UKGuy,
Here goes: your questions are in italics:
"At the time of JonBenet's death was the technology available to scan written-text, and have it accurately digitised in another font? If so which software? i.e. can we establish the alleged fact?"
I wish I knew an exact indentification of an OCR software readily available to the public in 1995-1996. But I can attest to seeing a document put through that process with my own eyes very near that time, IIRC. A program used by a graphics designer, who produced catalogs, was on a friends computer. A hand-written report was scanned into the computer, and a typed report was created. It blew my mind at the time, since I had just begun using a computer myself near that time, and was barely familiar with word processing. I have no doubt after seeing that done, and having been a military wife myself for nearly 10 years during the '70's and seeing the inner workings of the bridges of an Aircraft Carrier and a Destroyer, and that was just in the areas civilians were allowed, that those computers were programmed for things we surely would have considered science fiction at the time.
"Again, as per above, being discounted as the Ransom Note author, does not render you innocent, it just means you never put pen to paper. The same person could still have asphyxiated JonBenet."
It is my opinion that the same person who wrote the ransom note is the same person who murdered JB. And my opinion is not dependent on those who either agree or disagree. I believe the person who wrote the RN had intended to create a scenario in which he could effectively dispose of the body and make it appear as if an intruder did kidnap and then eventually murder JB, and if that plan failed somehow, the purpose of the RN, while it was also meant to fool Patsy and the police, would then also contain the back-up plan of shifting blame onto Patsy.
"Presumably you discount BR's presence, during the 911 call, as well as JR instructing her to make the call?"
I accept that Burke was present during the 911 call. I would also like to point out that it was John who was tersely telling him "we are not talking to you". According to the accounts of many, John was and 'ice man' and it took a lot to rile him. Obviously, to be speaking like that to your distraught child during such an upsetting time, he might have been very agitated. Maybe at Patsy for making the call? There was no uninvolved witness to John telling Patsy to make the call. Those statements came later, after considerable time had passed during which careful scripting by the RST or John himself could have prevailed. And there was one account by Patsy, later on, that she made the decision to make the call on her own.
"Your theory assumes premeditation, in terms of the font digitisation etc. If this had been the case I would have expected JonBenet to have been dumped outdoors, with the Ransom Note left behind. Also the completely amateur cleanup and relocation of JonBenet to the wine-cellar along with incriminating forensic evidence, does not suggest premeditation, quite the opposite".
I am proposing that JR had been preparing for the possibility he was going to be exposed. While I think he had made the plans for the kidnapping scene to be executed as a means to dispose of JB, I am not sure if he had premeditated Christmas night as the day of the deed. Though he claimed responsibility for choosing that day for the tombstone so the whole world would remember her death. Oh, yes, hell hath no fury like a lover scorned.
But let's speculate that he was just hoping for some special Christmas time with JB, and when the vaginal activity started, it produced a reactionary scream, because of pain she might have been suffering due to the recent former discovered molestation. One of the experts suggested it was withing 72 hours of that night. A six year old. She might have been hurting quite badly. She screamed, the scream was subdued, but he knew the time had come and it resulted in the bash.
Granted, John being an amateur, the clean up was not that of a professional killer, but it was done convincingly enough to even the trained eye that a special light had to be used to determine the base of the fluid left on her thighs. And much of the additional evidence required forensic documentation, which was only found to be 'microscopic', or possibly contaminated. Some evidence clearly received more attention from the killer than other aspects, but those that remained without special attention have been no help in solving the crime, have they? So maybe he would have known a little bit about what to do, after all.
"Patsy Ramsey was involved in the Wine-Cellar staging she has forensic evidence linking her to the ligature, duct-tape, paint-tote, paintbrush etc."
There is forensic evidence suggesting the JACKET that Patsy was wearing when she arrived home from the Whites was in the area of the paint tote and connected to items found on JB. The fibers were described as being "consistent with"her jacket, though, so there might also have been something else responsible for those red (and other color fibers) found, i.e. a Santa Suit, or a scarf - similar to the one that was photographed on the counter of the kitchen? And while the Jacket could have been at the crime scene, it does not mean Patsy had to have been inside of it. Again, no witnesses to seeing her there - circumstantial evidence supported by the possibility of secondary transfer.
"If you think its JDI then there is evidence to directly implicate Patsy Ramsey, and if you think its PDI there is evidence to implicate John Ramsey."
I disagree with both of these statements, since it is entirely conceivable to me that JR acted fully without the involvement of Patsy, and if I had interpreted the evidence to believe Patsy killed JB without the help of John, as others have, then that would be my opinion. There are, by the way, those who do not think John was in any way involved - check out the poll.
"So it appears both parents colluded with each other to stage a homicide crime-scene with their own daughter as victim?"
Not to me.
"Why would either parent agree to assist the other, what have they to gain, given the possiblity of detection and conviction?"
I believe JR and the RST team worked on Patsy to corroborate the theory that an intruder committed the crime, after convincing her that without her compliance, John would be arrested. John needed this theory to keep himself from being arrested, and he preferred to have Patsy free of arrest as well, to continue his masterful charade as a powerful, respected pillar of society with a "normal" (his words over and over) family.
"So assuming both parents did collude then any RDI theory is a starter. So which one answers the most questions, e.g. BDI. This does not make it a smoking-gun since further evidence might emerge making JDI more probable."
Burke was/is a victimized participant, who was unjustly brought into this horror because he had some suspected disorders of his own, and might have been involved in sexual exploration with his sister - a rather common occurrence in childhood between children of their age. But both aspects combined have created a highly suspicious avenue of theory for some.
And in asking others to respect my theory, I offer to respect theirs.
:moo:
...BUT, to make JDI theory possible, ALL THREE premises must be TRUE (it's very important - 
