Lawrence Smith Replies - If you can say that

[JMO8778]

I think that Lawrence Smith (btw,most of the time when ppl are using a fake name,usually it's a simple,common one,like Smith),is just someone on JR's side.As in,'ok,some ppl are never going to believe that Patsy didn't do it,so they might as well believe that JR had nothing to do w. it until after the fact'.

 

[rashomon]

[UKGuy]:
I'm confident that the garrote was a last minute decision e.g. part of Plan B, otherwise all the staging would be reasonably convincing , no urine-soaked longjohns, no blood-stained size-12's, no hair embedded into the knotting of the garrote etc etc.

UKGuy,
But don't forget that not much time elapsed between the head blow and her death (only 20 to 60 minutes, according to forensic expert Dr. Wright), and since JonBenet had still been alive (although probably already in a deep coma from the head blow) when the ligature was put around her neck (forensic evidence: petechiae around her neck), imo the time line was head blow - ligature strangulation - writing of the ransom note.
I believe the ransom note took quite some time to write, and when you think that addtitional pages had been torn out from the pad, there may have been even more 'practice notes' than just the one page accidentally left in the pad.

jmo

 

[UKGuy]

UKGuy,
But don't forget that not much time elapsed between the head blow and her death (only 20 to 60 minutes, according to forensic expert Dr. Wright), and since JonBenet had still been alive (although probably already in a deep coma from the head blow) when the ligature was put around her neck (forensic evidence: petechiae around her neck), imo the time line was head blow - ligature strangulation - writing of the ransom note.
I believe the ransom note took quite some time to write, and when you think that addtitional pages had been torn out from the pad, there may have been even more 'practice notes' than just the one page accidentally left in the pad.

jmo

rashomon,
Yes , but it does not follow that it was the garrote that either killed or strangled her, the head blow may have been sufficient, without requiring the asphyxiation to be necessary.

Your analysis may be correct e.g. head blow - ligature strangulation - writing of the ransom note.

Also possible is: manual strangulation head blow - ligature strangulation - writing of the ransom note. etc.

Your analysis suggests that the ligature strangulation is an arbitrary factor in the staging, since it is staging qua, per se.

I think you know, since I have discussed it before that there is a lacuna in all the popular theories, if time permits I'll post another theory to take account of this, and some of the other inconsistent details, not a lot will be new, but I'll attempt to sequence the staging?


.

 

[DeeDee249]

DeeDee249,
Yes what you say seems sensible, one other possibility is urine-stained by osmosis?

Hopefully we have provisionally established that JonBenet's size-12's were urine/blood-stained after she was redressed in them, thus allowing Coroner Meyer to conclude that JonBenet had been wiped down?

This is an important conclusion since from it other events can be sequenced.

Osmosis from where? That could have been said of the blanket, if she had been wrapped in it before the urine release, but we all know that didn't happen- no urine on the blanket(s). Osmosis from her releasing urine and THEN being dressed in the panties and long johns while wet? If that had happened, then there would be urine on the floor where this had occurred- I don't recall seeing that but I may have missed it.

Coroner Meyer came to the conclusion that her panties and long johns were put on her after being wiped down also. He saw that there was NO corresponding blood on her pubic area that matched the drops of blood on the size 12 panties, and it was this that led him to believe that she had been wiped down. The small amount of liquid and semi-liquid blood in the vagina could be the source of the drops on the panties. When the black light test was done at autopsy, with detective LA present, it showed fluorescence- which was first thought could be semen, later shown to be JBR's own blood. Dark blue cotton fibers were found there also. (Was JRs navy terry bathrobe ever tested for a match?)

What always upset me when anyone mentioned crime scene evidence not being sourced to the house was this: there was so much that WAS NEVER TESTED- the spoon and glass for saliva; the Samantha doll tan cotton body for fibers from the tape, etc. And there were things that, though surmised, couldn't be proven- like the tape and cord purchase- because the store's cash register didn't list the actual item, only department and price.
The RN pad, pen and ink were all sourced to the house. Her "last meal" was sourced to the house. And, most important of all- the dead child was sourced to the house.

 

[UKGuy]

Osmosis from where? That could have been said of the blanket, if she had been wrapped in it before the urine release, but we all know that didn't happen- no urine on the blanket(s). Osmosis from her releasing urine and THEN being dressed in the panties and long johns while wet? If that had happened, then there would be urine on the floor where this had occurred- I don't recall seeing that but I may have missed it.

Coroner Meyer came to the conclusion that her panties and long johns were put on her after being wiped down also. He saw that there was NO corresponding blood on her pubic area that matched the drops of blood on the size 12 panties, and it was this that led him to believe that she had been wiped down. The small amount of liquid and semi-liquid blood in the vagina could be the source of the drops on the panties. When the black light test was done at autopsy, with detective LA present, it showed fluorescence- which was first thought could be semen, later shown to be JBR's own blood. Dark blue cotton fibers were found there also. (Was JRs navy terry bathrobe ever tested for a match?)

What always upset me when anyone mentioned crime scene evidence not being sourced to the house was this: there was so much that WAS NEVER TESTED- the spoon and glass for saliva; the Samantha doll tan cotton body for fibers from the tape, etc. And there were things that, though surmised, couldn't be proven- like the tape and cord purchase- because the store's cash register didn't list the actual item, only department and price.
The RN pad, pen and ink were all sourced to the house. Her "last meal" was sourced to the house. And, most important of all- the dead child was sourced to the house.

DeeDee249,
Sure the osmosis is a long shot, but conceivable. imo, Coroner Meyer's wipe down opinion is an important element in determining post-mortem staging?

I reckon not all the test results were made public, I think many investigators knew they had a case, since the forensic evidence blew holes in the Ramsey version of events, if it had ever gone to court, it would have been evident that the parents were involved in a conspiracy, separate attorneys appearing for the parents would look odd, some of the evidence regarding JonBenet would likely outrage public morality, combine that with evidence of prior vaginal trauma, and the outcome may have been guilty, or one parent, mid-trial, doing a deal becoming a prosecution witness. The prosecution procedure was perverted to allow the case to never reach court!

 

[Albert18]

I think that Lawrence Smith (btw,most of the time when ppl are using a fake name,usually it's a simple,common one,like Smith),is just someone on JR's side.As in,'ok,some ppl are never going to believe that Patsy didn't do it,so they might as well believe that JR had nothing to do w. it until after the fact'.

I don't think it is a matter of being on John's side, I think it is a matter of looking at the evidence.

I think the evidence quite clearly shows the work of one person. If you pry the door open for other possibilties without any basis for doing so, you throw the entire investigation into confusion, including the intruder possibility. If Patsy didn't do it alone, then maybe she didn't do it at all?

One reason people think John was involved is because they don't think he behaved properly that morning. What they don't consider is how events that morning may have unfolded.

First of all, you have to put aside all notions that Patsy was incompetent. Just because she was a women doesn't mean she didn't know how to tie knots, or wasn't vaguely familiar with stangulation devices, or wouldn't remember lines from movies.

She may also have had a plan. Maybe she couldn't deal with telling John what happened. Maybe one of the main concerns for Patsy that morning was that she couldn't face John. She wanted him to know but she couldn't bring herself to tell him. This may explain a major part of the ransom note.

We don't really know what time John got up that morning. Maybe Patsy waited downstairs until she heard John finish his shower. She then started her act regarding the ransom note. My guess is she got him to come downstairs and met him on the second floor so she could show him JonBenet was gone. We don't really know what they did regarding Burke. People should stop saying if John really thought JonBenet was kidnapped he would have raced into Burke's room and talked to him. We don't know what they did regarding Burke. We do know Burke was downstairs during the 911 call.

When they get downstairs, the ransom note is laid out on the floor. While John is reading the note, Patsy calls 911. The police arrive just minutes after the 911 call.

My guess is the ransom note worked. We can only imagine what must have been going through John's mind.

So here is the question. What was John supposed to have done?

He had minutes. He had no idea how long it would take the police to arrive at the house. In that time he must have put Burke back to bed and ran up to the 3rd floor to get dressed.

When was he supposed to run around the neighborhood looking for JonBenet? When was he supposed to conduct a full search of the house? When was he supposed to have a sit down with Patsy and find out what happened?

In this situation why would he stop friends from coming over? Why would he not want Burke out of the house? I doubt he believed that ransom note any more than the FBI did, but what was he supposed to do about it? Isn't it possible that by the time John finished the ransom note Patsy was already on the phone?

I think this explains why he intially covered for Patsy. You can't uncover what you don't fully understand yourself.

If John was helping Patsy with JonBenet then he was at risk of going to jail himself. Patsy was extremely vulnerable that morning and her mouth could have sent John to jail. Nothing in his behavior shows he was concerned about that. His behavior shows him to be off trying to piece together a puzzle and figure out his options. And regarding Burke, put yourself in John's shoes, do you really want him around to see how this unfolds.

 

[Solace]

I don't think it is a matter of being on John's side, I think it is a matter of looking at the evidence.

I think the evidence quite clearly shows the work of one person. If you pry the door open for other possibilties without any basis for doing so, you throw the entire investigation into confusion, including the intruder possibility. If Patsy didn't do it alone, then maybe she didn't do it at all?

One reason people think John was involved is because they don't think he behaved properly that morning. What they don't consider is how events that morning may have unfolded.

First of all, you have to put aside all notions that Patsy was incompetent. Just because she was a women doesn't mean she didn't know how to tie knots, or wasn't vaguely familiar with stangulation devices, or wouldn't remember lines from movies.

She may also have had a plan. Maybe she couldn't deal with telling John what happened. Maybe one of the main concerns for Patsy that morning was that she couldn't face John. She wanted him to know but she couldn't bring herself to tell him. This may explain a major part of the ransom note.

We don't really know what time John got up that morning. Maybe Patsy waited downstairs until she heard John finish his shower. She then started her act regarding the ransom note. My guess is she got him to come downstairs and met him on the second floor so she could show him JonBenet was gone. We don't really know what they did regarding Burke. People should stop saying if John really thought JonBenet was kidnapped he would have raced into Burke's room and talked to him. We don't know what they did regarding Burke. We do know Burke was downstairs during the 911 call.

When they get downstairs, the ransom note is laid out on the floor. While John is reading the note, Patsy calls 911. The police arrive just minutes after the 911 call.

My guess is the ransom note worked. We can only imagine what must have been going through John's mind.

So here is the question. What was John supposed to have done?

He had minutes. He had no idea how long it would take the police to arrive at the house. In that time he must have put Burke back to bed and ran up to the 3rd floor to get dressed.

When was he supposed to run around the neighborhood looking for JonBenet? When was he supposed to conduct a full search of the house? When was he supposed to have a sit down with Patsy and find out what happened?

In this situation why would he stop friends from coming over? Why would he not want Burke out of the house? I doubt he believed that ransom note any more than the FBI did, but what was he supposed to do about it? Isn't it possible that by the time John finished the ransom note Patsy was already on the phone?

I think this explains why he intially covered for Patsy. You can't uncover what you don't fully understand yourself.

If John was helping Patsy with JonBenet then he was at risk of going to jail himself. Patsy was extremely vulnerable that morning and her mouth could have sent John to jail. Nothing in his behavior shows he was concerned about that. His behavior shows him to be off trying to piece together a puzzle and figure out his options. And regarding Burke, put yourself in John's shoes, do you really want him around to see how this unfolds.

Firstly, John told Patsy to call 911. This is one of the times I actually believe lizard lips.

Secondly, fibers from his sweater are found in JonBenet's crotch. So he is involved in this scenario before the morning.

Before I go on, John has lied too many times not to be involved. John refused to help the police ad nauseum, did not even offer the phone records. No, John is involved. John lies about talking to the police Dec. 26, 27 and 28. He just lies. There is no reason to lie unless you are thoroughly involved.

John had to put Burke back to bed? I don't think so. If you hear your wife screaming and find a 3 page ransom note and BELIEVE IT, then you are going to think twice about CALLING THE POLICE and alerting anyone. John is the proud owner of a business that just hit the billion dollar mark. He did not get that way by faltering.

Also, if Patsy called her friends, John could have said NO, call them back and tell them to stay away. He did not do that.

Do I want my son around. I want him next to me in the house or with a policeman IN MY HOUSE. I want him near me. I want him in the safest place, with a house full of police - who should be arrving any minute since we called 911.

And lets not forget that there is prior abuse, whether it be sexual or corporal punishment - there is abuse. And after reading and learning more about JonBenet's supposed sexual abuse, I am leaning more and more to her being sexually abused.

John would have called his lawyers Albert. No doubt about it. He would not have called 911. Never, nada, nein, nyet and NO WAY!!!!

John is invovled up to his newly refurbished face.

 

[Albert18]

So what you are saying Solace is that John must have been involved because you don't like him.

So why can't somebody else say it must have been an intruder because they like John and Patsy?

In fact, isn't this what people are really saying. They just can't believe the Ramsey's would have done this. So doesn't the intruder theory have as has much validity as the John theory? I like John and Patsy therefore it must have been an intruder. I don't like John therefore he must have been involved.

 

[DeeDee249]

It's more than that. JR simply did not behave like a parent whose 6-year old daughter had been kidnapped. Not that morning, not SINCE that morning.
He and his wife and (more suspiciously) their LAWYERS stymied every attempt by LE to solve this crime. They gave a few revolting interviews on CNN. Period. They hindered instead of helped. Innocent people don't do that. While innocent people, in general, don't hire a Dream Team of high-powered and politically connected lawyers, I will concede that sometimes innocent people do need defense lawyers. BUT the lawyers do everything necessary to see that their clients are completely transparent to LE. They have nothing to hide, so why hide anything? This is completely opposite of the R defense team. They prevented their clients from answering anything of substance, while stalling long enough so that the answer "I just don't remember" seemed plausible. By their own admission, they were hired to keep the Rs out of jail. Mission accomplished!

 

[DeeDee249]

It's more than that. JR simply did not behave like a parent whose 6-year old daughter had been kidnapped. Not that morning, not SINCE that morning.
He and his wife and (more suspiciously) their LAWYERS stymied every attempt by LE to solve this crime. They gave a few revolting interviews on CNN. Period. They hindered instead of helped. Innocent people don't do that. While innocent people, in general, don't hire a Dream Team of high-powered and politically connected lawyers, I will concede that sometimes innocent people do need defense lawyers. BUT the lawyers do everything necessary to see that their clients are completely transparent to LE. They have nothing to hide, so why hide anything? This is completely opposite of the R defense team. They prevented their clients from answering anything of substance, while stalling long enough so that the answer "I just don't remember" seemed plausible. By their own admission, they were hired to keep the Rs out of jail. Mission accomplished!

 

[Solace]

So what you are saying Solace is that John must have been involved because you don't like him.

No Albert. That is not what I am saying. I am saying his actions lend themselves to guilt.

So why can't somebody else say it must have been an intruder because they like John and Patsy? They can say whatever they want and do.

In fact, isn't this what people are really saying. They just can't believe the Ramsey's would have done this. So doesn't the intruder theory have as has much validity as the John theory? I like John and Patsy therefore it must have been an intruder. I don't like John therefore he must have been involved.

No, it does not have as much validity. The intruder theory has no evidence of same. Patsy left fibers under the tape, in JonBenet's neck, in the pain tote, in the garrotte. She lies also. So does her husband. They refused to be interviewed the evening JonBenet was found. No, the intruder theory has no validity whatsoever after 11 years - there is no evidence of an intruder.

Another thing concerning the interviews. Have a lawyer present. I would have. But also, make yourself available to answer questions - if you feel there is really a killer out there and you have another child, you want to protect him at all costs and that means answering questions. But to refuse to answer any questions for some 4 months is ludicrous - even if you feel you have done it to the best of your ability (which they did not do to the best of their ability) agree to an interview with your lawyer and answer questions and then the police can get on and focus on an outsider as you would want them to.

They did none of this. And also Albert, don't put words in my mouth and assume that I don't like John and Patsy, because you would be wrong. Because I don't like what they did, does not mean I do not like them.

 

[rashomon]

[Albert18]:I don't think it is a matter of being on John's side, I think it is a matter of looking at the evidence.

I think the evidence quite clearly shows the work of one person.

But how would you explain that fibers from the black shirt he had been wearing to the Whites' party were found in the crotch area of the size 12 underwear on JonBenet?

If you pry the door open for other possibilties without any basis for doing so, you throw the entire investigation into confusion, including the intruder possibility. If Patsy didn't do it alone, then maybe she didn't do it at all?

I fail to see the logic in this argumentation. Three residents were present in the home when JonBenet was killed, and the possibility of Patsy having had an accomplice or helper in the cover-up doesn't exonerate her at all.

When they get downstairs, the ransom note is laid out on the floor. While John is reading the note, Patsy calls 911. The police arrive just minutes after the 911 call.

Imo the Ramseys' story about of John allegedly "down on his hands and knees" 'examining' the ransom note on the floor is too silly for words. Especially since the ceiling light will cast the shadow of a person's head on a piece of paper spread out on the floor.
So John allegedly removed the note from the stairs and instead of holding it as closely as possible to a light source, he put it on the floor and read it in a dog-like position? Yeah, right.
Liars often weave elements of truth into their fabricated story -
I do believe John Ramsey was down on his hands and knees at some time on that fatal night though, but not when examining any ransom note. I think he was down on his hands and knees, listening for signs of breathing on JonBenet's body after being called down by a frantic Patsy who had just injured her child in a rage.

When det. Arndt asked John to do a house search, he made a bee line to the wine cellar. John knew JonBenet's dead body was in there, no question about it imo.

Isn't it possible that by the time John finished the ransom note Patsy was already on the phone?

Per the Ramseys' own words, it was John who told Patsy to call the police.

jmo

 

[JMO8778]

I don't think it is a matter of being on John's side, I think it is a matter of looking at the evidence.

I was talking about the Lawrence Smith phony,because in his reply to Solace,there is a lot of ambiguity and untruth,which I think is useful to glean some info from.For one,he thinks Patsy did it,yet he insults the posters here,most of which also think Patsy did it.Two,he (and I don't think for a minute it's his assistant-if so then why the need to get defensive?) gets angry over minor details,like us talking about the R's not taking care of JB's dog after her death.SO..he's either for the R's or against them..or the only other option is,he's for JR.That sounds the most logical to me.
In his FAQ,he makes a big point of saying JR didn't know until after the fact..that it was one of 3 smart decisions Patsy made the morning...one of 3 smart decisions..what an emphasis! And the fact he's obviously a phony,and there is no book...what's his point then? IMO it's to exonerate JR.

We don't really know what they did regarding Burke. People should stop saying if John really thought JonBenet was kidnapped he would have raced into Burke's room and talked to him. We don't know what they did regarding Burke. We do know Burke was downstairs during the 911 call.

He had minutes. He had no idea how long it would take the police to arrive at the house. In that time he must have put Burke back to bed and ran up to the 3rd floor to get dressed.

and why on earth would he do that if there was any chance of an intruder?? He would have kept BR close by his side! Albert,please come back and tell us that after you have kids,ok?

When was he supposed to have a sit down with Patsy and find out what happened?

I don't think he would have sat down at all... and to flip w. calling LE...JR had already lost one daughter..I think he would have had both hands around Patsy's neck yelling 'where's JonBenet?????!!!! I KNOW YOU WROTE THAT NOTE!!!!'

If John was helping Patsy with JonBenet then he was at risk of going to jail himself. Patsy was extremely vulnerable that morning and her mouth could have sent John to jail.

I think he also knew Patsy well enough to know she wouldn't tell on herself and risk prison time,or worse..same reason he let her appear on CNN,totally medicated.

 

[JMO8778]

Imo the Ramseys' story about of John allegedly "down on his hands and knees" 'examining' reading the ransom note on the floor is too silly for words. Especially since the ceiling light will cast the shadow of a person's head on a piece of paper spread out on the floor.
So John allegedly removed the note from the stairs and instead of holding it as closely as possible to a light source, he put it on the floor and read it in a dog-like position? Yeah, right.
Liars often weave elements of truth into their fabricated story -
I do believe John Ramsey was down on his hands and knees at some time on that fatal night though, but not when examining any ransom note. I think he was down on his hands and knees, listening for signs of breathing on JonBenet's body after being called down by a frantic Patsy who had just injured her child in a rage.

yes and in DOI,Patsy makes a point of saying he was in his underwear..so they're trying to account for his fibers in 2 places-beside JB's bed,and in the entryway there...it seems to me,Patsy summoned him to JB's room after she was injured,(or perhaps he heard her scream),and she was taken at some point down the stairs to that area (thus getting the garland caught in her hair along the way),and placed there,perhaps with the thought of calling 911,since the phone was nearby?? But I think the marks (and all the evidence of abuse) on her neck prevented that from being an option.So she was carried down to the basement so BR wouldn't see her.And from there,everything else unfolded.

 

[JMO8778]

And also the fact LE was already ordered to treat the R's as victims,not as suspects.Phone calls had to be made in order for that to happen.Thus the phone records disappeared..b/c someone had made calls prior to the 911 call.

 

[UKGuy]

But how would you explain that fibers from the black shirt he had been wearing to the Whites' patry were found in the crotch area of the size 12 underwear on JonBenet?

I fail to see the logic in this argumentation. Three residents were present in the home when JonBenet was killed, and the possibility of Patsy having had an accomplice or helper in the cover-up doens't exonerate her at all.

Imo the Ramseys' story about of John allegedly "down on his hands and knees" 'examining' reading the ransom note on the floor is too silly for words. Especially since the ceiling light will cast the shadow of a person's head on a piece of paper spread out on the floor.
So John allegedly removed the note from the stairs and instead of holding it as closely as possible to a light source, he put it on the floor and read it in a dog-like position? Yeah, right.
Liars often weave elements of truth into their fabricated story -
I do believe John Ramsey was down on his hands and knees at some time on that fatal night though, but not when examining any ransom note. I think he was down on his hands and knees, listening for signs of breathing on JonBenet's body after being called down by a frantic Patsy who had just injured her child in a rage.

When det. Arndt asked John to do a house search, he made a bee line to the wine cellar. John knew JonBenet's dead body was in there, no question about it imo.
Per the Ramseys' own words, it was John who told Patsy to call the police.

jmo

rashomon,
Why leave the ransom note on the back stairs, why not on JonBenet's bed?

So John allegedly removed the note from the stairs and instead of holding it as closely as possible to a light source, he put it on the floor and read it in a dog-like position? Yeah, right.

I reckon the reason for this is to offer a rationale for his fingerprints not being discovered on the note.

For those that think there was panic and confusion this is a pointer to the planning aspect.

.

 

[Ames]

yes and in DOI,Patsy makes a point of saying he was in his underwear..so they're trying to account for his fibers in 2 places-beside JB's bed,and in the entryway there...it seems to me,Patsy summoned him to JB's room after she was injured,(or perhaps he heard her scream),and she was taken at some point down the stairs to that area (thus getting the garland caught in her hair along the way),and placed there,perhaps with the thought of calling 911,since the phone was nearby?? But I think the marks (and all the evidence of abuse) on her neck prevented that from being an option.So she was carried down to the basement so BR wouldn't see her.And from there,everything else unfolded.

I have posted before that I believe that this is what happened too. I think that John, was either getting ready for bed, or already in the bed...when Patsy yelled for him, or he heard her scream (I believe that the neighbor DID hear a scream and that it was Patsy, after realizing what she had done). Responding to the panicky tone in Patsy's yell or scream, he rushed into JB's room in his undies...not taking time to put on a robe, shorts..or anything.

 

[Albert18]

All I am saying is that from what we know regarding the evidence and the observed behavior of the Ramseys, everything fits with the theory Steve Thomas put forth. If you throw John in the mix there are problems.

If you say Patsy did something to JonBenet and then ran and got John, then you are saying John and Patsy, two very intelligent people, decided it would be best to make an accident look like a homicide.

And I say you have got to be kidding.

JonBenet bumps her head and John says "yes, she will probably die anyway, so let's have some fun with this"?

It not only is highly unlikely, it is implausible.

So to make it plausable other things are thrown in. And I say if you add whatever you need to fit John into the theory then the IDI's can add what they need to fit their theory.

 

[Littledeer]

JonBenet bumps her head and John says "yes, she will probably die anyway, so let's have some fun with this"?

I haven't seen where this has been brought up by anybody. Can you give a link or quote where you see this at?

 

[rashomon]

All I am saying is that from what we know regarding the evidence and the observed behavior of the Ramseys, everything fits with the theory Steve Thomas put forth. If you throw John in the mix there are problems.

If you say Patsy did something to JonBenet and then ran and got John, then you are saying John and Patsy, two very intelligent people, decided it would be best to make an accident look like a homicide.

And I say you have got to be kidding.

JonBenet bumps her head and John says "yes, she will probably die anyway, so let's have some fun with this"?

It not only is highly unlikely, it is implausible.

So to make it plausable other things are thrown in. And I say if you add whatever you need to fit John into the theory then the IDI's can add what they need to fit their theory.

But fibers from John's shirt were found in the crotch area of the far too big underwear which had been put on JonBenet. You can't disregard such forensic evidence just because you can't imagine John having been involved in a cover-up.
Imo John could very well have helped Patsy in the cover-up if he too had something to hide.