An Outside Intruder Did Not Kill JonBenet Ramsey

I. Intro This was a great debate. I"ll just get right into it. II. Ransom Note A. Circumstances My opponent does not offer a reason to believe that there is a scenario in which writing the ransom note in the house makes sense. His scenario would work just as well if the note was prewritten; indeed, the note itself is the issue here, and he does not adequately address the supposed intruder"s motivations for writing it with the Ramsey's paper and pen. Stun gun: Quoting *Foreign Faction* on train tracks as a potential source of the abrasions: "One of my female officers, Christine Sandoval, volunteered to be a "beta" tester the following week, and I videotaped her jabbing and slightly twisting the head of the track into the soft flesh of her palm. The pins of the track left red marks when sufficient pressure was applied, and I suspected that the twisting motion of the twin outside rails could have been responsible for the appearance of an abrasion, especially when considering that the target area was the soft skin of a 6-year-old girl's back. It was my observation that the twisting motion of the pins could have created the round and slightly rectangular aspect of the abrasions as noted by Dr. Meyer during the autopsy." The idea that the note was written to buy time makes little sense when coupled with the fact that the note was written IN the house, BEFORE the murder, as my opponent proposes. Handwriting experts may not have confirmed a match, but I trust that the voters can see the similarities themselves, and the absurdity of neither John nor Patsey being able to identify Patsey"s handwriting. B. $118,000 Is it not true that, if one had to cover up the murder of their child, they would not think rationally? I don"t see how moving a suitcase and standing on it is indicative of any great intelligence - and, given the schizophrenic content of the ransom note, it"s obvious that the murderer was not in their right mind. My opponent"s "friend or family" argument hinges on someone knowing John"s bonus, which implies they also knew how wealthy the family was - why only $118,000? It"s obvious that the number was the result of a frantic scurry. III. Pineapple My opponent says that there would be no motivation for the Ramseys to lie about the pineapple. However, I have pointed out a very strong possible motivation: to preserve the story that JonBenet was put to bed immediately, and that the parents did not interact with her from then until the ransom note was found. If JonBenet was given the pineapple by Patsey, John, or Burke, the story, as officially told, crumbles. Thus, denial was the only possible course of action. The pineapple COULD have come from somewhere else, but" there was a bowl on the table. How is that bowl not the obvious source? I believe that this point alone can prove the resolution - that is how confident I am. IV. Lack of Evidence The lack of footprints does not prove that there was no intruder, but shows that no real evidence was found that there *was*.. As for the cobwebs, quoting my previous source: "In December both Sergeant Wickman and Detective Mike Everett had seen at least three strands of a spiderweb reaching from the brick window well upward to the covering grate. No one had photographed it" V. Conclusion I just ask the voters to keep this in mind: the simplest explanation is, usually, the correct one. Thanks to CON for the debate!