Henry Lee, speaking about the Ramsey case, said recently on Larry King that there was "insufficient evidence to determine if this was an accidental death or a murder". Here is my response to a question about this posed on another forum:

"Betcha I know what Henry Lee is talking about above, and it meshes with Kane saying he thinks it was an accident, and even Steve Thomas. John and Patsy don't fit the profile for killers. No one in the history of the country has ever garotted their own child. They all think if either or both of the Ramseys were involved in JonBenet's death, it was an accident followed by a cover-up that resulted in her death. If JonBenet was killed by an intruder, it was murder. They can't find enough evidence to rule out either possibility. If this assessment is correct, the only thing that has been ruled out is traditional murder one by John and/or Patsy - premeditated murder."

What do you think? Is Henry Lee using a sort of code?

accidental death = John and/or Patsy did it - accident followed by cover-up

murder = Intruder killed JonBenet.

If this should be true, it would mean that the authorities don't think the Ramseys murdered JonBenet as the result of any plan. It also means they could find no motive, which would explain ST's ridiculous toileting hypothesis.

It may not seem like much, but if the authorities in Boulder are convinced the Ramseys aren't cold blooded killers, it is progress. And, it explains all of the talk about an "accident".

Next step - they need to determine the head wound was not the result of an accident. That will leave only murder by an intruder.