Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 12 of 14
  1. #1

    Default "Experts" for hire

    I read something interesting recently about the "medical expert" the Ramseys hired who "concluded" that the head blow came LAST: Dr. Kris Sperry, GEORGIA MEDICAL EXAMINER FOR THE GBI.

    That got me to wondering, so I googled him. He seems to know his stuff. So, I'm thinking, as a GOVERNMENT MEDICAL EXAMINER who gets a paycheck every month, why is he providing conflicting opinion on the autopsy results for the PRIME SUSPECTS, JOHN AND PATSY RAMSEY?

    Then I found a fascinating article about CHILD MURDER, which included another case the good Dr. Sperry worked, an autopsy on an infant whom Dr. Sperry "determined" died of SIDS. Dr. Sperry noted the baby had BLUNT FORCE TRAUMA TO THE HEAD, but wrote the death was due to SIDS as COD. Seems Dr. Sperry is missing something in his PROFESSIONAL ETHICS, to me.

    Notice the date on this article, by the way: April 2000. Since the Ramsey LE interview in Atlanta when Sperry's name was brought up didn't happen until August of 2000, the world at large did not yet KNOW Dr. Sperry was the SOURCE for the "head blow came last" theory as the hired Ramsey expert. Read his "opinions" knowing that Sperry made his comments WHILE HE WAS WORKING FOR THE PRIME SUSPECTS IN A CHILD MURDER IN HIS PRIVATE PRACTICE. Talk about an appearance of impropriety.

    Oh my. Read on about our ESTEEMED medical examiners, prosecutors, and justice system. But get your kleenex ready:

    [I can't get the link to work now, but I did save the article, so here it is in full, I'll happily walk the plank if need be.]

    http://www.gahsc.org/terrell/deaths2.html

    THE FORGOTTEN CHILDREN: Justice undone: Bungled investigations let killers off
    Jane O. Hansen - Staff
    Sunday, April 23, 2000

    ON THE WEB: For more information about this topic:
    Identifying and classifying children's deaths: www.sunlink.net/~browning/nmcfr.htm
    National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse And Neglect Information: www.calib.com/nccanch/
    Guide to Investigating Physical Abuse and Homicide: ncjrs.org/txtfiles/batchild.txt
    National Center on Child Fatality Review: child.cornell.edu/ncfr/home.html#ncfr


    The Best of Intentions: An Evaluation of the Child Fatality Review Process in Georgia: www.sph.emory.edu/CIC/gafatality.html (NOTE:This link was omitted from the AJC article)


    Terrell Peterson, 5, was murdered. But his killer might get away with it.

    Dreahon Mainor, 22 months, overdosed on sleeping pills and was strangled, medical examiners say. But a prosecutor said the toddler's death "was nothing more than an awful accident," and the case was closed.

    Christina Bass, 7 weeks, died from natural causes. Or did she? A forensic pediatrician says the real question is whether the infant's death should have been labeled "undetermined" or a homicide.

    These three Georgia children, and many others, have something in common: a flawed investigation into their deaths.

    It is easier to kill a child than an adult. And in Georgia, it is easier to get away with it. That was supposed to change more than a decade ago when a governor's task force called for sweeping reforms, including more complete investigations of children's deaths: Autopsies would be conducted by forensic pathologists. An immediate investigation of the crime scene would provide critical information.

    Eleven years later, most investigations into children's deaths in Georgia remain inadequate. As a result, some children's deaths are inaccurately written off as natural or accidental, and justice for many child victims is never served.

    "The bottom line is people who kill children are not brought to justice," says J. Tom Morgan, DeKalb County's district attorney.

    At the root of the problem are police, medical examiners and prosecutors untrained in the nuances of children's deaths and unwilling or too busy to work together, experts say. Add the failure of the Department of Family and Children Services to share child abuse histories with law enforcement, and children's deaths are too easily mishandled and misclassified.

    A preliminary report released Thursday by yet another task force on child protection barely mentions the need for better investigations into children's deaths. But Morgan, a national expert on child abuse who also chairs the state's child fatality review team, says proper investigations are critical to protecting surviving siblings and bringing child killers to justice. He's spearheading a move to create specially trained teams that would include law enforcement and child welfare workers and investigate every suspicious death of a child.

    Despite suspicions of foul play, Georgia authorities have closed or dropped investigations of many children's deaths without solving them, according to a Journal-Constitution review of records obtained under court order. Often the cases were closed because law enforcement or medical examiners did not know what social services workers knew. In some cases, police failed to secure the crime scene before evidence could be destroyed or to interview family members before they had extra time to fabricate stories.

    In other cases, authorities determined a child was murdered, but never charged anyone with a crime. Child victims are most likely to be killed by their parents. With no one seeking justice in their behalf, their cases more easily slip through the cracks.

    Dreahon Mainor, a Camden County child, died in 1996 from an overdose of sleeping pills --- possibly accidental. But the toddler also was strangled, according to medical examiners. Investigators with the Camden County sheriff's office did not interview key family members until days after the death. Based on the interviews and autopsy findings, investigators reported they asked two family members to take a lie detector test but they refused.

    Although medical examiners found the child covered with scars and ruled the death a homicide, the prosecutor said he found no evidence of foul play and believed Dreahon's death was an accident.

    In Terrell Peterson's case, police seized evidence from the child's home without a search warrant. The 5-year-old was killed in 1998, and his grandmother, aunt and aunt's boyfriend have been charged with murder. But a judge threw out key evidence obtained in the search, seriously undermining the state's case.

    Children's deaths present unique challenges to law enforcement and others. Children die differently than adults, and their homicides are often trickier to detect. When an adult is shot or stabbed to death, it is evident a crime was committed, and the question is, who did it. With a child, and particularly an infant, there may be no weapon, no outward signs of injury, and the challenge is to determine how the child died and whether it was natural, accidental or intentional.

    For instance, an autopsy may provide the only clues of shaken baby syndrome --- a violent shaking that can cause brain damage.

    When an autopsy is delayed, as it sometimes is in rural areas when a forensic pathologist is not available, critical time is lost. Morgan recalls one child who was not autopsied until two days after his death. "No one suspected a homicide until the autopsy," he said. "In 48 hours, you can do a lot of covering up of evidence."

    At the same time, an autopsy alone may not be enough to determine how a child died. Pathologists say it is difficult to distinguish between SIDS and intentional suffocation. An investigation of the circumstances and the scene of the death becomes crucial in making the right call.

    SIDS presents its own challenges. The wide majority of SIDS deaths are tragic natural deaths. But some are misdiagnosed, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which estimates that 1 in 6 SIDS deaths --- or close to 1,000 each year --- are due to other causes, including child abuse.

    "It is feared that murder or accident can masquerade as a SIDS death," the first state task force wrote 11 years ago.

    SIDS is a diagnosis of exclusion, when no other explanation can be found. Today the accepted definition is the sudden death of a child under 1 that remains unexplained after an autopsy, death scene investigation and review of the victim's medical and family case history. Without all three elements, the death should not be considered SIDS.

    Yet records of Georgia's dead children show many cases where SIDS may have been diagnosed inappropriately. One SIDS baby died after her mother, an alleged drug addict, had disconnected the medically fragile 3-month-old from a heart monitor, then left the baby at an Atlanta motel with a male acquaintance.

    Another SIDS baby, a 6-week-old, died shortly after her grandmother took out a life insurance policy on the infant. Police and child welfare workers were suspicious when they learned the woman had also taken out a policy on the baby's 18-month-old sibling just before that child was hospitalized for severe neglect.

    Another unrealized reform

    When Christina Bass died in 1996, Dr. Kris Sperry, now chief medical examiner for the state, marked the infant's death SIDS.

    At the time, Sperry did not know the baby and her family were well-known by DFACS, nor did he know what was in the agency's files: reports that the infant had been born with cocaine in her blood and abandoned at birth by her mother.

    He could have had that information if DFACS had developed a computerized database that could be shared with certain agencies --- another unrealized reform the task force and Georgia Legislature called for a decade ago.

    In his autopsy report, Sperry noted evidence of blunt force trauma to the baby's head, but he says it was by no means serious enough to cause her death.

    Several experts now say the death should never have been called SIDS. "If there's any head injury, it's not SIDS," says Dr. Randell Alexander, director of the Center for Child Abuse at Morehouse School of Medicine. "Without checking police records and without checking DFACS records, you can't call it SIDS."

    Had Sperry known of the baby's social history, he says he might have marked her death undetermined rather than natural, leaving open the possibility of accident or homicide. Even then, Sperry said, detectives would have lacked interest in the case.

    "It becomes a Catch-22," he said. "The detective doesn't want to investigate if we don't call it a homicide, and we can't call it a homicide without further investigation."


    Sperry said that many detectives expect an autopsy to yield black and white results. "It's because they don't understand," he said. "They have unrealistic expectations of what the autopsy will show."


    That's why a team representing law enforcement, the district attorney, DFACS and the coroner or medical examiner needs to respond immediately to a child's death, Morgan says. "If you don't work together as a team, the detectives are waiting on the doctor to do the autopsy, but the doctor cannot do the autopsy in a vacuum. He needs the history of the child."

    Without a quick and thorough autopsy and investigation, too many children's deaths are ruled "unexplained" or "undetermined."

    When a 5-month-old died unexpectedly in 1996, the medical examiner refused to rule on a cause of death because the child was the second baby in the family to die under similar circumstances within four years. The autopsy report notes the extreme rarity of two SIDS deaths in the same family and the "inherent suspicion that other subtle, yet traumatic, causes" may have resulted in the death.

    Police and medical examiners' files contain no sign that they knew the child's mother had gone to the DFACS office just before the child's death, saying she was depressed because her husband was ignoring her. Nor did they know she had taken another of her children to the hospital years earlier with an unexplained skull fracture, according to records. Had they known, the case may have taken a different turn.

    Law enforcement officers in particular need special training in dealing with child deaths, which can be a highly emotional experience, even for seasoned officers, Morgan says. With no immediate evidence of a crime, officers untrained in child deaths are less likely to secure what could be a crime scene in the face of a grieving family.

    Inexperienced detectives in the JonBenet Ramsey case failed to "immediately separate and interrogate the parents, which is the first thing you do in child homicides," Morgan says. "You want to make sure parent A's story is the same as parent B's."

    Unlike adult victims, young children are most likely killed by those entrusted with their care. More than half of such victims are killed by their mothers or fathers; another 29 percent are killed by other relatives or male acquaintances, often their mother's boyfriend.

    Police also need the right skills in interviewing possible suspects. Rather than come down harshly, they should be empathetic, Morgan says. "In most child deaths the intent was not to kill the child. The child was crying or had a messy diaper and the parent lost it. Therefore police need to take that into account when interrogating them."

    The goal is to win a confession, Morgan says.

    As a former member of the U.S. Advisory Board on Child Abuse and Neglect, Morgan has been inspired by the successes that have been realized across the country by those who have adopted the team approach.

    In Los Angeles, once a unified team began investigating children's deaths, law enforcement began to present more cases to the district attorney for prosecution, cases were more successfully prosecuted, and sentences stiffened dramatically, says a former L.A. prosecutor.

    "In jurisdictions that have implemented these teams, we've seen charging and conviction rates go up astronomically," Morgan says.

    Morgan is trying to get similar teams in place around Georgia. Working closely with DFACS officials, Morgan wants to try out the teams in five judicial circuits where district attorneys have expressed interest.

    "We want to get all the people who have an obligation to protect kids at the hospital and at the scene at the time of the incident, which is critical," says David Hellwig, head of child protective services for the state. "You've got to see whether the circumstances at the scene are consistent with the child's death and consistent with the explanation."

    While DFACS officials have embraced the idea, law enforcement is the chief stumbling block in Georgia, say Morgan, Hellwig and others. "It's a turf battle," Morgan says. "It's the old 'We're in charge of homicide investigations and we don't want anyone else doing it.' "

    Only the Lookout Mountain circuit, which covers four northwest Georgia counties, has put a team in place. Almost as soon as it formed, it got its first case.

    The night District Attorney Herbert Franklin got the call last November that a 10-month-old baby had died under suspicious circumstances, he immediately activated the team. Among those who met him at the hospital were a GBI agent, a sheriff's investigator, the coroner and a DFACS representative. Within hours, they had pulled medical records, looked for any history of child abuse, interviewed the father and mother separately and gotten the father's consent to search the house. The father said the baby had fallen off the changing table.

    But their investigation and the autopsy suggested otherwise. When they told the father, Christopher Crosson, their findings did not square with his explanation, he confessed to losing his temper and injuring the baby because she had soiled another diaper. He said he'd made up the story about the baby falling from the changing table on his way to the emergency room.

    Crosson is awaiting trial on murder charges.

    "It worked pretty much as it was intended to," Franklin says. "Everyone utilized their own strengths."
    Last edited by koldkase; February 28, 2008, 3:09 pm at Thu Feb 28 15:09:17 UTC 2008.

    "University of Colorado Law Professor Paul Campos declared the letter a 'reckless exoneration.' He went on to state, 'Everyone knows that relative immunity from criminal conviction is something money can buy.
    Apparently another thing it can buy is an apology for even being suspected of a crime you probably already would have been convicted of committing if you happened to be poor.'"
    FF: WRKJB?

    ~~~~~~~
    Bloomies underwear model:
    3 Dimensional

    ~~~~~~
    My opinions, nothing more.

  2. #2

    Default

    From the Atlanta August 2000 interview between Boulder LE and Patsy (with Wood interrupting every other question):

    http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/20...w-Complete.htm


    19 Q. (By Mr. Levin) Mrs. Ramsey, are

    20 there other professionals that you have

    21 contacted or that were contacted at your

    22 request? For example, forensic pathologists.

    23 A. I believe so. I believe that we

    24 had a group of experts who had put together

    25 some information which we were hopeful could

    0014

    1 be presented to the police department and

    2 investigators last January.

    3 Q. Who was in that group of experts?

    4 Who do you remember?

    5 A. I don't know all the names. I

    6 just know they were, you know, they were

    7 forensic type people.

    8 Q. Why don't you tell me the names

    9 you do recall? Do you remember a Dr. Sperry

    10 from Georgia, Kris Sperry? He is a forensic

    11 pathologist.


    12 A. I believe that was one of the

    13 names.

    [snip]

    24 Q. Why don't you explain to us your

    25 understanding concerning the sequence of

    0027

    1 events which led to your -- and I am talking

    2 from a medical perspective, the sequence of

    3 events that led to your daughter's death as

    4 it was explained to you by your forensic

    5 experts.


    6 A. That she died of asphyxiation, and

    7 the blow to her head was subsequent to that

    8 act. And the reason that they know that is

    9 because something to do with the very minute

    10 presence or negligible presence of blood at

    11 the fracture.


    12 Q. Now, this belief that you have,

    13 Mrs. Ramsey, was that a product of a

    14 conversation that you had directly with Dr.

    15 Sperry?

    16 A. No.

    17 Q. What is the source of your

    18 information then?

    19 A. I believe my attorney Pat Burke

    20 explained that to me.

    21 Q. Dr. Sperry is the source of that

    22 information, though, through your lawyer; is

    23 that your understanding?

    24 MR. WOOD: If you know that.

    25 THE WITNESS: I don't know that

    0028

    1 for sure.

    2 Q. (By Mr. Levin) What is your

    3 belief?

    4 MR. WOOD: If you have a belief,

    5 Patsy.

    6 THE WITNESS: Well, he was among

    7 a group of experts. I mean, it was he and

    8 several others is my understanding who, you

    9 know, thoroughly looked at all of this. And

    10 that was the gist of, in my layman's terms,

    11 I am sure it is much more technical than

    12 that, but --

    13 MR. WOOD: And I think that,

    14 Bruce, that Sperry was one of the people

    15 that was offered to you all back in January

    16 of 2000. I was not involved in that offer,

    17 but I understood that they were willing to

    18 have --

    19 THE WITNESS: They had a complete

    20 presentation ready for all of you all.

    21 MR. WOOD: I think that offer

    22 still stands.

    23 Q. (By Mr. Levin) Are you aware of

    24 what information he was in possession of,

    25 that is, Dr. Sperry?

    0029

    1 A. No, I am not.

    2 MR. LEVIN: Are you, Mr. Wood?

    3 Do you know what he had?

    4 MR. WOOD: Well, I think I have

    5 a general idea. I haven't sat here and

    6 tried to come up with it in my mind's eye,

    7 but again, my understanding is, I will check

    8 this for you, but you all are welcome to

    9 sit down and listen to him and talk with

    10 him. He would be better able to tell you

    11 that than me.
    Last edited by koldkase; February 27, 2008, 4:59 pm at Wed Feb 27 16:59:31 UTC 2008.

    "University of Colorado Law Professor Paul Campos declared the letter a 'reckless exoneration.' He went on to state, 'Everyone knows that relative immunity from criminal conviction is something money can buy.
    Apparently another thing it can buy is an apology for even being suspected of a crime you probably already would have been convicted of committing if you happened to be poor.'"
    FF: WRKJB?

    ~~~~~~~
    Bloomies underwear model:
    3 Dimensional

    ~~~~~~
    My opinions, nothing more.

  3. #3

    Default

    Maybe I'm just in an unreasonable, pizzed off state of mind this week, since I seem to be bumping up against ABUSE AND MURDER VICTIMS every which way I turn, metaphorically speaking--and Lady Justice is either LOSING as per usual or getting NOT MUCH in sentencing--but it seems to me Dr. Sperry simply has thrown up his hands, decided it's no use, so why not profit from being a hired gun?

    Or maybe Dr. Sperry never had a problem with saying whatever worked for his LIVING, PAYING clients, as if murder is a commodity to be bought and sold to the highest bidder.

    At any rate, now I see where the "head blow came last" MYTHOLOGY was born, and I see how COMPLETELY FULL OF CHIT Dr. Sperry is when he determines WHAT THE FACTS ARE AT AUTOPSY: he can twist it anyway he wants, and there's NO ONE to dispute him most of the time. In the case of JonBenet, if it's not going to trial--and by 2000 when Sperry was selling his soul in this case, everyone KNEW it was OVER at Hunter's 1999 press conference when Hunter had sent the grand jury home and declared NO INDICTMENT because "there wasn't enough evidence" --Sperry could spin the JonBenet autopsy HE DIDN'T DO any way HIS CLIENTS, THE RAMSEYS, wanted.

    So IMO, Dr. Sperry sold JonBenet down the proverbial river, and what a nice life he must have bought for himself by now.

    "University of Colorado Law Professor Paul Campos declared the letter a 'reckless exoneration.' He went on to state, 'Everyone knows that relative immunity from criminal conviction is something money can buy.
    Apparently another thing it can buy is an apology for even being suspected of a crime you probably already would have been convicted of committing if you happened to be poor.'"
    FF: WRKJB?

    ~~~~~~~
    Bloomies underwear model:
    3 Dimensional

    ~~~~~~
    My opinions, nothing more.

  4. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by koldkase
    So IMO, Dr. Sperry sold JonBenet down the proverbial river, and what a nice life he must have bought for himself by now.
    Well, the Ramsey had money and powerful friends, so they were in a position to grease the palms of anyone and everyone they needed for a favorable opinion.

    For me, the OJ case and the Ramsey case opened my naive eyes to a fundamental truth about the American courts. There really IS two systems of "justice" - one for the rich and one for the rest of us.

    If you are wealthy and can afford a whole host of big name lawyers (who also have connections behind the scene that can pull favors and make things happen like "lost" cell phone records), then you can usually beat the rap and go home. If you are not, defending yourself will bankrupt you, and you will probably do time anyway. If you are wealthy, you will certainly be TREATED differently, at least in Boulder.

    Who among us would have been allowed to refuse to go to the police station to answer questions? Anyone? I'm serious. Who among us could have, or would have, refused police questioning - ESPECIALLY IF IT MEANT FINDING THE ALLEGED MURDERER OF OUR BELOVED DAUGHTER!

    Come on, let's see those hands. Even in the midst of our grief, who among us would have refused to go AND gotten away with it?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    755

    Default

    If it is okay with all involved, particularly you, koldkase, I will link this thread to my blog, as you made quite a good find there and found good reason to impeach a particular "expert" associated with the case.

  6. #6

    Default

    Link away, Why Nut. This really was a piece of the puzzle that needed putting in place, I thought when I found it.

    Chero, you are exactly right about the "two justice systems". I hate to admit it, but I've almost become bitter about it. Lady Justice is far from blind, it turns out, and Boulder and the Ramseys taught us that above all else.

    "University of Colorado Law Professor Paul Campos declared the letter a 'reckless exoneration.' He went on to state, 'Everyone knows that relative immunity from criminal conviction is something money can buy.
    Apparently another thing it can buy is an apology for even being suspected of a crime you probably already would have been convicted of committing if you happened to be poor.'"
    FF: WRKJB?

    ~~~~~~~
    Bloomies underwear model:
    3 Dimensional

    ~~~~~~
    My opinions, nothing more.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Not Boulder, Colorado
    Posts
    840

    Default

    I have said from the time I started posting that the head blow came last.

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Paradox
    I have said from the time I started posting that the head blow came last.

    Okay, then!

    I am now saying I DON'T KNOW, but I haven't seen any one "expert opinion" that has convinced me one way or the other at this point. Without a trial and sworn testimony, it's a struggle. Maybe you'd like to weigh in on the "autopsy" thread, where we're having this discussion now.

    "University of Colorado Law Professor Paul Campos declared the letter a 'reckless exoneration.' He went on to state, 'Everyone knows that relative immunity from criminal conviction is something money can buy.
    Apparently another thing it can buy is an apology for even being suspected of a crime you probably already would have been convicted of committing if you happened to be poor.'"
    FF: WRKJB?

    ~~~~~~~
    Bloomies underwear model:
    3 Dimensional

    ~~~~~~
    My opinions, nothing more.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Not Boulder, Colorado
    Posts
    840

    Default

    The autopsy lists asphixiation first. As I remember the chicken or the egg debate was on from the first time the autopsy was released.

    Assuming both Ramseys were involved in an assumed staging designed to lead LE away from the guilty act is assuming too much, imo.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    1,311

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Paradox
    The autopsy lists asphixiation first. As I remember the chicken or the egg debate was on from the first time the autopsy was released.

    Assuming both Ramseys were involved in an assumed staging designed to lead LE away from the guilty act is assuming too much, imo.
    It lists them "in association with" each other. Obviously with the written word one of them has to be written first, and the two events occurred so close to each other that the coroner was not sure which came first. She was alive when she was garroted, that much we know from the petechiae and other evidence. She was also alive for a brief period after she was bashed. There was some bleeding under the scalp, as well as evidence from the sulci and gyri that there was mild swelling. There would have been neither had she been already dead when she was bashed.
    This is my Constitutionally protected OPINION. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Somewhere over the rainbow
    Posts
    3,481

    Default

    I don't mean to be picky, but JonBenet was never garrotted. She had a cord tied around her neck that asphyxiated her, but it was not a violent process and didn't do any of the internal damage to her neck and throat that a true garrotting would have done. The cord was the staging, attempting to cover up the head blow, wasn't it? Then we already know that the head blow came first, don't we?
    "We're not necessarily doubting that God will do the best for us; we are wondering how painful the best will turn out to be." - C.S. Lewis

    MY OPINIONS - DO NOT COPY THEM ANYWHERE ELSE ON THE INTERNET!

  12. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Paradox
    Assuming both Ramseys were involved in an assumed staging designed to lead LE away from the guilty act is assuming too much, imo.
    Imo it is not assuming too much, since the forensic evidence links both Patsy and John to the staging of the scene. Patsy obviously was the main stager, but don't forget that fibers from the black wool shirt John had been wearing to the Whites' party had been found in the crotch area of the size 12 underwear on JonBenet.



Similar Threads

  1. Book Proposal for "Prostitution of Justice" by Thomas C. "Doc" Miller
    By Tricia in forum ***Sneek Preview*** - Tom Miller's Book
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: August 4, 2007, 9:15 pm, Sat Aug 4 21:15:02 UTC 2007
  2. John Ramsey's '98 Interview...Things That Were "Strange" or "Out Of Place"
    By AMES in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 119
    Last Post: June 19, 2007, 11:51 am, Tue Jun 19 11:51:40 UTC 2007
  3. "South Park," "SNL" & "Mad TV" Ramsey Episodes
    By RiverRat in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: September 2, 2006, 3:54 pm, Sat Sep 2 15:54:35 UTC 2006
  4. The Ramseys and "lynchings" and "lynch mobs"
    By JustinCase in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: June 20, 2004, 1:25 pm, Sun Jun 20 13:25:02 UTC 2004
  5. Debunking the Seven Pieces of "Evidence" That "Prove" the Intruder Theory.
    By Dunvegan in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: September 10, 2002, 7:34 pm, Tue Sep 10 19:34:10 UTC 2002

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •