An Outside Intruder Did Not Kill JonBenet Ramsey

Thank you, ShabShoral.Quick note: since this case is so surrounded in mystery and there are holes in every theory, Shab and I have agreed to split the BoP rather than giving it completely to Pro. We decided it would be very unfair and that I would likely win due to the unfair split of BoP. That being said, it still relies slightly more heavily on Pro, as he is making the claim that specific individuals were responsible for a murder, and this must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.I. IntroThere are many holes in all theories regarding this case. Therefore, even though my opponent's case relies heavily on some assumptions, mine will also. Both are dependent on this, as neither theory is complete. However, there are too many coincidences for the Ramsey family to be responsible for the murder.II. Basement EntryA window in the basement was left open, with unidentified fingerprints on it. There was a scuff mark under the window, which could have been a mark from the shoe of an intruder entering. A suitcase was propped up against the wall, and the suitcase had an unidentified footprint. [1] Cobwebs also appeared to have been swept to the side, further proving that the window had been used. [2] Someone intruded in the Ramsey family's basement that night. It's just a matter of whether or not the intruder is also the killer.III. DNA Evidence WithheldDNA evidence of blood, belonging to a male, was found on JonBenet's underwear the night of the killing. For whatever reason, the police decided to withhold this evidence. This evidence was later used to exonerate JonBenet's father, John, and brother, Burke. [1] My opponent wishes to base this debate on Occam's razor, but that would mean assuming the blood was from her killer. The blood was not her father's, was not her brother's, and was not her mother's, as it was the blood of a male. Therefore, Occam's Razzor forces you to vote Con.IV. Media BiasThe media was supposedly skewed toward persecuting JonBenet's family, and as a result the public and police also pursued this route. [1] However, when presented with all the facts in a 2003 trial, the judge dismissed the charges as she believed the intruder theory was far more credible. [3]V. False "Evidence"Due to the bias, false media reports flourished. Turns out, there was no snow around the house that night, so there was no opportunity for footprints to be left. Additionally, experts who tested Mrs. Ramsey's handwriting against that of the ransom note were unable to conclude that they matched. Inconclusive = not guilty. [1]VI. ConclusionAccusing the Ramseys is an argument based on some oddities surrounding the case. However, that is the nature of all unsolved murders. There are weird circumstances and unanswered questions, else they'd be solved. People try to piece these together to justify accusing an individual that is real and concrete rather than allowing the conclusion that someone was able to get away with it. That is a scary concept most people don't wish to come to terms with; someone this evil could have gone unpunished for their acts.[1] http://www.rollingstone.com...[2] http://abcnews.go.com...[3] http://usatoday30.usatoday.com...