Again all evidence points to the parents, the following was pasted from another forum but tells it very well as the case is.
FACTS:
1. Early in the morning the day after Christmas, a family calls the police and
claims that their 6 yr old child is missing and a kidnap "ransom" note was
found on their stairs.
2. When police arrive a few minutes later, the mother greets him at the door
fully dressed - in the same clothing she wore the night before.
3. The "note" warned the family NOT to call the police or anyone or the child
will die. The family calls not only the police (understandable) - but scores
of friends to come over.
4. The note stated that the family is being monitored and watched carefully
and yet the family had no worries about allowing their 10 yr old son to
leave the home out of their sight and protection "out there" - to go to a
friends house with NO police protection.
5. The child was never kidnapped. The child's dead body was found in the
home "hidden" in the basement.
6. The child was lain on a blanket and wrapped up in a blanket. The child's
favorite nightgown was found lying near her too.
7. There was no sign of forced entry in the home.
8. There was virtually NO forensic or physical evidence at the crime scene
other than that of her family members - save for a miniscule speck of
DNA that was so small that, as Dr. Henry Lee pointed out this week - they
could not ever get a full profile from it.
With as much time as the perp spent in that home from writing the note
to doing all that was done to JonBenet in that basement and/or elsewhere
there should be a PLETHORA of foreign forensic evidence. There is not.
9. The mother's sweater fibers from the sweater she was wearing that night
were discovered "entwined" in the knots in the string tied around her
daughter's neck and also on the tape on her mouth.
10. The linguistics in the note point to Patsy the mother and language she
was known to use. "Gentelman" "And hence" "Attache" Not to mention
the style (overdone, many exclamation points) and the handwriting itself.
She cannot be excluded as the author. The note was written with the
left hand and attempted to be disguised.
11. The Note was written IN THE HOUSE with paper and pens FROM the
house. The pens were even put back into the cup.
If the "intention" of the perp was to kidnap for ransom - why didn't he
come equipped with the note?
If the "intention" of the perp was to kidnap for ransom - why didn't he
grab the child and leave?
If the "intention" of the perp was to extort money from the family - why
didn't he work toward that goal? Why didn't he grab the child and leave
even if she was already dead? The family would not have known she was
dead.
12. If the perp's "intention" was sexual - why then leave a "ransom" note?
These are two different animals. Apples and oranges. Pedophiles are
driven to commit their crimes for sex.
Kidnappers are driven to commit their crimes for money.
Experts have emphasised this time and again.
13. The parent's kept their distance from the police from early on when most
parents of murdered children HOUND the police relentlessly. No matter
what they "claim" as far as cooperation goes - they did NOT cooperate.
They only gave perfunctory cooperation giving the required hair samples
etc. As far as interviews and questioning go - they hid behind a wall of
lawyers and it took FOUR MONTHS before they finally agreed to sit down
and talk to the police.
14. The Ramsey's claimed that their son Burke was "asleep" all morning during
all the chaos of discovering JonBenet missing. Yet, after enhancing the
911 call from that morning, Burke's voice is heard in the background
asking his father questions and his father is heard sternly speaking to him.
Why LIE about something so seemingly inoccuous if they are innocent?
Why did they feel a need to protect Burke's movements? Their answer
seemed to be to make him "unavailable" at every turn. During the night
he was "sleeping." That morning he was "sleeping." That morning and
the rest of that day he was shuttled out and away from the police's
presence - even though they should have been terrified for his safety
with that "foreign faction" of threatening kidnappers out there watching
their every move!
15. They sued for slander several times on behalf of Burke and Patsy - but
NEVER on behalf of John. Why?
16. Confirmed by John Ramsey himself - there was a chair propped up against
the OUTSIDE of the door (in the hallway) that led into the infamous
room in the basement with the "broken window" that idiots like Lou Smit
like to imply or suggest was the exit route the intruder took after the
murder. Just HOW in the world did he accomplish the feat of propping a
chair against the outside of the door - and then manage to get through
the door into the room to exit out the window? It makes no sense.
It makes no sense to consider that some intruder, on the LEAST likely night of the year - Christmas (when family members' whereabouts are the MOST likely of any night of the year to be known!) just HAPPENED to "know" that the Ramsey family would go out for a few hours on Christmas so that he could slip into their house and - (Kidnap? or was it Molest?). And would just happen to know that they'd be returning.
It makes no sense with what was found at that crime scene - to consider that an intruder did it. If he came to kidnap, he brought no ransom note, did not kidnap the child and never called for money.
If he came to molest - he should not have left a ransom note saying he'd kidnapped her and give me money. His "obsession" (as with ALL predatory pedophiles) is on the CHILD and the sexual perversions on his mind.
They grab the child and RUN!!!!!
The truth of the matter is that unless there is alot - or a substantial piece of forensic evidence that the public is not aware of - then NO INTRUDER committed this crime.
It makes no sense and does NOT fit the facts of what the crime scene told us.
John Mark Karr did NOT kill JonBenet Ramsey.
