I was just re-reading some passages from JD's book, "The Anatomy of a Motive," and I came across some interesting things in a story about a phony kidnapping. Here are some excerpts below followed by my comments. I don't understand how JD is so convinced of the Ramsey's innocence when all of his literature seems to point right at them. Then, he has an interview with them and he becomes a human lie detector and declares their innocence. Anyway... Sound familiar? The Ramsey house "might or might not have been secured" and the first words out of PR's mouth were "We have a kidnapping." Maybe the analysis is different because there is a note and what clearly appears to be a kidnapping (at first). The Ramsey case unquestionably falls somewhere between scenario one and two. The problem is, scenario one fits the evidence being the note, but does not fit the crime scene (a dead child is not worth any $$). (The sexual abuse doesn't add much here either) Therefore, we should look at scenario number two. In fact, this is what JD suggests in "The Cases that Haunt Us." He opines that JB's killer wanted revenge on JR. But this fails miserably when looking at JD's comments regarding the lack of contact in scenario two except in "extremely unusual" circumstances. Well, sure, the JBR case may be extremely unusual, but not really if you look at it from afar. It is only unusual in that there has been such difficulty in solving what seems, IMO, to be such a clear cut case of something went wrong in the house and a kidnapping was staged. Anyone else have any thoughts on this...?