> Get real.

Just call me Pollyanna with a mustache.

> A case that is unsolved due to its being an inside job is acceptable; an unsolved notorious child murder is not.

I can't argue with that. Still, we have both Kane and Thomas saying it was an accident followed by a coverup, and Henry Lee saying there isn't enough evidence to prove it wasn't an accident (in a manner of speaking).

We can safely eliminate an accident by an intruder.

That leaves an accident by John and/or Patsy. To me, Wecht's sex game theory is BS, but if one chooses to consider a little girl's death being caused by an adult who was garotting her for some sort of sexual reason, I would be hard pressed to call it an accident. I think it would be murder anywhere. Causing someone's death during the commission of a felony, in this case felony child abuse, is murder. I don't think Kane would call this scenario an accident, and he thinks JBR's death was an accident followed by a cover-up.

That leads us into the uncharted depths of Thomas' diaper box hypothesis, which doesn't lend itself to analysis because it isn't based on facts or evidence. All you can do is try to claw your way back to the surface and keep on looking.

Next up, staging. I have never had any reason to believe the crime scene was staged, but it appears that Kane thinks so. So, maybe they are working backwards. The crime scene is staged, so it must be a coverup. Patsy wrote the ransom note in spite of what the Secret Service says. John and Patsy have nothing in their backgrounds to suggest they would kill an innocent child on purpose. So, if the Ramseys were involved, the coverup must have been initiated to hide an accident that caused JBR's head injury.

JBR's head injury doesn't look to me like an accident. The question is, why would they think so?

I realize that Kane's talk of an accident could be nothing more than a psychological ploy to get the Ramseys to confess to an "accident". But, that would mean Thomas' whole book was a ploy, and I don't think so.