Facts about the Stun gun

Back to this taser for a minute. Anyone ever get hit with these things?

 

Texan, Have you ever seen a copper tooling kit? There are several fittings which come with this kit. Who knows maybe Patsy Ramsey had a Copper tooling kit herself (?) Patsy was into Arts and Crafts. It's possible. Of course, I don't have a pig around to demonstrate.

 

I disagree with you yum yum. Those were not totally innocent marks on that little girl. Those marks were also part of the staging, To make it look like it may have been a stun gun. Just the same as the garrote was used to make it look like a pedophile, and the ransom note, to make the cops and public think it was a Foreign Faction.

The audacity of the Ramseys, to think we are all so stupid; however, they did pull it off, thanks to the weakest District Attorney in Boulder at that time - Alex Hunter.

 

I don't think they were staging. It could have been from contact with something like the rings.

 

I agree

I also think the marks are accidental and caused from something simple - a ring could be the cause.

 

Don't think a ring would leave burn marks like that. Of course we're just looking at photographs, not seeing the actual depth of the injury etc., Oh I wish someone could solve this part alone (?).

 

Elle, you are drawing conclusions (as opposed to speculating) ... without a valid basis to draw such a sweeping conclusion. You say, "Those were not totally innocent marks". That's an unsupported conclusion.

Equally grievous is your assignment (as opposed to speculation) of motive, again without sufficient evidence to do so. You said, "Those marks were also part of the staging, To make it look like it may have been a stun gun". You don't KNOW that ... it's your speculation and should be presented as such. We don't know when those "abrasions" were made ... same day or 3 days prior ... before going to the Whites, during, or after the visit to the Whites. We don't know what made the marks ... and we don't know whether they resulted accidentally, or intentionally.

IF the marks were intentional, we still can only speculate at this point as to what the motive may have been. In fact, IF someone had intended to simulate stungun burns, wouldn't it make sense to stage them in pairs? The lone abrasion under the ear is not paired with anything. Do you really think that it was done to make us think it was a stungun mark? I ain't buyin' it. That's fine, I s'pose, as opinion or speculation ... but there is nothing to support it as fact ... as a conclusion.

Your OPINION may well turn out to be correct. However, my OPINION that "Marks like those on JonBenet were likely totally innocent" may also turn out to be the case, and is (imo) far more likely.

In my opinion, you are effectively giving the stungun theory unwarranted credibility by agreeing that the three "abrasions" look like stungun marks. In my opinion, the RST was looking high and low for red herrings to feed to the American public ... and when they spied the marks on the body they thought that they could spin them into something that the public might buy. And some did buy. I didn't.

Editted to add a response to Elle's last post. Why do you persist in referring to the marks as "BURNS" when the autopsy consistently refers to them as "ABRASIONS"? Do you know something that they don't, Elle?


PB!!!

...YumYum

 

Hey, y'all just made me think of something. I don't know if anyone has said this before, probably has, but it just popped into my head with YumYum's mention of Christmas activities that cause scrapes and such for kids.

JonBenet got a bicycle. I know John said he regretted not stopping to help her ride her bike when she asked him right before they went to the Whites. I once took that to mean JonBenet never got to ride her bike. But then I read where the old nanny in Atlanta said she called Patsy that afternoon and heard the kids laughing in the background, and she mentioned JonBenet was riding her bike. I think. Ah, heck, where did I read about that? One of the books? Or maybe an old article where the old woman was interviewed....

Anyhow, my point is that John said the bike was a little large for JonBenet. Now I'm thinking about the peddles. What if she got the two scratches on the back of her leg from one of the peddles of the bike? Maybe her foot slipped, that kind of thing?

Well, it's an idea. Have we ever seen those marks in an autopsy picture?

I'll see if I can find that interview again.

 

You can cut out your fancy talk for starters. YY I am used to posting here with posters who have a nicer manner than you. I can think whatever I want to think, in the same manner that you think those marks could have been innocently made. Do you yourself have children, or grandchildren who just all of a sudden have marks like JonBenét that just innocently appeared? Marks like that just don't innocently appear on children.

I do not think it was a stun gun. Delmar England helped me with that. I have read enough explanations to know it was not a stun gun.

Texan has already stated in her post that those marks could have been made with something electrical. She could be right. I still think they look almost like cigarette burns that I have seen on some victims photos.

As far as I'm concerned abrasions are different looking marks than those. To me an abrasion is more like a wound that has signs of slight scraping around it.


None of us know what happened that night, and that includes you.

Just my opinion

 

I don't think a stun gun mark is a scratch, Texan, not from the photos I've seen.
Most abrasions I have seen are the ones my sons had when they were playing soccer, as they slid on the grass.

 

Yikes, Elle ... calm down. You are clearly posting OPINION in your last post. My objection was in your earlier posts where you CONCLUDED that you had the answer ... but with no supporting evidence. There is an important distinction twixt a conclusion and an opinion, and that is all that I was pointing out.

A couple things' concering your "burn" theory:

1. Cigarette tips are TWICE the diameter of the marks that we are discussing ... so you can put that theory out with the cat.

2. Don't you think that the guy doing the autopsy ... trained to know the difference between a burn and an abrasion, and seeing the marks in the flesh (NOT a tabloid reprinted photo) ... could tell the difference between a friggin' burn, and an abrasion?! Let's give the guy some credit!

I do NOT know what the marks are, Elle. But I DO know that they are NOT stungun burns, and they are NOT cirgarette burns.

... and please try to accept friendly, constructive criticism for what it is. There was no personal attack on my part.

And me ... "fancy talk"?! LMAO!!! That ranks up there with penquins smackin' penguins!



...YumYum

 

What do you think went wrong, guppy?


-Tea

 

That's a brilliant question, IcedT. Seriously ... that should be the very first question that these "kidnapping-gone-bad" types should be required to answer. I can't wait to hear Gupster's answer.

What went bad, Gup?

...YumYum

 

I was having a bad day, and you were the icing on the cake you silly sod! I think the posters here will vouch for me, that normally I'm a v-e-r-r-r-r-y nice and decent person if I say so myself. Anyhoo, I'm ready for a fight, because I'm up in the middle of the night. :viking: :wood: For your information, I don't think they are cigarette burns. and don't think they are stun guns o k-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-y. Like I'm hearing this news for the first time? I've been posting for five years, and I know for sure I don't have all the answers like you or anyone else here.

For what it's worth, those friggin marks don't look like abrasions to me, but maybe that's what all the coroners call every friggin mark. Like everyone else here, I was just surmising it may be burns or whatever the heck.

I used to have Just my opinion at the bottom of the posts. I wonder where it went (?), This kept me safe. I'll have to check my profile and enter it again.

 

No harm done, Elle. Let's beat up the bad guys :highfive:


...YumYum

 

Thank you, kindly, Tricia.

 

To one and all....

Elle1 is:

A GREAT GAL! And, I enjoy every single one of her posts. She's very smart and makes a lot of sense to me. Go Gal, Go!


Greenleaf:leaf:

 

For you Elle1:

We love you

:hug: :toast: :heart:

 

misunderstood

I guess my post was misleading-what I was trying to say was that I don't believe the marks were stun gun marks because that would be a burn and the autopsy describes them as abrasions which is more like a scratch. I don't think the marks look like burn marks but of course it is hard to tell from a picture. I think we are basically saying the same thing-that we don't think those are stun gun marks.