Facts about the Stun gun

Discussion in 'Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum' started by Jayelles, Jul 13, 2006.

  1. Jayelles

    Jayelles Alert Viewer in Scotland

    Maybe Guppy would like to have a go at this. Sorry it's long. I'm always mindful that new readers come to the forum and I feel I should cover enough of the background to paint a full and accurate picture.

    _____________________

    Ramsey supporters claim that a stungun was used on JonBenet. This is not a fact - far from it, the claim is far from proved as I will demonstrate. One asks - "if the claim is weak, why push it so hard? " The answer to that is simple. There is no proof that the ramseys owned a stungun. True they had a video, apparently in Spanish which *might* be an instructional video on the use of stunguns or it might have been a promotional video - although one might ask why it would be in Spanish if that were the case. I have personally got an instructional video for a sewing machine which is in Japanese! The bottom line is - there is little credible information about that video.



    However, many people agree that if it could be proved that a stungun was used, then it would point AWAY from the Ramseys as perps. This is why I believe the hard core of Ramsey supporters push the stungn theory as though it were a case fact.



    Stungun Experts - for and against - Stratbucker

    *The* leading expert on stunguns is without doubt Dr Robert Stratbucker who has been studying and documenting their use since the 1980s. He is on record as saying that in his expert opinions, the marks on JonBenet were NOT made by a stungun.



    Dr Stratbucker has performed extensive stungun experiments on not only pigs, but on human volunteers photographing the marks minutes, hours and (in one case) days after the stunning. In most cases, the marks disappeared very quickly indeed.



    Ramsey expert - Doberson

    Team Ramsey hired their own expert - one Dr Michael Doberson who performed an experiment on an anaethsetised pig and declared that they matched the marks on JonBenet. Most of us who have seen the photographs disagree with him. The marks on the pig were little pink marks (which looked like little burns) which were vaguely rectangular in shape - i.e. the same shape as the stungun prod. The twin marks were also exactly the same distance apart as the stungun which was used in the experiment.



    Gerald Boggs
    Ramsey supporters compare JonBent's injuries to one Gerald Boggs who was known to have been stungunned before he was murdered. There are autopsy photos of Gerald Boggs which are used to compare the marks with JonBenet. What the Ramsey Supporters don't tell you is that the photo of Gerald Boggs was taken 6 months after his death - when he was exhumed. He was exhumed because the coroner who performed his autopsy FAILED to recognise the marks as stungun marks. His body was exhumed to perform further tests as proof of stungun use would help to solve the case. In the original autopsy photos, the marks are not similar to the marks on Jonbenet. They are however, similar to the marks on the stungunned pig! (i.e. little pink marks resembling burns)



    Michael Doberson fails to recognise genuine stungun marks!
    Also of interest, is the name of the coroner who FAILED to recognise the stungun marks during the original autopsy .... His name was Dr Michael Doberson! (i.e. the Ramsey stungun "expert").



    Having stunned a pig, Dr Doberson went on record as saying that he believed the marks on JonBenet were made by a stungun. This came as a great surprise to case followers because Dr Doberson was already on record as saying "you can't really tell from a photograph". Interesting eh?



    Dr Werner Spitz - says no stungun
    Another forensic expert, Dr Werner Spitz is also on record as saying that the marks on JonBenet weren't made by a stungun. His explanation is simple - "Stungun marks don't look like that".



    Then we have the problem of the distance btween the marks. In the case of the pigs, the pairs of marks matched exactly in distance with the prods on the stungun. Lou Smit and RST not only claimed that JonBenet was tortured with a stungun, they even claim to know the brand of stungun - a Taser. Unfortunately for them, Taser don't make a stungun which matches the distance of the marks on JonBenet - despite what the RST.



    Amateur analyses of the marks
    Some years ago, Cutter, a former member of Websleuths, performed an experiment with the images of the pig and JonBenet and posted that they didn't match in distance. His work is here:-



    http://gemart.8m.com/ramsey/stungun.html



    I was sceptical and I set out to find flaws in Cutter's analysis. Using the metal rulers as a benchmark, I performed my own analysis and was gobsmacked to find that my findings agreed with Cutter's. There was no doubt - the marks on JonBenet did NOT match the marks on the pig and they did NOT match the stungun which the RST claimed was used.



    jameson used fraudulent images
    More worryingly, I discovered that without doubt, the image which jameson245 displays on her website showing the "match" between the pig marks and the marks on JonBenet had without doubt been doctored to make it a match., In reality, the marks on JonBenet were much smaller and closer together. Significantly, this image had the rulers cropped out! jameson claimed that someone else was responsible for the image, but it now appears to have been removed (perhaps in response to my repeatedly posting the proof that it was fake?).

    RST arguments to explain weaknesses of stungun theory



    Over the years, the RST have come up with various arguments to explain the weaknesses in the stungun theory. Such as



    RST ARGUMENT "She moved when she was being stunned so her skin stretched".



    (This is to explain why the marks do not match any known stungun in distance between prods.)



    My response:- this is in direct contradiction to their explanation for there only being one "stungun" mark on her face. The perfect lipprint on the duct tape suggested she was dead or unconscious when it was applied. Whty stungun a dead or unconscious victim?



    RST ARGUMENT "The stungun could have been modified"



    My response:- unlikely if you've ever seen a stungun. The prods are short and set into a rigid casing which could be made of some kind of hard muoldable man-made material.



    The stungun and the duct tape
    Another problem with the stungun theory is the fact that there is only one PAIR of marks on JonBenet's body. The mark on her face is just that - one mark. One pair of marks does not make a "pattern". So the RST have tried to come up with explanations as to why there was only one mark on the face:-



    RST ARGUMENT "the second prod landed on the tape across her mouth"



    There are a few problems with this:-



    1) There is a possibility (I am not claiming this as a fact) that if one prod had landed on the duct tape, that it would have prevented the device from working. Duct tape has insulating qualities bt I don't know if they are sufficiently insulating.



    2) Perfect lip imprints on the duct tape suggest that she was already dead or unconscious when it was applied. Why stungun a dead or unconscious child?





    RST ARGUMENT :- jameson has claimed that a white mark on her face in one of the photos is actually gum from the back of the duct tape and that this was caused by the second prod of the stungun MELTING the gum on the back onto JonBenet's face.



    I admit I was interested by this one - especially as I could not get a satisfactory asnwer to me question about whether the duct tape would insulate against a stungun or not. Alas, I see several problems with it too:-



    1) If this was the case - why didn't Lou Smit shout it from the rooftops as it would surely be strong support of his stungun theory?



    2) The duct tape wasn't white!





    "You can't tell from a photograph!"

    RST ARGUMENT - Photographic evidence of stungun marks has been used (and accepted) before in a case involving none other than Dr Robert Stratbucker!



    Why would experts say that "you can't tell from a photograph" if photographs of stungun marks have been acceptable in court before?



    One pair of marks does not constitute "a pattern"
    This had me stumped for while but yesterday, I read a post which helped to clear this up. The case in question was that of a man called Jackson for the murder of Karen Styles. Karen was stungunned REPEATEDLY by Jackson and the court both presented and accepted phtographs of her injuries as proof that a stungun had been used.



    Note the word REPEATEDLY.



    Think Pastry
    Imagine you are looking at lovely pie. The pastry crust is covered in patterns of little holes clustered in straight lines of 5 little holes. It wouldn't take an expert to conclude that the holes had been made by someone stabbing the pastry with a fork! However, if you were shown a photo of pasty with one little hole - could you say from that photo that a fork had been used?



    That is the difference between the Ramsey case and the Jackson case. There are no REPEATED pairs of marks - just one .... and a half.



    RST ARGUMENT "There were TWO pairs of marks on JonBenet's body - where are you getting your case information from?"



    This is a very interesting one. On a thread yesterday, RST Margoo was sharp about this - she insisted that there were TWO PAIRS of marks on JonBenet's body. Mike agreed with her and said this was "as per the autopsy report". A poster asked Margoo to provide a source for her statement that there were two PAIRS of marks. And this went unanswered - twice. A third request for clarification resulted in the thread being locked.



    So why won't the RST provide a source for their being TWO PAIRS of marks on JonBenet's body "as per the autopsy report"?



    Where is the second cheek mark on the autopsy report?

    Simple - it doesn't exist. Margoo is wrong and Mikie is wrong. The autopsy report quite clearly describes:-



    And in more detail:-



    The cheek abrasion (singular):-



    The back abrasions (twin marks)

    http://www.cnn.com/US/9703/ramsey.case/final.autopsy.html



    The leg abrasions are described as scatches and have not been claimed as stungun marks by any expert - Ramsey or otherwise.



    It is therefore very unclear what it is that Margoo and Mikie are calling the second part of the pair on JonBenet's cheek.





    RST - dishonesty does not pay
    It is a pity that the RST chose not to provide their source for there being TWO PAIRS of marks. I'd like very much to have heard Margoo answer that on one of the two visits she made back to the thread before it was prematurely locked.



    Not answering.... locking threads without answering an important questions about evidence ... not good.



    It is a pity that in supporting the Ramseys, some people feel it necessary to lie about the evidence. It does nothing positive for the Ramseys' defence.
     
    Last edited: Jul 13, 2006
  2. Barbara

    Barbara FFJ Senior Member

    You are really banging your head against a brick wall Jayelles with that bunch.

    Like the pineapple, if they dismiss the stun gun, they look like fools (not realizing that they looked like fools a long time ago anyway). Even Lou Smit has back peddled about the stun gun, but no, they won't/can't dismiss it, so they will make it up as they go along

    Kinda like the pineapple. First they say it is irrelevant, then they say it wasn't pineapple. Then they say yeah, Burke took it out and JonBenet must have grabbed a few pieces, now the theory (because the pineapple is absolutely part of this crime), is that when the one legged, fiberless, fingerprintless, intruder came in, WORE GLOVES when he force fed her the pineapple, AFTER he tied her up. (pass the crack pipe please)


    Hey, how else can they explain the FACT that only Patsy and Burke's prints were on the pineapple and only Burke's prints are on the glass?

    When will you ever learn Jayelles? When the FACTS don't fit the favorite theories and suspects, MAKE IT UP, SKEWER THE FINDINGS, TWIST THE WORDS OF OTHERS, TAKE THINGS OUT OF CONTEXT, ETC. And if all else fails, try to ruin those damn witnesses and others personally, like LHP, FW, and the internet posters.







    Let the backpeddling begin!
     
  3. YumYum012

    YumYum012 Member

    ... Another Masterpiece, Jayelles

    Jayelles ... OUTSTANDING research and analysis.

    Like all of the RST red herrings (stungun, window well grate entrance, RST polygraph results, panty DNA, etc), the stungun was an attempt to sway public opinion. All such red herrings are easily dismissed or discredited in a courtroom setting ... and the Ramsey Spin Teams knows it.

    But the red herrings are extremely effective in shaping public opinion, especially among the casual observer and the unquestioning ProRamsey zealots. Swaying public opinion is important to defense teams like the Ramsey Spin Team for a number of reasons. First of all, moving the needle from the public believing the Ramseys are guilty, to being unsure, is the difference between total isolation of the Ramseys (effectively "house arrest") and a semblence of a normal life. Secondly, law enforcement officials like Alex Hunter prefer to have a cunfused, uninvolved public while failing to aggressively pursue justice.

    Pro-Ramseys have a psychological need to believe in Ramsey innocense ... for a variety of reasons ... and hence, they wolf down these red herrings like beer nuts. BTW, Watergate figure John Dean (Nixon lawyer) has a new book out which describes this personality type beautifully (see link below). The hardcore supporters become the zealots propagating the myths, and never, EVER seriously consider opposing arguments.

    The Pro-Ramsey fundamentalist zealot arguments for Ramsey innocence always focus upon framents of the story (mostly red herrings) to support their POV. They almost NEVER present a comprehensive, beginning to end, explanation of how ALL of the evidence comes together. The pictures painted by the zealots are abstract ... disjointed, and disorienting ... from a palette of only black and white ... resulting in a work unrecognizable in our real life collective experience.

    Contrast that abstract art with the dazzling detail of the lifescape painted using ALL of the evidence as the palette. The picture is recognizable to ALL who are willing to open their eyes and look at it. A seascape is recognizable as a seascape ... a still life a still life. Huge leaps of faith and unimaginable mental and moral gymnastics are NOT required to make sense of the image.


    The posters here have used ALL of the available evidence to paint a MASTERPICE. The Swamp has thrown some smit into a fan, and the resulting splatter-pattern on their canvas is ... well ... suffice to say it stinks.


    Great work, Jayelles.



    BTW ... for a glimpse into the John Dean explanation of the Pro_Ramsey personality type, check out this interview with Dean. Be patient, the last two-thirds of the interview deals with the issue. It's streaming video, and requires Internet Explorer browser:


    http://video.msn.com/v/us/v.htm?g=6d100bd2-3d5a-4082-9dd9-108af76a46d4&f=truveo&fg=copy


    ...YumYum
     
  4. Greenleaf

    Greenleaf FFJ Senior Member

    The Stun Gun That Wasn't...

    The stun gun is a ploy, in an attempt to remove suspicion from the Rams.
    I believe that Lou Smit was called in to find something, ANYTHING, that would make the intruder theory believable; ANYTHING that would exonerate the Rams.
    No sooner than his size 12 skinny feet touched down inside the door of the Justice Center, he went straightaway to the autopsy photos, and WHYOLA!
    “look, look!†He said. “These are stun gun marks; lookahere, everybody, lookahere!â€
    He found it so fast. He basked in his newfound fame. However, those with knowledge of the case, who leaned towards the guilt of the Rams, were the ones who were STUNNED.
    To validate his findings, Smit experimented with pigs. That’s about the most ludicrous thing anyone could do. The skin of a child is thin and fragile; the hide of a pig is thick and coarse. There is no comparison.
    JonBenet weighed about 46-48 pounds. Just how tough would it be for a grown man (or woman) to subdue such a small child? Not only would he/she risk killing a child with a stun gun, they would also risk creating a ruckus; with her flailing about erratically from the shock.
    In the annals of kidnapping I have never heard that there has ever been a case where a child was stun gunned into submission. It simply does not make sense. Just grab her and gag her and run. A stun gun would complicate matters considerably.
    Yet, Smit was near gitty with his “finding;†endearing him even more to the Rams, and his fellowship with them. I believe that Hunter’s agenda fit in nicely with Smit’s theory, and that’s why he kept him on as long as he did. (Anything to please the RST and to keep the public off his back.)
    Smit went even crazier with the basement window. Why, in God’s name, would an intruder contort his body into such a bizarre configuration, in order to squeeze through a window, when he could have just walked into any one of the unlocked doors? What an idiot! (And too, with a stun gun in his pocket, he risked stunning himself in the process, while traversing through an obstacle course of not too friendly spiders.)
    Smit is a fool. He has locked himself into his intruder-stun-gun theory, and there seems to be no way out. He’s stuck there forever. He will go on defending it until the day he dies. Whatever credibility he had, prior the Ram case, has been lost forever. He has painted himself into a corner, where he will remain, along with scores of others, who have succumbed to the Ram's aura of wealth and fame.

    :leaf:
     
  5. guppy

    guppy Member

    Jayelles, my take on the stun gun is that anyone who would garotte a little girl and crack her head in half might also use a stun gun on her. My guess is the stun gun is in the same place as the remainder of the cord and duct tape.

    I do realize that we don't know for sure a stun gun was even used, but it seems to me the best explanation for the marks. My problem with the stun gun is that it appears the garrote was improvised on the spot but a stun gun would have to be planned in advance. It could be explained by more than one perp being involved, but there is no real evidence of that, either.

    More later, gotta take my wife to the doctor. (She broke her wrist about a month ago chasing some rebate receipts that blew up in the air while leaving Frys. Now we've made it to rehab .)
     
  6. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    Thanks to Jayelles for the well-researched (and irrefutable) analysis, and thanks to Yum Yum for the link.

    I have been astounded over the years by the extent the jambots will go to try to explain descrepancies in their theories, as Jayelles has pointed out in her post. The concept of keep it simple, stupid, is totally lost on them, as they twist themselves in knots trying to fill those gigantic holes in their theories.
     
  7. YumYum012

    YumYum012 Member

    Guppy ... Out of curiousity, would you mind painting us the full mural of what YOU think is likely to have happened on the night in question ... using/explaining the evidence as we know it, or as it has been spun to us?

    Obviously, it would be an intruder theory ... but I'd like to know how you have put the puzzle pieces together. That's a lot to ask, and I won't be offended if you say you don't feel like it. And if you do, your mural would probably be worthy of a showing on a separate thread, since I suspect that a lot of folks would be interested in pondering the work at length.

    And do NOT worry about getting a BRUTAL ...DimWit-ted review ... I'm wearing my kinder, gentler hat here in Tricia's house :toast:


    ...YumYum
     
  8. Jayelles

    Jayelles Alert Viewer in Scotland

    You are right barbara. Over the years I have observed that if you go to jameson's forum and present facts to them, the facts will be ignored ... or they will sidetrack and focus on a typo or some irrelevant fact. When I posted by experiment about the stungun, Margoo said it had "many flaws of logic" yet she steadfastly refused to say what ANY of them were despite my urging her many times to do so. Another poster (Dave perhaps) poked fun at the fact that I had spent £8 buying a Stanley metal ruler to conduct the experiment. I had done so because this ruler met British Weights and Measures standards - i.e. it was accurate.

    Not one of them debated my methodology or findings.
     
  9. tylin

    tylin Banned

    Jayelles,
    Thank you for all your hard work and your devotion to this case. I've followed this case from the beginning and continue to learn new facts everyday when I read here. Kudos again for your stun gun information.
     
  10. The Punisher

    The Punisher Member

    "Why, in God's name, would an intruder contort his body into such a bizarre configuration, in order to squeeze through a window, when he could have just walked into any one of the unlocked doors? What an idiot! (And too, with a stun gun in his pocket, he risked stunning himself in the process, while traversing through an obstacle course of not too friendly spiders.)"

    And without disturbing the dirt in the window well, apparently!

    "My problem with the stun gun is that it appears the garrote was improvised on the spot but a stun gun would have to be planned in advance. It could be explained by more than one perp being involved, but there is no real evidence of that, either."

    That's exactly what we mean, Guppy. It makes no sense that some killer would plan all of this in advance and be so sloppy. There would be one MO, and this one had all kinds of different, conflicting MOs in in it. That wouldn't happen if it was a real intruder, per CASKU.

    Just another red herring. A red herring, I point out, that we would not hear about if this was not a rich suspect who could afford those high-priced pimps who call themselves investigators!
     
  11. guppy

    guppy Member

    Robin

    Any theory I have would only be a basic outline. Let's just say that I don't look at a glass with a tea bag hanging on it and jump to the conclusion that Middle Eastern terrorists performed some ritual there. I want to know when the picture was taken, first. If it was 0600, good, let's pursue it. If it was 1800, after a hundred people had been in the house, forget about it, unless, of course, someone saw the glass with the tea bag at 0600. Roughly, that is the way I look at everything, and there are so many gaping holes in what we know that it is really impossible to come up with a theory that I believe myself. I have never read any theory by anyone, including myself, that rang true.

    Generally, I think it was a kidnapping for ransom gone bad, and it was done by someone other than the Ramseys. However, the Ramseys clearly can't be eliminated until the actual perp or perps have been identified, because they were in the house at the time of the murder.
     
  12. The Punisher

    The Punisher Member

    RIGHT!
     
  13. Texan

    Texan FFJ Senior Member

    for one darn thing

    the so-called stun gun marks are really identified as abrasions in the autopsy report. An abrasion is basically a scratch. Is a stun gun mark a scratch - I would think it would be more like an electrical burn. I would bet someone alot of money that those marks aren't from a stun gun.
     
  14. Jayelles

    Jayelles Alert Viewer in Scotland

    My gut feeling is that they aren't stungun marks. This was strengthened some weeks ago when I was watching the Sir Trevor McDonald show. The topic was about domestic abuse and it showed a woman's injuries after she's been badly beaten by her partner. She had marks which looked exactly like the marks on Jonbenet. I had only been semi-watching the programme until I caught a glimpse of these marks and then I watched it to see if they would say what had made them. Unfortunately they didn't. I noted the name of the partner in case I could find out more about it.
     
  15. Greenleaf

    Greenleaf FFJ Senior Member

    Jayelles

    Your first post on this thread was absolutely brilliant!

    I am in awe of you for all that incredible research.

    Forgive me for not acknowledging your post before I posted.

    :leaf:
     
  16. Elle

    Elle Member

    Those marks looked like burns to me, Jay Almost like cigarette burns, only they were not the same size. One looked smaller than the other, in the photo I saw. They reminded me of the marks made by a Copper tooling piece. One of my boys had a school project, many years ago. I remember him testing each piece on a piece of wood to make sure he had the proper tool, and some of the tests looked very similar to the marks on JonBenét.

    Greenleaf is right Jay, you have excelled yourself here with this research.

    Don't know if a Copper tooling Kit was found on the premises. It could have gone out the door with Pam Paugh's raid (?).
     
  17. The Punisher

    The Punisher Member

    You've outdone yourself, Jay.
     
  18. YumYum012

    YumYum012 Member

    I have no Idea what the marks are. I DO know what they are not ... and they are NOT the tazer marks that the RST claims them to be.

    I would point out that the marks were on a 6 year old child ... over the Christmas Holiday. Remember the Christmas frenzy as a child ... the excitement of opening gifts and playing with new toys? Lots of pokes and scrapes from box corners, rolling over onto a toy on the floor, or just laughing, giggling, and tickling siblings, parents, et al. And let's not even mention the pokes from Christmas tree branches and needles! Marks like those on JonBenet were likey totally innocent, just as they are on tens of thousand of 6 year olds every day.

    But the marks were there, and the RST seized upon the opportunity to lead the public astray. Only numbskulls bought it. But, if there's one thing there's no shortage of in America, it's numbskulls :D


    BTW ... I'm adding the penguins just becuz I can't get enough of it. I literally chuckle every time the one smacks the other. Must be the Three Stooges in moi. I LOVE IT!

    :rs:


    ...YumYum
     
  19. The Punisher

    The Punisher Member

    A Stooges fan, eh? There's hope for you yet! :rs:
     
  20. YumYum012

    YumYum012 Member

    I don't want to hijack the thread, but here is another (and last) Stooges-like moment that makes me chuckle (and cringe) every time:


    http://www.youtube.com/v/Q2GIj1er_K4


    ...YumYum
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice