My contention wasn't about murder site, but about an intruder that left no physical evidence of himself. Not even the dogs tracked him conclusively.
People think it *must* be the parents because there is no physical evidence left by the intruder, but it isn't a forgone conclusion that any will be left.
Especially in a compromised crime scene with incompetent investigators.
BTW, an interesting exercise would be to see if we can get stats on how many children were murdered in their home by a stranger who broke and entered the home w/o the parents knowledge (since all the Ramseys and their acquaintances were ruled out). That would be truly apples to apples and I'm curious what it would show.