>The killer of JonBenét Ramseys touched her between her legs,
>assaulted her. How can anyone say that was not a pedophile?
>
>People kill other people - they shoot them and drown them
>and poison them and beat them to death - - they do it to
>KILL - - and it is NOT the usual practice to then
>touch or injure the genitals. Why would anyone do that?

My thought processes in this case:

Right from the start, I was quite convinced of several points:
It was a pervert.
It was not the parents.
It was going to be a field day for the tabloids.

It really is an automatic knee-jerk reaction.

You hear of someone killed in a convenience store and you don't think of someone who was tracked all day long and suddenly killed there, you think of a robbery.

You hear of a little girl found dead and the first thought is always 'pervert'.

After quite some time, I began to feel that there was a distinct possibility that the crime was a crime of revenge directed against the parents due to some unknown business-related incident. I focused on the 'fact' of the ransom note rather than its exact content or its lettering. WHAT did this pompous, long-winded "kidnapper" want to leave a note for, particularly such a long one? I focused on the 'phone call' stuff and also the 'implicit hope' of a safe return.

My conclusion was that the sexual activity was more akin to 'rubbing salt into the wound' and was almost an afterthought rather than a primary purpose of the crime. I think the intruder(s) was not motivated by sexual gratification.