About the pineapple

Hi, I'm new here. I've read a lot about the pineapple evidence in JonBenet's intestines & how a lot of people believe that Patsy was lying when she said JB didn't have any pineapple before going to bed. I think it's very possible that there was no "pineapple coverup" because PR may not have known that JB had the snack. PR was telling the truth. This is what I picture: Patsy & John are in bed & so are the kids (or so Patsy thinks). Kids are notorious for sneaking out of their beds after the parents have gone to sleep. Using a flashlight (there was one in Burke's room & also this could account for a neighbor seeing a flickering light on in the kitchen), it's possible that Burke & JB went down into the kitchen (or Burke might have gone first & JB heard him & followed him). The reason I say Burke may have gone first is because I think the pineapple was originally meant to be Burke's snack. Two things point to this: there was a glass of tea next to the bowl. I remember reading where Burke liked to drink tea in a tall glass. Also, JB's fingerprints were not on the bowl, glass or spoon, but Burke's were. So, there's Burke, trying to have his snack in peace & his pesky little sister comes along & tries to take some of the chunks out of the bowl with her fingers, thus not leaving any fingerprints (I mean no disrespect to JB here - my heart breaks for her - but some of us know how annoying younger siblings can be). Perhaps they started bickering, Burke hit her on the head w/the flashlight - not realizing the deadly consequences. Once JB was knocked out, he panicked & ran to his parents' room & they began the cover-up. OR - it's also possible that NOTHING sinister happened as Burke & JB ate the pineapple. Perhaps they just ate a little bit & went back to bed. This is where my intruder theory comes in. I believe that someone came into the house after the kids were back in their rooms asleep (no forced entry? didn't have to be one - why couldn't the killer have a key or perhaps one of the doors was unlocked, thus permitting easy access to the house? Also very possible that the basement window was the point of entry - I tend to suspect it was the latter). I believe it was supposed to be a kidnapping. The rambling ransom note was written beforehand & carried in the killer's pocket. Yes, the pad & pen came from the house. If the killer had a key or perhaps was known to the Ramseys, he could've easily taken the pad & pen with him at an earlier time when he was in the house (perhaps visiting the Ramseys?) so as to implicate the Ramseys later on. He went up to JB's room (this person was very familiar with the Ramsey house) & stun-gunned her. Why did he need to do this? An adult could easily overpower a 45-lb little girl, right? Right - except why take the chance of the girl struggling or screaming during the abduction, thus alerting her parents or brother? It was easier (and safer) to render her unconscious. Once he got to her bedroom, perhaps JB wasn't sound asleep & did struggle a little bit (thus explaining the hair ties scattered on the floor & the disturbed drape behind the bed). The killer subdues her with the stun-gun, carries her down the spiral staircase (this is where tiny pieces of the green Christmas garland wrapped around the staircase gets caught in her hair). He takes her down to the basement & plans to hoist her through the broken window through which he gained access to. But, something goes horribly wrong. JB woke up at this time & began to struggle & scream (neighbor heard a scream). Panicking, the killer hits her hard on the head w/his own flashlight, rendering her unconscious. But, he thinks that he killed her - thus the kidnapping has been foiled. He decides to cut his losses & leave the body in the basement, but before he departs, he sexually molests JB, using the makeshift garrote as part of a sexual bondage fantasy. Once done, he leaves the scene of the crime, forgetting all about the RN he left upstairs.

Very interesting.

Although I lean toward the intruder theory, I would not take anyone's name off the suspect list, including the Ramseys. IF I were the DA of Boulder, I couldn't exonerate anyone OR if I were on a jury, I couldn't convict anyone. There's just too many possible theories/scenarios to conclusively decide that, "Yeah, this one person did it." That's what makes this case so intriguing - ANYONE could have done it. ANYONE could have had a motive - from anger to jealousy or to hurt the Ramseys. Or, it may have been just an accident followed by a parental cover-up. I hope that one day this haunting case does get solved so that little JB can finally rest in peace. If only the police that fateful day had properly secured the crime scene, we probably wouldn't even be talking about this today.

SuperDave said:

Very interesting.

Click to expand...

LOL...ahhh, come on Dave..is that ALL you have to say about the first post? I started to respond but, didn't have enough time OR ENERGY to explain the whole why would an intruder take the time to wipe her down, redress her, wrap her in a blanket like a papoose, John's shirt fibers were found in the crotch area of the clean, unwashed panties, yadda, yadda, yadda, blah, blah, blah...thing. I was counting on you man.

Why wipe down the Ramsey flashlight and BATTERIES, then, if the intruder had his own. Sorry, but the hoisting up and out the window just don't make sense to me. There were SO many doors. All locked doors can be opened from INSIDE. There was no need to climb out the window, and the undisturbed spider web and other debris in the window well indicate NO one climbed in or out. To have done so would mean removing the metal grate, and that would have broken the spider web and disturbed the leaves and such.
I could possibly see JBR having the pineapple snack unknown to her parents, but I can't imagine any good reason why BR would not mention this. If he is being told NOT to mention it, then it points away from an intruder anyway.

DeeDee249 said:

Why wipe down the Ramsey flashlight and BATTERIES, then, if the intruder had his own. Sorry, but the hoisting up and out the window just don't make sense to me. There were SO many doors. All locked doors can be opened from INSIDE. There was no need to climb out the window, and the undisturbed spider web and other debris in the window well indicate NO one climbed in or out. To have done so would mean removing the metal grate, and that would have broken the spider web and disturbed the leaves and such.
I could possibly see JBR having the pineapple snack unknown to her parents, but I can't imagine any good reason why BR would not mention this. If he is being told NOT to mention it, then it points away from an intruder anyway.

Click to expand...

Exactly...Burke would have said something, if this had of been the case. And John himself said that JB would have never gone down to the kitchen by herself, at night. (Implying that the "intruder" must have fed her that pineapple snack).

Also, there was a practice note thrown away in the garbage, if the intruder already had it in his pocket, why would that be there? I do like how you think though because I was thinking the same thing. That the pad and pen could have been taken before that night.

Hey @ dalcanton. Thanks for laying out your one perp IDI scenario. Very interesting.

ilovemew said:

Also, there was a practice note thrown away in the garbage, if the intruder already had it in his pocket, why would that be there? I do like how you think though because I was thinking the same thing. That the pad and pen could have been taken before that night.

Click to expand...

If the pad and pen had of been taken before that night, then the intruder would have written the note inside HIS home, and not the Ramseys, and there would have been no practice note...as you said. He would have placed the RN in his pocket...and not brought the pen and paper pad BACK to the the Ramsey house, with him...the night of the break in. That would sort of defeat the purpose of taking it beforehand, wouldn't it? Besides that, why would he have bothered to bring those things back with him....it would have been hard to climb through that tiny basement window, carrying a pen and a pad of paper. The "intruder" taking the pad and pen before that night, and then being so kind as to bring them back to the Ramsey home, makes no sense. Sorry, no offense.

makes no sense. Sorry, no offense. - Ames

Hi Ames. Yes .... but there's always a personality/psychological profile, based on hand writing analysis of the ransom note, provided by an 'expert' ..... that can help fill in those blanks.

IDI as a hoarder, practice note, disguised handwriting to resemble PR in the vendetta against PR scenario ....


hmmmm ..... I must admit, I'm terribly dissmissive of some scenarios ..... It's such a ..... SSSSSTTRETCHHHHH ...... for my imagination .... I need some Ti Chi.

Ames said:

LOL...ahhh, come on Dave..is that ALL you have to say about the first post? I started to respond but, didn't have enough time OR ENERGY to explain the whole why would an intruder take the time to wipe her down, redress her, wrap her in a blanket like a papoose, John's shirt fibers were found in the crotch area of the clean, unwashed panties, yadda, yadda, yadda, blah, blah, blah...thing. I was counting on you man.

Click to expand...

Easy, Ames. I just wanted to see where he was going with it. Besides, I had half an inkling he knew all that. And I'd like to see him explain it.

Bare with me as I try to explain one of the reasons why I can't see an IDI theory as a possibility.
Look at the amount of money in the note. This tells me that it's not about the money. The perp could have asked for much more, but he didn't. That tells me that a supposed perp would have felt that John's bonus should have been his, and this perp was going to take what he saw as John's most precious posession until he got it. So we basically have a jealous crazed maniac willing to go to any lengths to hurt John and take back what he felt was his. IMO
Now I'm not looking at how the plan actually played out, but at the actual planning for this next part.
The perp knows John, he knows the house well. I mean, come on, you have to have spent some time there to know a persons basement so well! So his plan was to go in, leave a note, take JB, and get out of there. Then to exchange JB for the money later.
But with the extent of JB's injuries the perp was not only a jealous crazed maniac, but he was also a sexual deviant.
How does that play out in the whole return thing?
When someone kidnaps for ransom, how can the sexual aspect play into it? If the psycho knew he had other plans for JB, he would take her and play them out with no ransom note and no plan for return. And a sexual deviant isn't going to plan a kidnapping with no plan of sexually harming the child. It's not like he could just do what he was going to do to JB and return her in exchange for the money!!!!! The first thing I would do is bring my child to the emergency room to make sure she was okay... not drugged, not hurt, etc. Then I would take her to a psychiatrist!!! No matter how much he threatened her about not saying anything, she would.
I got on a bit of a tangent here, and I'm not even positive I am making sense. I hope you can follow me. Again, it's not about how it happened, but how it would have had to have been PLANNED to happen. This is just one of many reasons I can't go with the IDI theory.
It just looks like the Ramsey's were throwing everything at the wall with hopes that something would stick... I also think they were covering up prior abuse.

SuperDave said:

Easy, Ames. I just wanted to see where he was going with it. Besides, I had half an inkling he knew all that. And I'd like to see him explain it.

Click to expand...

Gottcha! I forgive you then...

armywife210 said:

Bare with me as I try to explain one of the reasons why I can't see an IDI theory as a possibility.
Look at the amount of money in the note. This tells me that it's not about the money. The perp could have asked for much more, but he didn't. That tells me that a supposed perp would have felt that John's bonus should have been his, and this perp was going to take what he saw as John's most precious posession until he got it. So we basically have a jealous crazed maniac willing to go to any lengths to hurt John and take back what he felt was his. IMO
Now I'm not looking at how the plan actually played out, but at the actual planning for this next part.
The perp knows John, he knows the house well. I mean, come on, you have to have spent some time there to know a persons basement so well! So his plan was to go in, leave a note, take JB, and get out of there. Then to exchange JB for the money later.
But with the extent of JB's injuries the perp was not only a jealous crazed maniac, but he was also a sexual deviant.
How does that play out in the whole return thing?
When someone kidnaps for ransom, how can the sexual aspect play into it? If the psycho knew he had other plans for JB, he would take her and play them out with no ransom note and no plan for return. And a sexual deviant isn't going to plan a kidnapping with no plan of sexually harming the child. It's not like he could just do what he was going to do to JB and return her in exchange for the money!!!!! The first thing I would do is bring my child to the emergency room to make sure she was okay... not drugged, not hurt, etc. Then I would take her to a psychiatrist!!! No matter how much he threatened her about not saying anything, she would.
I got on a bit of a tangent here, and I'm not even positive I am making sense. I hope you can follow me. Again, it's not about how it happened, but how it would have had to have been PLANNED to happen. This is just one of many reasons I can't go with the IDI theory.
It just looks like the Ramsey's were throwing everything at the wall with hopes that something would stick... I also think they were covering up prior abuse.

Click to expand...

You got THAT right!

There was no intruder. Nothing confirms an intruder. All the evidence points to in house. JonBenet knew her killer(s).

arielilane said:

There was no intruder. Nothing confirms an intruder. All the evidence points to in house. JonBenet knew her killer(s).

Click to expand...

I agree :clap:
Is there anywhere I can read Daves stuff/theorys I would love to see what he has to say :blowkiss:

Too many "Ramsey fibers" at the crime scene to make the intruder theory possible.

http://www.crimemagazine.com/solvingjbr-main.htm


Fibers on the sticky side of the duct tape John Ramsey removed from his daughter's mouth when he says he discovered her body in the basement wine cellar that are "identical" to fibers in the red sweater-jacket Patsy was photographed wearing at a Christmas dinner at a friends' house the previous day.

Fibers from the same type of jacket in the paint tray from which a brush was taken that was used to help fashion the ligature found around JonBenet's neck.

Fibers from the same type of jacket "tied into" the ligature.

Fibers from the same type of black wool shirt made in Israel that John Ramsey wore to the Christmas dinner "in" the panties JonBenet was wearing when she found and in her "crotch area."



and.............


THE PAINT TRAY - Photographs show the paint tray was located outside the door to the wine cellar in which JonBenet's body was found, and thus well removed from the blanket that creates the possible contamination problem with the fibers on the duct tape. The fibers were put in the paint tray sometime before or during the time a brush in the tray was used to tighten the cord around JonBenet's neck, because Patsy didn't have access to the tray thereafter. Patsy told prosecutors she had never worn the red sweater-jacket while painting. So there is no readily apparent explanation for how the fibers could have gotten there in a manner that doesn't implicate Patsy in the use of the brush in the paint tray around the time of her daughter's death.

THE LIGATURE - This was an instrument fashioned for the apparent purpose of controlling JonBenet (it was like a collar and leash used on a dog), strangling her, or "staging" the crime scene to make it look like there had been an intruder. In any case, the only way fibers from ANY type of Patsy's clothing could make their way innocently onto this instrument would be if the fibers attached themselves to the paint brush used to make the ligature at some prior time, when it was simply a paint brush. Thus an innocent explanation runs into the same problems as does the explanation of how the fibers from Patsy's sweater/jacket came to be in the paint tray (why THAT piece of clothing when Patsy never wore it while painting?), and it runs into the additional problems created by the switch from the innocent use of a paint brush to the felonious use of the ligature. Patsy told investigators there were no broken brushes in her paint tray prior to the night JonBenet was killed. So the brush in question was broken the night JonBenet died by someone trying to control or kill her, or stage the crime scene.

THE PANTIES - John Ramsey told investigator Smit in his 1998 interview that while he had carried a sleeping JonBenet to bed after the family returned from their Christmas Day outing, he did not undress her. Patsy did. Patsy confirmed that. There is, therefore, no obvious way to explain why fibers from the type of shirt John was wearing when he says he put her to bed were found in her underpants and "crotch area."(very interesting imo)

discod said:

I agree :clap:
Is there anywhere I can read Daves stuff/theorys I would love to see what he has to say :blowkiss:

Click to expand...

I take it you mean me?

If so, you can go to the "Member's Theories" stick near the top of the forum. My theory is there (reprinted exactly from my book). Also, I'm all over the place, but you might want to search out the thread "Ask Super"

SuperDave said:

I take it you mean me?

If so, you can go to the "Member's Theories" stick near the top of the forum. My theory is there (reprinted exactly from my book). Also, I'm all over the place, but you might want to search out the thread "Ask Super"

Click to expand...

Thanks :blowkiss:

Super D can you tell us the name of your book and where to purchase it?

The pineapple is one thing that really bothered me along with no fingerprints on the flashlight or batteries, oh yeah and the practice note..and on and on. What has haunted me is coverage I heard on TV after Patsy died (my local news comes out of Atlanta) and I thought I heard reported (Please Note this is I thought) that one of Patsy's friends was describing the last time she saw her, or her last minutes, and said Patsy said "somethings you just can't take back" to this friend, I think the last words she spoke to this friend. It was not a special coverage report, just one of the mini wraps of the days news. I have googled and searched to my limited knowledge but is there anyone out there that can tell me how to find where I can research any mention of her death on any of the channels out of Atlanta to see if I "really" heard this. I just remember getting cold chills and thinking OMG surely the friend could see that was a confession, she shouldn't be on TV saying that. But maybe it was a wishful thinking dream.