Was a stun gun used in the crime or not

Was a stun gun used in this crime?

  • Yes

    Votes: 43 25.6%
  • No

    Votes: 125 74.4%

  • Total voters
    168
KAT, although I've considered a different scenario, I am thinking you are right!
If a stun gun was used, it could have been part of the torture, as sad as that possibility is ,it makes the most sense.
UK, you mentioned that it may not fit into AE,so off I went into that dark area on the web. It seems electrical devices, from wands to cow prods are used, however, just in my reading, and maybe because of the sites I hit, it seemed to be more prevalent among the homosexual practitioners. There are likely injuries and marks that our "sensitivities" have not allowed us to think about, as well.
When we look at Jonbenet's marks ,we have to consider death into this as a factor ,there would be no healing, and possibly on the side of livor the pooling could have changed the appearance.
 
sissi said:
If a stun gun was used, it could have been part of the torture, as sad as that possibility is ,it makes the most sense.


Sissi,

I agree. If a stun gun was used on JonBenet, it was most likely for torture. And by following the evidence that we already know, this can help us narrow the field of suspects.

John and Patsy have exculpatory evidence in their favor (DNA, handwriting, and polygraph) and it's highly unlikely either of them would have used a stun gun on JonBenet. That leaves Burke or a possible intruder.

But the parents have been lying, refusing to fully cooperate with the investigation, and carrying on a coverup. The only reason John and Patsy would do that is to protect someone, and they wouldn't be protecting an intruder unknown to them. Therefore, Burke is the one the parents are likely protecting.

However, if a stun gun was used to torture JonBenet, where's the stun gun? And where is the missing cord, the tape, the nine pages from the notepad, the wipedown cloth, etc.? There had to be a fifth person in the house that night who carried off all of those items of evidence.

That fifth person had to have been let in the house secretly by Burke that night, or the fifth person could have been an overnight guest of the family. Because of the Stine's extreme defense of the Ramseys and other bizarre behaviors by them following the murder, my guess is the fifth person in the house that night was Burke's best friend Doug Stine. Doug could have been accompanied by Nathan Inouye, the Stine's teenaged live-in baby sitter for Doug. Nathan would have come along so the parents could get to bed early and be fresh for the early morning flight to Charlevoix while the children stayed up late to play with Burke's new Nintendo.

In this scenario Nathan would be the likely killer and Burke and Doug would be accomplices. I think the authorities are aware of Burke and Doug's involvement -- but they may not be aware of Nathan's involvement.

Nathan Inouye was a member of the Asian Pacific American Coalition (APAC) at Colorado University, a small (29 members) politically active group interested in many things, including perceived injustices to raped and murdered Asian-American females. APAC disbanded just weeks after JonBenet was murdered.

JMO
 
I agree as well about the stun gun, IF used (cannot imagine what else would cause those markings) was a tortuous device. I DO think Pam Paugh knows or has a lot of information that we are not privy to as to who did this and I feel quite sure who she thinks it is. Is she right? I don't know, but I can say with absolute confidence that it is not Burke she is even considering.

I think the Burke did it issue is a dead one because there is absolutely no evidence pointing toward this child, just speculation and theories of those who believe the Ramsey's have lied all along. I personally do not think they are lying, and I don't see it, even with all the "proof" you all have presented to me.

As I have stated time and again, I think this person knew them VERY well, and had a hidden agenda and took advantage of this sweet little girl, while trying to "put the Ramsey's in their place"! This was a jealous rage killing. That is obvious. I think the perp wanted it to appear as if the R's staged this crime. This person absolutely knew what they were doing and they will NOT rest until the Ramsey's have suffered the ultimate by going to jail for a crime they did not commit.

In my opinion (of course) ;)
 
twizzler333 said:
I agree as well about the stun gun, IF used (cannot imagine what else would cause those markings) was a tortuous device. I DO think Pam Paugh knows or has a lot of information that we are not privy to as to who did this and I feel quite sure who she thinks it is. Is she right? I don't know, but I can say with absolute confidence that it is not Burke she is even considering.


Twizzler,

Pam Paugh said on nation-wide T.V. she knows who killed JonBenet, and there were two of them, but she doesn't know which one actually did the killing.

Twizzler, which two people do you believe Pam was referring to?

JMO
 
BlueCrab said:
Twizzler,

Pam Paugh said on nation-wide T.V. she knows who killed JonBenet, and there were two of them, but she doesn't know which one actually did the killing.

Twizzler, which two people do you believe Pam was referring to?JMO

BlueCrab, I always thought she was referring to the Whites.
 
The Whites is who I thought also. And there was a reason I thought that but I cannot remember the exact words used, but I will follow up and let you know later what made me think that.

They are very suspicious, IMO, or rather their behaviors have been.



In my opinion.
 
sissi said:
KAT, although I've considered a different scenario, I am thinking you are right!
If a stun gun was used, it could have been part of the torture, as sad as that possibility is ,it makes the most sense.
UK, you mentioned that it may not fit into AE,so off I went into that dark area on the web. It seems electrical devices, from wands to cow prods are used, however, just in my reading, and maybe because of the sites I hit, it seemed to be more prevalent among the homosexual practitioners. There are likely injuries and marks that our "sensitivities" have not allowed us to think about, as well.
When we look at Jonbenet's marks ,we have to consider death into this as a factor ,there would be no healing, and possibly on the side of livor the pooling could have changed the appearance.
Well I assumed AEA meant : [font=Arial,Helvetica] Auto-erotic asphyxiation:[/font]
The process of limiting or restricting air and/or the supply of oxygen to the brain WHILE ALONE.

And I could just imagine some kind of accident occurring etc. But factoring in a stun gun, just makes it another ball game. Using AEA we are applying from Jonbenet's 6-year old perspective a fairly "mature" sexual practise, to rationalize a situation where she may experience a reduction of oxygen.

Yet I feel certain JonBenet would not have taken pleasure in having cord tightened around her neck, or the use of stun gun to induce sexual pleasure. I may be completely wrong in this assumption, but I just feel a girl so young would not appreciate such aids.

She appears to have been stun gunned twice , once on the neck, and once on the back. Given what we know about the intended use of such a weapon, its use on a six-year old girl, does not seem benign.

BlueCrab's suggestion that Nathan Inouye was involved seems to allow for those elements that suggest a IDI , and Burkes involvement that of a RDI.

But at what point does JR realize his son is involved, given that we have Burke asking on the 911 call, "What did you find?" , assuming he was.

How did they choose to leave the house, why did they not take the body with them?

Why is there no forensic evidence of the 3rd and/or 4th persons socializing in the house. After all we have JonBenet indulging herself with pineapple and Burke with tea. What did the "guests" partake of?

So taken together, head trauma, garrotte and a stun gun, seem to add up to more than just an accident!
 
We had a nice family in our neighborhood when I was a kid, the dad was the head of the local hospital, the mom a volunteer, three kids, two girls and a boy. The boy was brilliant, top of his class, on to college, and BOOM, he was NUTS! Now remember we are going back to the 60's when diagnoses were questionable, he was diagnosed as a manic-depressive psychotic. He managed to squeak through his first year of college, very well medicated with only a few yet always seasonal episodes,however the older he became the more often and more severe these episodes became. By the age of thirty, his father by then dead, his mom moved to Florida in fear of her life, his sisters were fearful as well. He loved his family and missed them dearly. When he was well, he was still the same brilliant guy, who by this time had earned a doctorate yet couldn't hold down a job.
I watched him, and could determine when his episodes were about to happen , there was a definite pattern, first it was a slightly upbeat and all too boisterous stage, followed by days and days without sleep, during which he would become grandiose with big plans and gifts for everyone,he felt omnipotent and creative, poetry ,novellas.... then a very violent phase in which he would inevitably be arrested and sent to a local mental health facility. He would get out, usually in about thirty days with a regimen of lithium, haldol, sometimes thorazine and again be "almost" himself, not quite, because of the chewing and shuffling side effects of the drugs. By age forty or so, his sisters let him back into their lives, he would always be a bit louder and more animated than most people would find acceptable, but as long as he stayed on his lithium he seemed okay. NOOOO, one night, his sister's little boy was just being a "rotten" kid, (bad diagnosis himself when he grew into his late teens), and this big bear of a man jumped up ,pulled the child's hair, and put his hands around his neck. The sister freed the child,hitting her brother in the head like taking on a wild animal to free her child. The child was hurt, not badly but hurt just the same, and the brother was sent to Clifton T Perkins hospital for the criminally insane. Again he spent his days in the institution ,only to be released relatively quickly and back to repeat and repeat again the stages of his illness.
The last I heard, he was hitting sixty, and had not had an episode in a few years, whether an illness that reared it's ugly head at 19 fits into the testosterone of young adulthood then wanes as one slips into old age, I don't know, but it's always been an interesting feature of his type of illness..
When Twizzler, and others ,mentioned White, I thought of my friend, and thought of the obvious episodic behavior of Fleet during the time of Jonbenet's death. Money can keep a history very secret. Oh lord...not a new story , a quicky this time. My sister worked for years at Phipp's clinic in Hopkins, and among her patients were some very wealthy and prominent people, and NEVER were their conditions made public, and privacy was in place with aliases during treatment. Could Fleet have a history that his father's money covered? Is this why he has no obvious employment? Rich oil man? I would bet he lives on a fat trust. IMO
 
I have a close friend who has a grown adult female child who is manic depressive, and takes all of the drugs you mention, and has spent time in a psychiatric ward. Interesting proposition you have set forth.

I recall hearing 'the' attorney, being interviewed at length on Denver radio, who was representing the wild woman from CA, who put forth a wild story about Fleets father. The attorney sounded as good as gold to my ears. He was sincerely presenting her story as FACTUAL. According to the attorney, his 'client' was telling the TRUTH. Some of the story as I recall concerned wealthy adults traveling to others homes to indulge in their deviancies with small children at CHRISTMAS time since so many vehicles would not be suspect at THAT time of the year.

If I were a betting woman I would bet the attorney thought in fact his client was totally honest. She feared for her life, and frantically asked that she NOT be returned to HER nutso family. Well, the next thing anyone knew, she was carried BACK to her family in CA, being called a 'NUTCASE' and the attorney was colored Gone Gone.

What is the moral of this story? Who could even guess at this point. 'The' woman was riddled with every kind of sexual disease you could name, and was being 'treated' in a Denver hospital. Anyone else remember all of this jigsaw puzzle?



.
 
There is no evidence at all that Fleet and Priscilla White had anything to do with JonBenet's death. The Whites have NOT been acting suspicious, but the Ramseys have been.

The Ramseys have been lying their heads off from day one of this murder (Burke's voice on the 911 tape) and haven't stopped to this day; they've been refusing to cooperate with the investigation (three months to get the first police interview); and they have been carrying on an obvious coverup to shield Burke (Glen and Susan WHO?).

Please, let's get the thread back on topic -- the STUN GUN. Thanks.

JMO
 
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cach...tm+nancy+krebs+letter+jonbenet&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

IMO the BPD did a "job" on Nancy, and she couldn't stand up to their interrogation tactics. We've had innocent people confess to crimes under similar conditions, IMO>

DA:

Even if the misdemeanor charge is not barred by the passage of time, the proof problems are still formidable. In one respect, given Ms Krebs' ongoing assertion of belief in the truth of her assertions, the required proof is even greater. To prove false reporting, the prosecution must show not only that reported statements are false, but that the person reporting them knew they were false. The verdict would likely hinge on a jury's assessment of Ms Krebs' sincerity and general state of mind in February 2000 than on the events from earlier decades. For these reasons, I assess the prospects for successful prosecution to be marginal. I therefore decline to charge Ms Krebs with false reporting to authorities.

Once again..BPD:( only wanted Patsy) IMO

Boulder Police Department detectives interviewed her in detail on Tuesday February 22, 2000. The interview was recorded and later transcribed. Mr Hunter monitored the interview, but did not conduct it. Ms Krebs recalls Mr Hunter briefly coming into the interview room at one point. She says it was the first and only time she saw him.



Mr Hartman recalls speaking to Boulder Police Chief Mark Beckner a day or two later. Mr Hartman was frustrated when he discovered that the police had reservations about the value of Ms Krebs' information, and he describes the conversation as becoming "testy". Concerned that Ms Krebs' allegations might not be given the attention Mr Hartman believed was called for, Mr Hartman decided that her story should be made public. He concedes his goal in publicizing her allegations was to goad police into conducting a more thorough investigation of Ms Krebs' allegations than he thought they would otherwise undertake.
 
Off topic..but interesting when discussing libel ,slander..on the internet..'

Much of the disseminated material about which the Whites complain falls rather clearly into the category of personal opinion. In the first Daily Camera article, for example, comments attributed to Mr Hunter and Mr Hill about Ms Krebs' believability were, on their face, expressions of personal judgment. The same is true of most, if not all, of the Internet commentary. The persons exchanging views on the Internet were obviously not eyewitnesses to the events being discussed, but rather were commenting on their individual weighing and evaluation of second-hand material. Accordingly, even assuming criminal libel statute to be constitutional, I would find no legal basis to charge Mr Hunter, Mr Hill or the Internet contributors with criminal libel for dissemination of their subjective opinions.
 
Well put.



SOOOOOOOO, did the stun gun go gone gone when Pam Paugh left with John Ramseys 'golf clubs' that were stowed in an ample golf bag? Riding away from the Ramsey house in a Boulder Police Department police car, with the 'things' she removed from the murder house under the watchful eye of BPD. Hmmm.

Joke:
We all recall the story about the workman who passes through the guards gate at night wheeling a wheelbarrow through loaded with sand.

The guard meticulously riffles through the sand and finds nothing. This happens many days, and nothing is ever found except for the sand. The guard tells the workman that he knows the workman is stealing something, and he will not turn him in if he will but just tell him what he is stealing.

Workman says, "Wheelbarrows". Hmmm.


Back on topic, stun gun. Whose was it, what kind was it, where is it, when was it purchased, how did it disappear.

KITKAT if you are reading, tell us do those guns have serial numbers on them? Seems to me that those could be traced and the ORIGINAL owner determined by that serial number.

My hubby and I had a sporting goods store, and we sold firearms. Meticulous records were kept on the who, what, where, when and how the guns were sold.




.
 
Camper said:
KITKAT if you are reading, tell us do those guns have serial numbers on them? Seems to me that those could be traced and the ORIGINAL owner determined by that serial number. Yes they do but anyone could remove them. Of course the sheriff office will keep a good record of who has what this is a good idea in my ex case because he loses everything, from his cell phone the give him to the keys to the jail. I don't think that it would be able to tell you which one was use, I don't believe it is like a bullet and would leave certain marks. However if something was defective on one of the prongs that would point to a certain one.
IMO
Kat
 
Camper said:
Your reference in answer to BlueCrab's question about a 'weight limit', just what would that mean? Would it mean that a 400 lb person would not get a jolt, er that under a 100 pounds it would kill or? Thanks for the quick answers.

Now then we have the 'WHEN' did the scream happen, the one the neighbor heard, then didn't hear, but WOKE her husband to tell about it, hmmmm.

Did JonBenet scream when SHE saw the gun coming her way, and being told she was going to be shot? Did she scream AFTER she was stunned ?, hardly likely IF IF IF she was stunned three times in a row? OR IF IF an inexperienced user and holder of 'the' gun, did not get the desired effect after the first taser, AND IF IF JonBenet then screamed, the holder of the gun gave her two more hits. (I am assuming that she would have perhaps fallen after the first hit, IF IF it were given to her cheek - perhaps greater effect adminstered to the head) KITKAT, ask your Lt. what the effect would be IF IF tasered to the face ?, I would personally think that would be a far greater sensitive area to use the gun than to the body. How does Lt. think he would have felt if the gun had been used on his face during the OFFICIAL testing for police use?

KITKAT, did you Lt. say what would be the result if a small child were stunned 3 times in a row? Would this tie in to a 'weight limit' comment in your answer to BlueCrabs question?

Now we have the wonderment on whether a stun gun was shown being unwrapped on the MISSING traditional Christmas video, or in the Ramseys verbage, OOPS no batteries to run the camera that FATEFUL day.

Blue Crab, or anyone refresh my memory, there were marks on her cheek, which could have been the FIRST hit. Then where were the other two sets, on the back ? ?, which could mean she fell after the first hit, then hits on the back ??, I seem to be remembering that the other two sets were on her back?? Help me out here cuz my memory is dim at this moment.



.
Not sure what you were asking, but as far as the weight goes he is saying it has the same effect on everyone no matter what the weight but just different degrees.
He said that he could not even think of being hit in the face with one that would have to be worse than in the chest.

IMO
Kat
 
I think a person must live in a dream state in order to believe a stun gun was used in this crime.

Years ago a poster named Ruthee proved a potholder weaving loom, (just like the one found on JonBenet's bedroom floor and seen in the crime scene photos) would make marks identicle to what was found on her body.

Does that mean the loom made those marks? It's possible, but probably not.

But one thing is for sure: There's a better chance the loom made those marks than a stun gun because it least it was found at the crime scene. The stun gun exists only in people's imagination.
 
KITKAT, thank you for the response. I wonder how much worse the marks 'might' have been on the face rather than the body marks.

aRnd2it, thank you for your post as well. IMOP, regarding the remote possibility for both of these 'tools' to have made the mark (stun gun/potholderloom, consider this.

My children had one of the hard metal potholder looms. The tips of each spike bends outward just a tad, to keep the looming thread from sliding off the loom when you are weaving a potholder. IMOP the mark left by a loom such as this, would have NOT been round in nature, and the spacing between the spikes would have made additional markings across that area of the face, plus the tips of the spikes are very sharp and at an angle, and would left a different type of mark and maybe even a cut, IF IF JonBenet had fallen on top of it.

The dream state could have been resolved, had the Ramseys agreed to further investigation as to the validity of the nations wonderment about whether it was a stun gun that was used or not. Yet another side track in their search for 'the' killer.

TODAY there may be different types of potholder looms, but at that time, the loom I described was in wide use.



.
 
Camper said:
TODAY there may be different types of potholder looms, but at that time, the loom I described was in wide use.
Camper,
I believe we are talking about a completely different style of potholder weaving loom, as you can see for yourself.

Thanks to the fantastic AcandyRose I was easily able to find Ruthee's web page which depicts not only the loom in the crime scene photos, but how the mark it makes look identicle to what is on JonBenet. Ruthee's tests and photographic results put Lou Smit and his "pig" tests to shame.

http://ruthees_library.tripod.com/stungun.html

The Ramsey supporters always have always used the excuse that it had to be a stun gun because nothing else could have made those marks. Wrong, guess again. There was always something right there at the crime scene, on her bedroom floor, where she would have easily fallen on it.

Whether it made those marks or not, it sure beats that silly stun gun fantasy.
 
It would be difficult to believe she fell face first onto a loom, then fell again on her back onto the exact same part of the loom.
The marks are not going to continue to redden as with Ruthee's arm , where body defense systems are in play sending cells to avoid infection and repair the area. The marks on Jonbenet have been said to be most consistent with stun marks found on cadavers who fell victim to homicide. I will leave this one up for the experts who have studied various wounds found on dead bodies,however, I believe they are stun gun marks! My opinion is based on my understanding of the subject, the material presented and my faith in the source. It doesn't mean I'm right, it's just my opinion :)
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
112
Guests online
3,846
Total visitors
3,958

Forum statistics

Threads
593,978
Messages
17,997,032
Members
229,290
Latest member
lucasmiller
Back
Top