Einstein would not have agreed that you cannot formulate a theory before all the facts are in. One example of many: his special theory of relativity posits a universe in which there is no such thing as a "standard" measure. For him, the length of a measuring rod varies according to its placement with respect to the earth's rotation. When he posited this theory, there was in fact NO evidence whatsoever that measuring rods could vary that way and in fact the idea seemed totally absurd. His theory was NOT based on the "facts" but on the logic of the sort of observation that enables us to establish the facts.

There are plenty of "facts" in the Ramsey case. But no one theory that reasonably explains all of them. The theory of relativity forces us to reconsider the "obvious" fact that measuring rods are uniform regardless of their orientation in space. Perhaps the Ramsey case requires a theory that would force us to reconsider some of the "obvious" facts about the murder of JonBenet.

In principle facts ought to be distinguishable from theory, but in practice the two are often inseperable.