But then he could have said the same of the blanket, for the blanket should have been upstairs too. A blanket from JB's room is not "supposed to be there" either in a dank and dirty cellar room.
No crime scene pictures could be taken of JonBenet's body in the wine cellar, since John carried her upstairs immediately after "finding" her.
rashomon,
Precisely and the reason why they were not supposed to be there?
It could also be more spin on John's part, since it may have been him who attempted and failed to redress JonBenet in the barbie-gown?
The period when he went missing early morning is often cited as an opportunity to relocate and rredress JonBenet?
The wine-cellar is a staged crime-scene, so there should be nothing there, the killer did not want to include.
JonBenet was likely wrapped in those blankets either upstairs or in the basement, outside the wine-cellar door, where the garrote was created?
So the idea that the barbie-gown arrived at the crime-scene by accident is imo highly improbable.
There were two sets of eyes primarly involved in the staging, possibly three, a barbie gown would not be missed?
Bear in mind that if JonBenet was wrapped in those blankets prior to being deposited into the wine-cellar, then as the alleged staging took place, the barbie-gown would become self-evident.
This debate over the barbie-gown reminds me of Steve Thomas' Toilet Rage theory, until its realized JonBenet's killer knowingly left her wearing urine-soaked longjohns.
These inconsistencies such as the barbie-gown, urine-soaked longjohns, hidden vaginal assault etc, should suggest less that an accidental event occurred in the commission of a crime, but more substantially that some aspect of a current theory is not supported by the evidence.
.