Stungun marks

[LovelyPigeon]

Hand held? what's that? All the AirTasers I've ever seen or heard of are held in the hand when used. Is there some kind of stationary stun gun made by AirTaser?

The original AirTasers were designed to shoot a pair of darts, with wires attached, from the stun gun. The AirTaser could also be used without the attached darts & wires, just like a conventional stun-gun.

The marks made on JonBenét weren't made by dart tips. When Doberson experimented with the AirTaser (supplied by the company for his use), he didn't used the dart tips but applied the probes directly to the skin. He was able to replicate marks that were nearly identical to those on JonBenét, and very similar to the distance apart the pairs of marks appeared.

Smit said there may be another stun gun model that is configured similarly to that AirTaser that could also make marks of the shape, size, and distance apart. He didn't find another model during his search, but he didn't rule out that there might be such a stun gun out there.

Doberson is a qualified forensic pathologist. He will have no difficulty qualifying for testimony about his experimentation with stun guns on flesh if the ocassion ever presents itself. He rendered an opinion about the marks early on in the case, before he had fully researched them. After examination of the autopsy photos, comparison to marks on other bodies made by stun guns, and his own experimental research, he has concluded differently. That's how science works.

 

[Jayelles]

Ted Bundy was tried in the 80's and was convicted on photo evidence of teeth marks.

I don't think we are comparing like with like. Teeth marks are distinctive and most people would recognise them as such.

Lovelypigeon discusses 'two pairs' of marks on JBR, yet we have only seen one 'pair'. The other similar mark is on its own and not seemingly part of a pair. One pair does not make a pattern.

 

[LovelyPigeon]

Doberson and Smit compared 2 pairs of marks.

One pair is on JonBenét's back and each mark of the pair looks very similar to the other mark.

The other pair of marks are on the right side of JonBenét's face. One of the marks is much larger than the other.

The stun gun possibility first occurred to Smit when he was reviewing autopsy photos. Smit describes this in one of the documentaries. He had the photo of the marks on her back and the marks on her face side by side on his computer screen. Smit said it suddenly jumped out at him (not his exact words, I'm not quoting) that the marks were pairs, were similar in distance apart, and could be marks made by a stun gun.

 

[BlueCrab]

I don't think we are comparing like with like. Teeth marks are distinctive and most people would recognise them as such.

Lovelypigeon discusses 'two pairs' of marks on JBR, yet we have only seen one 'pair'. The other similar mark is on its own and not seemingly part of a pair. One pair does not make a pattern.

There are actually THREE sets of twin marks on JonBenet that appear to be stun gun injuries, although the set on her back is the clearest to see, measure, and analyze from the autopsy pictures:

1. One set is on the right side of her face. This injury is almost identical to the ugly stun gun injury on the face of Gerald Boggs, who was exhumed and the wound scientifically proved to be a stun gun injury.

2. Another set is on the left side of her lower back. The twin rectangular marks are consistent with the shape, size, and distant apart as a the burn marks caused by a stun gun. Meyer describes it "two dried rust colored to slightly purple abrasions".

3. The third set is on the lower left leg near the back of the ankle. Meyer describes it as "two small scratch-like abrasions which are dried and rust colored".

After his autopsy report was released John Meyer re-evaluated the marks on JonBenet and stated they are consistent with stun gun injuries.

Just my opinion.

BlueCrab

 

[Ivy]

BC...One zap with a stun gun would have disabled JonBenet. Why would the intruder zap her twice more?

 

[LovelyPigeon]

BlueCrab. I don't know of anyone involved with the Ramsey case who thinks the marks on the back of her leg is related to a stun gun.

 

[LovelyPigeon]

Ivy, the stun only lasts for minutes. I think those who believe she was disabled by a stun gun think she was zapped once while in bed, then again after she was moved into the basement and sexually assaulted.

 

[Maxi]

I know I've asked this before, but I've forgotten what the source is for Meyer's statement that the marks were consistent with those made by a stun gun.

I'm going to try to post pics of the tooth mark on my daughter's thigh. Her doc didn't think they looked like teeth marks, either, but she and the security guard saw the guy bite her.

Ok, here's a link to the pic, anyway.

http://mywebpage.netscape.com/maxiyorkie/bite5.jpg

 

[Barbara]

The type of stun gun that is consistent with the shape and size of the pairs of marks on JonBenét's body is one that had to be registered at sale in and before 1996. That makes it very unlikely to be connected with a Ramsey. Sales of that particular model stun gun, an AirTaser, were checked way back when.

There is at least one qualified expert who is willing to testify under oath that the 2 pairs of marks on JonBenét are consistent with marks left by stun guns. He has done research and has testified in at least one trial about marks on a body that were created by stun gun. He is Dr Micheal Doberson and was consulted by the BPD in the JBR case.

Exhuming a body is not necessary to establish legal, expert testimony in a trial. Since JonBenét's death, there have been precedents set in American courts to identify marks on corpses as created by stun guns, using only photographic evidence rather than tissue evidence or exhuming bodies.

If a suspect with access or possesion of a stun gun is ever arrested for JonBenét's death there will be no question that expert testimony is available to establish the marks on her body were created by stun gun. Will there be expert testimony to the contrary? That is a *wait and see*.

Ah, once again, semantics. Consistent with (like with other evidence) is NOT conclusive. I remember posters saying the same thing when the fibers from the crime scene were "consistent" with Patsy's clothing. It was dismissed for the use of the word consistent by the RST..and.. The stun gun spoken of does NOT have to be registered.

Double standard anyone????

"At least one qualified expert"..... Can you name any other beside Dr. Doberson? Dr. Lee was consulted by the BPD also, gave his opinion that it was not a DNA case but that was ignored, yet Dr. Doberson is praised because he consulted with the BPD.

Double standard anyone?????

Exhuming the body may not be necessary to establish legal, expert testimony, but it sure does make that a lot more accurate, don't you think? After all, there will always be many "experts" to counteract one another and without exhumation...................it can never be proven. And yes, there are more experts who will testify that they are not stun gun marks.

" If a suspect with access or possesion of a stun gun is ever arrested for JonBenét's death ..."

If a suspect who is not a Ramsey is arrested for JBR's death because of a stun gun, I personally would advocate for him as hard if not harder than you did for David Westerfield.

 

[Ivy]

Yikes, Maxi! The bite marks on your daughter's leg look as if she was bitten by a vampire! I take it that even though the doctor didn't think the marks resembled bite marks, he didn't suggest the marks were from a stun gun.

The second in this pair of photos shows what stun gun marks really look like:

http://gemart.8m.com/ramsey/boggspics.jpg

The photos are from The Ramsey Stun Gun Myth website:

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

 

[LovelyPigeon]

I'll try to explain what would be necessary to bring stun gun evidence against anyone charged for JonBenét's death.

First, there would have to be an actual stun gun connected to the person charged. Then, that stun gun would have to be compared to the marks on the autopsy photos. That particular stun gun would have to be judged, by an expert, capable of making those particular marks.

If you research some other cases where stun guns were used on victims you will see that the procedure in court as evidence is consistent.

Doberson and Smit set out to determine if a stun gun could have made those pairs of marks on JonBenét's body. The experimentation and research convinced them that a stun gun most likely did make the pairs of marks. Without the actual stun gun that made the marks, "consistent with" a particular type of stun gun is as good as it can get.

Prior to 1996, the AirTaser stun gun had to be registered at sale. I think we can agree that any weapon used on JonBenét had to be in existence by 1996. Registration for purchase of an AirTaser is no longer the case, but in 1997 it was worthwhile for Smit to check out registered owners. Neither the Ramseys or anyone else connected to the case apparently showed up on any registration records.

Accuracy or not, exhumation is not necessary to establish in court that a stun gun was used on a victim, using only autopsy photographs (or even, in Karen Styles' case, a crime scene photograph). I don't know what other pathologists with expertise in stun gun injuries might be called to a trial, or who might be called by a defense. I do know that precedence has been set in the American justice system to identify marks in court without exhumation, without tissue samples, and without even close-up autopsy-quality photographs.

Like you, I will also advocate an excellent, thorough defense for anyone arrested for JonBenét's death. I also think that the male DNA on JonBenét's panties will be the smoking gun in any prosecution case.

 

[Ivy]

Dr. Cyril Wecht: "The stun gun theory has been around for some time. I know for a fact that this was submitted to various experts in stun guns and manufacturers, criminalists, forensic pathologists, law enforcement people. They all rejected it."

"I also know for a fact that Mr. Smit, pursuant to his own request, presented this to one of the top-flight forensic scientists, who along with another top-flight forensic scientist of a different subspecialty, rejected it."

(Court TV - The Crier Report - 05/01/01)

 

[Jayelles]

The marks on JonBenet look nothing like the marks on the pig in Dobersen's experiments. If we compare:-

The colour of the marks
The size of the marks
The distance between the marks

Then there are vague similarities, that is all. The image on *******'s website which compares the two is misleading. The image showing Jonbenet's marks is not to the same scale as the pigmark image with the result that they look to be the same size and distance apart. If they were to the same scale, the image of Jonbenet would be smaller.

I have no idea if this is a genuine error or a deliberate attempt to mislead.

There is a pair of marks on JonBenet's back. There is a single mark on her face. The images showing her face do not clearly show a second mark. Some of them not at all. The RST have in the past, explained this by suggesting that the duct tape was already on her mouth and that one of the probes landed on the duct tape. The problem with this scenario is that is the killer 'needed' to stungun her or simply wanted to inflict more torture on her by stungunning her face, then presumably she was not in a limp, lifeless state at the time. In that case, it seems unlikely that her lips would be motionless behind the duct tape as suggested by the allegedly perfect lip imprint on the back of the tape.

 

[BlueCrab]

BC...One zap with a stun gun would have disabled JonBenet. Why would the intruder zap her twice more?

First of all, it was not necessarily an intruder who did the zapping. There's a possibility the Ramseys owned a stun gun.

Secondly, if a stun gun was being used on JonBenet it would have likely been for one of two purposes -- to CONTROL her and make her do things she didn't want to do; or to TORTURE her.

Thirdly, stun guns don't normally disable a person for more than a minute or so, and often for only 10 or 15 seconds. If a stun gun was being used to control JonBenet then it would likely have taken several hits -- spaced well apart -- to keep her under control.

Just my opinion.

BlueCrab

 

[tipper]

As far as control goes I would think once would be enough. Then just a threat to use it again would suffice.

 

[Jayelles]

As far as control goes I would think once would be enough. Then just a threat to use it again would suffice.

My father always said that the first time you threaten to spank a child then you should do it. After that, you'll only need to threaten It worked for us. My older daughter was never spanked because she never need it. She saw her brother being spanked and she knew better

(PS - lest anyone thinks we are child beaters, I am referring to a good old-fashioned open-handed bottom spank. Only the pride was hurt).

 

[BlueCrab]

BlueCrab. I don't know of anyone involved with the Ramsey case who thinks the marks on the back of her leg is related to a stun gun.

That's correct, but it's probably because there are no autopsy photos of the marks on the lower left leg. But the twin injuries on the lower left leg in the autopsy report are described very much like the twin injuries to the lower left back in the autopsy report:

BACK: "The more superior of the two measures one-eighth by one-sixteenth of an inch and the more inferior measures three-sixteenth by one-eighth of an inch."

LEG: "They measure one-sixteenth by less than one-sixteenth of an inch and one-eighth by less than one-sixteenth of an inch respectively."

The measurements at the two locations vary a little because, among other things, the lower back is a relatively flat surface while the lower part of the leg at the ankle is rounded. The prongs of the stun gun would contact the skin at different angles at the two respective locations.

Just my opinion.

BlueCrab

 

[Maxi]

I think the marks on JBR look a lot more similar to my daughter's bite marks than to the Boggs stun gun marks in those pictures. See how they are almost solid and have a slight bit of redness around the outside.

The guy who bit my daughter may have had his teeth filed to points. She couldn't see well enough from the angle she was lying in (she was crowd surfing) to tell. His fingernails were filed that way, and she had a scratch from them, too.

Bit marks are pretty common in sex murders, and they aren't always properly identified. There were marks on one of the victims in the West Memphis 3 murders that the prosecution said were from a belt buckle and a forensic odontologist says are bite marks.

 

[BlueCrab]

I think the marks on JBR look a lot more similar to my daughter's bite marks than to the Boggs stun gun marks in those pictures. See how they are almost solid and have a slight bit of redness around the outside.

The guy who bit my daughter may have had his teeth filed to points. She couldn't see well enough from the angle she was lying in (she was crowd surfing) to tell. His fingernails were filed that way, and she had a scratch from them, too.

Bit marks are pretty common in sex murders, and they aren't always properly identified. There were marks on one of the victims in the West Memphis 3 murders that the prosecution said were from a belt buckle and a forensic odontologist says are bite marks.

Maxi, I hope they called animal control to capture that guy who bit your daughter.

Your picture showing this guy's bite marks has no scale to it. About what is the distance between the two marks? The distance between the prongs on most stun guns is around 1 1/4" to 2"; on the Air Taser it's 1 3/8".

Stun gun hits of 3 seconds or more often leave a wheal around the burn injury at each prong. The longer the gun is held against the skin the more severe is the burn. Inside the wheal a white mark will sometimes also appear. In other cases, such as on the faces of JonBenet and of Boggs, only one prong causes a severe burn injury while just a small white mark appears where the other prong touches the skin.

It appears to me, because of the severity of the burn, that the stun gun hit on JonBenet's face, if that's what it is, had to be for a long time -- perhaps as long as 20 or 30 seconds. If so, that would have been torture. Stun gun batteries go dead after about 60 seconds of use so, if JonBenet was being tortured, perhaps the only reason there aren't more such injuries on the body is the gun eventually went dead. Incidentally, for what it's worth, the police in many foreign nations routinely use stun guns to torture confessions and information from suspects.

Just my opinion.

BlueCrab

 

[Shylock]

He rendered an opinion about the marks early on in the case, before he had fully researched them. After examination of the autopsy photos, comparison to marks on other bodies made by stun guns, and his own experimental research, he has concluded differently. That's how science works.

Oh, I get it LP...Just like Donald Foster, right?