Do you think a Stungun was used?

[JMO8778]

yea,didn't Lacy say at one point,that basically 'Santa Bill' did it? and then the RST was on him like stink on you know what,too,I think.Nevermind there was absolutely no forensic evidence to link him to the crime whatsoever,unlike the R's.
I can't even imagine the stress he must have been under,considering he'd had heart surgery.I hope karma does it's thing with all those who've wrongly accused him.

 

[Nom de plume]

I am probably the only RDI who thinks it possible that a stun gun could have been used. I just can't rule it out, in view of the fact that a stun gun video was found in the home, and the Rs admitted it was theirs. It was in Spanish, which they pointed out, but you can watch it and still get a grasp of how to operate the stun gun. As we know, no stun gun was found. (Anyone check that golf bag? Search the Rs as they left? Search Aunty P?- didn't think so).
But it seems suspicious that the Rs would admit they owned a stun gun video, but deny owning the actual stun gun. Obviously, they WANT it to be thought that a stun gun was used, yet refused to allow exhumation to test the tissue while it was still early enough to tell.
If a stun gun was used, I can only envision two scenarios. One, that it was used after she was dead or unconscious to enhance the appearance of an intruder's botched kidnapping OR two, IF BR was somehow involved, possibly with JAR or DS, (which is the only way I think he could be involved) then they could have used it to subdue her. She did scream, and that could have been the reason why. If you look very closely, you can see a faint mark on her cheek, parallel to the mark we are all familiar with. It does not look like the abrasion we see, but it seems to be in the position that lines up like the pair of marks on her back. If the duct tape was in the way and prevented the abrasion, as we see on the part of her cheek NOT covered by the tape, then I thing we can assume that if a stun gun was used, it was after she was unconscious, because we know the tape was put on an unconscious JBR.
Of the two, I lean towards the first one, that if one was used, it was part of the staging.

DeeDee you're not the only one who's wondered about this. I don't believe it was used on her back. I think those marks were from the train track. I just don't have enough info on the mark on her cheek to decide one way or the other. Wouldn't it have left a mark on the tape?

IF a stun gun was used on her it could have gone away with the roll of tape, any leftover cord, and who knows what else. I think Kolar has it right. IIRC, he thought JR disposed of staging tools in the dumpster behind the Barnhill's house, and that's what JR was using the binoculars for in BR's bedroom. To see if it had been emptied yet.

The thing that keeps nagging at me is why did they have the video? It seems like the kind of thing that would come with the purchase of a stun gun, like an instructional video. It's possible that it was just a promotional video, but doesn't seem as likely to me.

 

[wengr]

I think the chance that a stungun was used is between slim and none. Since the marks are inconclusive I remove them from consideration at this point, and instead consider the following. There is no rational explanation for an R to use a stungun. Also, I see no rational reason for and intruder to want to use a device which may be loud enough to be heard by others and would most likely lead to JB screaming and thrashing about long before one could carry her down and out in the dark. IMO it make zero sense.

 

[Nom de plume]

I think the chance that a stungun was used is between slim and none. Since the marks are inconclusive I remove them from consideration at this point, and instead consider the following. There is no rational explanation for an R to use a stungun. Also, I see no rational reason for and intruder to want to use a device which may be loud enough to be heard by others and would most likely lead to JB screaming and thrashing about long before one could carry her down and out in the dark. IMO it make zero sense.

BBM
IF, and that's a BIG IF, one was used, I think it would only have been used after she was unconcious or dead, and only for staging purposed. Possibly, but not likely, accounting for the mark on her cheek, but not for the marks on her back.

ITA it would have to be one dumb inturder, but you know how incompetent (and imaginary) those "Foreign Faction" people are!

 

[Anyhoo]

This thread tells me that the majority of people on this site have already decided the R's are guilty. The Stun Gun does not go along with that, so it follows that there was no stun gun used.

 

[DeeDee249]

This thread tells me that the majority of people on this site have already decided the R's are guilty. The Stun Gun does not go along with that, so it follows that there was no stun gun used.

The Grand Jury thought they were guilty too.

The Stun Gun was a Lou Smit "invention". Nothing indicated the marks were burns.
And the Rs refusal to allow an exhumation for further testing ensured no one would ever find out if it was true.

 

[fruity]

I voted no. I don't believe a stun gun was used, not because I think the Ramseys are guilty but because I can't find any convincing evidence that one was used.

 

[BOESP]

The Grand Jury thought they were guilty too.

The Stun Gun was a Lou Smit "invention". Nothing indicated the marks were burns.
And the Rs refusal to allow an exhumation for further testing ensured no one would ever find out if it was true.

I'm not positively sure but I think the State of Georgia allows for exhumation without consent from next of kin if the judicial system requests it.

 

[DeeDee249]

I'm not positively sure but I think the State of Georgia allows for exhumation without consent from next of kin if the judicial system requests it.

Oh, I know. The Rs consent wasn't needed at all. All that was needed was for the DA to ask a judge for a warrant for the exhumation. But we now have proof of what a coward he really was.

 

[BOESP]

Oh, I know. The Rs consent wasn't needed at all. All that was needed was for the DA to ask a judge for a warrant for the exhumation. But we now have proof of what a coward he really was.

It's one thing to feel like a case isn't prosecutable but another thing to refuse to gather evidence. If Hunter really thought the Ramseys were innocent and that Smit's stun gun theory was valid it looks like Hunter would have been overjoyed to request an exhumation doesn't it? It's not like any of the Ramseys had to attend.

Grand Juries, at least in my state, have extremely potent powers to bring a case to court. The "indict a ham sandwich" comment makes me want to eat a biscuit. :furious:

When the Ramseys were told about a Grand Jury being convened, didn't Patsy make a comment that she and John thought they should prepare to be taken to jail and she wished they had been because then it would be over one way or another (or words to that effect)?

 

[txsvicki]

The train tacks in the basement fitting exactly with the abrasions that were made with a jab and twisting motion as reported by Kolar in his book pretty much rules out any stun gun.

 

[DeDee]

I am convinced that a stun gun had been used on JonBenet (I don't like the use of "100%" in the poll question but, based on the evidence, that designation comes closest to what I think).

There were three areas on JonBenet's body that were likely injuries from stun gun hits. These were on the right side of the face; on the lower-left back; and on the lower left leg near the ankle. The marks on the back were the clearest to diagnose.

The size and shape and distance apart of the twin rectangular marks, especially on JonBenet's back, clearly matched the metaL prongs of a Taser brand stun gun.

I'm not a member of the RST but I'm convinced that JonBenet had been tased. Moreover, I'm convinced that a Ramsey family member was involved in the tasing and the stun gun disappeared with the rest of the missing physical evidence from the crime scene (the tape, the cord, etc.).

Here's how the coroner described the little rectangular marks in his autopsy report:

"Located on the right side of the chin is a three-sixteenths by one-eighth of an inch area of superficial abrasion."

"On the left lateral aspect of the lower back, approximately sixteen and one-quarter inches and seventeen and one-half inches below the level of the top of the head are two dried rust colored to slightly purple abrasions. The more superior of the two measures one-eighth by one-sixteenth of an inch and the more inferior measures three-sixteenths by one-eighth of an inch."

"On the posterior aspect of the lower left leg, almost in the midline, approiximately 4 inches above the level of the heel are two small scratch-like abrasions which are dried and rust colored. They measure one-sixteenth by less than one-sixteenth of an inch and one-eighth by less than one-sixteenth of an inch respectively".

Meyer, after reviewing additional evidence, later agreed that the marks are consistent with stun gun injuries.

BlueCrab

Precisely.

Jan 09 2006

I don't think he was considered an expert on stun guns when the Boggs case happened. From what I can find that was the case that started his research. He identified the marks as abrasions. Later a stun gun was found. He was asked to see if the marks could be from the stun gun and he did the research and exhumed the body.

His work as an ME is respected enough to get him invited to help on both the World Trade Center identification and Katrina.

http://www.5280.com/blog/?p=1264

The earliest work I can find from Stratbucker on stun guns is in the late 1980s.

It's not uncommon for known stun gun marks to be described as abrasions.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/
query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1288262&dopt=Abstract

Homicidal manual strangulation and multiple stun-gun injuries.

Ikeda N, Harada A, Suzuki T.

Department of Forensic Medicine, Yamagata University School of Medicine, Japan.

Stun guns are electric shock devices that are used by a number of law enforcement agencies to subdue violent offenders, but sometimes are discharged into human bodies as offensive weapons. We autopsied a 22-year-old woman who was strangled and had many stun-gun injuries on her head, chest, abdomen, arms, and legs. The stun-gun injuries consisted of many pairs of round erythemas with or without central paleness, some of which were accompanied by circumferential abrasions. To determine whether the electric shocks were administered before or after her death, we studied stun-gun injuries on pigs before and after death and found that the shocks after death did not mark the animal skin. Based on this experiment, all of the stun-gun injuries on the victim's body were concluded to have been inflicted before her death.


http://www.iand.uscourts.gov/iand/decisions.nsf/
0/fc04329aefc2770e86256aa20070f24c?OpenDocument

According to the officers, Snow continued to complain about his medical condition. Captain Marlin informed him that he was moving to a side room and displayed the XR5000 stun gun. When Snow would not get off his bed, the officers lifted him and placed him on the floor. They had difficulty handcuffing him because he would not cooperate. Captain Marlin used the XR5000 stun gun in Snow's back twice to attempt to get him to cooperate in being cuffed. According to the officers, Snow reacted to being stunned but continued to be uncooperative. Snow was carried to the side room by the correctional officers where he was uncuffed and assisted to his bed. He had small abrasions on his back from the stun gun and on his wrist from the handcuffs. He refused to allow Nurse Stoll to treat him.

These posts explain the stun gun marks being labeled as abrasions in JonBenet's AR.

 

[otg]

These posts explain the stun gun marks being labeled as abrasions in JonBenet's AR.

The word "abrasion", as used by a forensic pathologist is different from what we (as laypersons) think. They use the word simply to describe the visual appearance of a wound until they can determine exactly what caused it. We think of it as describing how it occurred:

First of all, we all probably think of an abrasion as something caused by a rubbing action which causes some type of visible damage to skin. But if a medical person sees some type of damage and doesn’t know the cause, he might refer to the area as an abrasion because of its definition in dermatology. In other words, he is not addressing its cause, but rather its appearance.

When we (maybe I should say “I”, as a lay person) think of a cut, a bruise, or an abrasion, we (or, I) think subjectively to the cause of each. When a pathologist uses these terms, he/she is thinking objectively to the appearance until he/she establishes the cause.

“In dermatology, an abrasion is a wound caused by superficial damage to the skin, no deeper than the epidermis. It is less severe than a laceration, and bleeding, if present, is minimal.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrasion_%28medical%29

Also, like burns, there are degrees of abrasion:

• A first-degree abrasion involves only epidermal injury.
• A second-degree abrasion involves the epidermis as well as the dermis and may bleed slightly.
• A third-degree abrasion involves damage to the subcutaneous layer and the skin and is often called an avulsion.

 

[Venom]

The word "abrasion", as used by a forensic pathologist is different from what we (as laypersons) think. They use the word simply to describe the visual appearance of a wound until they can determine exactly what caused it. We think of it as describing how it occurred:Also, like burns, there are degrees of abrasion:

• A first-degree abrasion involves only epidermal injury.
• A second-degree abrasion involves the epidermis as well as the dermis and may bleed slightly.
• A third-degree abrasion involves damage to the subcutaneous layer and the skin and is often called an avulsion.

To me, an abrasion is like a rub.

 

[DeeDee249]

To me, an abrasion is like a rub.

That's what it would be to most of us. But as otg stated, medically and forensically it had a different meaning. One example to compare it to is when the coroner described JB's cross, ring and bracelet as "yellow metal". Looking at them, that is exactly what they are. But on further examination (and possibly testing) it would be noted that these were 14K gold. But in the autopsy, the coroner reports what he SEES first. He sees yellow metal. Then clarifies it by further examination. I suppose it is the same with the abrasions.
Very frustrating that he never determined what made them- and they may not have all had the same cause. Exhuming the body would have helped. A real shame AH didn't have the guts to get a warrant for it.

 

[Mama2JML]

An excerpt from the deposition of Robert Allen Stratbucker M.D. in Wolf v. Ramsey, 2002:

"8 Q. You did not rely on your review of
9 photographs at NBC in coming to your conclusions
10 in your Rule 26 report; did you, sir?
11 A. I am not quite -- I don't
12 understand.
13 Q. You told us everything in your Rule
14 26 report that you -- Matters Considered: I
15 have examined the following documents as part of
16 my examination and report.
17 And you listed the autopsy report,
18 and you listed four monochrome laser printed
19 images purporting to be renditions of the crime
20 scene and autopsy photographs most commonly
21 attributed to Detective Lou Smit?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. You didn't say anything about
24 anything you saw at NBC; did you?
25 A. No. What I saw at NBC was a
00055
1 hurried mishmash of stuff that was not very well
2 provided, ill provided; and I really had
3 difficulty making any sense out of what they
4 showed me.
5 Q. Do you know who at NBC you were
6 dealing with?
7 A. I can't remember the man's name.
8 Nightline was the program.
9 Q. That would be ABC.
10 A. Well, I am sorry then. It is
11 Dateline.
12 Q. Dateline?
13 A. Dateline, yes.
14 Q. Was there some idea that perhaps
15 they might do a segment involving you that Mr.
16 Tuttle wanted them to do?
17 A. No, no. The purpose of it, as told
18 to me over the telephone in North Carolina that
19 caused me to come to New York, was that NBC
20 was wanting to do a counterpoint on the Couric
21 presentation that had occurred that previous week
22 or maybe earlier that week and that they wanted
23 someone else outside, an expert, to review the
24 pictures and render an expert opinion on them
25 that was outside of the group that had already
00056
1 been involved. And that is why they apparently
2 contacted me.
3 Q. And that was never done, in terms of
4 your involvement after the --
5 A. Well, I actually was -- I actually
6 was on the air for a very brief period of
7 time.
8 Q. Talking about what case?
9 A. Talking about the Ramsey case.
10 Q. On Dateline?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. What you were shown was not, as you
13 described it, you had difficulty making any
14 sense out of what they showed you on NBC?
15 A. Yes. They showed me some cropped
16 video presentations of what were alleged to be
17 some new evidence or new photographs that had
18 not yet been seen, I think maybe from Mr.
19 Smit's collection. And they wanted to know if
20 I thought they looked like stun gun marks on
21 these photographs that they presented on a
22 monitor. Now, they had other photographs
23 around, but the ones that they wanted me to
24 comment on and which they took my video
25 deposition, essentially, was based on some
00057
1 electronically presented photographic material
2 that were some spots that they wished to know
3 if I thought they looked like stun gun marks.
4 And I, in the brief time that I was
5 on there, I said that I really --
6 Q. Couldn't say?
7 A. -- couldn't say.
8 Q. Could have been stun gun marks?
9 A. Yeah, might have been.
10 Q. You were not in a position to --
11 A. Might have been.
12 Q. Might have been?
13 A. Might have been. Couldn't say.
14 Q. In fact, the marks on JonBenet's
15 back, as you state in your written notes here
16 that are part of Defendants' Exhibit 6, could
17 have been made by, your words, a conventional
18 sharp pointed stun gun, true?
19 A. Possible, yeah."​

Source: http://www.acandyrose.com/05302002Depo-RobertStratbuckerMd.htm

 

[Mama2JML]

A curious excerpt from Stratbucker's deposition in Wolf v. Ramsey:

"2 Q. Does the contract that TASER
3 International has recently been awarded by the
4 United States Government involve the purchase by
5 the government of stun guns?
6 A. The specific nature of that contract
7 is confidential.
8 Q. Does TASER International manufacture
9 anything other than stun guns?
10 A. Not anymore. They had a product at
11 one time which was an electrically operated car
12 theft preventer, and they no longer make that.
13 Q. To your knowledge, are they about to
14 start making a new product other than a stun
15 gun?
16 A. No.
17 Q. You have in your file a spiral small
18 pad. On the second page of that you have the
19 name Fleet White.
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. What caused you to write Fleet
22 White's name down there?
23 A. Well, I suppose that -- this looks
24 like some notes I made in conversation with a
25 student at the University of Michigan State by
00054
1 the name of Mary McCullough. And I don't know
2 Fleet White at all. This looks like Mr.
3 Hoffman's telephone number. And why I wrote
4 that down, I don't have any idea. But that is
5 -- these are some telephone notes that I took
6 probably in the course of a telephone
7 conversation with Mary McCullough.
8 Q. You did not rely on your review of
9 photographs at NBC in coming to your conclusions
10 in your Rule 26 report; did you, sir?...​

​

 

[Linda7NJ]

A curious excerpt from Stratbucker's deposition in Wolf v. Ramsey:

"2 Q. Does the contract that TASER
3 International has recently been awarded by the
4 United States Government involve the purchase by
5 the government of stun guns?
6 A. The specific nature of that contract
7 is confidential.
8 Q. Does TASER International manufacture
9 anything other than stun guns?
10 A. Not anymore. They had a product at
11 one time which was an electrically operated car
12 theft preventer, and they no longer make that.
13 Q. To your knowledge, are they about to
14 start making a new product other than a stun
15 gun?
16 A. No.
17 Q. You have in your file a spiral small
18 pad. On the second page of that you have the
19 name Fleet White.
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. What caused you to write Fleet
22 White's name down there?
23 A. Well, I suppose that -- this looks
24 like some notes I made in conversation with a
25 student at the University of Michigan State by
00054
1 the name of Mary McCullough. And I don't know
2 Fleet White at all. This looks like Mr.
3 Hoffman's telephone number. And why I wrote
4 that down, I don't have any idea. But that is
5 -- these are some telephone notes that I took
6 probably in the course of a telephone
7 conversation with Mary McCullough.
8 Q. You did not rely on your review of
9 photographs at NBC in coming to your conclusions
10 in your Rule 26 report; did you, sir?...​

​

Odd very odd.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[THE BUNK]

I seem to remember that you can use a stun gun through clothes. There are no corresponding marks on any of her clothes. Why would the intruder use it on bare skin. More importantly why would he not use this while she was sleeping in bed and just use it against the sheets?

 

[Mama2JML]

I seem to remember that you can use a stun gun through clothes. There are no corresponding marks on any of her clothes. Why would the intruder use it on bare skin. More importantly why would he not use this while she was sleeping in bed and just use it against the sheets?

Evidence suggests the device was used on a living, breathing body, and that it was applied to the victim's face while the tape was over her mouth.