
Whaleshark
New Member
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2011
- Messages
- 632
- Reaction score
- 7
I was NOT saying that she ate it before they went to the Whites' either....I know the evidence proves otherwise.
I was saying that the adult Ramseys may not have known when Jonbenet ate the pineapple last, at the time of the incident, and for all THEY may have figured during the time of the crime, that it was left out from before.... And is why it was not taken care of... Then had to be explained after it was shown that she had to have eaten some after she got home, which contradicted their story....
It gets confusing trying to convey what we mean in written form in response to multiple people....
I was saying that the adult Ramseys may not have known when Jonbenet ate the pineapple last, at the time of the incident, and for all THEY may have figured during the time of the crime, that it was left out from before.... And is why it was not taken care of... Then had to be explained after it was shown that she had to have eaten some after she got home, which contradicted their story....
It gets confusing trying to convey what we mean in written form in response to multiple people....
Patsy was playing dumb. If you were innocent, you'd say what she said -- my daughter must have put them on herself.
I'm not saying it's logical that an intruder would redress JB -- I am saying that in the RAMSEY MINDSET it was logical that an intruder would do this. Just as it was logical to THEM (not an intruder) that an intruder would leave a 3 page ransom note.
What I mean about the glass and bowl is that they did not wipe them down because they never thought they'd be part of any evidence against them. An intruder would not wipe down/remove a bowl of pineapple so why should they?
However the flashlight was probably the murder weapon, which is why they, imagining what an intruder would do, wiped down the flashlight.
Occam's Razor. This doesn't have to be complicated.
Whaleshark
New Member
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2011
- Messages
- 632
- Reaction score
- 7
If you're saying that they put the size 12s on her as staging to look like a part of the cruel intruder scenario, then Patsy would not have said that JonBenet put them on herself, but that the intruder did it. If you're saying it's logical in their mind and they staged it that way then they would have made sure to say that the underwear was part of the intruder scenario....
...But if they imagine an intruder would wipe down a murder weapon why would they imagine that an intruder would not wipe down the bowl or glass? Foreign prints are foreign prints.... If they are staging the glass and bowl they are saying they are linked. They are not going to think that prints can't be found important on one item of staging but important on another. I don't think the glass and bowl are staged; I think they need to be explained and didn't realize they would be important to the timeline and facts of the case....
If you want to keep saying it's not complicated, then don't make something part of staging that doesn't fit as staging with what the Ramseys did or said that was obvious staging....
IMO, not cleaning up the breakfast bar is not necessarily a staging error.
First, the only thing (concerning the breakfast bar) that contradicts the Rs story is the pineapple in JB's small intestine. The bowl and glass and fingerprints do not contradict the story. They could have been there all day. They could have been there for two days.
Second, there is nothing about JB eating pineapple that is inconsistent with the story - as far as the Rs are supposed to know. IOWs, if she ate pineapple after being put to bed, the Rs can't know about it because they were asleep while their daughter was carried from her bed, bashed in the skull, garrotted, abused, wiped down, redressed, and on, and on. If she ate pineapple during the night it's just one more thing the Rs don't know anything about. So there is no need of them cleaning up the breakfast bar, or wiping prints. These are just objects in the house, that were there when they "put her to bed".
IMO it does not suggest that they were short on time. If they thought about the matter at all, they'd have realized that they could just leave it out. They don't have to explain why or when JB ate pineapple.
The pineapple in the intestine tells us she ate it 2-3 hours before death, most likely after returning home.
The odd thing is denying knowing about it, or that it was set out by them, or that it was theirs.
First, the only thing (concerning the breakfast bar) that contradicts the Rs story is the pineapple in JB's small intestine. The bowl and glass and fingerprints do not contradict the story. They could have been there all day. They could have been there for two days.
Second, there is nothing about JB eating pineapple that is inconsistent with the story - as far as the Rs are supposed to know. IOWs, if she ate pineapple after being put to bed, the Rs can't know about it because they were asleep while their daughter was carried from her bed, bashed in the skull, garrotted, abused, wiped down, redressed, and on, and on. If she ate pineapple during the night it's just one more thing the Rs don't know anything about. So there is no need of them cleaning up the breakfast bar, or wiping prints. These are just objects in the house, that were there when they "put her to bed".
IMO it does not suggest that they were short on time. If they thought about the matter at all, they'd have realized that they could just leave it out. They don't have to explain why or when JB ate pineapple.
The pineapple in the intestine tells us she ate it 2-3 hours before death, most likely after returning home.
The odd thing is denying knowing about it, or that it was set out by them, or that it was theirs.
It's been a while since I read the transcripts, but isn't it as simple as PR panicking during her questioning and worrying she might give away something if she acknowledged the bowl and set up as hers?
As far as I remember, she knew that JB had pineapple in her stomach at the time of the autopsy... but she wasn't prepared for the photographs presented to her in the questioning.
Instead of saying, "Yes, the pineapple was out earlier that day, JonBenet did go right to bed when we got home from the Whites, she must have gotten up late at night and had some herself" she denied all knowledge of this. It was not possible for her to tell a lie that contradicted the earlier story (that JB was "zonked" out) even if a case could have been made that it would be perfectly normal for a child to get up late at night for a snack...
Chrishope,
Its a staging error because the artifacts alone tell us that Patsy, Burke and JonBenet probably sat at that table the night before. The proof is the pineapple in JonBenet's stomach, the fingerprints and dna on the artifacts.
This information conflicts with the R's version of events regarding JonBenet being put straight to bed.
If the R's had cleaned up the breakfast bar, all we would have is the pineapple residue, and another item to speculate upon its origin.
In this scenario all manner of speculation is valid, e.g. JonBenet awoke, changed into her size-12's wandered downstairs and fetched herself some pineapple.
But because the R's failed to cleanup we know JonBenet sat at that table snacking pineapple.
That is the breakfast bar does not accord with the R's version of events, cleaned up it would.
.
Online statistics
- Members online
- 143
- Guests online
- 3,098
- Total visitors
- 3,241