>>
>>>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

and also c) that the intruder has, in part, escaped detection because for a long period of time no one even believed in his existence