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
From the Atlanta August 2000 interview between Boulder LE and Patsy (with Wood interrupting every other question): http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/2000ATL-Patsy-Interview-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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.