Do you think a Stungun was used?

[andreww]

If you read correctly he owned the video because it was given to him by the owner of a Spy store. John Ramsey visited the store because he was trying to gain a better understanding of how people might try and bug Access Graphics offices. The video was a catalog of all the items the spy store offered.

John Ramsey felt that exhuming the body was not necessary because he was already being told my medical experts that injuries were stun gun marks.

Again, that's JRs version of the events. Take that explanation with a grain of salt. JR stated that he didn't even know what a stun gun was at the time. Low and behold he has a promotional video for a stun gun in his drawer. The fact that it may have been in Spanish means nothing. The whole idea of using video is to show something rather than using words to describe it. He could still have gotten 90% of the message from watching that video. And it's presence leaves me wondering if he actually owned one? Just because they couldn't find it doesn't mean he didn't have one.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[elannia]

I too thought it looked like a cigarette burn on her face. They should have waited to bury her so if they needed to come back and recheck her she would have been there. Then they wouldnt have had to discuss exhuming her, and disturbing her little body AFTER it had been put to rest

 

[elannia]

Reading Kolar's book again and I came across this(I posted earlier about it looks to me imo like a cigarette burn on her face, and Myer being the coroner didnt note it as that but its mo) anyways in Kolar's book page 67, "Investigators took note of the fact that the end of the cord wrapoed around the broken paintbrush handle was burned-melted". Ok the burned part is what gets me. A cigarette would burn and honestly thats what it looks like to me. But hey, im no ME either. Not sure which thread but I have read and dont know if theres any truth in it but there was a cigarette butt found in the toilet??? Anyone know? Also on the same page, the cord pieces had been cut with a sharp instrument. Hello!!! BR swiss army knife...

 

[DeeDee249]

If you read correctly he owned the video because it was given to him by the owner of a Spy store. John Ramsey visited the store because he was trying to gain a better understanding of how people might try and bug Access Graphics offices. The video was a catalog of all the items the spy store offered.

John Ramsey felt that exhuming the body was not necessary because he was already being told my medical experts that injuries were stun gun marks.

I have never seen ANY medical experts who said they were stun gun marks. The only one who said that might have been Smit, and he was not a medical expert- he was an idiot.

 

[Mama2JML]

The coroner that examined the body, Meyer, and Doberson both believe the injuries are consistent with those caused by stun guns.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[gramcracker]

when/where did Meyer state that as his conclusion? I'm not seeing it in the AR. TIA

"During Lou's talk with Doberson, the autopsy photos were studied from every possible angle. After a careful examination, Dr. Doberson believed that the marks in the pictures did appear to have come from a stun gun. However, Doberson wasn't ready to make a definite public statement unless the body was exhumed. Because the exhumation didn't occur, Smit couldn't obtain the conclusive statement he was seeking."
http://www.acandyrose.com/crimescene-thebody.htm

 

[andreww]

Reading Kolar's book again and I came across this(I posted earlier about it looks to me imo like a cigarette burn on her face, and Myer being the coroner didnt note it as that but its mo) anyways in Kolar's book page 67, "Investigators took note of the fact that the end of the cord wrapoed around the broken paintbrush handle was burned-melted". Ok the burned part is what gets me. A cigarette would burn and honestly thats what it looks like to me. But hey, im no ME either. Not sure which thread but I have read and dont know if theres any truth in it but there was a cigarette butt found in the toilet??? Anyone know? Also on the same page, the cord pieces had been cut with a sharp instrument. Hello!!! BR swiss army knife...

I think what you are seeing is just evidence to support that the rope came from a new package. When you buy nylon cord the ends will always be melted to prevent fraying. If you buy in bulk they will cut the piece from a roll using a soldering iron to protect both ends. It would be almost impossible to cut that kind of rope with a cigarette as their simply isn't enough heat.

However, this clue does prove that the garrote was assembled before the hands were tied, as the rope with the melted end was likely the first piece used. If we are looking at IDI you could then speculate that the garrote was fashioned in advance because if it wasn't, wouldn't it have made sense that the first piece of rope be used to bind JBRs hands?

Now if the garrote was fashioned in advance, that indicates that the plan was to kill her all along. So why bother with the ransom note?

If we are talking RDI it proves that the hand binding is probably part of the staging as well. If the hands needed to be tied, assuming that she was actually conscious at the time, shouldn't that have been done first? So I think this goes a long way in proving that JBR was already unconscious when she was brought to the basement and that the head bash is probably what caused it. The tied hands were simply part of the staging.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[elannia]

I think what you are seeing is just evidence to support that the rope came from a new package. When you buy nylon cord the ends will always be melted to prevent fraying. If you buy in bulk they will cut the piece from a roll using a soldering iron to protect both ends. It would be almost impossible to cut that kind of rope with a cigarette as their simply isn't enough heat.

However, this clue does prove that the garrote was assembled before the hands were tied, as the rope with the melted end was likely the first piece used. If we are looking at IDI you could then speculate that the garrote was fashioned in advance because if it wasn't, wouldn't it have made sense that the first piece of rope be used to bind JBRs hands?

Now if the garrote was fashioned in advance, that indicates that the plan was to kill her all along. So why bother with the ransom note?

If we are talking RDI it proves that the hand binding is probably part of the staging as well. If the hands needed to be tied, assuming that she was actually conscious at the time, shouldn't that have been done first? So I think this goes a long way in proving that JBR was already unconscious when she was brought to the basement and that the head bash is probably what caused it. The tied hands were simply part of the staging.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So what im asking who burnt , melted the rope? Was it done in store or did the perp do it. A cigarette couldnt have done it, I know that I was talking about the "abrasion" on her face as Meyer called it

 

[Mama2JML]

According to Schiller in PMPT (nook 330-332):

"When they had gathered sufficient information, Ainsworth, Pete Hofstrom, Trip DeMuth, and Detective Sgt. Wickman met with the coroner, John Meyer. After reviewing the photos and this new information, Meyer concluded that the injuries on JonBenét’s face and back were, in fact, consistent with those produced by a stun gun. Soon after, Ainsworth learned of a 1988 Larimer County murder in which a stun gun had been used on a thirteen-month-old girl, Michaela Hughes, who had been sexually assaulted and killed. Ainsworth met with Dr. Robert Deters, the pathologist on the case, and showed him the autopsy photos of JonBenét. Deters agreed that the marks were consistent with a stun-gun injury, but he didn’t think the body had to be exhumed. Nothing more would be learned by examining the skin tissue."​

So, we have three MEs consulted by LE (two of which have some expertise pertaining to stun guns); Deters, Doberson, and Meyer all (reportedly) favor the stun gun theory.

 

[Mama2JML]

So what im asking who burnt , melted the rope? Was it done in store or did the perp do it. A cigarette couldnt have done it, I know that I was talking about the "abrasion" on her face as Meyer called it

BBM

The manufacturer.

 

[elannia]

BBM

The manufacturer.

Lol... I get it now. I had a duh moment. I confused myself reading the book, thinking Kolar meant that someone had burnt the rope when going to use it on JB.. Ok, now I feel silly, so everyone just disregard my post about that.

 

[questfortrue]

First, sorry if this is repetitive, Coroner Meyer calls these marks abrasions in the autopsy. Later, Sgt. Wickman was present at the second meeting with John Meyer when, according to Schiller, Meyer is quoted as believing the marks are “consistent” with a stun gun. Here’s Cynic’s link to Wickman’s statement on Fox in 2006. Wickman states the stun gun is a myth: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=1F3Ubv2cbds

Second, Doberson claimed also you can’t really tell from a photograph, and Doberson never saw the body, just photos.

Lastly, there’s Robert Deters. From Schiller’s book: He didn’t think the body had to be exhumed. Nothing more would be learned by examining the skin tissue. That comment is so egregiously inaccurate, it’s awkward to even address. But according to forensic guidelines, the recommendations are: Examination if the skin tissue with scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and energy dispersive X-ray spectrometer (EDS).

From Kolar’s book re the stun gun and the BPD evidence: Police had prepared a set of one-to-one photos early in the investigation for Boulder Police. Trujillo asked me to come by his office and he would show me what he had. A thick binder of 35 mm photographs was produced, and Trujillo thumbed to a tab containing several enlargements of different views of the Air Taser, one of which included a front view of the electronic leads on the head of the instrument. There was no one-to-one photograph comparing the electronic leads to the marks on JonBenét’s back, but Trujillo had fashioned a clear plastic overlay that depicted the same scaled representation. Holes had been cut in the plastic that illustrated the location of the electronic leads of the Taser and placed over the photograph of the injuries. I leaned over to take a closer look at the plastic overlay. The holes cut in the plastic representing the electronic leads did not appear to match JonBenét’s injuries. . . It was strikingly clear that the electronic leads of the Taser purported to have been used by an intruder in this murder did not align with JonBenét’s injuries.

 

[Mama2JML]

First, sorry if this is repetitive, Coroner Meyer calls these marks abrasions in the autopsy. Later, Sgt. Wickman was present at the second meeting with John Meyer when, according to Schiller, Meyer is quoted as believing the marks are “consistent” with a stun gun. Here’s Cynic’s link to Wickman’s statement on Fox in 2006. Wickman states the stun gun is a myth: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=1F3Ubv2cbds

Second, Doberson claimed also you can’t really tell from a photograph, and Doberson never saw the body, just photos.

Lastly, there’s Robert Deters. From Schiller’s book: He didn’t think the body had to be exhumed. Nothing more would be learned by examining the skin tissue. That comment is so egregiously inaccurate, it’s awkward to even address. But according to forensic guidelines, the recommendations are: Examination if the skin tissue with scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and energy dispersive X-ray spectrometer (EDS).

From Kolar’s book re the stun gun and the BPD evidence: Police had prepared a set of one-to-one photos early in the investigation for Boulder Police. Trujillo asked me to come by his office and he would show me what he had. A thick binder of 35 mm photographs was produced, and Trujillo thumbed to a tab containing several enlargements of different views of the Air Taser, one of which included a front view of the electronic leads on the head of the instrument. There was no one-to-one photograph comparing the electronic leads to the marks on JonBenét’s back, but Trujillo had fashioned a clear plastic overlay that depicted the same scaled representation. Holes had been cut in the plastic that illustrated the location of the electronic leads of the Taser and placed over the photograph of the injuries. I leaned over to take a closer look at the plastic overlay. The holes cut in the plastic representing the electronic leads did not appear to match JonBenét’s injuries. . . It was strikingly clear that the electronic leads of the Taser purported to have been used by an intruder in this murder did not align with JonBenét’s injuries.

Yes, in the AR, the marks are referred to as abrasions. So, probably not the 'bruises' attributed to Wickman via Carol McKinley.

Thanks for sharing McKinley's and Kolar's perspectives on this issue.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[questfortrue]

Thank you to MM2JML for the reminder about 'vernacular' English vs. 'autopsy' English. It's true that when McKinley restated Wickman's viewpoint that the cheek mark was a 'bruise' (iow, not a stun gun or burn injury - no question, for me at least, the intent was to dispel the stun gun theory), it could have confused some posters. AFAIK, a forensic pathologist /coroner would use the term contusion instead of “bruise” and would be referencing an injury caused by blunt force trauma.

So I thought maybe some clarification of forensic autopsy terms might be useful to new readers. Seems like one of our long-time posters already covered this somewhere upstream (DeeDee, Cynic, otg?), but I can't locate the reference. Anyway, here's the terminology from a forensic pathology text book -

Abrasions:
An abrasion is a destruction of the skin which usually involves the superficial layers of the epidermis only. They are caused by a blow, a fall on a rough surface, by being dragged in a vehicular accident, finger-nails, thorns or teeth bite. Some movement and pressure by the agent on the surface of the skin is essential. The size varies depending on the extent of the body surface exposed to the abrading force.

The following are subsets of the abrasion description -

Scratches: They are caused by a sharp object passing across the skin, such as, finger-nails, pin or thorn. There is heaping up of surface layers of the skin in front of the object, which leaves a clean area at the start and tags at the end. Finger nails produce a curved scratch, wide at the start and narrow at the end. A thorn or pin produces a narrow scratch which tails off.

Grazes: They occur when there is movement between the skin and some rough surface in contact with it. They show longitudinal parallel lines with the epithelium heaped up at the ends of these lines, which indicate the direction in which the force was applied. The groove may be broad at one end and tail away in the opposite direction. They are the most common type and seen in road accidents. In open wounds, direct or grit are usually present.

Pressure Abrasions: They are caused by a crushing of the superficial layers of the skin, and are associated with a bruise of the surrounding area. In this, the movement is slight and largely directed inwards, e.g. ligature mark in cases of hanging an strangulation, and the teeth bite marks.

Impact Abrasions: They are caused by impact with a rough object, such as, when a person is knocked down by a motorcar. In such cases the pattern of radiator grill or tread of the tire may be seen on the skin. Impact abrasions and pressure abrasions reproduce the object causing it and are called patterned abrasions.
____

Just for reference purposes injuries might be notated in autopsies, if they suspected a stun gun, as: Injuries were round, well-circumscribed, erythematous macular lesions, which were found in pairs.

 

[UKGuy]

The coroner that examined the body, Meyer, and Doberson both believe the injuries are consistent with those caused by stun guns.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Mama2JML,
The same said evidence can be consistent with many theories. It does not follow that everyone who believes that their preferred theory is consistent with the evidence cites a valid theory.

A valid theory will be one that fails to be eliminated by all the testing. Currently the Stun Gun theory is simply speculation regarding the abrasions, it has never progressed beyond this stage.

.

 

[Mama2JML]

Mama2JML,
The same said evidence can be consistent with many theories. It does not follow that everyone who believes that their preferred theory is consistent with the evidence cites a valid theory.

A valid theory will be one that fails to be eliminated by all the testing. Currently the Stun Gun theory is simply speculation regarding the abrasions, it has never progressed beyond this stage.

.

You're right, but there is no better explanation supported by any single expert. Schiller cites the conclusions of three MEs, including the Boulder county coroner who conducted the autopsy and two other stun gun experts. RDI & IDI theories aside, in all likelihood a stun gun was used on this child.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[UKGuy]

You're right, but there is no better explanation supported by any single expert. Schiller cites the conclusions of three MEs, including the Boulder county coroner who conducted the autopsy and two other stun gun experts. RDI & IDI theories aside, in all likelihood a stun gun was used on this child.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Mama2JML,
Yes, Schiller can cite as many conclusions as he wants, yet consistency does not equate to proof or confirmation, it is only one explanation or theory among many.

in all likelihood a stun gun was used on this child.

No, there are many other likelyhoods or probabilities why JonBenet exhibits such abrasions, the stun gun is one hypothesis, it is yet to be demonstrated as conclusive.

JR owned Stun Gun paraphenelia, should I consider this consistent with an intention to assault and injure his daughter with a Stun Gun?

.

 

[Mama2JML]

Mama2JML,
Yes, Schiller can cite as many conclusions as he wants, yet consistency does not equate to proof or confirmation, it is only one explanation or theory among many.


No, there are many other likelyhoods or probabilities why JonBenet exhibits such abrasions, the stun gun is one hypothesis, it is yet to be demonstrated as conclusive.

JR owned Stun Gun paraphenelia, should I consider this consistent with an intention to assault and injure his daughter with a Stun Gun?

.

I wouldn't call an advertisement paraphernalia, and I don't interpret the advertisement as being consistent with intent.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[DeeDee249]

Mama2JML,
Yes, Schiller can cite as many conclusions as he wants, yet consistency does not equate to proof or confirmation, it is only one explanation or theory among many.


No, there are many other likelyhoods or probabilities why JonBenet exhibits such abrasions, the stun gun is one hypothesis, it is yet to be demonstrated as conclusive.

JR owned Stun Gun paraphenelia, should I consider this consistent with an intention to assault and injure his daughter with a Stun Gun?

.

I don't think it shows intent to assault/injure his daughter with a stun gun but I DO think it indicates that he owned a stun gun (even in one wasn't found in the home). I am one of the (probably) few people who do not feel use of a stun gun on JB necessarily rules out the family in her death. I am not saying I believe one was used- I am not convinced it was. But if it had ever been proven it was a stun gun that made those marks, I would still not rule out the family, especially with the discovery of the video in the home.

 

[UKGuy]

I don't think it shows intent to assault/injure his daughter with a stun gun but I DO think it indicates that he owned a stun gun (even in one wasn't found in the home). I am one of the (probably) few people who do not feel use of a stun gun on JB necessarily rules out the family in her death. I am not saying I believe one was used- I am not convinced it was. But if it had ever been proven it was a stun gun that made those marks, I would still not rule out the family, especially with the discovery of the video in the home.

DeeDee249,
Sure and thats why asked the question. That Mama2JML does not apply the same reasoning to the rules of consistency is interesting, to say the least.

For all I know BR was using his fathers stun gun to discipline JonBenet, who knows?


.