This is one of the issues that gave me the greatest pause, initially. In the end, I think that the Ramseys felt okay about throwing spaghetti at the wall because they knew it would not...could not...stick: investigators wouldn't find sufficient evidence to charge anyone the Ramseys named as potential suspects, simply because none of them were guilty. Naming those people was a tactic in the service of obfuscation and delay. The Ramseys probably had no way of knowing that Santa Claus and his wife had a history that could look bad; even so, Mr. and Mrs. Claus were eventually cleared.I don't know about this. The more I think about it, the more BR doesn't make sense, as the guilty one. 1st of all, if a lawyer or dr actually gave the Rs such horrid advice, IMO, after the shinola hit the fan, they would have changed their advice...,too many innocent lives were being ruined, for a dr to stand idly by. For instance, stories and speculation were swirling about the santa claus. I mean, a real case was made against him, and he could have been charged with murder. What would the Rs have done? Also, the housekeeper was interviewed and had to give multiple writing samples. I bet that woman was scared to death. One of these people could have gone to prison, and for what? to protect a 9 year old's reputation? No, I think something else was going on here. It's 1 thing to protect your child, but not to the point of letting an innocent person take the fall. The Rs, if caught, would have faced their own serious trouble, for lying and setting somebody up. MOO.
I don't think that the Ramseys had a lot of time to cook up a story, because what happened was not premeditated; they had to think on the fly, and under stress of that magnitude a person's basic nature takes control of the personality. I believe that the Ramseys would have thrown anyone under the bus, just to take attention away from their son - knowing that in all likelihood, nothing would come of their stated suspicions. If something had, and one of the people they named had actually been charged, then they might have owned up. They took their chances, and it paid off.
This is only my opinion, which of course counts for nothing in the scheme of things and certainly is not presented as truth - it is the explanation that makes the most sense to me, but I recognize that others with equal or greater familiarity with the case than mine hold very different views.