"Stun Gun" marks

[Jayelles]

Jayelles,

Stratbucker, due to a long list of inconsistent statements, was totally disgraced by Lin Wood in the Wolf v Ramsey deposition. Hoffman unconditionally withdrew Stratbucker from the case as an expert witness and agreed under oath to not re-enter him for any reason in the case.

Lin Wood wasn't bullying Stratbucker; he was simply insisting that Stratbucker truthfully answer the questions put to him.

BlueCrab

I do not agree BlueCrab. I read that deposition thoroughly and I was disgusted at the way Lin Wood manipulated the witness's testimony. There is no way he would have gotten away with that in a court of law. Wood didn't let Stratbucker explain WHY he did not think the marks were made by a stungun. He even ended up by asking if Stratbucker was accusing the Ramseys of murder - a ridiculous assertion since their guilt or innocence does not hinge on whether or not a stungun made those marks.

Darnay Hoffman is a wuss who is clearly terrified of Lin Wood. Justice should not be like that. Lawyers on opposing sides should behave like equals. Lin Wood treats Darnay Hoffman like dirt and Hoffman takes it. It reminds me of the army sketch

Sargeant Major "You are a pathetic little mumm's boy. What are you?"
Private "I'm a pathetic little mummy's boy sir"

Disgusting.

EDITED TO ADD: - I've already asked Credence this. Please demonstrate what you mean by a long list of inconsistent statements.

 

[Jayelles]

Some people would regard his methodology to be clever but I guess they wouldn't say that if they were being deposed by him.

Lin Wood's cases rarely (if ever) make court. His MO is to get people to settle out of court. In this way he rarely has to comply with proper judicial standards of questioning witneses/defendents. If you read the transcripts of depositions which Lin Wood has taken, he does not allow the interviewee to fully answer questions and he regularly manipulates the record with interruptions and comments which make it look as though the witness is being unco-operative:-

e.g.
LW "Will you answer the question please?"
Witness (in desperation) "I am trying to...."

A poster called Rainsong often uses an example of a question which cannot always be answered with a yes/know answer:-

"Do you still beat your wife?"

Obviously, if a man has beaten his wife, he could answer yes or no. However, if a man has never beaten his wife, neither yes or no would fit.

This is the type of questioning which Lin Wood uses. He asks a question which doesn't have a simple answer and then forces the witness into giving a curtailed answer.

I also think his snide remarks to the witnesses are unprofessional.

 

[Camper]

Hello Camper,

There are two types of TASER 50,000 volt stun guns. One type is a standard hand-held stun gun that must be held against the body of the target. It discharges each time the trigger is pulled and the length of the charge is dependant on how long the shooter holds down the trigger. There are no wires. This is the type of Taser stun gun that, IMO, was used on JonBenet.

The other type of Taser brand stun gun, used by law enforcement, shoots two retrievable darts for up to about 15 feet, each dart remaining attached to the taser by wires. The darts are barbed like a fish hook, attach themselves onto the victim, and must be physically removed after the victim has been placed under control and handcuffed. The gun can be used like a standard hand-held stun gun if the darts miss the target, but requires the shooter to close ranks with the target and struggle with him to get the twin metal prongs of the Taser against the body of the target. In both cases the trigger must be pulled each time to send a jolt. The darts and wires are retrievable, but cannot be re-loaded in the field.

Hope this helps.

BlueCrab

Yes good job BC. I think a discussion of equipment is more relevant that who is the 'greater' expert, and that thought pertains to experts on cooking/map making er just about any life activity. ITS sorta like asking people who have just witnessed a car wreck about WHAT HAPPENED ?, lots of different views of the WRECK.

So, WHAT made the marks on JonBenet, and WHO had access to the 'thingie' that made them, is way more important to me.
'Thingie', is my technical term for 'things' unknown.

Have any of our posters ever WATCHED an instruction video on the use of a STUN GUN or a TASER?

Did Smit and company stand right next to THE TEST PIG, or like the song goes "From A Distance"? A reminder from me, is that a PIGS skin is pretty tough and totally UNLIKE a tiny girls skin. The effect would not even be close to compare one to the other.

ANYONE remember HOW long the ME had the body, before Ramseys created a fuss to get on with a 'proper buriel'?

Interesting NOW to see HOW LONG the officials have Anna Nicoles body before it is released for buriel.

.

 

[Credence]

I do not agree BlueCrab. I read that deposition thoroughly and I was disgusted at the way Lin Wood manipulated the witness's testimony. There is no way he would have gotten away with that in a court of law. Wood didn't let Stratbucker explain WHY he did not think the marks were made by a stungun. He even ended up by asking if Stratbucker was accusing the Ramseys of murder - a ridiculous assertion since their guilt or innocence does not hinge on whether or not a stungun made those marks.

Darnay Hoffman is a wuss who is clearly terrified of Lin Wood. Justice should not be like that. Lawyers on opposing sides should behave like equals. Lin Wood treats Darnay Hoffman like dirt and Hoffman takes it. It reminds me of the army sketch

Sargeant Major "You are a pathetic little mumm's boy. What are you?"
Private "I'm a pathetic little mummy's boy sir"

Disgusting.

EDITED TO ADD: - I've already asked Credence this. Please demonstrate what you mean by a long list of inconsistent statements.

This is supposedly an Stun Gun Expert and he was manipulated? No he did not have any truthful answers to give. He NEVER saw the crime scene photos. He looked at the monochrome pictures, pictures from the internet and pictures provided by NBC. He misrepresented his findings in his report by stating this opiinion was also based on Lou Smit's presentation yet he never saw the actual presentation. He would have been torn apart on the stand by any defense lawyer.
25 Q. "Counsel for the plaintiff Chris Wolf

00061

1 in the above case has retained me as an expert

2 witness. I have been asked to examine the

3 12/27/96 Boulder County Coroner's Autopsy Report

4 of JonBenet Ramsey along" --

5 And I assume "with" was meant to be

6 in there.

7 A. Yeah, the --

8 Q. It says "along the," but it should

9 say "along with the PowerPoint presentation of

10 Detective Lou Smit."

11 Have I read that correctly?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. You have never reviewed the

14 PowerPoint presentation of Detective Lou Smit;

15 have you, sir?

16 A. Not in any form that I could attest

17 to its authenticity.

18 Q. Page 3 of your statement in your

19 Rule 26.

20 A. Page 3? Yeah. Go ahead.

21 Q. It says under Opinion:

22 I have reached the following opinion:

23 A comprehensive examination and review of

24 JonBenet's autopsy report and Detective Lou

25 Smit's PowerPoint presentation.

00062

1 Let me ask you again -- Mr. Smit's

2 PowerPoint presentation is on CD-ROM -- you have

3 never seen it; have you?

4 A. I never have seen this. I have

5 never had the CD-ROM in my possession.

6 Q. No, sir. You never have seen his

7 PowerPoint presentation. That is the truth;

8 isn't it, sir?

9 A. No. I have seen things that were

10 represented as his PowerPoint presentation.

11 Q. By whom? Represented by whom?

12 A. By NBC, by lines on the internet, by

13 websites that traffic in this information. It

14 is wherever you want to look you can find this

15 stuff.

16 Q. You have never seen the digital

17 crime scene photographs as they exist in Lou

18 Smit's PowerPoint presentation, that generation

19 of photograph with that level of clarity; you

20 have never seen them, have you, sir?

21 A. My recollection is that the NBC

22 network claimed that that's what they had.

Hoffman had no alternative but to withdraw him as an expert witness and it was due to more than just being associated with Air Taser International. He was not a credible witness period.

I dont' know if the Ramseys had anything to do with JBRs death but I do believe a stun gun was used and there is no other alternative explanation that is valid.

 

[BlueCrab]

Yes good job BC. I think a discussion of equipment is more relevant that who is the 'greater' expert, and that thought pertains to experts on cooking/map making er just about any life activity. ITS sorta like asking people who have just witnessed a car wreck about WHAT HAPPENED ?, lots of different views of the WRECK.

So, WHAT made the marks on JonBenet, and WHO had access to the 'thingie' that made them, is way more important to me.
'Thingie', is my technical term for 'things' unknown.

Have any of our posters ever WATCHED an instruction video on the use of a STUN GUN or a TASER?

Did Smit and company stand right next to THE TEST PIG, or like the song goes "From A Distance"? A reminder from me, is that a PIGS skin is pretty tough and totally UNLIKE a tiny girls skin. The effect would not even be close to compare one to the other.

ANYONE remember HOW long the ME had the body, before Ramseys created a fuss to get on with a 'proper buriel'?

Interesting NOW to see HOW LONG the officials have Anna Nicoles body before it is released for buriel.

.

Camper,

Whether or not a stun gun was used on JonBenet hinges largely on the credibility of the individual experts who voice their educated opinions. IMO this is important because the most practical reason to use a stun gun on a little six-year-old girl is torture. Torture would put the killer of JonBenet into the category of a sexual sadist.

BlueCrab

 

[coloradokares]

I have this sense of deja-vu. I feel I know you from elsewhere..... under a different hat of course.

Oh yeah!! Not only this hat but a garden variety has seemed to come on board nearly all simultaneously or within a short amount of time.

 

[Jayelles]

Oh come on! Here we have a classic example of Lin Wood's nitpicking and semantics.

Wood did not allow Stratbucker to explain why he didn't believe the marks weren't made a stungun. I don't know about you, but I would like to have heard those reasons.

Stratbucker has been doing clinical tests on stunguns since the 1980s. He has written countless papers on the subject and has taken hundreds of photos of the human guinea pigs and pigs which took part in his experiments. In other words, he has extensive experience of looking at photos of stungun injuries.

Have you ever seen chicken pox? A lot of people might not recognise a chicken pox lesion, but parents who have experience of chicken pox are perfectly capable of recognising the spots. Here, we don't even take the child to the doctor if it has chicken pox and would only do so if there were complications.

Anyway, here's an analogy as I see it:-

1. Doctor takes close-up photo of chicken pox rash
2. Doctor scans photo into computer and uploads it to the Internet (we now have 3rd generational copy)
3. Second doctor looks at Internet photo and identifies chicken pox
4. Lawyer challenges second doctor's opinion because photo is not 1st generation.
5. Second doctor tries to explain why he knows the spots are chicken pox but Lawyer does not permit him to explain - he attacks the doctor's credibility on the grounds that the photo is not 1st generation.

The fact is - since we never got to hear the grounds on which Stratbucker drew his conclusions, we have no way of knowing whether Wood's assertion that the generational version of the images were crucial to those conclusions.

To an expert with Stratbucker's experience - particularly with regard to looking at photos of stungun injuries - a slight generational deterioration in quality might make no difference (just as a slight generational deterioration in quality would not prevent an experience person from recognising chicken pox from a photo).

 

[Camper]

Camper,

Whether or not a stun gun was used on JonBenet hinges largely on the credibility of the individual experts who voice their educated opinions. IMO this is important because the most practical reason to use a stun gun on a little six-year-old girl is torture. Torture would put the killer of JonBenet into the category of a sexual sadist.

BlueCrab

Well the use of your word 'hinges' is appropriate here. What we have after 10 + years of discussions is an unsolved crime, and hinges on doors of discovery that swing in every direction. No exhumation because of 'experts' and the 'Ramseys' not wanting exhumation. One would think the R's would have wanted the ME to take as much time as NEEDED to HELP solve their babies murder, silly me.

So our forum discussions continue on a path that has gone to the big area known as 'nowhere'.

I repeat I will never forget this tiny girl, who did not deserve the fate that was dealt to her.

My time is better spent now, imop, on helping in ways that feel productive to me, in protecting our borders from KNOWN Terrorists, in the PP forum, and in private life.

.
.

 

[Credence]

Oh come on! Here we have a classic example of Lin Wood's nitpicking and semantics.

Wood did not allow Stratbucker to explain why he didn't believe the marks weren't made a stungun. I don't know about you, but I would like to have heard those reasons.

Stratbucker has been doing clinical tests on stunguns since the 1980s. He has written countless papers on the subject and has taken hundreds of photos of the human guinea pigs and pigs which took part in his experiments. In other words, he has extensive experience of looking at photos of stungun injuries.

Have you ever seen chicken pox? A lot of people might not recognise a chicken pox lesion, but parents who have experience of chicken pox are perfectly capable of recognising the spots. Here, we don't even take the child to the doctor if it has chicken pox and would only do so if there were complications.

Anyway, here's an analogy as I see it:-

1. Doctor takes close-up photo of chicken pox rash
2. Doctor scans photo into computer and uploads it to the Internet (we now have 3rd generational copy)
3. Second doctor looks at Internet photo and identifies chicken pox
4. Lawyer challenges second doctor's opinion because photo is not 1st generation.
5. Second doctor tries to explain why he knows the spots are chicken pox but Lawyer does not permit him to explain - he attacks the doctor's credibility on the grounds that the photo is not 1st generation.

The fact is - since we never got to hear the grounds on which Stratbucker drew his conclusions, we have no way of knowing whether Wood's assertion that the generational version of the images were crucial to those conclusions.

To an expert with Stratbucker's experience - particularly with regard to looking at photos of stungun injuries - a slight generational deterioration in quality might make no difference (just as a slight generational deterioration in quality would not prevent an experience person from recognising chicken pox from a photo).

I would think that an expert of his caliber (I've never questioned his credentials); would have specifically requested to see the original crime scene photos. Apparently he did not feel the photos that he did say were good enough to come to a definitive conclusion and yet he writes a report based on them??? I understand what you are saying about Wood however he has testified before and if he was so sure about his conclusion in this case, Wood would not have been able to do what you think he did. It seems the photos in this case were paramount in him coming to a definitive and accurate conclusion. JMO

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.

 

[JMO8778]

Some people would regard his methodology to be clever but I guess they wouldn't say that if they were being deposed by him.

Lin Wood's cases rarely (if ever) make court. His MO is to get people to settle out of court. In this way he rarely has to comply with proper judicial standards of questioning witneses/defendents. If you read the transcripts of depositions which Lin Wood has taken, he does not allow the interviewee to fully answer questions and he regularly manipulates the record with interruptions and comments which make it look as though the witness is being unco-operative:-

e.g.
LW "Will you answer the question please?"
Witness (in desperation) "I am trying to...."

A poster called Rainsong often uses an example of a question which cannot always be answered with a yes/know answer:-

"Do you still beat your wife?"

Obviously, if a man has beaten his wife, he could answer yes or no. However, if a man has never beaten his wife, neither yes or no would fit.

This is the type of questioning which Lin Wood uses. He asks a question which doesn't have a simple answer and then forces the witness into giving a curtailed answer.

I also think his snide remarks to the witnesses are unprofessional.

he's using basic psychology,if you've ever read any books on it,that's where he's coming from,and he's quite good at it.also the timing of when to put a person on the stand also comes into play.
it's manipulation of sorts...taking the focus off his own client and tossing it onto the innocent person's lap.it's something criminals themselves tend to be very good at.

 

[coloradokares]

he's using basic psychology,if you've ever read any books on it,that's where he's coming from,and he's quite good at it.also the timing of when to put a person on the stand also comes into play.
it's manipulation of sorts...taking the focus off his own client and tossing it onto the innocent person's lap.it's something criminals themselves tend to be very good at.

:clap:

 

[Ames]

Oh yeah!! Not only this hat but a garden variety has seemed to come on board nearly all simultaneously or within a short amount of time.

LOL...yep!

 

[coloradokares]

LOL...yep!

One of the ways the ransom note was nearly 90 odd percent attributed to Patsy was when someone writes something the author is recognizable. Not only by handwriting analysis but writing and wording styles...

 

[Ames]

One of the ways the ransom note was nearly 90 odd percent attributed to Patsy was when someone writes something the author is recognizable. Not only by handwriting analysis but writing and wording styles...

Exactly....there is no doubt in MY mind...I know beyond a shadow of a doubt....that PATSY wrote that ransom note. Why can't others see what is as plain as day??

 

[coloradokares]

Exactly....there is no doubt in MY mind...I know beyond a shadow of a doubt....that PATSY wrote that ransom note. Why can't others see what is as plain as day??

Or see that we can see what is as plain as day.....not solely regarding Patsy

 

[JMO8778]

:clap:

thk you CK...I've been the recipient of similar actions...nothing illegal...but I bet almost all spouses who go thru a divorce where the other partner is the cheater and is at fault know what I'm talking about..they try to justify their own bad behavior by throwing it all onto the other person's lap ( heck,I was even responsible for earthquakes in China...and I didn't even know it ! ) ..divorce lawyers can be mean,nasty ppl!!

 

[JMO8778]

Or see that we can see what is as plain as day.....not solely regarding Patsy

I agree...and IMO..anyone at this point that thinks there was an intruder either hasn't:looked at and considered all the evidence,lacks common sense, has something to gain from it, or won't admit they're wrong.

 

[Ames]

I agree...and IMO..anyone at this point that thinks there was an intruder either hasn't:looked at and considered all the evidence,lacks common sense, has something to gain from it, or won't admit they're wrong.

Or all the above....

 

[JMO8778]

Or all the above....

good point ! :clap:

 

[Jayelles]

This is supposedly an Stun Gun Expert and he was manipulated? No he did not have any truthful answers to give. He NEVER saw the crime scene photos. He looked at the monochrome pictures, pictures from the internet and pictures provided by NBC. He misrepresented his findings in his report by stating this opiinion was also based on Lou Smit's presentation yet he never saw the actual presentation. He would have been torn apart on the stand by any defense lawyer.

SNIP

Hoffman had no alternative but to withdraw him as an expert witness and it was due to more than just being associated with Air Taser International. He was not a credible witness period.

I dont' know if the Ramseys had anything to do with JBRs death but I do believe a stun gun was used and there is no other alternative explanation that is valid.

We've all see those crime scene photos - again IMO you are playing semantics - and if you want to play that game, then the FACT is that Lou Smit didn't have "the crime scene photos" either because in his PowerPoint presentation, he only had copies of "the crime scene photos".

If only the original images carry any validity - then only a few people can ever claim to have seen "the crime scene photos".

Ridiculous.

You also seem to be missing the point regarding Stratbucker's deposition. Lin Wood did not give Stratbucker to opportunity to explain WHY and HOW he had formed his opinion on the photos of Jonbenet and focused instead on whether he had seen the photo on Lou Smit's PowerPoint Presentation CD or whether he'd seen one of the many (perfectly good quality) copies of these photos without knowing (or giving the reader the benefit of knowing) whether this made a difference.

In the example I gave above, a doctor would recognise chicken pox from a photo whether it was a 1st or 3/4/5th generational copy of the photo - provided the quality of the image remained good. It's easy to tell whether the photo of JonBenet's marks are good quality because there are sufficient checkpoint within the photo - we can see the clarity of the hair strands for example and the skin tones.

The bottom line is that Lin Wood was playing Mr Loophole here and to all intents and purposes, many people are falling for it hook, line and sinker. I don't think it would be a stretch to suppose that had Stratbucker been claiming that the marks were NOT caused by a stungun, then the issues of his business affiliations to a stungun company and the generational value of the image would be certainly "non-issues" to many people. The SAME people who place more stock in the opinion of a man who is on record as having FAILED to recognise stungun marks when they were staring him in the face!