What if...

[Holdontoyourhat]

Holdontoyourhat,

Correct. Patsy's fingerprints on the bowl of pineapple should be expected since she would have been the one who removed the bowl from the dishwasher and put the clean bowl away in the kitchen cabinet.

The only other fingerprints on the bowl were Burke's. Therefore, it was likely Burke who removed the bowl from the cabinet and spooned the pineapple into it. JonBenet snacked from the bowl about one hour before she died. This indicates that Burke and JonBenet were probably secretly downstairs together in the middle of the night.

The bowl of pineapple was left out all night on the breakfast room table and taken into evidence that morning and frozen to preserve it. The slightly digested pineapple in JonBenet's small intestine was professionally analyzed and found to be consistent with the pineapple in the bowl.

BlueCrab

Do you know for a fact that BR, PR, and JBR's prints were all found on this small bowl?

 

[IrishMist]

Do you know for a fact that BR, PR, and JBR's prints were all found on this small bowl?

I think what Blue Crab is saying is also what I know to be true- that the fingerprints on the bowl are those of Burke and Patsy.

 

[BlueCrab]

I think what Blue Crab is saying is also what I know to be true- that the fingerprints on the bowl are those of Burke and Patsy.

IrishMist,

Correct. JonBenet's fingerprints were not on the bowl.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

IrishMist,

Correct. JonBenet's fingerprints were not on the bowl.

There's at least three ways pineapple can go from the bowl to JBR's system, without leaving prints on the bowl. She ate it as finger-food without touching the bowl, she plucked it with a fork without holding the bowl, or someone fed it to her.

IMO there's not an innocent explanation, because the bowl of cut pineapple left out overnight is inherently suspicious. If there's no reasonable explanation as to why the bowl was left out, it seems that the pineapple most likely played a role in the crime.

 

[capps]

Where did the information about the fingerprints on the bowl originate?

 

[sandraladeda]

IMO there's not an innocent explanation, because the bowl of cut pineapple left out overnight is inherently suspicious. If there's no reasonable explanation as to why the bowl was left out, it seems that the pineapple most likely played a role in the crime.

If this is the case, I would doubt AIM activists served JBR pineapple.

imo

 

[Nehemiah]

But perhaps you know all about this. Perhaps you are only arguing that you don't think PATSY would behave like this? If so, why do you think this?

Yes, I have worked with child sexual abuse in the past, so I have some knowledge of sexual deviancy. Even now I work in the sex profession. (no, not a sex hotline or anything like that. )

Right, I just don't think Patsy would have allowed this. I think someone, from somewhere would have spoken up about this subject if Patsy were involved. Even if not, I can't fathom that Patsy would have allowed this to continue because there would be no *reward* for her to do so. I'm not ruling out in my mind any sexual abuse within the home; I just don't think there was a ring of pedophiles using JB while Patsy allowed it.

But I do respect your opinion and thank you for sharing it.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

If this is the case, I would doubt AIM activists served JBR pineapple.

imo

I doubt a family member served it to her either.

If a family member used any household item in the murder, and yet wanted to frame a foreign faction for the murder, then they would likely not leave the household item out of place, e.g. a bowl of cut pineapple.

 

[aussiesheila]

Yes, I have worked with child sexual abuse in the past, so I have some knowledge of sexual deviancy. Even now I work in the sex profession. (no, not a sex hotline or anything like that. )

Right, I just don't think Patsy would have allowed this. I think someone, from somewhere would have spoken up about this subject if Patsy were involved. Even if not, I can't fathom that Patsy would have allowed this to continue because there would be no *reward* for her to do so. I'm not ruling out in my mind any sexual abuse within the home; I just don't think there was a ring of pedophiles using JB while Patsy allowed it.

But I do respect your opinion and thank you for sharing it.

Yes Nehemiah, I thought I remembered you mentioning that you had worked in the area of child sexual abuse.

So yes it is my opinion that Patsy did behave in this way but I do also think it must be an extremely rare thing for a mother to behave like this and so I cannot blame people for not going along with my opinion.

As for someone speaking up about this subject, I don't find it difficult to believe that people would not speak out.

First of all there would be people who would want to protect Patsy, who even though might be partly guilty, has lost her daughter and they would be feeling very sorry for her. Secondly, there would be those who were implicated in the prior sexual abuse (that I believe occurred) and they would only be exposing themselves if they spoke up. And thirdly there would be a huge and formidable upheaval in the family P dynamics that would need to be contended with if any of the Ps spoke up if my theory is correct.

I guess I would not be so persistent with my theory if it did not explain so well all the evidence, most particularly the only real hard evidence there is - the ransom note. If you can accept my theory then the whole ransom note makes complete sense and I don't think any other theory does that.

Oh, and you mentioned the "reward" for Patsy. Well what if there was no actual "reward" for allowing it to happen, but maybe a "punishment" if she tried to stop it. Perhaps Patsy was not even around when it first started. I think it most probably was when she was first diagnosed with ovarian cancer and unable to care adequately for JonBenet by herself, there would have been great opportunities for pedophiles to close in on JonBenet then. Maybe by the time Patsy got well again, began to suspect something and kicked up a fuss, these people, who were very close to her, even right within her family, began being extremely nasty to her and exerted extreme pressure on her to calm down and leave well alone. Pressure coming from within a family can be very powerful no matter what it is in relation to.

And thank you Nehemiah, for being so polite.

 

[Brefie]

Oh, and you mentioned the "reward" for Patsy. Well what if there was no actual "reward" for allowing it to happen, but maybe a "punishment" if she tried to stop it. Perhaps Patsy was not even around when it first started. I think it most probably was when she was first diagnosed with ovarian cancer and unable to care adequately for JonBenet by herself, there would have been great opportunities for pedophiles to close in on JonBenet then. Maybe by the time Patsy got well again, began to suspect something and kicked up a fuss, these people, who were very close to her, even right within her family, began being extremely nasty to her and exerted extreme pressure on her to calm down and leave well alone. Pressure coming from within a family can be very powerful no matter what it is in relation to.

And thank you Nehemiah, for being so polite.

Sorry, aussie, there is no reason why the Ramsey family would campaign to keep JonBenet being molested.

With that in mind, there is then even less reason for Patsy to allow it to continue.

Why do you think the family allowed JonBenet to be molested????

 

[rashomon]

Yes, I have worked with child sexual abuse in the past, Right, I just don't think Patsy would have allowed this. I think someone, from somewhere would have spoken up about this subject if Patsy were involved. Even if not, I can't fathom that Patsy would have allowed this to continue because there would be no *reward* for her to do so. I'm not ruling out in my mind any sexual abuse within the home; I just don't think there was a ring of pedophiles using JB while Patsy allowed it.

ITA. People are primarily driven by egoistic motives, and I can't see Patsy allowing her daughter to be abused by a pedophile ring. Why? Because Patsy would not not have profited from it. Sorry for putting it so sarcastically, but I'm referring to the 'reward' aspect in Nehemiah's post, which imo is crucial.
People in third-world countries living in destitution may pimp their children to pedophile rings for money, but the wealthy Ramseys? Money certainly couldn't have been a motive; so what other motive would there be left? None at all, unless Patsy was an active member in the pedophile ring herself (hard to imagine).
But if we look at sexual abuse within the home:
Why do mothers shut their eyes to their daughters being molested? Because the 'reward' is not losing their husband if they keep their eyes shut.
I think that it is entirely possible that John had been molesting JonBenet and Patsy shut her eyes to it for quite some time. Maybe until that fatal night.

 

[aussiesheila]

ITA. People are primarily driven by egoistic motives, and I can't see Patsy allowing her daughter to be abused by a pedophile ring. Why? Because Patsy would not not have profited from it. Sorry for putting it so sarcastically, but I'm referring to the 'reward' aspect in Nehemiah's post, which imo is crucial.
People in third-world countries living in destitution may pimp their children to pedophile rings for money, but the wealthy Ramseys? Money certainly couldn't have been a motive; so what other motive would there be left? None at all, unless Patsy was an active member in the pedophile ring herself (hard to imagine).
But if we look at sexual abuse within the home:
Why do mothers shut their eyes to their daughters being molested? Because the 'reward' is not losing their husband if they keep their eyes shut.
I think that it is entirely possible that John had been molesting JonBenet and Patsy shut her eyes to it for quite some time. Maybe until that fatal night.

I am in total agreement with you Rashomon, that some mothers will shut their eyes to their daughters being molested by their fathers because the 'reward' is not losing their husband. But why are you not prepared to accept that a mother might shut her eyes to molestation by the grandfather? Don't you think it possible for a mother to want the 'reward' of not losing her parents and possibly siblings as well?

 

[BlueCrab]

Where did the information about the fingerprints on the bowl originate?

capps,

The "fingerprints on the bowl of pineapple" evidence was revealed in the police interviews and reported by 48-Hours and other media. Burke's and Patsy's prints were on the bowl.

 

[capps]

capps,

The "fingerprints on the bowl of pineapple" evidence was revealed in the police interviews and reported by 48-Hours and other media. Burke's and Patsy's prints were on the bowl.

Thanks Bluecrab,

I've been googling for nine days for that information (okay,I'm exaggerating),and I couldn't find where it originated.

Much appreciated!

 

[rashomon]

I am in total agreement with you Rashomon, that some mothers will shut their eyes to their daughters being molested by their fathers because the 'reward' is not losing their husband. But why are you not prepared to accept that a mother might shut her eyes to molestation by the grandfather? Don't you think it possible for a mother to want the 'reward' of not losing her parents and possibly siblings as well?

I don't quite see what you are getting at, aussiesheila. Has there ever been a rumor that JonBenet's grandfather might have been molesting her?
What I also found vey strange is that Patsy's mother Nedra allegedly said that maybe JB was "a little abused", and that this was no big deal. I'm going from memory here because I don't remember where I read it. Could anyone clear this up for me: did Nedra actually say that, and when? TIA.

 

[narlacat]

Yes, Nedra actually did say something like 'molested just a little bit', but I'm not sure when she said it or where I've read it.
Might be in ST's book.