The Basic Dilemma

Just posted the following at the Topix forum, addressed to all my fellow sleuths, PDI, BDI, JDI and IDI, puzzling over this very puzzling, and vexing case:

Look, as far as this case is concerned, we are all faced with essentially the same dilemma:
No conclusive evidence of an intruder.
Nothing missing from the house.(i.e., no burglary)
No sign of forced entry. An intruder with a key would not have bothered to lock the door behind him when he left.
No reason for any kidnapper to wait to write his ransom note while in the house.
No reason for any kidnapper to not take the body of his victim.
No reason for any kidnapper to leave a note after deciding, for whatever reason, not to actually kidnap his victim.
No reason for a kidnapper to want to leave such a long note, written in his or her own hand, as this could be used as evidence against him.
No reason for any intruder to kill his victim and then hide the body.
No reason for any intruder to want to redress the body in a fresh pair of panties.
If the intruder was not wearing gloves, then we would have expected to find far more DNA and also fingerprints at the scene.
If the intruder was wearing gloves, then obviously he couldn't have been the source of the notorious "touch DNA"

Add up all the above and it's clear there was NO intruder.

Now as far as the Ramseys are concerned:

John ruled out as writer of the note.

Aside from Patsy not being ruled out, there is no evidence linking her to the crime.(Her fibers found at the crime scene could easily have been transferred via the victim herself.)
There was no motive for Patsy to kill her daughter.
There was no motive for Patsy to sexually assault her daughter, nor is it credible that she would want to stage such an assault, involving the penetration of her daughter's vagina and strangulation with a "garotte".
Patsy called 911 first thing in the morning, something the writer of the note specifically warned against and clearly would not have wanted.
The handwriting "experts" have been all over the place. And as I believe I've demonstrated on my blog, neither Patsy's left-hand sample or her London Letter match the writing on the note. Also on my blog I've gone over the reports of all Hoffmann's "experts," and exposed the shoddiness of their methodology, based on cherry picking rather than science.

So. No intruder. John ruled out. No evidence linking Patsy to the crime. Who dunnit?

What I see very little of on any of the forums, or even the books on this case is an acknowledgement of the depths of the above dilemma. The one little twig so many here are clinging to is the "fact" that John was ruled out and Patsy was not ruled out, so by process of elimination, Patsy "wins." Unfortunately such "logic" would never stand up in a court of law, because to prove someone's guilt you need more than the process of elimination, you need evidence, you need facts. And if there are any lawyers present, they know very well that many judges refuse to accept the opinion of handwriting "experts" as valid testimony and don't permit such testimony in their court.

Even if the opinions of handwriting "experts" were allowed in court, the opinions of the most experienced and highly regarded "experts" are almost unanimous in finding it unlikely Patsy wrote the note. Their opinions would certainly prevail over the opinions of "experts" hired (by Darnay Hoffman) with the specific intent of nailing Patsy to the wall. If she had been brought to trial, she would almost certainly have been acquitted.

As I see it, our strategy should be to look for a weak point in the array of various facts and logical propositions presented above. And to me there is one item that stands out like a sore thumb: the decision to rule John out.

Because this is, in fact, neither a fact nor a logical conclusion, but an opinion. And it is, moreover, an opinion that has never been questioned, nor has there ever been even the slightest amount of evidence offered to support it. And, finally, for anyone with a scientific background it is very hard to understand how such a conclusion could possibly be justified via any scientific method currently known in the field of forensics.