Hi TWWO,<quoted text>
I realize that you need to believe everything the Ramseys said or the IDI train stops here and you climb aboard the logical RDI train.:)
You have some bizarre need for the Ramseys to be innocent, as do most IDI. I just can't understand it.
Patsy was wearing the same clothes as the night before. Their bed (or at least her side of it) doesn't look slept in. JB ate pineapple shortly before she was killed and both Patsy and Burkes prints were on the bowl. All of these things do not "prove" anything but should at least be considered and not written off as easily as people like you tend to do.
There are more but why bother discussing it with you? We've had these discussions before, Shill. Surely you haven't forgotten.
I don't understand the IDI either. They discount the FACT that there was pineapple in JB's small intestines, and the FACT that Patsy's and Burke's fingerprints were on the bowl of pineapple claiming it proves nothing, yet they dwell on the TDNA found which really proves nothing, claiming that the contributor of that DNA was the murderer, when there is no credible evidence that links the TDNA with the murder.
I think you are correct that the IDI has this compulsary belief that they Ramseys MUST be innocent in spite of the evidences or lack of it.