Do you think a Stungun was used?

[Tawny]

There is no evidence a stun gun was used. Even the manufacturer says the marks do not match the device.

 

[DeDee]

It's one thing to feel like a case isn't prosecutable but another thing to refuse to gather evidence. If Hunter really thought the Ramseys were innocent and that Smit's stun gun theory was valid it looks like Hunter would have been overjoyed to request an exhumation doesn't it? It's not like any of the Ramseys had to attend.

Grand Juries, at least in my state, have extremely potent powers to bring a case to court. The "indict a ham sandwich" comment makes me want to eat a biscuit. :furious:

When the Ramseys were told about a Grand Jury being convened, didn't Patsy make a comment that she and John thought they should prepare to be taken to jail and she wished they had been because then it would be over one way or another (or words to that effect)?

Greetings, BOESP.

As much as I detest approving of exhumations, this case warranted one. Perhaps JR felt other clues would be uncovered with a second look at his dead baby girl. If they did not use a stun gun on JBR, then they should want to know conclusively if one was used to assault their daughter.

The Grand Jurors evidently could not decide which R did what to JonBenét yet they knew the Rs were responsible for the child to be "unreasonably placed in a situation which posed a threat of injury to the child's life or health, which resulted in the death of JonBenet Ramsey," and that they assisted a person "knowing the person being assisted has committed and was suspected of the crime of murder in the first degree and child abuse resulting in death."


The GJ claimed both PR and JR suspected the other of murder in the first degree and child abuse yet each assisted the other spouse anyway.

One reason for that, possibly, is that it is difficult to believe a beautiful, successful individual, who regularly attended church, who had no past history of criminal activity, would commit such a hideous crime upon a 6yo girl as to hatefully garrote her tiny neck.

At times, I think Patsy wanted/needed to confess. It is another reason why she had to stay away from sworn testimony to demanding questions and overdose on valium during those first few months.

As a fat cat multimillionaire, she felt justified in her actions especially since the cause of the murder had created a hole in her own heart just as cancer had threatened her own life.

"I'm appalled that anyone would think that John or I would be involved in such a hideous, heinous crime. I did not kill JonBenet. I did not have anything to do with it," said Patsy Ramsey, who with her husband broke four months of public silence. "I loved that child with my--whole of my heart and soul."

During the interview, Patsy closes her eyes and stretches out the word hideous. She knows the crime was hideous. But still, she can't quite say "I loved that child with my whole heart." Her subconscious would not allow it. Admittedly, in thirty two years, I have never referred to my precious daughter as "that child".

Recall Patsy telling us on Nat'l tv that she did not know if the perpetrator was a "he or a she"? Subconsciously she may have been trying to say consider "me" as the "she". Oh, how delighted she was when the male DNA on the long john's and in the blood mixture was announced. She was thrilled to tell us "we know it was a "he".

Living, moment by moment, with the despicable events of December 26 that ended the life of their little girl, and the fear of being caught any day, by any one tiny mistake; prison could not have been a much harsher sentence for a person with a conscious.

Frustratingly, this is a cold case that will go without an arrest [forget the foolish charade with JMK]. What makes me think we could solve this cc when the astute detectives closest to the investigation could not agree on who did what part of the crime, as was proven by the GJ findings?

It angers me for JonBenét that those who do know what happened that night have not solved the mystery by confessing it to the rest of the world because where it sits now her three immediate family members are the prime suspects under the same umbrella of suspicion. And that is a disgrace to JonBenét's legacy that one, two or all three of her family members viciously killed her on Christmas night 1996.

OMO

 

[DeDee]

Air taser video demonstrates how simple it is to use one straight out of the box. They come with instructional videos. JR had an instructional video for stun guns in his home; albeit may be in Spanish.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUrgtj2hs3Q

On a decent screen, the faint blue line shows between the two "stun gun" marks on her back and the two "stun gun" marks we have seen on her leg when she wears the red and white sundress while standing on the porch.

It is said that when the stun gun it held next to the skin, it silences the static noise of the electrical current.

It is beyond belief that the Rs had a stun gun and that Patsy thought she could punish her child by lightly stunning her into not wetting or soiling the bed or her clothing? The perfectionist Patsy would stop that bedwetting and pooping in the pants problem.

Arapahoe County Coroner Michael Dobersen now believes Smit may be right.

"This isn't rocket science," Dobersen said. "If it waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck." He recently reviewed enlarged autopsy photographs shown to him by Smit and Newsweek magazine and says the marks are consistent with a particular kind of stun gun.

http://extras.denverpost.com/news/jon031400.htm

OMO

 

[Venom]

But stun guns don't leave blue lines.


Nebraska Dr. Robert Stratbucker, who has conducted several experiments on stun guns and is considered a courtroom expert, said he takes "considerable issue" with Smit's stun gun theory.

Stratbucker said it is "pure nonsense" that the stun gun would leave a blue mark in between red marks on the skin as Smit claimed.

"I have not seen ever, ever any blue marks, and I don't know what the cause of any blue mark could be," he said.

http://web.dailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/2001/02lrams.html

I did a google image search for stun gun injuries, and they don't look like they could be from a stun gun. Here's an article I found with a picture of a woman who was stun gunned in the face. http://www.thedenverchannel.com/new...n-returning-to-court-for-stun-gun-attack-case

 

[bettybaby00]

Air taser video demonstrates how simple it is to use one straight out of the box. They come with instructional videos. JR had an instructional video for stun guns in his home; albeit may be in Spanish.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUrgtj2hs3Q

On a decent screen, the faint blue line shows between the two "stun gun" marks on her back and the two "stun gun" marks we have seen on her leg when she wears the red and white sundress while standing on the porch.

It is said that when the stun gun it held next to the skin, it silences the static noise of the electrical current.

It is beyond belief that the Rs had a stun gun and that Patsy thought she could punish her child by lightly stunning her into not wetting or soiling the bed or her clothing? The perfectionist Patsy would stop that bedwetting and pooping in the pants problem.


OMO

You can't forget how "off" those marks were when actually compared to scale. The fact that LS didn't do that is an example of a flawed experiment.

Even he said, "close" in measurement he also said, the most likely brand...was the Air Taser."

 

[bettybaby00]

But stun guns don't leave blue lines.


Nebraska Dr. Robert Stratbucker, who has conducted several experiments on stun guns and is considered a courtroom expert, said he takes "considerable issue" with Smit's stun gun theory.

Stratbucker said it is "pure nonsense" that the stun gun would leave a blue mark in between red marks on the skin as Smit claimed.

"I have not seen ever, ever any blue marks, and I don't know what the cause of any blue mark could be," he said.

http://web.dailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/2001/02lrams.html

I did a google image search for stun gun injuries, and they don't look like they could be from a stun gun. Here's an article I found with a picture of a woman who was stun gunned in the face. http://www.thedenverchannel.com/new...n-returning-to-court-for-stun-gun-attack-case

The article also states...

Smit said red marks found on JonBenét's body were about 3.5 centimeters apart, roughly the same distance between contacts on an Air Taser model 34000.

Air Taser representative Stephen Tuttle said he was contacted by an investigator early on in the case and provided Smit with the same model to conduct his experiments.

"I am bewildered. I don't know what to think about the theory," Tuttle said. "It defies the logic of what the weapon does."

Tuttle conceded that two marks are close to the width of the contacts of an Air Taser, but said that's where the similarities end.

"We have never seen those types of marks when you touch somebody with a stun gun," he said. "We are talking hundreds of people that have been touched with these devices. I can't replicate those marks."

Tuttle said it is uncommon for the stun gun to leave only two marks on the skin. The body moves away from the stun gun, causing multiple, erratic marks.

"How you can keep this thing perfectly still, not once, but twice on a squirming child? It doesn't make any sense," he said. "I hope that doesn't throw water on somebody's investigation."

He also said the Air Taser does not render people unconscious.

Emphasis mine

 

[otg]

Sorry, this is the closest to appropriate thread I could think to post this in. If anyone lives near Erie, PA, this might be an interesting presentation. (I'd be there if it wasn't 1,400 miles away.)

http://www.goerie.com/article/20140414/LIFESTYLES0702/304149998/Appointment-Book

UPMC Hamot will host a talk by Dr. Cyril H. Wecht on Wednesday, April 23, at 7 p.m. at the H.O. Hirt Auditorium at the Blasco Library, 160 E. Front St. A practicing forensic pathologist, attorney and medical-legal consultant for the past 40 years, Dr. Wecht has been involved in thousands of high-profile cases. He will speak about the role of forensic science in famous cases including the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson, Ronald Goldman and JonBenét Ramsey, as well as the mysteries surrounding the death of Mary Jo Kopechne at Chappaquiddick and the suicide of Vincent Foster. The program is part of UPMC Hamot's annual Research Days, a program dedicated to advancing medical knowledge in the community. This event is free, but seating is limited. For more information, call 877-3466.
​

 

[Linda7NJ]

Sorry, this is the closest to appropriate thread I could think to post this in. If anyone lives near Erie, PA, this might be an interesting presentation. (I'd be there if it wasn't 1,400 miles away.)

http://www.goerie.com/article/20140414/LIFESTYLES0702/304149998/Appointment-Book

UPMC Hamot will host a talk by Dr. Cyril H. Wecht on Wednesday, April 23, at 7 p.m. at the H.O. Hirt Auditorium at the Blasco Library, 160 E. Front St. A practicing forensic pathologist, attorney and medical-legal consultant for the past 40 years, Dr. Wecht has been involved in thousands of high-profile cases. He will speak about the role of forensic science in famous cases including the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson, Ronald Goldman and JonBenét Ramsey, as well as the mysteries surrounding the death of Mary Jo Kopechne at Chappaquiddick and the suicide of Vincent Foster. The program is part of UPMC Hamot's annual Research Days, a program dedicated to advancing medical knowledge in the community. This event is free, but seating is limited. For more information, call 877-3466.
​

It's close enough for me to go, but Cyril works my last nerve.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[RUCertain]

Sorry, this is the closest to appropriate thread I could think to post this in. If anyone lives near Erie, PA, this might be an interesting presentation. (I'd be there if it wasn't 1,400 miles away.)

http://www.goerie.com/article/20140414/LIFESTYLES0702/304149998/Appointment-Book

UPMC Hamot will host a talk by Dr. Cyril H. Wecht on Wednesday, April 23, at 7 p.m. at the H.O. Hirt Auditorium at the Blasco Library, 160 E. Front St. A practicing forensic pathologist, attorney and medical-legal consultant for the past 40 years, Dr. Wecht has been involved in thousands of high-profile cases. He will speak about the role of forensic science in famous cases including the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson, Ronald Goldman and JonBenét Ramsey, as well as the mysteries surrounding the death of Mary Jo Kopechne at Chappaquiddick and the suicide of Vincent Foster. The program is part of UPMC Hamot's annual Research Days, a program dedicated to advancing medical knowledge in the community. This event is free, but seating is limited. For more information, call 877-3466.
​

I would love to go see that, but it is out of the question for me.

This is my first post here. I am guilty of not reading this whole thread. I have only recently began reading about this tragedy. I thought you might find this interesting, if it hasn't already been posted.

Just a few days ago, I watched the video of the Elizabeth Vargas interview with the Ramseys. She discusses with John his reasoning for not wanting to exhume JonBenet's body to further investigate the possibility of the use of a stun gun. I believe the interview is from 2000.

Does anyone have a link to this video? I can not find it anywhere now. I've searched my history but still haven't found it. I've watched a lot of videos on this over the last few days.

 

[DeDee]

Greetings, RUCertain.

Unless or until someone posts the exact video you are seeking, you may want to take a look at our Media thread as it may be there.

Media Links Only - Page 3 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community


Also, many transcripts for the Rs interviews can be found here:

http://www.acandyrose.com/transcripts.htm

:seeya:

 

[gramcracker]

I would love to go see that, but it is out of the question for me.

This is my first post here. I am guilty of not reading this whole thread. I have only recently began reading about this tragedy. I thought you might find this interesting, if it hasn't already been posted.

Just a few days ago, I watched the video of the Elizabeth Vargas interview with the Ramseys. She discusses with John his reasoning for not wanting to exhume JonBenet's body to further investigate the possibility of the use of a stun gun. I believe the interview is from 2000.

Does anyone have a link to this video? I can not find it anywhere now. I've searched my history but still haven't found it. I've watched a lot of videos on this over the last few days.

I didn't find the EV interview either. this link has excerpts re exhumation from other sources

http://www.acandyrose.com/crimescene-thebody.htm

:welcome: to posting!

 

[otg]

I would love to go see that, but it is out of the question for me.

This is my first post here. I am guilty of not reading this whole thread. I have only recently began reading about this tragedy. I thought you might find this interesting, if it hasn't already been posted.

Just a few days ago, I watched the video of the Elizabeth Vargas interview with the Ramseys. She discusses with John his reasoning for not wanting to exhume JonBenet's body to further investigate the possibility of the use of a stun gun. I believe the interview is from 2000.

Does anyone have a link to this video? I can not find it anywhere now. I've searched my history but still haven't found it. I've watched a lot of videos on this over the last few days.

Welcome to WS, RUCertain. I tried searching for videos with keywords (Elizabeth Vargas, abc, 20/20, Ramsey, JonBenet, etc.) and had no luck. Are you sure it wasn't in an interview with Barbara Walters or someone else? Sooner or later, maybe someone will remember it or run across it. I do remember there being a written interview somewhere that the subject of stun guns and exhumation was discussed. What specifically were you wanting to know from the interview you saw?

 

[RUCertain]

Thanks, guys.

Okay, I found a transcript of the full Barbara Walters interview. This is the link - http://www.acandyrose.com/03172000ramseyonbarbarawalters.htm

The following is an excerpt from that interview:

BARBARA WALTERS: Why wasn't the body exhumed?

JOHN RAMSEY: (PAUSE) Don't know why the Police didn't consider that. Uh we were asked… when this theory first surfaced about a Stun gun that if the body were exhumed… it could be proved conclusively but it had to be done fairly quickly. This was… within months of when we'd just buried JonBenet. And I, as her father, could not bring myself to do that. I had laid my child to rest. She was at peace. And that was a that decision I couldn't make.

BARBARA WALTERS: Even though it might have cleared you?

JOHN RAMSEY: It wasn't… that was not the priority. The priority was my child was at rest.


Now, I'm starting to get old, but I know I didn't dream up this other interview with Elizabeth Vargas. I'll paraphrase from my memory, but someone please let me know if this is against the rules.

Again, this is paraphrased from my memory only. The interviewer asks "why didn't you have the body exhumed?", stressing the why? JR says "we're 95% sure it was a stun gun." The interviewer looks exasperated and says "you could have been 100% sure", meaning that this would be proof of an intruder. JR kind of shrugs and says "she was at rest." (I think it was Elizabeth Vargas, but I left the name of the interviewer out in case I'm wrong.)

The only reason I want to see it again is to see JR's face when he says it.

The way I understand it, the Ramseys knew at the time of their decision to not exhume the body that proof of a stun gun being used would go a long way toward proving an intruder theory.

 

[bettybaby00]

:welcome:

Thanks, guys.

Okay, I found a transcript of the full Barbara Walters interview. This is the link - http://www.acandyrose.com/03172000ramseyonbarbarawalters.htm

The following is an excerpt from that interview:

BARBARA WALTERS: Why wasn't the body exhumed?

JOHN RAMSEY: (PAUSE) Don't know why the Police didn't consider that. Uh we were asked… when this theory first surfaced about a Stun gun that if the body were exhumed… it could be proved conclusively but it had to be done fairly quickly. This was… within months of when we'd just buried JonBenet. And I, as her father, could not bring myself to do that. I had laid my child to rest. She was at peace. And that was a that decision I couldn't make.

BARBARA WALTERS: Even though it might have cleared you?

JOHN RAMSEY: It wasn't… that was not the priority. The priority was my child was at rest.


Now, I'm starting to get old, but I know I didn't dream up this other interview with Elizabeth Vargas. I'll paraphrase from my memory, but someone please let me know if this is against the rules.

Again, this is paraphrased from my memory only. The interviewer asks "why didn't you have the body exhumed?", stressing the why? JR says "we're 95% sure it was a stun gun." The interviewer looks exasperated and says "you could have been 100% sure", meaning that this would be proof of an intruder. JR kind of shrugs and says "she was at rest." (I think it was Elizabeth Vargas, but I left the name of the interviewer out in case I'm wrong.)

The only reason I want to see it again is to see JR's face when he says it.

The way I understand it, the Ramseys knew at the time of their decision to not exhume the body that proof of a stun gun being used would go a long way toward proving an intruder theory.

K, first off, there has been a great deal of interview/transcript info posted as of late....do these people ever refer to JonBenet by name????????

Weird...

Kolar recounts this...

there had been some discussion amongst investigators and prosecutors at the time as to whether the body should be exhumed to conduct microscopic examination of the skin cells at the site of the suspected stun gun injuries. It was eventually determined that the forensic examination of these injuries would not have been probative to the inquiry.
2313

And who would have ultimately made that determination?

AH strikes again. And the fact that JR is trying to imply that LE never thought of it is absurd.

As for the video you're looking for...I definitely remember the 100% dialogue being posted regarding this issue.

As horrific as the idea is, the "she's at rest" excuse is ridiculous. One of the main reasons the Rs remained under the umbrella of suspicion is b/c they never cooperated, and never allowed themselves to be "cleared."

This is just another example of that.

IMO of course.

 

[otg]

I think I can get us a little closer to finding your video, RUCertain. I found the following transcript from CBS's 48 Hours, but I haven't yet located the video:

TRANSCRIPT - 48 HOURS - OCTOBER 4th, 2002

(Moriarty talking with Smit and Dobersen)

Erin Moriarty: "Wouldn't that have been or the best way to know or come the closest to knowing, is if you could have exhumed the body and line up a stun gun and see if it matches those injuries?"

Lou Smit: "Sure, I believe that would have probably been the most accurate way to do it."

Erin Moriarty: (Voice Over) "Lou Smit admits that in the months following JonBenét's death, investigators considered going to court to have her body exhumed but decided against it."

John Ramsey: "We had buried our child, she was in peace, that was just an abhorrent thought."

Erin Moriarty: "But John, that might have been the one way to know for sure, that could have resolved the whole issue, because if a stun gun was used, it was not the parents."

John Ramsey: "Certainly, and we've got people who told us who know what they are doing that with 95% medical certainty that a stun gun was used. No question."

Erin Moriarty: "But you would have known with a hundred percent certainty if you had exhumed the body, as tough as that would have been."

John Ramsey: "That's my child you're talking about, it's not a body. It's different."

​

http://www.jameson245.com/48hours2.htm

 

[BOESP]

In my state (Kentucky) an investigation doesn't require permission from the parent of a deceased victim in order to have an exhumation. It is done by court order.

We discussed this here on Websleuths in the past and iirc neither Colorado or Georgia require parental permission, which suggests John Ramsey was posturing.

Seems like the BPD and DA's office just didn't push the matter to exhume JonBenet thus another in a long line of reasons why some of BPD's finest resigned.

ETA: Welcome RUCertain. I forgot my manners.

 

[bettybaby00]

In my state (Kentucky) an investigation doesn't require permission from the parent of a deceased victim in order to have an exhumation. It is done by court order.

We discussed this here on Websleuths in the past and iirc neither Colorado or Georgia require parental permission, which suggests John Ramsey was posturing.

Seems like the BPD and DA's office just didn't push the matter to exhume JonBenet thus another in a long line of reasons why some of BPD's finest resigned.

Yup, yup. You speak the truth.

 

[Mama2JML]

Transcript provided by Jameson @ Webbsleuths, circa 2002:

"MSNBC reporter: ... Taser International, the company that manufactured the stun gun Smit believes was used in this crime. Steven, thanks for being here. In fact, he says it was an AIR TASER 34,000. You've got one with you, show us how it works.

Steven Tuttle - Taser International: "Well, what you have is the stun gun version of the Air Taser. If I push back the safety here, (firing stun gun in air)I can activate the actual stun gun and that's what we... you have to apply to a person to keep them at bay, so to speak.

Reporter: Can you apply it to your arm?

ST: I can, ah, it's not fun, but (applies to arm held in air, the contact is brief and repeating as the arm jumps away) AH (he grunted) It's very disconcerting and makes you want to stay away from it. It's somewhat painful. To me that just felt like pins and needles hitting on my arm right now and I want to get away from that pain.

Reporter: Did it leave a mark?

ST: Not at all. (Showing arm)

Reporter: Let's take a look at a couple of ... we still-framed just a moment ago duting this package here... the front end of that Air taser, let's take a look at it right now. You can see, there you see, how far apart are the two sort of electrodes that come out there? Are they roughly 3.5 cm apart?

ST: That's fairly close, yes.

Reporter: And there's another look at it there. OK, the reason I ask that is that Lou Smit took your product, the 34000 Air Taser, he tested it on an anaestitized pig, hard to say, and produced the same marks that were discovered on JonBenét Ramsey - not in one place, but in two separate places. What do you make of that?

ST: Well, actually, we helped supply that Air Taser for the testing. We were as interested in this case as Lou Smit is. We've worked with him from the very beginning of the case. The one thing that's interesting is that the marks that the pigs have do look fairly similar to what's on JonBenét Ramsey. What's unusual is that, if you saw my arm, it was going off in many, many directions. It's extremely painful, uh, not even painful, just I wanted to get away from it. I don't know how you could leave this particular device in one solid spot, not once but twice.

Reporter: Yeah, but your arm wasn't restricted against a bed. What if a child abut, oh say, 35-40 pounds, age 6, is in a bed, asleep, somebody comes over without her hearing and uses a stun gun, that taser you've got right there in your hand, and while holding her down uses it on her back and her neck and face area?

ST: Well, that's an interesting idea because if I do this to a child of say 6 years of age while they're in the middle of a very deep sleep, they're going to have fairly the same reaction I did. They're going to want to get instinctually away from the pain. It would be almost be like being hit with a hot iron while sleeping. It may take an extra second but you are going to wake up, kick, flail and scream....

Reporter: But didn't you tell our producer that if you do this to a hundred people you will get 100 different reactions? Right?

ST: You'll have about a hundred different reactions but most of them will be different screams, different yelps, different people kicking. You will certainly not see any incapacitation at all. That's the key to this issue is that you're NOT going to get incapacitation

Reporter: What are you gonna get?

ST: You're gonna get what I did just now and I'm still feeling it... I don't like the fact that I did that to myself... I would want to get away from that pain...

Reporter: No temporary paralysis?

ST: None whatsoever. There's a lot of places on the internet, if you look up stun guns. It's completely false as to what these things do as far as incapacitation rates. These are good devices to keep somebody at bay at best.

Reporter: Is it possible, even though it may not have produced the desired reaction of incapacitation, is it possible to produce the very same marks? Let's take a look, by the way, on the autopsy photo... there you see, 3.5 cm apart, is it possible to produce those marks with what you have in your hand there, Steven?

ST: I can't do it and I've never been able to replicate it on a person in my 7 years with the company. Neither has anybody in our company been able to replicate those

Reporter: Are you telling me that your taser has never left a mark on any human being or any animal?

ST: It certainly leaves a mark in some cases like a reddish mark. I'm looking at my arm right now and I've got little red spots here, all over the place - cause the electricity's dancing all over the place. I'm not able to keep it in one spot. If I were to keep it in one spot, I might be able to get those two 3.5 cm type width spots but what's key here is even if I'm a 30 pound person, I'm going to get
instinctually away from this pain. If you were to have it, especially in two spots to be perfectly still, I just don't know how....

Reporter: You're not being restrained and you don't have duct tape across your mouth but, Steven, I'm afraid we're out of time. I want to thank you so much for coming here today and showing us how it works, we appreciate it. Steven Tuttle of Taser International.

AFTER VIEWING LOU'S PRESENTATION

R: ...heard that story we had on during the break. Do you buy the theory? Does it hold water?

ST:I don't know. It's bewildering to us as a company. We were approached by Lou Smit in the very beginning of the investigation. We provided a list of people who had the actual AIR TASER in
Colorado. We've also provided them a lot of information...
MISSING SECTION!!!!!!!
R: ...distinctive marks that appear to be the same spread. I think you have an AIR TASER with you right now and there are in fact - - can you hold it up? - there are two electrodes in the end, right?

ST: There are two electrodes right here what they are talking about is actually leaving marks here and they are about 3 1/2 cm apart and they're fairly similar in width if you were to measure those two.

R: Now here's the big question - Can someone hold that to somebody without them flinching or moving back?

ST: That's the crux of the bewilderment from our company's perspective. I'm going to go ahead and do this on my arm. I don't like doing this at all but

R: I'm sure you don't

ST: I want to try to hold it there as long as I can. Now this would be simulating anybody's reaction.

(He grimaced and held the stun gun to his arm, he did NOT cry out or make any noise until he pulled the stun gun away.)

UH! That is exceedingly painful to say the least, it's something instinctually I want to get away from

R: OK, but you're a grown man, Let's take ourselves to the crime scene. This is a little girl who was asleep, she's 6 years old, what's to say a grown man can't hold her down and just simply hold that to her?

ST: Well, that could be done, but what we're seeing is a mark that's not moving and as you saw my arm flailing about... even if someone is heavier,holding that down, that person is going to wake up immediately and instinctively want to get away from the pain.

R: What about the the notion of incapacitating someone? Is this, obviously when you're being shocked there, you're out of it for that moment, but when you took it away, you were fine. Will it knock somebody out?

ST: That is very, very crucial to the issue here, it will not knock someone out, it will not render them mute. They will kick and scream. I did my best to not scream into the microphone here because it was very uncomfortable.

R: Once you took it away, though, you were fine?

ST: ... once you stop it. And it's very loud when it's in the air. It does go much more silent as Lou Smit pointed out with the pillow. It does go more silent when you stick it in the skin. However, the minute that person breaks contact you do get that loud arcing sound. And again, it just simply would not cause incapacitation

R: Mr. Tuttle, I can certainly understand why a company would not want their name or product associated with a crime in this case. Do you see any reasonable possibility that it COULD have been a TASER and that a child that young COULD have been incapacitated?

ST: It could have been ours and I certainly, we want to work with the investigators, we have from the very beginning. Um, I don't know. It's bewildering to see if this was ours. The measurements are close. They're not exact, but I don't know. That's what's stupifying - is you've got two separate marks that are crystally clear, perfect, without any movement shown on the suspect's, oh, I'm sorry, on JonBenét. I just don't understand that, how that can be there. (Showing his arm) I don't have the marks here, they're all over the place. I'm not sure if you can see... from me moving, they've gone everywhere. Ah,

R: Certainly not as deep as what we saw there. You mentioned... we're quickly running out of time... you mentioned that you provided list of those who had been sold. Is this something you have to register to buy?

ST: Yes We do require as a company that if a person purchases an AIR TASER, we are going to know who that person is. They are registered in a data base and if it's used in the TASER mode, which
would incapacitate somebody, it's going to emit little confetti tags that would match back to the owner. In this case the taser was not used so we don't have these confetti tags. But we do have serial numbers. If they find one, we could match that up to who it was sold to.

R: Steven Tuttle, we do appreciate you spending the time with us today.

ST: Thank you."​

http://www.webbsleuths.com/cgi-bin/dcf/dcboard.cgi?az=read_count&om=237&forum=DCForumID101

 

[BOESP]

Erin Moriarty: "But John, that might have been the one way to know for sure, that could have resolved the whole issue, because if a stun gun was used, it was not the parents."

I am not an Erin Moriarty fan so maybe I am biased but how did she determine that if a stun gun was used it proves "it was not the parents."

 

[bettybaby00]

Erin Moriarty: "But John, that might have been the one way to know for sure, that could have resolved the whole issue, because if a stun gun was used, it was not the parents."

I am not an Erin Moriarty fan so maybe I am biased but how did she determine that if a stun gun was used it proves "it was not the parents."

B/c that was the conclusion drawn by LS...and much like "the DNA exonerated them," it became "fact."