People kill other people - they shoot them and drown them and poison them and beat them to death - - they do it to KILL - - andit is NOT the usual practice to then touch or injure the genitals. Why would anyone do that?

This person went between JonBenét's legs, he left fibers and DNA right there in her panties. The person was - and is - a pedophile.

That is clearly evidence exculpatory to the parents - - and something the BORG doesn't want to deal with.

The police have NO evidence linking Jphn or Patsy tot he DNA - - if they did, they not only wouldn't be collecting DNA from other people, they would have arrested the parents.

The police have NOT matched the fibers tot he Ramsey clothes. If they had they would have shown the reports to the Ramseys instead of playing semantic games.

If I told you we had fibers that appeared to be from your clothes....

The Ramseys told they if they said it they'd be lying cause there AIN'T NO WAY!

And the police, rather than come up with a document proving they were not bluffing, walked away.

The evidence says this was a pedophile, the evidence says it was not John or Patsy or Burke.

The BPD needs to start over - - and follow ALL leads.

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.

I bet there are cops in the BPD that wish they could jump in a time machine and do everything correctly.

>I bet there are cops in the BPD that wish they could jump in
>a time machine and do everything correctly.
No. Nary a one!

I think the note was just a way to deflect blame to John Ramsey....and the original thought was to kidnap JBR....OR to make people think it was a kidnapping...not a sick pedophile motive. I don't think the perp was all that familiar with the family--or he would have written her name in the note. It's questionable in my mind if he intended murder---most likely harbored the thoughts---but the tools he brought in were meant to subdue and restrain---not kill.

Someone wrote to me that their dead mother took JBR to be with her because JBR reminded the dead mother of her daughter as a child. Now, that was written, someone believes it - - doesn't make it the truth.

The NE posted samples. Even the BORG scratched their heads at how they are supposed to be able to superimpose one over another. It is just another "expert" trying to attach himself to the case, and if his opinion was not BORG, he wouldn't have been in the story.