Okay, I am definitely on the fence. I couldn't vote at all because I'm really really unsure what I think. I find that a lot of the information people use to point to Ramsey guilt (most of the post tragedy behavioral stuff) is either debatable or potentially incorrect/twisted.
Quick example #1: JR makes arrangements to leave area by plane within 1/2 hour of discovering JBR's body. Seemingly a "guilty" behavior. Some reports indicate he was actually making plans to get his older daughter and son to Michigan where they were reportedly all supposed to meet before this tragedy occurred. A lot more innocent looking scenario. Now what's the "truth"? Was he really trying to get out of Dodge? Was he really trying to get his older son and daughter to Michigan? Is he a spoiled rich jerk who's used to luxury and figures it's no big deal to grieve at his second home that isn't a messed up crime scene? I think it's logical that a wealthy individual wouldn't see the impropriety of leaving town. He may have figured that the cops would handle the situation and that he'd be as accessible as needed. The guy was used to jetting around at the drop of a hat. It's not like he left the country. Most of us can't imagine doing something like that, but wealthy people think differently than people of average income. They really do. I am not trying to defend his behavior, but I am trying to point out that something many people interpret as guilty behavior, is really very debatable.
Quick example #2: JBR's grandmother is widely quoted as having said that JBR was "only a little bit molested", indicating to many, that the family knew of/was complacent about ongoing sexual abuse. Other reports indicate that she actually said something more like JBR "was molested to some extent" in reference to her understanding of the autopsy report. Glaringly different interpretations of a statement and what was or wasn't behind the statement.
When my friend was murdered, I know that a lot of the information regarding the circumstances of her death that we thought was truth, ended up being not correct. Misinformation came from many sources and was especially inaccurate in news reports and from people who were supposedly close to the case. In the end, sitting through her entire murder trial was the only way we were able to piece together what really happened to her.
There are probably thousands of similar details about this case that can be interpreted in one or both ways (Ramseys are guilty/not guilty). I'm not arguing any of these points either way. Just pointing out that many of the "indications of guilt" are debatable. I don't really know what's myth and what's truth at this point.
All that being said, I agree that the family or family friends can't be ruled out. I think the ransom note is a big clue and in my feverish brain, I always thought it was such a ridiculous piece of work that it had to have been written by either an intelligent but clueless teen or preteen, or by a lunatic. I lean towards believing it was the not the work of Patsy, although I concede there is a chance that she could have written it. I also think that the garotting, the hair, and the way JonBenet's body was handled after her death (the wiping down and redressing with the bizarre oversized panties especially) also reeks more of a lunatic or clueless teen, than of a mother who's killed her child.
As far as Karr is concerned, he seems absolutely capable of committing this crime. He has obvious pedophilic tendencies and an obvious obsession with JBR. But the huge hole is that the alibi provided by the family appears very solid to me, even without actual photographs. Logic tells me that the ex-wife especially stands to gain nothing by covering for him. I don't buy the argument that she is trying to avoid the stigma of being associated with JBR's killer. She would gain more by having him locked up for good on this murder charge than having him skulk around to cause trouble. Let's not forget that she'd also be subject to obstruction of justice charges if she were lying to protect him. I find his other family credible, but do agree that family may be more likely to cover for him than an ex-wife who can't stand him. Even though I think Karr fits the motive and means of this crime and I believe he wishes he was the perp, I don't think he had the opportunity to to commit the crime.
To me the biggest mystery in this case is that the crime has all the hallmarks of an inside job, yet the actual murder appears to have all the hallmarks of sexual sadism which is much more likely to have been committed by an intruder. I've always thought that the "staging" elements were more ritualistic in nature (expression of the dichotomous sadistic hatred/pedophilic "caring" ) rather than motivated by a desire to cover up. I've always leaned towards believing the crime was committed by someone known to the Ramseys, probably a teenage or very young adult male. I don't suspect Burke, as I think he is probably too young to have been sexually active. (I also do not think that the Grand Jury "solved the case" but can't indict because the victim is under 10. If the case was secretly solved, there is no way Karr would now be treated as a suspect, even tenuously.)
I've always been suspicious of JAR and feel that his alibi is potentially weaker than Karr's. My gut also tells me that if JAR is guilty, John and Patsy may have covered for him, but perhaps not as actively as many think. I tend to think they (John) may have found her body earlier in the morning, but I don't think they wrote the ransom note or staged the crime scene. My impression of John Ramsey is that he is an arrogant jerk. Patsy always struck me as a strong person who loved and doted on her little girl, but had wacky "Southern Belle/Pageant Queen" cultural issues. But I don't think they killed their daughter. I wouldn't be surprised if they knew or suspected who did, though. I also wouldn't be surprised if the murderer turned out to be a complete stranger.
