Was a stun gun used in the crime or not

[Venom]

Does anyone know about when that photo was taken?

 

[Scandigirl]

A huge thank you to Mama2JML for finding the photo and posting it- it does show the marks on JB's legs very clearly! I just wonder if anyone knows what those marks are from? Could they have been caused by the same thing as on the night of her death? Had she been suffering from something inflicted on her before that night as well? Only wondering...

Venom, I'm sorry, I don't know when that photo was taken. I'll try to find out, though. It may be, unrelated, or maybe not.

 

[DeeDee249]

Too bad the train tracks were never matched to the body. Of course by the time they were even considered, she was buried in Atanta. SO much more information could have been gotten from re-examining her body. The mark on her cheek could have been studied to see if it was the same kind of injury as the marks on her back or legs.
Kolar feels the train tracks were the cause of at least some of them. Yet I read here (and only here) that the coroner did actually say later that a stun gun could have made them.
Still suspicious to me that, even though evidence of stun gun use could have bolstered an IDI theory, that the parents and DA did not want this investigated further (which would have required an exhumation). Lets face it- from the first moments the coroner encountered her body under her own Christmas tree he didn't want to look TOO closely. So much so that he neglected to perform the 2 simple tests that EVERY coroner needs to do when FIRST examining a body- the liver stab and an extrusion of the vitreous fluid of the eyeball. Both important to determining the time of death (along with rigor mortis) and BOTH absolutely necessary when examining a MURDER victim.

 

[Nom de plume]

Too bad the train tracks were never matched to the body. Of course by the time they were even considered, she was buried in Atanta. SO much more information could have been gotten from re-examining her body. The mark on her cheek could have been studied to see if it was the same kind of injury as the marks on her back or legs.
Kolar feels the train tracks were the cause of at least some of them. Yet I read here (and only here) that the coroner did actually say later that a stun gun could have made them.
Still suspicious to me that, even though evidence of stun gun use could have bolstered an IDI theory, that the parents and DA did not want this investigated further (which would have required an exhumation). Lets face it- from the first moments the coroner encountered her body under her own Christmas tree he didn't want to look TOO closely. So much so that he neglected to perform the 2 simple tests that EVERY coroner needs to do when FIRST examining a body- the liver stab and an extrusion of the vitreous fluid of the eyeball. Both important to determining the time of death (along with rigor mortis) and BOTH absolutely necessary when examining a MURDER victim.

BBM And there you have it. IMO, calls had already been made, and the cover up was under way. It was all downhill from there.

 

[DeDee]

RBBM

Too bad the train tracks were never matched to the body. Of course by the time they were even considered, she was buried in Atanta. SO much more information could have been gotten from re-examining her body. The mark on her cheek could have been studied to see if it was the same kind of injury as the marks on her back or legs.
Kolar feels the train tracks were the cause of at least some of them. Yet I read here (and only here) that the coroner did actually say later that a stun gun could have made them.
Still suspicious to me that, even though evidence of stun gun use could have bolstered an IDI theory, that the parents and DA did not want this investigated further (which would have required an exhumation). Lets face it- from the first moments the coroner encountered her body under her own Christmas tree he didn't want to look TOO closely. So much so that he neglected to perform the 2 simple tests that EVERY coroner needs to do when FIRST examining a body- the liver stab and an extrusion of the vitreous fluid of the eyeball. Both important to determining the time of death (along with rigor mortis) and BOTH absolutely necessary when examining a MURDER victim.

2nd source provided on this matter

DOI (HB) Page 194:

"We also learned why Smit had asked us these questions. Back in April 11, Lou Smit, Trip DeMuth, and Steve Ainsworth had gone to John Meyer, the Boulder county coroner, with a single question. "could the marks on JonBenet's body have come from a stun gun?" The investigators felt they had discovered a significant clue, and Meyer evidently agreed that the small red marks he observed on JonBenet's body could have come from such a weapon."

From: acandyrose

 

[Scandigirl]

Apologies in advance if this is going down the wrong track, and also for the really horrible topic- not nice to discuss at all, but maybe you would all know more about this than me? I'm obviously just wondering if there could be any connection between the marks on JB's legs on the photo, and the autopsy marks (maybe we'll never know)...

Does anyone know anything about petechial hemorrhaging? What causes it, if that partly explains some of her autopsy marks, and if those types of marks can be large or small? The marks on her legs look similar to some of the autopsy ones (although can't be sure they are the same)- could the leg marks possibly be caused by petechial hemorrhaging? (I know they could also be burns or other things as well). I was just wondering if they could be, and if so, can they be caused by partial strangling techniques, and can that occur on someone's legs? Just wondering, as those legs marks must be caused by something... Also, what happened to her on the night she died might not have been a one-off.

Apologies again if I'm really off base, just wondering if anyone has more knowledge and can either rule it out or possibly in?

 

[DeeDee249]

Apologies in advance if this is going down the wrong track, and also for the really horrible topic- not nice to discuss at all, but maybe you would all know more about this than me? I'm obviously just wondering if there could be any connection between the marks on JB's legs on the photo, and the autopsy marks (maybe we'll never know)...

Does anyone know anything about petechial hemorrhaging? What causes it, if that partly explains some of her autopsy marks, and if those types of marks can be large or small? The marks on her legs look similar to some of the autopsy ones (although can't be sure they are the same)- could the leg marks possibly be caused by petechial hemorrhaging? (I know they could also be burns or other things as well). I was just wondering if they could be, and if so, can they be caused by partial strangling techniques, and can that occur on someone's legs? Just wondering, as those legs marks must be caused by something... Also, what happened to her on the night she died might not have been a one-off.

Apologies again if I'm really off base, just wondering if anyone has more knowledge and can either rule it out or possibly in?

A coroner can always identify petechial hemorrhages. They are caused by the bursting of tiny blood vessels. There are several categories- the smallest are the petechiae mentioned in the autopsy. The largest are the purpura. The petechiae are usually found in strangulation victims, in the eyes, lungs and as you can see, around the ligature. Other causes of death can produce petechiae as well, but the ones in the eyes are most noted in strangulation victims. Blood vessels can burst anywhere, but I do not think the marks on her legs can be attributed to strangulation per se.

 

[Sphinx]

1) So, why didn't she scream twice? Two hits would mean two screams.

2) Consider, too, correct alignement of the marks.

3) "Pattern" marks. Ring. Tha'ts not an "astronomical posibility". In my opinion, as a a possibility, sounds much more realistic that the stungun one.

4) You talk about what Lawrence Schiller said that Meyer said. In Meyer's official and stated words (authopsy report) he talks about "abrasions". Even if it's really true that Meyer conceded the "possibility" that doesn't mean that he conceded the "fact".

And:

I know your theory about the case, I respect it, but I don't share it. "Torture" would explain better the utility of a stungun. But the point, for most of the stun gun defenders, is that this weapon was used to subdue Jonbenet in her room without awakening the family, before carrying her to the basement.

-----------------------------------------------------
Just my opinion.

Perhaps the intruder used a stun gun in the basement to try and make JonBenet comply, and do something. She had duct tape over her mouth when they found her. I would assume the assailant would have put this over her mouth in bed, as she slept, to prevent her from making noise as he removed her. Maybe he took it off in the basement in order to talk with her, or it came off, and that is when she screamed. Because there is one on her back and leg was she trying to escape, and he caught her ? Maybe the one on the face was torture after he put the duct tape back on, and then as she lay unconscious, he tied her up. I don't know how stun guns work. Perhaps he used the first one on her face, near her ear to make her unconscious in bed, then moved her. Horrible to think about.

 

[questfortrue]

For anyone interested in the stun gun theory, there are some other useful insights into this from KK on FFJ, including some photos which may be of interest. http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=9829&page=2

 

[DeeDee249]

Perhaps the intruder used a stun gun in the basement to try and make JonBenet comply, and do something. She had duct tape over her mouth when they found her. I would assume the assailant would have put this over her mouth in bed, as she slept, to prevent her from making noise as he removed her. Maybe he took it off in the basement in order to talk with her, or it came off, and that is when she screamed. Because there is one on her back and leg was she trying to escape, and he caught her ? Maybe the one on the face was torture after he put the duct tape back on, and then as she lay unconscious, he tied her up. I don't know how stun guns work. Perhaps he used the first one on her face, near her ear to make her unconscious in bed, then moved her. Horrible to think about.

Forensic experts have determined that JB was already dead or unconscious when the duct tape was put on her mouth. There was NO evidence of movement or struggle against it, no saliva, no evidence her tongue had pushed against it. Just a perfect set of STILL lip prints. Stun gun use can cause seizures- there would be saliva on that tape. There would also be evidence that the tape had been pulled off and put back on. When we discuss what might have happened, we can't lost track of what we KNOW. We don't know a lot, but we so know some things, and the tape having been put on an unmoving JB ONCE is something we know, regardless of who put it on her. It can't be proven where the duct tape was put on, but Patsy's fleece jacket fibers were found on the sticky side.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Forensic experts have determined that JB was already dead or unconscious when the duct tape was put on her mouth. There was NO evidence of movement or struggle against it, no saliva, no evidence her tongue had pushed against it. Just a perfect set of STILL lip prints. Stun gun use can cause seizures- there would be saliva on that tape. There would also be evidence that the tape had been pulled off and put back on. When we discuss what might have happened, we can't lost track of what we KNOW. We don't know a lot, but we so know some things, and the tape having been put on an unmoving JB ONCE is something we know, regardless of who put it on her. It can't be proven where the duct tape was put on, but Patsy's fleece jacket fibers were found on the sticky side.

The problem is there is a lot of assumption there. She could have been tasered before the tape was applied.
We do not know when the tape was applied so we can not assume that it means there was no stun gun. JMO

 

[bettybaby00]

The problem is there is a lot of assumption there. She could have been tasered before the tape was applied.
We do not know when the tape was applied so we can not assume that it means there was no stun gun. JMO

Actually there isn't a lot of assumption. The assumption, or theory, suggested was what Deedee249 was responding to. Her reply rightly points out that a stun gun could not have been used once the tape was applied. Given that the tape actually shows it was applied either while JRB was unconscious or dead, it's unlikely a stun gun was used to subdue/control her.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Actually there isn't a lot of assumption. The assumption, or theory, suggested was what Deedee249 was responding to. Her reply rightly points out that a stun gun could not have been used once the tape was applied. Given that the tape actually shows it was applied either while JRB was unconscious or dead, it's unlikely a stun gun was used to subdue/control her.

I think it depends on a lot of different things. Duct tape is going to hold through most things. Even violent struggle, So while I appreciate the theory and will file it for future corroboration, for now I am just not positive that is definitive.

JMO

 

[bettybaby00]

I think it depends on a lot of different things. Duct tape is going to hold through most things. Even violent struggle, So while I appreciate the theory and will file it for future corroboration, for now I am just not positive that is definitive.

JMO

Huh?

No one suggested that the tape "wouldn't hold", struggle or no struggle. The original theory posed was that tape was applied at the point of abduction in her bed, and then a stun gun was used to further subdue/incapacitate JRB.

The reply recounts the forensic evidence that the tape was applied once she was either dead or unconscious. That is not an assumption. That is not "dependent on a lot of little of different things." Dependent on a lot of different things moves toward assumption.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Huh?

No one suggested that the tape "wouldn't hold", struggle or no struggle. The original theory posed was that tape was applied at the point of abduction in her bed, and then a stun gun was used to further subdue/incapacitate JRB.

The reply recounts the forensic evidence that the tape was applied once she was either dead or unconscious. That is not an assumption. That is not "dependent on a little of different things." Dependent on a lot of different things moves toward assumption.

I hear what you are saying, I just don't agree that the duct tape had to be applied when she was unconscious or had passed. I can think of other scenarios for the tape to be applied and still fit with the case.

I am not arguing with the theory. I understand it, I am just saying that I am not accepting that as gospel ATM.

JMO

 

[Anti-K]

There is evidence that we have never seen. In his deposition Smit shows a photograph of the victim that was taken while the body was still in the house. There is a white flake of something that seems to be stuck to the victim’s face.

Q. What significance, if any, would the fact that that stun gun mark on the right side of her face, the fact that it was made through the duct tape, what significance, if any, would that have to the white flake found on that mark from the photo taken of her body at the house?

A. I believe that that small piece of white material came from the duct tape, from the back of the duct tape, or through something else. I have seen no lab report on that. But that piece adhering right to that particular area shows me that one contact of the stun gun was in contact, perhaps with that duct tape when it was applied.
.

If we look at the picture of the tape (the tape is upside down and mouth-side up) we can see what may be a hole that is in the right location if the flake on the victim’s face did come from the tape. There are also stains (A & B) on the tape that seemingly correspond to discharge from the victim’s mouth and/or nose.

[/URL][/IMG]

For the sake of argument let’s just say that a stun gun was used, and that it was used through the tape than we have some semblance of sequence: stun gun was used before death, therefore the tape was put on the mouth before death. No sign of resistance or struggle on tape suggests victim was unconscious and/or comatose when the stun gun was used. This lack of response to being stunned, and overall lack of resistance suggests that the victim was incapable of response, which supports a head blow first scenario. Being stunned through the tape, while still alive, also means that the tape was applied before the garrote, before the asphyxiation. Although, she could have been stunned during the asphyxiation (the garrote is one quick pull and then you are hands free while the tightened garrote asphyxiates without you).
.

Yes, there are fibers consistent with Ramsey; but, there are also other fibers that have not been sourced. Some of these un-sourced fibers are also on the garrote, the victim’s shirt and in her genital area.
...

AK

 

[renah]

The various "abrasions", sometimes opined as stun gun markings on her face, back, legs (in photos prior to her death), HAVE NEVER BEEN MATCHED TO ANY KNOWN TASER OR STUN-GUN. PERIOD. Any sort of stun-gun OR taser would have left it's mark.

The marks erroneously ascribed to such weapon HAVE been POSITIVELY MATCHED to traintrack pieces found in the basement and near her body: They are impressions formed by the two outter pins that connect the track pieces together. The marks EXACTLY MATCH. Her body obviously was lying on these pieces for more than a few seconds, & this is how the resulting impressions were formed.

Incidently the photos of similiar marks on at least one photos of a very live Jonbenet shortly taken BEFORE her death tells me that someone held her down on top of one of these track pieces, long enough for the marks to form.. IMO further confirming an escalating pattern of aggression that is also noted by her increased "clinginess" as reported by her teachers shortly before the FINAL assault that caused her death.

IMO it is totally & amazingly stupid that this is even still being debated.

I'm not able to include reference links but I bet others would be glad to if there are still people who havent already read ALL of the material available ( & yet feel qualified to opine??).

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

The various "abrasions", sometimes opined as stun gun markings on her face, back, legs (in photos prior to her death), HAVE NEVER BEEN MATCHED TO ANY KNOWN TASER OR STUN-GUN. PERIOD. Any sort of stun-gun OR taser would have left it's mark.

The marks erroneously ascribed to such weapon HAVE been POSITIVELY MATCHED to traintrack pieces found in the basement and near her body: They are impressions formed by the two outter pins that connect the track pieces together. The marks EXACTLY MATCH. Her body obviously was lying on these pieces for more than a few seconds, & this is how the resulting impressions were formed.

Incidently the photos of similiar marks on at least one photos of a very live Jonbenet shortly taken BEFORE her death tells me that someone held her down on top of one of these track pieces, long enough for the marks to form.. IMO further confirming an escalating pattern of aggression that is also noted by her increased "clinginess" as reported by her teachers shortly before the FINAL assault that caused her death.

IMO it is totally & amazingly stupid that this is even still being debated.

I'm not able to include reference links but I bet others would be glad to if there are still people who havent already read ALL of the material available ( & yet feel qualified to opine??).

Positively matched by whom?? And when?

To call it "totally and amazingly stupid" Is really not helpful at all to the conversation in my opinion. We are all entitled to how we feel and think about the case. Since it has not been solved and no one has been convicted, this case is still wide open to many possibilities.

JMO

 

[gramcracker]

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=10129&page=9

 

[Linda7NJ]

The various "abrasions", sometimes opined as stun gun markings on her face, back, legs (in photos prior to her death), HAVE NEVER BEEN MATCHED TO ANY KNOWN TASER OR STUN-GUN. PERIOD. Any sort of stun-gun OR taser would have left it's mark.

The marks erroneously ascribed to such weapon HAVE been POSITIVELY MATCHED to traintrack pieces found in the basement and near her body: They are impressions formed by the two outter pins that connect the track pieces together. The marks EXACTLY MATCH. Her body obviously was lying on these pieces for more than a few seconds, & this is how the resulting impressions were formed.

Incidently the photos of similiar marks on at least one photos of a very live Jonbenet shortly taken BEFORE her death tells me that someone held her down on top of one of these track pieces, long enough for the marks to form.. IMO further confirming an escalating pattern of aggression that is also noted by her increased "clinginess" as reported by her teachers shortly before the FINAL assault that caused her death.

IMO it is totally & amazingly stupid that this is even still being debated.

I'm not able to include reference links but I bet others would be glad to if there are still people who havent already read ALL of the material available ( & yet feel qualified to opine??).

IMO the marks aren't from laying on... They're from being deliberately poked.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk