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.
After ten years of investigation, a grand jury that refused to indict plus the arrest of a globe trotting pedophile and you still feel there is sufficient evidence to question the parents version of events?