I've been inclined to believe that John and Patsy knew exactly what they were doing the morning of December 26th when they called a hoard of people over. It, IMO, was all part of the staging. The more people in the house, the more contaminated the crime scene.
Naw, in my opinion, they weren't that good.
I think the Ramseys did it. But, although I am not sure which one or why, I do not think it was premeditated.
Other than lawyering up, I don't think the Ramseys plotted out how to contaminate the scene. I think Patsy called her friends because she was feeling terrible and the compassionate helpers (with the best of intentions) helped destroy evidence by wiping the counter tops and adding to the confusion.
For all the Ramseys knew the FBI would be there almost as soon as the police. But, I think they were so sure of themselves and that no one would doubt THEM that they thought they were good to go. (Which turned out to be unfortunately close to the truth.)
I think the Ramseys thought they had done a good job with the staging and RN and didn't realize the note would be traced to their own notepad or even remember the pineapple JonBenet had eaten earlier.
One of the most significant things about this murder scene is how badly it was done. The Ramseys, even after being given copies of past statements in advance of interviews tripped over themselves with inconsistancies and could not keep their stories straight. They locked themselves in early to lies they didn't have to tell, like not giving JB pineapple and made flimsey efforts to throw their employees and friends to the wind to try to save themselves.
They left hairs and fibers and even a Barbie nightgown to point in their direction and wiped down a note that SHOULD have had their prints on it. The only thing they did right was to be too prissy to stage a believable sex scene and therefore fail to leave DNA (as a real pedaphile would have).
The Ramseys were not good. They left clues. And then some.
Actually, there is no lack of credible evidence. Evidence, it is obvious from the early interviews that LE believed in.
As far as Lin Wood's claim that the investigation never was focused anywhere else, isn't that what EVERY lawyer uses to defend his client...Johnny Cochran and the "LAPD's rush to judgement", wasn't it said about Scott Peterson & Darlie?
As far as the evidence Lin Wood points to that is supposed to point to other suspects, in Lin Wood's own words the best he has is the RN & artifact D.N.A. that Mary Lacy, herself, said might not be related to the crime. Other cases that resulted in convictions had red herrings too. Darlie had the sock. There were unidentified fingerprints in Nicoles house and the mystery of why she had the candles lit, a bath drawn and was playing romantic music. A bushy haired stranger was sighted by people by the Country Club on the night Diane Down's kids were shot.
Lack of motive and no prior history, does not and should not carry the same weight as the evidence. And therefore it should not stand in the way of conviction.
There is a whole thread entitled evidence that leads away from Ramsey guilt and so far the only reason posted has been that parents would not do that kind of horrible thing to their child that they seemed to love.
No, it doesn't make sense. But, as nobody knows what goes on behind closed doors and trying to guess would only result in speculation, there are only the facts.
Each one, taken piece by piece maybe could be excused. But, when you look at the whole picture...they did it. That scenario could not have happened any other way.
