Was a stun gun used in the crime or not
- Thread starter ManInTheBox
- Start date
txsvicki
Active Member
BlueCrab said:
I have always wondered why JonBenet would have been stunned several times, or at all, unless she were being tortured but hadn't thought about the stungun being the cause of death. Did the coroner specifically say that the head injury was from being hit over the head? Could JonBenet have lurched forward or fell and hit the head hard enough?
You all have done a lot of research on the subject of stun gun paralysis, etc., and I'm gobbling up what you've posted with relish.
I did some research, too, many moons ago, about petechial hemorrhaging as it relates to asphyxiation. I'm not a doctor, but what follows is some of what I found out: (I will eventually get back to the subject of paralysis)
Petechial hemorrhaging, such as that discovered by the coroner on JonBenet's body, in the lungs, on the heart (loosely speaking), on the conjunctiva, in proximity to and in association with the neck ligature, and on the left shoulder in proximity to the delto-pectoral groove, etc., is suggestive (to put it gently) of asphyxiation by ligature strangulation.
There is one mechanism by which petechial hemorrhaging in assocation with strangulation is caused by applying pressure to the jugulars (which are shallower than the carotids, if memory serves), thereby impeding the flow of blood through them, which, in turn, produces pressure in the capillaries which is higher than normal, indeed high enough to produce leakage. This leakage, results in noticeable skin discoloration in the form of small (if not tiny) red spots--the petechiae. It is not necessary to block the airway to have this result. When this is the mechanism, the victim will lapse into unconsciousness a few minutes before he/she dies. If the pressure on the jugulars (and the carotids) is removed prior to death, the victim may recover, though possibly with some brain damage.
Another way to produce petechiae in association with strangulation, is to block the airway. This can be done by collapsing the trachea, either manually or via ligature, gagging the victim or by covering the mouth to prevent respiration. If the airway, alone, is blocked (not the jugulars or the carotids), as in smothering, the victim will struggle to breath--the diaphragm will be employed in this attempt as there is no other way to breath naturally (without mechanical assist). So the diaphragm, a powerful muscle, will be trying to draw air into the lungs, and push air out of the lungs, to no avail; this will put excessive pressure on the lungs, which will also impede the flow of venous blood into the lungs; hence out of the brain and face, etc., (just as pressure against the jugulars would) and result in the tell-tale petechiae in the conjunctiva, on the face and elsewhere associated with this event. Again, petchiae associated with asphyxiation caused by "smothering".
There is a phenomenon called the Valsalva maneuver, which is sometimes employed by folks when they go to the bathroom, popularly known as straining. This same maneuver is employed by weight lifters when they are strainging to lift a weight. It is not uncommon for petechiae to occur on the face, conjunctiva and elsewhere during, and as a result of, this maneuver. In this example, breathing is suspended VOLUNTARILY, unlike the suspension of breathing in the smothering example, but the result, insofar as the petechiae are concerned, is the SAME.
Petechiae, in association with asphyxiation, can also be produced by deliberately sitting on the chest of the victim, or, involuntarily, by any sufficiently heavy weight which presses against the chest, as in a cave-in construction accident. Physiologically, the mechanism is the same--restricting blood flow through the capillaries by preventing proper venous drainage. Any time, forced flow through a vessel, such as that effected by a pumping heart, is restricted, the flow will diminish and the fluid pressure in the vessel, on the pump side, will increase accordingly. The formation of petechiae requires excessive pressure in the capillaries (vessels), and it doesn't matter how this excessive pressure comes about; excessive pressure is excessive pressure. But, pressure of any magnitude, whether excessive or not, with respect to the human circulatory system (other than pressure due to gravity), requires an operating pressure pump--the heart. Pressure of the sort required to produce petechiae can't develop unless the HEART is BEATING and the flow is restricted.
About pressure in vasculature due to gravity: it is possible to have petechial hemorrhaging in assocation with venous insufficiencies such as those assocated with varicosity. This hemorrhaging has nothing to do with asphyxiation. It is also possible to have petechial hemorrhaging in association with certain diseases and/or poisons which affect the capillaries directly and make them prone to leakage. Again, this has nothing to do with asphyxiation.
So, there would be NO petechial hemorrhaging associated with the paralysis of the diaphragm. A paralyzed diaphragm cannot exert pressure on the lungs, which, in turn, could interfere with proper blood flow through the capillaries. Therefore, JonBenet's petechiae can not be attributed to paralysis of the diaphragm brought about by stunning with an electrical appartus. Further, there was, in JBR's case, petechial hemorrhaging along the ligature groove, further evidence that the ligature was involved in the production of the hemorrhaging.
Therefore, there can be no doubt that JBR was strangled by the cord around her neck that is displayed in the photos. Whether there was any other strangulaton attempt, either with the same or another device, is open to question.
I did some research, too, many moons ago, about petechial hemorrhaging as it relates to asphyxiation. I'm not a doctor, but what follows is some of what I found out: (I will eventually get back to the subject of paralysis)
Petechial hemorrhaging, such as that discovered by the coroner on JonBenet's body, in the lungs, on the heart (loosely speaking), on the conjunctiva, in proximity to and in association with the neck ligature, and on the left shoulder in proximity to the delto-pectoral groove, etc., is suggestive (to put it gently) of asphyxiation by ligature strangulation.
There is one mechanism by which petechial hemorrhaging in assocation with strangulation is caused by applying pressure to the jugulars (which are shallower than the carotids, if memory serves), thereby impeding the flow of blood through them, which, in turn, produces pressure in the capillaries which is higher than normal, indeed high enough to produce leakage. This leakage, results in noticeable skin discoloration in the form of small (if not tiny) red spots--the petechiae. It is not necessary to block the airway to have this result. When this is the mechanism, the victim will lapse into unconsciousness a few minutes before he/she dies. If the pressure on the jugulars (and the carotids) is removed prior to death, the victim may recover, though possibly with some brain damage.
Another way to produce petechiae in association with strangulation, is to block the airway. This can be done by collapsing the trachea, either manually or via ligature, gagging the victim or by covering the mouth to prevent respiration. If the airway, alone, is blocked (not the jugulars or the carotids), as in smothering, the victim will struggle to breath--the diaphragm will be employed in this attempt as there is no other way to breath naturally (without mechanical assist). So the diaphragm, a powerful muscle, will be trying to draw air into the lungs, and push air out of the lungs, to no avail; this will put excessive pressure on the lungs, which will also impede the flow of venous blood into the lungs; hence out of the brain and face, etc., (just as pressure against the jugulars would) and result in the tell-tale petechiae in the conjunctiva, on the face and elsewhere associated with this event. Again, petchiae associated with asphyxiation caused by "smothering".
There is a phenomenon called the Valsalva maneuver, which is sometimes employed by folks when they go to the bathroom, popularly known as straining. This same maneuver is employed by weight lifters when they are strainging to lift a weight. It is not uncommon for petechiae to occur on the face, conjunctiva and elsewhere during, and as a result of, this maneuver. In this example, breathing is suspended VOLUNTARILY, unlike the suspension of breathing in the smothering example, but the result, insofar as the petechiae are concerned, is the SAME.
Petechiae, in association with asphyxiation, can also be produced by deliberately sitting on the chest of the victim, or, involuntarily, by any sufficiently heavy weight which presses against the chest, as in a cave-in construction accident. Physiologically, the mechanism is the same--restricting blood flow through the capillaries by preventing proper venous drainage. Any time, forced flow through a vessel, such as that effected by a pumping heart, is restricted, the flow will diminish and the fluid pressure in the vessel, on the pump side, will increase accordingly. The formation of petechiae requires excessive pressure in the capillaries (vessels), and it doesn't matter how this excessive pressure comes about; excessive pressure is excessive pressure. But, pressure of any magnitude, whether excessive or not, with respect to the human circulatory system (other than pressure due to gravity), requires an operating pressure pump--the heart. Pressure of the sort required to produce petechiae can't develop unless the HEART is BEATING and the flow is restricted.
About pressure in vasculature due to gravity: it is possible to have petechial hemorrhaging in assocation with venous insufficiencies such as those assocated with varicosity. This hemorrhaging has nothing to do with asphyxiation. It is also possible to have petechial hemorrhaging in association with certain diseases and/or poisons which affect the capillaries directly and make them prone to leakage. Again, this has nothing to do with asphyxiation.
So, there would be NO petechial hemorrhaging associated with the paralysis of the diaphragm. A paralyzed diaphragm cannot exert pressure on the lungs, which, in turn, could interfere with proper blood flow through the capillaries. Therefore, JonBenet's petechiae can not be attributed to paralysis of the diaphragm brought about by stunning with an electrical appartus. Further, there was, in JBR's case, petechial hemorrhaging along the ligature groove, further evidence that the ligature was involved in the production of the hemorrhaging.
Therefore, there can be no doubt that JBR was strangled by the cord around her neck that is displayed in the photos. Whether there was any other strangulaton attempt, either with the same or another device, is open to question.
BlueCrab
New Member
RedChief,
There's no doubt that JonBenet was strangled with the cord device wrapped around her neck. The petechiae tell the story. But the question is -- was she strangled until dead?
There's also little doubt JonBenet was stungunned, and hit over the head so hard it split her skull in two.
Either of the three injuries -- the strangulation; the stungunning; or the crushing blow to the head -- could have been the one that finished her off.
It doesn't take much imagination to realize this murder could be the work of a sadistic killer who slowly tortured JonBenet, like a cat plays with a mouse, until she was dead. The ligature around the neck and the stun gun would have been the torture weapons -- and the smash to the head, likely using a baseball bat, was the encore after she was dead.
This scenario is the most unpleasant of my many BDI theories. However, in this theory the killer would definitely have been the fifth person who was invited into the house that night by a Ramsey. The torture, IMO, would have been to send a political message.
I'm convinced Burke is involved somehow or the Ramseys wouldn't be lying, and refusing to fully cooperate with the investigation, and carrying out an obvious coverup to shield him. They would do this ONLY for Burke, and certainly not for each other or for an intruder.
BlueCrab
There's no doubt that JonBenet was strangled with the cord device wrapped around her neck. The petechiae tell the story. But the question is -- was she strangled until dead?
There's also little doubt JonBenet was stungunned, and hit over the head so hard it split her skull in two.
Either of the three injuries -- the strangulation; the stungunning; or the crushing blow to the head -- could have been the one that finished her off.
It doesn't take much imagination to realize this murder could be the work of a sadistic killer who slowly tortured JonBenet, like a cat plays with a mouse, until she was dead. The ligature around the neck and the stun gun would have been the torture weapons -- and the smash to the head, likely using a baseball bat, was the encore after she was dead.
This scenario is the most unpleasant of my many BDI theories. However, in this theory the killer would definitely have been the fifth person who was invited into the house that night by a Ramsey. The torture, IMO, would have been to send a political message.
I'm convinced Burke is involved somehow or the Ramseys wouldn't be lying, and refusing to fully cooperate with the investigation, and carrying out an obvious coverup to shield him. They would do this ONLY for Burke, and certainly not for each other or for an intruder.
BlueCrab
Camper
New Member
I have always been rather fond of an olde thought of mine. That thought was that perhaps the blow to the head came first, causing JonBenet to have convulsions. At that point the large discolored carotid artery area was the result of endeavoring to stop the convulsions by 'extreme' pressure to the artery to stop them.
I once had a link for this procedure, and it still seems highly possible to me for this to have happened.
BUT, IF IF this was the case 'someone would have had to have 'delivered' that dastardly blow 'causing' family to cover it up. Perhaps unlikely, but still I do entertain the thought with regularity.
The small son had 'accidentally' struck JonBenet before in Michigan with a golf club.
I am wondering if the procedure was one that might have been taught to Navy Seals, OR if somehow JR might have been aware of such a procedure? Do the Navy Seals learn such life saving things during their HEAVY training?
.
I once had a link for this procedure, and it still seems highly possible to me for this to have happened.
BUT, IF IF this was the case 'someone would have had to have 'delivered' that dastardly blow 'causing' family to cover it up. Perhaps unlikely, but still I do entertain the thought with regularity.
The small son had 'accidentally' struck JonBenet before in Michigan with a golf club.
I am wondering if the procedure was one that might have been taught to Navy Seals, OR if somehow JR might have been aware of such a procedure? Do the Navy Seals learn such life saving things during their HEAVY training?
.
BlueCrab,
Can't disagree that JBR could have succumbed to stunning. Can't disagree that she could have succumbed to strangulation. Can't disagree that she could have succumbed to the whack on the head.
I've always had a sneaking suspicion that youngsters were involved in the death, if not also the cover-up.
How do we go about proving that theory and bringing the wrong-doers to justice?
Is there anything more than has already been deduced that we can deduce from the injuries described in the autopsy report?
I'll give some hypotheticals in the "interpretation" thread....
Can't disagree that JBR could have succumbed to stunning. Can't disagree that she could have succumbed to strangulation. Can't disagree that she could have succumbed to the whack on the head.
I've always had a sneaking suspicion that youngsters were involved in the death, if not also the cover-up.
How do we go about proving that theory and bringing the wrong-doers to justice?
Is there anything more than has already been deduced that we can deduce from the injuries described in the autopsy report?
I'll give some hypotheticals in the "interpretation" thread....
Jayelles
New Member
The bruising in the temporal lobe is something I find interesting. I remember that a poster provided medical information which suggested that this bruising was not something which would occur immediately and that therefore, *some* blow to her head had occurred a little before her death. Whether this was "the" headblow or not is another matter.
Here is a link that includes some graphic pictures of stun gun abrasions and burns. All allegedly inflicted by a taser model.
http://www.local10.com/slideshowarchive/slideshow/slideshowarchive/4401394/detail.html
The number of stuns reported range from 9 to 15, so it may help to compare Jonbenet's injuries.
For more reports type 'Patricia Skelly taser' into your favorite search engine.
http://www.local10.com/slideshowarchive/slideshow/slideshowarchive/4401394/detail.html
The number of stuns reported range from 9 to 15, so it may help to compare Jonbenet's injuries.
For more reports type 'Patricia Skelly taser' into your favorite search engine.
BlueCrab
New Member
UKGuy said:
UKGuy,
Those injuries were not inflicted by a hand-held Taser brand stun gun. The twin electrodes on the Taser are 1 3/8 inches apart. The injuries on the victim appear at least twice that distance apart.
Of course, the injuries could be from the AirTaser, which fires darts, but that would seem unreasonably cruel and unnecessary to shoot 9 to 15 darts into a 110-pound female victim.
Actually several problems. The photos I've seen of stun gun marks appear to have a diffuse quality and show some burn characteristics, but Jon-Benet's marks on the photos look like simple bruises I can't recall the source but I saw a comparison of stun gun marks on pigs and the distances did not match the ones on Jon-Benet...at least the type stun gun Schmit specified had been used. If new data is around, I'd appreciate hearing of it. I'm a bit concerned that the direct viewing of the actual injuries by police and doctors at autopsy did not raise the question of a stun gun...It came from a detective determined to show the Ramseys innocent who believed stun gun use was exculpatory to the Ramseys...and on 2 dimensional photos. Most importantly, would not the Ramseys, if they believed the stun gun use was true, have had Jon-Benet exhumed to show "proof" of their hypothetical innocence? Bruising is commonly observed at exhumation and even additional bruises observed which were not apparent at initial autopsy. (I recall the case of the New Orleans man whose wife drowned in a St Louis hotel bath tub...when exhumed much later there were supposedly hand prints where he held her under.)
This is a convoluted case and I hope we get resolution at some point.
This is a convoluted case and I hope we get resolution at some point.
Jayelles
New Member
I think it is interesting to read up on Robert Stratbucker. He is the #1 expert on stunguns and has done extensive studies on the effects of stunguns primarily to monitor the effects on the heart but in doing so, he has also recorded the visual appearances of the burns and how they appear and fade.
He does not believe that the marks on JonBenet were made by a stungun. Lin Wood deposed him and I think the deposition was "led" by Wood in a way which deliberately undermined Stratbucker as an expert. Stratbucker wasn't allowed to explain why he did not believe the marks were made by a stungun and Lin Wood focused instead on Stratbucker's professional connection to Taser corps.
I would really like to hear Dr Stratbucker's full explanation about the marks on jonBenet.
I am personally satisfied that the marks were not made by an Air taser. I think it's ludicrous to say that unless anyone has proof that they were made by something other than an Air Taser, then they MUST have been made by that particuolar weapon. That's like saying if we can't find the intruder, then it MUST have been a RAmsey IMO.
He does not believe that the marks on JonBenet were made by a stungun. Lin Wood deposed him and I think the deposition was "led" by Wood in a way which deliberately undermined Stratbucker as an expert. Stratbucker wasn't allowed to explain why he did not believe the marks were made by a stungun and Lin Wood focused instead on Stratbucker's professional connection to Taser corps.
I would really like to hear Dr Stratbucker's full explanation about the marks on jonBenet.
I am personally satisfied that the marks were not made by an Air taser. I think it's ludicrous to say that unless anyone has proof that they were made by something other than an Air Taser, then they MUST have been made by that particuolar weapon. That's like saying if we can't find the intruder, then it MUST have been a RAmsey IMO.
Well if an Air Taser was used on JonBenet then it cannot have been done by a Ramsey, which close relative would sadistically Taser JonBenet? Therefore it must have been an outsider!Jayelles said:
Its just as likely that the stun gun marks are either prior injuries, sustained by JonBenet falling from her bike, fighting and horseplay with Burke etc. Or they were incurred shortly prior to her death, as part of the sequence of injuries leading up to her being asphyxiated. They may even be post-deceased assault wounds, these are sometimes inflicted by perpetrators as part of a lust murder.
Jayelles
New Member
I absolutely agree that if it could be proved beyond doubt that a stungun had been used - then it would exonerate the Ramseys. Unfortunately, examination of the photos does not support the use of an Air Taer and IMO, Doberson's pig experiments only served to prove that an Air Taser was not used. Also, I cannot ignore an expert like Stratbucker's viewpoint. I don't think he has anything to gain by lying under oath about this. He makes a fair income as an expert witness and he wouldn't IMO undermine that.UKGuy said:
I believe that an autopsy would have been necessary to prove that a stungun had or had not been used. The Ramseys did not want that. In light of the fact that they and members of their family were under a cloud of suspicion, I have to question why they would not be in favour of something which might clear them from that.
Here's my take on the three things that have been posted on what the marks on JB might be.
Stun Gun
PR Dinner Ring
Pebbles.
Stun Gun - Possibly. The only thing IMO that seems the closest fit, to make any logical sense of the three consistent randomly placed markings.
PR Dinner Ring - Far fetched. What the heck was PR doing with that ring,that would make JB have deep rooted ring marks all over her body. I guess if I try real hard,I could come up with something,one always can. But as I stated,it would probably far fetched.
Pebbles - please.
I think from what I know so far ... it's a stun gun.
Stun Gun
PR Dinner Ring
Pebbles.
Stun Gun - Possibly. The only thing IMO that seems the closest fit, to make any logical sense of the three consistent randomly placed markings.
PR Dinner Ring - Far fetched. What the heck was PR doing with that ring,that would make JB have deep rooted ring marks all over her body. I guess if I try real hard,I could come up with something,one always can. But as I stated,it would probably far fetched.
Pebbles - please.
I think from what I know so far ... it's a stun gun.
IrishMist
You can't control the wind - but you can adjust yo
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2004
- Messages
- 7,475
- Reaction score
- 44
I've also heard/read that they could be indentations from a snap.
And don't forget the N64 controller idea!
To me, they don't look like stun gun marks. The pictures I've seen of stun gun marks look kind of like burns.
I guess I keep an open mind on the one. Just one more thing in this case that can go either way...
And don't forget the N64 controller idea!
To me, they don't look like stun gun marks. The pictures I've seen of stun gun marks look kind of like burns.
I guess I keep an open mind on the one. Just one more thing in this case that can go either way...
Nedthan Johns
New Member
Come on folks, any SANE, CARING, LOVING PARENTS, whould IMMEDIATELY exhume their child if they thought these marks were from a stun gun and could possible help in aiding with FINDING the killer.
Even Lou admits exhuming the body would be the ONLY way to prove his theory yet the parents REFUSE! Sorry but's that's all I NEED to come to the conclusion, that this was NO stun gun and by exhuming the body it may only incriminate the parents further, by possibly concluding that the marks came from within the home or from something the parents wore or used in the process of this crime.
Even Lou admits exhuming the body would be the ONLY way to prove his theory yet the parents REFUSE! Sorry but's that's all I NEED to come to the conclusion, that this was NO stun gun and by exhuming the body it may only incriminate the parents further, by possibly concluding that the marks came from within the home or from something the parents wore or used in the process of this crime.
Maybe so Ned ... but maybe not.
Don't mean to be devil's advocate but here goes ...
Some people are religious enough to feel that exhumation would be against their beliefs.
- or -
A parent really not wanting to disturb their little girl again,she's been through enough.
- or -
Would exhumation really solve the crime? Not really,it would only prove,(if proven it was a stun gun),that a stun gun was used,not who used it.
Don't mean to be devil's advocate but here goes ...
Some people are religious enough to feel that exhumation would be against their beliefs.
- or -
A parent really not wanting to disturb their little girl again,she's been through enough.
- or -
Would exhumation really solve the crime? Not really,it would only prove,(if proven it was a stun gun),that a stun gun was used,not who used it.
BlueCrab
New Member
capps said:
capps,
You are correct. The stun gun injuries on JonBenet, even if proven beyond a reasonable doubt, doesn't tell us who pulled the trigger.
I'm convinced a stun gun had been used on JonBenet because the twin rectangular burn marks on her are identical in shape, size and distance apart to what a Taser brand stun gun would leave on the skin. Almost all of the experts on the subject, including coroner John Meyer, conclude the injuries are consistent with stun gun injuries (PMPT pb, pg 431).
But I believe a Ramsey used the stun gun on JonBenet, not an intruder. There was a video instruction book about stun guns in the Ramsey's house, and the Ramseys were interested in buying a stun gun and had shopped for one in Florida and probably other places. I wouldn't be surprised if a stun gun wasn't a Christmas present from Patsy to John that year.
Exhuming the body wouldn't have likely proved anything conclusive, and it's too late now. A child's body goes through complete putrefaction in about five years. JonBenet has been dead for over eight years.
BlueCrab
Camper
New Member
Nedthan Johns said:
-------------->>>I can only quote when I respond to email alert to post on a thread that I am interested in, BUT it works in this instance.
Yes Ned, caring parents who wanted to find the murderer of their daughter would exhume, IF ONLY to protect other children from the same fate as JonBenet suffered. LIKE Mark Klaas, John Walsh, Erin Runnion, Mark Lunsford, the Van Dams, the list gets longer each day and month.
John and Patsy are on their own 'short' list.
.
tipper
Former Member
I think JonBenet was killed as a personal cause against John and his wealth and hence no other children are likely in the kind of danger they would be in if this was a serial killer.