Britt
New Member
Exactly right, Ivy. Doberson is useless as an advocate of the stun gun theory.
Sabrina, good post.
Dr. Lee on duct tape in Ramsey case
- Thread starter candy
- Start date
Sabrina, good post.
tipper
Former Member
http://www.acandyrose.com/03312003carnes71-80.htm
Dr. Michael Doberson, a forensic pathologist who examined the Boulder Coroner's autopsy report and autopsy photos, and who concluded that the injuries to "the right side of the face as well as on the lower left back are patterned injuries most consistent with the application of a stun gun." (Report of Michael Doberson, M.D., Ph.D. at 5(A) attach. as Ex. 3 to Defs.' Ex. Vol. I, Part A. )
Dr. Michael Doberson, a forensic pathologist who examined the Boulder Coroner's autopsy report and autopsy photos, and who concluded that the injuries to "the right side of the face as well as on the lower left back are patterned injuries most consistent with the application of a stun gun." (Report of Michael Doberson, M.D., Ph.D. at 5(A) attach. as Ex. 3 to Defs.' Ex. Vol. I, Part A. )
A
ajt400
Guest
So why doesn't anyone investigate this? Is that not strange to anyone else? If it is a butoon, could that not be but one more thing to hang the person in the courtroom?
M
Maxi
Guest
I keep thinking about the piece of black sheet metal that was taken into evidence. Could the black duct tape have been on the sheet metal for some reason?
I, too, took the 2 inch measurement to refer to width. A 2 inch length of duct tape is awfully small to use for anything, much less gagging a child.
I, too, took the 2 inch measurement to refer to width. A 2 inch length of duct tape is awfully small to use for anything, much less gagging a child.
A
ajt400
Guest
I know this isn't accurate, but I have a small head for a 23 yr old. (LOL) I just made a 2 inch space with my hand and covered my mouth, and it worked. (With not a lot of cheek left over--so what about in a child?) If you could put it on before she is awakened or startled, you could easily get it on...
tipper
Former Member
I can't find the picture on line now I think on one of the autopsy photographs you can see where the tape was. As I recall it extended about an inch beyond her mouth.
Shylock
Former Member
"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," Doberson said.
http://web.dailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/1998/01/13-1.html
Looks like the only thing Doberson is an expert on, is how to impeach his own testimony...LOL
A
ajt400
Guest
But can one not see burn marks from a photo alone? Can't you tell the skin is singed?
Toth
Inactive
I think a good forensic photo can be sufficient but that a microscopic examination of the cellular structure of the tissues is the 'gold standard'.
A wife who comes home and finds another woman in bed with her husband has definitive evidence but if she just smells that woman's perfume and finds the panties she left behind, the wife won't spend much time saying she needs the 'gold standard'.
Microscopic examination of tissues show the iron particles all lined up and forms the basis for the conclusion of electricity locally applied, but the forensic-quality photograph of the skin and the appearance of the marks is sufficient to form a valid conclusion too. It might be nice to have the confirmatory test, but I don't see it as necessary.
A wife who comes home and finds another woman in bed with her husband has definitive evidence but if she just smells that woman's perfume and finds the panties she left behind, the wife won't spend much time saying she needs the 'gold standard'.
Microscopic examination of tissues show the iron particles all lined up and forms the basis for the conclusion of electricity locally applied, but the forensic-quality photograph of the skin and the appearance of the marks is sufficient to form a valid conclusion too. It might be nice to have the confirmatory test, but I don't see it as necessary.
Cherokee
Well-Known Member
Ah, Toth -
I see you've posted after my request for sources regarding your statement that the tape on JBR's mouth was NEW.
So ... we're waiting for that source ... and waiting ... and still waiting ...
(some things never change)
My opinion.
I see you've posted after my request for sources regarding your statement that the tape on JBR's mouth was NEW.
So ... we're waiting for that source ... and waiting ... and still waiting ...
(some things never change)
My opinion.
Cherokee
Well-Known Member
Doberson: "YOU REALLY CAN'T TELL FROM A PHOTO."
Oh, that is priceless. Thank you, Shylock, for that little quote.
Doberson: "I really can't tell from a photo, but dog gone it, I'll get up in court and say you can, well sort of, I mean, well I thought I could, I don't know, well yeah, it could be stun gun, or I don't know, but I want it to be a stun gun so that's kind of what I thought, BUT YOU REALLY CAN'T TELL FROM A PHOTO."
My opinion.
tipper
Former Member
From Shylock's link:
"... Doberson said Boulder detectives visited him April 25 to ask about a 2-year-old Arapahoe County case in which the coroner exhumed the body of Gerald Boggs eight months after burial and found evidence of electrical shock in the man's skin tissue.
"They came over and showed me some pictures from the (Ramsey) autopsy and asked for my opinion, whether they could be stun gun injuries," Doberson 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."
Doberson 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.
But with fired projectiles instead of fixed prongs, does the measurement theory hold up for a Taser-type weapon?
"Not unless the distances between the two firing prongs are set so they would always hit the body the same distance apart," Doberson said.
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," Doberson said.
Although Schiller's piece makes Hunter seem ready to exhume JonBenet's body, Laurion said his willingness to do so was overstated and hinges on the Boulder police.
"Our office is not advocating the exhumation of the body," Laurion said. "What Hunter makes clear is the police say that in their search for the truth, (if) they feel the need exhumation of the body, he would support their desire for this.
"It's very much their call."
"... Doberson said Boulder detectives visited him April 25 to ask about a 2-year-old Arapahoe County case in which the coroner exhumed the body of Gerald Boggs eight months after burial and found evidence of electrical shock in the man's skin tissue.
"They came over and showed me some pictures from the (Ramsey) autopsy and asked for my opinion, whether they could be stun gun injuries," Doberson 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."
Doberson 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.
But with fired projectiles instead of fixed prongs, does the measurement theory hold up for a Taser-type weapon?
"Not unless the distances between the two firing prongs are set so they would always hit the body the same distance apart," Doberson said.
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," Doberson said.
Although Schiller's piece makes Hunter seem ready to exhume JonBenet's body, Laurion said his willingness to do so was overstated and hinges on the Boulder police.
"Our office is not advocating the exhumation of the body," Laurion said. "What Hunter makes clear is the police say that in their search for the truth, (if) they feel the need exhumation of the body, he would support their desire for this.
"It's very much their call."
Ivy
Inactive
The BPD knew very well if they requested that JonBenet's body be exhumed, it would go against the Ramseys' wishes, and it would make LE look bad in the public's eyes. The Ramseys like to paint themselves as victims of LE, so why would LE want to do anything that would make themselves look cruel and uncaring? Besides, even if it was proved that a stun gun made the marks on JonBenet, it wouldn't indicate if a Ramsey (not to mention which Ramsey), or if an intruder stunned her.
A
ajt400
Guest
Thanks for the info....does anyone else think that this is a signifigant link/clue to the murder? Whatever it was it had to be put there after or during her death...if you could connect whatever it is to where it came from---it might be important.
Toth
Inactive
I see you've posted after my request for sources regarding your statement that the tape on JBR's mouth was NEW.
..........Perhaps. I don't know what post you are talking about.
So ... we're waiting for that source ... and waiting ... and still waiting ...
...............Why? Its well known it was new. I even recall posting somewhere about the fibers being changed and the adhesive forumulation being changed, but not the product number or bar code.
(some things never change)
............such as your asking me to post a fact that is easily verifiable at the Forum of Reason?
The tape was manufactured in NC and plant officials confirmed that a change in the industrial processes give a fairly narrow five week window of manufacturing to that particular roll of tape, however since barcodes and product numbers were not changed there is no way to tell from invoices or shipping records whether tape sent to any particular store was 'old tape' 'interim tape' or 'new tape'.
The only thing they could do is say that it had the change in one but not the other, therefore the tape was manufactured in the approximately five week interval between the fiber change and the adhesive chemistry change.
On edit: Note: it is fairly common in industry to make changes that are at separate times, so all kinks have been worked out of the process and any problems are attributable to just one change.
..........Perhaps. I don't know what post you are talking about.
So ... we're waiting for that source ... and waiting ... and still waiting ...
...............Why? Its well known it was new. I even recall posting somewhere about the fibers being changed and the adhesive forumulation being changed, but not the product number or bar code.
(some things never change)
............such as your asking me to post a fact that is easily verifiable at the Forum of Reason?
The tape was manufactured in NC and plant officials confirmed that a change in the industrial processes give a fairly narrow five week window of manufacturing to that particular roll of tape, however since barcodes and product numbers were not changed there is no way to tell from invoices or shipping records whether tape sent to any particular store was 'old tape' 'interim tape' or 'new tape'.
The only thing they could do is say that it had the change in one but not the other, therefore the tape was manufactured in the approximately five week interval between the fiber change and the adhesive chemistry change.
On edit: Note: it is fairly common in industry to make changes that are at separate times, so all kinks have been worked out of the process and any problems are attributable to just one change.
why_nutt
New Member
In the context of this discussion, "new" does not refer to the recent nature of the tape's manufacture, but to the amount of time the tape had been off its source roll before it was placed on JonBenet's mouth. Dr. Lee's words are being taken as saying that, according to his knowledge (knowledge gained because we do know he went to Boulder at Hunter's request and he did directly examine evidence), the tape was not fresh off the roll when placed. Dr. Lee is saying the tape was put on something else, and then taken off of that item and put on JonBenet's mouth. If, for example, the tape segment had been in the house on December 15th and was attached to the back of a picture, on December 26th forensic examination would be able to reveal it to have lost some of the volume of adhesive it should have if it had been fresh off the roll.
I think this may be what Lee is referring to, and it makes sense when you think about it. Adhesive has X thickness upon being layered onto the fabric backing. If the tape should have X thickness when put on one object, and removing the tape creates a thickness of X - Y, then a tape which has more adhesive lost than can be accounted for via X - Y must lead one to believe that the adhesive lost thickness via X - Y - Z.
Cherokee
Well-Known Member
Oh, somehow you missed it? Okay then, I counted up from your post on the forensic photo, and it's 16 posts before that one. I asked for your source that the tape was NEW.
That's IT? That's your SOURCE? That it's "WELL KNOWN"?
What kind of a source is that? That's no source at all.
It's also "well known" that drinking coffee turns your toes black, and that if you keep crossing your eyes, they will stick.
I'm talking about identifiable legitimate sources. LE, transcripts, documents.
And guess what. You won't find a source for "the tape was new," as in NEVER BEEN OFF THE ROLL UNTIL IT WAS PUT ON JBR'S MOUTH, in any verifiable sources.
No, Toth, you know what I mean. Some things never change as in you never give sources for your statements regarding evidence. The Forum of Reason? Don't make me laugh ... or lose my lunch.
Once again, no one here is asking if the tape on JBR's mouth was "old tape" "interim tape" or "new tape" FROM THE MANUFACTURER.
Of course it was new AT ONE TIME. It would have been new when it first reached the Ramsey house. But IT HAD BEEN USED ON SOMETHING ELSE BEFORE IT WAS PLACED ON JBR'S MOUTH!
That is the point.
It was USED, as in it did not come FRESH off a roll of tape to be placed on JBR's mouth. It had been on something previously.
My opinion.
Toth
Inactive
Our eight asterisk Friend of Truth, Justice and The American Way spoke to the plant officials who informed her that the BPD officers who had visited said the company was not to talk about the tape.
By "new" I do not mean 'taken off the roll and immediately placed on JonBenet' although I do think that is what happened. By "new tape" I mean "recently manufactured and therefore unlikely to have been used for any other purpose on a prior occasion".
I have no information on how long it would normally take a roll of duct tape to work its way through the distribution chain but I have always been suspicious of an item that was manufactured so recently had found its way to Colorad so promptly. Its not like its gift wrapping tape or anything. Its not.
By "new" I do not mean 'taken off the roll and immediately placed on JonBenet' although I do think that is what happened. By "new tape" I mean "recently manufactured and therefore unlikely to have been used for any other purpose on a prior occasion".
I have no information on how long it would normally take a roll of duct tape to work its way through the distribution chain but I have always been suspicious of an item that was manufactured so recently had found its way to Colorad so promptly. Its not like its gift wrapping tape or anything. Its not.
Jayelles
New Member
This is odd to me. Women tend to take note if another woman has an IDENTICAL outfit. Women don't like to find themselves wearing the same outfit as a friend.
If the jackets were the same, I think Patsy would have known for sure. I think there would have been some discussion about it - even in fun.
Sabrina
Former Member
Yeah, I woould have guessed Patsy to say something like her jacket came from Nordstroms but Priscilla's was from KMart....LOL
Similar threads
