Precisely. Since there is evidence in (at least) these two different directions, what if we consider both. Yes, your example is what I was looking for. And then, I also figure that there must be a slew of theories that were explored earlier and so weren't subsumed under RDI and IDI.
I tell ya.... focusing now on the mindset that is created by these two theories being so prominent.... I think it would be better if there were no combined "R" theory at all--how could evidence support any old R but no particular R??? And, then, same if not more so, with multiple I's!
Here's Stephen Singular's theory.I find it very interesting.
snip
Q: The most curious piece of evidence seems to be the ransom note and its mention of the unusual figure of $118,000, which seems to indicate someone close to the family is responsible. How does that fit with your theories?
I believe that the child was removed from the house that night, for the seemingly innocent purpose of photographing her or exploiting her in some way, and she was killed at another location. At least one parent knew this removal had taken place. I think that JonBenet was then returned home and the crime was covered up by someone inside the family. Both parents, in my opinion, do not have the same information about what occurred that night.
The unmatched hard evidence mentioned above excludes the Ramseys as the killers and most likely excludes their home as the scene of the crime. The death was "accidental" in that no one intended for her to be hurt, let alone killed.
Q: If that's the case, why not dispose of the body completely and claim that the child was abducted? Why would anyone go to the trouble of providing an elaborate ransom note to suggest a kidnapping when the body was found in the house? Can you provide any hypothetical scenarios to explain how and why this may have occurred?
I'm suggesting that the Ramseys loved their child deeply, despite what happened to her. To get rid of her on a cold night in December, by tossing her in a ditch or something of this sort, would have been a very difficult thing for a parent to do. I'm also suggesting, more significantly, that both parents did not participate in this cover-up. Only one. And the cover-up primarily intended to fool not the cops but the other parent. So it had to look credible while accomplishing other things: keeping the child in the house, even though she was dead, and making it look as if someone who knew their family and hated the father had come in and done all this to JonBenet. Also, one parent could not easily have left the house that night with the body. Something had to be done immediately that would occur in the home and be believable. According to John Douglas, the ex-FBI profiler who examined the Ramseys briefly after the murder and concluded they were not child killers, only one parent knew that John Ramsey had recently received a $118,000 bonus and that parent was the father. I believe that a husband's inability to confront his wife at a critical moment -- because of his desire to protect her feelings -- played an important role in this case. It is possible to be afraid of the cops, but terrified of your wife.
http://www.crime-research.org/interviews/484/2
But as that "fresh" perspective, I'd just encourage everyone to look at that idea of open-mindedness in this case again as it pertains only to themselves. Some of the attitudinal factors I'm picking up involve implying that the "Others" are not open to opposing ideas. While that may be true, if everyone reasserts openness within themselves, then any basis for such accusations will always, necessarily, be false. 
