We have the red dress which implies passion which leads us to make the jump pretty much immediately that she did it. But one of the things your question brings up is mise en scene (the stuff that’s within the contrived or staged image that adds to the building of the plot in a subtle – or sometimes not so subtle way) and the way we see space and objects in it in western culture.

And there’s a technique in writing called chekovs gun – chekov believed if something wasn’t actually used in a story it simply shouldn’t be there. In shaun of the dead at the beginning of the film there’s a shot of the wall with a gun hanging on the wall and a sign underneath it saying chekovs gun. It forms no part of the story until the climax when someone takes it off the wall and kills the zombies – an in joke for semiotics nerds. Similarly we’ve been trained to accept that because she’s there she must have had something to do with it, the dress just adds weight to it. Otherwise why would she be there?

So your question has made me wonder if it’s because we’re so used to seeing images that are contrived on TV and in the media that the majority of the respondents to the question assumed it was her. We’re so used to being led to the water that we just drink. We’ve been trained and we simply accept and believe. And then there was the fact that pretty much all scenarios involved a man or a problem with decor or fashion – are men and decoration or adornment the only things women will get pissed about?

Thought provoking question Spirit.

http://icanhascheezburger.com/2007/08/25/i-maded-you-a-who-mai-kidding-i-maded-you-nuthin/