Also the handle of the "garotte" was fashioned from the handle of one of Patsy's paintbrushes. The pen was from a container close to the pad. Why don't you justĢ4 give us the report, and we'll put it outĢ5 there for someone to look at and tell usġ what it says and see how fair and accurateĪs it turns out, the notepad that the "ransom" note was written on came from a notepad Patsy had regularly used. This has been explained on the basis of Patsy's tendency to "go overboard." But there is a huge difference between going overboard on a pageant costume and going overboard to simulate strangulation with a "garotte."Ģ2 our belief based on forensic evidence thatĢ3 there are hairs that are associated, that theĢ4 source is the collared black shirt that youĢ5 sent us that are found in your daughter'sĤ disgrace my relationship with my daughter -ġ5 light of what I said to you yesterday isġ6 nothing more than an attempt to make aġ7 record that unfairly, unjustly, and in aġ8 disgusting fashion points what you mightġ9 consider to be some finger of blame at thisĢ0 man regarding his daughter, and you ought toĢ1 be ashamed of yourself for doing it, Bruce.Ģ3 answer the question. So there would have been no need to go to such lengths and attack the body of her daughter in such a vicious manner simply as part of a staging attempt. Yet the note she is assumed to have written constructed a kidnapper, not a pedophile.
For this reason, it's been assumed that she would have done this as part of a coverup, to construct a vicious, pedophile intruder. For one thing, it would be difficult to understand what motive Patsy could have had in attacking her daughter in such a bizarre manner.
There are many reasons to doubt such a conclusion. For many this is proof positive that Patsy must have constructed the garotte and placed the tape on her victim's face. Similar fibers were found in the paint tote from which the stick for the "garotte" was taken. In this sense the pineapple evidence does seem to tell us something, but not what most people want to hear, since the consensus is that both Ramsey adults were conspiring in a coverupįibers consistent with those from Patsy's red sweater were found at the crime scene, entwined with the "garotte" cord and on the sticky side of the duct tape pressed against the victim's face. On the other hand, if one is innocent and the other guilty, if one fed her pineapple and the other knew nothing about it, then it would be necessary for the guilty party to deny any knowledge of that. If they had fed her pineapple, they'd have had nothing to lose by saying so. If John and Patsy both were involved with the murder of their daughter, then it's hard to imagine why they would have wanted to lie about the pineapple.
JonBenet's prints might not have been on the bowl simply because her hands were clean at the time. The fingerprints strike me as inconclusive because it's hard to imagine that Patsy's prints would not have been on dishes she had washed or put away and Burke could have been helping her or could have handled the bowl on some earlier date. It also suggests that Patsy and Burke may have been with JonBenet when she ate the pineapple, and that Patsy is unwilling to admit that. To many this means the Ramseys were lying, because their testimony is contradicted by the evidence. Both John and Patsy denied any knowledge of JonBenet eating pineapple on Christmas day or evening (Burke was apparently never asked). The bowl revealed fingerprints of both Patsy and Burke. Traces of recently digested pineapple were found in JonBenet's intestine and a bowl of pineapple was found on the kitchen table the morning after the crime.