>
>>I prefer a paradigm that tries to explain the known ‘facts’
>>as part of an intentional and, on the surface, at the moment
>>of action, fully realized plan. There were no mistakes,
>>errors of judgment or last minute alterations. The fact that
>>the killer has been able to escape discovery and suspicion
>>(as far as we can tell) for so long supports this paradigm.
>>Not only has he escaped discovery and suspicion for an
>>extended period of time many could not even be convinced of
>>his existence. There was no intruder.
>
>Are you saying without an intruder, mistakes, errors of
>judgment or last minute alterations that JonBenet's mother,
>father, or brother without motive, thought up all this
>puzzling evidence and did this elaborate murder? In the
>next line you say the killer has been able to escape
>suspicion? Wouldn't that nuke this paradigm since they have
>all been under major suspicion for years?

hmmmmm, maybe you need to reread what i've said because i haven't written anything close to your interpretation. i am saying a)there was an intruder and b)there were no mistakes, errors of judgment or last minute alterations committed by the intruder