Aphrodite Jones, JonBenet, and Lou Smit?

roseofsharon said:

Well perhaps you could explain your post stating that my opinions (not questions) are old hat for the rest of you!

Click to expand...

Gladly. You said, quote:

Historically, when children are murdered by a parent, thinking logically, they would have gotten rid of the body, especially if they were going to stage a kidnapping.

I can't imagine parents murdering their child, place them in a wine cellar and then call 911 knowing the police were going to find her.

I know JR found her, but it could have just as easily been LE.

Does not make sense -- just MOT & O's.

Click to expand...

What I mean is that this is an issue that often comes up around here, and a lot of us have addressed it many times. That's all.

My perception of your post is that my post is insignificant, not worthy of rehashing and IMO the comment was very condescending.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry if I left you with that impression. I'm just really burnt-out. Moreover, it's not that it isn't worth discussing. It's just that going over all those old posts gives me a headache!

My point/meaning regarding the Boulder PD having the case given back to their jurisdiction is ...

Boulder PD have stated they will start from the very beginning -- every single detail investigated/rehashed -- nothing will be considered insignificant. All the dots just may get connected this time!!!

Click to expand...

That's fine with me. (Frankly, I'm PLEASED that they got it back, for just those reasons.) It's just my opinion that the dots were connected a long time ago. Like I said: MY OPINION.

I can't imagine one of the detectives stating -- oh that's old hat -- next!!!!!

Click to expand...

Yeah, I know. We got plenty of that over the last few years!

Maikai said:

The marks on her face were identical to those used on Boggs (another case ME Doberson was involved in).

Click to expand...

You must have been looking at different pictures than I was. (And as cynic mentioned, this is an area I have some expertise in.)

In the Boggs case, they found a stun gun after he was buried. He was exhumed and the marks matched the stun gun. Doberson had missed it the first time. Not unlike Meyers. Doberson is also the person that did the pig experiments....and he researched the world's medical literature on stun gun assaults. Pigs were used because they are the most like us. He concluded with a very high degree of certainty that a stun gun had been used on JBR.

Click to expand...

No stun gun was used on JB. And I didn't NEED to have myself zapped to know it. (Didn't stop me, though!)

IDI propagandists created the stun gun myth out of thin air and pursued it as if it really were something. And it reflects very badly on them that they did so. One MORE reason why I changed sides.

Maikai said:

A tired child could easily have been lifted up and taken down the stairwell...with the taser used in the basement...possibly when she was also garrotted. The taser may have been brought in to be used on anyone waking up. There were articles in the paper at the time that stun guns and bats were the weapons of choice for young criminals in the area. You could buy them over the internet---much easier obtained then a regular gun. Stun guns also used by drug dealers. The marks on her face were identical to those used on Boggs (another case ME Doberson was involved in). In the Boggs case, they found a stun gun after he was buried. He was exhumed and the marks matched the stun gun. Doberson had missed it the first time. Not unlike Meyers. Doberson is also the person that did the pig experiments....and he researched the world's medical literature on stun gun assaults. Pigs were used because they are the most like us. He concluded with a very high degree of certainty that a stun gun had been used on JBR.

Click to expand...

Yeah, and Doberson also concluded that he couldn't conclude with certainty that a stun gun was used without exhuming JB's body. He conveniently forgot that once Tracey's cameras were aimed at him, however, didn't he?

The victim whose stun gun injuries Doberson missed in the first autopsy he did of him had been buried for a year when Doberson had him dug up and examined those marks again. He used skin samples to determine that they were created by a stun gun. He never had that with JonBenet, which is why he originally said he couldn't say with certainty those were stun gun marks.

Meyers did examine the body. LE also knew shortly after Smit joined Hunter's intruder investigation that Smit was going after the stun gun theory. The BPD brought in their own experts and determined the marks were not from a stun gun. Beckner has publicly said so himself. Doberson's pig experiment hardly trumps that.

After all, if Doberson already knew the marks were from a stun gun because of his previous case, why did he have to stun a pig for the Tracey/Smit dog and pony show? Because Doberson never saw the body of JonBenet Ramsey. Ever.

And JonBenet's skull was cracked upstairs, near or in her bedroom: her bloody mucous was on the pillowcase on her bed, remember? So when did she eat pineapple? Before she was bludgeoned in her room by an intruder, but after she ate pineapple with him?

If he stun gunned her in the basement, she was already unconscious when she was laid on that carpet by the paint tray, as her head injuries would have put her in a coma in minutes, if not seconds. Why stun gun her then?

But none of that matters, because she was not stun gunned/tasered, no matter how much Team Ramsey want us to believe that. The bruises attributed to the stun gun are not skin burns and do not look like actual stun gun marks documented by experts without an agenda--Doberson had an agenda to support Smit's nonsense for a choice spot on a national TV show.

But if you disagree with all of that, please explain to me how JB was stun gunned and molested by this intruder sometime before the night she was murdered?

Careless of Patsy not to notice during all those pageant scrubs that her child was being tortured with a stun gun and molested, don't you think?

KoldKase said:

Yeah, and Doberson also concluded that he couldn't conclude with certainty that a stun gun was used without exhuming JB's body. He conveniently forgot that once Tracey's cameras were aimed at him, however, didn't he?

The victim whose stun gun injuries Doberson missed in the first autopsy he did of him had been buried for a year when Doberson had him dug up and examined those marks again. He used skin samples to determine that they were created by a stun gun. He never had that with JonBenet, which is why he originally said he couldn't say with certainty those were stun gun marks.

Meyers did examine the body. LE also knew shortly after Smit joined Hunter's intruder investigation that Smit was going after the stun gun theory. The BPD brought in their own experts and determined the marks were not from a stun gun. Beckner has publicly said so himself. Doberson's pig experiment hardly trumps that.

After all, if Doberson already knew the marks were from a stun gun because of his previous case, why did he have to stun a pig for the Tracey/Smit dog and pony show? Because Doberson never saw the body of JonBenet Ramsey. Ever.

And JonBenet's skull was cracked upstairs, near or in her bedroom: her bloody mucous was on the pillowcase on her bed, remember? So when did she eat pineapple? Before she was bludgeoned in her room by an intruder, but after she ate pineapple with him?

If he stun gunned her in the basement, she was already unconscious when she was laid on that carpet by the paint tray, as her head injuries would have put her in a coma in minutes, if not seconds. Why stun gun her then?

But none of that matters, because she was not stun gunned/tasered, no matter how much Team Ramsey want us to believe that. The bruises attributed to the stun gun are not skin burns and do not look like actual stun gun marks documented by experts without an agenda--Doberson had an agenda to support Smit's nonsense for a choice spot on a national TV show.

But if you disagree with all of that, please explain to me how JB was stun gunned and molested by this intruder sometime before the night she was murdered?

Careless of Patsy not to notice during all those pageant scrubs that her child was being tortured with a stun gun and molested, don't you think?

Click to expand...

Koldkase, that was brutal. And I loved every minute of it!

roseofsharon said:

The intruder may have been known to JB and intruder may have immediately duct taped the mouth first while she lay sleeping and then used the taser.

Click to expand...

But woke her up for some nummy pineapple?
Don't think so.

roseofsharon said:

PR told LE that JB did not wake up when she changed her black slacks to longjohns that night, so JB a sound sleeper it would seem.

Just a different scenario.

IMO

Click to expand...

KoldKase said:

JB had saliva dried on her face from her mouth, drained down the right side. She was found in rigor mortis with her face turned to the right. If she had duct tape on her mouth when she was bludgeoned, how did she drool down the right side of her face? She also had blood-tinged mucous draining from her nose down the right side of her face, which dripped onto the upper sleeve of her shirt. So both drained down her face after she was unconscious. Logic indicates she had no duct tape on her mouth until she was dead, on her back in the cellar room, with her face turned to the right. That was staging.

I agree "the intruder" was known to JB, who had been sexually assaulted prior to the night she was murdered, the autopsy results prove. What are the odds that this lucky intruder wasn't the one who did that, too?

It's naive to believe everything the prime suspects tell you just because they said it. People trying to conceal a crime are known to lie. JB might not have been asleep at all, for all we know. Only John and Patsy said she was. Burke said she walked upstairs on her own.

Click to expand...

Encyclopedia of the case states that JR ripped the duct tape from JB's mouth and attempted to untie the ropes!! FW witnessed this!

IMO duct tape applied just in case JB woke up while going down the staircase.

IMO

Maikai said:

A tired child could easily have been lifted up and taken down the stairwell...with the taser used in the basement...possibly when she was also garrotted. The taser may have been brought in to be used on anyone waking up. There were articles in the paper at the time that stun guns and bats were the weapons of choice for young criminals in the area. You could buy them over the internet---much easier obtained then a regular gun. Stun guns also used by drug dealers. The marks on her face were identical to those used on Boggs (another case ME Doberson was involved in). In the Boggs case, they found a stun gun after he was buried. He was exhumed and the marks matched the stun gun. Doberson had missed it the first time. Not unlike Meyers. Doberson is also the person that did the pig experiments....and he researched the world's medical literature on stun gun assaults. Pigs were used because they are the most like us. He concluded with a very high degree of certainty that a stun gun had been used on JBR.

Click to expand...

Maikai said:

A tired child could easily have been lifted up and taken down the stairwell....

Click to expand...

heyya makai, that would be an astronomical risk?

I just suppose if you were criminally minded, and had the forethought about the possibility of being detected, that wouldn't be a good strategy.

IDI'wise, who's to say that normal thought process would apply to this individual.

Whaleshark said:

actually, the unfinished practice note found still on the pad did address:

"Mr and Mrs Ramsey"

Click to expand...

Heyya Whaleshark,

rather, Mr. and Mrs. l

acandyrose site:
http://www.acandyrose.com/04112000thomas-pg73-74.htm

source ST book, p 73-74

"The following page, 26, was the practice ransom note (Mr. and Mrs. l),
and that page showed evidence of ink bleedthrough from the missing page 25."

Patsy told LE that she pulled JonBenet's black velvet pants and put on long johns. There is no way no how Patsy would have not noticed those humongous panties on her daughter. Pulling down the pants would have definately have pulled down the panties.

SuperDave said:

I think you'll find that most of us here agree! (I for one wish he HAD!)



Which means he wouldn't have known it when he saw it.

Agatha is right: if it HAD been an intruder, they wouldn't have staged it to LOOK like an intruder.

Click to expand...

Heyya SD, that's where the plot line diverges!
and the IDI sporadically rearranges items?
as mentioned by JR.


Merry Easter!

Tadpole12 said:

Heyya Whaleshark,

rather, Mr. and Mrs. l

acandyrose site:
http://www.acandyrose.com/04112000thomas-pg73-74.htm

source ST book, p 73-74

"The following page, 26, was the practice ransom note (Mr. and Mrs. l),
and that page showed evidence of ink bleedthrough from the missing page 25."

Click to expand...

True.....interestingly, though, when JR is talking about who the RN note is addressed to, he said it was addressed to 'Mr. and Mrs. Ramsey', and his lawyer has to later do a clarification redirect: AKA - save his *advertiser censored*.

Guess they changed their mind, and that 'l' is the first part of the 'R' in their name, of course...and JR forgot about that.

roseofsharon said:

Possibly, the writer composed the RN in their own home and then copied it onto R's notepad, using R's pen, in order to make the R's look like the guilty persons, perhaps knowing PR and how she spoke, so composed the RN to sound like her.

Whoever the writer was, did not know JR was from Michigan, not from the south - hmmm?

The phrase regarding growing a brain is from the movie Speed, according info online.

The RN sounds very juvenile IMO. If that 911 call made by PR is fake, then she was a good actress.

It would be interesting to start a list of knowns and a list of unknowns.

IMO

Click to expand...

heyya roseofsharon.

I wonder how signifigant the determination/assignment of a consonant vowel ratio actually is?

I now forget the 'expert' who suggested the rn cvr indicated that PR was the author. I'll try and find the source.

JR suggested the ransom note writer was meticulous.

To duplicate a cvr you would have to sort individual letters of the original text and then keep a running tab as you write to reproduce or approximate the vcr of another.

Maikai said:

A tired child could easily have been lifted up and taken down the stairwell...with the taser used in the basement...possibly when she was also garrotted. The taser may have been brought in to be used on anyone waking up. There were articles in the paper at the time that stun guns and bats were the weapons of choice for young criminals in the area. You could buy them over the internet---much easier obtained then a regular gun. Stun guns also used by drug dealers. The marks on her face were identical to those used on Boggs (another case ME Doberson was involved in). In the Boggs case, they found a stun gun after he was buried. He was exhumed and the marks matched the stun gun. Doberson had missed it the first time. Not unlike Meyers. Doberson is also the person that did the pig experiments....and he researched the world's medical literature on stun gun assaults. Pigs were used because they are the most like us. He concluded with a very high degree of certainty that a stun gun had been used on JBR.

Click to expand...

Once and for all, there is no evidence to suggest a stun gun was used on JonBenet.
Moreover, other than to make JonBenet angry, what exactly would be the reason for someone using a stun gun on her?????
The suggestion that it was used for control or to incapacitate her is some of the most irresponsible nonsense ever uttered by Lou Smit and his minions (primarily John San Agustin and Ollie Gray.)
It was refuted early and often, but like a bad rash it keeps coming back.

One more time:

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

The above information has been confirmed many times:

Girl being stun gunned:
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_mpldYwSBE[/ame]

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

Whaleshark said:

True.....interestingly, though, when JR is talking about who the RN note is addressed to, he said it was addressed to 'Mr. and Mrs. Ramsey', and his lawyer has to later do a clarification redirect: AKA - save his *advertiser censored*.

Guess they changed their mind, and that 'l' is the first part of the 'R' in their name, of course...and JR forgot about that.

Click to expand...

yes Whaleshark, or the perp did not know that the family was named Ramsey until one of them saw the pay stub on the kitchen counter, bearing the Ramsy name and listing 118000 dollar as bonus,
and then knew that the Mr. Ramsey was well paye.

Tadpole12 said:

Heyya SD, that's where the plot line diverges!
and the IDI sporadically rearranges items?
as mentioned by JR.

Click to expand...

No kidding.

Merry Easter!

Click to expand...

And to you and yours, my friend.

cynic said:

Once and for all, there is no evidence to suggest a stun gun was used on JonBenet.
Moreover, other than to make JonBenet angry, what exactly would be the reason for someone using a stun gun on her?????
The suggestion that it was used for control or to incapacitate her is some of the most irresponsible nonsense ever uttered by Lou Smit and his minions (primarily John San Agustin and Ollie Gray.)
It was refuted early and often, but like a bad rash it keeps coming back.

One more time:

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

The above information has been confirmed many times:

Girl being stun gunned:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_mpldYwSBE

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

Click to expand...

Here we go again! I cringed at the "bad rash" analogy, because that's what it reminded me of!

Did you guys hear about that 33-year-old man who was acting "irrational" so he was tasered by LE and he died? A common IDI theory is that this intruder used a stun gun on JBR, and she woke up while they were in the basement, and she screamed. If a stun gun can kill a 33-year-old man, wouldn't it be likely to kill 6-year-old too? I also feel like the marks from a stun gun would be more penetrated into the skin, but the marks on JBR look like beauty marks.

cynic said:

Once and for all, there is no evidence to suggest a stun gun was used on JonBenet.
Moreover, other than to make JonBenet angry, what exactly would be the reason for someone using a stun gun on her?????
The suggestion that it was used for control or to incapacitate her is some of the most irresponsible nonsense ever uttered by Lou Smit and his minions (primarily John San Agustin and Ollie Gray.)
It was refuted early and often, but like a bad rash it keeps coming back.

One more time:

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

The above information has been confirmed many times:

Girl being stun gunned:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_mpldYwSBE

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

Click to expand...

The circular marks look nasty in the autopsy photos -- what could have caused these marks. They don't appear to be open wounds.
IMO

PR certainly enjoyed bragging about the R wealth and the good life.

It wouldn't be too hard to imagine someone in their inner circle secretly loathing the R's and wanting to make them experience the worst pain parents would ever have to endure.



IMO

roseofsharon said:

The circular marks look nasty in the autopsy photos -- what could have caused these marks. They don't appear to be open wounds.
IMO

Click to expand...

roseofsharon, it has been suggested that they are friction burns, the result of JBR being placed on a coat or tarp, an object with round buttons or grumlets? and then being dragged along leaving the 'burn' marks.

One of the round marks is said to have a similar impression as a nautical button.