About the black duct tape: Yes I am aware it did not come from the same roll, but it was the same type/brand as the tape used on JonBenet. It was the thread count of the cloth backing that showed that it was manufactured at a different time, and therefore not the same roll. But my point still remains, there was matching tape used innocently in the home.
Remember the interview where she was shown photos of the kitchen drawer, the line of questioning implied that there was in fact a roll of duct tape in that drawer, and it was not clear tape. She always maintained that she only used or bought the clear tape. She only said after identifying that it was tape, that she only used clear and that John would know more about it.
The purchases at the hardware in November of 1996 do not show what she bought. In my opinion she probably did buy duct tape, and there probably was duct tape in the drawer. I doubt this tape was used on Jonbenet though. I think Dr. Lee said he believed that the piece on her mouth was used, since in places the adhesive seemed to be missing.
The fact is, they distanced themselves from every aspect of the crime and items in the home that would imply they knew JonBenet was not put to bed immediately. I think its obvious this was on legal advice. They had their story and they were sticking to it.
I do not think for one second that an intruder lying in wait fed her pineapple, changed her bed sheets, or redid her hair.
There could be an innocent explanation for the retardedly huge underwear also.
I know I'm going off topic, but let me explain a few things that I think are possibilities of any scenario.
Say JonBenet was put to bed upon arriving home, but woke up later. Her bed was wet. Maybe she went and got her father, who did say he went to bed after Patsy. To get some new sheets and such, maybe John got Patsy up to help. He probably didn't know where the clean sheets were. While Patsy gets the bed ready, JonBenet maybe says she's hungry. Although annoyed, Patsy could have went down to get her a bowl of pineapple and told John to get her some clean clothes. If John Ramsey is anything like my husband, he has no idea what would or wouldn't fit his child. He just sees a new package and gets those. Sure they don't fit, but it serves the purpose. (Maybe this could explain the "change of clothes," Patsy did initially say that she put the red shirt on JonBenet. John could have just grabbed the shirt she had taken off earlier and put it back on her because it was dry.) Most men I know are lazy like that, while certainly isn't proof for anything by any stretch of the imagination, just my point of view.
Maybe Patsy put her hair up to eat the pineapple. I know my mother would put mine back in a similar fashion whenever I ate something that had a syrup, or juice in it.
Who knows? That type of scenario could explain some of the unexplanable things that have been linked to this crime. When people talk of an intruder, because of the Ramsey's firm story and distancing themselves, they have to assume the intruder acted as if the house and everything in it were his own, including JonBenet while the parents were home. And that probably wasn't the case exactly, if it were an intruder.
Which brings me back to my point that because the Ramsey's had to distance themselves furiously from everything in the home, including the dang bowl of pineapple, it makes it difficult to understand what an "intruder" did NOT do in that home. And that makes it harder to understand the mind and thought process of the intruder, which could help lead to his/her identity. But now, for those investigating an intruder angle, the behavioral profile is muddled with things that a "possible intruder" did not do, in my worthless opinion.
For the record, I would like to say that I'm not sure I believe my own explanations of the sheets, hair, pineapple, whatever. I have only said those things were possibilities.
But thanks to the plentiful "I don't remember," "I do not recall," and "I'm not sure" given in the few police interviews, we'll never know what an intruder actually did in that house, if there was an intruder.
Please do not label me RDI or IDI. I have never professed to know what happened that night, or that my private theory is any more plausible than another's. I don't have any answers, only questions, and thanks to the stonewalling Ramseys, nobody else is going to know either (save for a confession or random CODIS hit.)
If the "stonewalling" happened because of guilt, or fear of prosecution entirely depends on if a person thinks they did the crime or not.
But I will say that I absolutely believe that the Ramseys have not been honest about the events that night.
