Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 37 to 48 of 71
  1. #37

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cherokee View Post
    What I can't understand is why the stun gun theory ever got traction because stun gun prongs don't make round, little, marks like those seen on JonBenet. Instead, the electrical arcing BETWEEN the prongs leaves welts and inflammation under the skin!

    Lou Smit was so wrong about so many things! Are we to believe NO ONE ever told him how a stun gun works and what marks it really leaves, or was he too stupid and stubborn to believe it?


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

    http://www.forumsforjustice.org/foru...ead.php?t=5317

    August 31, 2004, 11:53 am

    Ginja

    "stun gun misuse"
    -------------------

    The marks on JonBenet are too "perfectly" shaped...as small round dots. To me, this indicates misuse of a stun gun if those marks were actually left from a stun gun. The perp would have had to hold the stun gun on her skin, making contact with the skin, while triggering the gun. The problem is that stun guns work by the electrical current jumping back and forth between the two prongs to create the electrical arch that does the stunning.

    So when the perp stuns someone, it's the electrical arcing that makes contact with the skin, NOT THE PRONGS! That electrical arcing leaves welts, NOT LITTLE ROUND CIRCLES!

    Stun guns don't burn the skin. What they do is wreak havoc with the nerves in the tissue under the skin. There's inflammation and welting on the top of the skin, but underneath the skin is the real proof of stun gun use.


    FWIW, I think Wecht was right when he called these marks punctate wounds.
    Now you've got me googling about this, Chero. Surely there are photos online by now of marks on people. Still looking.

    But I think this description of WHAT these guns do is interesting: cause intense muscle contractions, NOT unconsciousness--which is what we've been trying to get across for years. Why would an intruder stun gun the child in the home and not expect her to scream bloody murder? At the very least he'd have applied the duct tape BEFORE death, not after, if he was using a stun gun on her, don't you think?

    http://www.articlesbase.com/home-and...rs-638747.html

    Stun Gun Versus Tasers

    Nov 11, 20080804
    1

    deltaMike

    Most people assume that there is no difference between a Taser and a stun gun except for the name. However, there are a few important differences between the two.

    For one, stun guns do not shoot anything work only on direct contact. The probes located on the stun gun must be in contact with the assailant's body; while the Taser can be used against an attacker from up to 15 feet away from the victim. This is done by shooting two electrical darts up to a range of 15 feet. The darts are still connected to the unit by wires that conduct the electrical current into the assailant's body when the trigger is depressed.

    There are other significant differences between the two such as; you only have one shot per cartridge with the Taser. After using your one shot, the unit can then only be used as a contact device or the cartridge has to be changed. On the other hand, a stun gun can be used as many times as you need it to and with today's technology, they only require one to two seconds or less of contact.

    [snip]

    Each incapacitate the assailant in a similar way, which is by causing the muscles affected to contract painfully ,as well as, disrupting the nervous system. During the event, the body is also releasing a large amount of lactic acid into the system. The overall experience can be compared somewhat to getting a cramp, however this would be like no cramp you have ever experienced before and it would occur over a larger portion of the body. The effects do not last long and no permanent damage is done, though there may be small burn marks or puncture wounds where the unit contacts the skin.


    [snip]
    And here is an article about children being stunned as an "activity" at a Florida prison--it's a shocker; they didn't become unconscious, either:

    http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...00-volt-tasers

    Here's an excerpt:

    One spring day this April, at the Franklin Correctional Institution on Florida's Highway 67, Sgt. Walter Schmidt pulled out his Electronic Immobilization Device — EID in officer parlance — and zapped two people, who immediately "yelped in pain, fell to the ground and grabbed red burn marks on their arms," according to the St. Petersburg Times.

    The two were not inmates at the prison, however. They were students visiting the facility as part of "Take Our Daughters and Sons To Work Day."
    Last edited by koldkase; June 5, 2012, 12:56 pm at Tue Jun 5 12:56:31 UTC 2012.

    "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. #38

    Default

    The two most popular types of devices capable of administering an electrical shock are the type which administer a shock from a distance by firing two thin wires with barbed ends that pierce a victims skin (commonly sold under the brand name "Taser",) and stun guns which administer an electric shock by direct contact.
    Taser International also markets some devices which can operate in both modes.
    A stun gun falls under the category of Electronic Control Device (ECD.)
    Taser is a brand name for a particular and popular type of ECD.
    What sets a Taser apart as an ECD is that it has two ways in which it can be deployed.
    • Probe Mode:
    In this mode the Taser fires two probes up to a distance of 35’ from a replaceable cartridge. These probes are connected to the Taser by high-voltage insulated wire. When the probes make contact with the target, the Taser transmits electrical pulses along the wires and into the body of the target, through up to two inches of clothing for anywhere from five to 30 seconds. This is a 'window of opportunity' for an arrest to be made.
    Drive Stun Mode: (direct contact)
    In this mode, the user drives the device into the body of victim and the electrical pulses are transmitted between two prongs as long as contact is maintained.


    All other ECD’s operate as single mode devices, that is, direct contact.

    There are many myths surrounding stun guns:
    Many of these myths have their origin in promotional material involving stun gun sales and the exaggerated displays sometimes seen in television and movies.
    The greatest myth is that they render a victim unconscious.
    Perhaps it would be best to separate what a stun gun is INTENDED to do versus what may happen in rare circumstances.


    There are ONLY two things that a stun gun is DESIGNED to do:
    • Produce pain.
    • Incapacitate TEMPORARILY by causing involuntary muscle contractions WHILE THE WEAPON IS IN CONTACT WITH THE VICTIM.


    Often injuries will be the result of the victim falling and superficial injuries can occur as a consequence of skin contact with the prongs of a stun gun or barbs from the firing of a Taser:
    Falls may result in abrasions, scratches, minor lacerations, swellings and areas of redness on the skin.
    Some of the barb penetrations will exhibit small circular burns; areas of skin where current has entered the body from barbs retained in clothing may also exhibit burns. These burns are likely to resolve within a few days, without complications and the need for medical intervention.

    In RARE circumstances, the following may happen:
    Impaired breathing and respiration.
    Seizures.
    Involuntary urination.
    Involuntary defecation.
    Fractures from severe muscle contractions.
    Death, however, studies implicate other factors such as pre-existing heart disease and drug use as the primary contributor.

    Normal after effects may include some or all of the following:
    • Being dazed for several minutes;
    • Muscle twitches;
    • Loss of memory of the event;
    • Unsteadiness and a spinning sensation;
    • Temporary tingling;
    • Weakness in the limbs;
    • Local aches and pains and tissue swelling

    Every single person who underwent the training found value in the exposure," Carter said. "I would never put one of my officers in danger. The vast majority of Taser injuries come from falls, which is why we have the training on a mat with people holding the person (getting Tased)."

    In a written statement, Taser company spokesman Steve Tuttle said fewer than 100 injuries have occurred during more than 625,000 training exposures.

    http://forums.officer.com/forums/sho...Taser-training

    A Taser stun gun is a device designed to temporarily immobilize a human target by delivering a direct-current type of shock through 2 barbed copper darts. The shock causes involuntary muscle contraction. Neuromuscular transmission is thought to be affected primarily at the level of the peripheral motor nerve, although studies have shown that stimulation of the spinal cord may occur with dart penetration as far away as the anterior torso. The muscle contraction induced by Tasers is typically tonic, with retained consciousness, no clonic movements and no postictal confusion. The manufacturer's website estimates that a single shot lasts about 5 seconds, delivers 19 pulses per second with a typical charge of 100 microcoulombs per pulse, generates an average net current of 2 milliamperes and has an estimated peak voltage of 1300 volts.
    Sun H, Webster JG. Estimating neuromuscular stimulation within the human torso with Taser stimulus. Phys Med Biol2007;52:6401-11
    Mangus BE, Shen LY, Helmer SD, et al. Taser and taser associated injuries: a case series. Am Surg2008;74:862-5.

    The following outlines Taser deployment guidelines from a UK police dept:
    Description of equipment
    The Taser is a single shot weapon designed to temporarily incapacitate a subject through the use of an electrical current, which temporarily interferes with the body’s neuromuscular system.
    The Taser is laser-sighted and uses cartridges attached to the end of the cartridge bay. The cartridges project a pair of barbs or darts attached to insulated wires. The maximum range of the device is currently 21 feet (6.4 metres); this being the length of the wires that carry the current and attach the barbs to the weapon. It may also be used in a “drive stun” mode.
    The device delivers a sequence of high voltage pulses of very short duration through the wires.
    The normal reaction of a person exposed to the discharge of the Taser is the loss of some voluntary muscle control resulting in the subject falling to the ground or ‘freezing’ on the spot. The device relies on physiological effects other than pain alone to achieve its objective, although pain is the main factor when it is used in ‘drive stun’ mode.

    Effects of the Taser
    In either mode the Taser delivers its electrical charge in a five-second cycle (which can be broken or repeated), but once the cycle ends or is broken, the direct incapacitation effect ceases.
    In most cases this application will be sufficient to render a subject incapable of commencing or continuing an attack and is likely to result in the subject collapsing to the ground. The effect is not intended nor is it likely to render the subject into a state of unconsciousness.
    Provided both barbs attach correctly with sufficient spread, the effects are likely to be instantaneous. It should, however, be remembered that no incapacitating device, is universally effective and there may be individuals on whom the Taser may not be effective at all or only partially so.
    The direct incapacitating effect is only likely to last for as long as the electrical charge is being delivered. The subject may recover immediately afterwards and could continue with their previous behaviour. It is therefore important that an incapacitated subject is approached and restrained quickly and effectively.
    Whilst the five second cycle can be repeated if the incapacitation effect does not appear to take effect, officers should consider other options as there may be technical or physiological reasons why the device is not working as expected on a particular individual.
    [SNIP]
    Aftercare
    Recovery from the direct effects of the Taser should be almost instantaneous, once the current has been turned off.
    [SNIP]
    Use on persons under eighteen years of age
    Applications of Taser to persons under the age of eighteen were reviewed in detail. For all three classes of use within the trial year, the Taser current was applied to twenty-four subjects under eighteen years old. Thirteen were exposed to the fired probes only, seven to drive-stun application only, and four subjected to both. None of the incidents resulted in adverse medical outcomes attributable to the primary effects of the Taser. The secondary injuries were barb puncture wounds or drive-stun burn marks at the site of probe contact. There were no reported instances of head injury due to Taser-induced falls. In two cases, the top probe struck the neck.

    http://www.westmercia.police.uk/asse...ional_Use_.pdf

    The following is from an EMS protocol review:
    Subject: Taser Treatment
    Section 1 - Purpose
    It is the intent of this policy to outline and define the steps that are necessary for all Personnel to carry out when they encounter a patient that has been subdued with a TASER. Typically it is not the “TASER” event itself that leads to the need for transport to the hospital, rather the events that have led up to the individual being tased, such as “EXCITED DELIRIUM”.
    [SNIP]
    Section 3 - Responsibility
    All Fire-Rescue Personnel will treat and transport any patient from whom Fire-Rescue has been requested. The signs and symptoms that the patient is exhibiting, as well as possible occult injuries that may have occurred while the individual was being subdued, will guide this treatment. At minimum all “TASER” patients will receive the following:
    a. A complete physical examination (including glucose).
    b. Oxygen as needed.
    c. Cardiac Monitor.
    d. C-Spine precautions, unless a cervical spine injury can be definitively ruled out.
    e. Intra-venous line as needed
    In the event that a patient resists, these actions will be carried out with the safety of the crew in mind. A police officer will be required to accompany the patient in the rescue during transport.
    Section 4 - Procedure
    A. Establish that the scene has been secured and determine what events have led up to the individual being subdued with a TASER.
    B. Determine how many 5-second cycles of energy that the individual has been exposed to and document this in the patient care report.
    C. In the majority of TASER incidents it will not be possible for EMS personnel to determine the extent of injuries that the patient has sustained. While it is unlikely that the Taser itself will have caused an injury, there is a high likelihood of an occult injury secondary to the event. Examples of this would be fall injuries as a result of incapacitation; pathological fractures secondary to muscle contraction and impending demise secondary to a state of excited delirium.
    D. The following is a systematic six step approach to responding to and evaluating patients who have been tased:
    1. Find out what happened before the patient was tased – this will provide you with information regarding the patient’s mental status prior to being tased and potential for any future decompensation. Consider any report of extreme behavior prior to the tasing as significant, regardless of the patient’s current presentation.
    2. Approach the patient with caution – The Taser can dramatically change a patient’s outward presentation. Assume that any patient who has been tased is violent and dangerous.
    3. Complete a thorough physical exam and history - the exam should include a basic neurological exam, skin signs, pupil assessment, a complete set of vital signs and a close look for traumatic injuries. All tased patients are fall patients until proven otherwise.
    4. It is not uncommon to find minor first-degree burns located between the Taser probes. Anything that looks worse than minor sunburn should be considered abnormal. Incontinence should be considered abnormal. Chest pain, shortness of breath, vomiting and headaches should all be treated according to the appropriate medical treatment protocol.
    5. Consider the potential for sudden unexpected death syndrome – The vast majority of patients that have died in police custody have shown signs of excited delirium.
    Excited Delirium - is a state in which a person is in a psychotic and extremely agitated state. Mentally the subject is unable to focus and process any rational thought or focus his/her attention to any one thing. Physically the organs within the subject are functioning at such an excited rate that they begin to shut down. These two factors occurring at the same time cause a person to act erratically enough that they become a danger to themselves and to the public. This is typically where law enforcement comes into contact with the person.

    Whitehead, Steve, NREMT-P, After Shock, A Rational Response to Taser Strikes, JEMS, May 20-05, Vol 30, No. 5 Glendale Police Department, Excited Delirium, November 2003. DGG Taser, X-26 Taser Specifications, 2005
    Last edited by cynic; June 6, 2012, 1:32 am at Wed Jun 6 1:32:54 UTC 2012.

  3. #39

    Default

    Lou Smit pioneered the notion that a stun gun was used, but despite many years of trying he was never able to find any device that was capable of leaving marks that matched the distance between two marks on JonBenet’s body.
    The closest device that he was able to find was made by Air Taser, but it did not match.
    He concedes the point on Larry King Live.
    ... the Air Taser stun gun is as close as we've been able to find to the marks on JonBenet.
    Larry King Live, May 28, 2001

    In the same interview, Smit makes the following comment:
    Myself and Dr. Doberson, from Littleton, the coroner, have conducted experiments on pigs. We have replicated the marks on JonBenet by using it on pigs.
    This is absolutely false, the marks on the pigs looked nothing like the marks on JonBenet.
    The marks on the pigs were typical marks left by a stun gun, pink or reddish.
    What type of mark is left by a stun gun?
    Skin - All twenty subjects exhibited the typical "signature response", specifically a punctate reddening of the skin at 10 minutes post shock limited to a 3-5mm diameter circle directly under each probe. Five out of 20 showed small wheals at the stimulus site. All of these hive-like elevations had disappeared at 1 to 2 hours. Only one case, a man of mediterranean ancestry, showed residual markings at 24 hours and these were gone in 2 days. No burns or other permanent markings were ever noted.
    http://www.paktronics.com/stun93.html

    The marks on JonBenet were not the typical hive-like reddish color, they had a brown component which prompted the following description in the autopsy report.
    (Unfortunately, other than describing the marks as abrasions, Meyer did not comment further with respect to what may have caused the abrasions and did not take tissue samples of the areas.)

    Located just below the right ear at the right angle of the mandible, 1.5 inches below the right external auditory canal is a 3/8 x 1/4 inch area of rust colored abrasion.
    [SNIP]
    On the left lateral aspect of the lower back, approximately sixteen and one-quarter inches and seventeen and one-half inches below the level of the top of the head are two dried rust colored to slightly purple abrasions. The more superior of the two measures one-eighth by one-sixteenth of an inch and the more inferior measures three-sixteenths by one-eighth
    of an inch.

    The Ramseys were clearly made aware that all the speculation that Smit was generating as he was peddling his stun gun theory could be put to rest by exhuming JonBenet, and yet the Ramseys refused to pursue that course of action.
    This is in line with the reasoning behind hiring PI’s. They weren’t hired to help solve the case; they were hired to keep the Ramseys out of jail.
    The Ramseys could have taken a major step in the investigation by exhuming JonBenet, but that would serve no purpose by way of self preservation. Doubt in the mind of prospective jurors who may be hearing about the possibility of a stun gun and an intruder, that’s what keeps you out of jail, you don’t want loose ends tied up, you want them to remain loose.

    Q. Then what was, basically, your association with the private investigation of the potential suspects in the murder of JonBenet Ramsey?
    A. The investigators were retained by our attorneys, and they stated to me that the principal purpose of those investigators was to prepare a defense in the case that the police might bring a charge against me. I hoped that they would also follow up on leads that came to us, but I was frequently reminded by our attorneys that their principal role was to prepare a defense should that be necessary.

    Deposition of John Ramsey, December 12, 2001

    BARBARA WALTERS: Why wasn't the body exhumed?
    JOHN RAMSEY: (PAUSE) Don't know why the police didn't consider that. Uh, we were asked… when this theory first surfaced about a stun gun that if the body were exhumed… it could be proved conclusively but it had to be done fairly quickly. This was… within months of when we'd just buried JonBenet. And I, as her father, could not bring myself to do that. I had laid my child to rest. She was at peace. And that was, ah, that decision I couldn't make.
    BARBARA WALTERS: Even though it might have cleared you?
    JOHN RAMSEY: It wasn't… that was not the priority. The priority was my child was at rest.

    20/20 (ABC) March 17, 2000:

    Perhaps the most outrageous and inaccurate claim by Lou Smit regarding stun guns is the following:
    Lou Smit: The stun gun that we came up with is this one and it’s the Air Taser stun gun. If a stun gun is used on a little girl I'm sure it would have knocked her flat and it would have allowed the killer to take her from her bed without her struggling
    Court TV, The Elite, JonBenet “A Second Look,” November 7, 2002

    The reality is this:
    Air Taser representative Stephen Tuttle said he was contacted by an investigator early on in the case and provided Smit with the same model to conduct his experiments.
    "I am bewildered. I don't know what to think about the theory," Tuttle said. "It defies the logic of what the weapon does."
    Tuttle conceded that two marks are close to the width of the contacts of an Air Taser, but said that's where the similarities end.
    "We have never seen those types of marks when you touch somebody with a stun gun," he said. "We are talking hundreds of people that have been touched with these devices. I can't replicate those marks."
    Tuttle said it is uncommon for the stun gun to leave only two marks on the skin. The body moves away from the stun gun, causing multiple, erratic marks.
    "How you can keep this thing perfectly still, not once, but twice on a squirming child? It doesn't make any sense," he said. "I hope that doesn't throw water on somebody's investigation."
    He also said the Air Taser does not render people unconscious.

    Daily Camera, May 2, 2001

    Also:

    Reporter: "... Taser International, the company that manufactured the stun gun Smit believes was used in this crime. Steven, thanks for being here. In fact, he says it was an AIR TASER 34,000. You've got one with you, show us how it works.
    Steven Tuttle - Taser International: "Well, what you have is the stun gun version of the Air Taser. If I push back the safety here, (firing stun gun in air)I can activate the actual stun gun and that's what we... you have to apply to a person to keep them at bay, so to speak.
    Reporter: Can you apply it to your arm?
    ST: I can, ah, it's not fun, but (applies to arm held in air, the contact is brief and repeating as the arm jumps away) AH (he grunted) It's very disconcerting and makes you want to stay away from it. It's somewhat painful. To me that just felt like pins and needles hitting on my arm right now and I want to get away from that pain.
    Reporter: Did it leave a mark?
    ST: Not at all. (Showing arm)
    Reporter: Let's take a look at a couple of ... we still-framed just a moment ago duting this package here... the front end of that Air taser, let's take a look at it right now. You can see, there you see, how far apart are the two sort of electrodes that come out there? Are they roughly 3.5 cm apart?
    ST: That's fairly close, yes.
    Reporter: And there's another look at it there. OK, the reason I ask that is that Lou Smit took your product, the 34000 Air Taser, he tested it on an anaestitized pig, hard to say, and produced the same marks that were discovered on JonBenét Ramsey - not in one place, but in two separate places. What do you make of that?
    ST: Well, actually, we helped supply that Air Taser for the testing. We were as interested in this case as Lou Smit is. We've worked with him from the very beginning of the case. The one thing that's interesting is that the marks that the pigs have do look fairly similar to what's on JonBenét Ramsey. What's unusual is that, if you saw my arm, it was going off in many, many directions. It's extremely painful, uh, not even painful, just I wanted to get away from it. I don't know how you could leave this particular device in one solid spot, not once but twice
    Reporter: Yeah, but your arm wasn't restricted against a bed. What if a child abut, oh say, 35-40 pounds, age 6, is in a bed, asleep, somebody comes over without her hearing and uses a stun gun, that taser you've got right there in your hand, and while holding her down uses it on her back and her neck and face area?
    ST: Well, that's an interesting idea because if I do this to a child of say 6 years of age while they're in the middle of a very deep sleep, they're going to have fairly the same reaction I did. They're going to want to get instinctually away from the pain. It would be almost be like being hit with a hot iron while sleeping. It may take an extra second but you are going to wake up, kick, flail and scream....
    Reporter: But didn't you tell our producer that if you do this to a hundred people you will get 100 different reactions? Right?
    ST: You'll have about a hundred different reactions but most of them will be different screams, different yelps, different people kicking. You will certainly not see any incapacitation at all. That's the key to this issue is that you're NOT going to get incapacitation
    Reporter: What are you gonna get?
    ST: You're gonna get what I did just now and I'm still feeling it... I don't like the fact that I did that to myself... I would want to get away from that pain...
    Reporter: No temporary paralysis?
    ST: None whatsoever.
    There are a lot of places on the internet, if you look up stun guns. It's completely false as to what these things do as far as incapacitation rates. These are good devices to keep somebody at bay at best.

    MSNBC Interview

    The BPD doesn’t buy the stun gun theory and neither do a number of other experts:

    Fox interview with BPD Detective Sgt. Tom Wickman:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=1F3Ubv2cbds
    ...the marks on her face which he (Tom Wickman) believes are bruises and not marks made by a stun gun, which has been out there and he thinks are a myth…

    The DA’s investigators, Lou Smit and Steve Ainsworth, claimed that they could now place a stun gun in the hands of their unknown intruder. We would spend months proving to our satisfaction that it simply did not exist, but they wouldn’t give up on the idea.
    Smit and Ainsworth concluded from studying photographs of the body that some of the abrasions were marks left by the prongs of a stun gun. When they asked the coroner about it, the answer was “Sure, anything is possible.” With that, they began to consider whether the child’s body should be disinterred so the skin around the marks could be tested.
    Experts engaged by the police concluded there was no stun gun involved at all, but the DA’s team never relinquished their claim that such an exotic weapon was used to subdue JonBenét.

    JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation, Steve Thomas, page 176

    We thought we had successfully knocked down the preposterous stun gun scenario but underestimated the tenacity of DA investigator Lou Smit. The idea, although demonstrably wrong, stuck to the case like glue, no matter how many times we thought we had proved it couldn’t have happened that way.
    JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation, Steve Thomas, page 221

    Then Detective Jane Harmer gave the family overview, and Detective Trujillo explained the autopsy information. Trujillo carefully recited the conclusions of experts who effectively knocked down the stubborn issue of the stun gun, which the detectives believed never existed and which had become a cornerstone of the Intruder Theory.
    JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation, Steve Thomas, page 341

    In December 1999, a few months after the grand jury came back and shortly before the third anniversary of the murder of JonBenét, Lou Smit was seen in Atlanta, praying at JonBenét’s graveside with John Ramsey. He had shown case photographs to medical examiners with the Georgia Bureau of Investigation and was actively conducting an investigation, still asking stun gun questions. At this writing, he has never been challenged by the DA’s office for doing so. Smit had gone over to Team Ramsey, taking all his invaluable insider knowledge with him. Hunter bet on the wrong horse
    JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation, Steve Thomas, page 396

    Dr. Cyril Wecht: …the stun gun theory has been around for some time. I know for a fact that this was submitted to various experts in stun guns and manufacturers, criminalists, forensic pathologists, law enforcement people, they all rejected it. I also know for a fact that Mr. Smit, pursuant to his own request, presented this to one of the top-flight forensic scientists, who along with another top-flight forensic scientist of a different subspecialty, rejected it.

    Darnay Hoffman: But what does invalidate Lou Smit's theory is the fact that as recently as this morning, a representative of the Air Taser company, which is the stun gun company that Lou Smit said made the weapon in question, they absolutely refute the fact that that weapon was used, or that object was used, simply because they have been unable to reproduce those markings on any kind of cadaver, or person, or anything else. They say that those injuries or those marks on her body are not consistent with anything that they've ever tried to show the police. They would certainly like to help solve this crime, but none of the representatives have been able to reproduce it themselves, so they don't think it's their...
    Catherine Crier: Yes, I actually have that report here, and a conversation where the Taser representative, really, conducted the experiments on the Air Taser, and could not produce the kind of marks that we're talking about.
    Darnay Hoffman: Yeah. It completely blows Lou Smit's theory out of the water.
    Dr. Cyril Wecht:. That's right.

    The Crier Report 05/01/01

    Erin Moriarty: "How sure are you that it's not a stun gun?"
    Dr. Werner Spitz: "Well I'm a hundred percent sure because stun gun injuries don't look that way."
    Erin Moriarty: (Voice Over) "Dr. Werner Spitz, a nationally known pathologist who has worked on major cases including the assassination of J.F. Kennedy."
    Dr. Werner Spitz: "Are you telling me that this looks to you like the other one, the one that JonBenet has? They don't look like that to me at all. A stun gun injury is an electrical burn, it's a burn essentially. And these don't look like burns."
    Erin Moriarty: (Voice Over) "Instead, Spitz believes the large dark mark on JonBenet's face was left by a snap on a piece of clothing"
    Dr. Werner Spitz: "You know like the snaps they have on blue jeans for instance. If you look at this one below the ear, this thing here. If you look at it closely with a magnify glass you will see within this brownish mark is a boat shaped structure which is missing with any of the other injuries."

    48 Hours Investigates - Searching for a Killer, October 4, 2002
    Last edited by cynic; June 6, 2012, 1:39 am at Wed Jun 6 1:39:08 UTC 2012.

  4. #40

    Default

    The suggestion that a stun gun was used to control or to incapacitate JonBenet is some of the most irresponsible nonsense ever uttered by Lou Smit and his minions (primarily John San Agustin and Ollie Gray.)

    The University of Oklahoma Police Department
    Do these gadgets really work?

    There are many devices available on the market to enhance personal safety. Some can be effective. Some are not effective. Some are junk.
    On this page we'll present two issues:
    Which devices may work, and which may not work.
    Why your "self-defense strategy" shouldn't be built around a device.
    First, some of the devices:

    Stun Guns (zappers)
    Here are some vendor "claims" regarding "stun guns" sold on the web, as well through catalogs and in retail stores:
    "...instantly stops attacker..."
    "...merely touching a person with the gun, they are immobilized for several minutes, with no permanent damage..."
    "...causing the assailant to drop . . .trying to remember how to move his arms and legs..."
    "...the sound alone is enough to scare any attacker away..."
    "...used by police departments. Strong enough to take down any attacker!..."

    Sounds effective, eh? WRONG!!!
    Stun guns supposedly use electrodes to, when pressed against an attacker's clothing or flesh, send high voltages (50,000 to 300,000 volts at a tiny fraction of an amp) of electricity streaming through the assailant's body, instantly disabling them by overwhelming the assailant's nervous system.
    When these devices first came on the market, some police officers and others were even video-taped in demonstrations where the stun guns supposedly "knocked them down" — carefully staged demonstrations where the person being "stunned" had been set up -hyped- into thinking they were going to be knocked down.
    Through lengthy discussion of how it was going to feel, signing liability waivers, placing cushions/mats below where they would surely fall, placing strong men on either side to catch them before they hit the ground, and other psychological tricks to "prep" them into truly believing they were going to be physically knocked off their feet.
    Well, if you believe something strongly enough, it may happen. Unfortunately, your attacker will probably not be so carefully prepped into believing that your stun gun is going to have the desired effect...
    Our OUPD self-defense instructors became aware of the the problem of all the bogus "zappers" on the market several years ago at an Oklahoma Council on Law Enforcement Education and Training (CLEET) school where the trainers advised that the FBI had conducted testing on a number of "stun gun" devices on the market and had found: 1) none that worked as claimed (i.e. disabling an attacker) and, 2) some that didn't even produce enough power to cause any significant pain to the attacker.
    Our self defense instructors have attended CLEET training where we've repeatedly "zapped" each other with various brands and models of "stun guns". The effects?
    Being "zapped" by a stun gun just made us MAD!
    And that's very likely what will happen if you use a stun gun on an assailant...just make them very mad.
    We've been zapped on bare skin and through clothes. We've been zapped on various body parts, including on the neck at the base of the skull. We've been zapped for a second, and for five seconds, and for longer.
    We've seen a defensive tactics instructor zapped on bare skin on the neck, continuously, for over a minute, with the most powerful "stun gun" the state training center could find, while fighting an opponent. The effect? It made him EXTREMELY ANGRY. It actually caused him to fight harder because of the pain.
    Yes, they can be "painful". And if you zap someone long enough you can cause tiny burns, and likely cause bruises where the metal leads are jammed into the skin if you press hard enough. A very hard "pinch" would probably cause as much pain and injury.
    If your idea of self-defense is to "pinch" the assailant as hard as you can and make them very angry, then a "stun gun" may be for you!
    We've even had instructors go out and buy the latest-greatest stun gun they've seen advertised, with their own money, and bring it back to work where they could zap each other with it to test its effectiveness. Painful, sure. But much less painful than "a good swift kick" and nothing that would disuade a determined attacker. Painful enough, however, to make almost any attacker very angry at you.
    The only scenario we can think of where such a device WOULD be effective is against very stupid criminals who might "think" one touch from a stun gun will lay them out on the floor. It's probably not a good idea, however, to plan your defense strategy around being attacked by someone who's very stupid.

    Note: There are some electrical-shock based devices, available to police and corrections officers, that are reported to be effective, in some circumstances, including some devices like the "Air-Taser" that fire wire-line projectiles into the skin (bypassing skin resistivity) — but none that we'd recommend for the average citizen.
    And, if the fact that they "just don't work" isn't enough, the stun gun is a device that requires that you prolong immediate contact with an attacker. We want you to get AWAY from the attacker!
    Also, stun guns may be illegal to buy, carry, or use in your state.

    http://www.ou.edu/oupd/zappers.htm

    Videos of stun guns in action:
    Girl being stun gunned:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_mpldYwSBE

    MythBusters:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uz5ASBeeCeA

    What if a person was surprised in the middle of the night by someone armed with a stun gun and that person outweighed them by at least 150 pounds? I’m sure Smit would’ve thought the “little guy” would’ve been incapacitated and have had no chance, well, he would have been wrong.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=JcI599B4ELY
    On Tuesday, a Superior Court judge in Beverly Hills offered David Spade some legal protection. Judge Elden Fox ordered Malloy, who weighs more than 300 pounds, to stay at least 100 yards from Spade, who can't weigh more than 125 pounds soaking wet. And, at the urging of Deputy Dist. Atty. Wendy Segall, the judge also ordered Malloy to refrain from any attempts to contact or communicate with the actor.
    http://articles.latimes.com/2001/jan/24/news/cl-16050

    The following is a compilation of three videos
    The first is a “friend” administering a stun gun to the neck of his seemingly compliant buddy.
    The second and third are victims of a taser rather than a stun gun.
    You will notice how quickly the effects wear off and the plentiful yelling/screaming that occurs while the shock is being administered.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDKUJ...layer_embedded

    Notice that all of these devices are LOUD.
    It’s true that the sound decreases while in direct contact with the victim, it’s nevertheless noisy. If the device loses contact with the victim while it is in operation, or is switched on before being pressed into the victim, the sound increases dramatically.
    If you believe that Patsy could discern the sound of her son urinating in the washroom a floor below, I don’t imagine she would have much difficulty hearing a stun gun (or JonBenet screaming for that matter.)
    TRIP DEMUTH: And you said you would think you would hear Burke if he got up and went down to the kitchen and fixed something. Has he ever gotten up in the night and gone down into the kitchen?
    PATSY RAMSEY: I hear him get up and go to the bathroom. I can hear him urinating in the bathroom.

    Patsy Ramsey interview, June 23-25, 1998

    Applying the stun gun would cause JonBenet to yell and scream creating even more noise to shatter the silence the night. And to what end? As has been noted, she would not have been rendered unconscious. For those who feel the answer lies in the possibility that duct tape may have silenced her, that is not true. The evidence shows that the duct tape was applied to an unconscious JonBenet.
    Last edited by cynic; June 6, 2012, 1:46 am at Wed Jun 6 1:46:21 UTC 2012.

  5. #41

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cynic View Post
    Erin Moriarty: (Voice Over) "Instead, Spitz believes the large dark mark on JonBenet's face was left by a snap on a piece of clothing"

    Dr. Werner Spitz: "You know like the snaps they have on blue jeans for instance. If you look at this one below the ear, this thing here. If you look at it closely with a magnify glass you will see within this brownish mark is a boat shaped structure which is missing with any of the other injuries."
    "A boat shaped structure like this?" fr brown asked, pointing up.

  6. #42
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    1,311

    Default

    The coroner described the marks on JB only as "abrasions". There was talk of exhuming the body to do further testing to determine if they really were abrasions or some other kind of injury. A stun gun would leave a different kind of mark, as opposed to, say, a cigarette burn.
    As this testing was never done, we will never know.
    This is my Constitutionally protected OPINION. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.

  7. #43

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee View Post
    The coroner described the marks on JB only as "abrasions". There was talk of exhuming the body to do further testing to determine if they really were abrasions or some other kind of injury. A stun gun would leave a different kind of mark, as opposed to, say, a cigarette burn.
    As this testing was never done, we will never know.
    I disagree, DeeDee, and I seldom disagree with you. But in this instance, I think the evidence is ample and irrefutable: the child was not stunned with a stun gun or a Taser.

    JMO, of course.

    "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.

  8. #44

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cynic View Post
    [snip]

    The Ramseys were clearly made aware that all the speculation that Smit was generating as he was peddling his stun gun theory could be put to rest by exhuming JonBenet, and yet the Ramseys refused to pursue that course of action.
    This is in line with the reasoning behind hiring PI’s. They weren’t hired to help solve the case; they were hired to keep the Ramseys out of jail.
    The Ramseys could have taken a major step in the investigation by exhuming JonBenet, but that would serve no purpose by way of self preservation. Doubt in the mind of prospective jurors who may be hearing about the possibility of a stun gun and an intruder, that’s what keeps you out of jail, you don’t want loose ends tied up, you want them to remain loose.

    [snip]
    Excellent work, cynic. Definitive, IMO: no stun gun or Taser of any kind was used on JonBenet.

    But Lou Smit's BS "Taser" propaganda served the one and only purpose the Ramseys have ever had in this investigation: to obscure the truth about what happened to their daughter the night she was murdered, as well as in the days and weeks before.

    It's that simple. And Smit knew it, IMO.

    "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. #45

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fr brown View Post
    "A boat shaped structure like this?" fr brown asked, pointing up.
    Well done, fr brown.

    "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.

  10. #46
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    1,311

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by koldkase View Post
    I disagree, DeeDee, and I seldom disagree with you. But in this instance, I think the evidence is ample and irrefutable: the child was not stunned with a stun gun or a Taser.

    JMO, of course.
    I never have any problem with anyone disagreeing with me. I am not saying that they were stun gun marks. I am saying they never did thorough testing to see if they were. To me, they look more like cigarette burns, though I can't see how a coroner would mistake that for an abrasion. Again, we are seeing only a photo of the marks. They saw the actual injury.
    This is my Constitutionally protected OPINION. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.

  11. #47

    Default

    The autopsy report calls the cheek injury an abrasion or contusion (bruise).

    The back injuries are, I think, just referred to as abrasions, but they are pretty small to be cigarette burns. Cigarette burns are supposed to be 7 or 8mm in diameter. One of the back injuries is about 3mm x 2mm and the other is about 5mm by 3mm, converting from the autopsy report.

  12. #48
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    1,311

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fr brown View Post
    The autopsy report calls the cheek injury an abrasion or contusion (bruise).

    The back injuries are, I think, just referred to as abrasions, but they are pretty small to be cigarette burns. Cigarette burns are supposed to be 7 or 8mm in diameter. One of the back injuries is about 3mm x 2mm and the other is about 5mm by 3mm, converting from the autopsy report.
    As I said, the closest thing they resemble, to ME, is a cigarette burn. An abrasion is more like a scrape- not usually in such a perfect circle, like these marks. In an abrasion, the outermost layer of skin is abraded (rubbed or scraped) away. I can't imagine what would have rubbed off the first layer of skin in such a perfect circle- not once but in a few places. I would think, if they WERE from a cigarette, the difference in size might be the result of differences in pressure or length of time the hot tip is held against the skin.
    I have a hard time imagining what might have made those marks, in perfect circles and in several places.
    I know at least one forensic specialist said one of them looked like a mark from a snap or something. And thanks to Fr Brown, we can see the little "boat-shaped structure" mentioned. The location of the marks on her cheek and back make it hard to imagine what would have made them- they would have had to be made at the same time- on both her back AND cheek. That is why it seems more plausible that the marks were made by something that was pressed into her rather than her pressing against something.
    This is my Constitutionally protected OPINION. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.



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
  •