The RST (Ramsey Spin Team) cannot accept that some of us believe in Ramsey innocence but NOT in all of the so called evidence. To them, if you don't believe in the stungun, the hi-tec print, the palmprint, no Burke's voice on the 911 tape ... then you are a "BORG!!!!" (imagine this being screeched and you'll get the picture
)
I am quite used to being called BORG by the RST and quite frankly, it only strengthens my case that they are unobjective in viewing the facts in this case.
I believe that if it could be proved that a stungun were used, then it would strengthne the case for an intruder. However, I am not convinced that a stungun was used for a few simple reasons:-
1. The FACT that the autopsy report itself does not support the use of a stungun since Meyer describes the marks as abrasions and not burns.
2. The FACT that there is only one PAIR of marks and that to me does not a pattern make! I am not persuaded by RST whines that the white patch on her face is melted adhesive from the duct tape caused by the second prong from the "stungun" landing on the duct tape. Where does it describe a patch of adhesive on her face in the autopsy report? I'm sorry, but I think if it could be proved that a heat device had come in contact with the duct tape then Lou Smit would have been shouting it from the rooftops.
3. The fact that the #1 leading expert (and he is) - Dr Robert Stratbucker's does not believe the marks were made by a stungun. Noone has more experience of examining, studying and photographing stungun marks than Dr Stratbucker so his opinion cannot be simply dismissed!
4. The FACT that Doberson himself stated:-
[font=verdana,arial,helvetica]quote:[/font] 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://www.acandyrose.com/index2.htm
5. I did some careful comparisons myself with the assistance of a computer graphics specialist from Edinburgh University and we concluded that the pairs of marks on JonBenet did NOT match the marks made on a pig with an Air Taser. Apart from the fact that they in no way resembled the pig marks, the difference in spacing was not the same. I would like to add that the reason I undertook this little piece of research was because I was skeptical of the findings of a former member of WS called Cutter when he did his research. I set out to disprove him and ended up corroborating his work.
The RST are very anxious to try and discredit Dr Stratbucker and perhaps some day the good Dr will speak out and give his version of why he was withdrawn as a witness in the Wolf suit. I wouldn't be surprised if he had walked out in disgust at Lin WOod's underhand interview tactics.
I spent some time researching Dr Statbucker and his credentials are most impressive. He has acted as an expert witness in more States than anyone else, has written more papers and books, has been involved in most experiments and his experience goes back decades. In the extensive experiments where human guinea pigs were used, Dr Stratbucker monitored and photographed the marks closely over a period of 2 days. His papers describe the marks and the clinical changes they went through. I think that he is better placed than anyone to comment on photographs of potential stungun marks.
I find it compelling that jameson in her quest to spin pro-Ramsey will claim that the pigs in Doberson's experiments died and that some photos were taken which MORE closely resembled he marks on JonBenet than the ones we have seen. If this were the case, why weren't THOSE photos used to in the comparison to demonstrate the stungun case? That simply does not add up. Why not use the BEST test result?
Such claims made falsely in an attempt to bolster the RST case, only serve to discredit them. We have seen several such examples where the truth was later revealed and it ws contrary to their claims made on the strength of "sorces which cannot be names". IMO, it just makes them lack credibility. I would urge readers to beware of any claims made on the stength of "sources who cannot be named" and to especially beware of posts at jameson's forum which are made in an attempt to discredit others but which do NOT include references to their sources. The reason that they are unsourced is because they are quite probably misrepresented!
:blushing:
