I will say this.
Much like the JFK assassination, what side you believe in the Jonbenet Ramsey case has little to do with facts and more to do with the answer that your are most comfortable and willing to believe.
The same can be said for the Jeffrey MacDonald Murder case.
All three illicit the same amount of passion and strong beliefs that there side is right. Yet the reasons why they believe their side is right has little to do with facts, logic or justice.
I think that is probably true of the "average" Amercian. I do not believe it is true of many of us who have researched these various cases. I was a young child when JFK was shot and soon became obsessed with the Assasination. I read virtually every conspiracy book on the subject. I was definitely, like most Americans, most comfortable and willing to believe that it had to be a conspiracy. Surely the course of history was not changed by some pathetic lone nut.
Problem was, no matter how many books I read with however many in depth and well argued theories, there was some niggling issue that kept me researching until I had to finally accept what I absolutely, 100% did not want to accept. LHO, IMO, acted alone.
I actually met Jeffrey MacDonald in the 70's when I was dating a Long Beach, CA. Arson Investigator. Like almost the entire L.B. Police force and Fire Dept. he loved "Dr. Jeff" who had made it his mission to win over the departments. Whenever an officer was injured or wounded, MacDonald had standing orders that he was to be called, no matter when, where or what. He was handsome, funny and charming. I "should" have believed him innocent. I wanted to believe him innocent. Then, after he was finally tried and convicted I read "Fatal Vision". He was guilty as hell and the evidence was, and remains, overwhelming.
So, yes, I agree these cases create storng emotions. Most people are not versed in these cases the way many of us here are. Shockingly, not everyone is a true crime fanatic, like us:
So, I while I agree that facts, logic or justice may have little to do with some people's opinions, I do believe there are plenty of us that have formed our opinions based on all three.
It just happened that you named three of the cases I have always been most fascinated with. Others are Darlie Routier, the Marilyn Shepppard Murder, and the Boston Strangler. I have recently completely changed my opinion on The Strangler (I never believed it was Albert DeSalvo, I now believe I was wrong and he was) , re -enforced my position on Marilyn Sheppard (Sam did it, I always knew it, and now believe it more than ever). Darlie is such a ridiculous slam dunk that I cannot even pretend to need to reconsider that. Just waiting anxiously for the needle in her arm.
However, I am taking a fresh look at this case. I want to try to review it as objectively as I can and try to look at possibilities other than RDI. After all, I was once 100% convinced of a conspiracy with JFK and that DeSalvo never killed anyone.
I could be wrong on this one too.