Simple question...

[DeeDee249]

This discussion brings us back to the point that it could be a stun gun.

http://extras.denverpost.com/news/jon161.htm
This article states the only way to know for sure now is to exhume the body.

It would leave a mark that can resemble a burn..

But it is very possible. Then why would anyone in the family use a stun gun on her.

Now Im way off the entire subject of this thread....

Yes, it certainly COULD be a stun gun. Why would anyone in the family use a stun gun on JB? Well, why would they strangle her with a garrote, why molest her, why ANYTHING? It COULD have been a stun gun and it could have been a family member. There was a video manual for a stun gun found in the home. NO stun gun, just the video. But a stun gun is small. Could have easily been removed from the home, possibly along with other incriminating items like the cord or tape or clothing. NONE of these items are so large that they wouldn't have fit in an overnight bag (The Rs left that night wearing the same clothing - a big NO-NO from an LE perspective, and went to stay with friends for an extended period). Then we also have JR asking Patsy's sister to bring his golf bag, an odd request for a Colorado December right after your daughter is murdered.
Exhumation WOULD have told us the answer. But JR refused the request and the DA refused to get a warrant, which would have overridden parental wishes. So no one in the family REALLY wanted to know what those marks were, perhaps because they already knew....
It's probably too late now, after 14 years buried in Georgia's climate.

 

[otg]

The coroner did say the drawing on her palm was red ink. I don't think he'd have omitted any burns he saw. BUT the mark on her cheek and the similar marks on her back DO look like burns to me, at least in online photos. I can't believe the coroner would not have noted if they were burns. Cigarette burns or burns of ANY kind on a murdered child would be certainly something to note. The cheek burn would be a likely location for the curling iron burn, but NOT her back. That would have to be much more sinister. I simply cannot see Patsy primping up JB for a photo shoot after arriving home at 10 PM on Christmas night after a full day of activity and stopping off at several homes on the way back. Then, with lots of last-minute details for the trip early the next day...no way she was having a photo shoot that night. The curling iron idea doesn't fit, IMO.
If there was ONE thing I'd like to know for sure it is exactly what those marks are and how did they get there. That might be a key to the crime all by itself (especially if it is from a stun gun).

I, too, have wondered about the circular mark under JB's ear. I really don't have an explanation for it, but here are my thoughts (FWIW):

The coroner referred to it as an abrasion. We all think of an abrasion as being something caused by rubbing another object against the skin. I'm not sure if the word "abrasion" always means the same thing in the medical world. IOW, could it mean simply an area of note that will be defined later after further testing, much like "dermatitis" or "dermatosis" simply refer to an area of inflammation or redness on the skin, without any defining cause?

What strikes me about the size and the shape of the mark is that it is exactly the size and shape of a deliberate cigarette burn (deliberate being indicated by the fact that it is perfectly round and therefore caused by the end -- not be being brushed up against accidentally). As an example, take a look at the photo here (WARNING: GRAPHIC IMAGES) and notice the shape and the size (~1 cm, or ~3/8" as noted in the JBR AR).

There are many more images available if you care to search, but I won't bother posting because they are all about the same (and frankly pretty gross). What is different though is the color of the mark on JonBenet's cheek. It is a deep, dark brown -- almost black. What I don't know is whether the color of something like a cigarette burn, or the burn from some other object for that matter, would be different if it was made on living tissue as opposed to non-living tissue. Without blood flow, there would be no blistering, no redness, no swelling?

::::::: DeeDee? Sunny? Someone help me here -- I'm getting in over my head. ::::::::

Please don't misconstrue what I am saying here. I am not suggesting that John, or Patsy, or Burke would have ever deliberately burned JonBenet's face with a cigarette. In fact, I would argue with certainty that that is not the case. I am simply pointing out the similarities between the types of marks. If anything, in fact, would tend to make me think it was an intruder who did this, it would be that one single mark on the side of her cheek if I knew that it was caused deliberately, and not from something associated with the other marks that are the result of bodily reactions to the strangulation.

I do feel that surely there was testing done to determine the exact cause of that mark or at least the type of injury it was (and I say that with sincere hope), and that the results are one of those things of which the public is not aware.
.

 

[madeleine]

I always thought that the mark looks like a cigarette burn (NOT a stun gunmark).
Maybe that's why the cops asked so many questions re the cigar packs found down there? (98 interviews IIRC?)

I do feel that surely there was testing done to determine the exact cause of that mark or at least the type of injury it was

Nope,as far as I know they didn't,the body was released way too soon. :furious:

 

[SunnieRN]

I looked at a photo the other day of these "burns". They seem to have an x or a cross in the middle of them. Whatever made these had something in the middle that left a "brand". There is more to them than just a circular burn. I will see if I can find the photo that showed this the best and post a link. Also, if a curling iron had done this, I don't see how it could have been so "circular". The end of a curling iron is protected and just a touch by the hot part wouldn't leave such a perfect circle, if you get my meaning.

I agree Beck. This old post from Websleuths seems to have a LOT of good information in it. Hopefully it will help lay to rest the stun gun theory:

Jayelles
07-13-2006, 05:32 AM
Ramsey supporters claim that a stungun was used on JonBenet. This is not a fact - far from it, the claim is far from proved as I will demonstrate. One asks - "if the claim is weak, why push it so hard? " The answer to that is simple. There is no proof that the ramseys owned a stungun. True they had a video, apparently in Spanish which *might* be an instructional video on the use of stunguns or it might have been a promotional video - although one might ask why it would be in Spanish if that were the case. I have personally got an instructional video for a sewing machine which is in Japanese! The bottom line is - there is little credible information about that video.

However, many people agree that if it could be proved that a stungun was used, then it would point AWAY from the Ramseys as perps. This is why I believe the hard core of Ramsey supporters push the stungn theory as though it were a case fact.

Stungun Experts - for and against - Stratbucker
*The* leading expert on stunguns is without doubt Dr Robert Stratbucker who has been studying and documenting their use since the 1980s. He is on record as saying that in his expert opinions, the marks on JonBenet were NOT made by a stungun.

Dr Stratbucker has performed extensive stungun experiments on not only pigs, but on human volunteers photographing the marks minutes, hours and (in one case) days after the stunning. In most cases, the marks disappeared very quickly indeed.

Ramsey expert - Doberson
Team Ramsey hired their own expert - one Dr Michael Doberson who performed an experiment on an anaethsetised pig and declared that they matched the marks on JonBenet. Most of us who have seen the photographs disagree with him. The marks on the pig were little pink marks (which looked like little burns) which were vaguely rectangular in shape - i.e. the same shape as the stungun prod. The twin marks were also exactly the same distance apart as the stungun which was used in the experiment.

Gerald Boggs
Ramsey supporters compare JonBent's injuries to one Gerald Boggs who was known to have been stungunned before he was murdered. There are autopsy photos of Gerald Boggs which are used to compare the marks with JonBenet. What the Ramsey Supporters don't tell you is that the photo of Gerald Boggs was taken 6 months after his death - when he was exhumed. He was exhumed because the coroner who performed his autopsy FAILED to recognise the marks as stungun marks. His body was exhumed to perform further tests as proof of stungun use would help to solve the case. In the original autopsy photos, the marks are not similar to the marks on Jonbenet. They are however, similar to the marks on the stungunned pig! (i.e. little pink marks resembling burns)

Michael Doberson fails to recognise genuine stungun marks!
Also of interest, is the name of the coroner who FAILED to recognise the stungun marks during the original autopsy .... His name was Dr Michael Doberson! (i.e. the Ramsey stungun "expert").

Having stunned a pig, Dr Doberson went on record as saying that he believed the marks on JonBenet were made by a stungun. This came as a great surprise to case followers because Dr Doberson was already on record as saying that "you can't really tell from a photograph". Interesting eh?

Dr Werner Spitz - says no stungun
Another forensic expert, Dr Werner Spitz is also on record as saying that the marks on JonBenet weren't made by a stungun. His explanation is simple - "Stungun marks don't look like that".

Then we have the problem of the distance btween the marks. In the case of the pigs, the pairs of marks matched exactly in distance with the prods on the stungun. Lou Smit and RST not only claimed that JonBenet was tortured with a stungun, they even claim to know the brand of stungun - a Taser. Unfortunately for them, Taser don't make a stungun which matches the distance of the marks on JonBenet - despite what the RST.

Amateur analyses of the marks
Some years ago, Cutter, a former member of Websleuths, performed an experiment with the images of the pig and JonBenet and posted that they didn't match in distance. His work is here:-

http://gemart.8m.com/ramsey/stungun.html

I was sceptical and I set out to find flaws in Cutter's analysis. Using the metal rulers as a benchmark, I performed my own analysis and was gobsmacked to find that my findings agreed with Cutter's. There was no doubt - the marks on JonBenet did NOT match the marks on the pig and they did NOT match the stungun which the RST claimed was used.

jameson used fraudulent images
More worryingly, I discovered that without doubt, the image which jameson245 displays on her website showing the "match" between the pig marks and the marks on JonBenet had without doubt been doctored to make it a match., In reality, the marks on JonBenet were much smaller and closer together. Significantly, this image had the rulers cropped out! jameson claimed that someone else was responsible for the image, but it now appears to have been removed (perhaps in response to my repeatedly posting the proof that it was fake?).

RST arguments to explain weaknesses of stungun theory
Over the years, the RST have come up with various arguments to explain the weaknesses in the stungun theory. Such as

RST ARGUMENT "She moved when she was being stunned so her skin stretched".

(This is to explain why the marks do not match any known stungun in distance between prods.)

My response:- this is in direct contradiction to their explanation for there only being one "stungun" mark on her face. The perfect lipprint on the duct tape suggested she was dead or unconscious when it was applied. Whty stungun a dead or unconscious victim?

RST ARGUMENT "The stungun could have been modified"

My response:- unlikely if you've ever seen a stungun. The prods are short and set into a rigid casing which could be made of some kind of hard muoldable man-made material.

The stungun and the duct tape
Another problem with the stungun theory is the fact that there is only one PAIR of marks on JonBenet's body. The mark on her face is just that - one mark. One pair of marks does not make a "pattern". So the RST have tried to come up with explanations as to why there was only one mark on the face:-

RST ARGUMENT "the second prod landed on the tape across her mouth"

There are a few problems with this:-

1) There is a possibility (I am not claiming this as a fact) that if one prod had landed on the duct tape, that it would have prevented the device from working. Duct tape has insulating qualities bt I don't know if they are sufficiently insulating.

2) Perfect lip imprints on the duct tape suggest that she was already dead or unconscious when it was applied. Why stungun a dead or unconscious child?


RST ARGUMENT :- jameson has claimed that a white mark on her face in one of the photos is actually gum from the back of the duct tape and that this was caused by the second prod of the stungun MELTING the gum on the back onto JonBenet's face.

I admit I was interested by this one - especially as I could not get a satisfactory asnwer to me question about whether the duct tape would insulate against a stungun or not. Alas, I see several problems with it too:-

1) If this was the case - why didn't Lou Smit shout it from the rooftops as it would surely be strong support of his stungun theory?

2) The duct tape wasn't white!


"You can't tell from a photograph!"
RST ARGUMENT - Photographic evidence of stungun marks has been used (and accepted) before in a case involving none other than Dr Robert Stratbucker!

Why would experts say that "you can't tell from a photograph" if photographs of stungun marks have been acceptable in court before?

One pair of marks does not constitute "a pattern"
This had me stumped for while but yesterday, I read a post which helped to clear this up. The case in question was that of a man called Jackson for the murder of Karen Styles. Karen was stungunned REPEATEDLY by Jackson and the court both presented and accepted phtographs of her injuries as proof that a stungun had been used.

Note the word REPEATEDLY.

Think Pastry
Imagine you are looking at lovely pie. The pastry crust is covered in patterns of little holes clustered in straight lines of 5 little holes. It wouldn't take an expert to conclude that the holes had been made by someone stabbing the pastry with a fork! However, if you were shown a photo of pasty with one little hole - could you say from that photo that a fork had been used?

That is the difference between the Ramsey case and the Jackson case. There are no REPEATED pairs of marks - just one .... and a half.

RST ARGUMENT "There were TWO pairs of marks on JonBenet's body - where are you getting your case information from?"

This is a very interesting one. On a thread yesterday, RST Margoo was sharp about this - she insisted that there were TWO PAIRS of marks on JonBenet's body. Mike agreed with her and said this was "as per the autopsy report". A poster asked Margoo to provide a source for her statement that there were two PAIRS of marks. And this went unanswered - twice. A third request for clarification resulted in the thread being locked.

So why won't the RST provide a source for their being TWO PAIRS of marks on JonBenet's body "as per the autopsy report"?

Where is the second cheek mark on the autopsy report?
Simple - it doesn't exist. Margoo is wrong and Mikie is wrong. The autopsy report quite clearly describes:-



III. Abrasion of right cheek

IV. Abrasion/contusion, posterior right shoulder

V. Abrasions of left lower back and posterior left lower leg

And in more detail:-

The cheek abrasion (singular):-

Located just below the right ear at the
right angle of the mandible, 1.5 inches below the right external
auditory canal is a 3/8 x 1/4 inch area of rust colored abrasion. In
the lateral aspect of the left lower eyelid on the inner conjunctival
surface is a 1mminmaximum dimension petechial hemorrhage. Very fine,
less than 1mm petechial hemorrhages are present on the skin of the
upper eyelids bilaterally as well as on the lateral left cheek. On
everting the left upper eyelid there are much smaller, less than 1mm
petechial hemorrhages located on the conjuctival surface. Possible
petechial hemorrhages located on the conjunctival surfaces of the
right upper and lower eyelids, but livor mortis on this side of the
face makes definite identification difficult.
The back abrasions (twin marks)
On the left lateral aspect of the lower back,
approximately sixteen and one-quarter inches and seventeen and
one-half inches below the level of the top of the head are two
dried rust colored to slightly purple abrasions. The more
superior of the two measures one-eighth by one-sixteenth of an
inch and the more inferior measures three-sixteenths by one-eighth
of an inch. http://www.cnn.com/US/9703/ramsey.case/final.autopsy.html

The leg abrasions are described as scatches and have not been claimed as stungun marks by any expert - Ramsey or otherwise.

It is therefore very unclear what it is that Margoo and Mikie are calling the second part of the pair on JonBenet's cheek.


RST - dishonesty does not pay
It is a pity that the RST chose not to provide their source for there being TWO PAIRS of marks. I'd like very much to have heard Margoo answer that on one of the two visits she made back to the thread before it was prematurely locked.

Not answering.... locking threads without answering an important questions about evidence ... not good.

It is a pity that in supporting the Ramseys, some people feel it necessary to lie about the evidence. It does nothing positive for the Ramseys' defence.

 

[DeeDee249]

otg, I have nothing to add to what you have already posted. Burning a dead body with a cigarette or stun gun would very likely not produce the same effect as on a living person. I can see no good reason to add stun gun injuries postmortem to JB's body- although some might argue that it would lend even more credence to IDI, and that may be a reason for adding that as staging.

All the more reason for there to have been a definitive answer to the question of what made those marks! Even if the coroner couldn't determine WHAT made them, he certainly should have been able to determine if they were burns or were made by something pressing into her.
I have seen the postmortem photos of Mr Boggs and I actually DO think there is some similarity to the marks on JB. Of course, as you pointed out, his photos were taken after he was dead 6 months, and there has to be some deterioration in his soft tissue and the appearance of the marks.

 

[MurriFlower]

I, too, have wondered about the circular mark under JB's ear. I really don't have an explanation for it, but here are my thoughts (FWIW):

The coroner referred to it as an abrasion. We all think of an abrasion as being something caused by rubbing another object against the skin. I'm not sure if the word "abrasion" always means the same thing in the medical world. IOW, could it mean simply an area of note that will be defined later after further testing, much like "dermatitis" or "dermatosis" simply refer to an area of inflammation or redness on the skin, without any defining cause?

What strikes me about the size and the shape of the mark is that it is exactly the size and shape of a deliberate cigarette burn (deliberate being indicated by the fact that it is perfectly round and therefore caused by the end -- not be being brushed up against accidentally). As an example, take a look at the photo here (WARNING: GRAPHIC IMAGES) and notice the shape and the size (~1 cm, or ~3/8" as noted in the JBR AR).

There are many more images available if you care to search, but I won't bother posting because they are all about the same (and frankly pretty gross). What is different though is the color of the mark on JonBenet's cheek. It is a deep, dark brown -- almost black. What I don't know is whether the color of something like a cigarette burn, or the burn from some other object for that matter, would be different if it was made on living tissue as opposed to non-living tissue. Without blood flow, there would be no blistering, no redness, no swelling?

::::::: DeeDee? Sunny? Someone help me here -- I'm getting in over my head. ::::::::

Please don't misconstrue what I am saying here. I am not suggesting that John, or Patsy, or Burke would have ever deliberately burned JonBenet's face with a cigarette. In fact, I would argue with certainty that that is not the case. I am simply pointing out the similarities between the types of marks. If anything, in fact, would tend to make me think it was an intruder who did this, it would be that one single mark on the side of her cheek if I knew that it was caused deliberately, and not from something associated with the other marks that are the result of bodily reactions to the strangulation.

I do feel that surely there was testing done to determine the exact cause of that mark or at least the type of injury it was (and I say that with sincere hope), and that the results are one of those things of which the public is not aware.
.

Here's one I enlarged earlier:

Looks like a widdle face to me!!

 

[MurriFlower]

Thank you, because this page also contains the photo of a victim strangled with a scarf indicating the EXACT type of "large red triangular abrasion" that JB had on her throat. As I had said, it appears to be the result of pooling blood under the point of deepest pressure (NOT always where the knot is or where the killer is pulling the ligature from). This is NOT an abrasion like a scratch, but the skin develops a thin, papery texture postmortem.

Here's one I enlarged earlier

Looks like where a gun muzzle was pushed into her throat to me.

 

[MurriFlower]

I always thought that the mark looks like a cigarette burn (NOT a stun gunmark).
Maybe that's why the cops asked so many questions re the cigar packs found down there? (98 interviews IIRC?)

Nope,as far as I know they didn't,the body was released way too soon. :furious:

Here's the mark again,

maybe it looksa bit like this??

 

[Toltec]

Here's the mark again,

maybe it looksa bit like this??

I studied that mark one time and I swear I saw Patsy's face.

 

[txsvicki]

Couldn't the coroner who did the autopsy tell if the marks were third degree burns or not? Almost black abrasions would be charring of the skin if they're burns. Hopefully so many years have passed that some new experts can look at photos and tell if they are burns, electrical burns, or if the skin was broken due to an abrasion. There's no spots of blood mentioned due to breaking the skin though. Something made the skin deep brown almost black, and I don't see how pressure from a button would do that without bruising or breaking the skin. IMO, it's some type of deep burn.

 

[MurriFlower]

I studied that mark one time and I swear I saw Patsy's face.

:biglaugh::jester::biglaugh:

 

[Peepers]

Couldn't the coroner who did the autopsy tell if the marks were third degree burns or not? Almost black abrasions would be charring of the skin if they're burns. Hopefully so many years have passed that some new experts can look at photos and tell if they are burns, electrical burns, or if the skin was broken due to an abrasion. There's no spots of blood mentioned due to breaking the skin though. Something made the skin deep brown almost black, and I don't see how pressure from a button would do that without bruising or breaking the skin. IMO, it's some type of deep burn.

Yeah you would think if the coroner thought it was a burn he could have said, "appears that it may be a burn" or something to that effect. Instead, I think he did actually call them unidentified abrasions.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Couldn't the coroner who did the autopsy tell if the marks were third degree burns or not? Almost black abrasions would be charring of the skin if they're burns. Hopefully so many years have passed that some new experts can look at photos and tell if they are burns, electrical burns, or if the skin was broken due to an abrasion. There's no spots of blood mentioned due to breaking the skin though. Something made the skin deep brown almost black, and I don't see how pressure from a button would do that without bruising or breaking the skin. IMO, it's some type of deep burn.

The photos were not intended for public release. That leads to two problems.

First are these photos authentic and undoctored? How do you know? Since the source for these photos is the tabloids, I am very skeptical. Heck Globe is reporting that JBR's killer has been identified, right? What a grossly misleading headline that does a disservice to people in the stores who sincerely wish it were true.

Second, if the photos are legit then probably the BPD knows more about these injuries than they're telling. That was the whole idea behind preventing the photos release in the first place, so they could question suspects more effectively. Only the real killer would know certain details.

 

[MurriFlower]

The photos were not intended for public release. That leads to two problems.

First are these photos authentic and undoctored? How do you know? Since the source for these photos is the tabloids, I am very skeptical. Heck Globe is reporting that JBR's killer has been identified, right? What a grossly misleading headline that does a disservice to people in the stores who sincerely wish it were true.

Second, if the photos are legit then probably the BPD knows more about these injuries than they're telling. That was the whole idea behind preventing the photos release in the first place, so they could question suspects more effectively. Only the real killer would know certain details.

Maybe she just fell off her new bike that morning?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Maybe she just fell off her new bike that morning?

Nah. Too circular. Not too many things leave a circle like that.

 

[MurriFlower]

Nah. Too circular. Not too many things leave a circle like that.

What do you think?

 

[txsvicki]

Oops, sorry. It's too late for me to edit. Was going by posts above that called the abrasion very dark almost black, but after reading the autopsy report again I see that it was called a rust color abrasion. Every time I try to really think and read about this murder I just end up more confused.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

What do you think?

Looks like a hemorrhage from a burst vessel from the inside because the skin doesn't seem very disrupted like it would be from a burn or a poke from the broken paintbrush.

It appears to be another subdural hemorrhage like the big one next to the ligature.

 

[MurriFlower]

Looks like a hemorrhage from a burst vessel from the inside because the skin doesn't seem very disrupted like it would be from a burn or a poke from the broken paintbrush.

It appears to be another subdural hemorrhage like the big one next to the ligature.

It appears to have more 'texture' than that. Perhaps something pressed hard into her skin and left there until after some time she had died?

 

[joeskidbeck]

Does anyone else think this could have been caused by pressure from something like a screw? I don't know what they're called elsewhere, but we call them "Phillips head" screws. It looks like one could have been pushed into her skin or she may have been lying on one when the pressure from strangulation was applied. I know I'm seeing this x or cross pattern and that's what made me think of the screw.