Good digging, Braveheart. I also want to commend you on your very thorough job of handwriting comparison. Sorry I never commented on that sooner. I found it very interesting.

>One point I wish to make is this: What Officer R saw at 6:15 am the morning of the 26th. as he walked the perimeter of the Ramsey house was the light "dusting of snow", or trace, which he characterised as "frost". You can have frost then snow but not the other way around. When the sun came up at 7:20 the dusting/"frost" was melted_Gone by 8:30ish when the photographers came.

The "frost" WAS relatively new, granted. The snow had been there a few days, as I understand it. Sure, an "intruder" could have come and gone before there was any dusting of snow and/or frost. But that does NOT make Reichenbach's observation meaningless. Nor does it make the media reports regarding lack of prints inaccurate. NO prints were observed around the house that morning. NO signs of an intruder were observed around the house that morning. This includes the dusting of snow/frost, the patches of older snow, as well as the turf itself, covered by frost or not. There were also NO signs an intruder went through the grate or through the window. There WAS some sign of a disturbance in the window well. There WAS a broken window. There WAS debris from the window well on the floor of the basement. And, according to John, the basement window was found open.

Assuming all the above is reliable evidence, what do YOU make of it? What it tells ME is that there was no intruder, but very possibly some crude staging by an insider.