Day 10 / The Stun Gun / The 12 days of JonBenet.

[Springrain]

I've never been able to fathom why so many otherwise intelligent people believe a stun gun was used. (nor have I ever understood why a respected homicide detective like Lou Smit would bend over backwards to make a non-existent case for an intruder, but I guess he really believed people Saved By The Cross would never do the things the Ramseys did.)

First, it was only a "close match" with the stun gun Smit landed on as the only one that could have done it. In other words, it didn't match.

Secondly, why would an intruder risk the screams of a zapped child? Big brother was just down the hall and his parents just above him. An intruder would have had to have been very bold indeed, feeding JonBenet, hunting around finding materials with which to kill her and to write a fake ransom note, spending all that time concocting and writing out 2 1/2 pages of a rambling, unnecessary note...why add to the chances of discovery by risking screams when duct tape alone would have kept her quiet?

I understand why people who haven't studied this case buy into the Ramsey spin that an intruder did it. But I can't understand how people - like Smit - who know the details of the case and who are trained experts could ever buy into the notion that someone outside of the three others in the home did this.

I agree with everything you wrote

 

[Sunshine4Me]

Why would someone like John Ramsey have use for a stun gun? Did he collect weapons or have firearms in the home? Maybe for protection purposes? I've never known anyone but LE to have one.

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

I don't know about John, but many people who own businesses or work with money, or who are responsible for making bank deposits often own guns or stun guns for protection, in addition to other types of weapons. Also people who work at night and women who live alone, which John is not. I'm a woman who has worked with money and I never worked at a business that didn't have multiple forms of weapons, and encouraged us to bring our own, as well as having panic buttons. Since John was a business owner he may well have had weapons, but that is my own speculation, and he likely had office managers in charge of the money. I don't think he would need to use a weapon on his own child even if he did own one.

*The truth is out there*

 

[Kittybunny]

I totally don't buy the marks were made by a stun gun either, even before knowing that the manufacturer of the stun gun completely disavowed that the marks could have been made by that. In fact, I laughed out loud when the A&E Special showed a picture of the train tracks side by side to the marks on JBR's and said that they didn't match up, when anyone with two eyes in their head (or even one) could see they were a perfect match. Even if it wasn't possible for them to leave the marks (not hot or sharp enough?), it was ridiculous.

Even in an IDI theory, a stun gun just doesn't really make sense - either the killer was prepared for this crime, which a stun gun would speak to, or he wasn't (using all the available stuff in the house). AND this was a six-year old tiny little girl - he needs a stun gun, a blow to the head, AND a garrotte to subdue her? Puh-lease.

 

[Springrain]

I totally don't buy the marks were made by a stun gun either, even before knowing that the manufacturer of the stun gun completely disavowed that the marks could have been made by that. In fact, I laughed out loud when the A&E Special showed a picture of the train tracks side by side to the marks on JBR's and said that they didn't match up, when anyone with two eyes in their head (or even one) could see they were a perfect match. Even if it wasn't possible for them to leave the marks (not hot or sharp enough?), it was ridiculous.

Even in an IDI theory, a stun gun just doesn't really make sense - either the killer was prepared for this crime, which a stun gun would speak to, or he wasn't (using all the available stuff in the house). AND this was a six-year old tiny little girl - he needs a stun gun, a blow to the head, AND a garrotte to subdue her? Puh-lease.

I agree. :wave:

 

[BBB167893]

I totally don't buy the marks were made by a stun gun either, even before knowing that the manufacturer of the stun gun completely disavowed that the marks could have been made by that. In fact, I laughed out loud when the A&E Special showed a picture of the train tracks side by side to the marks on JBR's and said that they didn't match up, when anyone with two eyes in their head (or even one) could see they were a perfect match. Even if it wasn't possible for them to leave the marks (not hot or sharp enough?), it was ridiculous.

Even in an IDI theory, a stun gun just doesn't really make sense - either the killer was prepared for this crime, which a stun gun would speak to, or he wasn't (using all the available stuff in the house). AND this was a six-year old tiny little girl - he needs a stun gun, a blow to the head, AND a garrotte to subdue her? Puh-lease.

Boy, did you nail it!