976 users online (131 members and 845 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 48
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Amongst the beautiful Washington Islands
    Posts
    2,492

    The PINEAPPLE!

    Well, it seems that this is a point of contention for many...so lets have it out here...

    Who want's to start? How about a 1) link, sources first, 2) then theories, 3)then the arguments?

    Let's go!

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    maryland
    Posts
    1,832
    I just posted this on another thread,but better here!

    After putting the yummy stuff into your mouth, it (the bolus) then has to travel through the entire gastrointestinal tract before coming out the other end. The gastrointestinal tract for the purposes of this exercise includes the oral cavity, the oesophagus, stomach, small intestine, and colon.

    Food travels down the oesophagus at a rate of approximately 3 to 4 centimetres per second (1 to 2 inches), and the entire process takes about 5 to 6 seconds. In the stomach, food tends to hang around for a little longer and this depends on a variety of factors including the amount of food you have consumed, how much fat it contains, and also the acidity of the stomach. However, all food should have left the stomach within 2 to 4 hours.

    In the small intestine, digestion continues and absorption occurs. From here on, the time to defecation will vary depending on the time it takes to adequately digest and absorb in the small intestine. This will usually take 5 to 6 hours. The "food then enters the colon for further digestion and water reabsorption before defecation. The time from itís entering the colon to defecation is about 12 to 24 hours.

    Thus, the time for food to travel from one end to the other probably ranges from about 20 to 30 hours. Although I havenít had the time to look further into the rest of your question, I hazard a guess that it is unlikely that meat will hang around for a week given that the gastrointestinal tract is very effective in breaking it down with various enzymes and acidity of the stomach. Foods high in protein and fats probably would probably take a little longer to pass through than if it were carbohydrate.

    Hope this helps!

    David Ng, BPharm MClinPharm
    PhD Candidate
    School of Pharmacy and Medical Sciences
    University of South Australia
    North Terrace
    ADELAIDE SA 5000

    The pineapple could have been eaten up to 10 hours before her murder,however the cracked crab is missing, there is noooo time allowance,within the timeline for the murder, for 24 hours of digested protein. I contend she vomited the crab, the pineapple was eaten before she went to the Whites and has nothing to do with the crime.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Amongst the beautiful Washington Islands
    Posts
    2,492
    What evidence suggests she vomitted at any point?

    Do you suggest that she vomitted because no crab was found in her intestine and that logically, if she ate it it should be there?

    If she was sent home with a plate of crab, it could be because, a) she didn't eat any while there, or b) it was simply a thoughtful gift because JB liked it.

    Really, how much difference does the crab make to the pineapple? Whether she ate the crab or not, she was obviously hungry for pineapple.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    maryland
    Posts
    1,832
    Quote Originally Posted by Fran Bancroft
    What evidence suggests she vomitted at any point?

    Do you suggest that she vomitted because no crab was found in her intestine and that logically, if she ate it it should be there?

    If she was sent home with a plate of crab, it could be because, a) she didn't eat any while there, or b) it was simply a thoughtful gift because JB liked it.

    Really, how much difference does the crab make to the pineapple? Whether she ate the crab or not, she was obviously hungry for pineapple.
    If she ate the pineapple after arriving home, why didn't it spend the hours in her stomach that allows for digestion?
    The timeline of digestion indicates she ate it before leaving for the Whites.
    She was not sent home with cracked crab ,she was given a plate at the whites,no crab was located in her system, my question is,"if she didn't vomit ,where is her dinner?" Why isn't it in her stomach? BC suggests that pineapple would digest very quickly and be in her small intestine, yet he has no answer for a protein food ,that requires more time to digest, being absent! IMO this indicates she threw it up! Where are the signs of this? Not in the Ramsey home! This allows for some consideration that possibly she was taken out of the home and returned, possibly by someone who had access to a shed or building that was very close to the house,making it easy to take her back home rather than deal with disposing of the body. A neighbor?
    probably....IMO

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Amongst the beautiful Washington Islands
    Posts
    2,492
    Okay, I follow you a bit better. the vomiting is your hypothesis, not that it was a published fact.


    And did I misunderstand, you say, that she wasn't sent home with crab? Okay, so, is there anything to suggest that she didn't eat her dinner at the Whites?

    IF she was taken out of the home, and that really doesn't make sense to me, but IF that were the case, I think it would really "change" my "profile" of the killer.

    In order for me to think that she was taken from the home, I would think that more entry/exit evidence would exist also, it seems that while, IMO, there is entry/exit evidence, I think it would be compoundedly obvious by two individuals leaving/returning...from the basement? front door? how? I'm struggling to "see" this. (that doesn't mean I'm opposed to "entertaining" the theory, so keep talking)

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    753
    The real question is, how long does crap take to go from your brains to this forum?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,053
    Sissi,

    According to the autopsy, at the time of death the cracked crab meal JonBenet had eaten at the White's house was in her large intestine in the form of "soft green fecal matter" (which took about 6 or 7 hours for the digestive system to have moved the cracked crab meal to that location), and the pineapple she had eaten as a snack at home was in the upper part of her small intestine (which took about one hour for the digestive system to have moved the pineapple to that location).

    The bowl of pineapple from which JonBenet snacked was still on the breakfast room table. Common sense as well as comparative forensic examination of the fresh pineapple in JonBenet's small intestine and the fresh pineapple in the bowl verifies she ate the pineapple from that bowl.

    Please don't try to obfuscate clear and convincing scientific evidence by suggesting JonBenet vomited, especially when there is zero evidence of her vomiting and it doesn't make any sense. The cracked crab meal was in the large intestine right where it would expected to be found, and the pineapple was in the small intestine right where it would expected to be found.

    JMO

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    350
    I ditto Bluecrab's factual post.

    The pineapple could not have been eaten before the White's dinner. It is a scientific fact that it came after the dinner!

    The pineapple is hard evidence.

    The pineapple is the victim speaking to you.

    The pineapple is JonBenet telling you that she ate it approx. 1 hour before her death.

    Listen to the victim.
    IMO -

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    maryland
    Posts
    1,832
    I do not agree that this is"sound scientific evidence". I agree it is pineapple, I believe it spent an hour or two in her stomach, and 4 or 5 in her small intestine, this does not match up to eating it an hour before her murder. What was eaten at the whites should have been identified in her stomach, and nothing was there.
    I do believe in the "possibility" that she was kidnapped. They said they were going to kidnap her and they did, however when she died they returned her. This is my opinion.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by BrotherMoon
    The real question is, how long does crap take to go from your brains to this forum?

    Same time as it does yours...


  11. #11
    They returned her??? How daring does that sound? They took the chance of discovery when they entered the house, they left, she died, they returned her taking another chance of discovery, and then they forgot to recovery that strange ransom note they left!!!! HMMMMMMM.......
    Quote Originally Posted by sissi
    I do not agree that this is"sound scientific evidence". I agree it is pineapple, I believe it spent an hour or two in her stomach, and 4 or 5 in her small intestine, this does not match up to eating it an hour before her murder. What was eaten at the whites should have been identified in her stomach, and nothing was there.
    I do believe in the "possibility" that she was kidnapped. They said they were going to kidnap her and they did, however when she died they returned her. This is my opinion.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Northwest Minnesota
    Posts
    639
    Quote Originally Posted by BrotherMoon
    The real question is, how long does crap take to go from your brains to this forum?
    Oh, Brother Moon - you're my hero!
    Step right up and see the Yakwoman! Only 25 cents a look!

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    maryland
    Posts
    1,832
    I was just looking at this, and of course I don't agree the Ramseys are covering or that they know anything about the murder, but note that this gives a reason for covering and not committing this crime. One that doesn't involve Burke.

    http://www.crimelibrary.com/notoriou..._4.html?sect=7
    quote singular
    I believe that the child was removed from the house that night, for the seemingly innocent purpose of photographing her or exploiting her in some way, and she was killed at another location. At least one parent knew this removal had taken place. I think that JonBenet was then returned home and the crime was covered up by someone inside the family. Both parents, in my opinion, do not have the same information about what occurred that night.

    The unmatched hard evidence mentioned above excludes the Ramseys as the killers and most likely excludes their home as the scene of the crime. The death was "accidental" in that no one intended for her to be hurt, let alone killed.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,053
    Quote Originally Posted by sissi


    Singular said: I believe that the child was removed from the house that night, for the seemingly innocent purpose of photographing her or exploiting her in some way, and she was killed at another location.
    Sissi,

    I doubt very much that JonBenet had been removed from the house that night and then returned. There is zero evidence of this.

    However, there is some evidence that perhaps some people never went to bed that night. For instance:

    o Patsy was fully dressed, including makeup, when she made the 911 call at 5:52 A.M.

    o JonBenet's bed had the corner of her bedcovers turned down, but the bed didn't really look like it had been slept in.

    o Burke's bed was fully made and appeared not to have been slept in (despite people claiming they checked on him in bed, but didn't wake him).

    o The Hi-Tec bootprint next to JonBenet's body, attributed by the cops to Burke, indicated Burke may have been fully dressed.

    JMO

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    US
    Posts
    1,599
    Quote Originally Posted by sissi
    I do believe in the "possibility" that she was kidnapped. They said they were going to kidnap her and they did, however when she died they returned her. This is my opinion.
    I can believe that it was intended to be a kidnapping and something went wrong, but it seems too risky to take her out of the house and then bring her back in. What would be the purpose of doing that? Just imagine *them* coming back into the home, a body in tow, walking throughout the house, and going into the basement into a windowless room where there is no point of escape once inside. Plus, if it were really a kidnapping, they could have kept the body and collected the ransom amount, or for shock value, dumped the body somewhere to be found at a later date.

    IMO

Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 ... LastLast