Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 13 to 24 of 71
  1. #13

    Default

    Interesting, Jayelles. I have now added some comparison photos of fr brown's work in my last post, so if you missed it, you might want to go back and look at those.

    But I think I've found a discrepancy, if fr brown's enhancements are as revealing as they appear, why these can't be stun gun marks: they don't align from side to side, with the "inner line," either.

    Notice the little "straight" markings in fr brown's enhancement. They line up in the same DIRECTION within the circular bruise, which is why I said it looks like screws, except that whatever caused them would have something "protruding" rather than "indented" at the placement of the lines. Can others see this? So this led me to wonder about the prongs on a stun gun--that seem to fit. But not so fast.

    Now notice that the alignment from bruise to bruise is off, if you draw a straight line from one bruise to the other using the straight inner line of the bruise; going straight across to where the other bruise should be, it's LOWER than it would be if aligned with the prongs of the stun gun. The bruises should be side by side traveling in the straight alignment with the inner line, but they're not.

    The first photo is an enlargement of fr brown's enhancement; the second, Smit/Doberson's stunned pigskin; the third, the marks on JonBenet, with overlays by Cutter from his webpage; the fourth, a screen capture someone put up from "Blue Arc" Smit's propaganda tour; and the last is a rotation I did from fr brown's photo to demonstrate how the lines inside the bruises stay lined up with each other.
    Attached Images Attached Images      

    "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. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by koldkase View Post
    Okay, I've been working with some of the bruises, including the large bruise on the face and the double marks, in a photo program. I have some interesting, if maybe useless, results.

    For one thing, it has just hit me that the two marks you enhanced, fr brown, are identical in shape and size. In fact, if the impression wasn't a "negative," meaning you applied the negative function to switch black to white, etc., I'd say they're two identical-sized screws. See the "indented" line across the middle?

    See, what the bruises represent are the "negative" impressions. Like a negative of a photograph. If there's an indention on the skin, that would be raised area on the surface of whatever caused it, right?

    Let's see if I can do an illustration: be right back.

    Okay, let's see if this explains it: the first photo is an enlargement of your Photoshop pic, fr brown; the second is a "negative" of that; and the third is an enlargement of the negative.
    I didn't get a good load of those pix, but I think I know what you're driving at. You're saying the object is a screw lying on its side with the screw head on the left? Could be. There is some kind of humpy business going on in the middle, though.

    I agree that both marks are made by the same object or the same kind of object.

  3. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by koldkase View Post
    Interesting, Jayelles. I have now added some comparison photos of fr brown's work in my last post, so if you missed it, you might want to go back and look at those.

    But I think I've found a discrepancy, if fr brown's enhancements are as revealing as they appear, why these can't be stun gun marks: they don't align from side to side, with the "inner line," either.

    Notice the little "straight" markings in fr brown's enhancement. They line up in the same DIRECTION within the circular bruise, which is why I said it looks like screws, except that whatever caused them would have something "protruding" rather than "indented" at the placement of the lines. Can others see this? So this led me to wonder about the prongs on a stun gun--that seem to fit. But not so fast.

    Now notice that the alignment from bruise to bruise is off, if you draw a straight line from one bruise to the other using the straight inner line of the bruise; going straight across to where the other bruise should be, it's LOWER than it would be if aligned with the prongs of the stun gun. The bruises should be side by side traveling in the straight alignment with the inner line, but they're not.

    The first photo is an enlargement of fr brown's enhancement; the second, Smit/Doberson's stunned pigskin; the third, the marks on JonBenet, with overlays by Cutter from his webpage; the fourth, a screen capture someone put up from "Blue Arc" Smit's propaganda tour; and the last is a rotation I did from fr brown's photo to demonstrate how the lines inside the bruises stay lined up with each other.
    Or maybe you're saying that we're looking down at a screw head. The picture I uploaded isn't at very high resolution. If it were you'd see that, to use a screw as a reference, the screw head would be at the left of the screw lying on its side, but there's a hump in the middle. It looks more like a cord lock lying on its side.

    Of course the original web autopsy photo isn't very good quality either. But I'll upload a better version of mine later. I think you're allowed more pixels/inch for attachments than avatars.

  4. #16

    Default

    I'm going to see if I can upload a shot of just the lower back mark and environs with better detail....Yep, that's better. You may notice that there's what looks like a little hasp or something to the right of whatever-it-is. I don't know what to say about it; it might just be a random creation of the conjunction of jpeg and Photoshop. I can't see anything there in the autopsy photo.
    Attached Images Attached Images  

  5. #17

    Default

    Honest, fr brown, what I meant was something like this, only not on it's side, but literally head on, causing the rest of the bruise from the impact, not from direct contact:



    I tried and tried to duplicate your photo, though, using the best online autopsy photo I could find with an Irfanview free program. I'm sure that's very diffferent from what you're using, but I couldn't even get close to what you have. I'm not that good with this kind of thing, though, so that's no surprise.

    Here were some of the "enhanced" photos I came up with: useless and badly done, I know....
    Attached Images Attached Images    

    "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.

  6. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by koldkase View Post
    Honest, fr brown, what I meant was something like this, only not on it's side, but literally head on, causing the rest of the bruise from the impact, not from direct contact:



    I tried and tried to duplicate your photo, though, using the best online autopsy photo I could find with an Irfanview free program. I'm sure that's very diffferent from what you're using, but I couldn't even get close to what you have. I'm not that good with this kind of thing, though, so that's no surprise.

    Here were some of the "enhanced" photos I came up with: useless and badly done, I know....
    I used a version of Photoshop CS under a student license, but it was a version that lost its history when you closed the file. I didn't know anything "good" was happening with it or I would have taken notes about what I did. I was zoomed in on part of the object at the upper right and unhappy with it because I was hoping to get something like I got with the cheek mark. When that didn't happen I just started exploring Photoshop functions.

    I know that I applied a Gaussian blur and I know that I used "Filters/Stylize/Find Edges." I'm sure I used a sharpening function or two and I probably messed around with the lighting.

    When I've tried to recreate this picture, I can't do it either. I published it here with hesitation.

    I was able to give BPD a general idea of what I did. I remembered more about it then than now. I could tell BPD exactly how I got the cheek mark photo. I used to generate that anew every once-in-a-while.

    PS. By looking at old email I see that I actually used Photoshop Elements and "Filters/Brush Stroke/Edge Accent" before "Find Edges."
    Last edited by fr brown; November 6, 2009, 5:33 pm at Fri Nov 6 17:33:34 UTC 2009. Reason: to add information

  7. #19
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    1,311

    Default

    What is puzzling is that these marks were made while she was alive. I am wondering if she may have been pressed against something that was jutting out. Hard to tell from the photo, but the area on the lateral aspect of her back (with lateral meaning "side") -is this an area that would come into contact with anything? Or is it in an area that would not? What I am trying to say is imagine the sole of a normal foot (with no fallen arches - aka flat feet). If you stand on a flat surface, there is a part of your sole (the inner side aspect) that will not touch anything. This can be noticed in a footprint. The arch of a back is the same. If she was simply lying down, maybe that part of her back wouldn't touch. But if she was being held down, it would. If her face was turned to that side, her cheek would press down onto something. I'd have scoured that house to see what could have made those marks. But we know how quickly LE turned the house back over to the family.
    This is my Constitutionally protected OPINION. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.

  8. #20

    Default

    Interesting, fr brown. What I used had limited applications that would be useful, as you can see. I worked with it for hours and finally just accepted that the best I could do was get a better idea of the shape of the different levels of bruising and whatever object caused that. It's too vague to mean anything without something to match it to, obviously.

    But thanks so much for sharing your photos with us. Like you, I think with better resolution photos, more can be done to get a better imprint. I'm hopeful that the BPD gave someone with some actual training and good equipment a shot at this long ago. Mark Beckner implied they did in an interview, when he tried to debunk the endless "stun gun" mythology Smit and his fellow Ramsey shills hawk to the ignorant. (Good luck with that, Beckner!)

    "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. #21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by koldkase View Post
    Interesting, fr brown. What I used had limited applications that would be useful, as you can see. I worked with it for hours and finally just accepted that the best I could do was get a better idea of the shape of the different levels of bruising and whatever object caused that. It's too vague to mean anything without something to match it to, obviously.

    But thanks so much for sharing your photos with us. Like you, I think with better resolution photos, more can be done to get a better imprint. I'm hopeful that the BPD gave someone with some actual training and good equipment a shot at this long ago. Mark Beckner implied they did in an interview, when he tried to debunk the endless "stun gun" mythology Smit and his fellow Ramsey shills hawk to the ignorant. (Good luck with that, Beckner!)
    I looked back through my 2006 email on the subject. Apparently I was quite fascinated by the back marks. (God, what a bore I was!) The cheek mark was barely mentioned. I sort of threw it in as an afterthought. I remember that the cheek mark wasn't hard to get so I probably assumed that everybody already had one of their own.

    But I think it's safe to say that the cheek mark and back marks were made by different things.

  10. #22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee View Post
    What is puzzling is that these marks were made while she was alive. I am wondering if she may have been pressed against something that was jutting out. Hard to tell from the photo, but the area on the lateral aspect of her back (with lateral meaning "side") -is this an area that would come into contact with anything? Or is it in an area that would not? What I am trying to say is imagine the sole of a normal foot (with no fallen arches - aka flat feet). If you stand on a flat surface, there is a part of your sole (the inner side aspect) that will not touch anything. This can be noticed in a footprint. The arch of a back is the same. If she was simply lying down, maybe that part of her back wouldn't touch. But if she was being held down, it would. If her face was turned to that side, her cheek would press down onto something. I'd have scoured that house to see what could have made those marks. But we know how quickly LE turned the house back over to the family.
    Maybe kids don't have as much spinal curvature as we do. Dunno. I'll give my kid's back some scrutiny when she comes home.

  11. #23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fr brown View Post
    But I think it's safe to say that the cheek mark and back marks were made by different things.

    I agree. I did some work with the cheek mark, though yours is the best. I'll post what I came up with just for comparison when I get a chance, maybe tomorrow. I don't see the same imprint at all.

    "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.

  12. #24

    Default

    Looking for some old documents and found this, so thought some might not have seen it:

    http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/...314ontv1.shtml.


    Coroner examines JonBenet photos

    Arapahoe official says pictures of her injuries seem to match marks from Taser stun gun

    By John C. Ensslin
    Denver Rocky Mountain News Staff Writer


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Wounds found on JonBenet Ramsey's face appear to match a particular type of stun gun, Arapahoe County's coroner said Monday.

    Dr. Michael Doberson said he recently examined photos of injuries found on the chin and lower back of slain 6-year-old beauty queen and compared them to a Taser stun gun.

    "It just looked to me, superficially, that it fits," Doberson said.

    The two electrodes on the end of the stun gun were within a millimeter of the two injuries on the little girl's chin, Doberson said. He also noticed where a small metal bar on the weapon also could have left a mark.

    It's the first time a medical authority has confirmed the possibility a stun gun was used on the girl who was found slain in her Boulder family home Dec. 26, 1996.

    Private investigator Lou Smit brought the autopsy photos, along with a Taser stun gun, to Doberson about two weeks ago, the doctor said.

    Smit worked on the case for the Boulder County district attorney's office until he resigned 18 months ago. He said he quit because he believed John and Patsy Ramsey had been wrongfully targeted in the death of their daughter.

    This weekend Smit went public, revealing evidence in the case that he says exonerates the Ramseys, such as a metal baseball bat found outside the house and packing materials found inside and outside a broken basement window. JonBenet was given a skull-fracturing blow to the head before she was strangled.

    Doberson noted that any stun-gun wounds on JonBenet would not have been lethal.

    Boulder Police Chief Mark Beckner cautioned that people should not jump to conclusions.

    "There's some danger in making a decision based on photographs without having talked to the people who did the autopsy and who saw the injuries," he said.


    Boulder County Coroner John Meyer declined to comment on Doberson's opinion.

    "I don't think it's appropriate for me to give my opinion on this at this point," Meyer said. "If it ever does go to trial, I would be called as a witness. So it wouldn't be ethical for me to comment."

    Beckner said he is familiar with Smit's theory that a stun gun was used on JonBenet. "I can say, we have evidence to the contrary," Beckner said.

    Beckner said he was disturbed that Smit decided to talk about evidence in the unsolved case.

    "He's willing to go out and talk about his theory, but in so doing, he ignores a lot of other evidence," Beckner said.


    The Ramseys have said they never owned a stun gun, and one was not found at the house.

    John Ramsey's lawyer, Hal Haddon, said he considered the finding "fairly dramatic."

    Haddon said Sunday that he does not believe any one piece of evidence cited by Smit changes the case for or against the Ramseys.

    "I don't know that anything helps or hurts the Ramseys," Haddon said of the evidence. But he added, "the whole mosaic indicates they didn't do it."

    Contact John Ensslin at (303) 892-5291 or ensslinj@RockyMountainNews.com.

    March 14, 2000
    © 2007 The E.W. Scripps Co.

    "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.



Similar Threads

  1. Back to the stun gun theory...
    By Kelly in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: June 27, 2010, 10:37 am, Sun Jun 27 10:37:43 UTC 2010
  2. Facts about the Stun gun
    By Jayelles in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: November 8, 2009, 10:57 pm, Sun Nov 8 22:57:22 UTC 2009
  3. (No) Stun Gun Simplified
    By "J_R" in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: August 31, 2004, 11:53 am, Tue Aug 31 11:53:01 UTC 2004

Posting Permissions

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