An Outside Intruder Did Not Kill JonBenet Ramsey

Thank you ShabShoral.I. IntroThough my opponent makes a strong case, my rebuttals, coupled with the general rebuttals of "innocent until proven guilty" when the Ramsey family was never found guilty, will compel the voters to go Con.II. Ransom NoteA. CircumstancesThere are multiple potential reasons for the note being written in the home. The first is that JonBenet's killer did not plan to kill her from the beginning. It could have been a case of sexual assault. The killer could have subdued JonBenet with a taser [1] which explains both the odd markings on her body. It also makes perfect sense when you think that any child molester would be likely to find a child pageant star attractive. Therefore, JonBenet would make the perfect target for a child molester. Detective Smit explains how this could have happened. The intruder entered before the Ramsey's got home that night. He wrote the ransom note at that time. After the family got home, he went to JonBenet's room, subdued her with the stun gun, took her downstairs and assaulted her. The home-made garotte was used to choke her for the thrill, as the garotte is apparently a favored tool of pedophiles. [2] The original plan was a kidnapping, so the note makes sense with the killer's original plot.The other potential answer is that the killer wrote the ransom note to send the family and authorities on a wild goose chase. The longer they bought into the kidnapping, the longer he had to get as far away as possible.Also remember that no experts ever concluded that Patsy Ramsey's handwriting matched that of the note. Handwriting experts would've been able to identify certain similarities to prove she'd written it if that were the case.B. $118,000There's no way the Ramseys would be stupid enough to use the sum of $118,000. If John Ramsey had just received a bonus of roughly this amount, it'd look very suspicious that this number was used. If they had been smart enough to move a suitcase against the wall and scuff both the suitcase and the wall, as Pro suggests in R3, they would not be naive enough to do this.There are two alternative solutions to this. As Pro said, it'd have to be someone familiar with the Ramseys' finances. This could be friends, family, or anyone working on the family's financial accounts. The Ramseys are only two of the many possibilities here.Also, this sum fits nicely with the intruder theory. An intruder, like many other murder an fantasy-stalker cases, according to Smit, would be likely to attempt escaping to Mexico. This sum was roughly a million pesos at the exchange rate of the time. This also explains why the specific denomination of it being partially in $20s makes sense, these would be easily converted. [2]III. PineappleI don't understand how Pro thinks the pineapple in JonBenet's small intestine was that from the bowl, despite many other potential sources of pineapple, due to Occam's Razor, but the blood is not from the killer, even though there are multiple (less likely, as the blood was obviously fresh or the evidence wouldn't have been used to in part exonerate John and Burke, which it was) other explanations due to Occam's Razor. This seems to be an obvious contradiction by Pro.Additionally, the pineapple isn't even a legitimate argument. There is nothing to gain from the Ramsey family lying about buying pineapple. It proves nothing, and makes no sense. There is literally no gain, so it proves nothing for Pro aside from an oddity which Pro is stretching to a sweeping accusation. If your child had just been killed, I don't think last weekend's groceries are the first thing you're thinking about.IV. Lack of EvidenceI have addressed the footprint issue, and Pro concedes that there was not fresh snow. As far as frost goes, the frost could've developed after the intruder came in, as frost usually develops late at night/early in the morning and so would've accounted for lack of footprints. Patchy snow and a light frosting would make it incredibly difficult to point definitively to there being footprints.As far as the basement entry goes, I have proven that it was possible. Smit provided photographic evidence that the window had been cleared of cobwebs, so his account should be preferred to that of Beckner. [3] Basement entry is not only plausible, but incredibly likely. Additionally, the Boulder County Prosecutor and Detective Steve Ainsworth support Smit's intruder theory, proving that even though the media and authorities were biased, some were able to differentiate the facts from overhyped misconceptions.V. ConclusionOnce again, this case is a mystery. However, with the amount of effort the police dedicated toward investigating the Ramsey family, there would be more concrete evidence in support of the family killing the girl, and significantly less evidence of an intruder. Despite the efforts of the police, the intruder theory still holds significant weight. The only reason the Ramseys continue to be suspects in the public' mind is, as aforementioned, no other concrete, specific, individuals have been identified as potential intruders, and people are not ready to accept such evil could go unpunished.Back to Shab for the last round![1] http://www.rollingstone.com...[2] http://content.time.com...[3] http://abcnews.go.com...