You apparently know more about the habits and capabilities of whatever variety of spider spun this alleged web than not only me but the expert cited in the material I linked to that you chose simply to ignore with: “Case closed, no intruder!” Again: "The original web had never been photographed or committed to a report, a huge error that would become extraordinarily controversial in months to come" (Thomas 2000a:108, citation from Internet poster Margoo.). "In December both Sergeant Wickman and Detective Mike Everett had seen at least three strands of a spiderweb reaching from the brick window well upward to the covering grate. No one had photographed it" (Thomas 2000a:219, citation from Internet poster Margoo.).]" *** It’s been years since I’ve read Mr. Thomas’s* book, but I assume the above citations from his book are accurate, a concession from an investigator who strenuously agrees with you. Please note, that not only does Mr. Thomas state (again, if the citation is accurate) that no photograph was taken of this original web, but that perhaps as little as “three strands” were observed; perhaps the spider was occupied in the web’s reconstruction when first noticed by the police. For you to exclude the possibility of an intruder through the basement window (which wasn’t alarmed even if the alarm had been activated) based on this dubious and flimsy piece of evidence only tells me that all that is “closed” in this case is your mind, one entirely prejudiced against the Ramseys. *BTW, in the possessive case only (with a very few exceptions (by convention) such as "Jesus") plural words ending in an "s" do not take another “s” after the apostrophe: thus, “Thomas’s” and not “Thomas.’” “Thomas” is singular.