Stungun marks

[BlueCrab]

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

Please remember that, after obtaining more information, both Dobersen and Meyer, both experienced forensic pathologists, changed their minds about the marks on JonBenet and concluded the marks were consistent with stun gun injuries.

Just my opinion.

 

[Shylock]

Please remember that, after obtaining more information, both Dobersen and Meyer, both experienced forensic pathologists, changed their minds about the marks on JonBenet and concluded the marks were consistent with stun gun injuries.

"Obtaining more information"? And just WHAT would that information be?

The ONLY facts in this case are that there is a body of a little girl with a couple of unidentified marks on her. (PERIOD - THAT'S IT!) There was NO other factual information to obtain without exhuming the body!

Just because some object is capable of making similar marks does not make it related to the case in any way.

I'm sure we can find a MEAT FORK that matches up to the marks even better than a Taser. Now all we need is some delusional law officer and a publicity seeking coroner and we have ANOTHER "weapon" used in this crime. Hell, I'll bet Meyer would even look at the fork and say "anything's possible" again, if we ask him nicely.

JMO

 

[BlueCrab]

"Obtaining more information"? And just WHAT would that information be?
JMO

Please go to page 431 in PMPT pb. Thanks.

 

[LovelyPigeon]

Shylock, after scientific investigation and experimentation, the conclusion was that a stun gun probably made the 2 pairs of marks on JonBenét. Like I said, that's how science works. No exhumation is needed because excellent photographs exist of the injuries, and photographic evidence has already been accepted in American courts as sufficient for comparison.

I don't give any science or legal credit to Don Foster. His attempts to identify text to author by compuer program and his own expertise have failed miserably. He's had to admit that he has wrongly assigned authorship in more than one instance, including that Shakesperian fiasco.

 

[Ivy]

"They came over and showed me some pictures from the (Ramsey) autopsy and asked for my opinion, whether they could be stun gun injuries," Dobersen recalled. "I told them that they could be; that was a possibility. But there were a lot of things they could do to narrow down the possibilities of what it could be."

Dobersen told Boulder investigators to do what The New Yorker reports they eventually did - measure the distance between the wounds and compare that to stun guns.

"Besides", he added, "the only definitive way to tell if electrocution was involved in JonBenet's death is to re-examine her body and look for very characteristic changes in skin tissue."

"You really can't tell from a photo," Dobersen said.

(The Boulder Daily Camera - January 13, 1998)

 

[Britt]

Here are the book quotes:

From Perfect Murder Perfect Town:

After reviewing the photos and this new information, Meyer concluded that the injuries on JonBenet's face and back were, in fact, consistent with those produced by a stun gun. p. 431, paperback.

From Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation:

Smit and Ainsworth concluded from studying photographs of the body that some of the abrasions were marks left by the prongs of a stun gun. When they asked the coroner about it, the answer was "Sure, anything is possible." p. 176, paperback.

However, Meyer defines the marks as "abrasions" in the autopsy report. And Doberson is equivocal. Both these guys might be easily impeachable on this issue in a trial. If the issue ever makes it into a courtroom and is even allowed in as relevant, it will no doubt be a battle of the experts. Expert Dr. Werner Spitz says they are not electrical burns:

But the Boulder police are relying on another opinion, that of Dr. Werner Spitz. He thinks that pebbles or rocks on the floor caused the marks. Spitz has worked as a forensic pathologist in Michigan for nearly 50 years.

“A stun gun. Stun gun injury is an electrical burn, and these do not look like electrical burns,” he says. Spitz believes the large, dark mark on JonBenet’s face was left by a snap on a piece of clothing.

Unfortunately, with only photographs to go by, no expert can be sure. The best way to determine the answer would have been to exhume the body to study the injuries.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/01/48hours/main523887.shtml

But the bottom line is, without tissue samples and an actual stungun connected to the crime and connected to a specific defendant, the use of a theoretical stungun in this crime does nothing to implicate nor exonerate any particular perp/defendant, Ramseys included. If a jury is willing to believe a Ramsey could molest/kill JB, obviously they'll have no trouble believing a Ramsey could've used a stungun as well. The lame defensive spin that the "Ramseys wouldn't do that" won't fly.

 

[Ivy]

Britt, superb post!

 

[why_nutt]

But the bottom line is, without tissue samples and an actual stungun connected to the crime and connected to a specific defendant, the use of a theoretical stungun in this crime does nothing to implicate nor exonerate any particular perp/defendant, Ramseys included. If a jury is willing to believe a Ramsey could molest/kill JB, obviously they'll have no trouble believing a Ramsey could've used a stungun as well. The lame defensive spin that the "Ramseys wouldn't do that" won't fly.

Patsy, of all people, should at the very least be someone who appreciates the concept that pictures do not tell the whole story, and that an accurate medical evaluation is not necessarily made solely on the basis of pictures. Her own cancer experiences would have shown her the truth of that; the tumor behind her pelvic bone, for example, was never known to exist until the moment she was cut open and examined, and when she was declared cancer-free, it was on the basis of being cut open and looked at with microscopes, not through abstract blood tests and CT scans.

 

[Shylock]

Shylock, after scientific investigation and experimentation, the conclusion was that a stun gun probably made the 2 pairs of marks on JonBenét. Like I said, that's how science works. No exhumation is needed because excellent photographs exist of the injuries, and photographic evidence has already been accepted in American courts as sufficient for comparison.

Hold on a minute, LP. Just what "scientific investigation and experimentation" are you talking about? Try as he might, Lou Smit was UNABLE to duplicate the marks on JonBenet's back with a stungun. The marks on her back are dark and appear to be scabbed-over "abrasions", which is exactly what the autopsy calls them. The pink little marks that Smit created with the stungun look NOTHING like scabbed-over abrasions.
In fact, it was AFTER your so-called "scientific investigation and experimentation" that Lou Smit went on the Larry King Live Show and said he is no longer convinced a Taser make those marks. That should tell you that the results of the "scientific investigation and experimentation" went the opposite of what was expected in Smit's mind. And since then, Smit has yet to produce a different stun weapon that DOES make marks that match what is on her back.

 

[LovelyPigeon]

It doesn't really matter what if we think tissue samples should be the basis of stun gun analysis or not because precedence is already set in American courts to use photographic evidence in lieu of tissue samples.

And without a charged suspect and a stun gun connected to that suspect, there will be no comparison inside or outside of court. That is the current state of affairs.

 

[Ivy]

That may be true, LovelyPigeon, but as long as the Ramseys continue to wave an imaginary stun gun around as proof of an intruder, there will be plenty of us here on the Internet intent on exposing the ruse.

 

[Shylock]

And without a charged suspect and a stun gun connected to that suspect, there will be no comparison inside or outside of court. That is the current state of affairs.

Hey, there's always the chance that there will be a civil trial that takes in ALL the evidence. One of these days the Ramseys are going to run out of luck and Limpy is going to have to go up against a REAL lawyer.

 

[BlueCrab]

Hey, there's always the chance that there will be a civil trial that takes in ALL the evidence. One of these days the Ramseys are going to run out of luck and Limpy is going to have to go up against a REAL lawyer.

If a stun gun was used as one of the murder weapons in this crime, and I feel as though one was used, then it means a stun gun exists somewhere or evidence of its being purchased exists somewhere. If found, it would be powerful evidence in a civil or criminal trial.

Just my opinion.

 

[Ivy]

BC, to your knowledge have any of the people who've come and gone under the umbrella, or even those who were merely questioned, been looked at as possible owners of a stun gun?

 

[tipper]

Hey, there's always the chance that there will be a civil trial that takes in ALL the evidence. One of these days the Ramseys are going to run out of luck and Limpy is going to have to go up against a REAL lawyer.

You mean like Petrocelli?

 

[Ivy]

Wood up against Petrocelli? Oh, the humanity! lol

 

[LovelyPigeon]

A civil trial seems far less likely than a criminal trial for this case...

...unless there is a match to male DNA in the future and the BPD does not prosecute. In that case, there would likely be a civil case filed by the Ramseys for wrongful death of their daughter.

 

[Ivy]

OMG! Run, Sum Yung Gai!

 

[BlueCrab]

BC, to your knowledge have any of the people who've come and gone under the umbrella, or even those who were merely questioned, been looked at as possible owners of a stun gun?

The BPD was too intent on trying to prove its PDI theory to properly investigate those who may have owned a stun gun. The BPD didn't even ask neighbors about stun gun ownership until about a year after the murder.

Gary Oliva owned a stun gun. Oliva is the drifter who often stayed at the church shelter just blocks from the Ramsey's house. He's a convicted child predator and was in the Ramsey neighborhood on the night of the murder. Oliva's DNA was not identified at the crime scene, not that that alone disqualifies him as the killer.

One of my theories is that Burke allowed someone to enter the house that night. Was it Oliva?

Just my opinion.

BlueCrab

 

[Toth]

One of my theories is that Burke allowed someone to enter the house that night. Was it Oliva?

Okay, you have a shy nine year old getting up in the middle of the night and letting some weirdo into the home.

If this is one of your theories I trust you'll understand if I make no inquiry about any of your other theories.