I'm sorry, I did NOT say we know nothing about this case.
I specifically said we don't have enough of it, and that includes anything developed heretofore by anybody, to hone in on one thing like the pineapple thing, or something else for that matter, without realizing that there's more to it.
I need more. So do you, but you're not going to admit it. And I have thrown away NOTHING. Without more, it isn't enough.
So, if no intruder, by your narrow view of what has been put forth so far, did the Ramseys walk in, feed JonBenet pineapple, then kill her? As in bam, bam, bam? You said no intruder, yet you had everything so fixed and so lined up, by what you said, it seems like the Ramseys did what the intruder didn't.
Yet it makes no more sense for the Ramseys, in just the way you stated it, than for an intruder.
Sorry if I intimated that. I think we can agree to disagree. I think the reader can look and decide whether or not there is sufficient evidence to question the Ramseys version of events while keeping an open mind about an intruder. That is more or less my position now; that we don't know which was the case but that there is sufficient evience to question the Ramseys version of events. If they, in the final analysis, can all be explained, then I'm happy to hear that the parents of 6 year old child had nothing to do with her death.