That bowl of pineapple again

Venom

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2013
Messages
1,386
Reaction score
348
I was just going over the things about the bowl of pineapple, and had a thought.
Was the spoon ever fingerprinted? I've never seen anything about any prints on the spoon; but we have PR's and BR's on the bowl, and just BR's on the glass.
 
I was just going over the things about the bowl of pineapple, and had a thought.
Was the spoon ever fingerprinted? I've never seen anything about any prints on the spoon; but we have PR's and BR's on the bowl, and just BR's on the glass.

I have never seen it either. I cannot fathom why they'd test the bowl and glass, yet not the spoon. Not only prints, but TDNA and DNA from saliva (always a primary source) could have proved without a doubt who ate that pineapple. TDNA could also have been gotten (or attempted) from the paper tag on the tea bag- then we'd at least know who made tea.
 
I have never seen it either. I cannot fathom why they'd test the bowl and glass, yet not the spoon. Not only prints, but TDNA and DNA from saliva (always a primary source) could have proved without a doubt who ate that pineapple. TDNA could also have been gotten (or attempted) from the paper tag on the tea bag- then we'd at least know who made tea.

Maybe they have and we don't know the results? (Serious question)
 
You're right, it could have been done and the results just not released.
 
Something else about this pineapple. ST said that the sample collected from JB's small intestine was matched down to the rind to the pineapple in the bowl. Not in those exact words, except, the "down to the rind" part. I don't understand why we are even arguing about the pineapple as being found during the autopsy being something else, when clearly when Meyer was able to identify it. And not only being pineapple, but the pineapple from the bowl in the bowl that came from the Ramsey's. I just don't get it.

JMO
 
Does that mean she ate the rind? Sorry I haven't eaten pineapple in forever (only liked it as a child, hate it as an adult!) Is the rind a part that you are supposed to eat??
 
I don't know how relevant this is, but my kid eats pineapple (or any chunks of fruit) with her grimy little fingers instead of a spoon.
 
JMO, but ST saying that the pineapple was matched down to the rind will not be enough for some people. And Tezi, I know what you mean, it was matched down to the rind. Just some people are so anti ST.
 
JMO, but ST saying that the pineapple was matched down to the rind will not be enough for some people. And Tezi, I know what you mean, it was matched down to the rind. Just some people are so anti ST.

Oh, I well I know Venom. It's not just anti-Steve Thomas, it's anti-Kolar, anti-anyone who has the nerve to say the Ramseys are guilty of any wrongdoing whatsoever.

JMO
 
Does that mean she ate the rind? Sorry I haven't eaten pineapple in forever (only liked it as a child, hate it as an adult!) Is the rind a part that you are supposed to eat??

Parts of the inner rind can be left on fresh pineapple. It can show the little brown spots from the outer brown prickly rind that is cut off. Maybe someone did a poor job of cutting it and didn't cut out the little brown eyes or dots. I can't imagine them leaving the outer rind on.
 
There is so much written about JonBenet that it is impossible to remember it all but, for what it's worth, I thought the spoon had her brother's and mother's fingerprints on it.

If you read the autopsy report (which is available on the internet) what it actually says is that JonBenet had eaten 'vegetable material which may have been pineapple' which is not the same thing as saying 'she had eaten pineapple'. Can anyone point me at any original source which says anything more than that? - i.e. where does this stuff about 'matched down to the rind' come from?
 
I was just going over the things about the bowl of pineapple, and had a thought.
Was the spoon ever fingerprinted? I've never seen anything about any prints on the spoon; but we have PR's and BR's on the bowl, and just BR's on the glass.

I never really made much outta the whole "prints-on-the-bowl" thing. Of COURSE PR's prints are gonna be on the bowl cuz she most likely washed it then removed it from the sink rack/dishwasher (I'm pretty darn sure that with all their money they hadda dishwasher....lucky stiffs) and put it away. That could also explain BR's too IF he was appointed that chore or if he was just bein' "mommy's lil' helper" that day.

If ya look at it in that light it really could explain away damn near EVERYBODY'S prints.

There are just way too many variables in this case. It makes me dizzy. But on that note:

Two nights ago I asked an online Ouija Board "who killed JonBenet Ramsey?".

Its answer?

"One close".

Dayyyyyum!
 
There is so much written about JonBenet that it is impossible to remember it all but, for what it's worth, I thought the spoon had her brother's and mother's fingerprints on it.

If you read the autopsy report (which is available on the internet) what it actually says is that JonBenet had eaten 'vegetable material which may have been pineapple' which is not the same thing as saying 'she had eaten pineapple'. Can anyone point me at any original source which says anything more than that? - i.e. where does this stuff about 'matched down to the rind' come from?

It is from ST's book. page 192

"Our experts studied the pineapple in the stomach and reported that it was fresh-cut pineapple, consistent down to the rind with what had been found in the bowl. It was solid proof that it wasn't canned pineapple, and what were the chances that an intruder would have brought in a fresh pineapple to cut up for his victim?

I copied this from a candy rose's website here: http://www.acandyrose.com/s-evidence-pineapple.htm
 
There is so much written about JonBenet that it is impossible to remember it all but, for what it's worth, I thought the spoon had her brother's and mother's fingerprints on it.

If you read the autopsy report (which is available on the internet) what it actually says is that JonBenet had eaten 'vegetable material which may have been pineapple' which is not the same thing as saying 'she had eaten pineapple'. Can anyone point me at any original source which says anything more than that? - i.e. where does this stuff about 'matched down to the rind' come from?
BBM. Exactly. No one (re: Anyhoo's statement) is refusing to consider the contents of JB's small intestine could have, factually, been fragments pineapple. Rather, some appreciate more evidentiary support than what is stated in the AR.

The quote "down to the rind" comes from Steve Thomas in IRMI.
 
It is from ST's book. page 192

"Our experts studied the pineapple in the stomach and reported that it was fresh-cut pineapple, consistent down to the rind with what had been found in the bowl. It was solid proof that it wasn't canned pineapple, and what were the chances that an intruder would have brought in a fresh pineapple to cut up for his victim?

I copied this from a candy rose's website here: http://www.acandyrose.com/s-evidence-pineapple.htm


To augment your information, Venom, and thank you,
one has to keep in mind this premise: Lab reports and other evidentiary material are not necessarily in the public domain. What is in the public arena is only a small portion of the actual evidence.

So backtrack a little to the view of LS -
From Time Magazine is the quote from LS, a defender of the R’s and proponent of the IDI theory: "I believe the Ramseys are innocent," says Smit. "If it's an intruder, it's not the parents, and I think it's that simple."

Now from Venom's link to ACR, here is the interview LS had with JR (from ACR website)
. .Snip. . .
LOU SMIT: We don't know.
. 9 The pineapple is inside her, so we have to
10 figure out how that pineapple got there.
11 There is one way it could get there, she
12 had to eat it at some point.
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 . . .
 
It is from ST's book. page 192

"Our experts studied the pineapple in the stomach and reported that it was fresh-cut pineapple, consistent down to the rind with what had been found in the bowl. It was solid proof that it wasn't canned pineapple, and what were the chances that an intruder would have brought in a fresh pineapple to cut up for his victim?

I copied this from a candy rose's website here: http://www.acandyrose.com/s-evidence-pineapple.htm

I have just received ST's book, IRMI, haven't read it yet since I'm still reading Kolar's, but it's a 1st edition, and I just looked it up on pg 192, and the quote is verbatim, Venom.

It's a bewilderment (my made-up word).
 
I have just received ST's book, IRMI, haven't read it yet since I'm still reading Kolar's, but it's a 1st edition, and I just looked it up on pg 192, and the quote is verbatim, Venom.

It's a bewilderment (my made-up word).

I still need to get his book. I got the quote from a candy rose.
 
To augment your information, Venom, and thank you,
one has to keep in mind this premise: Lab reports and other evidentiary material are not necessarily in the public domain. What is in the public arena is only a small portion of the actual evidence.

So backtrack a little to the view of LS -
From Time Magazine is the quote from LS, a defender of the R’s and proponent of the IDI theory: "I believe the Ramseys are innocent," says Smit. "If it's an intruder, it's not the parents, and I think it's that simple."

Now from Venom's link to ACR, here is the interview LS had with JR (from ACR website)
. .Snip. . .
LOU SMIT: We don't know.
. 9 The pineapple is inside her, so we have to
10 figure out how that pineapple got there.
11 There is one way it could get there, she
12 had to eat it at some point.
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 . . .

Even Lou Smit recognizes it's pineapple, and he was an IDI. But, yet, we have posters here who refuse to believe it is pineapple? They need more proof? smdh
 
So we have:

the coroner saying that it may be pineapple
LS saying that it is pineapple
ST saying that it is pineapple, consistent down to the rind with the pineapple in the bowl from the R home

Is it a duck?
 
Anything that could be used to indicate RDI will be denied by IDI. In the case of the pineapple it is ludicrous to imagine a complete stranger feeding JB pineapple. It is common sense to imagine a family member feeding her pineapple. You need to look no further than this to understand why Scarlett and other IDI proponents object so strongly to acknowledge this evidence even if they deny that is the reason for doing so.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
173
Guests online
2,048
Total visitors
2,221

Forum statistics

Threads
589,952
Messages
17,928,178
Members
228,015
Latest member
Amberraff
Back
Top