I've been studying this case since the very beginning, but have only come to a few firm conclusions. 1. I think it's almost 100% certain that Patsy wrote the ransom note. I say this because it simply isn't believable that a real kidnapper wrote it. It certainly has her personality all over it. 2. Because the ransom note was not legitimate, and thus a ruse by someone in the home (again, almost certainly Patsy), this means that no "intruder" killed Jonbenet. Outside of that, however, I find this case to be continually perplexing. While I have no choice but to accept that someone in the home caused Jonbenet's death, I find all such possible scenarios to be implausible in varying degrees. The most vexing problem any invesigator faces is the fact Jonbenet suffered a horrific blow to her skull, but was also strangled, or at least found in the position of a strangling victim. In the most popular scenario (postulated by Steve Thomas), we have an angry Patsy causing Jonbenet's death, probably over bed wetting issues. Is this thesis really tenable? Can we accept that a mother, who appeared to be loving and very close to her daughter, could snap so severely that she hit her hard enough to accidentally kill her? Adding to this is the fact we must also accept that she staged a strangulation aftewards, for some reason, and worst of all, must also have staged some digital molestation. And, in whatever scenario we choose, was her death so obvious that both parents instantly made the curious decision not to seek immediate medical help, but instead to launch an intricate coverup? I find this scenario very difficult to accept, unless Patsy was truly mentally deranged, and managed to hide that fact from her large circle of friends and acquaintances. Also, if Patsy killed Jonbenet in a rage, why would John join the coverup, especially such a bizarre one, with weird staging and that ridiculous ransom note? I have to think that most husbands, if they discovered their wife had angrily killed their daughter, would be extremely upset at the wife, and quite unwilling to help her cover up that death. Scenario number 2 has Patsy discovering John molesting Jonbenet, and angrily hitting her on the head, either in misdirected blame at her or perhaps missing a blow intended for her husband. This one perhaps explains the joint coverup a bit better, since both parents would have something terrible to conceal from the authorities. However, I would also think that they'd almost certainly get a divorce afterwards, at the earliest opportunity. I can't imagine either of them wanting to live with the other in such a situation. I find any hypothesis that has John killing Jonbenet by himself to be impossible, simply because it is unfathomable that Patsy would have joined him in covering up, and writing that absurd ransom note. Thus, I think John can be eliminated as the actual killer with a fair degree of confidence. The various intruder theories are impossible for all the reasons we've expounded on for years. No evidence of a break in, the total implausibility of an intruder showing up without pen and paper, then leaving the victim's dead body in the same location as the ransom note, etc. The ransom note alone, I believe, completely rules out any intruder. There are the conspiracy theories that involve a powerful pedophile ring, which would explain the lack of any indication of an intruder, and the fact that none of the RDI theories truly make complete sense. Was Jonbenet killed during some sick sex game, and her parents forced to construct a clumsy coverup for fear or being exposed themselves, or even being harmed by the same evil group? I respect Cyril Wecht a great deal, and this is the theory he came up with (although I don't believe he detailed a group of powerful conspirators). Finally, the theory that I have ultimately come to reluctantly believe. Burke killing Jonbenet, either in a jealous rage or perhaps accidentally, is the only thing, in my view, that explains the joint coverup by the parents. It still doesn't really explain all the staging, but if Burke killed her with a blow to the head, after fooling around with her sexually in some way, all the staging would consist of really would be a fake strangulation scene (although I still don't quite understand the need for that). However, the BDI theories leave something to be desired as well. Was he old enough to have accomplished the crime by himself? Is there any indication he could have become enraged enough to go that far, even accidentally (with one powerful blow)? And how can we explain his seemingly normal life afterwards? He went to a good college, has now graduated, I believe, and seems not to show any visible scars from what must have been a very, very traumatic event in his life, even if he didn't kill his sister. If he in fact caused her death, his lack of remorse and concern afterwards, reflected by his absence of curiosity and the strange session with the psychiatrist later, is very troubling and baffling. No one scenario really explains everything, which is why the death of Jonbenet Ramsey is an enduring mystery, the ultimate who-done-it. As closed house mysteries go, it has few competitors.