two questions

[Eagle1]

So there were more dishes about than just the pineapple bowl, and it just wasn't mentioned at first, until the "friends" were washing dishes, correct?

If they were partying that night, we still can't guess if it was in that house or someone else's. Had they left dirty dishes when they went to the Whites', or had there been a party?

 

[UKGuy]

UK Guy - "As long as the intruder, "intrudes" after JonBenet snacks the pineapple."

You kinda answered your own statement - none of the Ramseys claim to know anything about the pineapple.

So, an intruder (known to the JonBenet), after sneaking into the house, had pineapple with her....?

TLynn:
Not quite as you sequence it. An intruder may have killed JonBenet "after" she had snacked pineapple, possibly with Burke. He may have retired to bed or some other room, who knows? With her alone the intruder may have been known to the family and returning to take advantage of specific knowledge. Else he may have been a stranger intruder acting impulsively. But neither can be conclusively ruled out. The dna in her panties and under her nails leaves some room for speculation ...

 

[UKGuy]

So there were more dishes about than just the pineapple bowl, and it just wasn't mentioned at first, until the "friends" were washing dishes, correct?

If they were partying that night, we still can't guess if it was in that house or someone else's. Had they left dirty dishes when they went to the Whites', or had there been a party?

Eagle1:
Lots of stuff was never mentioned initially. Some of the first officers on the scene moved evidence around, contaminated some rooms, and never secured them at all. Its likely some officers afterwards would not want to admit to messing up a crime scene.

Now if we are going to clean up the kitchen, specifically do some washing up, why not just wash up the pineapple bowl too, along with Burke's tea-cup and JonBenet's glass if there was one. Why just wash up some stuff? The residue from the pineapple session appeared fairly innocuous, no homicidal traits etc.

If John or Patsy decided earlier to remove any partying evidence, why not clear up the pineapple session stuff also.

Somehow I suspect the pineapple session and her murder are separated by a reasonable length of time. Long enough for the kitchen scene and its particulars either to be unknown to Patsy and John, or to appear domestic in appearance.

The pineapple session portrays a scene of relative domestic calm. It suggests *whenever* she arrived back home she was socializing and snacking, maybe she had changed from her party clothes to something she preferred or wore the red top to please her Mom, or she could have been in her nightdress ready for bed, and also *not* wearing socks. Later she would be found re-dressed as if she had been in bed and was wearing no socks.

So the pineapple session is an interesting interlude, it can tell you something about JonBenet's state of mind, possibly how she was dressed, and suggest a timeframe for her killling, its certainly inconsistent with John and Patsy's version of events!

 

[Eagle1]

The friends had been called pretty early, wouldn't have had breakfast, so, besides there probably being dirty dishes because the housekeeper was off for Christmas, the group of friends had probably made themselves some food. I forget where the pineapple bowl was found, on the table? So the friends ate standing up or in another room, probably.

Thanks, UK. I think you were the first to remember about other dishes.

This case just goes around in circles, very cunning perp, in my opinion, wiping the flashlight batteries, not leaving any unintended clues, planting the kind that Patsy could have, making so many others possible suspects.

 

[Arielle]

I want to know why Patsy got up and put on the same clothes she was wearing the night before. It seems odd to me that she would wear the same clothes two days in a row and not shower - especially when she was going on vacation that day. Has she ever said anything to explain why she did that?

My thoughts are two fold. If she is innocent, then she put the clothes back on because she had not worn them for long the night before, only for the party. THey therefore were not dirty, smelly clothes. Its not like she put on clothes she had been sweating and grubbing in the dirt again. It was a nice Christmassy outfit. From a personal standpoint, I do this often, especially if I am going on a trip early the next day. And I routinely wear the same pair of slacks 2 days in a row. I will change my undergarments and usually my shirt. But if I just put something on in the evening and it still looks nice, I may wear the entire outfit again, especially if I am not expecting to see the same people on the new day except family.

If she is guilty, then she never took them off. Pretty stupid if you ask me.

 

[IrishMist]

It was a nice Christmassy outfit. From a personal standpoint, I do this often, especially if I am going on a trip early the next day. And I routinely wear the same pair of slacks 2 days in a row. I will change my undergarments and usually my shirt. But if I just put something on in the evening and it still looks nice, I may wear the entire outfit again, especially if I am not expecting to see the same people on the new day except family.

I do this, too.
A thought just struck me while I was reading this post...

If she was guilty, and wore that outfit all night- wouldn't it be nasty, sweaty and rumpled?

I'd never thought of that before.

 

[Eagle1]

Now if we are going to clean up the kitchen, specifically do some washing up, why not just wash up the pineapple bowl too, along with Burke's tea-cup and JonBenet's glass if there was one. Why just wash up some stuff? The residue from the pineapple session appeared fairly innocuous, no homicidal traits etc. QUOTE]

Probably LE had already confiscated the bowl before the friends started cleaning up the rest of the kitchen. So can we assume they used fingerprint dust on the other dirty dishes too, and only found prints on the one bowl? Having the fingerprint dust laying around afterwards would prompt the friends to start cleaning it up for the bereaved parents. I think.

 

[Eagle1]

If she was guilty, and wore that outfit all night- wouldn't it be nasty, sweaty and rumpled?

Yes, I'm a 3rd one who, under the circumstances, might want to wear the party clothes again, to continue the festive mood, and to not rumple another outfit for such a short trip, relatively short, from Boulder to Charlevoix, and that's a good point, if she'd been wearing the outfit all night, when so much was happening, it probably would have needed replacing.

Red fibers on some of the duct tape could have come from the Santa Bear or some other source, according to the psychic "Ruthie" who died. And yes, Patsy's smart enough to know handwriting would be examined.

VERY GOOD POINTS, both of you, in my opinion.

 

[RedChief]

Burke was never interviewed as a suspect. He was allowed to walk away from the crime scene and JR stopped the only detective who wanted to talk to him before he left.

Burke was questioned later at the White's house but the crime was still a kidnapping at that time and Burke was not a suspect in that crime.

Without the ransom note, things would have been a lot different for both Burke and his parents.

Without the ransom note (WRN), the police would have immediately searched the house thoroughly from top to bottom? John would have had no excuse for not immediately doing so prior to reporting JBR missing? If John had, WRN, not included the wine cellar in his search, what excuse could he make for not doing so, and wouldn't LE have been just as, if not more, suspicious of the Ramseys? If, WRN, the police had failed to find the body, how would the Ramseys have disposed of it?

The note was apparently written by someone who knew John and knew that it wouldn't be easy to convince him that his daughter had been kidnapped or that she would be returned to him safe and sound for a measly $118,000; hence, the long, threatening note. Perhaps this person had seen the movie, "Ruthless People", about a kidnapping that went sour because the husband was delighted that his wife had been kidnapped and wasn't about to pay a ransom for her. Incidentally, at one point in this movie it was suggested to the husband that he could get the money from his retirement account. Or, maybe the note writer had seen Ransom and remembered that the FBI guy had told the father of the kidnapped child that the kidnapper didn't ask for more (he asked for 2 million) because "he's makin' it easy for you; knows you got it; knows you won't have any trouble coughing it up." Incidentally, the call to the husband in "Ruthless People" begins, "Mr. Stone, Listen very carefully." Also, as I'm sure most of you know (just a reminder), there are several lines in the note that are reminiscent of this movie, including the caveat that killing the abductee won't be difficult ("We have no qualms...").

Use that good southern common sense of yours. BTW, to "watch over" is to "guard" per Webster's Collegiate Dictionary. Folks around here would never refer to guarding or detaining someone as "watching over." In this neck of the woods, to watch over is to protect. I recall seeing a news report on TV about the Shoe Bomber. A lady who was a passenger on the plane, and was being interviewed, said that after the Bomber was wrestled to the floor and subdued, some fellow passengers were "watching over him." I remember wanting to know how much time she had spent in the South.

Stop me, before I write more....

 

[BrotherMoon]

No, keep going, at least in your investigation. Books and movies are very important in this case. I generalize them as the literary influence on Patsy Ramsey. I say she is lost in literature much the same way Mark David Chapman is with The Catcher in the Rye.