I strongly disagree. Patsy was not charged because the evidence was not sufficient to eliminate reasonable doubt. An Intruder's defense attorney could argue there was enough evidence incriminating Patsy to cause reasonable doubt, meaning the "Intruder Defendant" may not have killed JonBenet. Vice versa, Patsy's attorney could argue there was evidence suggesting perhaps an Intruder did kill JonBenet, thus causing reasonable doubt for Patsy (or John). Thirdly, a defense attorney could argue that there was insufficient evidence to determine whether Patsy or John killed JonBenet, particularly since the sequence of events isn't precise.
The evidence with the most weight, as you call it, could fit Patsy, John, or an Intruder or Guest. Patsy's jacket fibers are very incriminating in that Patsy said she never wore that jacket in the basement nor did she ever wear it when she painted. The ransom note pad being in the home, the opportunity, and place of death also incriminate someone living within the home. The fact that Patsy could not be eliminated as the writer of the note is also evidence of forensic quality that tends to incriminate her as well. The time of death fits the routine Patsy and JonBenet had since midnight is when Patsy said she usually awoke and took JonBenet to the bathroom (except Patsy said she didn't do so this particular night).
Had a pedophile done this, JonBenet would have been much more damaged sexually than what the autopsy describes and it's very unlikely a pedophile would molest the child in the home with both parents present, nor would a pedophile take time to clean, re-dress and swaddle a child. Had a kidnapper done it, the body would not have been left in the home.
