LAST EDITED ON Feb-16-04 AT 04:27 PM (EST)
 
A little slice of human nature and the thought processes that can be baffling.

NOW the problem is that Patsy didn't even mention "rinsing" that red jumpsuit in DOI. Ummm. Hello? Is there any reason to mention something that didn't happen; something that is a figment of an overactive (jump-to-conclusions) imagination? No red jumpsuit was rinsed out. No red turtleneck was rinsed out. No red jumpsuit was wet. No red turtleneck was wet or urine stained. If you don't want to believe it here, believe it in ST's deposition.

ABOUT THE RED TURTLENECK

Q. Did anybody tell you that they found the red turtleneck and that it was wet?
A. No, this is what I am surmising in the hypothesis.
Q. Was the red turtleneck taken into evidence?
A. I certainly believe it was.
Q. Did it have any type of urine stain on it?
A. Not that I'm aware of. I never have looked at it personally.
Q. Where did you get the statement that it got wet; did you just manufacture that out of whole cloth?
A. No, I'm suggesting that that was a reasonable explanation for the final resting place of this red turtleneck of which she may have indeed worn home.
Q. But you had no evidence to support that statement about the turtleneck being wet, true?
A. No, I don't know that it was urine stained.
Q. Or wet?
A. Or wet.