GO AHEAD AND PROSECUTE THIS CASE FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!!!!!
THE LONG DELAY IS NOT ONLY EMBARRASSING, IT'S IMMORAL.
IF ARCHBISHOPS IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND OFFICERS OF PENN. STATE UNIVERSITY ARE NOW BEING HELD TO ACCOUNT FOR THEIR UNCONSCIONABLE DELAYS IN PURSUING CHILD MOLESTERS WHAT MAKES YOU THINK YOU WON'T?
(Oh, excuse me, I forget, this is more than sexual molestation, it's also the cold blooded murder of an innocent child, so it's not really the same thing -- gee how unfair of me to make such a comparison.)
SINCE it will never be possible to prosecute an intruder, even if a DNA match is found, because no intruder would conceivably have taken the time to write a 2 1/2 page ransom note in the Ramsey home for no reason or left it in the house for no reason, having failed to kidnap anyone, so it could be used as evidence against him, or hidden the body in the most remote room in the house for no reason or gone in and out through locked doors or a basement window that showed no signs of disturbance, leaving no trace of his presence aside from a few microscopic traces of "touch" DNA retrievable only by the most complex technology available, that could have come from anyone the victim or her clothing had been in contact with over the previous week or even when the clothing was being manufactured, and for all the many additional reasons offered by law enforcement personnel, including the FBI, and confirmed by several chapters of James Kolar's recently published book, in which Lou Smit's absurd theories are demolished one by one, THEN, as should have been clear from the beginning, the only ones left to prosecute are those who were already present in the house that night.
Patsy Ramsey is no longer with us. Burke Ramsey was too young to be prosecuted. But this doesn't matter, because the only inhabitant of that house on that night likely to have sexually molested the victim was the only adult male in the house: John Ramsey. And yes, she was sexually molested, on the night of the crime, if not on earlier occasions as well. And hence: (hint hint) John Ramsey is, and always has been, the one you want to prosecute.
Make sure you find a jury consisting of people unacquainted with the case and thus able to approach it with an open mind. Five years ago that might not have been possible. However, by now, I feel sure many young people know little or nothing about it. This is important, because by now literally everyone following the case has formed an opinion, and from my experiences on the Internet forums, few are willing to reconsider any detail of their own pet theories, many of which are beyond bizarre (see previous posts).
Be wary of your own pet theories regarding who actually killed the victim or wrote the note or any other aspect of the case. Whether you yourself are more inclined to think Patsy killed her daughter, or fashioned the "garotte," or wrote the note, or whether you want to follow Kolar's lead and suspect that Burke had an important role to play, it matters not. As far as the jury is concerned, the member of that household most likely by far to have sexually assaulted JonBenet is John Ramsey, so any lack of evidence linking him directly to the head blow or the "garotte" strangulation or even the writing of the note, is neither here nor there. As the only mature male in the house, he was most likely to have sexually attacked the victim, and the most likely one to have killed her would certainly be the one who attacked her sexually. If you prefer to believe Burke struck the fatal blow, or Patsy did it, don't worry. If John has been covering for either Burke or Patsy, he'll have every opportunity to provide evidence of their culpability during the trial.
Go after John's story about breaking the window on an earlier occasion, expose the lie and take every opportunity to remind the jury of what it means. This is his Achilles Heel. It is so far fetched, with so many hard to swallow elements, including all sorts of important details beyond his ability to recall, such as whether the window had been repaired or not, that any prosecutor with any skill at all will easily be able to demolish it. Oops, I forgot to mention the fact that Linda Hoffmann Pugh, the housekeeper who supposedly cleaned up the mess, had consistently testified she knows nothing about any broken window and is sure the story was concocted to cover the staging of a breakin on the night of the crime. She is undoubtedly right.
This is the only logical reason for John to have concocted his fanciful story, and it tells us very clearly that he himself broke the window on the night of the crime to stage an intruder breakin. The staging of a phoney breakin tells us there was no intruder, meaning there will be no need for the prosecution to explain all the many bits and pieces of intruder evidence the defense will be prepared to offer. If John broke that window the night of the crime, and lied about it, then his goose is cooked. His only recourse will be to point the finger at Patsy or Burke, claiming he was "only" trying to cover for one (or both) of them. I doubt he'd even try to do that, but if he does the story will be extremely interesting I'm sure.
If John's lawyers try to cloud the issue by invoking Patsy's testimony in support of John's story, it's important not to confuse matters by attempting to formulate a theory as to why she might have wanted to do that, either because the two of them were in on it together or because she was being manipulated, etc. She was his wife and she was "standing by her man," that's all you'll need to say. Both their stories are patently absurd, both have been denied by an important witness, that's all that will be needed. Be wary of any attempt to argue or even imply that they were "in on it together," because if you do that, you'll have to explain why they would have called the police so early with the body still in the house. Avoid that theory at all costs, even if you yourself believe it, because the defense attorney will have a field day with it, and no jury will buy it.
If John's lawyer wants to fall back on the old story about his being "ruled out" as writer of the note by handwriting experts, he should be reminded of the argument presented on his behalf during the Wolf trial, as quoted in my previous post:
Defendants argue that the opinions of plaintiffs' expert should not be admitted because the field of forensic document examination is not sufficiently reliable. In their Brief in Support of the Motion in Limine, defendants argue that the "science" of handwriting analysis does not meet the reliability standards of Rule 702: as the theoretical bases underlying this science have never been tested; error rates are neither known nor measured; and the field lacks both controlling standards and meaningful peer review. (My emphasis.)ANY QUESTIONS?????