1) The Ramseys were very social people and were fairly well known in the community. Many people would have known their plans
How many? Which ones? At that point, I had worked in Boulder for 13 years, and I had never even heard of the Ramseys much less knew what their Christmas plans were.
As I've pointed out before... the killings were thought to be a
personal cause... someone who had some sort of reason (real or imagined) to specifically target the Ramseys. He would have had at least some knowledge of the family.
Claiming
you had no knowledge of them is irrelevant.
2) No, he wouldn't. He knew they had children and would be back at some time. That's all he needed. (For comparison, the BTK killer waited in people's homes too, even though he didn't know exactly when they'd be home.)
Again, how did he know that they would be back?[/quote]
Already explained.
3) Plenty of rooms in the basement. And even if an intruder could never be 100% sure of a perfect hiding spot, he still had a goal to achieve; a hiding spot with a small chance of risk would be superior to not achieving that goal
When he could have simply broken into the home in the middle of the night, strangled JBR, and slipped away? Because merely strangling her wouldn't have caused enough hurt, so he had to bash her on the head and then strangle her?
Yup, pretty much. After all, we know that Jack the Ripper dissected his victims in the middle of the street, whereas he could have just killed them and slipped away. Why? Because he had a compulsion to do so. BTK stayed around his victims, even depositing semen at the crime scene, and then taunted police with letters. Why? again, he had a compulsion to do so.
Whomever the murderer of JonBenet is, they did not have a financial motive. It was not a random thing. He had both a desire to harm the Ramseys and a rather sick desire to torture JonBenet. Simply stabbing her and running away would not have achieved that goal.
The kids were 9 and under. What exactly are they going to do with it?
Tell all sorts of people. In the US, people are very private about their finances. I did not know how much my dad made until he died.
You really think there are an army of 9 year olds running around bragging about their parent's income?
I knew how much my dad made. Granted, I was a few years older than the 2 Ramsey kids. I doubt my parents were that concerned.
The Ramseys were overly trusting people (e.g. leaving a broken window, not setting alarms, giving multiple keys to workmen, neighbors, etc.) Not locking up paystubs in a vault certainly fits into that trusting nature.
Keeping financial documents hidden fits in more with being casual about allowing workers into their home. Pay stubs contain enough information to allow someone to steal a person's identity.
And not locking doors, not setting burglar alarms, and giving keys out to dozens of people that you don't really know well is a way to allow people to break into your house and steal your possessions. Yet that's exactly what the Ramseys did. If these people were willing to risk their possessions, its not exactly a leap of faith to assume they'd also show a lack of concern regarding pay stubs.
Bank statements probably weren't sitting on the living room table for anyone to peruse. They would be in an office or bedroom. Not places that people attending a party would wander to.
People who host parties are known to occasionally give tours of their homes.
Not at any house party I've been to.
I'm pretty sure anything like pay stubs would have copies sent to accountants, etc.
And then just thrown onto a table? How many people's homes have you been in where their paycheck stubs or bank statements have been visible? I've been in only 1 (my own).
I certainly have confidential information visible in mine, if someone were to break in.
What you've described is a scenario in which someone broke into a house, spent considerable time rummaging through the house, wrote a letter using a pen and notepad from that house and left both the pen and notepad in the house, left the letter in an unconventional location, went into a bedroom and carried off JBR, bashed her on the head, carried her down to the basement, decided to molest her with a paintbrush, after waiting at least 45 minutes strangled her, and eventually left.
Yup. A complete scenario (although I did go into more details). A scenario that describes almost
all the evidence.. A scenario where the main actors have modifications and personalities that are consistent.
Which is more than what you've provided, which is a vague "Inside Job" claim, without any sort of ability to put forward a reasonable scenario about how such a job could have come about.
All without leaving any trace that anyone else was ever in the house, except perhaps a couple of drops of perspiration or saliva on her underpants.
Not to mention the missing roll of tape. And while the presence of an unlocked door in the house doesn't guarantee an intruder, it certainly shows the viability of unlocked entrances as a way in or out of the building.
The intruder would either have to be incredibly lucky to have pulled this off or been a very experienced criminal.
Despite your claims, you're not likely to find DNA spewed all over every surface of the house, regardless of how long a criminal is there. And simply wearing latex/rubber gloves would have eliminated fingerprints.
Of course luck might have had something to do with it... incompetent police procedures early on (allowing non-police free range in the house) would have corrupted whatever evidence did exist, and a mistaken focus on the Ramseys would have meant that the search for other suspects would be minimized.
