RDI poll/the Stines

[BOESP]

The courts dismiss testimony on reasonable doubt. There doesn't have to be proof in the form of direct evidence therefore proof they lied isn't required. All that is required is what a reasonable person would consider as culpability. It boils down to what is most likely to have happened based on what is known. I have no reasonable doubt the Ramseys are involved or at worst know exactly what happened.

Doesn't matter to me whether someone can prove the Ramseys knew the pineapple set-up was there or not. It's like trying to prove they had been eating crackers in the living room at midnight but they cleaned up the mess and left no evidence. None of us can prove something that can't be known. We can always use the excuse that someone was lying but we can't prove they were lying. And that is where Lin Wood was worth every penny they paid him.

 

[UKGuy]

There is no conflict at all. With the pineapple out, the Rs version of events - "We put JB to bed, went to bed ourselves, woke up to find a RN...blah blah blah" is perfectly consistent. There is no reason that their version could not have happened with the pineapple out on the table.

In fact, with the breakfast bar cleaned up, there is a less convincing explanation. She got up by herself and got pineapple out of the 'fridge (assuming there was any in the 'fridge) With the pineapple left out she had ample opportunity to snack on pineapple, w/o the Rs knowing about it. If anything, cleaning up the breakfast bar would have been an error.

We know from prints that PR and BR were involved with the breakfast bar, but we don't know the time element. It's very possible that PR/BR only sat down to eat pineapple earlier in the day, when it was first set out - presumably several hours prior to the party.

Chrishope,

There is no conflict at all. With the pineapple out, the Rs version of events - "We put JB to bed, went to bed ourselves, woke up to find a RN...blah blah blah" is perfectly consistent. There is no reason that their version could not have happened with the pineapple out on the table.

Except that Burke and Patsy's fingerprints are to be found on artifacts in the breakfast bar!

In fact, with the breakfast bar cleaned up, there is a less convincing explanation. She got up by herself and got pineapple out of the 'fridge (assuming there was any in the 'fridge) With the pineapple left out she had ample opportunity to snack on pineapple, w/o the Rs knowing about it. If anything, cleaning up the breakfast bar would have been an error.

Applying your school of reasoning this never occurred since JonBenet's fingerprints are not on the bowl!

We know from prints that PR and BR were involved with the breakfast bar, but we don't know the time element. It's very possible that PR/BR only sat down to eat pineapple earlier in the day, when it was first set out - presumably several hours prior to the party.

You are inventing scenarios simpy to avoid accepting that your explanation is inconsistent, in many parts, with the forensic evidence, e.g. fitting the evidence to match your theory.

So Patsy ate pineapple prior to leaving for the Whites and left the bowl on the table, then JonBenet woke up and went downstairs to find a nice bowl of pineapple which she started to snack on?

Why did Patsy not think of this?


I believe there was also condensed milk in the bowl, any thoughts on that?



My theory is that the R's staged a crime-scene. I can demonstrate that JonBenet was awake after arriving back from the White's. This means there is a hole in the R's staging, e.g. a staging error!


simples.

 

[UKGuy]

The courts dismiss testimony on reasonable doubt. There doesn't have to be proof in the form of direct evidence therefore proof they lied isn't required. All that is required is what a reasonable person would consider as culpability. It boils down to what is most likely to have happened based on what is known. I have no reasonable doubt the Ramseys are involved or at worst know exactly what happened.

Doesn't matter to me whether someone can prove the Ramseys knew the pineapple set-up was there or not. It's like trying to prove they had been eating crackers in the living room at midnight but they cleaned up the mess and left no evidence. None of us can prove something that can't be known. We can always use the excuse that someone was lying but we can't prove they were lying. And that is where Lin Wood was worth every penny they paid him.

BOESP,
Yes, prima facia evidence is what most juries will accept, not a recitation of a thousand theories and the option to choose the most consistent, LOL, that is the prosecutors job!

None of us can prove something that can't be known.

off topic: but you can prove some things can never be known. In this case the pineapple and the fingerprints supply us with information which:

1. Tells us JonBenet was awake and walking about after arriving back from the White's

2. Burke and/or Patsy were present when JonBenet was snacking pineapple.


This plainly contradicts the R's version of events, so is a staging error, just as with the size-12's, its a red flag.



.

 

[BOESP]

...

off topic: but you can prove some things can never be known. In this case the pineapple and the fingerprints supply us with information which:

1. Tells us JonBenet was awake and walking about after arriving back from the White's

2. Burke and/or Patsy were present when JonBenet was snacking pineapple.


This plainly contradicts the R's version of events, so is a staging error, just as with the size-12's, its a red flag.



.

Well, actually, if you can prove it, it can be known.

Just messing with you. I understand what you are saying. I get a little frustrated with throwing in all the extraneous information that bears little relevance to this case, but then I'm old and getting cranky. :what:

 

[Chrishope]

Except that Burke and Patsy's fingerprints are to be found on artifacts in the breakfast bar!

Who's denying it? And why do you think it's important ? What time do you think the pineapple was set out? Do you think PR set out a large bowl of pineapple sometime around 10pm after getting home from a party? Or do you think it's more likely it had been out all day? If it had been out all day, PR and BR could have put their prints on it several hours before leaving for the party.

Applying your school of reasoning this never occurred since JonBenet's fingerprints are not on the bowl!

Why do her prints have to be on the bowl? Why couldn't she have eaten with her fingers?

You are inventing scenarios simpy to avoid accepting that your explanation is inconsistent, in many parts, with the forensic evidence, e.g. fitting the evidence to match your theory.

Nothing inconsistent in what I've said. I'm simply pointing out that you've made a logical error in insisting that not cleaning up the pineapple is a staging error. In fact cleaning up the pineapple would be a greater error because then it is more difficult to explain how a 6 year old consumed pineapple during the night. If the bowl is out it's not hard to see she had access.

So Patsy ate pineapple prior to leaving for the Whites and left the bowl on the table, then JonBenet woke up and went downstairs to find a nice bowl of pineapple which she started to snack on?

It doesn't matter what really happened. The Rs, by disclaiming any knowledge of JB eating pineapple at home, after the party, simply do not have to deal with any inquires about it. "We don't know how or when she ate pineapple" is all they have to say. The police don't have to buy the story but it cuts off all further inquiry.

Why did Patsy not think of this?

It would have been better, IMO, than disclaiming ownership of the bowl, but the end result is the same. They can't explain how/why/when JB ate pineapple that night. The police can keep asking questions about it, but they aren't going to get anywhere.

I believe there was also condensed milk in the bowl, any thoughts on that?

I was not aware of that.

My theory is that the R's staged a crime-scene. I can demonstrate that JonBenet was awake after arriving back from the White's. This means there is a hole in the R's staging, e.g. a staging error!

We know she was awake, because there is pineapple in her small intestine. But you are imagining the hole in the staging. There is no hole. The Rs story boils down to this - "We all went to bed and we don't know anything about the events that happened until PR woke up, went down stairs, and found the RN, yada yada yada". Though I do not believe their story, there is no logical reason why the Rs had to have fed JB pineapple. There is no logical reason why they must have even known she'd consumed pineapple.

simples.

Yes, very simple.

 

[UKGuy]

Yes, I understand that she ate pineapple after returning home from the party. I'm sorry if I have not been clear enough as to what I'm saying. I am not suggesting in any way that she didn't eat the pineapple at home, after the party.

And I agree, we do not know who -if anyone- was with her as she ate the pineapple. We know BR and PR were involved with the breakfast bar, but we do not know at what time of day. Their prints could have been made at 11am that morning. Or 7 am. Or whenever the breakfast bar was set out. It could have been many hours before the party.

There is not, as UKGuy suggests, a staging error. Noting about the Rs story is contradicted by there being pineapple in JB's small intestine. With the bowl out on the table she had plenty of opportunity to eat several pieces of pineapple. Whether the Rs knew of it or not really doesn't matter. If she was put to bed and got up later and had pineapple, that does not contradict the Rs story.

Sometimes we want so badly to "prove" something that we do not think clearly. There is nothing in the Rs story that suggests that JB was not up after she was put to bed. It's just that the Rs don't know about it. Many RDIs are assuming that because she ate pineapple, the Rs version of events could not be true. We'd like to believe the Rs have been caught in a lie. But that isn't the case. The Rs story isn't that JB never got up after being put to bed, only that they put her to bed and knew nothing of the nights events until they woke the next morning.

There is no more need for the Rs to explain the pineapple than there is for them to explain the blow to the head, the garrotte, the redressing, and so on.

As I pointed out in reply to UK guy, the fact is that cleaning up the breakfast bar would look even worse, since it makes it less likely JB could have ate some pineapple w/o the Rs knowing of it.

Chrishope,

There is not, as UKGuy suggests, a staging error. Noting about the Rs story is contradicted by there being pineapple in JB's small intestine. With the bowl out on the table she had plenty of opportunity to eat several pieces of pineapple. Whether the Rs knew of it or not really doesn't matter. If she was put to bed and got up later and had pineapple, that does not contradict the Rs story.

Do not give up the day job. Whatever the R's knew is precisely what they they wish to limit your access to.

But because both Burke and Patsy's fingerprints are present, we can infer that JonBenet did not rise later and snack pineapple, its a non sequiter.


If the IRS increase the standard rate of tax, you cannot claim ignorance as a defence, when you failed to pay.

Similarly with the R's, that they were ignorant regarding some circumstance, does not prevent it conflicting with their staged version of events.

simples.


.

 

[Chrishope]

BOESP,
Yes, prima facia evidence is what most juries will accept, not a recitation of a thousand theories and the option to choose the most consistent, LOL, that is the prosecutors job!


off topic: but you can prove some things can never be known. In this case the pineapple and the fingerprints supply us with information which:

1. Tells us JonBenet was awake and walking about after arriving back from the White's

2. Burke and/or Patsy were present when JonBenet was snacking pineapple.


This plainly contradicts the R's version of events, so is a staging error, just as with the size-12's, its a red flag.



.

off topic: but you can prove some things can never be known. In this case the pineapple and the fingerprints supply us with information which:

1. Tells us JonBenet was awake and walking about after arriving back from the White's

2. Burke and/or Patsy were present when JonBenet was snacking pineapple.


This plainly contradicts the R's version of events, so is a staging error, just as with the size-12's, its a red flag.

The pineapple in her small intestine proves she ate pineapple, approximately 2 hours prior to death, which would mean she consumed it at home, after the party.

The fingerprints belonging to PR/BR do not in any way prove that either of them were with JB when she ate the pineapple. The prints could have been from several hours prior. You've jumped to a conclusion. It could have been as you describe, but it didn't have to be.

It does not contradict the Rs version of events because the Rs are not claiming that JB never got out of bed after they put her to bed. (How could they know if they were asleep?) They are only claiming that they put her to bed and do not know what happened in the house while they slept. All of the things that happened - eating pineapple, getting bashed on the head, getting asphyxiated, getting molested, getting wiped down, getting redressed, getting wrapped in a blanket, getting placed in the WC, are simply things they know nothing about.

 

[Chrishope]

Do not give up the day job.

Good advice for everyone on these boards.

Whatever the R's knew is precisely what they they wish to limit your access to.

Naturally.

But because both Burke and Patsy's fingerprints are present, we can infer that JonBenet did not rise later and snack pineapple, its a non sequiter.

You keep failing to see the logical error here. You've made an inference that is not justified. BR/PR prints did not have to be placed on the bowl at the time JB ate pineapple after the party.

You also don't seem to get the idea that the Rs story does not have to be true, or even believable to be consistent. They are claiming they put her to bed and know nothing about what happened to her after that. The pineapple does not prove they are lying. It proves she was up, but doesn't disprove the Rs version of events.

If the IRS increase the standard rate of tax, you cannot claim ignorance as a defence, when you failed to pay.

True, but oddly irrelevant.

Similarly with the R's, that they were ignorant regarding some circumstance, does not prevent it conflicting with their staged version of events.

But, again, it does not conflict. There is no logical reason they could not have put her to bed when they came home.

In fact the pineapple being left out accords better with their staged version of events than if they had cleaned it up and put things away. It would be hard to see how JB ingested pineapple if none was left out. With the bowl on the table it is rather easy to see how she could have helped herself.

We may regard their story as unlikely, but there is not a conflict.

simples.

Very simple.

 

[UKGuy]

Who's denying it? And why do you think it's important ? What time do you think the pineapple was set out? Do you think PR set out a large bowl of pineapple sometime around 10pm after getting home from a party? Or do you think it's more likely it had been out all day? If it had been out all day, PR and BR could have put their prints on it several hours before leaving for the party.



Why do her prints have to be on the bowl? Why couldn't she have eaten with her fingers?



Nothing inconsistent in what I've said. I'm simply pointing out that you've made a logical error in insisting that not cleaning up the pineapple is a staging error. In fact cleaning up the pineapple would be a greater error because then it is more difficult to explain how a 6 year old consumed pineapple during the night. If the bowl is out it's not hard to see she had access.



It doesn't matter what really happened. The Rs, by disclaiming any knowledge of JB eating pineapple at home, after the party, simply do not have to deal with any inquires about it. "We don't know how or when she ate pineapple" is all they have to say. The police don't have to buy the story but it cuts off all further inquiry.

It would have been better, IMO, than disclaiming ownership of the bowl, but the end result is the same. They can't explain how/why/when JB ate pineapple that night. The police can keep asking questions about it, but they aren't going to get anywhere.



I was not aware of that.



We know she was awake, because there is pineapple in her small intestine. But you are imagining the hole in the staging. There is no hole. The Rs story boils down to this - "We all went to bed and we don't know anything about the events that happened until PR woke up, went down stairs, and found the RN, yada yada yada". Though I do not believe their story, there is no logical reason why the Rs had to have fed JB pineapple. There is no logical reason why they must have even known she'd consumed pineapple.



Yes, very simple.

Chrishope,

Nothing inconsistent in what I've said. I'm simply pointing out that you've made a logical error in insisting that not cleaning up the pineapple is a staging error. In fact cleaning up the pineapple would be a greater error because then it is more difficult to explain how a 6 year old consumed pineapple during the night. If the bowl is out it's not hard to see she had access.

If the R's had cleaned up, I would not be able to place Burke or Patsy in the breakfast bar while JonBenet was snacking pineapple.

The pineapple residue was always going to have to be dealt with, but in the context of the available forensic evidence both Patsy and Burke are factored in.

Though I do not believe their story, there is no logical reason why the Rs had to have fed JB pineapple.

The issue is not who fed JonBenet, but who knew JonBenet had been fed.

 

[UKGuy]

Good advice for everyone on these boards.

Naturally.

You keep failing to see the logical error here. You've made an inference that is not justified. BR/PR prints did not have to be placed on the bowl at the time JB ate pineapple after the party.

You also don't seem to get the idea that the Rs story does not have to be true, or even believable to be consistent. They are claiming they put her to bed and know nothing about what happened to her after that. The pineapple does not prove they are lying. It proves she was up, but doesn't disprove the Rs version of events.

True, but oddly irrelevant.

But, again, it does not conflict. There is no logical reason they could not have put her to bed when they came home.

In fact the pineapple being left out accords better with their staged version of events than if they had cleaned it up and put things away. It would be hard to see how JB ingested pineapple if none was left out. With the bowl on the table it is rather easy to see how she could have helped herself.

We may regard their story as unlikely, but there is not a conflict.

Very simple.

Chrishope,

You keep failing to see the logical error here. You've made an inference that is not justified. BR/PR prints did not have to be placed on the bowl at the time JB ate pineapple after the party.

Your grasp of logic appears questionable. The inference is justified, whether you accept it is another matter. If you cannot demonstrate that the bowl of pineapple was present in the breakfast bar prior to the R's leaving for the White's, how can you make claims regarding illogic?

You also don't seem to get the idea that the Rs story does not have to be true, or even believable to be consistent. They are claiming they put her to bed and know nothing about what happened to her after that. The pineapple does not prove they are lying. It proves she was up, but doesn't disprove the Rs version of events.

Except that Burke and Patsy's fingerprints offer another interpretation, nice try though!



.

 

[Chrishope]

Chrishope,

If the R's had cleaned up, I would not be able to place Burke or Patsy in the breakfast bar while JonBenet was snacking pineapple.

The pineapple residue was always going to have to be dealt with, but in the context of the available forensic evidence both Patsy and Burke are factored in.




The issue is not who fed JonBenet, but who knew JonBenet had been fed.

If the R's had cleaned up, I would not be able to place Burke or Patsy in the breakfast bar while JonBenet was snacking pineapple.

You CAN'T place BR/PR in the breakfast nook WHILE JB ate pineapple that night after the party. You can only say that BR/PR were in the breakfast nook at some time during the day and that they handled the bowl. It might have been at the time she ate pineapple that night, after the party, or it might have been several hours prior.

The pineapple residue was always going to have to be dealt with, but in the context of the available forensic evidence both Patsy and Burke are factored in.

They only factor as having eaten pineapple sometime during the day. Not necessarily at the time JB ate pineapple that night.

The issue is not who fed JonBenet, but who knew JonBenet had been fed.

Leaving everything out works either way. If she sneaked some pineapple w/o anyone knowing, either before or after being put to bed, the bowl being left out facilitates that scenario. If PR/BR/JB sat down and snacked on pineapple we still can't disprove the Rs version of events.

Let's ask ourselves what is probable. Why would they sit down to a snack after returning from a party? Did the Whites not put on a good spread? Did the kids not like what the Whites had offered at the party, and so were still hungry? Or is it more likely the pineapple had been out, having been placed there much earlier in the day? Either is possible.

There is no basis for assuming that anyone was with JB when she ate pineapple that night. She could simply have walked into the breakfast area, grabbed a few pieces with her fingers, and ate them.

Even if the Rs knew she consumed pineapple after the party, why would they clean up the breakfast bar if they were planning to say they put her to bed immediately after arriving home? As I've pointed out, you can't place BR/PR in the breakfast nook at the time she ate pineapple, and with the bowl out, it's easier to see how she might have had some pineapple after returning home. With everything put away and/or disposed of, it would be harder to see how she'd managed to eat pineapple.

Leaving the pineapple out was not a staging error. In fact, doing the opposite -cleaning everything up- would have been a staging error.

 

[Chrishope]

Chrishope,

Your grasp of logic appears questionable. The inference is justified, whether you accept it is another matter. If you cannot demonstrate that the bowl of pineapple was present in the breakfast bar prior to the R's leaving for the White's, how can you make claims regarding illogic?

I should not have said unjustified. You are right, it's a justifiable interpretation. But it's not the only logical interpretation. It's just as likely that the fingerprints were there from several hours prior.

You have elsewhere stated that you can place PR/BR at the breakfast bar, at the time JB snacked on pineapple, after the party. That simply isn't true. All the prints tell us is that BR/PR were there, not what time they were there.

Except that Burke and Patsy's fingerprints offer another interpretation, nice try though!

.

Another interpretation, but not proof. The hole you think this makes in the Rs story simply doesn't exist.

 

[DeeDee249]

Yeah, but the Ramseys also said JonBenet was asleep when they arrived home and that JonBenet was taken upstairs to bed without waking. They also stated that she would never come back downstairs at night by herself. They said she would never go with anyone unless she knew them.

Soooooo .... we are supposed to believe that shortly after 9:30 PM Christmas night someone JonBenet knew really well took her downstairs to eat pineapple and seemingly left no evidence they were there and Patsy and Burke's prints remain undisturbed. Add to that JonBenet ate pineapple that had been sitting out for a good long while and likely didn't taste good. All the while no one in the house knew what was going on.

I don't buy it.

JR claimed that when they arrived home that night, he and BR stayed up working on putting together or building a toy or something that BR had gotten for Christmas.
Patsy said that she was up and about doing last-minute preparations for their trip.
Fitting the pineapple snack into a likely timeline puts the family still up and about at the time that JB would have had to have eaten that pineapple.

As for WHY JB might want a snack after coming home from a party- well, anyone with kids should understand this. Kids don't always eat very much at a dinner party on a holiday like Christmas, especially at someone else's home. Kids are usually too busy playing with other kids, especially with all the new toys around. In fact, that was exactly why PW was ASKED (by JR, if I recall- and which he later tried to deny) to save a plate of cracked crab for JB, because she was busy playing and didn't want to sit down to eat.
So it is quite likely that when she got home, by then she WAS hungry. A snack of fruit before bed would be a perfect snack- not too heavy and not too sugary, as cookies or cake might be.
The pineapple snack fits perfectly into a very likely timeline of events that night, IMO.

There is only one reason the Rs needed to distance themselves from it:
Because the time it was eaten was close enough to the time of her death as to require an intruder/kidnapper to have to enter the home, taken, fed, molested, strangled, bashed, and killed her, PLUS write the note, wipe the flashlight, and exit the home and neighborhood ON FOOT and UNHEARD and UNSEEN- all while the rest of the family was still awake.
And they never expected anyone would ever know about the pineapple because they never thought about an autopsy or whether pineapple would be able to be identified as such in her digestive tract.

 

[Chrishope]

JR claimed that when they arrived home that night, he and BR stayed up working on putting together or building a toy or something that BR had gotten for Christmas.
Patsy said that she was up and about doing last-minute preparations for their trip.
Fitting the pineapple snack into a likely timeline puts the family still up and about at the time that JB would have had to have eaten that pineapple.

As for WHY JB might want a snack after coming home from a party- well, anyone with kids should understand this. Kids don't always eat very much at a dinner party on a holiday like Christmas, especially at someone else's home. Kids are usually too busy playing with other kids, especially with all the new toys around. In fact, that was exactly why PW was ASKED (by JR, if I recall- and which he later tried to deny) to save a plate of cracked crab for JB, because she was busy playing and didn't want to sit down to eat.
So it is quite likely that when she got home, by then she WAS hungry. A snack of fruit before bed would be a perfect snack- not too heavy and not too sugary, as cookies or cake might be.
The pineapple snack fits perfectly into a very likely timeline of events that night, IMO.

There is only one reason the Rs needed to distance themselves from it:
Because the time it was eaten was close enough to the time of her death as to require an intruder/kidnapper to have to enter the home, taken, fed, molested, strangled, bashed, and killed her, PLUS write the note, wipe the flashlight, and exit the home and neighborhood ON FOOT and UNHEARD and UNSEEN- all while the rest of the family was still awake.
And they never expected anyone would ever know about the pineapple because they never thought about an autopsy or whether pineapple would be able to be identified as such in her digestive tract.

It's quite possible the kids didn't eat anything nutritious at the party. I don't know many kids who won't eat cookies, candy, chex mix, etc. even at other people's homes. Not to mention pop, punch, kool-aide, or whatever was served for the kids to drink. I find it hard to believe they were actually hungry, upon returning home, but it's possible.

I'd agree that it's very likely the Rs never gave the pineapple any thought at all.

My point is that if they did give it some thought, and needed it to be consistent with their story, cleaning it up and putting things away would be exactly the wrong thing to do. It's harder to deny feeding her if nothing is out and accessible to her than if it's left out. That's why I disagree about it being a staging error.

 

[UKGuy]

I should not have said unjustified. You are right, it's a justifiable interpretation. But it's not the only logical interpretation. It's just as likely that the fingerprints were there from several hours prior.

You have elsewhere stated that you can place PR/BR at the breakfast bar, at the time JB snacked on pineapple, after the party. That simply isn't true. All the prints tell us is that BR/PR were there, not what time they were there.

Another interpretation, but not proof. The hole you think this makes in the Rs story simply doesn't exist.

Chrishope,

You have elsewhere stated that you can place PR/BR at the breakfast bar, at the time JB snacked on pineapple, after the party. That simply isn't true. All the prints tell us is that BR/PR were there, not what time they were there.

How do you know, were you present? Your logic chopping is becoming tiresome.

I do not require proof of any interpretation, that one exists in distinction to the R's version of events is enough to call into question any of their claims.

The R's claimed to have gone to bed, after which JonBenet snacked on pineapple, your version of events is predicated upon JonBenet removing the bowl herself, yet there is no report that her fingerprints are on the bowl, but Patsy's is!

You are suggesting that the forensic evidence in the breakfast bar evolved step by step, with the pineapple bowl, alike the horn of plenty, lying on the table offering sustenance to all.

Most people will accept that the configuration of a table represents a particular point in time, since that is what they are intended for, to suggest a table is simply a neutral zone of time independent operations is intellectually redundant.



.

 

[Chrishope]

Chrishope,


How do you know, were you present? Your logic chopping is becoming tiresome.

Pot, kettle. Yawn. Let's try again.

When I say it isn't true, I mean that you can't say as a matter of fact that PR/BR were present when JB ate the pineapple that night. They may have been present, but you cannot, with certainty, place them there with JB. It is possible the pineapple was out on the table for several hours- it would not be unusual to serve pineapple buffet style on a holiday. So when I say it isn't true, I mean it's not a fact. It's possible, but not a given. Hope that isn't too choppy for you to follow.

It is also possible that pineapple was cut earlier in the day, placed in the bowl and mostly consumed and fresh pineapple was added to the bowl for the post-party snack. We really don't know (unless you have some other info) whether the bowl was placed there upon return from the party, or had been there for some time.

I do not require proof of any interpretation, that one exists in distinction to the R's version of events is enough to call into question any of their claims.

Yes, there are multiple possibilities. The more important point is that calling a claim into question is not the same as proving they lied.

I think they probably did le, that JB probably was up for a little while after returning home. It is not a given that they all sat down and snacked on freshly prepared pineapple, with BR./PR present as JB ate. It's possible.

The R's claimed to have gone to bed, after which JonBenet snacked on pineapple, your version of events is predicated upon JonBenet removing the bowl herself, yet there is no report that her fingerprints are on the bowl, but Patsy's is!

No. I am not claiming that JB removed the bowl herself. In fact, I am expressly saying that with the bowl out on the table she could have helped herself w/o ever having to touch the bowl.

You are suggesting that the forensic evidence in the breakfast bar evolved step by step, with the pineapple bowl, alike the horn of plenty, lying on the table offering sustenance to all.

I'm suggesting the bowl of pineapple could have been set out for anyone to help themselves from, yes.

Most people will accept that the configuration of a table represents a particular point in time, since that is what they are intended for, to suggest a table is simply a neutral zone of time independent operations is intellectually redundant.

I'm not sure I can make sense of that paragraph, but I'll try.

When something is set out buffet style, it is intended that people will help themselves over the course of at least a few hours, and on a holiday, more likely several hours. It is fruit and so there is a limit on how long it will be left out, but different people observe very different limits.

Under any scenario, JBs prints are not on the bowl, and as far as I know, not on any utensils. Yet we know she ate pineapple. She must have either used her fingers, or the utensil she used was washed and put away (even though nothing else was) or she was spoon fed. Most 6 year olds would object to being spoon fed (e.g. treated like a baby) and it seems unlikely PR would have allowed her to use her fingers. So, I'd suggest it's likely she ate a few pieces when PR was not watching. This would seem more consistent with eating a few left over pieces still in the bowl that had been sitting out, as opposed to a freshly prepared snack with PR overseeing things. Not proof. Not stating this as absolute fact, just suggesting a scenario which I believe is consistent with the evidence.

The glass of tea also seems puzzling to me, if the snack were prepared post-party. Tea doesn't have a lot of caffeine, but it does have some (though of course there are decaf teas) so it doesn't seem the ideal drink for a 9 year old (presuming BR was the tea drinker) at bed time. Certainly within the realm of possibility. I ask myself would I serve tea to a 9 year old at 10pm and my answer is no. But then, PR may have done things differently than I would.

 

[DeeDee249]

Most fingerprints can't be "dated"- proven to have been left at a particular time. When they are, it is circumstantial, such as when an intruder's prints are found at a murder scene when they had no other reason to be there.

Interesting that NO intruder prints were ever found in this crime scene. The only prints found on articles related to the crime belong to family members.
The ONLY thing we KNOW that JB ate the pineapple about 2 hours before she died, and we have an approximate time of death of between midnight and 1 am, based not only on the pineapple but on the stage of rigor mortis of the body when found. The coroner, in a stunning lack of professional responsibility, failed to perform two very important tests on the body when he first examined her, so we can only base the TOD on the pineapple and rigor mortis.
We have NO way of knowing who, if anyone, was with her when she ate it. BR knows, to be sure. That is one of the questions I would HOPE the BPD want to ask him IF they ever talk to him. (Doubtful).
Most Americans drink hot tea in a mug or cup and iced tea in a glass. We don't know whether that tea was cold or not, or even of the glass had tea in it at all- it may have been used simply to discard the used tea bag in.
While most parents wouldn't give a child tea of any temperature before bed, BR was nearly 10 and I wouldn't be surprised if he did have tea. But because Patsy was very lax in putting things away, we really can't say that the tea and pineapple were consumed at the same time.
We don't even know if the spoon was tested. It should have been- this way it would be known if JB ate the pineapple with that spoon. Even the remaining pineapple and liquid in the bowl would have yielded JB's DNA (from her saliva) if she had placed the spoon back in the bowl after having it in her mouth. That test was never done as far as I know, and it was why the parents tried to say that the pineapple in JB's body wasn't THAT pineapple, even though tests proved it was exactly that pineapple.

 

[Chrishope]

Most fingerprints can't be "dated"- proven to have been left at a particular time. When they are, it is circumstantial, such as when an intruder's prints are found at a murder scene when they had no other reason to be there.

Interesting that NO intruder prints were ever found in this crime scene. The only prints found on articles related to the crime belong to family members.
The ONLY thing we KNOW that JB ate the pineapple about 2 hours before she died, and we have an approximate time of death of between midnight and 1 am, based not only on the pineapple but on the stage of rigor mortis of the body when found. The coroner, in a stunning lack of professional responsibility, failed to perform two very important tests on the body when he first examined her, so we can only base the TOD on the pineapple and rigor mortis.
We have NO way of knowing who, if anyone, was with her when she ate it. BR knows, to be sure. That is one of the questions I would HOPE the BPD want to ask him IF they ever talk to him. (Doubtful).
Most Americans drink hot tea in a mug or cup and iced tea in a glass. We don't know whether that tea was cold or not, or even of the glass had tea in it at all- it may have been used simply to discard the used tea bag in.
While most parents wouldn't give a child tea of any temperature before bed, BR was nearly 10 and I wouldn't be surprised if he did have tea. But because Patsy was very lax in putting things away, we really can't say that the tea and pineapple were consumed at the same time.
We don't even know if the spoon was tested. It should have been- this way it would be known if JB ate the pineapple with that spoon. Even the remaining pineapple and liquid in the bowl would have yielded JB's DNA (from her saliva) if she had placed the spoon back in the bowl after having it in her mouth. That test was never done as far as I know, and it was why the parents tried to say that the pineapple in JB's body wasn't THAT pineapple, even though tests proved it was exactly that pineapple.

Interesting that NO intruder prints were ever found in this crime scene. The only prints found on articles related to the crime belong to family members.

That is interesting, isn't it.

The ONLY thing we KNOW that JB ate the pineapple about 2 hours before she died, and we have an approximate time of death of between midnight and 1 am, based not only on the pineapple but on the stage of rigor mortis of the body when found. The coroner, in a stunning lack of professional responsibility, failed to perform two very important tests on the body when he first examined her, so we can only base the TOD on the pineapple and rigor mortis.

I agree. Though TOD based on rigor isn't all that precise, I think the times you've listed are reasonable estimates.

We have NO way of knowing who, if anyone, was with her when she ate it. BR knows, to be sure. That is one of the questions I would HOPE the BPD want to ask him IF they ever talk to him. (Doubtful).

No, we can only speculate. And it's up to BR whether or not he speaks to police. I agree it's doubtful.

Most Americans drink hot tea in a mug or cup and iced tea in a glass. We don't know whether that tea was cold or not, or even of the glass had tea in it at all- it may have been used simply to discard the used tea bag in.
While most parents wouldn't give a child tea of any temperature before bed, BR was nearly 10 and I wouldn't be surprised if he did have tea. But because Patsy was very lax in putting things away, we really can't say that the tea and pineapple were consumed at the same time.

Neither do we know what time of day the pineapple was prepared, or how long it had been out. PR claims to have cleaned up after breakfast, but then she claims not to know anything about the pineapple even though her prints are on the bowl.

With cream (or milk) in the bowl, it was likely meant to be consumed immediately, but this still dose not tell us when it was prepared.

We don't even know if the spoon was tested. It should have been- this way it would be known if JB ate the pineapple with that spoon. Even the remaining pineapple and liquid in the bowl would have yielded JB's DNA (from her saliva) if she had placed the spoon back in the bowl after having it in her mouth. That test was never done as far as I know, and it was why the parents tried to say that the pineapple in JB's body wasn't THAT pineapple, even though tests proved it was exactly that pineapple.

There is rarely as much testing in real life as there is in the TV crime shows.

We don't even know if the spoon was dusted for prints, do we? We know there are PR/BR prints on the bowl, and BR prints on the glass.

 

[UKGuy]

Pot, kettle. Yawn. Let's try again.

When I say it isn't true, I mean that you can't say as a matter of fact that PR/BR were present when JB ate the pineapple that night. They may have been present, but you cannot, with certainty, place them there with JB. It is possible the pineapple was out on the table for several hours- it would not be unusual to serve pineapple buffet style on a holiday. So when I say it isn't true, I mean it's not a fact. It's possible, but not a given. Hope that isn't too choppy for you to follow.

It is also possible that pineapple was cut earlier in the day, placed in the bowl and mostly consumed and fresh pineapple was added to the bowl for the post-party snack. We really don't know (unless you have some other info) whether the bowl was placed there upon return from the party, or had been there for some time.

Yes, there are multiple possibilities. The more important point is that calling a claim into question is not the same as proving they lied.

I think they probably did le, that JB probably was up for a little while after returning home. It is not a given that they all sat down and snacked on freshly prepared pineapple, with BR./PR present as JB ate. It's possible.

No. I am not claiming that JB removed the bowl herself. In fact, I am expressly saying that with the bowl out on the table she could have helped herself w/o ever having to touch the bowl.

I'm suggesting the bowl of pineapple could have been set out for anyone to help themselves from, yes.

I'm not sure I can make sense of that paragraph, but I'll try.

When something is set out buffet style, it is intended that people will help themselves over the course of at least a few hours, and on a holiday, more likely several hours. It is fruit and so there is a limit on how long it will be left out, but different people observe very different limits.

Under any scenario, JBs prints are not on the bowl, and as far as I know, not on any utensils. Yet we know she ate pineapple. She must have either used her fingers, or the utensil she used was washed and put away (even though nothing else was) or she was spoon fed. Most 6 year olds would object to being spoon fed (e.g. treated like a baby) and it seems unlikely PR would have allowed her to use her fingers. So, I'd suggest it's likely she ate a few pieces when PR was not watching. This would seem more consistent with eating a few left over pieces still in the bowl that had been sitting out, as opposed to a freshly prepared snack with PR overseeing things. Not proof. Not stating this as absolute fact, just suggesting a scenario which I believe is consistent with the evidence.

The glass of tea also seems puzzling to me, if the snack were prepared post-party. Tea doesn't have a lot of caffeine, but it does have some (though of course there are decaf teas) so it doesn't seem the ideal drink for a 9 year old (presuming BR was the tea drinker) at bed time. Certainly within the realm of possibility. I ask myself would I serve tea to a 9 year old at 10pm and my answer is no. But then, PR may have done things differently than I would.

Chrishope,

When I say it isn't true, I mean that you can't say as a matter of fact that PR/BR were present when JB ate the pineapple that night. They may have been present, but you cannot, with certainty, place them there with JB. It is possible the pineapple was out on the table for several hours- it would not be unusual to serve pineapple buffet style on a holiday. So when I say it isn't true, I mean it's not a fact. It's possible, but not a given. Hope that isn't too choppy for you to follow.

Similary, and this is where logic chopping arises, neither can you offer any certainty regarding your view.

Yes, there are multiple possibilities. The more important point is that calling a claim into question is not the same as proving they lied.

That would represent a matter of fact so would be beyond speculation. The more salient issue is, could circumstances have been such that the R's had knowledge that JonBenet snacked pineapple. If you can eliminate the latter then you can proceed to accept the R's version of events. Your position appears to that the breakfast bar forensic evidence may have arranged itself in a wholly independent manner, detached from JonBenet snacking pineapple.

When considering the likelyhood of events, we are dealing with the balance of probabilities, so rather than injecting qualifications into events so to render them believable, e.g. the pineapple was served earlier in the day, and left in situ, or JonBenet used her fingers to eat, rather than the spoon, or the teabag was left in the glass the day before. It might be more helpful to simply invoke occam's razor, removing the choppyness, and ask is the simplest and most obvious explanation likely to be correct?

So, I'd suggest it's likely she ate a few pieces when PR was not watching.

This is entirely possible, but why would JonBenet be snacking late at night on food prepared much earlier in the day, bear in mind there was condensed milk in bowl too, a particular favorite of JonBenet, not a feature that lends itself to buffet style?

The simplest explanation appears the best, e.g. Patsy prepared the snack for JonBenet! Other interpretations of the forensic evidence are availaible but require embellishments and qualifications that render them less probable.

The glass of tea also seems puzzling to me, if the snack were prepared post-party. Tea doesn't have a lot of caffeine, but it does have some (though of course there are decaf teas) so it doesn't seem the ideal drink for a 9 year old (presuming BR was the tea drinker) at bed time. Certainly within the realm of possibility. I ask myself would I serve tea to a 9 year old at 10pm and my answer is no. But then, PR may have done things differently than I would.

The teabag may have arrived on the table at any point in time, it could be independent of the pineapple snack or an event that took place at the same time. Again the simplest explanation appears the best: Burke made himself a cup of tea, either in the glass, or deposited the teabag into the glass. He either stayed and chatted with Patsy and JonBenet or took his cup of tea and himself off somewhere else?

The presence of the fingerprints do not prove these events took place within the same time-frame, but there is nothing other than the R's word, to suggest otherwise.

Even if Patsy prepared the pineapple earlier in the day, something I doubt, she still has knowledge of the pineapple, also on arriving back from the White's I doubt she was going to abandon JonBenet and Burke to their own devices, if so I would expect to see Burkes fingerprints on all the artifacts.

I reckon on the balance of probability Patsy knew JonBenet snacked pineapple, similarly but not with the same margin of confidence, Burke knows JonBenet snacked pinapple. The fingerprints corroborates this assertion, which for me means either Patsy forgot or never had time to cleanup the breakfast bar?


.

 

[Chrishope]

Chrishope,

Similary, and this is where logic chopping arises, neither can you offer any certainty regarding your view.

That would represent a matter of fact so would be beyond speculation. The more salient issue is, could circumstances have been such that the R's had knowledge that JonBenet snacked pineapple. If you can eliminate the latter then you can proceed to accept the R's version of events. Your position appears to that the breakfast bar forensic evidence may have arranged itself in a wholly independent manner, detached from JonBenet snacking pineapple.

When considering the likelyhood of events, we are dealing with the balance of probabilities, so rather than injecting qualifications into events so to render them believable, e.g. the pineapple was served earlier in the day, and left in situ, or JonBenet used her fingers to eat, rather than the spoon, or the teabag was left in the glass the day before. It might be more helpful to simply invoke occam's razor, removing the choppyness, and ask is the simplest and most obvious explanation likely to be correct?


This is entirely possible, but why would JonBenet be snacking late at night on food prepared much earlier in the day, bear in mind there was condensed milk in bowl too, a particular favorite of JonBenet, not a feature that lends itself to buffet style?

The simplest explanation appears the best, e.g. Patsy prepared the snack for JonBenet! Other interpretations of the forensic evidence are availaible but require embellishments and qualifications that render them less probable.


The teabag may have arrived on the table at any point in time, it could be independent of the pineapple snack or an event that took place at the same time. Again the simplest explanation appears the best: Burke made himself a cup of tea, either in the glass, or deposited the teabag into the glass. He either stayed and chatted with Patsy and JonBenet or took his cup of tea and himself off somewhere else?

The presence of the fingerprints do not prove these events took place within the same time-frame, but there is nothing other than the R's word, to suggest otherwise.

Even if Patsy prepared the pineapple earlier in the day, something I doubt, she still has knowledge of the pineapple, also on arriving back from the White's I doubt she was going to abandon JonBenet and Burke to their own devices, if so I would expect to see Burkes fingerprints on all the artifacts.

I reckon on the balance of probability Patsy knew JonBenet snacked pineapple, similarly but not with the same margin of confidence, Burke knows JonBenet snacked pinapple. The fingerprints corroborates this assertion, which for me means either Patsy forgot or never had time to cleanup the breakfast bar?
.

When considering the likelyhood of events, we are dealing with the balance of probabilities, so rather than injecting qualifications into events so to render them believable, e.g. the pineapple was served earlier in the day, and left in situ, or JonBenet used her fingers to eat, rather than the spoon, or the teabag was left in the glass the day before. It might be more helpful to simply invoke occam's razor, removing the choppyness, and ask is the simplest and most obvious explanation likely to be correct?

But what is the simplest explanation? I agree that condensed milk in the bowl makes it unlikely it was set out buffet style. Still, we don't know that it was prepared after arriving home from the party.

I agree that we need to look at the probabilities but just what is the most probable scenario?

If the snack were prepared after the party, and was intended for both kids, then I'd expect at least 2 spoons, and IMO it's more probable there would be 2 bowls.

The teabag may have arrived on the table at any point in time, it could be independent of the pineapple snack or an event that took place at the same time. Again the simplest explanation appears the best: Burke made himself a cup of tea, either in the glass, or deposited the teabag into the glass. He either stayed and chatted with Patsy and JonBenet or took his cup of tea and himself off somewhere else?

Speaking of qualifications and choppiness.

I reckon on the balance of probability Patsy knew JonBenet snacked pineapple, similarly but not with the same margin of confidence, Burke knows JonBenet snacked pinapple. The fingerprints corroborates this assertion, which for me means either Patsy forgot or never had time to cleanup the breakfast bar?
.

JB's prints are not on the bowl or the glass. So, if we assume momentarily that both kids sat down to a post-party pineapple snack, one was not able to eat w/o leaving prints, and the other was able to eat w/o leaving any. Though we cannot be sure what the gaggle of guests touched, cleaned up etc. before the crime scene photos were taken, as far as we know, there is no separate cup for the tea, no 2nd spoon for the second child, and only one bowl for them to eat from jointly. To me it's not very probable that PR set out one bowl and one spoon for two kids. One bowl and two spoons would, IMO, be stretching credibility. If she was going to bother cutting up fresh pineapple after the party, how much more trouble is it to put some in a 2nd bowl with it's own spoon?

It seems more probable to me that the snack was either prepared for one child, who had complained of being hungry, (while the other declined) or that it had been prepared prior to the party and was not cleaned up - thus still on the table and accessible.

Regardless of what time the pineapple was prepared, we have PRs prints to suggest she prepared it, and BRs to suggest he handled the bowl and glass -and presumably ate some pineapple, but we have nothing to link JB to the bowl, except of course the fact that pineapple was in her small intestine. We must then accept that she ate pineapple, post-party, but we must also struggle to explain the circumstances.

We have a bowl with PR/BR prints, and a glass with BR prints, and nothing with JB prints. (Too bad the spoon was not tested) So what really is the probability? Did JB share a bowl and spoon with BR? I think this unlikely, if they were under PRs supervision. Did she have her own spoon, sharing from the same bowl? I regard this as somewhat unlikely too, and it raises the question - where's the second spoon?

Was the pineapple prepared for one child - Burke- and JB decided she just wanted a little and was fed a few pieces with BRs spoon? Possible. But I'd imagine PR would frown on sharing a spoon. Did she just pick a few pieces from the bowl with her fingers? It seems likely to me, as we have no 2nd spoon, and no JB prints on the bowl.

Somehow, she ate pineapple, and as far as we know, the only pineapple is in the one bowl, with the one spoon. Is it really much of a stretch to suggest she ate a few pieces with her fingers?

If she did take a few pieces with her fingers then she might have eaten it at the same time BR was eating "his" pineapple snack, or she might have taken from a bowl left out from earlier in the day. If one is willing to consider that the glass was there from earlier in the day, why not the bowl of pineapple?

Would she have been more likely to have taken a few pieces from a bowl left out, or from BR's bowl as he sat eating "his" snack, with PR overseeing events?

I'd suggest the simplest explanation is that the bowl had been left out, and JB slipped into the breakfast room and helped herself to a few pieces. She may have used the spoon - we can't know at this point, or she may simply have used fingers, as 6 year olds are prone to do.

There is of course no certainty, and I don't offer it as the only plausible explanation. Certainly it's no choppier or more convoluted than 2 children sharing from one bowl with one spoon, or a missing 2nd bowl/spoon, with BR making hot tea in a cup that was never found and depositing the tea bag in a glass which he definitely handled.