I don't think there is any good evidence to point the finger at any specific individual. Family member or stranger. It is one of those cases I doubt will ever be solved. I think that making judgements based on behaviour pre murder is likely to cloud the issues. There is so much about the actual evidence that remains unresolved imho.
Agreed. A lot of facts in the case are weird (a ransom note that quotes a Danny Devito movie?), but they seem to draw attention inside the household without actually implicating anyone in particular. I haven't seen enough publicly-available evidence against any one person that would even come close to passing the reasonable doubt standard if I were a juror; in fact, I haven't seen enough to pass the preponderance of evidence standard needed for wrongful death.
The $118k ransom comes to mind. John's bonus amount wasn't something widely known, but at the same time, there's plenty of plausible scenarios where someone could've gotten wind of it. John could've mentioned it to a colleague over lunch, and someone at a nearby table could've overheard. Patsy could've had the same conversation with a friend. They certainly discussed it with each other at some point, and who knows who else was in the room at the time. To the perpetrator, that would be the perfect opportunity to point suspicion inward. At the same time, you could also say that it would be hard to imagine either parent being stupid enough to write something so specific that it obviously would've drawn suspicion upon themselves.
Was Patsy's behavior odd for someone who's lost a child? Perhaps, I dunno. Obviously, that alone isn't evidence of guilt, although it can point an investigation in the right direction. Did she crave attention (from the media in this case)? Well, this is a Miss WV we're talking about, so that part didn't strike me as unusual. As far as suspicious behavior, let's just say she's no Casey Anthony.
Obviously, the media played a huge part in shaping the narrative surrounding this case, and as usual, they were more interested in covering a story that attracted viewers than finding the truth. The John Mark Carr incident made it clear what the media's intentions were. After a decade of obsessing over every piece of "evidence" - no matter how real, imagined, or insignificant - they abandoned the entire narrative and switched to, "OK, we found the guy!" This despite not seeing any evidence against him, looking into his contradictory statements, or even reading his nonsensical story that seemed to be a sick man's fantasy altered to fit the known evidence. He was simply a walking pedo stereotype. Whereas most walk amongst us unnoticed, if you passed this guy while on the sidewalk with your children, you'd take one look at him and cross the street. For a fleeting moment, the media was apologetic to the parents. I distinctly remember Ashley Banfield seemingly apologizing for the whole media, saying how sorry she was that they pointed the finger at the parents for 10 years. Within days, they were forced to take a more cautious tone, after John Ramsey said not to jump to conclusions and Carr's family saying that he was in Alabama the whole time. Once the DNA exonerated him, they resumed their prior narrative like nothing happened.
I'm not saying that nobody in the household could have been involved, either. We simply don't know. Focusing on evidence that's been discussed to death but doesn't really lead anywhere runs the risk of implicating the innocent based on hearsay - think Jason Simpson ("they wore the same hat!"). Sadly, I think that this case will never truly be solved. If there were flaws with the DNA, the only thing that (IMO) could save this case is a match with someone local. If the perpetrator was a repeat offender, they'd already be in the system, so the chances of finding anyone new are slim.
