JonBenet Investigation Part 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJnTEbCdQTQ)
Specifically, check out what John has to say at precisely 3 minutes and 28 seconds into the clip:
"To think that they would, uh, withhold her body for proper burial was . . . was barbaric."
Which should, of course, be compared with this sentence from the ransom note:
"You will also be denied her remains for proper burial."
But really now: "withhold her body for proper burial" -- "be denied her remains for proper burial." ?????
What the HELL am I supposed to think at this point? Add to this the fact that John really loves that word, "proper," as in "Our focus was laying JonBenét to rest properly," or "And the more proper hunters, on the horseback, are the mainstream media," or "a grand jury was in progress and it simply wasn't proper for us to speak out." Just like he loves percentage figures, as in "You stand a 99 percent chance of killing your daughter if you try to outsmart us. Follow our instructions and you stand a 100 percent chance of getting her back," which over and over crop up in his interviews -- as in, for example, "First of all, 100 percent of the time, the police focus on the parents. . .," or "when we're out…you know: traveling or grocery store, or whatever…100% of the time…not one exception…100% of the time [people] have been kind …sympathetic…apologetic."
It seems to me that at some point one just needs to say, "enough is enough" -- not in the usual sense of "stop it already you've said enough," but as in "how much potentially damning evidence is going to be enough before we finally make up our minds as to who is the most likely by far to have written that note?" Up to a point one can put it down to cherry picking, but beyond that point, I'm sorry, as such instances accumulate it begins to look pretty obvious.