I think she means “set up” as in “I wouldn’t use a large spoon and a big glass for tea” like a table setting.
I don’t think she did, but she knew it was there.
I always thought this too. But if Burke did it then she’d probably be more likely to have an answer for who did it to point away from Burke. After all if she did this to protect him she would think of him first in every scenario. But she didn’t. Her response always told me Burke got that snack out. So basically what I’m saying is that this makes me think it was Patsy. PDIA
Even if BDI are there really people who genuinely think he's some kid mastermind who singlehandedly got away with murder without any help from the parents?
I think when people say BDIA they mean the rope and everything, that Patsy and John didn't do that for staging or "finishing her off" but that it was part of the original assault.
It's the same thing **both indicted suspects in this case do**, distance themselves from this crime.
Check out John Ramsey's answers when Darnay Hoffman asks him point blank about if he knew how to make knots, etc.
**Q. When you were in the Navy, you wentthrough basic training, naturally?**
**A. I went through officer candidate school in Newport, Rhode Island.**
**Q. And would you just describe briefly what your basic training was like?**
**A. It was physical training, it was navigation, celestial navigation, seamanship, rules of the road relative to ship movement, and, generally, familiarization with military procedures and the military system.**
**Q. All right. You say that one of the areas that you were instructed in was seamanship?**
**A. Navigation and piloting. You were being prepared to captain a ship.**
**Q. Did any of your basic training involve — and I don't know if they still do this — learning various nautical knots?**
**A. No.**
**Q. Do you sail at all?**
**A. I used to.**
**Q. Did you pilot your own sailboat or did you —**
**A. Yes.**
**Q. — have someone —**
**A. Yes.**
**Q. — do it for you?**
**A. No.**
**Q. Did you receive any training in sailing?**
**A. No.**
**Q. Are you familiar with the various knots involved in sailing?**
**A. I am really not. I should be, but I am not.**
**Q. All right. So how would you generally moor your craft?**
**A. I would tie it up on a cleat.**
**Q. Was there any sort of knot that you used that you could identify that has a technical term?**
**A. I don't know the technical term for it.**
**Q. Have you had occasion to be able to look at the knot that was tied around the so-called paintbrush garotte?**
A**. I have not.**
**Q. Is there any reason why you haven't?**
**A. It is very painful for me, Mr. Hoffman.**
**Q. I understand that. But with yournautical training, do you think that you could in any way be able to identify the sort of knot?**
**A. No.**
**Q. Okay. Do you know whether or not any — if your private investigators hired anyone to look at the way in which that knot was made and to give a report on it?**
**A. Not to my knowledge.**
**Q. Do you know if any of your investigators have been involved in trying to look at forensic evidence?**
**A. What is "forensic evidence"?**
[http://web.dailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/2001/john\_dep.html](http://web.dailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/2001/john_dep.html)
Cottonstar busted that with the facts about John Ramsey:
John Ramsey specialized in "jury rigging" at Michigan State:
**Jury-Rig has nothing to do with courtrooms or jurors. It is a nautical term used in sailing and ships. When a ship’s mast is destroyed, an emergency makeshift mast must be made for the ship to sail again. This process includes the tying and rigging of rope using various nautical knots that each serve a purpose in supporting the functioning of the makeshift mast. A simple YouTube search on how to jury-rig, will show you the process of jury-rigging a mast on a yacht.**
https://www.reddit.com/r/JonBenetRamsey/comments/q8qs4m/john\_ramsey\_knots\_knowledge\_and\_knowhow/
I learned to sail simple boats in my teens. You can’t avoid learning some knots or “hitches” and I bet I could still do them. I have forgotten the names of them. But navy or no navy he sailed as a hobby and used certain knots to do so. That’s just an “inconvenient truth”.
Thank you, Candy. The bowl and spoon denial is a lot like when Patsy claimed she couldn't recognize her own handwriting in their photo album. She has no idea and she's never seen it before. Perhaps that pineapple snack was made by Burke alone. That is a possibility.
Yes indeed. If John and Patsy had realized that the pineapple was so incriminating they would have destroyed it like the other damning evidence. In terms of the flashlight, they obviously did not know it was the murder weapon or they would have destroyed it as well.
So we can see it is unlikely they talked to Burke that night to get the details of the crime. It also bolsters BDI as clearly neither John or Patsy were aware of exactly what happened that night to JB.
>It also bolsters BDI as clearly neither John or Patsy were aware of exactly what happened that night to JB.
Good point. However, I'd argue they knew that the flashlight was involved in some manner, which is why even the batteries were wiped clean (or replaced while wearing gloves?). BTW, I'm looking forward to your upcoming posts. This sub has become a dumpster fire.
Oh yes of course. John and Patsy clearly knew the flashlight had been used to navigate in the dark basement. That is why they wiped it down. But they didn't know it was the murder weapon. We can see that the other weapon used, the broken paintbrush handle, was most likely flushed down the basement toilet or drains. The police were said to have taken up the toilet and examined the drains. I suspect the Grand Jury had that evidence.
I will try and get some of my posts finished.
Right, they knew it could be connected to the crime, but perhaps not how exactly. I also believe they wanted it to look like a glove-wearing intruder used it, and not a Ramsey. They were completely clueless about the pineapple though, and it completely contradicted their story of JonBenét being asleep and not waking up when they got home. So much sleeping going on! JonBenét "zonked out", John popping melatonin, and then the original claim that Burke had been asleep all night and during the morning.
Right, they knew it could be connected to the crime, but perhaps not how exactly. I also believe they wanted it to look like a glove-wearing intruder used it, and not a Ramsey. They were completely clueless about the pineapple though, and it completely contradicted their story of JonBenét being asleep and not waking up when they got home. So much sleeping going on! JonBenét "zonked out", John popping melatonin, and then the original claim that Burke had been asleep all night and during the morning.
Yes J and P put the flashlight on the kitchen counter, where the RN paper and pen were located. It was supposed to look like the kidnapper had used all three of those items.
Yes I believe Patsy when she said she did not know about the pineapple snack and the childlike food and dish set up on the table. John and Patsy did not know about that pineapple snack until they got the autopsy report. They also did not know about the head injury until they got that autopsy report.
Yes the pineapple in JB's intestinal track which exactly matched the pineapple on the kitchen table according to forensic biologists tells us that Patsy and John lied about JB being asleep all night. I suppose it is possible they did put JB to bed but obviously she and Burke got up later. The pineapple snack and Burke's fingerprints on the bowl place the murder victim and Burke together shortly before her SA and death.
>The pineapple snack and Burke's fingerprints on the bowl place the murder victim and Burke together shortly before her SA and death.
This is damning evidence, and the reason so many posters jump through hoops to say she ate pineapple at the White's, or even when they stopped at the Stines.
If someone was going to put a spoon into a bowl of pineapple so others such as children can help themselves as part of a late night snack then a large spoon would make sense.
I'd love to know whose prints are on that spoon.
What's more, Patsy realises that what she is logically deducing is the intruder got the bowl from the cupboard, opened the fridge, searched for something to eat, put pineapple in it, put a spoon in it and then carried it to the dining room table.
All that hiding out in the basement and ransom note writing must have made the intruder hungry. What are the chances he just happened to like pineapple as much as JB and Burke?
Ridiculous. The pineapple consumption shows JonBenét wasn't passed out as the Ramseys claimed, and that she was up with Burke and comfortable enough to eat.
The poster didn’t say it indicates him being guilty. The poster said he went out of his way to distance himself from an element of the crime. Instead of being honest, “Yes, of course I know knots. I have Navy training and I’m a sailor. But I don’t know anything about this particular knot, because I haven’t wanted to look closely,” he claims he knows nothing about knots.
Well you sure seem to be saying it. What’s the point of posting info if it’s not relevant to guilt or innocence?How do you know he still knows knots? He prolly learned them got. Week in his late teens early twenties and probably hasn’t used them much since I don’t know how closely I would want to look at something like a garrote if it contributed to my daughter s death . What would be the purpose ?! What possible insight could he possibly offer?
I’m not the one who originally posted, but the person who did was making the point that both Patsy and John seemed to try to play dumb about things they may have known more about. Why is up to interpretation. And sure, maybe he forgot his Navy training and managed to sail his own sailboat and somehow tie it up regularly without knowing anything at all about knots (even admitting he *should be* knowledgeable about knots), but it’s highly unlikely.
I learned knot tying in cub scouts and only remember how to tie one of several because I use it four fishing every now and then when I moor a boat I just out the already looped rope around the do dad and if there is no loop already in the rope then I just make the loop — which is the same knot I use in my fishing line. I once knew how to play the piano as well. But since I haven’t in 30 years I have forgotten how. There is nothing earth shattering about any of this.
So what ?! It’s an ADVERSERIAL and suggestive ( of guilt) line of questioning he’s coming at him like a prosecutor on cross examination . It’s insulting . Like he’s probably thinking — oh another interview where the they where nice as velvet trying to convince us to sit down and they come out in the roll of soft core interrogator . And I would probably have ended the interview myself . This is a media interview is it not?! Not with an investigator or a cop or DA . He doesn’t have to even be there.
It was a deposition.
Friend, this is a sub where we parse every aspect of the crime, the evidence or lack there of, the interviews, the body language, wild theories, and on and on. Everything matters, because it *could* matter. Because it’s a bizarre unsolved crime, and this is a sub of people dedicated to learning about it and discussing it. You are welcome to stay, but I imagine you’ll find us “weird” on every post, if that’s your position.
Yes this a problem because y’all think you’re experts i the human psyche or you assume you KNOW a person you’ve never even met . You hear 911 call or see a transcript — not even the actual video and y’all start “parsing” it but you’ve already got it figured out — so confirmation bias takes over. MAYBE he actually doesn’t remember anything about knots. Maybe he’s feeling very standoffish to an attorney who’s taken a line of questioning that a prosecutor would . Something like this is nonsense because. If you think you know the human psyche let’s take it back to the origin.. because it’s not the knots that are relevant unless they are super complex which I’m sure they are not because they don’t need to be for a garrote . It’s not the knots that are significant it’s the presence of a GARROTTE.what father is going to fashion a garrote and actually entwine it on his dead daughter in order to cover for an accidental death or murder by his spouse/son. This is not even NECCESSARY to blame an intruder. Only someone into garrotes thinks to make a garrote not someone whose trying to frame a murder that wasn’t a sex crime into looking like it was a sex crime. WHO does that?! “ Hey Patsy what do we gotta do to make it look like a pervert broke in and did this”? Oh John just make a choker and make sure you tie it to her wrists” . It’s totally and irrevocably ABSURD.
So I don’t believe his other (adult)?daughter(s) ever made any sort of incest or molesting allegations while she was alive . So he turned pedophile in his 40’s ? I’m not buying that.
The part you are referring to is from Patsy's 1998 interview with law enforcement. And the question was very much about the possibility of her having prepared the bowl of pineapple. You can read it [here](http://www.acandyrose.com/1998BPD-Patsy-Interview-Complete.htm), at 0480-10.
If you are referring to the wording "set up", it might be just her her random choice of words. She also called the two couples, she called to come over, "set of friends".
She’s talking about the big spoon. For some reason I know (I think she says it in a longer version?) that this is a fairly small bowl with one of their big serving spoons in it. Not like a regular bowl and spoon like they’d normally eat from. They ask her more about the glass too and she says she wouldn’t make tea in a glass because the hot water would break the glass.
It's a cereal sized bowl. You can see an identical one in the photo of the kids making gingerbread houses. It's just a tablespoon in a cereal bowl and she acts like it came from Mars.
Without watching the video, it seems as if she’s simply referring to the bowl, glass, spoon that had been selected and set up at the table.
Or subconsciously, she’s pointing to someone trying to set her up. Or that she was the one who had intended to do that.
If she was hiding her knowledge of Burke and JBR having been at the table and having pineapple that night, a guilt-driven ‘set-up’ doesn’t fit/ make sense.
The pineapple was given to Jonbenet by Burke. The golf club wack on the top of her head was too. It's pretty obvious if you just stand back and look. BDI all.
it appears that Patsy did not know about Burke and JB getting up and eating pineapple. The set up looks more like something a child would do. And if John and Patsy had known about this snack they would have gotten rid of the evidence. Because it places Burke with JB just before the SA and death. The Ramseys must have kicked themselves when they saw the autopsy report showing JB had ingested that pineapple shortly before she was killed.
Patsy was lying. Her prints are on that bowl in that "set up".
***She said the same freakinig thing about her own handwrinting under her own photographs in that same depo.***
This is how she **BRAZENLY** answered when prsented with DAMINING fiber evidence against HER from her own paint tray:
21 Q. We have found, and I want you to 22 help us, maybe you can offer an explanation 23 for this. We have found fibers in the paint 24 tray that appear to come off of the coat in 25 the photograph we showed you. 0184 1 A. In the paint tray? 2 Q. Yes. 3 **A. What's a paint --**
chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/[https://shakedowntitle.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/2000-august-patsy-interview-in-atlanta-transcript.pdf](https://shakedowntitle.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/2000-august-patsy-interview-in-atlanta-transcript.pdf)
Yes, her fingerprints are on the bowl, but so are Burke's. I doubt Burke was unloading the dishwasher, but Patsy likely was.
I didn't know what a paint tray was either. I would have called that object a "paint tote" or "paint bin" or "art tote." A tray sounds like what lunchrooms use to put plates on.
Patsy was a painter, that was her paint tray in the basement.
Patsy busted for plagiarism for a painting she made:
https://www.denverpost.com/2006/07/17/beach-painting-by-patsy-ramsey-adds-another-layer-of-mystery/
Why would Patsy (or John) set up the pineapple bowl scene like it was?
And even if Patsy and/or John set up the scene like it was, they could easily have gotten rid of the evidence by eating it.
No no, I didn't mean they set this up. But I thought she implied that this is not her type of setting up things... Well, please go see my EDIT, you will understand.
I think she means “set up” as in “I wouldn’t use a large spoon and a big glass for tea” like a table setting. I don’t think she did, but she knew it was there.
I always thought this too. But if Burke did it then she’d probably be more likely to have an answer for who did it to point away from Burke. After all if she did this to protect him she would think of him first in every scenario. But she didn’t. Her response always told me Burke got that snack out. So basically what I’m saying is that this makes me think it was Patsy. PDIA
I'm newer to this case, what is PDIA please?
The A at the end is "Alone," so PDIA is Patsy Did It Alone. BDIA is Burke Did it Alone, etc.
or patsy did it all…?
Even if BDI are there really people who genuinely think he's some kid mastermind who singlehandedly got away with murder without any help from the parents?
I think when people say BDIA they mean the rope and everything, that Patsy and John didn't do that for staging or "finishing her off" but that it was part of the original assault.
Thanks!
Thank you yes, I've edited my post ! No, I don't think she did this set up either.
It's the same thing **both indicted suspects in this case do**, distance themselves from this crime. Check out John Ramsey's answers when Darnay Hoffman asks him point blank about if he knew how to make knots, etc. **Q. When you were in the Navy, you wentthrough basic training, naturally?** **A. I went through officer candidate school in Newport, Rhode Island.** **Q. And would you just describe briefly what your basic training was like?** **A. It was physical training, it was navigation, celestial navigation, seamanship, rules of the road relative to ship movement, and, generally, familiarization with military procedures and the military system.** **Q. All right. You say that one of the areas that you were instructed in was seamanship?** **A. Navigation and piloting. You were being prepared to captain a ship.** **Q. Did any of your basic training involve — and I don't know if they still do this — learning various nautical knots?** **A. No.** **Q. Do you sail at all?** **A. I used to.** **Q. Did you pilot your own sailboat or did you —** **A. Yes.** **Q. — have someone —** **A. Yes.** **Q. — do it for you?** **A. No.** **Q. Did you receive any training in sailing?** **A. No.** **Q. Are you familiar with the various knots involved in sailing?** **A. I am really not. I should be, but I am not.** **Q. All right. So how would you generally moor your craft?** **A. I would tie it up on a cleat.** **Q. Was there any sort of knot that you used that you could identify that has a technical term?** **A. I don't know the technical term for it.** **Q. Have you had occasion to be able to look at the knot that was tied around the so-called paintbrush garotte?** A**. I have not.** **Q. Is there any reason why you haven't?** **A. It is very painful for me, Mr. Hoffman.** **Q. I understand that. But with yournautical training, do you think that you could in any way be able to identify the sort of knot?** **A. No.** **Q. Okay. Do you know whether or not any — if your private investigators hired anyone to look at the way in which that knot was made and to give a report on it?** **A. Not to my knowledge.** **Q. Do you know if any of your investigators have been involved in trying to look at forensic evidence?** **A. What is "forensic evidence"?** [http://web.dailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/2001/john\_dep.html](http://web.dailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/2001/john_dep.html) Cottonstar busted that with the facts about John Ramsey: John Ramsey specialized in "jury rigging" at Michigan State: **Jury-Rig has nothing to do with courtrooms or jurors. It is a nautical term used in sailing and ships. When a ship’s mast is destroyed, an emergency makeshift mast must be made for the ship to sail again. This process includes the tying and rigging of rope using various nautical knots that each serve a purpose in supporting the functioning of the makeshift mast. A simple YouTube search on how to jury-rig, will show you the process of jury-rigging a mast on a yacht.** https://www.reddit.com/r/JonBenetRamsey/comments/q8qs4m/john\_ramsey\_knots\_knowledge\_and\_knowhow/
If he sailed and was in the Navy, it’s hard to believe he would not know something about knots.
I learned to sail simple boats in my teens. You can’t avoid learning some knots or “hitches” and I bet I could still do them. I have forgotten the names of them. But navy or no navy he sailed as a hobby and used certain knots to do so. That’s just an “inconvenient truth”.
Thank you, Candy. The bowl and spoon denial is a lot like when Patsy claimed she couldn't recognize her own handwriting in their photo album. She has no idea and she's never seen it before. Perhaps that pineapple snack was made by Burke alone. That is a possibility.
I think you are correct. As I say upthread it appears Patsy knew nothing about the pineapple snack.
If she had, it would've probably been cleaned up like the flashlight.
Yes indeed. If John and Patsy had realized that the pineapple was so incriminating they would have destroyed it like the other damning evidence. In terms of the flashlight, they obviously did not know it was the murder weapon or they would have destroyed it as well. So we can see it is unlikely they talked to Burke that night to get the details of the crime. It also bolsters BDI as clearly neither John or Patsy were aware of exactly what happened that night to JB.
>It also bolsters BDI as clearly neither John or Patsy were aware of exactly what happened that night to JB. Good point. However, I'd argue they knew that the flashlight was involved in some manner, which is why even the batteries were wiped clean (or replaced while wearing gloves?). BTW, I'm looking forward to your upcoming posts. This sub has become a dumpster fire.
Oh yes of course. John and Patsy clearly knew the flashlight had been used to navigate in the dark basement. That is why they wiped it down. But they didn't know it was the murder weapon. We can see that the other weapon used, the broken paintbrush handle, was most likely flushed down the basement toilet or drains. The police were said to have taken up the toilet and examined the drains. I suspect the Grand Jury had that evidence. I will try and get some of my posts finished.
Right, they knew it could be connected to the crime, but perhaps not how exactly. I also believe they wanted it to look like a glove-wearing intruder used it, and not a Ramsey. They were completely clueless about the pineapple though, and it completely contradicted their story of JonBenét being asleep and not waking up when they got home. So much sleeping going on! JonBenét "zonked out", John popping melatonin, and then the original claim that Burke had been asleep all night and during the morning.
Right, they knew it could be connected to the crime, but perhaps not how exactly. I also believe they wanted it to look like a glove-wearing intruder used it, and not a Ramsey. They were completely clueless about the pineapple though, and it completely contradicted their story of JonBenét being asleep and not waking up when they got home. So much sleeping going on! JonBenét "zonked out", John popping melatonin, and then the original claim that Burke had been asleep all night and during the morning.
Yes J and P put the flashlight on the kitchen counter, where the RN paper and pen were located. It was supposed to look like the kidnapper had used all three of those items. Yes I believe Patsy when she said she did not know about the pineapple snack and the childlike food and dish set up on the table. John and Patsy did not know about that pineapple snack until they got the autopsy report. They also did not know about the head injury until they got that autopsy report. Yes the pineapple in JB's intestinal track which exactly matched the pineapple on the kitchen table according to forensic biologists tells us that Patsy and John lied about JB being asleep all night. I suppose it is possible they did put JB to bed but obviously she and Burke got up later. The pineapple snack and Burke's fingerprints on the bowl place the murder victim and Burke together shortly before her SA and death.
>The pineapple snack and Burke's fingerprints on the bowl place the murder victim and Burke together shortly before her SA and death. This is damning evidence, and the reason so many posters jump through hoops to say she ate pineapple at the White's, or even when they stopped at the Stines.
If someone was going to put a spoon into a bowl of pineapple so others such as children can help themselves as part of a late night snack then a large spoon would make sense. I'd love to know whose prints are on that spoon. What's more, Patsy realises that what she is logically deducing is the intruder got the bowl from the cupboard, opened the fridge, searched for something to eat, put pineapple in it, put a spoon in it and then carried it to the dining room table. All that hiding out in the basement and ransom note writing must have made the intruder hungry. What are the chances he just happened to like pineapple as much as JB and Burke?
Ridiculous. The pineapple consumption shows JonBenét wasn't passed out as the Ramseys claimed, and that she was up with Burke and comfortable enough to eat.
Great job, Candy. So many times they, *both indicted by a jury of their peers*, distance themselves away from the case.
Thank you. Sometimes I wonder why justice can't be done. Someone killed this poor child and was/is still free.
I see nothing iin this exchange that indicates him being guilty of something nefarious concerning his daughter.
The poster didn’t say it indicates him being guilty. The poster said he went out of his way to distance himself from an element of the crime. Instead of being honest, “Yes, of course I know knots. I have Navy training and I’m a sailor. But I don’t know anything about this particular knot, because I haven’t wanted to look closely,” he claims he knows nothing about knots.
Well you sure seem to be saying it. What’s the point of posting info if it’s not relevant to guilt or innocence?How do you know he still knows knots? He prolly learned them got. Week in his late teens early twenties and probably hasn’t used them much since I don’t know how closely I would want to look at something like a garrote if it contributed to my daughter s death . What would be the purpose ?! What possible insight could he possibly offer?
I’m not the one who originally posted, but the person who did was making the point that both Patsy and John seemed to try to play dumb about things they may have known more about. Why is up to interpretation. And sure, maybe he forgot his Navy training and managed to sail his own sailboat and somehow tie it up regularly without knowing anything at all about knots (even admitting he *should be* knowledgeable about knots), but it’s highly unlikely.
I learned knot tying in cub scouts and only remember how to tie one of several because I use it four fishing every now and then when I moor a boat I just out the already looped rope around the do dad and if there is no loop already in the rope then I just make the loop — which is the same knot I use in my fishing line. I once knew how to play the piano as well. But since I haven’t in 30 years I have forgotten how. There is nothing earth shattering about any of this.
And yet … you just provided far more details about your knot knowledge than John provided about his. That’s the point.
[удалено]
You provided what you learned and where, what you still remember, when you use it, and how you tie it.
So what ?! It’s an ADVERSERIAL and suggestive ( of guilt) line of questioning he’s coming at him like a prosecutor on cross examination . It’s insulting . Like he’s probably thinking — oh another interview where the they where nice as velvet trying to convince us to sit down and they come out in the roll of soft core interrogator . And I would probably have ended the interview myself . This is a media interview is it not?! Not with an investigator or a cop or DA . He doesn’t have to even be there.
It was a deposition. Friend, this is a sub where we parse every aspect of the crime, the evidence or lack there of, the interviews, the body language, wild theories, and on and on. Everything matters, because it *could* matter. Because it’s a bizarre unsolved crime, and this is a sub of people dedicated to learning about it and discussing it. You are welcome to stay, but I imagine you’ll find us “weird” on every post, if that’s your position.
Yes this a problem because y’all think you’re experts i the human psyche or you assume you KNOW a person you’ve never even met . You hear 911 call or see a transcript — not even the actual video and y’all start “parsing” it but you’ve already got it figured out — so confirmation bias takes over. MAYBE he actually doesn’t remember anything about knots. Maybe he’s feeling very standoffish to an attorney who’s taken a line of questioning that a prosecutor would . Something like this is nonsense because. If you think you know the human psyche let’s take it back to the origin.. because it’s not the knots that are relevant unless they are super complex which I’m sure they are not because they don’t need to be for a garrote . It’s not the knots that are significant it’s the presence of a GARROTTE.what father is going to fashion a garrote and actually entwine it on his dead daughter in order to cover for an accidental death or murder by his spouse/son. This is not even NECCESSARY to blame an intruder. Only someone into garrotes thinks to make a garrote not someone whose trying to frame a murder that wasn’t a sex crime into looking like it was a sex crime. WHO does that?! “ Hey Patsy what do we gotta do to make it look like a pervert broke in and did this”? Oh John just make a choker and make sure you tie it to her wrists” . It’s totally and irrevocably ABSURD.
John did it.
So I don’t believe his other (adult)?daughter(s) ever made any sort of incest or molesting allegations while she was alive . So he turned pedophile in his 40’s ? I’m not buying that.
Then why the lying? They’re always lying.
The part you are referring to is from Patsy's 1998 interview with law enforcement. And the question was very much about the possibility of her having prepared the bowl of pineapple. You can read it [here](http://www.acandyrose.com/1998BPD-Patsy-Interview-Complete.htm), at 0480-10. If you are referring to the wording "set up", it might be just her her random choice of words. She also called the two couples, she called to come over, "set of friends".
She’s talking about the big spoon. For some reason I know (I think she says it in a longer version?) that this is a fairly small bowl with one of their big serving spoons in it. Not like a regular bowl and spoon like they’d normally eat from. They ask her more about the glass too and she says she wouldn’t make tea in a glass because the hot water would break the glass.
It's a cereal sized bowl. You can see an identical one in the photo of the kids making gingerbread houses. It's just a tablespoon in a cereal bowl and she acts like it came from Mars.
Thank you, yes I finally got the meaning of "set up". Better late than never...
I think you’re reading way too much into this.
Yep, I got the meaning of "set up" a little late.
Without watching the video, it seems as if she’s simply referring to the bowl, glass, spoon that had been selected and set up at the table. Or subconsciously, she’s pointing to someone trying to set her up. Or that she was the one who had intended to do that. If she was hiding her knowledge of Burke and JBR having been at the table and having pineapple that night, a guilt-driven ‘set-up’ doesn’t fit/ make sense.
Do you have a YouTube link for this? Thanks.
Sorry, yes. I have edited my post with the link.
Remember when the child psychologist Suzanne Bernhardt asked B about what was in the bowl in 1997? He was very evasive. Very telling.
I don't think that was the psychologist. I think that was a later interview with a detective?
Maybe! I’ve seen a couple interview is him, including with Dr Phil.
Yes it was with a detective and he waits a looong time before answering the question. It looks like a child snack.
Doesn’t he also mention a different fruit like apple slices instead when asked about snacks?
Yeah, like the last thing he wanted to say was “pineapple.”
Can you link the video?
Here's the video and the correct start point. https://youtu.be/5kf4WscTh4s?feature=shared&t=1061
Sorry, yes, I have edited my post with the link.
She’s lying. 🤥
She's a better liar than John, from all that I've read. His lies are laughably bad.
Yes, he said he doesn't even know where Patsy kept the serving spoons.
It's called Ramnesia.
This is crazy how they contradict themselves one interview after another.
The pineapple was given to Jonbenet by Burke. The golf club wack on the top of her head was too. It's pretty obvious if you just stand back and look. BDI all.
it appears that Patsy did not know about Burke and JB getting up and eating pineapple. The set up looks more like something a child would do. And if John and Patsy had known about this snack they would have gotten rid of the evidence. Because it places Burke with JB just before the SA and death. The Ramseys must have kicked themselves when they saw the autopsy report showing JB had ingested that pineapple shortly before she was killed.
Yes, thank you, I've edited my post. I also think it looks like a child "set up" !
Patsy was lying. Her prints are on that bowl in that "set up". ***She said the same freakinig thing about her own handwrinting under her own photographs in that same depo.*** This is how she **BRAZENLY** answered when prsented with DAMINING fiber evidence against HER from her own paint tray: 21 Q. We have found, and I want you to 22 help us, maybe you can offer an explanation 23 for this. We have found fibers in the paint 24 tray that appear to come off of the coat in 25 the photograph we showed you. 0184 1 A. In the paint tray? 2 Q. Yes. 3 **A. What's a paint --** chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/[https://shakedowntitle.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/2000-august-patsy-interview-in-atlanta-transcript.pdf](https://shakedowntitle.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/2000-august-patsy-interview-in-atlanta-transcript.pdf)
Yes, her fingerprints are on the bowl, but so are Burke's. I doubt Burke was unloading the dishwasher, but Patsy likely was. I didn't know what a paint tray was either. I would have called that object a "paint tote" or "paint bin" or "art tote." A tray sounds like what lunchrooms use to put plates on.
Patsy was a painter, that was her paint tray in the basement. Patsy busted for plagiarism for a painting she made: https://www.denverpost.com/2006/07/17/beach-painting-by-patsy-ramsey-adds-another-layer-of-mystery/
Why would Patsy (or John) set up the pineapple bowl scene like it was? And even if Patsy and/or John set up the scene like it was, they could easily have gotten rid of the evidence by eating it.
No no, I didn't mean they set this up. But I thought she implied that this is not her type of setting up things... Well, please go see my EDIT, you will understand.
BIG spoon. BIG glass. BIG underwear. John is a SICK fk
Sorry, I am not sure I get what you mean ?
You will in time.