UKGuy,
With all due respect, but I have as many arguments as you to support my theory, which btw I have posted here in detail. Still waiting to read yours, time line and all.
The same goes for the other RDIs here who have ALL offered convincing explanations re different evidentiary items, like e. g. the size 12 Bloomies.
I "offer no analysis", you say. JFYI, I tried to analyze and build in every single evidentiary item into my theory.
I don't know what your criteria for analysis are, but to me, analytical comptence shows itself by acknowledging that certain forensic findings may allow for different interpretations, and you seem to have some difficulty with that.
For example, I vividly recall your theorizing that the stager of the scene left urine stained underwear on the victim, without you even considering the possibility of post-mortem release. Time and again this was pointed out to you, and time and again you ignored it.
So to get back to the discussion: from the fact that John's shirt fibers were found in the victim's underwear, one can infer that he redressed her, but it may well have been Patsy who told him to do so.
For Patsy may not have paid attention at all to how big the Bloomies were - down in the basement, she could just have told John to get a Wedesday pair from the gift box without even being aware of the huge difference in size.
If John alone chose the size 12 Bloomies, what are the odds that he knew where they were kept?
If I could ask LE one question, it would be:
When you collected JonBenet's size 4-6 underwear, was there a set of size 6 Bloomies among them?
If yes, was the set complete?
If not, which day(s) of the week was (were) missing?
This sure would make our discussion here far easier. Too bad it only says 'girl's underwear' in the search warrants, and none of the books on the case adresses this crucial issue either.
rashomon,
I "offer no analysis", you say.
You offered none, nor any evidence in your reply to my post, other than the Ramsey's psychological state of mind, which amounts to mere speculation.
I don't know what your criteria for analysis are,
Coherence with the evidence, interpretation can become alike biblical exegesis, individually arbitrary.
For example, I vividly recall your theorizing that the stager of the scene left urine stained underwear on the victim, without you even considering the possibility of post-mortem release. Time and again this was pointed out to you, and time and again you ignored it.
Ignore it. Post-mortem or not, the existence of the urine-stains and that Coroner Meyer states she was wiped down is central to my claim that the stager must have known they were urine-stained or soaked and ignored this?
So to get back to the discussion: from the fact that John's shirt fibers were found in the victim's underwear, one can infer that he redressed her, but it may well have been Patsy who told him to do so.
John is on record as stating he never undressed JonBenet on returning from the Whites, he and Burke had some quality time together, also Patsy is on record as stating John never dressed or bathed JonBenet prior to leaving for the White's, so those fibers from his shirt place him at the crime-scene in a manner that Patsy is not! My interpretation is that John's contribution to redressing and wiping down JonBenet precedes Patsy's, and Patsy's replies to questions regarding the size-12's displays her own ignorance, something she need not do if she knew that the size-12's originated on JonBenet as the result of her suggestion.
For Patsy may not have paid attention at all to how big the Bloomies were - down in the basement, she could just have told John to get a Wedesday pair from the gift box without even being aware of the huge difference in size.
Patsy most likely never knew about the size-12's, they were buried beneath the longjohns by the time she took part in the staging. She could have told John to fetch a pair from JonBenet's bathroom panty drawer or fetched a pair herself, she states she was in the bathroom for the longjohns, so why end up with a pair of pants intended for a girl twice JonBenet's age, when you are trying to stage a kidnapping? Why does Patsy have no credible answers for the investigators regarding the size-12's if she was the instigator, this is yet another aspect to the PDI that does not add up!
If John alone chose the size 12 Bloomies, what are the odds that he knew where they were kept?
Quite high if they were an xmas-gift since John was assisting with organizing and transferring the gifts, then again they may not have been wrapped, they may have been in one of Patsy's drawers in the master-bedroom, where John went looking for any underwear?
My main theory is simple: JDI, then effected some form of staging, probably with the intention of dumping JonBenet outdoors, Patsy rejected this, so John said OK you fake a wine-cellar homicide, Patsy effects the ligature and garrote, and wrist restraints along with the duct-tape, then places JonBenet into the wine-cellar. This explains the two but apparent contradictory strands of evidential staging.
If I could ask LE one question, it would be:
When you collected JonBenet's size 4-6 underwear, was there a set of size 6 Bloomies among them?
If yes, was the set complete?
If not, which day(s) of the week was (were) missing?
This sure would make our discussion here far easier. Too bad it only says 'girl's underwear' in the search warrants, and none of the books on the case adresses this crucial issue either.
I agree, but we know that the stager had 15-pairs of size-6 underwear to chose from in JonBenet's panty drawer, and any pair of those would have been sufficient to avoid the discussion around why JonBenet came to be wearing a pair of 12-year old girls underwear at the alleged scene of her death?
