Was a stun gun used in the crime or not

[kanzz]

kanzz, it is a recreation. Have another look at Zoriah's caption.

However, I don't think this is a cigar; certainly not a cigar that was lit or smoked. The wine cellar was a small, damp, well sealed room. If a cigar butt had been left there, the room would have reeked of it, and this would have been noted. It's the kind of detail that would be hard to keep quiet as the smell would have gotten onto the body and in the clothing. Everyone upstairs anywhere near the body would have smelled it.

Oh dear. My apologies to ZoriahNZ. Totally missed where you plainly said "The recreation of the WC". :facepalm:

 

[Cranberry]

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=106864&stc=1

It's difficult for me to see, judge the scale of
the object in comparison to the black tape.

perhaps a Sharpie?!

 

[jbone1883]

The boulder police messed the whole investigation up from jump

Sent from my LGMS330 using Tapatalk

 

[kanzz]

The boulder police messed the whole investigation up from jump

Sent from my LGMS330 using Tapatalk

And jbone1883, that is one of the most infuriating and heartbreaking things (on top of the murder itself) about this case, imo. Some LEOs were better than others, but the first 48 critical hours were a total loss. That issue, and Lou Smit, and the Boulder DA.. oh my.

 

[Ambitioned]

Nephew fussed a bit but relented for me to take some pics earlier:

The O-27 track:

Another pic:

Pins:

0-27 track in Ramsey train room

O-27 track from Christmas video

Now I don't know what track was in BR's room.

But anyway the O-27 was standard for Lionel. Even though there's different O tracks such the width is always the same: 1.25 inches. I truly believe Kolar hit the nail on the head with his train track theory.

 

[icedtea4me]

Nephew fussed a bit but relented for me to take some pics earlier:

The O-27 track:

Another pic:

Pins:

0-27 track in Ramsey train room

O-27 track from Christmas video

Now I don't know what track was in BR's room.

But anyway the O-27 was standard for Lionel. Even though there's different O tracks such the width is always the same: 1.25 inches. I truly believe Kolar hit the nail on the head with his train track theory.

tra
Poking JonBenet in the back with a piece of train track isn't going to create an abrasion. An abrasion is caused by abrading (i.e. rubbing, scraping). Mark #1 is 1/8 inch x 1/16 inch. Mark #2 is 1/8 inch x 3/16 inch. That means there is a difference of 2/16 inch.

 

[kanzz]

tra
Poking JonBenet in the back with a piece of train track isn't going to create an abrasion. An abrasion is caused by abrading (i.e. rubbing, scraping). Mark #1 is 1/8 inch x 1/16 inch. Mark #2 is 1/8 inch x 3/16 inch. That means there is a difference of 2/16 inch.

BBM

Perhaps that difference was made by rubbing or scraping.
2/16 = 1/8. At any rate - The difference here is minuscule.

 

[otg]

tra
Poking JonBenet in the back with a piece of train track isn't going to create an abrasion. An abrasion is caused by abrading (i.e. rubbing, scraping).

No, an “abrasion” (in the medical sense) does not have to come from abrading the skin. Just like the medical use of the word “chronic” is misunderstood, Dr. Meyer’s use of abrasion misleads laypersons to misinterpret parts of the AR. He also called the red mark on her neck and the large spot on her cheek abrasions, but he doesn’t attribute the cause in either case. An abrasion, despite its etymology, is simply a term for a relatively low degree of damage to the outer surface of skin regardless of its cause.

From Wikipedia:

“In dermatology, an abrasion is a wound caused by superficial damage to the skin, no deeper than the epidermis. It is less severe than a laceration, and bleeding, if present, is minimal.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrasion_(medical)
​

We all think of an abrasion as something caused by a rubbing action which causes some type of visible damage to skin. But when a forensic pathologist sees some type of damage to the surface of the skin and doesn’t know the cause, he refers to the area as an abrasion because of its definition in dermatology. In other words, he is not addressing its cause, but rather its appearance. When we think of a cut, a bruise, or an abrasion, we think subjectively to the cause of each. When a pathologist uses these terms, he/she is thinking objectively toward the appearance only until he/she establishes the cause.

The “abrasions” Meyer noted on her back could very well be from her being “poked” by some object such as has been theorized by Kolar.

Mark #1 is 1/8 inch x 1/16 inch. Mark #2 is 1/8 inch x 3/16 inch. That means there is a difference of 2/16 inch.

The "difference of 2/16 inch" (1/8") is the difference between the largest and smallest approximations taken from two different marks:

(BTW, MEs usually use Metric measurements as shown on the the American Board of Forensic Odontology (ABFO) forensic scale in the photo. I don't know why Meyer used Imperial measurements here instead of Metric, which would be much more accurate.)

 

[observation]

No, an “abrasion” (in the medical sense) does not have to come from abrading the skin. Just like the medical use of the word “chronic” is misunderstood, Dr. Meyer’s use of abrasion misleads laypersons to misinterpret parts of the AR. He also called the red mark on her neck and the large spot on her cheek abrasions, but he doesn’t attribute the cause in either case. An abrasion, despite its etymology, is simply a term for a relatively low degree of damage to the outer surface of skin regardless of its cause.

From Wikipedia:

“In dermatology, an abrasion is a wound caused by superficial damage to the skin, no deeper than the epidermis. It is less severe than a laceration, and bleeding, if present, is minimal.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrasion_(medical)
​

We all think of an abrasion as something caused by a rubbing action which causes some type of visible damage to skin. But when a forensic pathologist sees some type of damage to the surface of the skin and doesn’t know the cause, he refers to the area as an abrasion because of its definition in dermatology. In other words, he is not addressing its cause, but rather its appearance. When we think of a cut, a bruise, or an abrasion, we think subjectively to the cause of each. When a pathologist uses these terms, he/she is thinking objectively toward the appearance only until he/she establishes the cause.

The “abrasions” Meyer noted on her back could very well be from her being “poked” by some object such as has been theorized by Kolar.


The "difference of 2/16 inch" (1/8") is the difference between the largest and smallest approximations taken from two different marks:

(BTW, MEs usually use Metric measurements as shown on the the American Board of Forensic Odontology (ABFO) forensic scale in the photo. I don't know why Meyer used Imperial measurements here instead of Metric, which would be much more accurate.)

OTG- you continue to offer amazing information. Much appreciated!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Tadpole12]

http://www.forensicpathologyonline.com/E-Book/injuries

pressure abrasions, impact abrasions

"On drying, abrasions become dark brown or even black."

 

[Tadpole12]

perhaps a Sharpie?!

ty,
perhaps?

https://www.google.ca/search?q=a+bl...ved=0ahUKEwim9vLOvaTRAhVi94MKHUDlC8oQ_AUIBigB

 

[BoldBear]

I guess this is probably the thread...

Lou Smit's stun gun theory has been debunked and the train track theory doesn't work for me.

I went through a long list of possible items on Google: electrical plugs, parts of a lamp shade, a children's bike petal, a gardening tool, etc.... I spent a few nights looking through images on Google, but nothing fit. I gave up, came back to it, and gave up again.

One night I wondered about if it could be a fork from a carving set. I Googled it. Some carving sets come with a piece of ornamental metal that acts as a built-in stand to keep the knife and fork from making contact with a table. Some of these sets are actually U.S. Navy cutlery sets and John served in the U.S. Navy. The stands are often in the shape of a rounded four pointed star. On the tips of the star are small rounded circles of metal to act as feet. If Jonbenet was put on a kitchen counter in haste and either the knife or fork were not seen, her back would have rested one of these knives or forks. It could have caused the bruises on her back.

There was one problem. Her back would have also shown signs of the rounded metal piece that the knife or fork's feet were attached to. As far as I knew, there was no evidence, no trace and then I ran across an report that Lou Smit was trying to explain a blue arc that ran from one abrasion to the other. There was a rounded blue line. Lou was trying to prove how electricity would create that pattern.

The blue arc fits with a knife or a fork from a cutlery set.

This puts her body on the kitchen counter on the night of her murder. The neighbor to the north was able to look to the Ramseys' kitchen window. People were moving inside, but the lights were dim so he didn't see anything other than people moving.

Jonbenet was placed on the kitchen counter for examination and here's what I believe made the marks:

 

[Cottonstar]

I guess this is probably the thread...

Lou Smit's stun gun theory has been debunked and the train track theory doesn't work for me.

I went through a long list of possible items on Google: electrical plugs, parts of a lamp shade, a children's bike petal, a gardening tool, etc.... I spent a few nights looking through images on Google, but nothing fit. I gave up, came back to it, and gave up again.

One night I wondered about if it could be a fork from a carving set. I Googled it. Some carving sets come with a piece of ornamental metal that acts as a built-in stand to keep the knife and fork from making contact with a table. Some of these sets are actually U.S. Navy cutlery sets and John served in the U.S. Navy. The stands are often in the shape of a rounded four pointed star. On the tips of the star are small rounded circles of metal to act as feet. If Jonbenet was put on a kitchen counter in haste and either the knife or fork were not seen, her back would have rested one of these knives or forks. It could have caused the bruises on her back.

There was one problem. Her back would have also shown signs of the rounded metal piece that the knife or fork's feet were attached to. As far as I knew, there was no evidence, no trace and then I ran across an report that Lou Smit was trying to explain a blue arc that ran from one abrasion to the other. There was a rounded blue line. Lou was trying to prove how electricity would create that pattern.

The blue arc fits with a knife or a fork from a cutlery set.

This puts her body on the kitchen counter on the night of her murder. The neighbor to the north was able to look to the Ramseys' kitchen window. People were moving inside, but the lights were dim so he didn't see anything other than people moving.

Jonbenet was placed on the kitchen counter for examination and here's what I believe made the marks:

View attachment 132312

View attachment 132313

View attachment 132314

BB,

I’m glad you’re continuing to investigate this case. Is the distance between prongs 1.377in?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[BoldBear]

I’m glad you’re continuing to investigate this case. Is the distance between prongs 1.377in?

Of course I have no information if the Ramsey's had this type of cutlery set. The size of these stands vary from one set to another.