Stun Gun Myth Dispelled!

Discussion in 'Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum' started by koldkase, Nov 4, 2009.

  1. fr brown

    fr brown Member

    "A boat shaped structure like this?" fr brown asked, pointing up.
     
  2. DeeDee

    DeeDee Member

    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.
     
  3. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    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.
     
  4. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    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.
     
  5. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Well done, fr brown.
     
  6. DeeDee

    DeeDee Member

    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.
     
  7. fr brown

    fr brown Member

    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.
     
  8. DeeDee

    DeeDee Member

    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.
     
  9. fr brown

    fr brown Member

    Personally, I think the cheek mark was made by a different object. (The cheek mark is quite a bit bigger than either of the marks on the back.) After the head fracture, she might have had her head turned to the side, her cheek pressing into something.

    I think the back marks were made by objects of the same shape. Or it could be one object if she were repositioned.

    If you had just brained your kid in a fit of rage, would you pick her up and hug her for an extended period of time? Would you press the side of your head into her cheek while you sobbed? Maybe the back marks were made by clothing decorations while the cheek mark was made by an earring or something.

    Just speculating. This morning is the first time I've ever thought of the prime suspect doing anything other than standing over her daughter and cold-bloodedly planning the cover-up.
     
    Last edited: Jun 10, 2012
  10. Elle

    Elle Member

    I cannot get over the fact with all of the technology we have today, the experts cannot come up with the true cause of all these marks.
     
  11. fr brown

    fr brown Member

    They haven't told us everything they know. The police may know what made the marks.
     
  12. DeeDee

    DeeDee Member

    They had the technology in 1996, too. The coroner COULD have tried to determine what made those marks. He obviously chose (or was told) not to. The DA COULD have gotten a warrant to exhume JB's body to test the marks, since her parents refused to allow it. He chose (or was told) not to.
     
  13. Cherokee

    Cherokee FFJ Senior Member

    The WS and FFJ poster, Wolfmarsgirl, had a theory that Patsy's rings had turned upside down (palm side) on her fingers and made the marks. Because Patsy's fingers swelled on the steroids, then she lost weight afterwards, her rings turned downward with the weight of the stones. There are photos of Patsy wearing her rings turned upside down.

    Wolfmarsgirl did an experiment with rings turned upside down while holding/cradling her child. One set of rings ended up forming similar marks to those found on JonBenet's back, the other set ended up in the same place as on JBR's cheek. It was a very convincing experiment and theory.

    The idea was that Patsy had cradled and loved on JonBenet, perhaps rocking her, after Patsy thought JBR was dead. Those rings would have been slightly different sizes and not exactly the same width apart on the fingers, which could explain the difference in the size and spacing of the marks on JonBenet's back and face.

    IF the marks were made by Patsy's rings, it could also explain why the marks appeared as abrasions to Dr. Meyer because the ring prongs and stones would have dug into JonBenet's skin and with a rocking movement, they would have abraided her skin.

    I tried to find Wolfmarsgirl's photos that she posted of her experiment, but she has deleted everything that was on that web page, and they are no longer available. Did anyone save those pics? I believe she posted them in 2004.
     
  14. cynic

    cynic Member

    I wish I did, but she was posting before I started and her pictures are definitely not around anymore.
    She was using the following site to host her pics, but her page is down.
    http://www.geocities.com/wolfchick942003/photopage.html

    She does describe her work:
    http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1167368&postcount=32

    Also:
    http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3971

    and here, where a certain poster by the name of Cherokee also has a post:
    http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4603
     
  15. fr brown

    fr brown Member

    Now that you mention it, that does ring a bell.

    The autopsy report refers to the cheek mark once as an "abrasion or contusion" and thereafter refers to it as an abrasion.

    Why do the cheek and back marks have to be made by the same object or kind of object? The back marks are oval (or oblong) and quite small, very unlike the cheek mark.
     
  16. Cherokee

    Cherokee FFJ Senior Member

    Ha ha, yeah that old Cherokee has been around for a long time!

    Thanks for linking the WS threads. At least we have the discussion if not the photos.
     
  17. Karen

    Karen Member

    I asked for, and received a stun gun for Christmas just like the one Smit claims was used on Jonbenet. Alas, my hubby won't let me use it on him so I can compare marks. Bummer, he's no fun. Anyway, I was thinking about using it on a piece of fruit like an orange or a cantaloupe. I have this thing now and I have to find a way to use it on someone/thing!!!!!

    I've never believed a stun gun was used on Jonbenet. Patsy wouldn't need it.
     
  18. Elle

    Elle Member

    Oh geez, Karen! Hope you two don't ever have a real bad argument with this stun gun around.

    Good grief, who would need a stun gun for a small child?
     
  19. DeeDee

    DeeDee Member

    I'd try it on an old shoe or handbag. Leather, being skin, might give you a more realistic idea of what tasered human skin looks like.
     
  20. Karen

    Karen Member

    Good idea! I have on old beige purse. Perfect color!
     
  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