I'm a "switcher" because, until recently, I believed the Intruder Theory. My reason was simply that I couldn't imagine how a parent could do to a child what had been done to JonBenet. In the wake of the John Mark Karr arrest, however, I decided to review the evidence in the case. I saw Tricia's challenge, somewhere here on websleuths, to study the documents at FFJ. I also read Steve Thomas' book and found it to be the most credible thing I've ever read on the case. I now believe that Patsy Ramsey killed her daughter, probably in the way hypothesized by Thomas. I still have a few nagging questions, though, and I was hoping some of you might be able to help make them nag me a bit less. Here goes. (1) Prior abuse. JBR went to the doctor far too much, had an abnormally high number of "accidents," incontinence issues, "chronic vaginal trauma." It paints the portrait of a little girl abused by someone in her family. Thomas seemed disinclined, though I wasn't clear why, to attribute any of this to the father. Why not John Ramsey? Just because he was proper with his other children does not mean he might not have done something untoward with his youngest daughter, particularly after Patsy's cancer problems. (I have a friend who was abused by her father after her mother died. The logic of the situation almost seemed to lead to it. Mother gone, daughter becomes surrogate.) (2) Suppose Patsy was a chronic abuser. Suppose she flipped out for whatever reasons and smashed JBR in the head. I still find it extremely difficult to believe that she could have strangled her daughter with a ligature. It's such an intimate way to kill someone. I just don't understand how a parent could do it -- particularly 45 minutes after the original outburst of rage. Wouldn't the passion have subsided? Wouldn't reason have prevailed? "My God, she's breathing... There's still hope... Call an ambulance!" (3) Thomas theorizes that John Ramsey discovered JBR's body during that late-morning interval that Arndt lost track of him. Thomas then thinks that John understood the situation and decided to cover for his wife. This I find to be the most perplexing point of the whole theory. Why in the world would he cover for his wife? Why would he choose to live with a psychopath? Why would he subject his son to living with someone capable of killing her own child? It makes no sense. It's difficult to believe that John was so obsessed with maintaining his lifestyle or whatever that he'd cut his losses with JonBenet and keep a pathological wife around. How could he know she wouldn't harm him or Burke? Even if he loved Patsy blindly, wouldn't it make more sense to hand her over to authorities, get her treatment? Maybe even wash his hands of her altogether? After all, no one would blame him if he divorced the killer of his daughter. John was an attractive, wealthy man. He could have found other women. The only way I can see John covering for Patsy is if she had something on him as well. What would that be? Proof that he did abuse JonBenet? Business secrets? Something weirder or worse? In the end, I now believe Patsy Ramsey killed her daughter. But I despair of ever understanding it, and perhaps that's just the thing -- it's ipso facto incomprehensible.