Do you think a Stungun was used?

[midwest mama]

The more I look at the autopsy photos of JB, the more I lean towards believing there is a good chance a stun gun was involved in her injuries. But I am still of the opinion that JB's death was connected to pedophile abuse that perhaps not only involved JR, but someone else close to the R's who was allowed access to JB that night. I believe a stun gun could have been part of a method of restraint that was sometimes practiced on a victim by the perpetrator.

I have been led to look at some evidence that makes me think both the R kids were being used sexually by some person(s) who were close to the R's and/or their family. I think Burke may have come to realize, as he developed friendships with classmates and neighbors, that what might have been going on their home was not the norm, but was made to understand that he could never let the truth out about what the Ramsey household practiced as "normal" sexuality. He came across at a very young age as "an odd duck" and there was never an official release of a personality/learning disorder to support it. He was said to be intelligent, and went on to achieve a college degree, having a solid social life.

I think he was very much "controlled" in how to behave, what to say, what to do, etc. as a child when in circumstances that put him in the public eye. I think JB's death was his release from the circumstances that also had him ensnared, and that the ensuing professional therapy he received, combined with the public scrutiny of his family, kept anything further from developing with regard to keeping Burke in a position of sexual abuse by adults.

I believe both the Ramsey kids escaped the Hellhole on Dec 26th. JB didn't live to tell about it, and Burke wants to live, so won't tell about it.

 

[Mama2JML]

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?


.

What do you mean I don't apply the same reasoning? There's not an inkling of proof the Rs owned a stun gun. They had a video about personal security that included an advertisement for some sort of stun gun/taser. It wasn't a user's manual. It wasn't a video that comes with a stun gun. If the Rs owned a stun gun, or a stun gun user's manual, then this evidence would certainly influence my theory regarding the possibility the Rs were involved.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[UKGuy]

What do you mean I don't apply the same reasoning? There's not an inkling of proof the Rs owned a stun gun. They had a video about personal security that included an advertisement for some sort of stun gun/taser. It wasn't a user's manual. It wasn't a video that comes with a stun gun. If the Rs owned a stun gun, or a stun gun user's manual, then this evidence would certainly influence my theory regarding the possibility the Rs were involved.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Mama2JML,
Well its the consistency, you should apply your rules uniformarly

 

[andreww]

Yes but JR said he didn't even know what a stun gun was. How coincidental is it that a sales video is found in his drawer and that marks resembling those of a stun gun are found on his daughter? I'll take this as a coincidence as I don't believe a stun gun was used, but if I'm wrong, I still wouldn't rule out the Ramsey's as the perps.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Global Justice Ops]

That sales video was in Spanish. JR told investigators the store he received it from. He never hid anything from them.

 

[andreww]

That sales video was in Spanish. JR told investigators the store he received it from. He never hid anything from them.

yeh well I don't think even the Ramsey's could explain how JB was supposedly tazered as she slept, then fed pineapple on her way to the basement. If it was an intruder, he or she acted as bizarre as humanly possible. No logic, rhyme or reason.

 

[Mama2JML]

yeh well I don't think even the Ramsey's could explain how JB was supposedly tazered as she slept, then fed pineapple on her way to the basement. If it was an intruder, he or she acted as bizarre as humanly possible. No logic, rhyme or reason.

Logic doesn't often apply. Murderers are bizarre and inhumane by nature.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[andreww]

Logic doesn't often apply. Murderers are bizarre and inhumane by nature.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Still doesn't make sense. If one were to believe the Ramsey's, JB went straight to be, so it would have to had been the intruder that fed her pineapple. But, if she had been tazered she would have been incapacitated for up to 20 minutes. Plus after that, I'm sure that a snack would have been the last thing on her mind. The evidence doesn't add up and once again LS looks like an idiot.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Mama2JML]

Still doesn't make sense. If one were to believe the Ramsey's, JB went straight to be, so it would have to had been the intruder that fed her pineapple.

Or, she ate the pineapple earlier in the day.

But, if she had been tazered she would have been incapacitated for up to 20 minutes.

So, you're saying she could have been incapacitated for any length of time up to 20 minutes? I don't know much about the human body's response to stun guns/tasers. Do you have links to share?

Plus after that, I'm sure that a snack would have been the last thing on her mind.

I imagine you're right. If an intruder fed her pineapple, I doubt it was at her request. This might explain its "poorly chewed" state?...

The evidence doesn't add up...

I agree. The sum of the evidence results in endless questions.

and once again LS looks like an idiot.

Add this up:

Unsourced male DNA in the crotch of the victim's panties, under her fingernails, on both sides of her longjohns, on the wrist ligatures, & on the garrote.
+
Unsourced brown fibers on the cord and the victim's clothing.
+
Unsourced blue fibers on the victim's pubic region & panties.
+
Unsourced animal hairs on the victim's hands.
+
Unsourced shoe prints.
+
Unsourced handwriting.
=
???

What's the solution, andreww?






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[midwest mama]

Or, she ate the pineapple earlier in the day.

So, you're saying she could have been incapacitated for any length of time up to 20 minutes? I don't know much about the human body's response to stun guns/tasers. Do you have links to share?

I imagine you're right. If an intruder fed her pineapple, I doubt it was at her request. This might explain its "poorly chewed" state?...

I agree. The sum of the evidence results in endless questions.

Add this up:

Unsourced male DNA in the crotch of the victim's panties, under her fingernails, on both sides of her longjohns, on the wrist ligatures, & on the garrote.
+
Unsourced brown fibers on the cord and the victim's clothing.
+
Unsourced blue fibers on the victim's pubic region & panties.
+
Unsourced animal hairs on the victim's hands.
+
Unsourced shoe prints.
+
Unsourced handwriting.
=
???

What's the solution, andreww?






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How about this possibility: call(s) was made after the head bash and a "clean up" team came in under stealth of night to take care of the staging?

 

[andreww]

How about this possibility: call(s) was made after the head bash and a "clean up" team came in under stealth of night to take care of the staging?

:abduction:

 

[andreww]

The pulsed current causes muscles to work super fast, depleting them of needed blood sugars. It also interrupts the tiny neurological impulses that control muscle movement. The results are disorientation and loss of balance. The entire process takes only a few seconds and is very painful. It can disable a person for up to 30 minutes.

http://www.milestonesafety.com/stun-gun-information.html

 

[Mama2JML]

How about this possibility: call(s) was made after the head bash and a "clean up" team came in under stealth of night to take care of the staging?

This scenario could account for much of the unsourced evidence, but so could Kolar's fictional FF scenario. ...kinda. :crazy:


I just think it is a mistake to dismiss, ignore, &/or casually discredit (via rumors, gossip, hearsay, supposed facts, etc.) so much tangible & quantifiable, science-based, non-biased forensic evidence.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[andreww]

I just think it is a mistake to dismiss, ignore, &/or casually discredit (via rumors, gossip, hearsay, supposed facts, etc.) so much tangible & quantifiable, science-based, non-biased forensic evidence.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree, to a certain extent. As is apparently pointed out by Kolar, there are 5 different unidentified DNA samples on her clothing. Obviously some of them, and probably at least 4 of them, are irrelevant. So if there can be 4 irrelevant DNA samples, why not five? I'm always a little skeptical of coroners and scientific evidence because sometimes they can be wrong. An autopsy was done on Tammy Homolka and despite chemical burns on half her face and enough halothane in her system to subdue a horse, her death was ruled a drinking accident. Look around your workplace and ask yourself how many of the people you work with are competent beyond reproach. What makes you think things are an different in a forensics lab or a coroners office, especially in a place like Boulder that had about one murder a year.

Add that to the fact that someone like Mary Lacy, who appears to have been on a mission to exonerate the Ramseys, just happens to have found that DNA exactly where she said it would be. I simply don't trust anybody involved in this case, and I don't trust any of the "new" evidence that appeared after the Ramseys started their innocence campaign.

 

[Mama2JML]

I agree, to a certain extent. As is apparently pointed out by Kolar, there are 5 different unidentified DNA samples on her clothing.

Thanks, andreww. I understand your POV.

Kolar's "recap" of the evidentiary DNA from Foreign Faction: Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet? (p.413-414):

"1. There had been trace DNA samples collected from beneath JonBenét’s fingernails of both hands during autopsy that was identified as belonging to her.

2. There had been trace DNA samples collected from beneath her left fingernails during autopsy that belonged to an unidentified male.

3. There had been trace DNA samples collected from beneath her right fingernails during autopsy that belonged to another unidentified male, and a female. (JonBenét could not be eliminated as a possible contributor of the female DNA.)

4. There had been trace DNA samples located in the crotch and waistband of her underwear that belonged to an unidentified male. This became known as Distal Stain 007-2.

5. The new technology of Touch DNA identified trace samples in the waistband of the leggings that matched the unidentified male DNA (Distal Stain 007-2) in the underwear.

6. The new technology of Touch DNA had located another sample of DNA located on the wrist bindings that belonged to a different unidentified male.

7. The new technology of Touch DNA had located another sample of DNA located on the garrote that belonged to yet another unidentified male.

By our count, we were looking at six separate and independent DNA samples that belonged to unknown individuals, comprising a group that consisted of five males and one female"​

​

Numbers 1-3, above, were collected and analyzed in 1997; pre-CODIS, pre-STR. The CBI analyzed the samples using "Polymarker" kits; targeting six loci (markers). The male profiles developed from these samples were consistent; meaning any markers identified in one sample were either present & matched in the next sample or the marker was unable to be identified. It is possible both samples came from one male individual. The unidentified female profile displayed consistencies with JonBenét's profile; JonBenét could not be excluded as the source.

These samples, collected & analyzed in 1997, cannot be compared to samples collected post-CODIS/STR because the tests target a different set of loci (markers). So, there's no way of knowing if Kolar's "unidentified male #1 & #2" also could have contributed any of the DNA samples analyzed later.

To be continued, in an appropriate thread, if you're interested...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[andreww]

Id love to see more info on this Mama.

I understand what you are saying about the pre CODIS sample not being able to be matched with the post-CODIS samples, but if that is accurate, how did they match the DNA from the blood stain (pre CODIS) to the DNA found in the waistband (post CODIS). And is it even possible to say that all 5 male samples came from the same person?

The argument here is that if there was one identified DNA specimen found, one might assume that it came from an intruder. But if there is DNA found that comes from 2, 3, 4 or 5 unidentified persons, the value of the evidence comes in to question because the panties were from a brand new package. You must assume, as Henry Lee later proved, that touch DNA can already be present in brand new packaged goods.

The question becomes "how did a matching profile get on both the panties and the long johns?". As I understand the DNA extracted from the blood spot was mixed, meaning it was JBs blood with someone else's DNA mixed (correct me if I am wrong). How does that possibly happen? It was said that the sample may have been sweat or the result of a sneeze. So are we to assume that an intruder sneezed and that one minute sample of DNA happened to land in the one minute speck of blood that happened to be there?

My theory is that when the Ramsey's wiped JB clean, they used a hand towel or rag that had been used by several of the workers that had been in the house in the previous weeks. The DNA was transferred from the towel to her skin, then on to the garments as she was re-dressed.

I always found it a little bit telling that Mary Lacy cleared John Karr because the DNA didn't match. He was cleared because his story didn't match the evidence, and you can bet your a$$ that if he had been in Colorado, and if his story would have matched the evidence, Lacy would have distanced herself from the DNA and passed it off as coming from an outside source. Instead she skirts her incompetence and strengthens the illusion that the DNA is the be all and end all.

 

[Mama2JML]

Id love to see more info on this Mama.

I understand what you are saying about the pre CODIS sample not being able to be matched with the post-CODIS samples, but if that is accurate, how did they match the DNA from the blood stain (pre CODIS) to the DNA found in the waistband (post CODIS).

Three bloodstained areas from the interior aspect of the victim's panties have been analyzed; 1997, 2001, & 2003. The first sample was tested pre-CODIS using the polymarker kit, and the following two samples were analyzed post-CODIS/STR testing.

And is it even possible to say that all 5 male samples came from the same person?

If there's a hit in CODIS, then a potential suspect's DNA can be analyzed using the older PM kit for the purpose of exclusion/inclusion & to determine random match probabilities, IF necessary.

The argument here is that if there was one identified DNA specimen found, one might assume that it came from an intruder. But if there is DNA found that comes from 2, 3, 4 or 5 unidentified persons, the value of the evidence comes in to question because the panties were from a brand new package. You must assume, as Henry Lee later proved, that touch DNA can already be present in brand new packaged goods.

We don't know the size of all the evidentiary DNA samples collected over the years, and we certainly don't know their 'value'. As well, we don't know if the samples were contributed by one or more individuals. (Kolar's analysis leaves room for many possibilities.)

We DO know the amount of foreign male DNA that comprises the CODIS profile, though. It was 10x larger than any amount collected from the unopened packages of "bloomies" used in Lee's experiment. AND, we know enough genetic material was collected, independently, from the left and right sides of the victim's long johns to result in two separate but matching DNA profiles, without the use of low copy number analysis methods.

The question becomes "how did a matching profile get on both the panties and the long johns?".

Exactly.

As I understand the DNA extracted from the blood spot was mixed, meaning it was JBs blood with someone else's DNA mixed (correct me if I am wrong). How does that possibly happen? It was said that the sample may have been sweat or the result of a sneeze. So are we to assume that an intruder sneezed and that one minute sample of DNA happened to land in the one minute speck of blood that happened to be there?

Saliva, probably. IMHO. (Three bloodstains have been found to be commingled with unsourced male DNA.)

My theory is that when the Ramsey's wiped JB clean, they used a hand towel or rag that had been used by several of the workers that had been in the house in the previous weeks. The DNA was transferred from the towel to her skin, then on to the garments as she was re-dressed.

So, you're suggesting tertiary transfer of DNA after laying stagnate for days, weeks, months, years, etc. resulting in quantities of DNA large enough to be detected without LCN analyses? ...and a minimum of three of these incidental transfers resulted in matching profiles (belonging to one male) worthy of submission to CODIS?

I always found it a little bit telling that Mary Lacy cleared John Karr because the DNA didn't match. He was cleared because his story didn't match the evidence, and you can bet your a$$ that if he had been in Colorado, and if his story would have matched the evidence, Lacy would have distanced herself from the DNA and passed it off as coming from an outside source. Instead she skirts her incompetence and strengthens the illusion that the DNA is the be all and end all.

Eh, maybe? Maybe not. I don't have much of an opinion on this subject...




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[andreww]

So, you're suggesting tertiary transfer of DNA after laying stagnate for days, weeks, months, years, etc. resulting in quantities of DNA large enough to be detected without LCN analyses? ...and a minimum of three of these incidental transfers resulted in matching profiles (belonging to one male) worthy of submission to CODIS?

I'm no DNA expert but I would think that we are talking about small enough samples that yes, secondary transfer might be possible. A towel, covered in sweat and skin cells, then wet to clean her off would IMO transfer DNA to her body. Wouldn't it?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[DeeDee249]

I'm no DNA expert but I would think that we are talking about small enough samples that yes, secondary transfer might be possible. A towel, covered in sweat and skin cells, then wet to clean her off would IMO transfer DNA to her body. Wouldn't it?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Skin cells are the most easily transferred DNA. Yes, sweat and skin cells from a towel (actually any bodily fluid) CAN be transferred easily from one person to another. That is why the tDNA cannot be used as the only means to prove an intruder. It would have to be identified BY NAME. And even then, the person named would have to be proven to be in Boulder that night, and in some way able to have committed the crime. And even with that- the possibility of innocent transfer cannot be ruled out. Let's say it was found to be a male (including a child) attending the White's party. If that person touched a doorknob, toilet handle, etc, which was then touched by JB or one of her parents, that would be a way for that DNA to be found on items the parents admitted they handled. BOTH parents are associated with JB's longjohns- Patsy claimed she pulled the longjohns on JB that night- of course there is no proof of that. But in the case of JR- he was SEEN to be holding JB's dead body by the waist, his hands and fingers touching the exact place the tDNA was found- the waistbands). The tDNA CANNOT exclusively point to an intruder, especially at this point.

 

[BBB167893]

I always found it a little bit telling that Mary Lacy cleared John Karr because the DNA didn't match. He was cleared because his story didn't match the evidence, and you can bet your a$$ that if he had been in Colorado, and if his story would have matched the evidence, Lacy would have distanced herself from the DNA and passed it off as coming from an outside source. Instead she skirts her incompetence and strengthens the illusion that the DNA is the be all and end all.

andreww, you just nailed it. I have no doubt whatsoever that Lacy would have gladly done as you say. She just wasn't smart enough to pull it off.