I find this new fiber information extremely interesting and important but also very very puzzling. Oddly, it makes me both more suspicious of John AND at the same time more open to the possibility of SOME sort of intruder theory. What a strange feeling, I must say. ON THE ONE HAND:
For a long time now I've been hearing that "there's not a single piece of evidence linking John Ramsey to this crime -- none!" Now, suddenly, we learn that there IS indeed evidence which not only links him to the crime but which is potentially devastating: fibers from his shirt were found in JonBenet's underpants (and I'd assume this accounts for the dark fibers found in the vaginal area as well). And not from just any shirt, but the shirt he was wearing the previous night. And I don't think the police are bluffing, by the way. By the year 2000 the time for bluffing had long passed. It seems clear there has to be SOME sort of match, something the BPD had been keeping very close to their vest. So we now do have an evidentiary link between John and the attack on JonBenet. Enough, I'd say, to indict, under most circumstances.
But the circumstances in this case are very special. The most likely suspect, based on possible motive (incest?) and evidence (those shirt fibers), has been "ruled out" as writer of the note. His wife has not been ruled out, but it has been deemed unlikely that she could have written it. With no idea who could have written the note, and with the assurance from (infallible????) "experts" that the most likely suspect (John) could NOT have written it, there is really no coherent case that could be made. Again, as I argued earlier, if John had been the only one in the house that night, I think he'd have been indicted for sure. And, as you already know, I am NOT willing to accept the verdict that he must be "ruled out" as writer of the note. I think he COULD have written it.
ON THE OTHER HAND:
The very evidence that links him to the crime also in some sense MIGHT tend to exonerate him. At least in my (admittedly overactive and overheated) mind.
I've always rejected the notion that the crime could have been committed by someone "out to get" John, on the basis of the "fact" that there's no evidence any intruder made any effort to set him up. Anyone trying to frame John would have been sure to place fibers from his clothing on the victim -- and as far as any of us knew, this was not the case. NOW, however, we learn that, apparently, JonBenet could have been wiped down by someone using John's shirt! And I can't for the life of me understand why John himself would have wanted to do that. But I CAN understand why someone wanting to frame John would have done exactly that.
SO, the strongest piece of evidence against John could turn out, as far as I am concerned, to ALSO be the strongest piece of evidence that some person out to get revenge on John could have done it. No question, we HAVE to see the full report, I'm with Lin and Jameson on that point. And I too see no reason at this late date to withhold it.
I must say that this is the first development in the case that's caused me to seriously reconsider my "John-did-it" theory. Very very strangly, this new evidence which seems to point very strongly to John ALSO suggests that someone could have been trying to set him up, a theory I'd always rejected.
From what we know at this time, this fiber evidence could point in either direction. LET'S SEE THE FULL REPORT!