Cynic, if this is true, then I have to file this under "Spin". I cannot believe one word from this woman's mouth as we all know her main objective was to paint the Ramseys as pure and innocent. This is sad because if it is true about the urine stain being in the basement, there has to be a reason for Jameson stating it. Do you have any idea where I can find it at her site? As bad as I hate to, I will go there to see what I can find out about it.
joeskidbeck,
With no citations it looks like Jameson has manufactured the urine-stains in the basement. Her logic is thus: there were no urine-stains in her bed, so she must have been killed elsewhere. She was found in the basement, and since there is no sign of a struggle in the wine-cellar, then she must have been killed outside the wine-cellar door, subsequently voiding her bladder staining the longjohns and carpet.
So this Jamesonism grew legs and took off.
I'm willing to bet her motivation is similar that of Lou Smit who went to great lengths attempting to demonstrate an intruder could have accessed the basement via the grill or window. Smit touted the intruder as a sexually motivated predator, and skewed the public perception towards an intruder theory with some form of erotic-asphyxiation playing a part due to the garrote.
Jameson's urine-stains seem to serve a similar purpose e.g. JonBenet was killed in the basement because thats where the urine stains are, reinforcing the intruder myth?
Looks like occams razor was correct : how come in the bedwetting theory does JonBenet release urine twice?
.