PDA

View Full Version : If JonBenet's death was an accident...



Pages : 1 [2]

wonderllama
02-24-2011, 04:38 AM
Oh I agree unexplained doesn't equal suspicious but when the unexplained event takes place during a crucial period in someone's life/death it's probably worth sussing out.

Agatha_C
02-24-2011, 01:46 PM
Oh I agree unexplained doesn't equal suspicious but when the unexplained event takes place during a crucial period in someone's life/death it's probably worth sussing out.




So right you are Wonder. Unexplained does not equal suspicious. Now if we could only get IDI to admit the very same when it comes to the touch DNA, we might have something, dont you think Wonder (LOL).

Tadpole12
02-24-2011, 03:26 PM
http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682505/Second-Floor#Size46Panties


Kane Claim. In the August 28, 2000 interview with Patsy Ramsey, deputy DA Michael Kane asserted that of the 15 pairs of underwear taken from JBR's underwear drawer in the bathroom, "every one of those was either a size four or a size

http://boards.library.trutv.com/archive/index.php/t-280451.html

23 Q. What size underpants would you
24 normally buy for her?
25 A. 8 to 10.

Agatha_C
02-25-2011, 12:23 AM
http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682505/Second-Floor#Size46Panties


Kane Claim. In the August 28, 2000 interview with Patsy Ramsey, deputy DA Michael Kane asserted that of the 15 pairs of underwear taken from JBR's underwear drawer in the bathroom, "every one of those was either a size four or a size

http://boards.library.trutv.com/archive/index.php/t-280451.html

23 Q. What size underpants would you
24 normally buy for her?
25 A. 8 to 10.



Yet, they didnt find size 8 or 10s, instead they found 4 and 6s. So Patsy bought size 8 to 10s for JBR, she was found in the only pair of size 12s and LE only found size 4 and 6. We'll be arguing the panties until the second coming. LOL

SunnieRN
02-25-2011, 04:30 AM
Yes, I think it's a mistake to think everything must be a clue, just like an Agatha Christie book. Some things are Red Herrings, some are just co-incidental or are unrelated. You are a dyed-in-the-wool RDI, so it's no surprise where your questions are heading. RDI, RDI, RDI.

Ooi, Ooi, Oooiiiii!!!!

It amazes me that if something does not fit into a theory that you randomly toss to and fro, that you arbitrarily state that it is a red herring, incidental or unrelated. jonBenet was proven to eat pineapple, two hours, in approximation, of her time of death. No one drugged her. She had on undies that were many sizes too large for her.

FACTS, that most reasonable, intelligent human beings, trying to solve a MURDER, would call clues!

Denying the facts does nothing to enhance your random, ever changing theories.

SunnieRN
02-25-2011, 04:37 AM
This is but ONE example of your 'theories' that is NOT even in the realm of possibility. DeeDee and others, have stated MANY times, that there were NO drugs found in JonBenet. NONE! The R's insinuated someon (the White's), may have drugged her, with crab. Nope, nosey, nippers, or whatever it is you like to say. Did you read the autopsy report? NO DRUGS. NO GBH!


Look, Llama, I don't think you're such a bad Camelid, you are an Aussie after all, but you've just backed the wrong horse here!

I have no idea if the pineapple is significant in the crime or not. Did the parents feed it to her? If so, why? And why would they say she was asleep if she wasn't? They could have just said she asked for a snack and went to bed. I can't see the harm in that or why it would matter. It adds or subtracts nothing from their guilt/innocence.

As far as the IDI theory is concerned, I think there is a possibility. Firstly, and most likely, is that there was more than one IDI and one was a 'friendly' ('inside job'), who knew well JBR liked pineapple. He/She put a dash of GHB (you will be aware of a well published GHB related death here) in to the pineapple (acidic fruit masks the soapy taste) and took a very happy compliant JBR off to the basement to tie up and hide her in order to get the ransom as I've previously suggested. GHB without alcohol is quite safe apparently, because of how it works may even be a drug of preference for pedophiles, and wears off without hangover. Perfect if you want to keep someone quiet for a few hours, or molest them a little bit. Oh, and of course, no drugs were found in her body. That would not be a surprise considering the length of time from death to autopsy, and that GHB has to be specifically tested for because it apparently leaves the body rapidly.

Or, the pineapple could simply have nothing to do with the murder at all. JBR woke up after the family fell asleep, (maybe wanted a pee) and afterwards thought she'd go downstairs for something to eat/drink. Perhaps she got it out of the fridge herself, or maybe it was there on the table from earlier, and she just helped herself.

So, as far as the pineapple is concerned, I think from an RDI point of view it has much less value as evidence (why would they feed it to her and why would they then lie about it) than it does from an IDI stance (where it may be part of the planned crime).

DeeDee249
02-25-2011, 05:37 PM
Here's the WHOLE enchilada as far as the pineapple is concerned. Ready?

JB was awake at some point when they got home. She wanted a snack. Patsy got the bowl of pineapple from the fridge. Patsy's prints were on the bowl, as was BR's. NOT JB's. Fruit is a good choice for a bedtime snack. Nothing odd there. Patsy gives the pineapple to JB, she eats it. This is around 10-11 pm. BR is likely there as well, possible he eats some too. The teabag/glass may or may not be his.
This simple activity of a bedtime snack is over, done with and out of mind. Unimportant.

Until pineapple was found inside JB's digestive tract at the autopsy.

NOW- it becomes IMPORTANT. Important because the Rs had already said she was asleep when they got home and was not seen awake/alive again. Important because they never even thought about pineapple turning up in an autopsy report. Important because NOW they have to admit she was awake after they said she wasn't. They'd have to admit they lied about it. If they lied about this, it implies they may have lied about other things. It was simply easier to say she was asleep the whole time, just as the Rs admitted it was easier to say BR was asleep the whole time the next morning (JR later admitted he wasn't asleep, but they felt it "was better to say he was asleep to keep him out if it". Right. The only possible witness to your daughter's kidnapping.
It was so much easier to say you don't know HOW she got the pineapple inside her. Deny you even bought the pineapple. Deny you even own the bowl (later seen in a photo taken at a party just 3 days before and which matched other china in the home). Just say "we don't know".
That's it. The whole she-bang. The pineapple was an innocent part of the evening which became not-so-innocent when it was found inside a dead child who wasn't supposed to be awake to eat it.

eileenhawkeye
02-25-2011, 06:50 PM
I'm beginning to wonder if JonBenet snuck downstairs for a late night pineapple snack. Patsy heard some noise, grabbed the flashlight, and went downstairs to investigate. Then, Patsy was like, "JonBenet, what are you doing up this late?" and maybe JonBenet gave her a little attitude and Patsy got angry and hit JBR with the flashlight? Or maybe JonBenet and Burke both snuck downstairs (with the flashlight) and they got into an argument and Burke hit JonBenet with the flashlight?

I think the pineapple plays a big role in what happened that night. I highly doubt JonBenet ate the pineapple, went back to bed, and then the murder occurred. It's related somehow to her murder.

DeeDee249
02-25-2011, 07:56 PM
I'm beginning to wonder if JonBenet snuck downstairs for a late night pineapple snack. Patsy heard some noise, grabbed the flashlight, and went downstairs to investigate. Then, Patsy was like, "JonBenet, what are you doing up this late?" and maybe JonBenet gave her a little attitude and Patsy got angry and hit JBR with the flashlight? Or maybe JonBenet and Burke both snuck downstairs (with the flashlight) and they got into an argument and Burke hit JonBenet with the flashlight?

I think the pineapple plays a big role in what happened that night. I highly doubt JonBenet ate the pineapple, went back to bed, and then the murder occurred. It's related somehow to her murder.

I just can't see Patsy bashing JB with the flashlight for being "sassy". And I can't see her bashing JB 'accidentally" or thinking she was someone else. I can see BR bashing her in an argument. But what makes the most sense to me is the scream, then the head bash to silence her. Not to kill her (though it did) but to shut her up FAST.
I don't think JB ate the pineapple and went back to bed either. I do think it was eaten for innocent reasons- a genuine bedtime snack. Kids don't eat much proper food at a party, especially where there are other kids. They were said to have been playing all evening, which is why JR ASKED PW to save some crab for her. The kids obviously weren't sitting down and eating with the adults.
I don't think eating the pineapple itself has anything to do with her death or the crime. The LIE about eating the pineapple, however, has everything to do with it.

qtc
02-25-2011, 09:08 PM
DeeDee, you said that JBs prints were not on the bowl. If she gotten the snack herself, wouldnt her prints be on the bowl?

What else is known about the pineapple? Was it already in the bowl in the fridge, or was it opened the same time it was going to be eaten?

I am just trying to think about when it was possibly consumed. If JB and/or Burke got up for whatever reason, and she wanted the pineapple, would she (or they) sit in the dark and eat it? No one (the neighbors), to my knowledge, said anything about lights being on late, but I believe something was said about weird lighting (like a flashlight) was seen.

My thoughts are going every which way and I am having a hard time writing them down in a coherent way.

DeeDee249
02-26-2011, 12:04 AM
DeeDee, you said that JBs prints were not on the bowl. If she gotten the snack herself, wouldnt her prints be on the bowl?

What else is known about the pineapple? Was it already in the bowl in the fridge, or was it opened the same time it was going to be eaten?

I am just trying to think about when it was possibly consumed. If JB and/or Burke got up for whatever reason, and she wanted the pineapple, would she (or they) sit in the dark and eat it? No one (the neighbors), to my knowledge, said anything about lights being on late, but I believe something was said about weird lighting (like a flashlight) was seen.

My thoughts are going every which way and I am having a hard time writing them down in a coherent way.

JB's prints were NOT on the bowl. ONLY Patsy and BR's prints were on the bowl, and BR's prints were on the glass.
There was additional pineapple in the fridge that matched that in the bowl, as well as both matched the pineapple (even the rind) of the pineapple in JB's digestive tract. This was FRESH pineapple, not canned. So it wasn't "opened".
A neighbor saw what they described as "strange moving lights" (presumed to be the someone walking or moving about with a flashlight) around midnight, the general time JB was thought to have died. The family was back home by 10 pm, and it is assumed the pineapple was not eaten in the dark, but rather in the dining area off the kitchen, where the bowl and spoon were found, sometime between 10 pm and her death, about 2 hours later. There would be nothing particularly noteworthy about seeing lights on OR off in the R house, and nothing was noted with the exception of the moving lights. I am sure JB ate the pineapple, given to her by her mother or possibly brother, as their prints alone are on the bowl.
As far as the lights, it really wasn't that late. 10 pm- midnight may be late to some, but in many households people would still be up and about at that hour, especially a holiday like Christmas with so much tidying up to do.

SunnieRN
02-26-2011, 04:59 PM
Look, Llama, I don't think you're such a bad Camelid, you are an Aussie after all, but you've just backed the wrong horse here!



Now there was me saying what a nice little Camelid you were, and then you go off down the sarcasm route. How do we know it wasn't a group of College boys with a mini laboratory in their dorm? Perhaps they couldn't even swim. The neighbour was a qualified Pharmacist, perhaps he had a sideline in 'designer' drugs. I mean really, why would you pick on the swim team when we all know about the cyclists?

Well, it means my little Camel, that they did not FIND any drugs, not that there were none given to her. Perhaps you'd like to educate yourself about GHB and how it is a naturally occurring substance and how quickly it leaves the body and how difficult it is to trace and how you need to be looking for it specifically and using special laboratory equipment?


Well Wonderllama, you are obviously pushing buttons MF doesn't want pushed! Thank you and keep on it!!! I would be offended to be called a camel, and then be accused of sarcasm, Ah, yea, um hmm.

As for GBH, a urine test is all it takes to find presence of the drug. I think the fact that he tested her for drugs at all, was to prove they were not there. Also, GBH is mixed into drinks, to disguise the flavor. Highly unlikely that JonBenet would have eaten GBH spiked pineapple, as it would have likely been detected by her taste buds.

How do you explain away Burkes finger prints on the bowl and glass? Or Patsy's fingerprints on the bowl, but no one outside the immediate family? Oh that's right, you've told me before on other matters that you don't have to. Also, do you really think JonBenet would have silently gone out of her room, down to the kitchen, eaten pineapple with a stranger (swim team, any college team), wearing gloves? Cause otherwise their fingerprints would have been on the bowl when they got pineapple for JonBenet.

Guess what MF, WL may be backing the wrong horse, in your opinion, but you are beating a dead horse, with no results, in my opinion. Hoo Yah, cowboy up and hi yah, as it's said in TX.

wonderllama
02-26-2011, 06:05 PM
I have no problem with Murri's theories or opinions, I'm just after a full explanation of things and how everyone reaches their conclusions.

As much as I don't agree with most of what Murri says, I suspect she isn't just whipping it up out of nowhere, so it's good to hear all possibilities.

Having said that, I'm still unsure how the facts presented lead to the conclusions that JB must have been drugged when no evidence has ever been found to suggest that is the case. I'm not saying it DIDN'T happen, I'm saying we're taking a leap to say;

- Pineapple was found
- Pineapple was found in JB's stomach
- JB must have been subdued by drugs put in the pineapple

I suspect she was actually subdued by a blow to the head.

A + B = C (yes, we've gone from probabilities to algebra)

No point introducing a D if there's no evidence it exists.

cynic
02-26-2011, 09:01 PM
Yes, my precise point. Most clothing for children marked 12 will be for a 12 year old. HOWEVER, Bloomingdales own size chart says that size 12 is suitable for a 9-10 year old. There is NO SIZE 12/14.
That chart has no relevance whatsoever with respect to the Bloomies panties that were being sold in 1996
It has no relevance precisely because the “Days of the Week” panties that JBR was wearing on the night of her death were group sized. She was wearing size 12/14 according to the BPD.
It is not important how many size charts from other companies that you choose to post as evidence that some companies (perhaps even the company that manufactured these particular panties) do sell this size. I can post an equal number (and have already done so, so I won't waste time doing it again) with the exact same sizing of Bloomingdales. What is important is the size that was on the panties that JBR was wearing. Bloomingdales would have obtained from the manufacturer the size that theyretail as per their size chart. Just the same as any Asian company that produces clothing for the UK or Australia or Europe would size their garments and tag them according to their customers specifications.

I agree with the sentence that I bolded. There is no question, whatsoever, that she was wearing size 12/14 panties. Jayelles, who went to a NYC Bloomingdales, found that “Days of the Week” panties available in three size groupings; Small 4/6, Medium 8/10 and Large 12/14. They were rolled up and in a sealed plastic package which would require scissors or a knife to open initially.
A sworn affidavit confirms that JBR was wearing size 12/14
Patsy speaks of small, medium and large panties during the course of her interview, as well as them being rolled and in a plastic package.

MR. MORRISSEY: Mrs. Ramsey, I never purchased a pair of girl's panties. Okay.
Q. (By Mr. Morrissey) What do you do, I mean, when you do that, what do you think about as far as the person you're purchasing them for?
A. Well, you just look, small, medium, large, you know, and you pick the one you think would most likely fit.

Q. They came in, if you recall, do you remember that they come in kind of a plastic see-through plastic container.
A. Right.
Q. They are rolled up?
A. Yes.


The picture shown on a home made dummy (and not a very well made one either), is meaningless.
I’m still waiting for a similar effort by an IDI to refute Jayelles.


If Jayelles for example purchased a pack of panties size 6 (as per the Bloomingdales size chart) and another pair of size 12/14 (even from the same manufacturer, but using the Amazon chart you posted), then the size difference would be enormous.



I've always been amused by this picture posted by Jayelles and taken at the same time the st.eve 12/14 tag was shown.
Notice how it is only the larger panties that has the tag exposed rather than both pairs? I've always thought this is suspicious, because the smaller may not be the correct size, as JBR could have worn size 6, 6X, 7 & 8, which all fall within her age grouping, but may not support the poster's theory.

You seem to be implying that Jayelles was either deceptive or lying. Unfortunately she is not around these days to defend herself, however, she did encounter similar sentiment from a few other IDI’s.
Perhaps this quote from Jayelles is in order:
“I'm kind of past caring about the naysayers. I've encountered so many desperate counter-arguments from desperate people who simply cannot believe that Patsy would have allowed Jonbenet to wear out-sized knickers which would have been hanging down to her knees - so they come up with far-fetched explanations to try and discredit my photos. I suggest they make the trip to NYC and buy some for themselves. I have often wondered why none of the RST have done this but came to the conclusion that most likely they have and that they just couldn't bear to post that I am correct.”
Forums For Justice - View Single Post - Girls Size 12-14 "Bloomies" Modeled On a Six-Year-Old Like JonBenet

BTW are you also calling me a liar?
I wanted to see for myself the size difference between a size 6 and a size 12. My wife went to WalMart and purchased size 6, 12 and 14 Hanes panties.
I posted pictures and measurements on the following thread, as you know.
The oversized Bloomingdale’s panties. - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community
Of course, I didn’t expect a precise match to the Jayelles experiment, but the measurements were close and the disparity between size 6 and the two larger sizes was similarly striking.
It’s definitely interesting that no IDI’s have ever posted anything by way of a similar experiment.


I believe she put the panties on herself the previous night before going to the Whites and yes, even if she couldn't read, she could find a printed 'Wednesday' in a pack of seven day-of-the-week panties.
I’m not sure if you believe she wore any of the Bloomies, prior to Dec 25th?

So, you know, I'm sure even if they were a little bit big, they were special because we got them up there, she wanted to wear them…
Following this logic, we are to believe that JonBenet fell under the spell of these most beautiful and irresistible panties and just had to have them.
However, if we are to believe PR, she was shopping at Bloomingdales with JonBenet and apparently JonBenet picked them out and suggested them as a gift for Jenny.
Well, my question is why didn’t JonBenet simply get a set for herself, in an appropriate size? Or did she?
Unfortunately because PR was being her usual evasive self, and refused to give a straight answer to the following questions, it remains unclear as to how many Days of the Week panties she purchased.
Q. So if I understand you correctly, you bought one package for Jenny Davis, your niece, and one for JonBenet?
A. I am not sure if I bought one or two.
Q. Do you remember what size they were?
A. Not exactly.
Moving on, let’s look at the timeline.
At least one package of Bloomies was purchased in November 1996. Without any good explanation as to why, Patsy claimed that they simply ended up in the bathroom panty drawer for use by JonBenet.
MS. HARMER: I guess I am not clear on, you bought the panties to give to Jenny.
THE WITNESS: Right.
MS. HARMER: And they ended up in JonBenet's bathroom?
A. Right.
The Ramseys turned over a package of “Days of the Week” size 12/14 Bloomies to the Boulder DA (Lacy) in 2002. Allegedly it was complete except for the Wednesday pair.
Alright then, this means that despite the mesmerizing effect that these panties had on JonBenet, she somehow managed to control herself and not wear any of them until at least a month later. Then she gets into the package and even manages to pick the correct day, “Wednesday.”
I just don’t buy it.


Evidence is right there. There were only stained size 6 panties in her drawer.
Not true.
The origin of this IIRC, were statements by Holly Smith to a reporter.
Holly Smith remembers walking up the steps to the Ramsey home: the big candy canes more jarring than festive considering the circumstances. The house was lavishly decorated.
Smith recalls, "It was big and it was meandering and it was schmanzy fancy."
It was the third day of the investigation into the murder of JonBenet Ramsey. Smith was head of the Boulder County Sexual Abuse team and has been called into the investigation, as she says, "to consult about some of the dynamics and some of the things people suspected might be going on with this case."

One poignant find that she does recall was a red satin box with what looked like JonBenet’s secret stash of candy.
She found something else in the room, however, which raised an immediate red flag. Smith says most of the panties in JonBenet’s dresser drawers had been soiled with fecal material.
"There is this dynamic of children that have been sexually abused sometimes soiling themselves or urinating in their beds to keep someone who is hurting them at bay," explains Smith.

Assuming this account is true you will note that HS merely says most panties had been soiled.
You have substituted the word “all” for “most”
Also, with respect to rest of the panties, surely you are not saying that underwear that had been soiled and subsequently washed is somehow unusable??


RDI has said it themselves.
I haven’t, and I don’t believe that that is what the evidence suggests. See above


BPD said they were all in the drawer. NO MENTION has ever been made of them finding panties (except for a dirty pair on the bathroom floor) in any other location in the house.
This has no bearing on the discussion, PR was asked about the whereabouts of the size 12/14 panties and said that they were in JonBenet’s underwear drawer, the same underwear drawer that the BPD searched, the same drawer in which they found only appropriately sized panties for a 6 year old child, and not any of the remaining size 12/14 panties.
You are free to speculate as you wish, but the fact of the matter is that PR was given every opportunity to explain, not only why JBR would have been found in significantly oversized panties, but also where specifically they were to be found in the house.
You can tell us where you think they were but PR tells us that they were to be found in JBR’s panty drawer, not in any luggage, bag or wherever you would choose to place them to support your premise.


JBR could have worn anything from a size 6 to a size 8, according to the Bloomindales size chart.
As we have established, that chart is no more relevant that any chart from any store for the simple reason that they don’t sell children’s panties at Bloomingdales anymore.
If the panties were not obviously huge for someone of JBR’s age, there would have been no questioning relating to the matter by LE.

DeeDee249
02-26-2011, 09:36 PM
Let's not forget that the Rs sent along -years later- the alleged remaining pairs of size we panties, still in the package. So right there, we know for sure they had never been opened and put in JB's panty drawer.

Toltec
02-26-2011, 10:13 PM
Are you saying the panties in the panty drawer are stained??? YUCK!

I know the Ramseys decided JonBenet was too old to ask to be wiped so I gather she did not wipe herself properly. That would explain the stained panties. Someone as rich as the Ramseys would not even take the time to buy this poor child new panties.

My daughter turned 6 this month and I still wipe her bottom because I know what will happen if I don't. She is learning to wipe herself with these wet flushable wipes and hopefully she will be able to wipe herself on her own.

The size 12 panties came from somewhere...knowing now they were not in JonBenets panty drawer...my guess is that they were in the basement wine cellar.

Agatha_C
02-27-2011, 12:41 AM
I have no problem with Murri's theories or opinions, I'm just after a full explanation of things and how everyone reaches their conclusions.

As much as I don't agree with most of what Murri says, I suspect she isn't just whipping it up out of nowhere, so it's good to hear all possibilities.

Having said that, I'm still unsure how the facts presented lead to the conclusions that JB must have been drugged when no evidence has ever been found to suggest that is the case. I'm not saying it DIDN'T happen, I'm saying we're taking a leap to say;

- Pineapple was found
- Pineapple was found in JB's stomach
- JB must have been subdued by drugs put in the pineapple

I suspect she was actually subdued by a blow to the head.

A + B = C (yes, we've gone from probabilities to algebra)

No point introducing a D if there's no evidence it exists.




What I find troublesome about the poison pineapple, are two things. No drugs found in system and just how long the Intruder would have had to linger after she ate the fruit, for it to have digested as far as it did. The longer IDI theories have this intruder lingering the more and more it convinces me that it wasnt an intruder. I mean they have him in the house for hours upon hours, lingering and jerking around.

Also, why poison the pineapple if LS was right and a stun gun was used.

Heres a question, if an intruder used the stun gun how did he get JBR to sit quietly after and eat pineapple? And yet again, linger long enough for it to digest. Why not just leave with the stunned and drugged child?

I cannot wrap my head around it and make it make sense.

wonderllama
02-27-2011, 01:23 AM
It's sort of hedging your bets.

Single intruder options.

- She knew the intruder, but they drugged her anyway?
- She didn't know the intruder, they hid while she ate pineapple which they had drugged, then they jumped out, she screamed and they smacked her in the head? So why drug her?
- She did/didn't know the intruder, they drugged her, they took her downstairs, she came to, they smacked her on the head. Not enough time for pineapple to digest, unless they took her downstairs for 2 hours, then she woke up, screamed and they smacked her.

Seems an awfully long time to be doing all this...for starters, you'd want fast acting drugs, otherwise she'd simply head back up to bed after eating them. And if she ate them when she came in, aren't we risking everyone else being drugged as well? Maybe that would have HELPED!

So she eats it, passes out after a little while, then she's taken downstairs...there still has to be around 2 hours of defiling in order for the pineapple to digest. Can 2 hours be long enough to give the impression of chronic molestation? Perhaps, I don't know, but it is still TWO HOURS. You'd certainly want to be sure nobody else is noticing her missing.

Multiple Intruder Options...

- Yeah I dunno, the idea that there's more than one person sneaking around the house seems odd. I mean, we haven't even positively established ONE intruder was in the house without him inviting a buddy to come with him. The only way I can think there were two intruders is if they were the Laurel & Hardy of murderers....one smart guy and one bumbling partner.

Frigga
02-27-2011, 01:44 AM
It was the Laurel & Hardy of cover-ups, that's for sure... one smart guy and one bumbling partner. I'll go with JR as the 'smart guy' and PR as the 'bumbling partner'. MOO

Agatha_C
02-27-2011, 02:24 AM
It's sort of hedging your bets.

Single intruder options.

- She knew the intruder, but they drugged her anyway?
- She didn't know the intruder, they hid while she ate pineapple which they had drugged, then they jumped out, she screamed and they smacked her in the head? So why drug her?
- She did/didn't know the intruder, they drugged her, they took her downstairs, she came to, they smacked her on the head. Not enough time for pineapple to digest, unless they took her downstairs for 2 hours, then she woke up, screamed and they smacked her.

Seems an awfully long time to be doing all this...for starters, you'd want fast acting drugs, otherwise she'd simply head back up to bed after eating them. And if she ate them when she came in, aren't we risking everyone else being drugged as well? Maybe that would have HELPED!

So she eats it, passes out after a little while, then she's taken downstairs...there still has to be around 2 hours of defiling in order for the pineapple to digest. Can 2 hours be long enough to give the impression of chronic molestation? Perhaps, I don't know, but it is still TWO HOURS. You'd certainly want to be sure nobody else is noticing her missing.

Multiple Intruder Options...

- Yeah I dunno, the idea that there's more than one person sneaking around the house seems odd. I mean, we haven't even positively established ONE intruder was in the house without him inviting a buddy to come with him. The only way I can think there were two intruders is if they were the Laurel & Hardy of murderers....one smart guy and one bumbling partner.


LOL! Sounds like the R's!!!! That tickled my funny bone.

Its like world building in Sci-fi/fantasy writing. The more you add, the more out of this world it becomes.

UKGuy
02-27-2011, 07:28 AM
Are you saying the panties in the panty drawer are stained??? YUCK!

I know the Ramseys decided JonBenet was too old to ask to be wiped so I gather she did not wipe herself properly. That would explain the stained panties. Someone as rich as the Ramseys would not even take the time to buy this poor child new panties.

My daughter turned 6 this month and I still wipe her bottom because I know what will happen if I don't. She is learning to wipe herself with these wet flushable wipes and hopefully she will be able to wipe herself on her own.

The size 12 panties came from somewhere...knowing now they were not in JonBenets panty drawer...my guess is that they were in the basement wine cellar.

Toltec,


The size 12 panties came from somewhere...knowing now they were not in JonBenets panty drawer...my guess is that they were in the basement wine cellar.
They may have been upstairs in Patsy's drawer? But someone other than Patsy knew of their existence!

I reckon prior to the Atlanta 2000 interview Patsy had been briefed by Lin Wood to expect questions regarding the size-12 Bloomingdale underwear. Their size had been leaked to the press before the meeting. Indirect reference to this is mentioned in the interview:

Patsy's Atlanta 2000 Interview, excerpt
Patsy Knows JonBenet Was Wearing Size-12 Underwear


5 Q. (By Mr. Kane) Let me ask it
6 this way. Did you say you bought more than
7 one set of Bloomi's?
8 A. I can't remember.
9 Q. You bought some for JonBenet?
10 A. I can't remember.
11 Q. Why is it that you remember
12 buying Bloomingdale's panties in November of
13 1996?
14 A. Because --
15 MR. WOOD: Because she remembers
16 it. I mean --
17 MR. KANE: Wait a second, Lin.
18 Would you please let her answer the question?
19 It is a simple question.
20 MR. WOOD: Why is it that you
21 remember something?
22 MR. KANE: Yes, why do you
23 remember --
24 MR. WOOD: Because she remembered.
25 Q. (By Mr. Kane) - that, that
0092
1 detail?
2 A. Well, for starters, it has been
3 made such a big detail.
4 Q. Okay, well, that is my question.
5 A. I remember that I -- and I, you
6 know, we were kind of shopping around, and
7 it was close to Christmas season, so we
8 might pick up a little souvenir. I
9 bought -- I think I picked up a little
10 something for a baby-sitter, you know.
11 Q. Where was it that you became
12 aware that this was -- where was it that it
13 was made a big deal? What was the source
14 of your information that Bloomingdale's
15 panties somehow were significant that made
16 you then say, wait a second, did I ever buy
17 those?
18 MR. WOOD: Do you have a precise
19 recollection of that event occurring where
20 all of a sudden something happened and you
21 decided it was some big deal?
22 THE WITNESS: I don't know. I
23 mean, my first thought is something in the
24 tabloids, but, you know, they get everything
25 wrong, so --
0093
1 Q. (By Mr. Kane) Okay. Were you
2 aware that these were the size of panties
3 that she was wearing, and this has been
4 publicized, it is out in the open, that they
5 were size 12 to 14? Were you aware of
6 that?
7 A. I have become aware of that, yes.
8 Q. And how did you become aware of
9 that?
10 A. Something I read, I am sure.
11 Q. And I will just state a fact
12 here. I mean, there were 15 pair of panties
13 taken out of, by the police, out of
14 JonBenet's panty drawer in her bathroom. Is
15 that where she kept -
16 A. Uh-huh (affirmative).
17 Q. -- where you were describing that
18 they were just put in that drawer?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Okay. And every one of those was
21 either a size four or a size six. Okay?


Patsy's explanation for JonBenet wearing size-12 underwear is that she herself purchased a set of Day-Of-The-Week size-12 underwear for her niece Jenny. Patsy unequivocally states that she opened and placed a set of Day-Of-The-Week size-12 underwear into JonBenet's underwear drawer. Who this set was originally intended for is independent of Patsy's declaration, or whether two, three or thirty-three sets sets were initially purchased. What was established is that no intruder brought the size-12's into the house.

Patsy's Atlanta 2000 Interview, excerpt
Patsy States She Put Size-12 Underwear into JonBenet's Drawer


15 THE WITNESS: They were just in
16 her panty drawer, so I don't, you know, I
17 don't pay attention. I mean, I just put all
18 of her clean panties in a drawer and she can
19 help herself to whatever is in there.
20 MS. HARMER: I guess I am not
21 clear on, you bought the panties to give to
22 Jenny.
23 THE WITNESS: Right.
24 MS. HARMER: And they ended up in
25 JonBenet's bathroom?
0087
1 A. Right.
2 Q. (By Ms. Harmer) Was there - I'm
3 sorry. Do you recall making a decision then
4 not to give them to Jenny or did JonBenet
5 express an interest in them; therefore, you
6 didn't give them to Jenny? How did that --
7 A. I can't say for sure. I mean, I
8 think I bought them with the intention of
9 sending them in a package of Christmas things
10 to Atlanta. Obviously I didn't get that
11 together, so I just put them in her, her
12 panty drawer. So they were free game.


So why would Patsy make all these claims, if it had been her who redressed JonBenet then removed the already worn size-6 pair, and the remaining new size-12's pairs?

She would know her statements were complete nonsense, note in her interview how amnesia makes a regular appearance. So is Patsy is attempting to inject ambiguity into her version of events, except when queried about her purchase of the Bloomingdale size-12's and her placement of them into JonBenet's underwear drawer!

If you buy all this then it must mean someone else restaged aspects of Patsy's staging. This I contend is why JonBenet was discovered in the wine-cellar with a barbie-doll and bloodstained barbie nightgown, all wrapped in a white blanket. Someone else had started to restage the crime not completed it and had to simply wrap JonBenet, along with the prior artifacts, in the white blanket and place her out of sight in the wine-cellar!


.

DeeDee249
02-27-2011, 04:49 PM
All the speculation of who, where, and how and with what someone drugged the pineapple doesn't change the FACT that NO drugs were found in her system. One important thing to remember- She died about 2 hours after eating it. At death, all metabolic activity STOPS. This means not only digestion, but anything that would circulate through the bloodstream (like a drug). It would not continue to "pass through" her system until it was gone or be filtered out by the liver or kidneys (where its presence would be detected anyway). These organs are all tested for drugs/alcohol at an autopsy they don't do a blood test. Just because the autopsy was more than 30 hours after her death, that does not mean any drug would have "worn off". That happens only when someone is alive and metabolism and circulation come into play.

qtc
02-27-2011, 06:09 PM
[QUOTE]JB's prints were NOT on the bowl. ONLY Patsy and BR's prints were on the bowl, and BR's prints were on the glass.
What about the spoon, were any prints found on it?


There was additional pineapple in the fridge that matched that in the bowl, as well as both matched the pineapple (even the rind) of the pineapple in JB's digestive tract. This was FRESH pineapple, not canned. So it wasn't "opened".

Ok, I didnt know it was fresh. Then somebody had to cut it. Was the other part that was in the fridge uncut, or was it cut up and in a bowl?

Seems to me that Patsy gave it to her and for whatever reason is flat out lying about it.








A neighbor saw what they described as "strange moving lights" (presumed to be the someone walking or moving about with a flashlight) around midnight, the general time JB was thought to have died. The family was back home by 10 pm, and it is assumed the pineapple was not eaten in the dark, but rather in the dining area off the kitchen, where the bowl and spoon were found, sometime between 10 pm and her death, about 2 hours later. There would be nothing particularly noteworthy about seeing lights on OR off in the R house, and nothing was noted with the exception of the moving lights. I am sure JB ate the pineapple, given to her by her mother or possibly brother, as their prints alone are on the bowl.
As far as the lights, it really wasn't that late. 10 pm- midnight may be late to some, but in many households people would still be up and about at that hour, especially a holiday like Christmas with so much tidying up to do.

My thoughts were that, supposedly, they stated being in bed by about 10:30-ish. (Please correct me if I am wrong)
I was just wondering if lights were seen on after that time (to indicate that JB and possibly B had gotten back up and had tea and ate the pineapple).

DeeDee249
02-27-2011, 06:43 PM
[quote=DeeDee249;6160271]
What about the spoon, were any prints found on it?

Ok, I didnt know it was fresh. Then somebody had to cut it. Was the other part that was in the fridge uncut, or was it cut up and in a bowl?

Seems to me that Patsy gave it to her and for whatever reason is flat out lying about it.

My thoughts were that, supposedly, they stated being in bed by about 10:30-ish. (Please correct me if I am wrong)
I was just wondering if lights were seen on after that time (to indicate that JB and possibly B had gotten back up and had tea and ate the pineapple).

I haven't seen anything about prints on the spoon. I'd have loved to see it tested for DNA (in saliva) as well.
Patsy said she always bought fresh pineapple already cut up from the store. My market sells it that way, too, along with other kinds of fresh fruit cut up- peaches, grapefruit, fruit cocktail, watermelon. They are sold in the refrigerated section, not the produce section.
Patsy's reason for giving it to her is simple- JB was probably hungry when they got home, kids usually do not eat much at a party, especially when there are other kids to play with.
Patsy's reason for lying about it is simple, too. The parents had a "story" to stick to about that night-they said JB was asleep when they got home, they put her to bed, and never saw her alive again. If Patsy admitted giving her the pineapple, even though that was innocent in and of itself, they would have to admit that JB wasn't asleep like they said. Then LE might wonder why they lied about it in the first place.
Remember, they already lied about BR- they said he was asleep the next morning the whole time after they found the note and called 911. Later, JR admitted they knew he wasn't asleep, but felt it was easier to just say he was asleep to "keep him out if it". Of course, BR's voice was also heard in the background during the 911 call, so that may be why JR finally had to admit he had been awake at that time.

qtc
02-27-2011, 10:28 PM
[quote=qtc;6164293]

I haven't seen anything about prints on the spoon. I'd have loved to see it tested for DNA (in saliva) as well.
Patsy said she always bought fresh pineapple already cut up from the store. My market sells it that way, too, along with other kinds of fresh fruit cut up- peaches, grapefruit, fruit cocktail, watermelon. They are sold in the refrigerated section, not the produce section.
Patsy's reason for giving it to her is simple- JB was probably hungry when they got home, kids usually do not eat much at a party, especially when there are other kids to play with.
Patsy's reason for lying about it is simple, too. The parents had a "story" to stick to about that night-they said JB was asleep when they got home, they put her to bed, and never saw her alive again. If Patsy admitted giving her the pineapple, even though that was innocent in and of itself, they would have to admit that JB wasn't asleep like they said. Then LE might wonder why they lied about it in the first place.
Remember, they already lied about BR- they said he was asleep the next morning the whole time after they found the note and called 911. Later, JR admitted they knew he wasn't asleep, but felt it was easier to just say he was asleep to "keep him out if it". Of course, BR's voice was also heard in the background during the 911 call, so that may be why JR finally had to admit he had been awake at that time.

So we know that JB at some of it because it was in her system. You are saying that it was a harmless snack that Patsy gave her, but they had to exclude it from their story to simplify it. So what exactly would saliva prove?

Its one thing to say your son is asleep to keep him out of it, but to lie about your events that night concerning your daughter is crazy (looking from the point of view that they are innocent).

Agatha_C
02-27-2011, 11:30 PM
[quote=DeeDee249;6164356]

So we know that JB at some of it because it was in her system. You are saying that it was a harmless snack that Patsy gave her, but they had to exclude it from their story to simplify it. So what exactly would saliva prove?

Its one thing to say your son is asleep to keep him out of it, but to lie about your events that night concerning your daughter is crazy (looking from the point of view that they are innocent).



If they admit that Jonbenet ate pineapple before she went to bed, than they have to admit that she wasnt asleep when they got home, which they both had stated was the case. Patsy said she was "Zonked out". JR said she was so sound asleep that when he was taking her out of the car he almost dropped her and she didnt wake at all, not a grumble nor a peep. Patsy, undressed and redressed Jonbenets lower half and the child just laid there sound asleep. The entire family went to bed shortly afterwards and no one got up to feed Jonbenet.

The pineapple lie is important, because too admit she ate it is to admit they lied about her being asleep when they got home. The pineapple lie was the lessor of the two evils. Look dumb and answer fewer questions or admit you're a liar and answer many more that you would rather not have too answer.

DeeDee249
02-27-2011, 11:50 PM
[quote=qtc;6164969]



If they admit that Jonbenet ate pineapple before she went to bed, than they have to admit that she wasnt asleep when they got home, which they both had stated was the case. Patsy said she was "Zonked out". JR said she was so sound asleep that when he was taking her out of the car he almost dropped her and she didnt wake at all, not a grumble nor a peep. Patsy, undressed and redressed Jonbenets lower half and the child just laid there sound asleep. The entire family went to bed shortly afterwards and no one got up to feed Jonbenet.

The pineapple lie is important, because too admit she ate it is to admit they lied about her being asleep when they got home. The pineapple lie was the lessor of the two evils. Look dumb and answer fewer questions or admit you're a liar and answer many more that you would rather not have too answer.

That wasn't my quote, but JB's saliva on the spoon proves she ate THAT pineapple. The Rs suggested she may have eaten it at the White's, or from a tupperware bowl found in the home. The White's have said no pineapple was served- no one at the party has said otherwise. No pineapple residue was found in the Tupperware bowl. And the pineapple itself was taken into evidence and tested for drugs as well, so that should prove once and for all that JB consumed no drugged pineapple.
And speaking of THAT bowl

Agatha_C
02-28-2011, 01:55 AM
That wasn't my quote, but JB's saliva on the spoon proves she ate THAT pineapple. The Rs suggested she may have eaten it at the White's, or from a tupperware bowl found in the home. The White's have said no pineapple was served- no one at the party has said otherwise. No pineapple residue was found in the Tupperware bowl. And the pineapple itself was taken into evidence and tested for drugs as well, so that should prove once and for all that JB consumed no drugged pineapple.
And speaking of THAT bowl


DeeDee, Im sorry it quoted you. I dont know how that happened but I'll pay closer attention next time, again I am so sorry. How did it put your HAT on someone else's post? Never mind just figured out how to fix it.

Agatha_C
02-28-2011, 02:00 AM
If they admit that Jonbenet ate pineapple before she went to bed, than they have to admit that she wasnt asleep when they got home, which they both had stated was the case. Patsy said she was "Zonked out". JR said she was so sound asleep that when he was taking her out of the car he almost dropped her and she didnt wake at all, not a grumble nor a peep. Patsy, undressed and redressed Jonbenets lower half and the child just laid there sound asleep. The entire family went to bed shortly afterwards and no one got up to feed Jonbenet.

The pineapple lie is important, because too admit she ate it is to admit they lied about her being asleep when they got home. The pineapple lie was the lessor of the two evils. Look dumb and answer fewer questions or admit you're a liar and answer many more that you would rather not have too answer.



I have figured out how the wrong name appeared in my quote of QTC post. LOL... Yikes what a mess that could create.

DeeDee249
02-28-2011, 05:08 PM
DeeDee, Im sorry it quoted you. I dont know how that happened but I'll pay closer attention next time, again I am so sorry. How did it put your HAT on someone else's post? Never mind just figured out how to fix it.

No problem- that happens sometimes. When I post with a quote I always have to remember to be sure I start writing after the last quote bracket, otherwise it adds what you write to the previous quote.

SunnieRN
03-01-2011, 12:07 AM
[quote=DeeDee249;6164356]

So we know that JB at some of it because it was in her system. You are saying that it was a harmless snack that Patsy gave her, but they had to exclude it from their story to simplify it. So what exactly would saliva prove?

Its one thing to say your son is asleep to keep him out of it, but to lie about your events that night concerning your daughter is crazy (looking from the point of view that they are innocent).

That is precisely the point I have been trying to make by arguing the fact that the R's did LIE! There was NO reason for them to lie, if their chain of events had been true! About anything, including Burke actually being awake. I know my parents told me and maybe some of yours did also, 'don't tell a lie, or you will have to keep on lying to cover up your first lie.'

http://www.1songlyrics.com/f/fireflight/liar.html

The first few verses of this song, describe the R's to a tee!

Tadpole12
03-01-2011, 12:26 AM
Whoa, Heavy:banghead:. Love the 'screamer' effect.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fr__AUjHs6A

SunnieRN
03-01-2011, 02:21 AM
When I heard that one day, the hair on the back of my neck stood up! A friend played it due to a breakup, I of course, thought of the R's. lol :floorlaugh:

SunnieRN
03-01-2011, 02:33 AM
Sorry, on my iPad, so have to post up here. Chronic molestation would show older injuries that were in a different stage of healing, vs a more 'recent' trauma.



So she eats it, passes out after a little while, then she's taken downstairs...there still has to be around 2 hours of defiling in order for the pineapple to digest. Can 2 hours be long enough to give the impression of chronic molestation? Perhaps, I don't know, but it is still TWO HOURS. You'd certainly want to be sure nobody else is noticing her missing.

Multiple Intruder Options...

- Yeah I dunno, the idea that there's more than one person sneaking around the house seems odd. I mean, we haven't even positively established ONE intruder was in the house without him inviting a buddy to come with him. The only way I can think there were two intruders is if they were the Laurel & Hardy of murderers....one smart guy and one bumbling partner.

SuperDave
03-01-2011, 06:49 PM
[FONT=Verdana]Every time I see a post like this, it reminds me how much damage people like John Douglas and Lou Smit have done to this case,

Cynic, you took the words right out of my mouth.

SuperDave
03-01-2011, 06:55 PM
Oh, boy...I've been WAITING for a chance like this!


This is so funny. What we are discussing is RDIs view that the R's together or in collusion, killed and staged their daughter's murder on the one hand. Then on the other hand RDI are saying that JR knew where she was or even that he moved her from somewhere else (in the house) earlier in the day, so she would be found. I'm not sure where she was moved from they haven't worked that out yet. Then they are saying that given an opportunity, (asked to search by LA) he went straight to where he already knew she was, without even pretending to search. But instead of calling for the Cops so they could see all his hard work in staging and laying out the body so it looked like someone else had done it, he picked her up and carried her upstairs. He then gave LA 'a look' that convinced her he was guilty (rather than looking like the innocent grieving father he was pretending to be). Following this, when interviewed, he described how he had found her, wrapped in the blanket and in doing so, apparently implicated himself, because as RDI ask themselves who else but a parent would do this.

[QUOTE]All the funnier, because you don't even know this doesn't make any sense at all.

You're right: I DON'T know that it doesn't make sense, because as I see it, it makes sense just fine. These are the kinds of mistakes I would expect an amateur to make.

SuperDave
03-01-2011, 06:57 PM
On the assumption John knew JBR was deceased, why would he bring her upstairs for her mother (and the rest of the Ramsey troop) to see? I would think most men would want to protect their wives from such a ghastly image.

It's funny you mention that, Kari, because, to hear him tell it in DOI, that's exactly why he covered her up in the living room.

DeeDee249
03-01-2011, 08:08 PM
[quote=qtc;6164969]

That is precisely the point I have been trying to make by arguing the fact that the R's did LIE! There was NO reason for them to lie, if their chain of events had been true! About anything, including Burke actually being awake. I know my parents told me and maybe some of yours did also, 'don't tell a lie, or you will have to keep on lying to cover up your first lie.'

http://www.1songlyrics.com/f/fireflight/liar.html

The first few verses of this song, describe the R's to a tee!

Sunnie, This showed up in your post as MY quote, but it was not my quote originally. I believe it was qtc.

SunnieRN
03-01-2011, 09:35 PM
[quote=SunnieRN;6168655]

Sunnie, This showed up in your post as MY quote, but it was not my quote originally. I believe it was qtc.

Hi DeeDee, I notice the quotes have been messed up for a bit. Above, my quote is in qtc's name. Hope you are doing well and sorry for the mixup.

Agatha, how did you fix yours?

DeeDee249
03-01-2011, 09:44 PM
[quote=DeeDee249;6171553]

Hi DeeDee, I notice the quotes have been messed up for a bit. Above, my quote is in qtc's name. Hope you are doing well and sorry for the mixup.

Agatha, how did you fix yours?

I wonder why that happens. No problem, though.

Peepers
03-01-2011, 10:24 PM
Personally, I think Burke and JBR got up after parents were asleep and thats probably when she ate the pineapple. Maybe Patsy didnt notice it so she didnt really know that JBR ate the pineapple and wasnt really lying about the pineapple. PR is so adamant about the pineapple, I think there are so many lies in the cover up, she liked the fact that there was some truths she could stand with and in her mind she wasnt lying, she did not give JBR the pineapple.

Agatha_C
03-01-2011, 11:37 PM
Hi DeeDee, I notice the quotes have been messed up for a bit. Above, my quote is in qtc's name. Hope you are doing well and sorry for the mixup.

Agatha, how did you fix yours?



Sunnie, when you quote someone, that is quoting someone (LOL) you have to look at the top before you send and if two HATs are quoted (the original quoter and the one you're quoting) Yikes... You have to remove the original quoter. Did that make sense?

SunnieRN
03-01-2011, 11:59 PM
Sunnie, when you quote someone, that is quoting someone (LOL) you have to look at the top before you send and if two HATs are quoted (the original quoter and the one you're quoting) Yikes... You have to remove the original quoter. Did that make sense?

Made perfect sense my friend! Now to see if it works.:crazy:

DeeDee249
03-02-2011, 12:27 AM
Personally, I think Burke and JBR got up after parents were asleep and thats probably when she ate the pineapple. Maybe Patsy didnt notice it so she didnt really know that JBR ate the pineapple and wasnt really lying about the pineapple. PR is so adamant about the pineapple, I think there are so many lies in the cover up, she liked the fact that there was some truths she could stand with and in her mind she wasnt lying, she did not give JBR the pineapple.

But then why lie about owning the BOWL? That was deliberate. The bowl matched other pieces of her china, as well as being seen on her table in a photo taken at the party on Dec. 23rd. Patsy tried to infer that she didn't recognize the bowl.
Why lie about owning a box of tissues? Why would anyone believe a kidnapper/intruder would bring their own box of tissues into the home when they didn't even bring a note and had to use paper and pen from the kitchen. (How conveeeeenient).
It is those lies that convince me Patsy knew about the pineapple snack and she was trying to distance herself from it. She HAD to lie about it, or else she had to admit JB was awake at some point that night.

KariKae
03-02-2011, 04:35 PM
A couple other things that bothered me about the pineapple.

1) IIRC, it was fresh cut pineapple. Fresh pineapple is difficult for me to cut. I cannot see Burke or JBR cutting fresh pineapple.

2) I can't imagine JBR waking up in a dark house and going downstairs to fix herself a snack. Wasn't her normal protocol to go to Burke's room?

DeeDee249
03-02-2011, 07:08 PM
A couple other things that bothered me about the pineapple.

1) IIRC, it was fresh cut pineapple. Fresh pineapple is difficult for me to cut. I cannot see Burke or JBR cutting fresh pineapple.

2) I can't imagine JBR waking up in a dark house and going downstairs to fix herself a snack. Wasn't her normal protocol to go to Burke's room?

1. Patsy had said she always kept fresh pineapple for the kids, JB was said to love it. However, she told LE in one of her interviews that she bought it already cut up at the grocery store. They sell it like that in my supermarkets, too. Fresh pineapple, peaches, fruit cocktail, grapefruit sections all are sold in containers in the refrigerated section of the produce dept. So no one had to cut the fresh pineapple up- it was bought already cut up.

2. Patsy mentioned that sometimes JB would go into BR's room if she woke up.

Bottom line- JR wasn't walking around the house alone in the dark anyway.
Patsy had said JB would not have been able to reach the bowl of pineapple in the fridge. Someone had to get it out for her. There are 2 sets of prints on the bowl of pineapple, Patsy's and BR's. One of them got the bowl of pineapple down. I wouldn't rule out BR doing it, possibly having a snack of pineapple with JB. But we'll never know because he won't talk to LE now, and back then, their access to him was limited and frankly, LE may not even have asked whether BR sat with JB while she ate the pineapple.

SuperDave
03-10-2011, 06:19 PM
You see DD, I have so much trouble with this take of RDI's on the evidence. Unknown DNA has no value, but if there was a person identified who was the owner of this DNA it would be different. An unknown person in the home is dismissed, but the possibility of a known person having been there is embraced.

Um, that's generally how it works here in America, Murri. I don't know about Australia.

SuperDave
03-10-2011, 06:28 PM
I want to believe IDI. I sincerely believed IDI. I just cant anymore. My reasons are not because i was over exposed by a biased media! My opinion comes from alot of reading!

Welcome to the club!

SuperDave
03-10-2011, 06:52 PM
Would someone kindly explain to me, according to RDI theories, how the murder occurred and the sexual assault and redressing in sequence??

I'd be glad to do it.


There is urine staining on the longjohns. There is urine staining on the panties. There is blood staining on the panties.

I'm having difficulty understanding how this can be consistent with RDI.

Allow me. The blood most likely came from the jabbing when the pants were pulled back up, and her body then expelled urine upon death. This is known as "voiding."


If the parents are the perps, and the head wound was an accident and the cord around the neck merely staging (as per RDI), this seems to be inconsistent with the time and cause of death. If death occured after the head bash and before the cord was applied (and I cannot see how it can be timed any other way to fit with RDI),

I can. And it might help you if I do. Even if the cord was applied while JB was still alive, if they didn't KNOW she was alive, it's still staging.


then the sexual assault that supposedly took place as part of the staging (supposedly using the paint brush) would have to have been done while she was still alive.

Right.


If the cord was staging, how can she have died from strangulation?

Do we have to go through that again!?


The clothing was re-arranged prior to the release of urine at the time of death.

Right.

Toltec
03-10-2011, 07:00 PM
It's funny you mention that, Kari, because, to hear him tell it in DOI, that's exactly why he covered her up in the living room.


I was going to post the same exact thing...how he covered her AGAIN!

LE questions Patsy about where she keeps her crafts...specifically glitter. I wonder if glitter was found on JonBenet. The glitter was kept in the storage room next to the train room...under the window.

LE questions John about whether he owns work gloves...wonder why?

SuperDave
03-10-2011, 07:08 PM
Ok, so can I assume you subscribe to either the bedwetting (shoved into an object) or the molestation by JR (hit accidentally/purposely by the flashlight) theory?

Regardless, the head bash happened either in her room or in her bathroom on the second floor.

Now we have an unconscious JBR and either one (PR) or both parents wishing to cover for themselves and what occurred.

So, then, why do they carry her to the basement?

Nice, out of the way place.


When did the 'ransom' idea come to them?

First hour or so, would be my guess.

So, now she is in the basement, unconscious.


She is placed on her back, her clothing removed and the paintbrush shoved in hard enough to cause bleeding. Was the paintbrush used because it was handy or was this the reason for her being placed in that area (the paintbrush was near)?

Handy, I'd say.


If it was done to cover the prior sexual assault then the head bash must have been inflicted with the flashlight by PR following finding JR molesting her, otherwise, why do it at all?

Well, I sort of agree with that idea.


How would PR know she had been molested by JR prior to that night? Doesn't seem right that she was head bashed before he confessed to his previous behaviour?

My idea is that JB let it slip.


Then she was wiped, with what?
Then her clothing was replaced. She was rolled onto her stomach -- why?

Make it easier to strangle her. Easier at least in the sense that they wouldn't have to look her in the face.


Then the cord was wrapped around her neck and pulled tight till she died. It was then tied off with a knot and the paintbrush was broken at both ends.

Sounds right.


The brush end was put back in the tote and the other end (with blood on it?) was put where??

God knows.


The long piece of the cord was wrapped around the (paintbrush) stick, why? Then her arms were tied with 15" of cord between them, why?

Lack of experience.


Then one of the parents moved the suitcase under the window and opened it.

I thought it was FW who put it under. And whether or not they opened it is debatable.


They then went upstairs, took the batteries out of the flashlight and wiped them, replaced them and wiped the flashlight outside. What did they wipe it with? Why did they leave it on the bench rather than replace it in the drawer? It was the murder weapon, wouldn't that look suspicious?

What's suspicious about a home flashlight?


They then wrote the RN. Why was it so long?

Patsy's agitated mental state and theatrical nature.


Why did it threaten to behead her and deny her remains for burial, when she was downstairs strangled?

To sound impressive.


Why was the RN left on the stairs rather than on her bed?

That's EXACTLY the point! It just HAPPENED to be left in a spot where Patsy was KNOWN to leave things out of habit. HMM!


Why did they call 911 at 6am rather than earlier or later? Why didn't they wait till after 10am to call the cops, thus obeying their own instructions?

Not obeying their own instructions presents a reason for JB to be dead, doesn't it?


Why did JR go to the basement and find JBR then pick her up and carry her upstairs and ruin all their good work in staging the crime as a kidnapping gone wrong?

You'll have to forgive me, but the notion that doing so would "ruin their good work" has never held any truck with me.


Please RDI, kindly help me to understand your theory.

Anything I can do to help, I will do.

SuperDave
03-10-2011, 07:37 PM
Well it depends on which RDI theory you subscribe to. I've heard it said here that the parents used the paintbrush to injure her to COVER UP prior sexual abuse, and in fact this was the sole intention of the murder as well. Now you are saying that they were trying to hide the sexual assault that occurred that night by changing panties. If as you say, and intruder wouldn't need to hide this, then I expect the parents made a mistake, as they were trying to make it look like an intruder, but were doing the exact opposite of what an intruder would do?? This isn't making any sense at all.

I try to stay out of arguments about theories that are not mine, but just to give a slight detour, it does make sense. In fact, I think you've summed it up rather well.

They were trying to make it look like an intruder, but their inexperience betrayed them (among other things).

SuperDave
03-10-2011, 07:44 PM
Hmm, well an equal number of similarly qualified experts probably disagree.

Not that I'm aware of, Murri. Far as I know, it's not even close. The VAST majority agree with Lee, Spitz and Wright. 80-20 would probably be low-balling it.

SuperDave
03-10-2011, 07:53 PM
Just a side note: I hope we didn't drive WANM away. I try not to beat up on people (unless they have it coming). Indeed, the way I see it is, most people who are IDI probably don't know very much about the case. (As opposed to those few who just don't care.)

DeeDee249
03-10-2011, 11:53 PM
Re the glitter- it's been a while since I looked there, but does ACR have a page that mentions glitter being found on the body? Because I seem to remember seeing that somewhere in evidence lists or a list of things found on the body, along with green paint flecks and green artificial needles. I think I recall seeing there was glitter too.

Taylormahone
05-14-2011, 04:21 PM
Let's say that JonBenet was killed over toilet rage. She wakes up, wet, and goes and tells Patsy. Patsy, flustered from the day hits her over the head. Why then, would she decide to wrap a garrote over the child's neck, the SEXUALLY ASSAULT her, then write a ransom note. It doesn't add up. Wouldn't it be easier to put her in the bathtub and say that she slipped?
It seems a lot likelier that somebody broke into the house with intent to kidnap JonBenet, or at least act out his dream fantasy of attempting to kidnap. He had HOURS to roam around the house. The Ramseys were gone for 4-5 hours. He wrote a long note, simply because he had time. He was young too. He hides when the family came home. Give him a few hours and he has her in the basement. He tries to put her in the suitcase, there is evidence that she was in the suitcase at some time. He tries to fit her through the basement grate. Maybe she doesn't fit, maybe she screams and he drops her, perhaps causing the head injury. And then, he finishes her off, with the garrote. Why? Because he is mentally unstable. He doesn't think like we do. :twocents:

THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

This post is my constitutionally-protected opinion. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.

freshwater
05-14-2011, 04:46 PM
And this mentally unstable young person didn't leave a fingerprint on the ransom note?

I don't necessarily think Patsy did the garroting and the sexual assault.

And as for mental instability, a lot of us here think that Patsy suffered from a bit of that, so this might explain why she didn't handle things in a way that would make sense to us.

SuperDave
05-14-2011, 05:29 PM
Top o' the mornin' to ya, Taylormahone! And welcome to the inferno!

SuperDave
05-14-2011, 05:32 PM
And this mentally unstable young person didn't leave a fingerprint on the ransom note?

I don't necessarily think Patsy did the garroting and the sexual assault.

And as for mental instability, a lot of us here think that Patsy suffered from a bit of that, so this might explain why she didn't handle things in a way that would make sense to us.

Yeah, I was going to say, freshwater: I could spend the better part of a day going over that post (not like I haven't already!)

UKGuy
05-14-2011, 06:34 PM
Let's say that JonBenet was killed over toilet rage. She wakes up, wet, and goes and tells Patsy. Patsy, flustered from the day hits her over the head. Why then, would she decide to wrap a garrote over the child's neck, the SEXUALLY ASSAULT her, then write a ransom note. It doesn't add up. Wouldn't it be easier to put her in the bathtub and say that she slipped?
It seems a lot likelier that somebody broke into the house with intent to kidnap JonBenet, or at least act out his dream fantasy of attempting to kidnap. He had HOURS to roam around the house. The Ramseys were gone for 4-5 hours. He wrote a long note, simply because he had time. He was young too. He hides when the family came home. Give him a few hours and he has her in the basement. He tries to put her in the suitcase, there is evidence that she was in the suitcase at some time. He tries to fit her through the basement grate. Maybe she doesn't fit, maybe she screams and he drops her, perhaps causing the head injury. And then, he finishes her off, with the garrote. Why? Because he is mentally unstable. He doesn't think like we do. :twocents:

THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

This post is my constitutionally-protected opinion. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.

Taylormahone
Interesting theory. Do you have any evidence demonstrating that there was an intruder?

After strangling JonBenet, why would this intruder redress JonBenet in brand new size-12 bloomingdale underwear, considerate or deranged?

Sometimes in homicide cases the obvious suspect is the guilty one. In this case it is not Patsy. With JonBenet being sexually assaulted, and her pageant lifestyle thrust upon her, you do not need to be a brain surgeon, to work out what happened.

What I find curious is those that are familiar with the case know that there was a coverup and an organised conspiracy to assist JonBenet's killer avoid arrest and a court room appearance. Yet those involved intimately in this conspiracy must know by now that JonBenet was being sexually abused, and that they helped cover it all up!


.

DeeDee249
05-14-2011, 08:35 PM
How would an intruder know where the new package of panties was in the basement? They were WRAPPED as a gift. Let's not leave out the pineapple in your IDI theory. NO intruder stops in the middle of a kidnapping/sexual assault to feed the victim pineapple. The autopsy disclosed the pineapple. We know she ate it about 2 hours before she died. NOTHING about this case suggests an intruder. This was someone who had NO fear of being found in the house.
There was prior abuse, which I have never seen an IDI explain.

Not a single print was ever found that belonged to an intruder.

dodie20
05-15-2011, 10:19 PM
Beck I agree with you 100%!! But they were not that well scripted UK Guy, and I don't mean this disrespectfully to your post, as I agree with you.. They spent a LOT of time defending themselves, but really showed NO rightous anger! That was the caveat to me. I would have been so angry at this stranger, I would have been spitting nails. Maybe not down the road, years later, but if anyone took, harmed or killed my child, I would have damned them to hell and everyone that heard me talk would know it! It would have taken me a LONG time to get over my anger. I'd be so distraught and empty and hopeless I'm just not sure how much room I'd have for anger. and then maybe I'd be pizzed at the world, IDK. But one thing I am sure of... I wouldn't be talking about forgiveness. I might talk about her being in a better place, to comfort myself, but mainly I'd dwell on the horror of her last minutes on earth. I'd never get over it, never be able to move on and I'd feel like it was my fault, no matter what happened. Til the day I died, I'd blame myself for not protecting her. And I think I'm pretty normal, (I hope, lol). Sometimes when you see parents of murdered children, they don't seem angry...but their souls are broken. They want justice but not revenge. I think that's how I'd be. Whereas I'd probably detach myself from a stranger, I'd feel a whole lot more anger towards a relative. MOO.

dodie20
05-15-2011, 10:24 PM
Let's say that JonBenet was killed over toilet rage. She wakes up, wet, and goes and tells Patsy. Patsy, flustered from the day hits her over the head. Why then, would she decide to wrap a garrote over the child's neck, the SEXUALLY ASSAULT her, then write a ransom note. It doesn't add up. Wouldn't it be easier to put her in the bathtub and say that she slipped?
It seems a lot likelier that somebody broke into the house with intent to kidnap JonBenet, or at least act out his dream fantasy of attempting to kidnap. He had HOURS to roam around the house. The Ramseys were gone for 4-5 hours. He wrote a long note, simply because he had time. He was young too. He hides when the family came home. Give him a few hours and he has her in the basement. He tries to put her in the suitcase, there is evidence that she was in the suitcase at some time. He tries to fit her through the basement grate. Maybe she doesn't fit, maybe she screams and he drops her, perhaps causing the head injury. And then, he finishes her off, with the garrote. Why? Because he is mentally unstable. He doesn't think like we do. :twocents:

THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

This post is my constitutionally-protected opinion. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.maybe all the staging was to cover up prior abuse? A slip in a bathtub wouldn't do the trick. just a possibility and my opinion.

Agatha_C
05-16-2011, 01:10 AM
Let's say that JonBenet was killed over toilet rage. She wakes up, wet, and goes and tells Patsy. Patsy, flustered from the day hits her over the head. Why then, would she decide to wrap a garrote over the child's neck, the SEXUALLY ASSAULT her, then write a ransom note. It doesn't add up. Wouldn't it be easier to put her in the bathtub and say that she slipped?
It seems a lot likelier that somebody broke into the house with intent to kidnap JonBenet, or at least act out his dream fantasy of attempting to kidnap. He had HOURS to roam around the house. The Ramseys were gone for 4-5 hours. He wrote a long note, simply because he had time. He was young too. He hides when the family came home. Give him a few hours and he has her in the basement. He tries to put her in the suitcase, there is evidence that she was in the suitcase at some time. He tries to fit her through the basement grate. Maybe she doesn't fit, maybe she screams and he drops her, perhaps causing the head injury. And then, he finishes her off, with the garrote. Why? Because he is mentally unstable. He doesn't think like we do. :twocents:

THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

This post is my constitutionally-protected opinion. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.


(My Bold)

How does this young intruder know that he has plenty of time to write a practice ransom note as well as the note left behind?

Do you have a link to a credible source, that states she was ever placed in the suitcase? And how did he get Jonbenet into the case without her kicking, scratching, biting, crying and or screaming? I dont believe that she would have fit.

If she was in the case and he dropped her, how could MS, across the street hear her scream from inside the suitcase?

No way was her head busted inside of the suitcase. I would think the suitcase would have offered her a certain amount of protection. Not that she wouldnt have been injured, but I dont think it would have been as serious as her injuries were. I could be wrong.

Help me understand why this intruder would have felt comfortable enough to stay and garotte her after she screamed and her parents were upstairs, where they had phones and maybe weapons and should have heard the scream?

I respect your right to have an opinion I just need help in understanding it... TIA

DeeDee249
05-16-2011, 02:37 PM
If JB had been in the suitcase at all (which I doubt) there would have been some forensic evidence of it (i.e. a hair, body fluids, fibers from her clothes). There was NONE. Her head bash was the result of exactly what the coroner said it was- blunt force trauma (i.e.- something hitting HER, not vice-versa).
It amazes me to read the strangest concoctions all done in the name of being unable to utter the simple possibility that this was committed by someone who had no need of breaking in or out of that house.
In addition to no one being able to climb UP a wall and that the suitcase was allegedly needed to climb up the wall (thanks, LS, for this "urban legend") - how would they climb up the wall holding the very suitcase (containing JB ) that they used to stand up on? Doesn't quite "fit", does it. Right.
Nobody climbed in or (especially) out of that (previously broken) window. That day or any other day.