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.