The injustices seen in this case result from a combination of impropriety on the part of the investigators, junk science in the courtroom and overt malice on the part of witnesses and court officials. The following is an outline of those injustices.

Detective Thomas Matjeka

The investigating police officer who testified at the two trials was Detective Thomas Matjeka of the San Antonio Police. Detective Matjeka was a homicide detective covering for detective T.R. Lopez, who normally handled child sexual abuse cases. Detective Lopez was studying for her sergeant's exam at the time the complaint was filed by Javier Limon, the girls father. Detective Matjeka had little or no experience with interviewing children who were making complaints of sexual abuse. He did not bother to record, either by audio or video, the interviews with Vanessa and Stephanie Limon. He stated at both trials that he was a homicide detective and it was not the policy of the homicide division to make electronic recordings of interviews. His stated test for Vanessa's credibility was that he tried to lead her into elaborating on the story by adding components, but she would not do so. Elizabeth states that in the course of her first interview with Detective Matjeka, he told her that he knew she was she was a lesbian and that he seemed to link her sexual preference directly to a predisposition to the sexual assault of pre-pubertal girls.

Both Elizabeth and Cassandra stated Detective Matjeka repeatedly told them that he would have their children taken away from them by Child Protection Services if they did not fully cooperate with him in the investigation Although Elizabeth had no children, she was 4 months pregnant at the time the investigation began, and she says that Matjeka repeatedly threatened to have her child taken away the day it was born if she didn't admit to the crimes. Matjeka denied these allegations during the trial.

The charges laid against the four women were ambiguous with respect to time and stated that the sexual assault occurred "on or about July 24." Initially, the crimes were alleged to have occurred in the evening. During the initial interview of Elizabeth Ramirez, Matjeka asked her for her whereabouts during the evenings when there was a possibility for all of the alleged perpetrators as well as the victims to have been present in the apartment. Elizabeth was able to provide a work alibi for those times. Matjeka then changed the time that the crime was to have happened to daytime, or as prosecutor Kazen states, "when he found out that it happened during the day, you changed your statement". Because she worked as a floating manager at Arby's restaurants, Liz also happened to be working days at the new alleged times. During cross-examination prosecutor Kazen used this ambiguous information to infer that Liz had lied to Matjeka in her statement by first saying she worked night and then saying she worked days. It fact it was Matjeka, who had changed his story.

All four of the women have stated that Detective Matjeka failed to read them their Miranda Warning at the time of their arrest.

Dr. Nancy Kellogg

There are several aspects of Dr. Nancy Kellogg's medical report and subsequent testimony at the two trials that are questionable.

At the outset of the medical examination Dr. Kellogg had both Vanessa and Stephanie give her a verbal account of the alleged sexual assault. At the trials Dr. Kellogg described the girls as being "guileless and spontaneous" during their accounts of the incidents. Dr. Kellogg made no further attempts to verify the information given by the girls, which specifically named Elizabeth Ramirez and her friends as the perpetrators. These statements regarding the particulars of the incident were taken before the genital examination took place, and therefore raise questions regarding preconceived expectations on the part of Dr. Kellogg findings during the exams that would not have existed in a "blind" examination.

In her medical report of Vanessa's examination Dr. Nancy Kellogg initially reported an "irregular white area on hymen at 3 o'clock". In the report summary this irregular white area had changed into a "hymenal scar consistent with vaginal penetration" Kellogg's report also indicates that a colposcope was used during the examination and that a total of 6 pictures were taken during the exam. On several occasions the defense asked for copies of these photos to have them reviewed for an independent medical opinion, but Dr. Kellogg failed to provide them. At Elizabeth's trial Kellogg did mention that due to the time that had elapsed, the file had gone into long-term storage and was difficult to access. Therefore the only "proof" that this scar ever existed is Dr. Kellogg's word.

The third and most unusual aspect of Dr. Kellogg's report comes on the final page of both reports where she states "I have spoken to Sgt. McKay r.e. concerns this may be Satanic-related". At both trials Dr. Kellogg came ready to testify to this theory of satanic- or cult-related abuse. At both trials a discussion was held outside the presence of the jury and the judge ruled that it could not be brought into evidence at the trials. However, Dr. Kellogg's theory had been imparted to both the police and prosecutors and influenced their investigation, preparation and prosecution of the case.

During the initial description of the alleged sexual assault Javier Limon handed a doll to Vanessa and it was used to show what had happened to them. In his September 28/94 police report Javier states "I got a doll and put the doll on the bed and asked her to show me what they were doing with this object. I gave her a pen and she was trying to stick the pen in the doll inside the vagina". This was the first alleged description of the assault and it is reasonable to question whether the use of the doll and the pen was suggestive to the child. It is also important to note that the girls had been acting out sexually with dolls two years before when they made the claim against the 10-year-old boy in Colorado. In her initial report of the outcry statement to police on September 22/95 Serafina Limon also states that Vanessa had told her she had seen the women engaged in sexual activity. Specifically she stated "she had seen Kristie and some of the other girls and her aunt Liz with their clothes off and touching themselves all over their body. Stephanie said the same thing". Elizabeth Ramirez stated adamantly at her trial that this "group sex" never happened, and that there was no sexual activity amongst any of the women during the time the girls were at her apartment.

No Psychological Examination of Defendants

Despite the fact that there are some known personality characteristics of female sex offenders, especially those that offend against pre-pubertal children, the defendants in this case were never given psychological examinations before their trials. If all, or even the majority of them, were shown to be normally-functioning and intelligent young women, without the usual severe emotional problems associated with women who sexually abuse small children, it would have been a major setback for the prosecution.

Assistance With Testimony

During the second trial there is an instance in which the defense lawyers protest against the presence of a woman in the courtroom. The lawyers, and others in the courtroom claim that during Vanessa and Stephanie's testimony, this woman was signaling to them by smiling and nodding her head, or otherwise indicating how to answer the question. The woman is not identified by name, but is described as assisting the DA's office. In the transcript Judge Pat Priest says he is watching the woman, and that he does not see her actions as inappropriate and that she is giving support to the girls during their testimony. Because of this he allows the woman to stay. The woman has been identified by the defendant's family members as Karen Clos. They claim that she was openly communicating with the girls during their testimony by shaking or nodding her head to prompt them to give the "right" answers.

Ritual Abuse

Although the theory and testimony by Dr. Kellogg of ritual or satanic-related abuse was quashed and not permitted in front of the jury, this information was part of the "evidence" used by police and prosecutors during the investigation and preparation of the case. At Elizabeth's trial prosecutor Philip Kazen's opening remarks to the jury are infused with statements about "sacrificial lambs" and how the girls were "sacrificed on the altar of lust". This indicates that Kazen had originally intended to use the theory of satanic- or cult-related sexual abuse as a large part of his theory of motive for the crime.

At Elizabeth Ramirez trial, when questioned on her rationale for identifying this case as cult- or satanic-related abuse, Dr. Kellogg stated "My research and experience in this area. If there is a female perpetrator and there"s more than one perpetrator involved, there is a concern for that". Dr. Kellogg claims to have experience with other cases of satanic-related abuse, but couldn't remember if they had gone to trial or not. Dr. Kellogg also claimed that there were articles and publications from "journals" that supported her identification of this case as being satanic-related abuse. When questioned on specifics of the authors, titles and publications, Dr. Kellogg was unable to supply any of that information. Kellogg stated, "I would have to go back and pull up the authors and the articles. I don't remember the titles of them". Dr. Kellogg then stated the scope of her responsibility was to "red flag" this case to the police as being satanic-related. According to Dr. Kellogg, it then became the duty of the investigating officer to follow up on that information.

At the second trial, prosecutor Mary K. Delevan also attempted to have Dr. Kellogg's satanic-related theory for the crime brought into evidence. Trial Judge Pat Priest disallowed introduction of the evidence regarding satanic-related abuse.

Colposcope Photos

There is significant debate in the medical community over exactly what constitutes normal anatomy, and what is evidence of sexual abuse in pre-pubertal girls. (Nathan and Snedeker, 2001) Dr. Kellogg reports a 2-3 millimeter scar that she describes as being "consistent with vaginal penetration" at the 3 o'clock position on Vanessa's hymen.There are several questions surrounding this evidence brought into the courtroom by Dr. Kellogg. The first is whether a pediatrician is the appropriate medical professional to be making this type of diagnosis. There are many medical professionals who would state this type of analysis is the domain of the pathologist. The second point is; the scar was never examined by another medical professional, because Dr. Kellogg did not include the photographs with the medical report, and did not produce the photographs when requested by the defense lawyers. Therefore there was no possibility to question Dr. Kellogg's diagnosis that the "irregular white area" that she claims to have seen was actually a scar, and that it was consistent with penetration.

Nathan, D. and M. Snedeker. Satan's Silence: Ritual Abuse and the Making of a Modern American Witch Hunt. Authors Choice Press. 2001. Chapter 9 - Medical Evidence.

Failure to Record Initial Interviews

Neither of the two initial interviews of the girls, after they made their claims of sexual abuse to their grandmother and to their father, was video-recorded. Dr. Kellogg and Detective Matjeka both interviewed the girls but failed to record the interviews. There is now considerable scientific evidence regarding how easily children can be "coached" into telling a story that is not true. As professionals, both Kellogg and Matjeka should have been well aware of these dangers, and therefore of the importance of recording these initial interviews with the girls to get the earliest possible version of their stories and the girls demeanor during these interviews. During his testimony at both trials Matjeka states that he is a homicide detective and it is not the policy of his department to record interviews.

Homophobia

The sexual orientation, and specific sexual practices of the defendants became a central part of both trials in this case. Neither prosecutors nor defense lawyers were well versed on the appropriate terminologies used in referring to homosexuality, as they regularly refer to adult female sexual relationships as "gay" rather than lesbian, and use the euphemisms "lifestyle" and "lifestyle choice" on a regular basis.

Homophobia was present right from the initial stages of jury selection in Elizabeth Ramirez trial. Surprisingly it was her own defense lawyer, Freddie Ruiz, who made Elizabeth's sexual preference an issue during the questioning of potential jury members. Even more interesting is that at least two of the jury members who openly stated their moral opposition to homosexuality were permitted to sit on the jury. One of those permitted to stay was Lonnie Gentry, who was elected foreman of the jury. Elizabeth describes them as "Church people". Why Freddie Ruiz would not have struck these two from sitting on the jury is very difficult to comprehend.

During his cross-examination of Elizabeth Ramirez, prosecutor Philip Kazen asks her about the specific sexual practices of lesbians, and seems to be trying to connect Elizabeth's personal sexual habits with the particulars of the alleged assaults on Stephanie and Vanessa. Elizabeth appropriately defers to the general case, and says she can't comment on the practices of other lesbians. She also does not give him the details he seems to be after.

Throughout the trial, defense lawyer Freddie Ruiz has Elizabeth acknowledge that although she was previously in a long-term relationship with a woman, she has now given up the "gay lifestyle" and had become heterosexual. At some points during this exchange Ruiz seems to be asking Elizabeth to apologize for her sexual interest in women in front of the jury.

At the second trial, prosecutor Mary K. Delevan was much more direct in terms of her attempt to connect the women's sexual orientation with a predisposition to the sexual molestation of little girls. At the beginning of closing arguments she states to the jury "...I want to cover something, and I'm not going to mention it again. The alternative lifestyle. The only significance that has in this case is to show why we would have female abusers and female victims".

There is absolutely no scientific evidence linking lesbianism with the sexual abuse of female children, and Ms. Delevan produced no evidence to support her statement.

Vanessa's Awareness of Lesbianism

During cross-examination of Vanessa by defense lawyers at the second trial, she acknowledges that she was aware that her aunt Liz and her friends were lesbians, and that her father strongly and openly disapproved of this. This statement, in conjunction with the love letters sent by Javier, provides support for the theory that there was vindictive motivation on the part of Javier Limon and his daughters, because Elizabeth refused to marry him, and had not "given up the gay lifestyle".

Okay, O.J.

During Philip Kazen's cross-examination of Elizabeth Ramirez, she states that she loves her nieces 100 percent, and would never harm them in any way. Kazen responds to this statement by saying "So, says O.J., ma'am. That is the court reporter's version recorded in the trial transcript, of what was said. According to people sitting in the courtroom what Kazen actually said was: "Okay, O. J." Either way, he made a direct reference comparing Elizabeth's relationship with Stephanie and Vanessa to O.J. Simpson and his murdered ex-wife. That highly publicized trial had occurred just before Elizabeth's. Defense lawyer Freddie Ruiz requested a mistrial based on the inflammatory nature of the statement, but was overruled by Judge Machado. The issue was ruled "harmless error" when raised on appeal.

Malice on the Part of the Trial Judge

During Elizabeth Ramirez' trial, her sister Rosemary was called as a defense witness. Rosemary gave an account of how her ex-husband, and father of the two girls, Javier Limon came to Colorado, threatened her by holding a gun to her head, and beat her in front of the two girls After ruling Rosemary's evidence inadmissible and going into recess, Judge Mike M. Machado, still sitting on the bench, stated to court reporter, Randy Simpson "she probably got beat up because he found out she was a lesbian".

Spectators in the courtroom overheard this statement. Maria Vasquez, who was present in the courtroom, and overheard these remarks filed an affidavit outlining this occurrence. Cassandra Rivera, one of the other defendants, filed an official complaint against Judge Machado because of this statement.

Apathy and Compulsive Lying

Maria Vasquez and several other people present at the two trials have commented on the unusual demeanor of Vanessa Limon during her testimony. They describe her as having a flat affect with no emotional reaction of any kind even when describing the details of what should have been highly traumatic sexual assaults, and while under intense cross-examination by defense attorneys. Even when confronted with the obvious discrepancies in her testimony regarding the use of a gun and who held the gun, Vanessa remains completely calm and is very articulate for a child her age.

Rosemary Camarillo, Stephanie and Vanessa's mother says that her relationship with her daughters remains very strained primarily due to two factors: compulsive lying, and that they are completely self-centered lacking any conscience or responsibility with respect to how their actions impact others. Rosemary says that both girls seem to display an absence of conscience and a normal range of emotions. These patterns of compulsive lying and manipulation, combined with a lack of responsibility are very similar to their father, and are the primary reasons why Rosemary ended her relationship with Javier Limon.

Elizabeth describes another very disturbing aspect of this case that occurred at her trial, and occurred again to the other three defendants during their trial. When Vanessa entered the courtroom to give her testimony at Elizabeth's trial, she smiled and waved at her aunt. Elizabeth says that she was "completely stunned" by this response. Family members and others in the courtroom were similarly astounded by Vanessa's actions. Elizabeth's co-defendants reported a similar reaction from the girls at their trial.