I sat down just now to type out one of my (several) IDI theories - and developed a sudden, cracking migraine. LOL. Probably in anticipation. Anyway, here it is in truncated form, as my head hurts:
IF an intruder (and in this particular theory I do NOT mean "stranger", please pay attention to this so I don't have to c&p my own comments at you) did indeed enter the Ramsey home, the way they went about things including leaving the note on the back stairs suggests to me that they knew the layout of the house and the general habits of the family.
That they knew the Ramseys pretty well (which is not to say the Ramseys knew the intruder to the same degree) is evidenced in the ridiculous note, which obviously was never intended as an actual ransom note. It is rambling and primarily both vindictive and challenging toward John Ramsey, and demonstrates that if the killer was not personally known to the family, then he/she was probably adept at stalking/rummaging through garbage/etc, and that this was not an unplanned crime.
The lack of DNA evidence suggests the killer knew not to leave any - which suggests again a planned crime, and one committed by somebody familiar to some degree with police procedure. It wasn't a rushed, careless crime, but one carefully planned. Careless, unprepared killers leave gobs of DNA and hairs and stuff all over the place - this one did not.
It was winter. Hats and gloves, zip-up coats. No need for ninja-wear - ordinary outdoor gear, on a night when people are usually out and about for Christmas visits, would do. Perhaps the hat was edged in beaver fur:
http://images.wikia.com/fanon/image...ats-canada-goose-classique-beaver-fur-hat.jpg
But ah, the note looks SO sloppy. Of all the evidence, the note is the most puzzling to me. Somebody smart enough to not leave skin cells all over the crime scene, the garrotte cord and the body like tell-tale confetti was then suddenly so thick as to leave that stupid note?.... It has never really made sense to me, unless I've thought of the note as a prime bit of crime scene manipulation.
That JonBenet probably suffered the head injury first, suggests that the killer wasn't overly interested in JonBenet's responses to the rest of whatever was done to her. She was wacked on the head first, hard enough to crack bone, certainly hard enough to knock her out - and the rest was done later.
Added to this, JonBenet was probably penetrated vaginally by either/both a paintbrush handle and a gloved finger and NOT a penis, and this, as well as the lack of semen and skin cells and such, suggests to me, in the context of this theory, that the killer may not have entered the home with the singular goal of molesting a child.
Given that JonBenet might have been garotted anywhere up to an hour after her head trauma, it stands to reason that the killer, possibly with a bound and unconscious child stashed in the wine cellar, had plenty of time to wander about writing notes and moving things about.
While I am a great proponent of the fact that there's always an exception to every rule, and nowhere moreso than in the realm of human behaviour, all this seems to me highly untypical behaviour of the average home invasion pedophile.
And while the note in pointing toward "a small foreign faction" actually does the opposite, it actually does a great job of making clear that the crime is all about John Ramsey. In light of the points above, I am pondering the idea that if somebody wanted to seriously hurt and disgrace and degrade John, without confronting him directly, and without giving away who they were, precisely, how better to do so than invade his home at Christmas, murder his tiny daughter, stage her death in such a horrifying way, and leave a note which in subtext totally telescopes John as the focus of the crime?
The note was (quite obviously) not a ransom note - it was a rant. It appears angry, mocking, an arrow pointing squarely at John.
And the rest of the staging may have been sheer diversion - the killer had made thier point, achieved their goal, struck at the heart of John Ramsey and his comfortable life, and didn't need this to be recognised by anyone but themselves. Though, thanks to the note, there'd be plenty of room for John to reflect on the idea that this was all -his- fault...
I need to go take something for this headache. Wish I could elucidate more right now but owel. Maybe tomorrow. But that's IDI Theory 1 in a nutshell, have at it - just please be nice about it, I'm not your enemy, try not to be snarky, remember we're all here for the sake of a child and not to snipe at each other or win points.
I'm more interested by far in physical evidence that might challenge (or hey, even support!) this theory than yet another pile of 'woulda's'.
