I apologize in advance for starting a new thread as a very infrequent poster, but I have been reading here since I picked up Kolar's book a few months ago and have not seen my specific question addressed in any of the first several pages of posts. My question is, I wonder what story the Ramseys were seeking to get investigators to believe initially? Why I ask this is, at the very beginning of the investigation, it seemed like John Ramsey went out of his way to establish that there was no way for an intruder to enter the house. He asserted that he had checked all the locks himself on the night of the murder. Also, according to Kolar (as well as Thomas and Schiller) (yeah, I've read them all over the past months), JR never bothered to mention, until several months after the murder, any of the things he supposedly had observed that would have indicated an intruder. And JR was quick to point out that he had been the one to break the basement window... Despite what they went on to emphasize later (the intruder theory), it seems to me that when it first happened, the Ramseys really wanted to point investigators in the direction of one of the people who had had a key to their home - perhaps Linda Hoffman Pugh and/or her husband? I'm curious if anyone else has thought the same thing or wondered about it. I am one who has swung from believing (after reading "Death of Innocence") that there was no way the Ramseys could have done it to becoming convinced that Patsy wrote the ransom note and that they obviously were covering up something. I think the R's were fairly intelligent people, and it seems odd to me that they would have been so unnecessarily focused on selling the police on such a specific (and potentially disprovable) narrative so early on in the case. If JR had not, for instance, been so adamant about having locked all the doors, there wouldn't have been such a need to prove an intruder squeezed in through the basement window without disturbing cobwebs. Thanks for reading my comment.