DNA and Krane

Since: Feb 12

San Diego, CA

#288 Nov 16, 2013
Anti-K wrote:
<quoted text>
The 30 minutes fits somewhere between the time the Ramseys got home that night (approx. 9:30ish) and the time the victim was assaulted. If she was assaulted at one in the morning, then the pineapple fits in at 12:30. If she was assaulted at two in the morning, then the pineapple fits in at 1:30, etc....
The fact that the Ramseys don’t know when Jonbenet ate the pineapple only means that they don’t know when she ate the pineapple.
...
AK
Hi AK,
It is NOT a fact that the Ramseys don't (didn't) know when JBR ate the pineapple. That is their CLAIM. Since no one else has been proven to be in the home besides the four, and JBR was said not able to open the heavy door of the refrigerator, SOMEONE obviously fed JBR that pineapple, and that someone knows when it was consumed.

We know for fact, that the last people known to have seen JBR alive were Patsy, John, and Burke. We DO NOT know for FACT, that there was any intruder.
CC

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#289 Nov 18, 2013
Anti-K wrote:
<quoted text>
The discrepancy is between the Burke and the parents; awake vs asleep. That discrepancy exists regardless of the pineapple. The pineapple itself reveals nothing. She ate it. When? We don’t know. Under what circumstances? We don’t know. Does it mean that she was awake when she got home from the Whites? No. Does it mean she woke up sometime after being put to bed, and ate it? No.
...
AK
YES AK by George I think you've got it LOL

Good morning

THAT is the discrepancy. It's not THE PINEAPPLE ingestion. It's the surrounding circumstances and "discrepancies" that make it a crucial piece of evidence. The pineapple just happens to be the cause of making it a BIG discrepancy that has never been resolved which in and of itself is suspicious IMO

All we know is that she ate the pineapple SHORTLY before she died, whether it was 30 minutes, an hour or two hours. The point is that she ate it and likely was awake.

That leaves the possibility of

The Ramsey parents were "mistaken" and she was awake when she came home and ate a piece of pineapple

Burke was mistaken and she was asleep and SOMEONE ELSE gave her pineapple

If you go with the Burke being mistaken scenario then one must assume the intruder was "with" her when she ate it You also have to wonder (I do) why the error wasn't corrected

If you go with the parents being mistaken, then you must wonder why they were "mistaken" (trying to be tactful here)and never corrected the error

It's a matter of opinion and speculation regarding WHO was mistaken and then a matter of opinion whether or not JBR sat down with a stranger in the wee hours of the morning eating pineapple from a dead sleep.

The only thing that makes any sense to me is that she was in fact awake when she came home and the Ramseys could not backtrack but that is my opinion based on the pineapple evidence

Anything else IMO is more of the same ludicrous scenarios

Since: Feb 12

San Diego, CA

#290 Nov 18, 2013
Capricorn wrote:
<quoted text>
YES AK by George I think you've got it LOL
Good morning
THAT is the discrepancy. It's not THE PINEAPPLE ingestion. It's the surrounding circumstances and "discrepancies" that make it a crucial piece of evidence. The pineapple just happens to be the cause of making it a BIG discrepancy that has never been resolved which in and of itself is suspicious IMO
All we know is that she ate the pineapple SHORTLY before she died, whether it was 30 minutes, an hour or two hours. The point is that she ate it and likely was awake.
That leaves the possibility of
The Ramsey parents were "mistaken" and she was awake when she came home and ate a piece of pineapple
Burke was mistaken and she was asleep and SOMEONE ELSE gave her pineapple
If you go with the Burke being mistaken scenario then one must assume the intruder was "with" her when she ate it You also have to wonder (I do) why the error wasn't corrected
If you go with the parents being mistaken, then you must wonder why they were "mistaken" (trying to be tactful here)and never corrected the error
It's a matter of opinion and speculation regarding WHO was mistaken and then a matter of opinion whether or not JBR sat down with a stranger in the wee hours of the morning eating pineapple from a dead sleep.
The only thing that makes any sense to me is that she was in fact awake when she came home and the Ramseys could not backtrack but that is my opinion based on the pineapple evidence
Anything else IMO is more of the same ludicrous scenarios
VERY GOOD Cap!
With me, I have discounted any possibility of an intruder.
I go with the police observations to begin with. There were no footprints in the snow. There was no evidence of any point of entry or exit. If there was an intruder, he had to somehow fly to the home, and enter it without leaving a trace of his entry, exit, or presence. The pineapple evidence only shows that the Ramsey parents were lying.
CC

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#291 Nov 18, 2013
Bakatari wrote:
<quoted text>
Hi AK,
It is NOT a fact that the Ramseys don't (didn't) know when JBR ate the pineapple. That is their CLAIM. Since no one else has been proven to be in the home besides the four, and JBR was said not able to open the heavy door of the refrigerator, SOMEONE obviously fed JBR that pineapple, and that someone knows when it was consumed.
We know for fact, that the last people known to have seen JBR alive were Patsy, John, and Burke. We DO NOT know for FACT, that there was any intruder.
CC
It is not obvious that someone fed Jonbenet pineapple.
The pineapple was in a bowl, left out on a table. All Jonbenet had to do was dip into the bowl when no one was around or watching.
...

AK

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#292 Nov 18, 2013
Capricorn wrote:
<quoted text>
YES AK by George I think you've got it LOL
Good morning
THAT is the discrepancy. It's not THE PINEAPPLE ingestion. It's the surrounding circumstances and "discrepancies" that make it a crucial piece of evidence. The pineapple just happens to be the cause of making it a BIG discrepancy that has never been resolved which in and of itself is suspicious IMO
All we know is that she ate the pineapple SHORTLY before she died, whether it was 30 minutes, an hour or two hours. The point is that she ate it and likely was awake.
That leaves the possibility of
The Ramsey parents were "mistaken" and she was awake when she came home and ate a piece of pineapple
Burke was mistaken and she was asleep and SOMEONE ELSE gave her pineapple
If you go with the Burke being mistaken scenario then one must assume the intruder was "with" her when she ate it You also have to wonder (I do) why the error wasn't corrected
If you go with the parents being mistaken, then you must wonder why they were "mistaken" (trying to be tactful here)and never corrected the error
It's a matter of opinion and speculation regarding WHO was mistaken and then a matter of opinion whether or not JBR sat down with a stranger in the wee hours of the morning eating pineapple from a dead sleep.
The only thing that makes any sense to me is that she was in fact awake when she came home and the Ramseys could not backtrack but that is my opinion based on the pineapple evidence
Anything else IMO is more of the same ludicrous scenarios
Even if one chooses to believe Burke’s version, that Jonbenet was awake, there is still no version wherein pineapple is served up and/or eaten, there is still no version wherein Jonbenet does not go straight to bed.

Jonbenet could have eaten the pineapple when she was alone, and no one else around. Why not?
...

AK

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#293 Nov 18, 2013
Bakatari wrote:
<quoted text>
VERY GOOD Cap!
With me, I have discounted any possibility of an intruder.
I go with the police observations to begin with. There were no footprints in the snow. There was no evidence of any point of entry or exit. If there was an intruder, he had to somehow fly to the home, and enter it without leaving a trace of his entry, exit, or presence. The pineapple evidence only shows that the Ramsey parents were lying.
CC
You misunderstand “the police observations to begin with.” The police observation to begin with was that there were no fresh footprints in the snow on the grass, but that you could not tell if anyone had or had not walked on the pathways or walkways.

The initial observation of no forced entry is contestable, but if true, than all that that tells us is that the intruder didn’t force his way in.

I think that if an intruder was trying to leave as little trace as possible then we might end up with something like what we see here: no sign of forced entry, nothing taken, nothing damaged, nothing moved, no prints, no fibers, no sign.

Of course, there are several signs. You can dismiss them, but, they’re still there; they’re still real.
...

AK

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#294 Nov 18, 2013
Some people have eliminated the possibility if an intruder.

Some posters, not necessarily anyone here, start to explain their theories by first explaining how they eliminated the intruder.

The hard reality is that such a thing cannot be done. Even if the Ramseys are as guilty as sin and the DNA simply innocent something-or-other, an intruder could have entered the home that night, and he could have been in the house during the crime, and he could have left without ever being involved in it and we would never know. Of course, I don’t think anything like this happened, but the truth is that something like that, physically, however unlikely, could have happened. There’s no way to completely eliminate that possibility.

If we want to disprove an intruder than we have to prove a Ramsey. If we prove a Ramsey did it, than we establish that an intruder did not.

Eliminating the possibility of an intruder forces people to only consider those known to have been inside the house. Three people, giving us 7 different suspect combinations. Roll the dice, see what ya like. Let’s just say, thank you, and be glad that the Ramseys didn’t have an overnight guest that night!

If someone likes a BDI theory, then that’s what they need to argue. Eliminating an intruder doesn’t make the point, and there’s six other suspect combinations to go through after that (four, if Burke or any individual Ramsey is a necessary inclusion). If someone has a John did it theory, than let’s hear the evidence and the reasoning, but if that theory is predicated upon the elimination of an intruder than it is a theory ungrounded.

Okay, done venting. Now, I’d like to add a sincere thank you to all the RDI here who have treated me with decency and courtesy and some degree of respect. I know how hard it can be when people are so far apart and polarized as we are. Sometimes, it’s hard for me. I try. Thank you.

Now, back to that pineapple! Why did she eat so little of it? Not a meal, not with a meal; not enough to have been a snack....
..

AK

Since: Feb 12

San Diego, CA

#295 Nov 18, 2013
Anti-K wrote:
<quoted text>
It is not obvious that someone fed Jonbenet pineapple.
The pineapple was in a bowl, left out on a table. All Jonbenet had to do was dip into the bowl when no one was around or watching.
...
AK
That is true, but it is a FACT that JBR ate pineapple about 30 minutes before her death. The Ramsey accounts of what happened that night and the pineapple evidence do not fit together, It is quite safe to assume that JBR didn't eat pineapple in her sleep.
CC

Since: Feb 12

San Diego, CA

#296 Nov 18, 2013
Anti-K wrote:
Some people have eliminated the possibility if an intruder.
Some posters, not necessarily anyone here, start to explain their theories by first explaining how they eliminated the intruder.
The hard reality is that such a thing cannot be done. Even if the Ramseys are as guilty as sin and the DNA simply innocent something-or-other, an intruder could have entered the home that night, and he could have been in the house during the crime, and he could have left without ever being involved in it and we would never know. Of course, I don’t think anything like this happened, but the truth is that something like that, physically, however unlikely, could have happened. There’s no way to completely eliminate that possibility.
If we want to disprove an intruder than we have to prove a Ramsey. If we prove a Ramsey did it, than we establish that an intruder did not.
Eliminating the possibility of an intruder forces people to only consider those known to have been inside the house. Three people, giving us 7 different suspect combinations. Roll the dice, see what ya like. Let’s just say, thank you, and be glad that the Ramseys didn’t have an overnight guest that night!
If someone likes a BDI theory, then that’s what they need to argue. Eliminating an intruder doesn’t make the point, and there’s six other suspect combinations to go through after that (four, if Burke or any individual Ramsey is a necessary inclusion). If someone has a John did it theory, than let’s hear the evidence and the reasoning, but if that theory is predicated upon the elimination of an intruder than it is a theory ungrounded.
Okay, done venting. Now, I’d like to add a sincere thank you to all the RDI here who have treated me with decency and courtesy and some degree of respect. I know how hard it can be when people are so far apart and polarized as we are. Sometimes, it’s hard for me. I try. Thank you.
Now, back to that pineapple! Why did she eat so little of it? Not a meal, not with a meal; not enough to have been a snack....
..
AK
Hi AK,
No one has to prove that there was no intruder. The problem here, is proving that there was an intruder(s) with the evidence that is available.

Lou Smit tried to show the possibility, but could not convince the other police investigators, and the GJ did not buy Smit's presentation.

There is no evidence that even hints there was an intruder.
CC

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#297 Nov 19, 2013
Anti-K wrote:
<quoted text>
Even if one chooses to believe Burke’s version, that Jonbenet was awake, there is still no version wherein pineapple is served up and/or eaten, there is still no version wherein Jonbenet does not go straight to bed.
Jonbenet could have eaten the pineapple when she was alone, and no one else around. Why not?
...
AK
Good morning AK

If one chooses to believe Burke's version, the pineapple is insignificant because one has to wonder why the parents said she was asleep? That is the issue

Had everyone agreed that she walked in on her own, the grabbing of a piece of pineapple when nobody saw is a plausible explanation and this area of discussion would not be happening at all

If Burke is correct, why did the parents say she was asleep and continue to reinforce that statement throughout?

One also has to assume that there is a good reason for the Ramsey's staunchest supporter, Lou Smit to call it a "bugaboo". I would have to assume, although it is an assumption that Smit also realizes that Burke and the parents' story don't add up and it was never addressed so that is in fact, a very big bugaboo on many levels

The actual pineapple is just the medium for the bigger picture of deceit and inconsistencies that should have been resolved after 17 years

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#298 Nov 19, 2013
Anti-K wrote:
....Okay, done venting. Now, I’d like to add a sincere thank you to all the RDI here who have treated me with decency and courtesy and some degree of respect. I know how hard it can be when people are so far apart and polarized as we are. Sometimes, it’s hard for me. I try. Thank you.
Now, back to that pineapple! Why did she eat so little of it? Not a meal, not with a meal; not enough to have been a snack....
..
AK
First, this is topix and you will never be done venting :)

Second, as an RDI let me just speak for myself when I say that you are a most decent, respectful and courteous poster, deserving of the same.

I would put all my money in a bet that we will always be polarized regarding this case but it can be done in a respectful manner.

I think the most important thing, again speaking for myself, is that you are willing to entertain the possibilities of things that don't flow with your personal opinion and that takes character!

“WAX ON”

Since: Jul 10

WAX OFF

#299 Nov 19, 2013
Hey RT, I understand the laughter. As with most of the IDI story-telling, they don’t know when to quit spinning a yarn, and end up making the wrong point, as in this case.

They certainly didn’t pick their battles very well, did they? Anything to be seen as a victim – it is just so amusing watching them because they just end up point a finger right back at themselves.
realTopaz wrote:
<quoted text>
Hi Doc:D
I'm reading and laughing because what stands out to me is this; Beuf and the Rams are making the claim the police or media somehow got into the box and "helped themselve's" like they were the enemy. IOW, the police and the R's should have been on the same side and the R's are making claims that expose them as the ones that DON'T want the case solved and justice found for JB. Clearly there's something to hide if they needed to keep the records from the police, and making the claim the police did something underhanded gives them away as being the underhanded ones. The R's made it a cat and mouse game and the people seeking justice were the bad guys! Why not just hand over the records if there's nothing wrong with 30 some visits in a year and a half's time?
You're absolutely right, another Ramsey ruse.

“WAX ON”

Since: Jul 10

WAX OFF

#300 Nov 19, 2013
Hey AK, contestable by whom? There is no evidence of an intruder, and in the only scenario I could fathom where that would have any chance of success is with a professional hit, and that certainly isn’t the case here. Who ever heard of a professional hit on a 6-year-old child?

To think Boulder breeds such highly experienced and qualified ‘intruders’ is a bit of a stretch in my mind. All that you have listed as ‘little trace as necessary’ also excludes an intruder. There is no reasonable belief that a far more experienced ‘intruder’ would have a motive to kill a 6-year-old child on Christmas night.
Anti-K wrote:
<quoted text>
You misunderstand “the police observations to begin with.” The police observation to begin with was that there were no fresh footprints in the snow on the grass, but that you could not tell if anyone had or had not walked on the pathways or walkways.
The initial observation of no forced entry is contestable, but if true, than all that that tells us is that the intruder didn’t force his way in.
I think that if an intruder was trying to leave as little trace as possible then we might end up with something like what we see here: no sign of forced entry, nothing taken, nothing damaged, nothing moved, no prints, no fibers, no sign.
Of course, there are several signs. You can dismiss them, but, they’re still there; they’re still real.
...
AK

Since: Feb 12

San Diego, CA

#301 Nov 19, 2013
Anti-K wrote:
<quoted text>
You misunderstand “the police observations to begin with.” The police observation to begin with was that there were no fresh footprints in the snow on the grass, but that you could not tell if anyone had or had not walked on the pathways or walkways.
The initial observation of no forced entry is contestable, but if true, than all that that tells us is that the intruder didn’t force his way in.
I think that if an intruder was trying to leave as little trace as possible then we might end up with something like what we see here: no sign of forced entry, nothing taken, nothing damaged, nothing moved, no prints, no fibers, no sign.
Of course, there are several signs. You can dismiss them, but, they’re still there; they’re still real.
...
AK
Hi AK,
The initial report from the police first at the scene, was that there were "No footprints in the snow."

Lou Smit went by photographs obviously taken during daylight, which showed no snow on the walkways, and patches on the lawn where there was no snow. Remember, he went with photos 4 months after the incident, and hours after the observation. I believe there WAS snow on the walkways at 6AM in the morning, which was the police observation. They changed their statement saying "No footprints in the snow, or on the frost on the walkways."
CC
Just Wondering

Sophia, WV

#302 Nov 19, 2013
Bakatari wrote:
<quoted text>
That is true, but it is a FACT that JBR ate pineapple about 30 minutes before her death. The Ramsey accounts of what happened that night and the pineapple evidence do not fit together, It is quite safe to assume that JBR didn't eat pineapple in her sleep.
CC
Mmmm. Maybe the snack was Burke's. The spoon bore his fingerprint as well as the glass of tea.

Perhaps Jonbenet decided to tease her brother by quickly stealing a piece of fruit from the snack he had set down on the table. That could possibly have triggered rage on his part. Christmas is a time of depression and anxiety for many people. Perhaps Jonbenet filching a piece of his pineapple was the last proverbial straw--initiating an argument between the two children that resulted in a deadly ending.

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#303 Nov 19, 2013
Just Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>Mmmm. Maybe the snack was Burke's. The spoon bore his fingerprint as well as the glass of tea.

Perhaps Jonbenet decided to tease her brother by quickly stealing a piece of fruit from the snack he had set down on the table. That could possibly have triggered rage on his part. Christmas is a time of depression and anxiety for many people. Perhaps Jonbenet filching a piece of his pineapple was the last proverbial straw--initiating an argument between the two children that resulted in a deadly ending.
Hmmm. A deadly, grotesque, sadistic ending on behalf of a 9 year old? Outta NOWHERE? Ummm, NO. Nice try, come again.:o)
Steve Eller

Brooklyn, NY

#304 Nov 19, 2013
Capricorn wrote:
<quoted text>
First, this is topix and you will never be done venting :)
Second, as an RDI let me just speak for myself when I say that you are a most decent, respectful and courteous poster, deserving of the same.
I would put all my money in a bet that we will always be polarized regarding this case but it can be done in a respectful manner.
I think the most important thing, again speaking for myself, is that you are willing to entertain the possibilities of things that don't flow with your personal opinion and that takes character!
My apologies in advance for disturbing the "love fest". I mean no disrespect Capricorn and obviously we are all entitled to our opinions. Your sentiments not withstanding, this is the same Poster who went on a crusade to discredit James Kolar in a most irresponsible manner. He intentionally distorted Kolar's arguments and positions repeatedly. That was when he was not too busy making personal attacks every time (which was quite often) another poster corrected him. When AK was not doing that he was hastily walking back comments about the case when it would become obvious that he could not possibly support his claims and maintain any respect. After AK's DNA nonsense was exposed, his Kolar gambit thoroughly rebuked, he actually INSISTED that the Ramseys were NOT Indicted by the Grand Jury. He did this on multiple threads, VEHEMENTLY, he has YET to acknowledge his glaring ERROR. I don't know what is so worthy about a poster like AK compared to some other IDI. The difference is that he spends a lot more time in formulating reprehensible (and upon inspection quite silly) defenses and explanations on behalf of the Ramseys despicable behavior.

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#305 Nov 19, 2013
Bakatari wrote:
<quoted text>
That is true, but it is a FACT that JBR ate pineapple about 30 minutes before her death. The Ramsey accounts of what happened that night and the pineapple evidence do not fit together, It is quite safe to assume that JBR didn't eat pineapple in her sleep.
CC
It is NOT a fact that Jonbenet ate pineapple 30 minutes before she was assaulted. 30 minutes is the minimum time. There is a maximum time, too, and all the time in between the extremes.

It is unfortunate, but we can’t 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, that it was eaten at the Whites or before falling asleep in the car on the way home.

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, etc. So, a 30 minute limit is fine for speculation, but it isn’t fact.
...

AK

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#306 Nov 19, 2013
Bakatari wrote:
<quoted text>
Hi AK,
No one has to prove that there was no intruder. The problem here, is proving that there was an intruder(s) with the evidence that is available.
Lou Smit tried to show the possibility, but could not convince the other police investigators, and the GJ did not buy Smit's presentation.
There is no evidence that even hints there was an intruder.
CC
You just said what I said, no one has to prove that there was no intruder.

If someone believes that one or more Ramseys were responsible, than that’s what has to be shown and trying to disprove the presence of an intruder doesn’t do that.

Does anyone have to prove there was an intruder? Not until “an intruder” turns into an identified subject. When “an intruder” turns into “a person” then we will have the burden of showing that that person was responsible.
...

AK

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#307 Nov 19, 2013
Capricorn wrote:
<quoted text>
Good morning AK
If one chooses to believe Burke's version, the pineapple is insignificant because one has to wonder why the parents said she was asleep? That is the issue
Had everyone agreed that she walked in on her own, the grabbing of a piece of pineapple when nobody saw is a plausible explanation and this area of discussion would not be happening at all
If Burke is correct, why did the parents say she was asleep and continue to reinforce that statement throughout?
One also has to assume that there is a good reason for the Ramsey's staunchest supporter, Lou Smit to call it a "bugaboo". I would have to assume, although it is an assumption that Smit also realizes that Burke and the parents' story don't add up and it was never addressed so that is in fact, a very big bugaboo on many levels
The actual pineapple is just the medium for the bigger picture of deceit and inconsistencies that should have been resolved after 17 years
If we believe Burke’s version, than Jonbenet was awake, but went straight to bed. No pineapple.

The pineapple is a bugaboo, because no one knows when she ate it, or under what circumstances.
...

AK

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
News Boulder Police Ask For Public's Help In JonBene... (Sep '16) 6 min Texxy 191
The Enhanced Ending of the 911 Phone Call (Sep '16) 1 hr Texxy 68
Garbage in, garbage out (Apr '16) 1 hr Texxy 16
That damn RN 1 hr Texxy 3
Joran Van der Sloot CONFESSES in Peru (Jun '10) 1 hr Texxy 191
News Space ship found in ice, Hillary's boozing, and... 1 hr Texxy 20
News Being overweight may be caused by the clock in ... (Mar '17) 1 hr Texxy 35
More from around the web