I know - and they don't want to believe Wecht could be correct in his theory, but they believe Wecht was correct in the details of his theory that they need for their theory. I constantly tell people how there was actually quite a bit of blood. They don't want to hear it.
JonBenet's heart was beating when she was hit on the head, and it continued to beat afterwards for at least ten minutes, or the head wound would not have been able to develop as much as it did.
I don't see how anyone can argue with that, but they do. They need this murder to have been the work of a sadistic intruder who got his jollies by strangling the children of people he was jealous of, never mind the evidence that indicates that was not the case at all.
And exactly, if she was being strangled to death (somehow without struggling whatsoever - hmmm), why would anyone need to hit her on the head? If she was at the point of death when hit on the head, how did it end up being so developed? Why didn't she struggle against the restraints or the cord choking her at all, if she was strangled first and the head wound was last? It seems pretty clear to me that she was completely unconscious when strangled - and here's where clever IDIs point out that she had to have been unconscious from the stun gun - but why would a strangler with a stun gun need to bludgeon a child on the head?
The hardest thing for the IDI in my pov is explaining how there's no evidence of an intruder (that's okay, they swear up and down that the undie DNA *had* to have come from the killer) and how the Rs made themselves look guilty with their denial of cooperation and consistently inconsistent versions of events. "Oh, they were so distraught and in such shock from the murder, they couldn't even function!" Yeah, that's why they're going on CNN to address their innocence to the planet.