What with all the thorough battery cleaning, ransom note writing and dictating, strangling their daughter, etc, there would be too little time and too much adrenalin pumping around to get any sleep that night. Which follows that from about 7.00am one day, to about 7.00pm the next day, that is a whopping 36 hours of absolute horror. I would have thought someone would have noticed the effects of exhaustion in both John and Patsy (inability to focus, nodding off, looking drunk or drugged, incoherent), at one point at least.
The absence of any record of this not a minor issue. As traumatized as these people were, they acted like they had at least some sleep in the previous 40 hours - in front of various witnesses.
Apologies, but I don't fully understand the meaning of your point?
FWIW:
1. It's possible PR & JR did get some sleep that night after returning home.
2. PR & JR took sleeping pills around this time. PR was on Prozac and Ativan and continued that for years - she
was drugged, and looked like it (re: 01/01/97 CNN interview).
If you have "too much adrenalin[e] pumping" and your daughter has just been murdered, should they have visible "effects of exhaustion"? What "various witnesses" reported their sleepiness or lack thereof, and again, why do you feel this is significant?
With all due respect, Brandon, there are many posters on WS who have spent considerable time over the years exploring case evidence. Not just speculative theories or assuming how someone should or shouldn't act under given circumstances (which has and will continue to happen - you are doing exactly the same), but actual evidence - forensic, behavioral, and testimonial - collected by LE.
A treasure trove of this evidence can be found here:
http://www.acandyrose.com/jonbenetindex.htm. That website is an excellent resource if you wish to take a deeper dive. Other threads on WS also review the evidence, if you care to browse back that far.
It's absolutely not necessary or expected for everyone to review each bit of evidence before positing a theory or commenting about the case on WS. That's exactly what WS is designed for - as a group, we can crowd-source information in an attempt to find the truth. I think that's what you are doing as well, and all reasonable theories (those backed up with evidence) are welcome here.
However, I do think it is irresponsible for you to make comments such as, "there is nothing connecting [the Ramseys] to her killing - except theories - with next to no evidence." That would mean that every expert and LE official who have connected the Ramseys to crime scene evidence, and the 1999 GJ who chose to indict the Ramseys based on that evidence, have zero credibility. Please take that into consideration and review that evidence before simply discounting it.
Additionally, if you are going to post about an intruder theory, you should do so with connections to evidence (discounting other theories without factual basis and postulating about how people should or shouldn't act doesn't count). Know that the Ramsey theories
are supported by evidence, per the rules of the site owners, even if that evidence isn't listed every time someone posts. Remember that this is a 20 year old case with 20 years' worth of evidence and expert opinion to sift through. If you do not care enough to absorb any bit of that, then perhaps you should not participate.