twizzler333 said:
You may well be right in your theory but you can also look at it in other ways too that do include staging but that doesn't mean the parents did it. A sexual perp could have been someone she knew and someone who in all likelihood cared about her but he also had this strange fascination and sexual perversion with young girls, who molested her, strangled her and after realizing just what he had done (because he did personally in some way care about this child), was so overcome with rage (at himself) that he picked something up, saw her lying there in the floor and in frustruation bashed her skull in with a flashlight possibly. He cleaned her up by wiping away evidence. He was not stupid, he knew there would be DNA so he had to be sure and get rid of any evidence he could have left behind. He covered her up because of the part of him that cared about her. The monster in him killed her and he hates himself for it. He is still angry and lashing out at people he loves to this day, while keeping this secret. I imagine he has a short fuse and I would hate to be someone in his life, as I imagine the guilt he feels takes its toll on him and his relationships with loved ones. Now this is just my theory, and it may be a bunch of bogus crap when the truth eventually comes out and your theory may very well be correct. But it is not the only theory that would fit. For every theory we all come up with here to point to the parents it can be disputed and pointed in yet another direction to make sense of the intruder theory as well. There are just to many different aspects, truths and untruths going around about this case, it is hard to really say. All the theories make some sense in one way or another but I believe the one that has the most "common" sense to it will be the one that proves true one day. In my opinion, it makes more "common" sense that an intruder did it, but like I said, I could be wrong. Either way, I truly hope that this case is solved soon.
Twizzler, there is a big foundational problem with your theory.
Nowhere in your stated theory do you mention one of the most important FACTS of the case: The note. It would not fit in your theory but you cannot simply ignore major piece of factual evidence in the case.
Kidnappers who kidnap for ransom are motivated by money.
Sexual perverts who are brazen enough to enter a home on Christmas night of all the nights to choose of the year - enter the home to abduct their victim so that they may do their dirty deeds to the victim and satisfy their lust. They grab their victim and RUN!
I must point out that NIETHER of these motivations were the true motivations in this crime.
The child was never kidnapped for ransom.
The child was never raped and molested as you see occur with true pedophile sexual predators.
And yet a 'ransom note' was left at the scene. But wait - this was not a typical or real ransom note. It was fake. So why would a sexual predator intent on satisfying his motivation of sexual perverseness - not only bother to take the time (in the house mind you) to write a bogus 'ransom' note - but why would he even THINK of it? He is single minded. Perverted sex.....not money.... but wait.
No, that's not right either. Because the molestation done to JonBenet was not on the scale of a sexual predator (which you MUST call this person were it an intruder who BROKE INTO the home intent on sexual abuse).
So really the evidence shows NEITHER motivation was true.
Not sexual rape and extreme abuse that those intent on it commit.
And not kidnapping for ransom as kidnappers for ransom commit.
You must look at what was MADE OBVIOUS by the killer.
And what was HIDDEN by the killer.
Hidden? The head wound.
Hidden? The sexual molestation. (minor compared to what is seen by predators as in the Polly Klass case and the Danielle VanDam case for example. Whose molesters and killers TOOK THEM AWAY from their homes the split second they grabbed them. Not so in the JonBenet case. Because the motivations in them were completely different) Child was not only wiped down (something sexual predators do not do) but care was taken to pull her pants back up and cover and wrap her in a blanket. Layer upon layer trying to "cover" up not only the victim - but the abuse.
Possibly hidden? Manual strangulation which was then attempted to be covered up by placing a cord around her neck to divert attention away from that. Not a fact - just a possibilty that has been raised.
Made Obvious?
Cord around the neck and loosely tied around the wrists. (With victim's mother's jacket fibers entwined in the knot of the cord wrapped around victim's neck I might add - not to mention same fibers discovered in paint tote where paintbrush handle was grabbed from that was used in the cord tied around victim's neck....)
Tape on mouth. No tongue imprints were found on tape - indicating she was not even conscious and perhaps already dead when applied so what is the point other than a "visual"? Neither did the coroner detect any markings on her skin around her mouth where the tape was.
The fake note.
Why an attempt to create a "visual"? Something obvious?
To create the illusion that "THIS" is what happened officer - to of course hide what REALLY happened.
There is NO evidence of any intruder entering that house that night.
There is plenty of evidence and circumstances of the case to indicate that this was a sad familial homicide that took place that night and was covered up.