“If life gives you melons”

Since: Nov 06

You might be dyslexic

#91 Apr 7, 2013
Steve Eller wrote:
In order to edify some points about which some of you may be confused. The crab that JonBenet ate at the Whites had been digested, the pineapple had not. The Whites did not serve pineapple. A considerable amount of time had passed before the Ramseys were informed about the pineapple in JonBenet's system, precluding one of their 'miraculous' and often employed 'memory adjustments'. In order to break down a little simpler: The Ramseys shouted from the rooftops about JonBenet falling asleep in the car taking her upstairs while she was ASLEEP and putting her to bed. Subsequently they all must have gone to sleep so exhausted that they failed to notice the six midget ninja contortionists with stun guns and fresh pineapple who invaded the Home.
I agree with almost everything you said, but in all fairness, we know Priscilla said she saved some crab for JBR because she knew she liked it, however we don't know if JBR ate any of it, or we don't know if she ate anything at all over there.

Since: Oct 08

Grande Prairie, Canada

#92 Apr 7, 2013
Also, as I understand it, food does not exit the stomach in the same order that it enters so Iím not even sure that we can definitively say that the pineapple was the last thing that she ate.

Sadly, this is all sort of moot. Regardless of when or how far ahead of the head blow the pineapple was eaten we still know nothing about the circumstances.
Ö

AK
Steve Eller

United States

#94 Apr 7, 2013
Crabtree wrote:
<quoted text>
Source that please.
It came from Brother Moon. Deal with it!
Steve Eller

United States

#97 Apr 7, 2013
True Bill wrote:
<quoted text>
What little cred you had is gone if you cannot source that.
It came from Brother Moon while Blue Bottle was doing the thinking and Banquo was on the air with Peter Boyles making a fool out of himself.

Since: May 11

AOL

#98 Apr 7, 2013
Steve Eller wrote:
<quoted text>
It came from Brother Moon while Blue Bottle was doing the thinking and Banquo was on the air with Peter Boyles making a fool out of himself.
what happened on Peter Boyles, Steve? That's the second time I've read that and wondered what BM did.
Steve Eller

United States

#99 Apr 7, 2013
realTopaz wrote:
<quoted text>
what happened on Peter Boyles, Steve? That's the second time I've read that and wondered what BM did.
I am not trying to be mean, but, he went on the air with Peter Boyles trying to advocate his theory on the case and Boyles to his credit (even though he was chuckling at times) gave him plenty of time to explain his point of view and he just could not come close to making a well reasoned argument. He was just sputtering around saying that 'this' is what he thought happened and couldn't explain why. What I find ironic about that incident is that Moom is so used to trying to bully people and insult them when he is hiding behind a screen, and then he crumbled faster than a deck of cards when someone actually asked him a question on the radio.

Since: May 11

AOL

#100 Apr 7, 2013
Steve Eller wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not trying to be mean, but, he went on the air with Peter Boyles trying to advocate his theory on the case and Boyles to his credit (even though he was chuckling at times) gave him plenty of time to explain his point of view and he just could not come close to making a well reasoned argument. He was just sputtering around saying that 'this' is what he thought happened and couldn't explain why. What I find ironic about that incident is that Moom is so used to trying to bully people and insult them when he is hiding behind a screen, and then he crumbled faster than a deck of cards when someone actually asked him a question on the radio.
Thanks, that's not mean..just honest. I'm shocked BM didn't read from his script..Sandy Stranger and the pineapple in cream and Patsy's disassociative doings and poor, dull witted JR had no idea whatsoever and still hasn't come to grips, blah blah blah.
Seriously, I wish PB had someone on that could tell BM there was NO CREAM in that confounded bowl of aloha! lol

Since: Oct 08

Grande Prairie, Canada

#101 Apr 7, 2013
As I remember it Brothermoon was reasonably articulate and had no problem explaining his ďtheory,Ē itís just that it came off a little far-fetched and Boyles wasnít really buying into it; he was dismissive of it. At least thatís how I heard it. You might hear it differently.
Ö

AK
deb

Minneapolis, MN

#102 Apr 7, 2013
Steve Eller wrote:
In order to edify some points about which some of you may be confused. The crab that JonBenet ate at the Whites had been digested, the pineapple had not. The Whites did not serve pineapple. A considerable amount of time had passed before the Ramseys were informed about the pineapple in JonBenet's system, precluding one of their 'miraculous' and often employed 'memory adjustments'. In order to break down a little simpler: The Ramseys shouted from the rooftops about JonBenet falling asleep in the car taking her upstairs while she was ASLEEP and putting her to bed. Subsequently they all must have gone to sleep so exhausted that they failed to notice the six midget ninja contortionists with stun guns and fresh pineapple who invaded the Home.
"Edify" ?? Probably the wrong choice of words?

YOU do not know if Jonbenet even ate crab at FW's, let alone know it was digested.

YOU do not know if pineapple was served at the White's unless you were there and you were paying close attention and have a great memory...were you?

“YES”

Since: Mar 07

TWICE

#105 Apr 8, 2013
Spam Detector wrote:
For all of you spammers that inappropriately use big words to fool yourselves that you are educated, intelligent and talented please post the evidence to back up your claims.
Sadly and unfortunately, you have become quite the spammer yourself. Just because we know who you are doesn't mean it isn't spam and unwelcomed

What a disappointment

Since: Jul 10

Crimson Tide Bulldozed

#106 Apr 8, 2013
Edify was completely THE correct word - you should look it up.

Pineapple, as determined by the investigation, was NOT served at the Whites. None of the people attending the dinner ever said pineapple was served or even existed in the home, including JR and PR! Please stop attempting to rewrite history.
deb wrote:
<quoted text>
"Edify" ?? Probably the wrong choice of words?

YOU do not know if pineapple was served at the White's unless you were there and you were paying close attention and have a great memory...were you?

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#107 Apr 8, 2013
Anti-K wrote:
<quoted text>
With all due respect learnin, Iím going to go with BPDís experts on this one Ė two to five hours. However, this is a subject of which I know little so I canít really argue with you over it.
I am having some trouble accepting that BPDís experts were referring to time for the pineapple to transit the whole system Ė why would anyone mention such a thing when it didnít happen?
Also, when one googles transit times Ė enter to exit Ė all show a wide variation with times ranging from 10 or 12 to 50 hours! Thatís a far cry from two to five! So, I canít see BPDís experts referring to anything other than the time it took for the pineapple to reach the point where it was found.
This is all a bit confusing to me, but it does seem that transit times are variable, individualistic (you and I are not necessarily the same) and contingent (health, mood, type of food, etc).
I donít know if this helps, but iirc at last one source said that the time was determined by condition of the pineapple and not necessarily the location. Does this make any sense to you?
Ö
AK
Hi AK,
Agree with the 2 to 5 hour time span, if you like, however if you want to come up with a viable theory, you had better go with a
45 minute time frame at the max.
There are variations in transit time, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU CONSIDER THE SMALL AND LARGE INTESTINES. The greatest degree of variability occurs in the large intestine where the foodstuff remains the longest. It is here where most of the moisture is absorbed. So, 50 hour time range means from stomach to evacuation.
With JBR, we are only interested in the time it takes for food particles to exit the stomach and move a few feet into the proximal small intestine of a child. I have given multiple examples of how quickly foodstuff moves through the small intestine.

1. Digestive expert, who removed the entire colon of a young lady, told the patient to expect 71 minutes from eating to evacuation. She evacuates in 51 minutes.

2. My dad, with colostomy, evacuated meals within one hour.

3. The pineapple, I ate, was moving through my mid small intestine within 30 minutes.

4. I ate a medium sized bowl of cantaloupe before leaving for work one morning. When I arrived at work, 30 minutes later, my stomach was growling and was completely empty.

5. In Nuclear Medicine Gastric Emptying Studies, and I've seen hundreds, the first part of a meal is well into the small intestine within 30-45 minutes....always unless the person is compromised by illness.

Now, what about the appearance of the pineapple and did that have anything to do with the estimate of time? Over 24 hours after death, at the autopsy, the examiner could visually guess that the fragments were pineapple. This tells me that the pineapple had not been in the girls intestine long at the time of death.
Trator

Las Vegas, NV

#111 Apr 8, 2013
John Deer? What are you all talking about?
Farming?

John

Since: Oct 08

Grande Prairie, Canada

#112 Apr 8, 2013
learnin wrote:
<quoted text>
Hi AK,
Agree with the 2 to 5 hour time span, if you like, however if you want to come up with a viable theory, you had better go with a
45 minute time frame at the max.
There are variations in transit time, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU CONSIDER THE SMALL AND LARGE INTESTINES. The greatest degree of variability occurs in the large intestine where the foodstuff remains the longest. It is here where most of the moisture is absorbed. So, 50 hour time range means from stomach to evacuation.
With JBR, we are only interested in the time it takes for food particles to exit the stomach and move a few feet into the proximal small intestine of a child. I have given multiple examples of how quickly foodstuff moves through the small intestine.
1. Digestive expert, who removed the entire colon of a young lady, told the patient to expect 71 minutes from eating to evacuation. She evacuates in 51 minutes.
2. My dad, with colostomy, evacuated meals within one hour.
3. The pineapple, I ate, was moving through my mid small intestine within 30 minutes.
4. I ate a medium sized bowl of cantaloupe before leaving for work one morning. When I arrived at work, 30 minutes later, my stomach was growling and was completely empty.
5. In Nuclear Medicine Gastric Emptying Studies, and I've seen hundreds, the first part of a meal is well into the small intestine within 30-45 minutes....always unless the person is compromised by illness.
Now, what about the appearance of the pineapple and did that have anything to do with the estimate of time? Over 24 hours after death, at the autopsy, the examiner could visually guess that the fragments were pineapple. This tells me that the pineapple had not been in the girls intestine long at the time of death.
Yes, the ten to fifty hour time range means from stomach to evacuation. This is one reason why I donít see BPDís two to five hours as representing anything other than the time to reach the point where the pineapple was found.

Iím not agreeing with the two to five hour range, Iím simply accepting it as the range given by BPDís experts. Maybe theyíre all wrong and your 15 Ė 45 minutes is closer to the truth, but Iím not sure if it really matters because both scenarios suggest pineapple that was eaten after returning home from the Whites.

Sadly, this doesnít tell us much.

It is also unfortunate that we canít actually eliminate the possibility that the pineapple was eaten before going to the Whites, or, if she brought a chunk, like candy, in a box, a bag, a baggie, a container, a pocket and that it was eaten at the Whites or before falling asleep in the car. I find this unlikely, but who knows? There is at least one BPD expert who says that it could have been eaten as early as 4:30. Some experts would say that there are too many variables to make a certain determination: onset of illness, excitement/stress, exhaustion/sleep, other items ingested, factors peculiar to the individual, blah, blah, blahÖ

I donít have any pineapple theories. She ate it. She ate it hours or minutes before being struck on the head. What happened leading up to her eating that small bit of pineapple? I have no idea. What happened between the time she ate that wee bit and when she was struck on the head? I just donít know.
Ö

AK

“Hey”

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#115 Apr 9, 2013
I disagree. Why would someone tie ligatures to a child that is already dead? Wait, I know, she suspended her right? Must have not been very effective though considering the only ligature furrow was around her neck. And she definitely wasn't suspended from her neck. She was face down next to that paint tray when that furrow was created.

1.Molestation-Burke
2.Head Bash-Burke
3.Plan-John w/ some advice.(Missing phone records)
4.Bedtime-Burke
5.Cover Up and Pseudo Assault-John, Patsy
6.911 Call-Patsy

Bet on it.
BrotherMoon wrote:
Patsy fed JonBenet happiness then strangled her, bashed her in the head, tied ligatures to her neck and wrists, posed her, viewed her, took her down, wrapped her and applied duct tape to her mouth and placed her in the small room.

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#116 Apr 9, 2013
DrSeussMd wrote:
Edify was completely THE correct word - you should look it up.
<quoted text>
"Edify:(v) Instruct or improve (someone) morally or intellectually." IOW, to educate. One cannot "edify" points, nor inanimate objects. One can edify others, but one cannot edify that which has no moral and/or intellectual capacity.(i.e. thoughts, opinions, objects, etc.)

Since: Jul 10

Crimson Tide Bulldozed

#117 Apr 9, 2013
The person speaking can "enlighten", "inform", "edify", "educate", "instruct", and "teach" about a subject when making a statement, which was 'understood' in the original post.
Take your own advice Ė you were not invited to this argument!
Mama2JML wrote:
<quoted text>"Edify:(v) Instruct or improve (someone) morally or intellectually." IOW, to educate. One cannot "edify" points, nor inanimate objects. One can edify others, but one cannot edify that which has no moral and/or intellectual capacity.(i.e. thoughts, opinions, objects, etc.)
Steve Eller

United States

#118 Apr 9, 2013
Mama2JML wrote:
<quoted text>"Edify:(v) Instruct or improve (someone) morally or intellectually." IOW, to educate. One cannot "edify" points, nor inanimate objects. One can edify others, but one cannot edify that which has no moral and/or intellectual capacity.(i.e. thoughts, opinions, objects, etc.)
According to Oxford edify is defined as "instruct or improve (someone) morally or intellectually". Your willfull ignorance of basic facts in this case necessitated an edification based on explaining basic facts and events in this case. Next tip: look up the word "staging" in the dictionary. You may have an epiphany.
deb

Minneapolis, MN

#119 Apr 9, 2013
Steve Eller wrote:
<quoted text>
According to Oxford edify is defined as "instruct or improve (someone) morally or intellectually". Your willfull ignorance of basic facts in this case necessitated an edification based on explaining basic facts and events in this case. Next tip: look up the word "staging" in the dictionary. You may have an epiphany.
Just admit you used the word edify incorrectly. You used it regarding a word - which is why I mentioned it. One cannot "edify" a word.

You could use your own "edification." BTW, the correct spelling of "willfull" is willful.

And you were telling another poster to learn English - shame on you!:)

You remind me of Mr. Hawaii - CC. Always wrong, but always thought he was right.
Steve Eller

United States

#120 Apr 9, 2013
deb wrote:
<quoted text>
Just admit you used the word edify incorrectly. You used it regarding a word - which is why I mentioned it. One cannot "edify" a word.
You could use your own "edification." BTW, the correct spelling of "willfull" is willful.
And you were telling another poster to learn English - shame on you!:)
You remind me of Mr. Hawaii - CC. Always wrong, but always thought he was right.
Sorry if I misspelled willful but I was typing away quickly on my Blackberry. I stand by what I wrote and forgive the misspelling but you and your cohorts spread so much disinformation about this case I can't keep up.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

JonBenet Ramsey Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Note-odd detail? 3 hr Steve Eller 545
Lou encourage Ramseys to exhume body? 5 hr Just Wondering 32
Jonbenet's 3rd SANTA (May '10) 5 hr whobodydunit 196
Jonbenet's "Secret Santa..." 7 hr Maqa 33
Linguistic analysis of the JonBenet Ramsey rans... 10 hr Legal__Eagle 109
Steve Thomas Update 2009 (May '09) 22 hr whobodydunit 242
Patsy vs. Oswald Sun Just Wondering 2
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

JonBenet Ramsey People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••