Ramsey Project Rebuttal (Non Intruder Posters Only)

[Let_Forever_Be]

One of my main theories suggest she screamed during the sexual molestation. She was bashed on the head to silence her- to stop her from screaming. The flashlight was likely the weapon IMO, and was handy if it was being used to walk around the dark house (as would be the case with someone engaging in sexual abuse of a child). So in this sense, the head bash is related to the sexual abuse.
The neighbor who reported hearing the scream (then denied it, after probably being "approached" by R lawyers- then later reversed again claiming she did, in fact, hear the scream) around midnight- and that it was a horrifying scream which stopped abruptly. A likely scene if she was bashed to shut her up.

The scream is a perplexing issue. I honestly do not know the truth regarding it. Was it JonBenet's scream, Patsy's? Was there even as scream? -- I mean, the lady across the road woke up and says there was. But that's not conclusive proof.I too originally thought it was a scream by JonBenet -- a scream of fear. What if it was Patsy screaming? Who knows.

I agree regarding the flashlight -- didn't Dr Spitz say it fitted exactly into the crevice of her skull? I have questioned if another 'item' was used to carry out the head-wound. Another neighbour says they saw 'weird lights' on in the Ramsey house. This was probably the flashlight. Would the perpetrator have the gaull to touch the flashlight, walk around with AFTER it had just whacked their daughter's skull? That's quite sick, isn't it?

 

[DeeDee249]

The scream is a perplexing issue. I honestly do not know the truth regarding it. Was it JonBenet's scream, Patsy's? Was there even as scream? -- I mean, the lady across the road woke up and says there was. But that's not conclusive proof.I too originally thought it was a scream by JonBenet -- a scream of fear. What if it was Patsy screaming? Who knows.

I agree regarding the flashlight -- didn't Dr Spitz say it fitted exactly into the crevice of her skull? I have questioned if another 'item' was used to carry out the head-wound. Another neighbour says they saw 'weird lights' on in the Ramsey house. This was probably the flashlight. Would the perpetrator have the gaull to touch the flashlight, walk around with AFTER it had just whacked their daughter's skull? That's quite sick, isn't it?

Let's face it- sicker things than that occurred that night. The flashlight was found wiped clean inside and out, including the batteries, so whatever was done with it before that, the evidence was wiped away. Certainly the perp could have used it to walk around after using it as a bludgeon, because the last thing the perp did with it was to wipe it clean.
yes, Spitz said the edge of the flashlight fit perfectly into a hole the size and shape of the one in JB's skull. The actual hole in JB's skull was never even tested against the flashlight, though it should have been. Another inexplicable "oversight" made in the investigation. Remember, the coroner works for the DA, not the police, so that explains a lot about what was and was not done at the autopsy. There was much that was noted aloud at the autopsy in front of others, including detectives Arndt and Trujillo. (it is common to record the autopsy as it is being done, not record on video, but on tape). But some things were just said aloud and not written into the report, such as the fact that the coroner said that there appeared to have been vaginal penetration, but not by an (adult) penis- he suggested digital penetration.
This was a confident perp. Not afraid to be discovered walking around the darkened kitchen with a flashlight (yes, this was the source of the "strange, moving lights" a neighbor saw in the kitchen window). Not afraid that the child's scream would bring the parents running. (tests done by police in the basement indicated a scream could be heard in the parent's third floor room as well as across the street at the home of the neighbor who claimed to have heard the scream. Yes, I do believe she heard it.

 

[Let_Forever_Be]

Let's face it- sicker things than that occurred that night. The flashlight was found wiped clean inside and out, including the batteries, so whatever was done with it before that, the evidence was wiped away. Certainly the perp could have used it to walk around after using it as a bludgeon, because the last thing the perp did with it was to wipe it clean.
yes, Spitz said the edge of the flashlight fit perfectly into a hole the size and shape of the one in JB's skull. The actual hole in JB's skull was never even tested against the flashlight, though it should have been. Another inexplicable "oversight" made in the investigation. Remember, the coroner works for the DA, not the police, so that explains a lot about what was and was not done at the autopsy. There was much that was noted aloud at the autopsy in front of others, including detectives Arndt and Trujillo. (it is common to record the autopsy as it is being done, not record on video, but on tape). But some things were just said aloud and not written into the report, such as the fact that the coroner said that there appeared to have been vaginal penetration, but not by an (adult) penis- he suggested digital penetration.
This was a confident perp. Not afraid to be discovered walking around the darkened kitchen with a flashlight (yes, this was the source of the "strange, moving lights" a neighbor saw in the kitchen window). Not afraid that the child's scream would bring the parents running. (tests done by police in the basement indicated a scream could be heard in the parent's third floor room as well as across the street at the home of the neighbor who claimed to have heard the scream. Yes, I do believe she heard it.

Regarding the scream and going in a slight tangent for a moment. The 'enhanced' 911 all is claimed to contain the voice of Burke on it. Apparently Patsy said something to the effect of "we're not talking to you". This implies he was up when call was made and was enquiring about the commotion his mum and dad were doing as in he didn't know what was going on.

But, as the test on the screaming confirmed, is it possible that Burke heard a lot more that night?

Of course, the staggering way the Ramseys seemed to just get Burke out the way (To Fleet's house) whilst not waking him up when they discovered the note, has led me to believe Burke was not involved. And the parents wanted to keep him in the dark. Knowledge is power. They shuffled him off.

 

[DeeDee249]

Regarding the scream and going in a slight tangent for a moment. The 'enhanced' 911 all is claimed to contain the voice of Burke on it. Apparently Patsy said something to the effect of "we're not talking to you". This implies he was up when call was made and was enquiring about the commotion his mum and dad were doing as in he didn't know what was going on.

But, as the test on the screaming confirmed, is it possible that Burke heard a lot more that night?

Of course, the staggering way the Ramseys seemed to just get Burke out the way (To Fleet's house) whilst not waking him up when they discovered the note, has led me to believe Burke was not involved. And the parents wanted to keep him in the dark. Knowledge is power. They shuffled him off.

It was JR's voice that was heard saying "We're not speaking to you" on the 911 call.
We have only the R's WORD that they did not wake BR up. Actually, BR admitted that he in fact, WAS awake and heard "loud talking and running around" while he stayed in his bed. Later, JR also admitted that BR was awake but they (meaning he and Patsy) decided to say that he was asleep the whole time because this was he "wouldn't be bothered" with questions.
Now...if it was YOUR little girl who had been "kidnapped", and later found dead and sexually assaulted in her own home, wouldn't you want, or INSIST that the surviving sibling who had a room down the hall be asked what he saw or heard that night? You certainly wouldn't think it was a "bother", right?
Right. So what can we concur from the Rs quite opposite reaction? Right.

 

[Let_Forever_Be]

It was JR's voice that was heard saying "We're not speaking to you" on the 911 call.
We have only the R's WORD that they did not wake BR up. Actually, BR admitted that he in fact, WAS awake and heard "loud talking and running around" while he stayed in his bed. Later, JR also admitted that BR was awake but they (meaning he and Patsy) decided to say that he was asleep the whole time because this was he "wouldn't be bothered" with questions.
Now...if it was YOUR little girl who had been "kidnapped", and later found dead and sexually assaulted in her own home, wouldn't you want, or INSIST that the surviving sibling who had a room down the hall be asked what he saw or heard that night? You certainly wouldn't think it was a "bother", right?
Right. So what can we concur from the Rs quite opposite reaction? Right.

The manner in which the Ramseys behaved is certainly questionable. If Burke was standing near the parents when John said "we're not talking to you" or words to that effect, that either means he was woke up by the parents or woke up himself -- so much so, he went to see what the commotion was.

Either way, it would seem from the evidence we do have that Burke was in the dark with regards to what happened (or at least seemed that way when he was asking what was going on to his parents -- maybe he had a sense of what happened?). And the Ramseys wished to not engage much with him -- if they start telling their story to him, he becomes involved. Perphas, in spite of all the events of the night, the Ramseys still wished to protect their one remaining child from "being questioned" and as such, wished for him to know as little as possible, hence the way they treated him.

Who knows.

 

[SunnieRN]

snipped by me:
Q. Then what was, basically, your association with the private investigation of the potential suspects in the murder of JonBenet Ramsey?
A. The investigators were retained by our attorneys, and they stated to me that the principal purpose of those investigators was to prepare a defense in the case that the police might bring a charge against me. I hoped that they would also follow up on leads that came to us, but I was frequently reminded by our attorneys that their principal role was to prepare a defense should that be necessary.
Deposition of John Ramsey, December 12, 2001

This question and the answer should be enough to convince any rational thinking adult exactly who killed JonBenet. If those two were really innocent, their "team" would have been totally unnecessary! Oh, one more thing. I'm thinking since they were hired to keep JR out of jail, they may have believed it was impossible to keep Patsy out!

Or maybe, just maybe, Patsy was only involved in the cover up, believing that she was protecting her son, while she was actually protecting JR.

One of my main theories suggest she screamed during the sexual molestation. She was bashed on the head to silence her- to stop her from screaming. The flashlight was likely the weapon IMO, and was handy if it was being used to walk around the dark house (as would be the case with someone engaging in sexual abuse of a child). So in this sense, the head bash is related to the sexual abuse.
The neighbor who reported hearing the scream (then denied it, after probably being "approached" by R lawyers- then later reversed again claiming she did, in fact, hear the scream) around midnight- and that it was a horrifying scream which stopped abruptly. A likely scene if she was bashed to shut her up.

I agree, except for the fact that the neighbor heard the scream, than metal hitting cement. I have to believe the bat is what was used and later discarded outside. The flashlight being the red herring.

Lots of information here, but some truly IDI theories:
http://pedophileophobia.com/JonBenet Ramsey.htm

Scream was heard by neighbor sometime after midnight.

"Melody Stanton, neighbor across the street and diagonal from the Ramseys, said she heard a piercing scream shortly after midnight. Her husband Luther slept through the scream, but said he heard the sound of metal scraping on concrete."

A metal baseball bat was found outside the house that could have been used to fracture JonBenet's skull.

From Lou Smit himself:

---A metal baseball bat found outside the Ramseys' Boulder home. Fibers on the bat matched a carpet found in the basement near the storage room, where JonBenet's body was found. The bat was found, "in a place where kids normally wouldn't play," Smit said, declining to elaborate.

Anyway, my pet theory is that the baseball bat was close at hand, was used and had to be removed. I think the weapon used helps determine who was responsible.

 

[Let_Forever_Be]

Or maybe, just maybe, Patsy was only involved in the cover up, believing that she was protecting her son, while she was actually protecting JR.



I agree, except for the fact that the neighbor heard the scream, than metal hitting cement. I have to believe the bat is what was used and later discarded outside. The flashlight being the red herring.

Lots of information here, but some truly IDI theories:
http://pedophileophobia.com/JonBenet Ramsey.htm

Scream was heard by neighbor sometime after midnight.

"Melody Stanton, neighbor across the street and diagonal from the Ramseys, said she heard a piercing scream shortly after midnight. Her husband Luther slept through the scream, but said he heard the sound of metal scraping on concrete."

A metal baseball bat was found outside the house that could have been used to fracture JonBenet's skull.

From Lou Smit himself:

---A metal baseball bat found outside the Ramseys' Boulder home. Fibers on the bat matched a carpet found in the basement near the storage room, where JonBenet's body was found. The bat was found, "in a place where kids normally wouldn't play," Smit said, declining to elaborate.

Anyway, my pet theory is that the baseball bat was close at hand, was used and had to be removed. I think the weapon used helps determine who was responsible.

Do you think that the bat, by being placed outside, was a deliberate and blatant attempt to make it look like the 'kidnapper' dropped it there thus giving some credence to the idea someone had been into and out-of the house?

 

[SunnieRN]

Do you think that the bat, by being placed outside, was a deliberate and blatant attempt to make it look like the 'kidnapper' dropped it there thus giving some credence to the idea someone had been into and out-of the house?

I think it was placed outside for the need to remove the item that caused the head injury. I think it was Lou Smits wishful thinking to try to disassociate it from belonging to the Ramseys. Patsy and Burke both played ball. They were both on leagues. I truly believe it was the weapon used.

 

[Let_Forever_Be]

I think it was placed outside for the need to remove the item that caused the head injury. I think it was Lou Smits wishful thinking to try to disassociate it from belonging to the Ramseys. Patsy and Burke both played ball. They were both on leagues. I truly believe it was the weapon used.

If it was the weapon used, do you think that lends weight to the idea that the head-wound came after the neck-trauma?

I mean, the logistics of swinging a bat are quite different from say, someone accidentally falling a hitting their head.

A metal baseball bat is certainly strong enough to inflict the skull fracture.

One of the reasons I have doubted the flashlight being used is that it's highly likely that it would bear some form of damage. If the 'light' part was used to hit the head as is speculated, could it inflict the 8 1/2 inch skull fracture without getting damaged?

Would the perp be more likely to associate the need to inflict a head-wound with a baseball bat opposed to a flashlight?

 

[SunnieRN]

If it was the weapon used, do you think that lends weight to the idea that the head-wound came after the neck-trauma?

I mean, the logistics of swinging a bat are quite different from say, someone accidentally falling a hitting their head.

A metal baseball bat is certainly strong enough to inflict the skull fracture.

One of the reasons I have doubted the flashlight being used is that it's highly likely that it would bear some form of damage. If the 'light' part was used to hit the head as is speculated, could it inflict the 8 1/2 inch skull fracture without getting damaged?

Would the perp be more likely to associate the need to inflict a head-wound with a baseball bat opposed to a flashlight?

I believe that JonBenet had chronic molestation, which caused the erosion of her hymen. This is verses acute, new trauma. . I also believe that Jon Benet was strangled with something prior to the garrote, which was just for show, or staging if you will.

I think at some point, around midnight, she was assaulted more forcefully than she had been in the past. This elicited the scream. I also believe that this is when she was being sexually asphyxiated, certainly not in a manner to lead to death, but for erotica. I think she must have tried to 'get away', from whomever was assaulting her, her neck bind loosened, allowing her to scream and leading to the hit on the head. I feel the rest was staging.

 

[DeeDee249]

The heavy maglight flashlight found in the R's kitchen area had a heavy rubber coating. It could certainly have caused the hole in JB's skull without any damage. Bone is hard, but not as hard as say, hitting a brick wall, steel pipe, etc. and then again the skull is covered with soft tissue and a layer of hair, both materials cushioning the edge of the flashlight. These maglights come in several sizes and are still commonly sold.
The wiping of the BATTERIES- even more than the flashlight itself, is what makes me suspect it played a very integral part in the events of the night. Whether it was used as the bludgeon or not, it was used that night by whoever killed and/or staged JB.
I have a harder time seeing the bat as the weapon. While it certainly could have caused the depressed skull fracture, it's placement outside is more difficult to fit in. But if you theorize that the Rs were always going to say the intruder came in/out the window, they may have placed the bat there as a way of proving it was discarded as the perp left.
Smit made such a "performance" of climbing IN the window. What he SHOULD have been asked to do was climb OUT, while balancing on top of that upright suitcase carrying the metal bat. Ain't gonna fly. No way did anyone do that. No way anyone climbed UP that wall or balanced on the suitcase either, especially without knocking it over, and we all know the suitcase was moved under the window that morning (by FW?) anyway. Smit kinda "forgot" that part.

 

[Let_Forever_Be]

The heavy maglight flashlight found in the R's kitchen area had a heavy rubber coating. It could certainly have caused the hole in JB's skull without any damage. Bone is hard, but not as hard as say, hitting a brick wall, steel pipe, etc. and then again the skull is covered with soft tissue and a layer of hair, both materials cushioning the edge of the flashlight. These maglights come in several sizes and are still commonly sold.
The wiping of the BATTERIES- even more than the flashlight itself, is what makes me suspect it played a very integral part in the events of the night. Whether it was used as the bludgeon or not, it was used that night by whoever killed and/or staged JB.
I have a harder time seeing the bat as the weapon. While it certainly could have caused the depressed skull fracture, it's placement outside is more difficult to fit in. But if you theorize that the Rs were always going to say the intruder came in/out the window, they may have placed the bat there as a way of proving it was discarded as the perp left.
Smit made such a "performance" of climbing IN the window. What he SHOULD have been asked to do was climb OUT, while balancing on top of that upright suitcase carrying the metal bat. Ain't gonna fly. No way did anyone do that. No way anyone climbed UP that wall or balanced on the suitcase either, especially without knocking it over, and we all know the suitcase was moved under the window that morning (by FW?) anyway. Smit kinda "forgot" that part.

Good points.

The baseball bat has intrigued me, only because 1. It contained fibres linking it to the basement I believe and 2.It was said to have been outside in a place it wouldn't normally have been.

Whether this was an attempt to disguise the true weapon and add to the intruder did it scenario, I do not know.

 

[DeeDee249]

Good points.

The baseball bat has intrigued me, only because 1. It contained fibres linking it to the basement I believe and 2.It was said to have been outside in a place it wouldn't normally have been.

Whether this was an attempt to disguise the true weapon and add to the intruder did it scenario, I do not know.

Neither the carpet fibers nor the location of the bat point exclusively to it's being used as the weapon. The R kids played in the basement all the time, and that bat likely spent a lot of time on various basement floors. But a bat is also an "outdoor" toy (this is how I describe a LOT of my little wild grandson's toys to them), so it being found outside is no big deal either. Kids leave stuff like bats and balls outside all the time, and not necessarily in the same location they were used.
If the bat was used in the crime, the fibers could be from that, yes. Also, it could have been placed outside near the basement window or in some location that could be described as "not the usual place" to play with it. This is more likely if the bat turned out to be Patsy's. She played softball on a women's team, though she denied to LE owning a bat or knowing anything about bats or sports that use them.

 

[SunnieRN]

The point that bothers me DeeDee, is the disassociation, both the R's and Lou Smit tried to use. Why go to so much trouble.

Also, remember the conversations about who else may have been at the R's that morning, prior to LE being called? Obviously things were done by flashlight, and a seldom used flashlight may have had a battery change at some point. Is it possible it was wiped down, totally, inside and out, because a 'professional used it? I don't believe a distraught parent or brother would have thought of those details. In the first and most important thought, is the fact that it would have been totally unneeded. They certainly were not clever enough to have someone unknown write 'war and peace' in the form of a ransom note, why would they need to wipe down the family flashlight or batteries?

Rambling here, but these things have NEVER added up to me. I really enjoyed the thread at our sister site, concerning 'fixers' and asking if they may have been involved in the 'clean up' portion of the case. Orchestrating when, what and to whom the R's would speak.

 

[DeeDee249]

The point that bothers me DeeDee, is the disassociation, both the R's and Lou Smit tried to use. Why go to so much trouble.

Also, remember the conversations about who else may have been at the R's that morning, prior to LE being called? Obviously things were done by flashlight, and a seldom used flashlight may have had a battery change at some point. Is it possible it was wiped down, totally, inside and out, because a 'professional used it? I don't believe a distraught parent or brother would have thought of those details. In the first and most important thought, is the fact that it would have been totally unneeded. They certainly were not clever enough to have someone unknown write 'war and peace' in the form of a ransom note, why would they need to wipe down the family flashlight or batteries?

Rambling here, but these things have NEVER added up to me. I really enjoyed the thread at our sister site, concerning 'fixers' and asking if they may have been involved in the 'clean up' portion of the case. Orchestrating when, what and to whom the R's would speak.

I assume you mean by "professional" not a professional intruder but a professional "fixer", like a lawyer or some legal professional who may have had the wherewithal to wipe the batteries down as well.
I believe the wiping of the batteries is a BIG clue that points to the parents. I believe that even if an intruder had used the R's flashlight and wiped it down, there would be NO reason to wipe the batteries down as well. You'd EXPECT to see the parents prints on a flashlight that belonged to them, regardless of who used it as a weapon. By wiping the batteries, it gives the parents a way to distance themselves from the flashlight by claiming it wasn't theirs. During her interview, Patsy is shown a photo of an open drawer off the kitchen area. Patsy said they had a flashlight "just like" the one found near that drawer and they kept in in THAT drawer. That drawer, however, did not have the flashlight in it, nor was any other flashlight found in the home.
But they distanced themselves from the flashlight just as they distanced themselves from everything else.
To me, it is the SIMPLE things that point to the parents' involvement. The lie about the pineapple, the wiping of the batteries, getting CAUGHT in the lie about BR being awake that morning and the lies about JB walking into the house that night, and about the size 12 panties that were allegedly put in JB's drawer, yet were not found there, but inexplicably "found" still in the package 5 years later. Yet when sent on to LE (via their lawyer) with the "hope this will help" nonsense, no one confronts Patsy about how she could have been so insistent about putting the panties in JB's panty drawer to be worn yet finding them still in the package (and obviously never worn not put in JB's drawers) 5 years later. Another "pass" given to Patsy by LE.

 

[SunnieRN]

DeeDee, I agree that the parents were involved. I am just open to the possibility of someone outside the family, yes a 'fixer', not an intruder, being there in the wee hours, prior to BPD being called.

A flashlight, kept in a drawer, may have needed a battery change, after being used for quite some time that night. To me, it can suggest (or maybe not), that an unknown person, NOT an intruder, was present at one point.

I think this person was orchestrating the movements of the R's that morning also.

 

[cynic]

More info on stun guns:

A stun gun falls under the category of Electronic Control Device (ECD.)
Taser is a brand name for a particular and popular type of ECD.
What sets a Taser apart as an ECD is that it has two ways in which it can be deployed.
• Probe Mode:
In this mode the Taser fires two probes up to a distance of 35’ from a replaceable cartridge. These probes are connected to the Taser by high-voltage insulated wire. When the probes make contact with the target, the Taser transmits electrical pulses along the wires and into the body of the target, through up to two inches of clothing for anywhere from five to 30 seconds. This is a 'window of opportunity' for an arrest to be made.
• Drive Stun Mode: (direct contact)
In this mode, the user drives the device into the body of victim and the electrical pulses are transmitted between two prongs as long as contact is maintained.

All other ECD’s operate as single mode devices, that is, direct contact.

There are many myths surrounding stun guns:
Many of these myths have their origin in promotional material involving stun gun sales and the exaggerated displays sometimes seen in television and movies.
The greatest myth is that they render a victim unconscious.
Perhaps it would be best to separate what a stun gun is INTENDED to do versus what may happen in rare circumstances.

There are ONLY two things that a stun gun is DESIGNED to do:
• Produce pain.
• Incapacitate TEMPORARILY by causing involuntary muscle contractions WHILE THE WEAPON IS IN CONTACT WITH THE VICTIM.

Often the following will result of the victim falling and as a consequence of skin contact with the prongs of a stun gun or barbs from the firing of a Taser:
Falls may result in abrasions, scratches, minor lacerations, swellings and areas of redness on the skin.
Some of the barb penetrations will exhibit small circular burns; areas of skin where current has entered the body from barbs retained in clothing may also exhibit burns. These burns are likely to resolve within a few days, without complications and the need for medical intervention.

In RARE circumstances, the following may happen:
Impaired breathing and respiration.
Seizures.
Involuntary urination.
Involuntary defecation.
Fractures from severe muscle contractions.
Death, however, studies implicate other factors such as pre-existing heart disease and drug use as the primary contributor.

Normal after effects may include some or all of the following:
• Being dazed for several minutes;
• Muscle twitches;
• Loss of memory of the event;
• Unsteadiness and a spinning sensation;
• Temporary tingling;
• Weakness in the limbs;
• Local aches and pains and tissue swelling

Every single person who underwent the training found value in the exposure," Carter said. "I would never put one of my officers in danger. The vast majority of Taser injuries come from falls, which is why we have the training on a mat with people holding the person (getting Tased)."
…
In a written statement, Taser company spokesman Steve Tuttle said fewer than 100 injuries have occurred during more than 625,000 training exposures.
http://forums.officer.com/forums/showthread.php?118102-Indiana-lawsuit-stimulates-debate-on-Taser-training

A Taser stun gun is a device designed to temporarily immobilize a human target by delivering a direct-current type of shock through 2 barbed copper darts. The shock causes involuntary muscle contraction. Neuromuscular transmission is thought to be affected primarily at the level of the peripheral motor nerve, although studies have shown that stimulation of the spinal cord may occur with dart penetration as far away as the anterior torso. The muscle contraction induced by Tasers is typically tonic, with retained consciousness, no clonic movements and no postictal confusion. The manufacturer's website estimates that a single shot lasts about 5 seconds, delivers 19 pulses per second with a typical charge of 100 microcoulombs per pulse, generates an average net current of 2 milliamperes and has an estimated peak voltage of 1300 volts.
Sun H, Webster JG. Estimating neuromuscular stimulation within the human torso with Taser stimulus. Phys Med Biol2007;52:6401-11

Mangus BE, Shen LY, Helmer SD, et al. Taser and taser associated injuries: a case series. Am Surg2008;74:862-5.

The following outlines Taser deployment guidelines from a UK police dept:
Description of equipment
The Taser is a single shot weapon designed to temporarily incapacitate a subject through the use of an electrical current, which temporarily interferes with the body’s neuromuscular system.
The Taser is laser-sighted and uses cartridges attached to the end of the cartridge bay. The cartridges project a pair of barbs or darts attached to insulated wires. The maximum range of the device is currently 21 feet (6.4 metres); this being the length of the wires that carry the current and attach the barbs to the weapon. It may also be used in a “drive stun” mode.
The device delivers a sequence of high voltage pulses of very short duration through the wires.
The normal reaction of a person exposed to the discharge of the Taser is the loss of some voluntary muscle control resulting in the subject falling to the ground or ‘freezing’ on the spot. The device relies on physiological effects other than pain alone to achieve its objective, although pain is the main factor when it is used in ‘drive stun’ mode.

Effects of the Taser
In either mode the Taser delivers its electrical charge in a five-second cycle (which can be broken or repeated), but once the cycle ends or is broken, the direct incapacitation effect ceases.
In most cases this application will be sufficient to render a subject incapable of commencing or continuing an attack and is likely to result in the subject collapsing to the ground. The effect is not intended nor is it likely to render the subject into a state of unconsciousness.
Provided both barbs attach correctly with sufficient spread, the effects are likely to be instantaneous. It should, however, be remembered that no incapacitating device, is universally effective and there may be individuals on whom the Taser may not be effective at all or only partially so.
The direct incapacitating effect is only likely to last for as long as the electrical charge is being delivered. The subject may recover immediately afterwards and could continue with their previous behaviour. It is therefore important that an incapacitated subject is approached and restrained quickly and effectively.
Whilst the five second cycle can be repeated if the incapacitation effect does not appear to take effect, officers should consider other options as there may be technical or physiological reasons why the device is not working as expected on a particular individual.
…
Aftercare
Recovery from the direct effects of the Taser should be almost instantaneous, once the current has been turned off.
…
Use on persons under eighteen years of age
Applications of Taser to persons under the age of eighteen were reviewed in detail. For all three classes of use within the trial year, the Taser current was applied to twenty-four subjects under eighteen years old. Thirteen were exposed to the fired probes only, seven to drive-stun application only, and four subjected to both. None of the incidents resulted in adverse medical outcomes attributable to the primary effects of the Taser. The secondary injuries were barb puncture wounds or drive-stun burn marks at the site of probe contact. There were no reported instances of head injury due to Taser-induced falls. In two cases, the top probe struck the neck.
http://www.westmercia.police.uk/assets/_files/documents/mar_10/wmp__1267715481_ACPO_Policy_&_Operational_Use_.pdf

The following is from an EMS protocol review:
Subject: Taser Treatment
Section 1 - Purpose
It is the intent of this policy to outline and define the steps that are necessary for all Personnel to carry out when they encounter a patient that has been subdued with a TASER. Typically it is not the “TASER” event itself that leads to the need for transport to the hospital, rather the events that have led up to the individual being tased, such as “EXCITED DELIRIUM”.
….
Section 3 - Responsibility
All Fire-Rescue Personnel will treat and transport any patient from whom Fire-Rescue has been requested. The signs and symptoms that the patient is exhibiting, as well as possible occult injuries that may have occurred while the individual was being subdued, will guide this treatment. At minimum all “TASER” patients will receive the following:
a. A complete physical examination (including glucose).
b. Oxygen as needed.
c. Cardiac Monitor.
d. C-Spine precautions, unless a cervical spine injury can be definitively ruled out.
e. Intra-venous line as needed
In the event that a patient resists, these actions will be carried out with the safety of the crew in mind. A police officer will be required to accompany the patient in the rescue during transport.
Section 4 - Procedure
A. Establish that the scene has been secured and determine what events have led up to the individual being subdued with a TASER.
B. Determine how many 5-second cycles of energy that the individual has been exposed to and document this in the patient care report.
C. In the majority of TASER incidents it will not be possible for EMS personnel to determine the extent of injuries that the patient has sustained. While it is unlikely that the Taser itself will have caused an injury, there is a high likelihood of an occult injury secondary to the event. Examples of this would be fall injuries as a result of incapacitation; pathological fractures secondary to muscle contraction and impending demise secondary to a state of excited delirium.
D. The following is a systematic six step approach to responding to and evaluating patients who have been tased:
1. Find out what happened before the patient was tased – this will provide you with information regarding the patient’s mental status prior to being tased and potential for any future decompensation. Consider any report of extreme behavior prior to the tasing as significant, regardless of the patient’s current presentation.
2. Approach the patient with caution – The Taser can dramatically change a patient’s outward presentation. Assume that any patient who has been tased is violent and dangerous.
3. Complete a thorough physical exam and history - the exam should include a basic neurological exam, skin signs, pupil assessment, a complete set of vital signs and a close look for traumatic injuries. All tased patients are fall patients until proven otherwise.
4. It is not uncommon to find minor first-degree burns located between the Taser probes. Anything that looks worse than minor sunburn should be considered abnormal. Incontinence should be considered abnormal. Chest pain, shortness of breath, vomiting and headaches should all be treated according to the appropriate medical treatment protocol.
5. Consider the potential for sudden unexpected death syndrome – The vast majority of patients that have died in police custody have shown signs of excited delirium.
Excited Delirium - is a state in which a person is in a psychotic and extremely agitated state. Mentally the subject is unable to focus and process any rational thought or focus his/her attention to any one thing. Physically the organs within the subject are functioning at such an excited rate that they begin to shut down. These two factors occurring at the same time cause a person to act erratically enough that they become a danger to themselves and to the public. This is typically where law enforcement comes into contact with the person.
Whitehead, Steve, NREMT-P, After Shock, A Rational Response to Taser Strikes, JEMS, May 20-05, Vol 30, No. 5 Glendale Police Department, Excited Delirium, November 2003. DGG Taser, X-26 Taser Specifications, 2005.


Evidence against the use of a stun gun / ECD in the Ramsey case:

• All of these devices are LOUD.
It’s true that the sound decreases while in direct contact with the victim, it’s nevertheless noisy. If the device looses contact with the victim while it is in operation, or is switched on before being pressed into the victim, the sound increases dramatically.
If you believe that Patsy could discern the sound of her son urinating in the washroom a floor below, I don’t imagine she would have much difficulty hearing a stun gun (or JonBenet screaming for that matter.)
TRIP DEMUTH: And you said you would think you would hear Burke if he got up and went down to the kitchen and fixed something. Has he ever gotten up in the night and gone down into the kitchen?
PATSY RAMSEY: I hear him get up and go to the bathroom. I can hear him urinating in the bathroom.
Patsy Ramsey interview, June 23-25, 1998

• Applying the stun gun would cause JonBenet to yell and scream creating even more noise to the shatter the silence of a cold December night. And to what end? As has been noted, she would not have been rendered unconscious. For those who feel the answer lies in the fact that duct may have silenced her, this is not true. The evidence shows that the duct tape was applied to an unconscious JonBenet.

• The autopsy report does not document any burns to JonBenet’s body, the marks that are purported to be from a stun gun are listed as abrasions.

• Lou Smit made it the work of his final years to source a stun gun with a prong span that matched the marks on JonBenet but was unable to do so.

This did not prevent Lou from spreading his stun gun misinformation which unfortunately persists to this very day.
Lou Smit: The stun gun that we came up with is this one and it’s the Air Taser stun gun. If a stun gun is used on a little girl I'm sure it would have knocked her flat and it would have allowed the killer to take her from her bed without her struggling
Court TV, The Elite, JonBenet “A Second Look,” November 7, 2002

Lou continued to make statements like the above despite all the information which refutes it including this from Steve Tuttle of Taser International who was completely bewildered by the assertion.
"I am bewildered. I don't know what to think about the theory," Tuttle said. "It defies the logic of what the weapon does."
…

Steve Tuttle: 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?
Steve Tuttle: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?
Steve Tuttle: None whatsoever. There are 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.
MSNBC Interview

 

[SunnieRN]

Brilliant Cynic!!

 

[DeeDee249]

Brilliant Cynic!!

Once again, Cynic steps up to the plate with an excellent and scientific explanation. Thanks!

 

[Linda7NJ]

I assume you mean by "professional" not a professional intruder but a professional "fixer", like a lawyer or some legal professional who may have had the wherewithal to wipe the batteries down as well.
I believe the wiping of the batteries is a BIG clue that points to the parents. I believe that even if an intruder had used the R's flashlight and wiped it down, there would be NO reason to wipe the batteries down as well. You'd EXPECT to see the parents prints on a flashlight that belonged to them, regardless of who used it as a weapon. By wiping the batteries, it gives the parents a way to distance themselves from the flashlight by claiming it wasn't theirs. During her interview, Patsy is shown a photo of an open drawer off the kitchen area. Patsy said they had a flashlight "just like" the one found near that drawer and they kept in in THAT drawer. That drawer, however, did not have the flashlight in it, nor was any other flashlight found in the home.
But they distanced themselves from the flashlight just as they distanced themselves from everything else.
To me, it is the SIMPLE things that point to the parents' involvement. The lie about the pineapple, the wiping of the batteries, getting CAUGHT in the lie about BR being awake that morning and the lies about JB walking into the house that night, and about the size 12 panties that were allegedly put in JB's drawer, yet were not found there, but inexplicably "found" still in the package 5 years later. Yet when sent on to LE (via their lawyer) with the "hope this will help" nonsense, no one confronts Patsy about how she could have been so insistent about putting the panties in JB's panty drawer to be worn yet finding them still in the package (and obviously never worn not put in JB's drawers) 5 years later. Another "pass" given to Patsy by LE.

I agree with everything you wrote with the exception of the wiped batteries. I propose an experiment that I did a number of years ago. I grabbed mine and my hubby's car flashlights... Mag lights to be exact and asked a friend to lift the prints off the batteries. Friend was unable to. We never wiped the batteries.