Newcomers to this blog are advised to begin with the first two posts, Just the Facts, Ma'am and Case Solved, which explain in very general terms why I believe I've solved this case. Some important questions are answered in the following post, Misunderstandings, Misconceptions, Misdirections. After that feel free to browse whatever topics might interest you (see blog archive).

NB: If anyone has trouble posting a comment, email it to doktorgosh (at), and I'll post it for you.

Notice to readers of my Kindle book: I recently noticed that, on certain devices (though not all), the Table of Contents begins with Chapter One and omits the Introduction and Preface. Since the Introduction is especially important, I urge everyone to make sure to begin reading at the very beginning of the book, not the first chapter in the Table of Contents. Thank you.

Thursday, August 30, 2012

Prosecution Hints and Tips

I've already outlined a strategy for the prosecution, but I'll now add some additional hints and tips.

First hint:




(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.)

Second hint:

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.

Third hint:

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).

Fourth hint:

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.

Fifth hint:

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.

Sixth hint:

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.

Seventh hint:

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.)


  1. Well done, DocG. All bases covered. If the CO authorities continue to put themselves in the shameful position of doing nothing, then they must realize they are earning their right to be held accountable for the prevention of justice that this case so clearly deserves. Not only does the public have animosity and disgust for the perpetrators of such heinous crimes, the public deplores the choices made by their tax dollar paid public servants to shrink from facing their challenging responsibilities with integrity and moral conscience. MWMM

  2. I received the following comment via email, but for some reason it didn't show up here:

    Well done, DocG. All bases covered. If the CO authorities continue to put themselves in the shameful position of doing nothing, then they must realize they are earning their right to be held accountable for the prevention of justice that this case so clearly deserves. Not only does the public have animosity and disgust for the perpetrators of such heinous crimes, the public deplores the choices made by their tax dollar paid public servants to shrink from facing their challenging responsibilities with integrity and moral conscience. MWMM

  3. It's ridiculous that no one has ever been brought to justice due to the incompetence of the Police and the DA's office. Talk about getting away with murder!

  4. After reading a billion articles and posts on forums, your theory is the one that makes the most sense.

  5. Quite a few people on this blog and elsewhere continue to be vocal in their disdain for the Boulder PD. While they certainly weren't as experienced as other PDs when it came to homicide, I tend to believe Steve Thomas when he writes that the Boulder DA severely hampered the investigation by colluding with Team Ramsey and denying the most simple of warrants, such as phone and financial records. The police were told they didn't need warrants and that they should "just ask John and Patsy."

    Some believe the JBR case was bungled, and while this was certainly true in the early days, I believe the police were as thorough as they were allowed to be. As I understand it, the Ramsey case file consists of tens of thousands of documents, which is a testament to the work done. More blame should be placed on the DA's office.

    1. As far as the BPD are concerned, I agree. They conducted an intensive and thorough investigation for sure. Some mistakes were made the first day, granted, but that's because they were thrown off guard by the note, which led them initially to neglect the possibility that JonBenet could have been hidden right under their noses.

      The notion that they focused only on the Ramseys and neglected other possibilities is a myth fostered by John to justify his unwillingness to cooperate in the investigation. Imo they should not have wasted all that time looking outside the Ramsey home because it was clear from the start that no kidnapper would have entered the house without a pre-prepared note and no kidnapper would have wanted to leave a note printed in his own hand, and then fail to actually kidnap his victim.

      DA Hunter insisted, however, that they had to be "thorough," so they followed every conceivable lead for years, to no real purpose. I think Hunter was certainly intimidated by the formidable resources of the legal and investigative team assembled by his leading suspect, and felt that he had no choice but to tread lightly on John, and follow every single red herring tossed out there by team Ramsey. In his defense, I'll say that at a certain point, when suspicion moved from John to Patsy, he had good reason to avoid an indictment because there was never really any case to be made against her -- and John had been "ruled out." Of course, he should never have swallowed that absurd finding, but everyone else did so we can't really hold it against him, I guess.