How is inventing a motive based on a weak assumption different from discounting a theory based on an even weaker assumption?
Because my assumption is quite stronger, in all honesty -- for the reasons I explained above.
You are assuming that only 10 gifts were among the total gifts for the whole family and/or that JR got a total of one gift (a gumball machine). You are also assuming that, simply because 10 gifts were all that were mentioned in DOI, that there were no other gifts purchased.
Also, we know this list isn't exhaustive from the following exchange:
JOHN RAMSEY: Right. I started to get Burke
22 into bed; get him ready.
And he was sitting in the
23 living room working on a toy, an assembly little
24 toy he got for Christmas. And I could see that I
25 was going to get him to go easy. So I sat down and
0115
1 helped him put it together to try to expedite the
2 process.
Here are the list of 10 gifts:
Burke got Nintendo64 · DOI-2
Burke got a remote control car · DOI-3
John got a gumball machine · DOI-4
JonBenet got a bicycle · DOI-2
JonBenet got a My Twinn Doll · DOI-3, 4, 32, 242
JonBenet got a gold bracelet · DOI-344
JonBenet got a ring from Nedra · NE-51
JonBenet got a necklace from Pam · NE-51
Patsy got a bicycle · DOI-3
Patsy got green paper ornament · DOI-274
The list in DOI/A Candy Rose makes absolutely zero mention of an "assembly toy" in the list of 10 gifts. A remote control car wouldn't require a 20 minute assembly -- I played with remote control cars, including wireless/expensive ones, growing up. The only assembly required would be inserting the battery. The nintendo wouldn't be described as a "an assembly little toy" by JR in the interview. If this "assembly toy" was omitted in the list in DOI, who knows what else was omitted.