1180 users online (234 members and 946 guests)  



Websleuths News


Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 61
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,389

    Big Bugaboo

    The one piece of forensic evidence which cannot be easily explained away is the pineapple. Its very existence in her digestive system raised questions which were tricky enough for Lou Smit to refer to the pineapple as the big "bugaboo".

    Food digestion times vary according to different factors, but taking account of these factors, we know that JonBenet consumed the pineapple between 2-5 hours prior to her death. The problem with this is that the Ramseys left their home between 4-5pm and returned 9/9.30-ish (they could not be more specific about these times when they were finally interviewed some 4 months after the murder).

    Lab tests proved that the pineapple was fresh and not canned.

    The Whites denied serving pineapple at their buffet and indeed neither Ramsey recalled pineapple being served at the Whites'.


    20 TRIP DEMUTH: The Whites have told us that
    21 they did not serve her pineapple.
    However, a bowl of fresh pineapple was found lying on the Ramsey kitchen counter.

    JonBenet was known to be very fond of pineapple.

    The bugaboo is that if Jonbenet ate a piece of pineapple BEFORE going to the Whites', then her time of death was no later than 10pm - when John Ramsey and Burke were still up. If OTOH, she ate it on returning home from the Whites, then that placed her time of death between 11.30pm - 2.30am. HOWEVER, it means that she must have been awake on returning home from the Whites' and not asleep as her parents claim.

    Either way, the very existence of the pineapple suggests that the Ramseys have not been completely honest in their version of events - i.e. the big bugaboo.

    Ramsey supporters will try to claim that the pineapple is not a fact - that it was mistletoe or that Dr Meyer only suggested that it was pinapple because Linda Arndt suggested it (knowing that there had been a bowl of pineapple on the kitchen counter). However, we know from both Steve Thomas and Lou Smit that it was pineapple.


    13 JOHN RAMSEY: Are you sure it was

    14 pineapple?

    15 LOU SMIT: Yes.

    16 JOHN RAMSEY: No question?

    17 LOU SMIT: No question. No

    18 question. So that's always been the big

    19 bugaboo.
    snip


    11 LOU SMIT: But still it's a

    12 fact that it's in there. There is nothing

    13 that we can do to change that particular

    14 fact.
    snip


    8 LOU SMIT: You see that that

    9 pineapple is a clue, I mean that's in the

    10 case.
    Another odd thing is that over the course of the 3 days that the 1998 interviews took place, the investigators interviewing John Ramsey kept asking him if he had discussed the pineapple with Patsy overnight (i.e. after the previous day's interviews). Similarly, the investigators interviewing Patsy asked her if she and John had discussed the pineapple overnight.

    Now - Lou Smit really emphasised the importance of the pinepple to John - that they had to get to the bottom of when she had eaten it. John said he would have to ask Patsy. Yet when Patsy was asked whether she and John had discussed the pineapple overnight, her response was this:-


    1 TOM HANEY: Did you over the last couple of

    2 nights discuss the bowl of pineapple with John?

    3 PATSY RAMSEY: I don't recall. I think he

    4 mentioned seeing a bowl of pineapple, but we

    5 didn't, I didn't discuss it, no.

    6 TOM HANEY: Okay. So that would have been

    7 about the extent of it, he says --

    8 PATSY RAMSEY: Yes.

    9 TOM HANEY: Something about, asked about a

    10 bowl of pineapple?

    11 PATSY RAMSEY: Pineapple, right, yeah.

    12 TOM HANEY: At that time did that jog your

    13 recollection at all?

    14 PATSY RAMSEY: I, I recall that I had heard

    15 somewhere or somebody told me that pineapple was

    16 in her stomach.
    I find this puzzling. Here is a crucial piece of evidence which cannot be explained. A big bugaboo. Yet even during a three day interview session with investigators, the Ramseys fail to see it significant enough to discuss with each other.

    That is another bugaboo.
    This is only my opinion

    Let the focus be on Madeleine




    Together we can make a difference





    Alert Viewer in Scotland

    Member of Websleuths since April 2000

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,389
    The above quotes came from the Ramseys' 1998 interviews which can be found at www.acandyrose.com
    This is only my opinion

    Let the focus be on Madeleine




    Together we can make a difference





    Alert Viewer in Scotland

    Member of Websleuths since April 2000

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,399
    One thing I've noticed as I've read through interviews with the Rs - there seems to a lot of important things they claim not to have discussed with each other. In my mind, either J&P are rather distant with each other and remain on a "chat" level, or they're lying about talking about important things.

    Considering how important so many things in this case are in regards to them making sure they're telling the same stories, I think they're lying about not talking.

    I also think JonBenet was awake after the family arrived home and that's when she ate the pineapple. Meyer noted soft green matter in JB's large intestine, which could very well have been the cracked crab served at the White's. If it is, then she had to have eaten the pineapple afterwards, as it was in her small intestine.

    Didn't Lou Smit say he thought the intruder brought in the pineapple, and speculated that it had been in a tupperware container he saw in pictures of JonBenet's bedroom? Nedra Paugh, according to Steve Thomas's book, said JonBenet did not like being awakened and never would have sat and eaten pineapple with someone she didn't know. Based on Nedra's comments, Smit's theory seems to be flawed.

    Not only that, but it also says in ST's book that the pineapple in JonBenet's intestine was poorly chewed (also in the autopsy report) and that it was found to be consistent down to the rind with what was in the bowl on the breakfast table.

    My guess is that JonBenet was busy having fun at the White's party, did not eat very much, and came home to find herself hungry and asked for a snack, which she was given. I see this exact behavior in my own child. My question is - if she was awake and was served the pineapple, why did the Rs feel the need to lie about it? What are they hiding?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    7,965
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayelles
    The one piece of forensic evidence which cannot be easily explained away is the pineapple. Its very existence in her digestive system raised questions which were tricky enough for Lou Smit to refer to the pineapple as the big "bugaboo".

    Food digestion times vary according to different factors, but taking account of these factors, we know that JonBenet consumed the pineapple between 2-5 hours prior to her death. The problem with this is that the Ramseys left their home between 4-5pm and returned 9/9.30-ish (they could not be more specific about these times when they were finally interviewed some 4 months after the murder).

    Lab tests proved that the pineapple was fresh and not canned.

    The Whites denied serving pineapple at their buffet and indeed neither Ramsey recalled pineapple being served at the Whites'.


    However, a bowl of fresh pineapple was found lying on the Ramsey kitchen counter.

    JonBenet was known to be very fond of pineapple.

    The bugaboo is that if Jonbenet ate a piece of pineapple BEFORE going to the Whites', then her time of death was no later than 10pm - when John Ramsey and Burke were still up. If OTOH, she ate it on returning home from the Whites, then that placed her time of death between 11.30pm - 2.30am. HOWEVER, it means that she must have been awake on returning home from the Whites' and not asleep as her parents claim.

    Either way, the very existence of the pineapple suggests that the Ramseys have not been completely honest in their version of events - i.e. the big bugaboo.

    Ramsey supporters will try to claim that the pineapple is not a fact - that it was mistletoe or that Dr Meyer only suggested that it was pinapple because Linda Arndt suggested it (knowing that there had been a bowl of pineapple on the kitchen counter). However, we know from both Steve Thomas and Lou Smit that it was pineapple.


    snip


    snip


    Another odd thing is that over the course of the 3 days that the 1998 interviews took place, the investigators interviewing John Ramsey kept asking him if he had discussed the pineapple with Patsy overnight (i.e. after the previous day's interviews). Similarly, the investigators interviewing Patsy asked her if she and John had discussed the pineapple overnight.

    Now - Lou Smit really emphasised the importance of the pinepple to John - that they had to get to the bottom of when she had eaten it. John said he would have to ask Patsy. Yet when Patsy was asked whether she and John had discussed the pineapple overnight, her response was this:-


    I find this puzzling. Here is a crucial piece of evidence which cannot be explained. A big bugaboo. Yet even during a three day interview session with investigators, the Ramseys fail to see it significant enough to discuss with each other.

    That is another bugaboo.
    Jayelles,

    Well we dont know what was discussed, only what they contend was not.

    Also until the smoke had cleared their legal advice would be not to quote from each other, in case it was used either in court or in a follow up interview, with the intention of turning one spouse against the other!

    There is enough forensic evidence linked to the pineapple snack e.g. situation, circumstance, fingerprints etc to very strongly deduce that the pineapple was consumed after they arrived back from the White's. The confirming feature is as Nuisanceposter states that the sequence of ingesting suggests that the pineapple was consumed last due to its position in her digestive system?

    Also if your attending the White's party why do you need to eat anything in advance?

    The pineapple renders the Ramsey's version of events extremely dubious, they say she was placed sleeping into bed. The pineapple suggests JonBenet was awake, walked to the kitchen and enjoyed a snack of pineapple.

    Despite Patsy's fingerprints being on the bowl, she denies any knowledge of either the pineapple and I believe the bowl, why, because it does not fit in with their version of events!

    Applying occam and kiss principles: On returning from the White's Patsy fixed a pineapple snack for JonBenet, and attended to whatever domestic matters, if any, she thought were relevant.

    That is prior to JonBenet's death the scene was that of a typical domestic snacking session?


    The reason why this is so important is in estimating JonBenet's Time Of Death which has relevance for whichever theory you construct.

    postscript: The pineapple must have told Lou Smit that the Ramsey version of events was inconsistent, yet he ploughed on with unrealistic explanations and bizarre intruder theories!




    .

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    In the Atlantic
    Posts
    2,646
    My guess is that JonBenet was busy having fun at the White's party, did not eat very much, and came home to find herself hungry and asked for a snack, which she was given. I see this exact behavior in my own child. My question is - if she was awake and was served the pineapple, why did the Rs feel the need to lie about it? What are they hiding?
    This is the first fact of this case (this lie) that turned me from innocent to maybe they're involved. She had pineapple...why lie about it. It was so easy to tell the truth on this so yes there must be something they were trying to hide by lying.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    332

    Question

    Could the pineapple have been left in the bowl on the table from earlier in the day? Maybe JonBenet' was asleep when she came home from the White's. Maybe she woke up feeling hungry because she had not eaten much at the party, saw the pineapple that was left out and ate it.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,389
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhett
    Could the pineapple have been left in the bowl on the table from earlier in the day? Maybe JonBenet' was asleep when she came home from the White's. Maybe she woke up feeling hungry because she had not eaten much at the party, saw the pineapple that was left out and ate it.
    There is no doubt about it - the pineapple is a big mystery and one which cannot be satisfactorily explained by the Ramseys' explanation of events.

    Patsy denied knowledge of the fresh pineapple. She said she would not do that set up - pineapple in a bowl with a large spoon. She insisted that it looked weird. John said the large spoon didn't look right in the bowl - the implication was that if a Ramsey had prepared the snack, then they would have placed a smaller spoon in the bowl. I'm afraid I think this stinks.

    As a mother of three and a happy and regular hostess to family and friends, I would say that big spoons are for serving and smaller spoons are for eating.

    The pineapple on the Ramsey counter was FRESH pineapple - not canned. *someone* prepared that pineapple and put it in a bowl with a large serving spoon which would suggest that it was put out for more than one person to share - at a mealtime perhap? Now here's the thing - the Ramseys had pancakes for breakfast but "didn't recall" what they had for lunch - only that they would have eaten something:-

    [font='Courier New', monospace]TT: Okay. Did you have lunch that day?[/font]

    [font='Courier New', monospace]PR: Iím sure we did.[/font]

    [font='Courier New', monospace]TT: Okay. Do you have any idea about, what did you have for lunch.[/font]

    [font='Courier New', monospace]PR I donít remember.
    [/font]
    [font='Courier New', monospace]http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/19...w-Complete.htm[/font]
    [font='Courier New', monospace](sorry about the text size, I can't seem to make it smaller!)[/font]

    [font='Courier New', monospace]So here we have Patsy not being able to recall what they had for lunch - yet distancing herself in every respect from a bowl of pineapple which is would appear to be VERY significant to the investigators.[/font]
    [font='Courier New', monospace][/font]
    [font='Courier New', monospace]That makes me uncomfortable. I think the most simple explanation is that the Ramseys lied about JonBenet being asleep on their return from the Whites. I think they took the decision to claim that Jonbenet was asleep so that it would cut out an entire line of questioning and that it would have worked - if it hadn't been for the darned pineapple which I think they didn't know she had eaten. So that left a lie to answer to and the only way they could explain it was to deny all knowledge of the bowl of pineapple - which even had Patsy and Burke's fingerprints on it![/font]

    [font='Courier New', monospace][/font]
    [font='Courier New', monospace]The Ramseys were and are still suspects in this murder case - if they are innicent then they have EVERYTHING to gain from telling the truth about the evidence. It is abundantly clear from their police interviews that the pineapple is important - both sets of investigators made that clear and harped on and on about the pineapple. WHy oh why would the Ramseys NOT discuss it with each other during the evenings. All this vagueness over such an important thing is bizarre and indicates to me that there is deception here. Why would two people who genuinely wanted to find this intruder barely discuss something which could be really crucial to finding him (and clearing them)?[/font]

    I think they had the pineapple for lunch on Christmas Day, and I think JonBenet was awake when she got home from the Whites' - and ate a piece of pineapple without her parents' knowledge.
    This is only my opinion

    Let the focus be on Madeleine




    Together we can make a difference





    Alert Viewer in Scotland

    Member of Websleuths since April 2000

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,389
    Quote Originally Posted by UKGuy
    Jayelles,

    Well we dont know what was discussed, only what they contend was not.
    Yes that is true. I think the Ramseys get vague about things they don't really want to discuss.

    Also until the smoke had cleared their legal advice would be not to quote from each other, in case it was used either in court or in a follow up interview, with the intention of turning one spouse against the other!
    They both had legal representaiton in those interviews - couldn't they just decline to answer those questions on that basis?

    There is enough forensic evidence linked to the pineapple snack e.g. situation, circumstance, fingerprints etc to very strongly deduce that the pineapple was consumed after they arrived back from the White's. The confirming feature is as Nuisanceposter states that the sequence of ingesting suggests that the pineapple was consumed last due to its position in her digestive system?

    Also if your attending the White's party why do you need to eat anything in advance?

    The pineapple renders the Ramsey's version of events extremely dubious, they say she was placed sleeping into bed. The pineapple suggests JonBenet was awake, walked to the kitchen and enjoyed a snack of pineapple.

    Despite Patsy's fingerprints being on the bowl, she denies any knowledge of either the pineapple and I believe the bowl, why, because it does not fit in with their version of events!

    Applying occam and kiss principles: On returning from the White's Patsy fixed a pineapple snack for JonBenet, and attended to whatever domestic matters, if any, she thought were relevant.

    That is prior to JonBenet's death the scene was that of a typical domestic snacking session?


    The reason why this is so important is in estimating JonBenet's Time Of Death which has relevance for whichever theory you construct.

    postscript: The pineapple must have told Lou Smit that the Ramsey version of events was inconsistent, yet he ploughed on with unrealistic explanations and bizarre intruder theories!
    The pineapple doesn't prove the Ramseys killed Jonbenet - just that they might have been lying about her being asleep when she got home. I think that is the most likely explanation, but I also think they lied because they felt they were "above" being investigated by police. By telling the police that Jonbenet fell asleep in the car and didn't waken up when she was lifted into bed - and then sticking to that story - they eliminated an entire line of questioning by police. I also think they lied about Burke being asleep in the morning for the same reasons ("just say you were asleep - then you don't need to answer hard questions" kind of thing).

    We know John Ramsey lies. When he was asked about the altercation in Atlanta after the funeral, he denied there had been any altercation - yet in his own book DOI, he described the very same incident as an "alteration"! (DOI page 295)
    This is only my opinion

    Let the focus be on Madeleine




    Together we can make a difference





    Alert Viewer in Scotland

    Member of Websleuths since April 2000

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,389

    Misinformation posted elsewhere

    Here are two examples of misinformation about the pineapple:-

    Margoo posted this:-
    We don't ACTUALLY KNOW whether or not it was pineapple since it was described by Dr. Meyer as "fragmented pieces of yellow to light green-tan apparent vegetable or fruit material which may represent fragments of pineapple."
    (Oh yes we do...)

    http://www.webbsleuths.org/cgi-bin/d...um=DCForumID61

    The second is that the stomach contents were discarded at the autopsy (eh?)

    (Interestingly, the person who states this also brazenly complains that the case is full of "falsehoods that grew legs") :-

    http://www.webbsleuths.org/dcforum/D...1/2512.html#27

    I just wish the material had not been discarded during the autopsy.
    Alas this is a falsehood! And it is important to stop it growing legs.....

    The material was not discarded during autopsy. It was tested in a laboratory and found to be fresh pineapple.

    From Steve Thomas' deposition:-

    24 Q. The pineapple, we know the autopsy
    25 statement about the findings. Were there any
    417
    1 tests performed beyond the autopsy on those
    2 contents?
    3 A. Yes.
    4 Q. Tell me about that.
    5 A. What I know about that is
    6 Detective Weinheimer received that assignment
    7 during the course of the investigation,
    8 employed the help of I think a biological --
    9 or a botanist or somebody of some expertise
    10 at the University of Colorado, Boulder. The
    11 name Dr. Bach jumps out at me, as well as
    12 others, and he completed a series of reports
    13 concerning the pineapple and I think to save
    14 time one of those conclusions I think I put
    15 in the book.
    16 Q. About the rinds being identical?
    17 A. That it was a fresh pineapple
    18 consistent -- fresh pineapple with a rind.
    19 Q. Rind being consistent -- oh, with
    20 a rind but consistent with pineapple found in
    21 the house or in the bowl?
    22 A. Yeah, and let me clarify that,
    23 pineapple consistent down to the rind with
    24 pineapple found in the bowl in the kitchen.
    25 Q. Consistent down to the rind. It
    418
    1 seems to me pineapple with rind is pineapple
    2 with rind. Was there something unique about
    3 this particular rind?
    4 A. I think they were able to
    5 determine -- well, in fact, I know that
    6 fellow Officer Weinheimer disclosed to us that
    7 they were able to characterize it as a fresh
    8 pineapple rather than a canned pineapple.
    9 Q. Okay.
    10 A. I think the investigation lent
    11 itself as far as, and Detective Weinheimer is
    12 a capable investigator, as far as contacting
    13 Dole Pineapple in Hawaii, et cetera.
    14 Q. Do you know whether there were any
    15 other reports on the pineapple, other than
    16 the autopsy reports and Dr. Bach's reports?
    17 A. Yeah, there was a series of
    18 reports on Weinheimer's investigation.
    19 Q. Do you know anybody else by name
    20 that was involved in that, other than the Dr.
    21 Bach? I mean, Dole didn't give you any
    22 report, did they?
    23 A. No, not that I'm aware of.
    24 Sorry, the names escape me but there are
    25 other reports with other planters, I guess,
    419
    1 pineapple, for lack of a better term,
    2 experts.
    3 Q. Any of those reports, anybody come
    4 up with something that was inconclusive in
    5 terms of findings?
    6 A. I'm sorry, I don't recall the
    7 content of the reports.

    This is only my opinion

    Let the focus be on Madeleine




    Together we can make a difference





    Alert Viewer in Scotland

    Member of Websleuths since April 2000

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    7,965
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayelles
    Yes that is true. I think the Ramseys get vague about things they don't really want to discuss.


    They both had legal representaiton in those interviews - couldn't they just decline to answer those questions on that basis?


    The pineapple doesn't prove the Ramseys killed Jonbenet - just that they might have been lying about her being asleep when she got home. I think that is the most likely explanation, but I also think they lied because they felt they were "above" being investigated by police. By telling the police that Jonbenet fell asleep in the car and didn't waken up when she was lifted into bed - and then sticking to that story - they eliminated an entire line of questioning by police. I also think they lied about Burke being asleep in the morning for the same reasons ("just say you were asleep - then you don't need to answer hard questions" kind of thing).

    We know John Ramsey lies. When he was asked about the altercation in Atlanta after the funeral, he denied there had been any altercation - yet in his own book DOI, he described the very same incident as an "alteration"! (DOI page 295)

    Jayelles,
    They both had legal representaiton in those interviews - couldn't they just decline to answer those questions on that basis?
    Possibly if they had ever been charged that would have been the legal response, but prior to this as you suggest they just got vague about any discussions they may or may not have had.

    The pineapple doesn't prove the Ramseys killed Jonbenet - just that they might have been lying about her being asleep when she got home. I think that is the most likely explanation, but I also think they lied because they felt they were "above" being investigated by police. By telling the police that Jonbenet fell asleep in the car and didn't waken up when she was lifted into bed - and then sticking to that story - ...
    ...[b]they eliminated an entire line of questioning by police.[/i]

    That is what I think too, also their attempt to fit their version of events to the forensic evidence demonstrates premeditation and planning, as does their hiring of legal representation hours into the day of the 26th.

    Taken in conjunction with the obvious crime-scene staging, the pineapple snack is a fault-line in their version of events, and regardless of how above they feel about being investigated by police, other people may simply view it as an attempt at avoiding extremely damaging questions.

    imo although The pineapple doesn't prove the Ramseys killed Jonbenet it and other forensic evidence demonstrates that they are linked to the staged crime-scene!



    .


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,642
    If I remember right, the pineapple was partly digested. I am sure that I read somewhere that she had to have eaten the pineapple at least a couple of hours before her death. This debunks any theory that an intruder fed JB some pineapple before he killed her.

    The intruder-feeds-JB-pineapple theory would require this timeline:
    1) 9:30 - the Ramseys to arrive home from the party with a sleeping JB
    2) sleeping JB is put to bed
    3) parents and Burke go to bed
    4) an intruder waits for the household to become quiet to be sure everyone is asleep and then sneaks upstairs to take JB from her bed
    5) intruder feeds JB pineapple in the kitchen
    6) intruder and JB spend a couple of hours together in the house without waking anybody
    7) midnight(ish) -- screams heard from the direction of the Ramsey house = JB killed

    Sorry. Not enough time for all of this to occur.

    Yes, I agree that the pineapple is a BIG bugaboo for the Ramseys.

  12. #12
    Tom Haney asks Patsy if she had pineapple in the home the night of JB's murder..."Do you have either or both in stock at the house there, did you?"

    Patsy's answer: "Usually I would buy those - I bought pineapple, it was fresh pineapple that had been peeled or whatever they do to it, and core it and cut it up a little bit, or some that had been fresh that was sealed there in the produce area."

    Patsy does not give a YES or NO answer...

    Haney asks: "Did you have bags or however it came?"

    Patsy's answer: "I don't know. It usually went bad pretty quick, so it didn't - you know, I didn't keep it around laying around very long. You know what I mean?"

    It is quite obvious that Patsy did not want to admit that she indeed had bought fresh pineapple, She describes what kind she would buy and how quickly it would go bad, and how quickly she would get rid of it....My beef with Haney is that he let this important part of the interrogation get away....I would have said DAMMIT...DID YOU OR DID YOU NOT HAVE PINEAPPLE IN YOUR HOME! A SIMPLE YES OR NO ANSWER PATSY!
    ...We have said to ourselves, look, there is never going to be a victory in this, there is no victory...John Ramsey: 6/24/98

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Somewhere In Time
    Posts
    5,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Nuisanceposter
    One thing I've noticed as I've read through interviews with the Rs - there seems to a lot of important things they claim not to have discussed with each other. In my mind, either J&P are rather distant with each other and remain on a "chat" level, or they're lying about talking about important things.

    Considering how important so many things in this case are in regards to them making sure they're telling the same stories, I think they're lying about not talking.

    I also think JonBenet was awake after the family arrived home and that's when she ate the pineapple. Meyer noted soft green matter in JB's large intestine, which could very well have been the cracked crab served at the White's. If it is, then she had to have eaten the pineapple afterwards, as it was in her small intestine.

    Didn't Lou Smit say he thought the intruder brought in the pineapple, and speculated that it had been in a tupperware container he saw in pictures of JonBenet's bedroom? Nedra Paugh, according to Steve Thomas's book, said JonBenet did not like being awakened and never would have sat and eaten pineapple with someone she didn't know. Based on Nedra's comments, Smit's theory seems to be flawed.

    Not only that, but it also says in ST's book that the pineapple in JonBenet's intestine was poorly chewed (also in the autopsy report) and that it was found to be consistent down to the rind with what was in the bowl on the breakfast table.

    My guess is that JonBenet was busy having fun at the White's party, did not eat very much, and came home to find herself hungry and asked for a snack, which she was given. I see this exact behavior in my own child. My question is - if she was awake and was served the pineapple, why did the Rs feel the need to lie about it? What are they hiding?
    My thought is because they needed to keep their story short and simple....Jonbenet was asleep when she arrived home from the White's....she was ASLEEP....she was ASLEEP.....ASLEEP....ASLEEP. Makes it alot easier to remember, and to keep their story consistant with each other. (Guess they didn't figure on Burke forgetting the story...and saying that she was awake, and even helped to carry in presents).
    "This time we get it right."

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,299
    One thing I didn't get is that they never (as far as we know) ask about JB getting up and wandering during the night. Was she afraid of the dark? Would she ever go downstairs to get a snack on her own if everyone else was asleep?

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Somewhere In Time
    Posts
    5,838
    Quote Originally Posted by T-Rex
    One thing I didn't get is that they never (as far as we know) ask about JB getting up and wandering during the night. Was she afraid of the dark? Would she ever go downstairs to get a snack on her own if everyone else was asleep?
    Yes, I believe that they asked John that question (other posters...please correct me if I am wrong)....and he said that she would NEVER go to the kitchen by herself at night, because she was too afraid to.
    "This time we get it right."

Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 ... LastLast