If It Weren't For....

[BrotherMoon]

"As I pointed out in the description of proper food combining, food needs to remain in the stomach approximately three hours. There is one exception: fruit. Fruit is the only food on earth that requires no digestion in the stomach. It contains it's own digestive enzynes and, whe ripe is virtually predigested, requiring only about twenty to thirty minutes in the stomach before passing on to the intestines."

That's from Fit For Life II, Harvey and Marilyn Diamond.

 

[TressaRing28]

"As I pointed out in the description of proper food combining, food needs to remain in the stomach approximately three hours. There is one exception: fruit. Fruit is the only food on earth that requires no digestion in the stomach. It contains it's own digestive enzynes and, whe ripe is virtually predigested, requiring only about twenty to thirty minutes in the stomach before passing on to the intestines."

That's from Fit For Life II, Harvey and Marilyn Diamond.

That is so cool to know BM.
I am very sure that God would want us all to be fit for life. :innocent:

Tressa

 

[BlueCrab]

BrotherMoon,

Please note that all fruit does not digest at the same rate. Acidic fruit digests slower than normal fruit, and pineapple is among the slowest digesting of the acidic fruits.

JMO

 

[sissi]

I think it's too cool that the pineapple was green. ;-)

 

[BrotherMoon]

BrotherMoon,

Please note that all fruit does not digest at the same rate. Acidic fruit digests slower than normal fruit, and pineapple is among the slowest digesting of the acidic fruits.

JMO

Please note what? Your source? I'll bet it promotes the food pyramid, which is garbage.

The autopsy says the material was in the proximal intestine. No mention of other food material in the small intestine. That suggests the pineapple was the only thing eaten and was just passed from the stomach. Your source is crap and typically self serving. There is no way anyone can claim it was two hours from time of eating to time of death. It was probably less. The times of digestion your crap source refers to is the time from entry into the stomach to time of deposit into the large intestine or out of it via your favorite body part: the anal sphincter, n'est ce pas?

The time pineapple takes to go through the stomach to the proximal intestine if eaten alone is far less than two hours.

Go back to school.

 

[Arielle]

Eliza,

You are on target. The pineapple in JonBenet's digestive system, eaten about 2 hours before she died, and the bowl of pineapple on the breakfast room table with Burke's fingerprints on it, and the water glass with a spent teabag in it (Burke was the resident tea drinker) also on the table, points exclusively to Burke.

The pineapple also eliminates the intruder theory. JonBenet would not have willingly come downstairs in the middle of the night to snack on pineapple at the breakfast room table with an intruder. JonBenet was obviously secretly downstairs with Burke after the parents had gone to bed.

JMO

Sorry, in my book, the pineapple does not eliminate the intruder theory, only the intruder is a stranger theory! There were 4 known persons in the house that night. Anyone else who was there and not invited was an intruder (including your 4th and 5th people IMO)

 

[BlueCrab]

Sorry, in my book, the pineapple does not eliminate the intruder theory, only the intruder is a stranger theory! There were 4 known persons in the house that night. Anyone else who was there and not invited was an intruder (including your 4th and 5th people IMO)

Arielle,

I think I agree with you, but I may not understand your post.

The pineapple eliminates any chance that an intruder, UNKNOWN to the Ramsey family, killed JonBenet. JonBenet would not have willingly come downstairs and sat at the table to snack on pineapple with an intruder while the intruder sipped tea.

Also, the Ramseys wouldn't be lying, failing to fully cooperate, and engaging in a coverup to protect an intruder who was unknown to them. They would do that only if a family member was involved in the murder either as the killer or as an accomplice of the killer. IMO a person who had been invited into the house that night by a Ramsey is not an intruder.

JMO

 

[twizzler333]

What exactly are the lies?

 

[BlueCrab]

What exactly are the lies?

Twizzler,

Here's some of the Ramsey lies:

o They lied about an intruder breaking in and killing JonBenet, when the evidence is conclusive there was no intruder and a Ramsey family member had to be involved.

o They lied about Burke being in bed asleep until 7 A.M. when the enhanced 911 tape proved he was up and talking to his parents at 5:52 A.M.

o They lied about not waking up until 5:30 A.M., when the timeline in getting to the airport by 6:30 does not fit -- they had to have set the alarm for much earlier.

o They lied about what happened to the missing cell phone records, records which would have solved the crime had they become available (the entire month of December had been wiped clean and showed no phone calls).

o They lied under oath about the Stines not being close freiends, in an obvious attempt to distance Burke from Doug.

o They lied about no one in the family having owned Hi-Tec boots, when it eventually became known that Patsy had bought Hi-Tec boots, with a compass built into them, for Burke while visiting Atlanta.

o They lied about not knowing who wrote the captions in Burke's photo album, the handwriting of which matched the handwriting in the ransom note.

o They lied about not searching the basement for JonBenet prior to calling 911 to report her missing.

o They lied about the reason for trying to make arrangements to fly out of the state 35 minutes after JobnBenet's body was found.

o They lied about the reason for calling over a house full of friends, who unwittingly helped them to successfully contaminate the crime scene.

JMO

 

[twizzler333]

Twizzler,

Here's some of the Ramsey lies:

o They lied about an intruder breaking in and killing JonBenet, when the evidence is conclusive there was no intruder and a Ramsey family member had to be involved.

What evidence is conclusive? And from whom? Did they rule out 100% that someone with a key or who had previously been in the house could NOT have come in there with the key or had secretly left some door somewhere in that house unlocked with the intent of coming back? Do you think the GJ found the same evidence. Why did a judge rule that the evidence is more consistent with an intruder than an inside job?

o They lied about Burke being in bed asleep until 7 A.M. when the enhanced 911 tape proved he was up and talking to his parents at 5:52 A.M.

Do they know this for a fact that this indeed is part of the actual 911 call made from that house? Is this something that was presented possibly to the GJ? I recall seeing a news magazine show that stated there was actually nothing there on the enhanced tape other than Patsy saying “Help me Jesus”. Who discovered this tape and when? Is there a possibility of this tape being tampered with and set up to appear that there was more than was heard originally. Do we know the process of 911 calls being recorded and disconnected? Does the dispatcher hang up from the call and the recording continues indefinitely, how does this process work?

o They lied about not waking up until 5:30 A.M., when the timeline in getting to the airport by 6:30 does not fit -- they had to have set the alarm for much earlier.

It fits if you are meeting a private airplane and planning on getting up, throwing on the same clothes you wore the night before and running out to catch the plan with intentions of cleaning up and all when you make your destination at another home. That is not odd behavior to me. IF they were catching a commercial jet and would be at the airport in front of a lot of people, etc. I can see Miss Patsy going all out to look absolutely fabulous before stepping out the door, thereby, getting up considerably earlier.

o They lied about what happened to the missing cell phone records, records which would have solved the crime had they become available (the entire month of December had been wiped clean and showed no phone calls).

I will give you this one if this is true. I have only heard this information here. Have not read this on any official documents that we have available to us.

o They lied under oath about the Stines not being close freiends, in an obvious attempt to distance Burke from Doug.

John didn’t seem to consider them close friends. Did Patsy testify to this as well? If she said they weren’t close friends, then I would have to agree with you, but as for a man not considering them friends or whatever, and plus the way he answered stuff previously in that same deposition, he seemed to be just like any other person would be if they were tired of answering the same questions over and over. It is not unusual for you to forget people when listing them. I read that depo over and over and I just didn’t get the sense that it was a big deal to him.

o They lied about no one in the family having owned Hi-Tec boots, when it eventually became known that Patsy had bought Hi-Tec boots, with a compass built into them, for Burke while visiting Atlanta.

Can I tell you the names/brands of all the shoes I have bought my teenage twin daugheters? Nope. They throw them on the counter and I pay for them. That is as far as it pretty much goes most of the time. I don’t ask, I just pay. Only time I notice is if the price is way outrageous, otherwise, it goes unnoticed. I have too many other things to worry with than names of the shoes and clothes they are buying.

o They lied about not knowing who wrote the captions in Burke's photo album, the handwriting of which matched the handwriting in the ransom note.

First I have heard of this one. Source? Link to this information if you have it would be appreciated.

o They lied about not searching the basement for JonBenet prior to calling 911 to report her missing.

Did they search the basement before the 911 call? How do we know they did or didn’t? Who witnessed this? If they did and recalled it later, did they mean they didn’t search the ENTIRE basement (meaning where she was later found)?

o They lied about the reason for trying to make arrangements to fly out of the state 35 minutes after JonBenet's body was found.

What did they say? I don’t know of this one either apparently. I read that John wanted to make arrangements to fly to Atlanta where they planned to bury JonBenet.

o They lied about the reason for calling over a house full of friends, who unwittingly helped them to successfully contaminate the crime scene.

Again, I don’t know what the lie is about. I know they called over friends but not sure what the lie was. I haven’t heard this “lie” yet.


Since obviously the Stines seem to be a big part of this crime in some theories, what exactly did happen with them? I know they moved to Atlanta. Were they cleared? The son cleared? Documented?

I am trying really hard to see what obviously most of you see regarding them being guilty but I am just not seeing it. For just about everything we come up with there is another possibility that can change the scenario in another direction. I can see forgetting details in a time of fear and anxiety, I have done it myself (I actually told someone about an accident that I came upon being next to a huge tree- went back later after stating this “fact” and it was a very small tree- I just remembered it differently, in my mind I thought I saw a big tree).

I have been planning a trip and knew that I would want to get cleaned up once I got to my destination, so opted to throw on the same old clothes from the night before, threw on a little make up, brushed my hair and was out the door in just a few minutes. It wasn’t a big deal, I knew after the trip is when I would want to get cleaned up.

I guess I just try to see the logic in all of this. Is it logical that these things could have happened this way?

Is it likely that she didn’t read the entire note? Yes. She could have just read the first couple of lines and went into an absolute panic. I think I might do that. Now, having said that, I am quite sure after I made the 911 call, I more than likely would have sat down and read more of it, unless of course, I was inconsolable and/or freaking out. It is really hard to say, as I have not been in that situation.

Is it likely that I would not recall if my child had pineapple or not on the previous day...a day that was full of things for me to do, events with the family going on and knowing I needed to have things ready for my trip the next day? Yes, if you have kids then you can see that. Sometimes mothers have a kazillion things to do and you do not pay attention to every last detail. My kids get into things and I don’t even know about it until the next day. I find evidence all the time of snacks they had while I was cleaning up at night, getting things finished up for work, getting things ready for school, etc. Sometimes you are soooooo busy you just miss the little things like a bowl of pineapple.

Is is possible that an intruder was someone she knew and she trusted enough to go down and get pineapple with them? Yes, this is possible. It could have been Burke or could have been someone else. Is it possible Burke had a bowl of pineapple earlier in the day, put it back in the fridge, she got up later and had some herself. The fingerprints- could they have come from being used previously and not washed well? I don’t know.

Is it true that the butler’s door was unlocked and/or jarred open?

I guess unless I personally see the cold, hard facts I will always have a doubt in my mind about the Ramsey's doing this. I can see where there are possible ways/reasons to explain things but I come back to the logical question. Does this type of family that we only know of through the media and our limited sources capable of doing this? Are they stupid enough to believe that this could have been covered up and the truth would not come out? They just don't seem to lack intelligence to me and would have to know that covering up an accident would be the absolute worst thing you could do. I don't see how they could have been keeping this in all these years, but perhaps they can.

The whole thing to me just fits with someone she knew pretty well doing this who had a dark side to them or something. I just have a hard time accepting her family did this to her, but stranger things have happened in life. I really would like to find a list of all the people who have been investigated and see the reasons why they were cleared. If I had the resources and the time, I would come up with a list of each person and do this but I lack both. Is there anything like this on the web?


Thank you BlueCrab for your response. I am just trying to understand. I cannot tell facts from heresay sometimes on this forum. Too much information and too many opinions out there on this case. (Of course mine being one of them.)

 

[BlueCrab]

Twizzler,

I'm sorry, but your list of questions is just too time-consuming to tackle for now. Please let me try to answer just one of them for the time being -- the captions written in Burke's photo album.

The captions were used by Darnay Hoffman's qualified document examiners when he represented Chris Wolf in the Wolf v Ramsey defamation lawsuit in which he was trying to prove that Patsy wrote the ransom note. Hoffman's examiners were told the captions were written by Patsy, and the examiners concluded that whoever wrote the captions in the photo album also likely wrote the ransom note.

However, it is my contention that the captions were written by Burke, and not by Patsy. If Burke wrote his own captions and Darnay Hoffman's experts were right, it would, of course, make Burke the writer of the ransom note.

When questioned, IMO Patsy lied when she claimed she didn't remember who wrote the captions.

You can find the analyses of the handwriting experts by typing ACandyRose into your search engine, and then scroll down to click on Darnay Hoffman Files, and then click on the individual analyses of Tom Miller, Cina Wong, and David Liebman.

JMO

 

[VespaElf]

BC,
You have me 99.9% convinced that Burke "did it" HOWEVER I just don't belive he wrote the note!!!


As the Mother of a 10 year old boy I dont belive for one second Burke wrote the picture captions (and Im the Mother of a unique ,"fussy" 10 year old boy-also a tea drinker btw).Patsy did and I belive she wrote the over the top note to cover her sons crime .

 

[TressaRing28]

BC,
You have me 99.9% convinced that Burke "did it" HOWEVER I just don't belive he wrote the note!!!


As the Mother of a 10 year old boy I dont belive for one second Burke wrote the picture captions (and Im the Mother of a unique ,"fussy" 10 year old boy-also a tea drinker btw).Patsy did and I belive she wrote the over the top note to cover her sons crime .

I just can't see Burke writing that note neither. The lettering the words :snooty: I agree MessieCake. Patsy wrote the note.

 

[BlueCrab]

I just can't see Burke writing that note neither. The lettering the words :snooty: I agree MessieCake. Patsy wrote the note.

Ladies,

After analyzing his handwriting, the Colorado Bureau of Investigation could not eliminate Burke Ramsey as the possible writer of the ransom note.

The CBI eliminated John, but couldn't eliminate neither Burke nor Patsy. However, they came very close to eliminating Patsy with her 4.5 score (a score of 5.0 eliminates), but they won't release Burke's score. I wonder why? The only thing known for sure is that Burke was not eliminated as the writer.

JMO

 

[TLynn]

If it weren't for the ....

PINEAPPLE.

Keep in mind when timing the digestion - that JonBenet had NOT digested it yet. It was in the beginning stages of digestion.

Patsy doesn't give a straight answer if she bought the pineapple or even knew if it was in the house. This is the BIGGEST piece of hard evidence and Patsy can't recall diddly squat!

You'd think she wouldn't be able to sleep nights until she remembered!

 

[VespaElf]

Ladies,

After analyzing his handwriting, the Colorado Bureau of Investigation could not eliminate Burke Ramsey as the possible writer of the ransom note.

The CBI eliminated John, but couldn't eliminate neither Burke nor Patsy. However, they came very close to eliminating Patsy with her 4.5 score (a score of 5.0 eliminates), but they won't release Burke's score. I wonder why? The only thing known for sure is that Burke was not eliminated as the writer.

JMO

BC,
You also have to take into consideration a very good reason for that.........Burke's handwriting may be similar to Patsy's.
I know I write in a style very close to my Mother's(must be all those years of forging her signature at school! ) as well as my two oldest children now write in a style like mine ,much to the chagrin of their teacher's(I close my '4's' as well as having a line on my seven and other non Palmer method scripts) as a child's first teacher is their Mother and its very common for them to "pick up" a writing style from their parents(my husband writes in a style similar to his Mother).

I buy Burke was involved and prob. "did it" but I can't shake the theory that Patsy was the ransom note writer.

 

[twizzler333]

If it weren't for the ....

PINEAPPLE.

Keep in mind when timing the digestion - that JonBenet had NOT digested it yet. It was in the beginning stages of digestion.

Patsy doesn't give a straight answer if she bought the pineapple or even knew if it was in the house. This is the BIGGEST piece of hard evidence and Patsy can't recall diddly squat!

You'd think she wouldn't be able to sleep nights until she remembered!

I agree the pineapple is a very significant clue here, but can we say without a doubt (or reasonable doubt) that Patsy or Burke were the ONLY two people that could have possibly fed her the pineapple before she died? Absolutely no one else, no other possible scenario, would fit into any other theory? IF we can say without a doubt that there is absolutely NO WAY anyone else could have give her the pineapple, then YES she must be involved in this murder and/or cover up.

I just feel like there are other possibilities here and I certainly can understand not knowing where you bought the pineapple for sure, and IF you even had it. Did she even do all of her shopping herself all the time? I doubt it. She probably had people get her things for her sometimes, especially with it being the season to entertain. I don't know but I just don't see her "lack" of remembering something like this very significant. I know how I am and honestly, I do not remember little things like this myself. I have way too many other things to worry about remembering. I would have reasonable doubt if this were the one factor that tied up this case.

 

[BrotherMoon]

I think it should be considered that Patsy has an identity disorder and that some of her actions were carried out by an alter. This could account for not only her lack of memory of certain events but also the "character" of some aspects ot the crime that she and others say are not typical of her or "a mother", such as the bowl and spoon, which Patsy said was not her set-up or something to that effect.

This could also account for her ability to distance herself from the crime and to attempt to return to a normal life. This can also account for the characteristics of the handwriting in the note, alters write differently from the major persona.

 

[BlueCrab]

I agree the pineapple is a very significant clue here, but can we say without a doubt (or reasonable doubt) that Patsy or Burke were the ONLY two people that could have possibly fed her the pineapple before she died?

Twizzler,

Not exactly. The pineapple eliminates the possibility of an unknown intruder because JonBenet would not have willingly gone downstairs with someone she didn't know, in the middle of the night, and sat down at the table with him to snack on pineapple.

So we can say with reasonable certainty there was no intruder. Besides, the Ramseys would not lie, refuse to fully cooperate with the investigation, and carry on the coverup, to shield an intruder. The Ramseys would do all of these things only if a family member was directly involved in the murder of JonBenet.

So that would leave John, Patsy, Burke, and anyone a Ramsey may have invited into the house that night, as suspects. Any one of them could have served the pineapple to JonBenet, or JonBenet could have (but not likely have) served the pineapple to herself. But the process of elimination further narrows down the field:

John has exculpatory evidence in the form of DNA on JonBenet that does not match his; he has handwriting analyses that eliminate him as the writer of the ransom note; and he has lie detector examinations that clear him of hurting JonBenet. But there is evidence he is involved in the staging and the coverup.

Patsy has exculatory evidence in the form of DNA on JonBenet that does not match hers; she has handwriting analyses that come close to eliminating her as the writer of the ransom note; and she has lie detector examinations that clear her of hurting JonBenet and of writing the ransom note. But there is evidence she is involved in the staging and the coverup.

By the process of elimination that leaves Burke, and perhaps Burke's friend who may have been invited into the house that night. Burke's fingerprints were on the bowl of pineapple. Burke's DNA apparently doesn't match the DNA on JonBenet, but the friend's DNA might match -- we don't know because the results can't be released due to their ages. We do know that Burke's handwriting analyses cannot eliminate him as the possible writer of the ransom note, so he could have written it. It appears the "for sure" questions in the lie detector examinations posed to John and Patsy Ramsey were cleverly worded to prevent Burke from being revealed as being involved in the killing of JonBenet. (John and Patsy didn't know "for sure" who killed JonBenet, so, IMO, there must have been two or more boys involved. Statements from Pam Paugh are along the same lines -- there were two involved, but she doesn't know which one was the actual killer.)


JMO

 

[twizzler333]

Yes, it eliminates an UNKNOWN intruder, but it does not eliminate someone she knew that came into the house without the knowledge of the Ramsey's. We cannot say for absolute sure that someone she knew didn't come in there, quietly go to her room, wake her and ask her to come down for a snack because he/she had a special something for her. This scenario could have happened without anyone in that house hearing a thing. This person probably came in a door and went out the same door. I do not think they came in the window. Perhaps they checked out the basement window days earlier or something or even considered going in that way that evening, removed the grate cover thing but decided against it when they felt they could not reasonably get in that window without going unnoticed, so they didn't even attempt crawling down in there, thus, not disturbing this spider web everyone speaks of. There are a number of possibilities here, and this is what gives me the doubts that I have.

Also, where is the source of all of the evidence you say is there? Can we see the lie detector information/questions asked that you speak of? I have yet to see any real hard evidence, especially that everyone else seems to have been privilidged to have access to at some point. I have seen the ransom note and the analysis', the autopsy report and photographs, and a few of the deposition transcriptions. I would love to see the other things you all have apparently seen. Can someone direct me there? I tried to look at some documents on the candyrose site but some of it is just too small to read (the scans she has on there).

And as for BM's comments above about her memory or lack of it because of all his "way-out-there" beliefs- I must have the same stinking syndrome she has then, I forget everything. I probably could not tell you what I had for lunch yesterday.