"Stun Gun" marks

[Credence]

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!

He also said if he believed the photos were authenticated they may have been stun gun marks and they made have made a difference so I'm not understanding what you mean that he was unable to give an answer. As far as Wood playing "Mr. Loophole" he was doing his job which is why I said Stratbucker would have been torn apart on the stand. I have read many of your posts and respect your opinion, however, we will have to agree to disagree on this one.

 

[Jayelles]

I do not agree with jameson-member Evening2's Santa did it theory, but I thought she made a very good point about stunguns. Had Jonbenet been stungunned in bed - surely her bladder would have involuntary opened there and not in the basement as the evidence suggests?

jameson says:-

I have never heard of anyone urinating when being stunned. Never seen it being stated as a fact of life in any of the articles on stun guns. In fact, we have watched many tapes showing stun gun "demonstrations" and I have never seen anyone wetting themselves.

Clearly, jameson needs to read more articles on stun devices!

1.

activation of the stun belt causes "immobilization causing you to fall to the ground; possibility of self-defecation; possibility of self-urination"

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR510451996?open&of=ENG-390


2.

In addition, Taser guidelines caution instructors to allow a bathroom break before the training shocks to help prevent an "unnecessary embarrassment." That precaution might explain why the manual says shocks from the weapon "generally don't cause urination or defecation" and that "to date there have been two urination cases (out of 100,000) from volunteers during a 5-second M26 exposure."

Yet in the slightly more than 1,000 cases reviewed by The Post where suspects were involuntarily shocked, four were reported to lose bowel or bladder control, a rate nearly 200 times that reported by the manufacturer.

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/localnews/content/local_news/
epaper/2005/05/30/a8a_tasertrainside_0530.html

3.

Amnesty now has cases of torturers shocking children, as well as men and women, with hand-held, high-voltage devices in the most sensitive areas of the human body: “behind their ears, on their necks, in their mouths, in their reproductive organs and rectums.” Torturers have been known to give multiple blasts and to run devices continuously over their victims’ bodies. People who have undergone this kind of torture have reported intense pain, muscle contractions, lost bowel control, vomiting, and urination.

http://www.progressive.org/mag_cusactech

There are many, many more similar accounts of stunguns causing urination and of particular interest is the fact that although Taser gave statistics to support a low instance of involuntary urination, their guinea pigs were instructed to empty their bladders before the trials to avoid unnecessary embarassment!

So we have a sleeping child - one with a known bed-wetting problem, who had NOT been to the loo before going to bed and may NOT even have been to the loo for several hours, and we are to believe that when she was stungunned not once, but twice or even three times with a 50,000 volt weapon .... she didn't suffer the same "unnecessary embarassment" as many adults have done even when they saw the weapon coming ?

 

[Jayelles]

He also said if he believed the photos were authenticated they may have been stun gun marks and they made have made a difference

Could you post the quote to this to see his remarks in context?

 

[Credence]

Could you post the quote to this to see his remarks in context?

Please note that he says he couldn't say if they were stun gun marks when looking at the NBC photographs but says they could have been but he could not authenticate the photos. Later on in his depo it is pointed out that although he did not rely on these photos because they could not be authenticated he still uses those photos to create his report. So which is it: either he could use the photos are not? He included them in his report.
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.




20 Q. (By Mr. Wood) Look at your Rule 26

21 report for me. The introduction page, probably

22 the third page, Expert Witness Report, February

23 26 2002. Do you see it?

24 A. Yes.

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.

23 Q. They had a video image from the

24 television show?

25 A. They had a video image from Lou

00063

1 Smit's PowerPoint presentation.

2 Q. And you are just not comfortable

3 sitting around and giving an expert opinion

4 based on photographs that you don't really

5 yourself have any level of comfort with in terms

6 of knowing if they are authentic or not; do

7 you, sir?

8 A. That is right. But I have a

9 tremendous amount of reliance on the autopsy

10 report.

 

[Jayelles]

If you read before and after the portion you have posted, you will see that the reason Stratbucker refused to commit himself on NBC was because the images were cropped.

Lin Wood tried over and over again to trap him into making a statement about his judgement in the Jackson case using images which Dr Stratbucker claimed he'd never seen.

ALso, the four monochrome photographs which Lin Wood harped on about appear to be LASER PRINTOUTS of the images Dr Stratbucker looked at and which were part of his report. It certainly does read at a glance as though Dr Stratbucker only looked at black and white images from the Internet but on closer examination of the dialogue this does not appear to be the case at all - just clever use of semantics.

When I get time, I am going to perform a detailed analysis of Stratbucker's deposition. I'll use colour and lay it out so that it's easier to read.

 

[Solace]

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

Me too!

 

[Solace]

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

BlueCrab,

Defending Lin Wood? That is interesting. Let me be candid BlueCrab. When you have to defend Lin Wood, you are hanging on by your fingernails in your argument.

 

[Ames]

<snipped>
I have only one hat. WS doesn't allow posters to use more than one hat, and they check IP numbers here, so it's virtually impossible to have more than one hat. Shoot, I barely learned that a "hat" was the nickname used to post not too long ago! I do not (and never have, for that matter) post on any other forums or message boards other than WS---It's hard enough for me to keep up here and I'm on WS too much as it is....I can't imagine having to keep up with another forum and spending even MORE too much time on the computer, LOL.

.

And boy do I feel stupid. I didn't know what a "hat" was until I read your post!! You learn something new everyday.

Ain't THAT the truth!!! The same reason that I don't post anyhere but WS.

 

[Solace]

And boy do I feel stupid. I didn't know what a "hat" was until I read your post!! You learn something new everyday.

Ain't THAT the truth!!! The same reason that I don't post anyhere but WS.

Hi Ames, one could be wearing one "hat" here and another "hat" at another forum, such as Forum for Justice.

 

[Jayelles]

BlueCrab,

Defending Lin Wood? That is interesting. Let me be candid BlueCrab. When you have to defend Lin Wood, you are hanging on by your fingernails in your argument.

In the portion of the depo I just read, Lin Wood asked several confusing questions and butts in on Stratbucker before he can answer them. It's very rude and quite frankly NOT the way to extract full and accurate information from an expert witness.

IMO, Lin Wood's entire objective was to discredit Dr Stratrbucker because he perceived him to be a threat to the Ramsey defence. Lin Wood would not get away with this in a court of law where the objective is to extract as full and accurate testimony as possible in order that the jury can make an informed decision.

 

[Jayelles]

Hi Ames, one could be wearing one "hat" here and another "hat" at another forum, such as Forum for Justice.

I post everywhere as Jayelles. I like things to be as simple as possible. I don't really understand why some people like to have different hats all over. Some are open about it and I respect that, but I've seen countless occasions where a different hat is used for the purpose of deception.

It always intrigues me why the "BORG" are more likely to keep the same hat wherever they post. Why don't we see the same RST hats cropping up on different forums? Are the RSt more likely to only post at one forum?

 

[Solace]

Well, I guess I can feel good that my posts stand out enough out of thousands and thousands of posters here, that in reading them, that one thinks I am someone else on a different forum or message board, LOL.

As I said earlier, I spend too much time on WS as it is (my hubby would attest to that fact) and I imagine my computer time would DOUBLE if I subscribed to another forum. Not necessarily condusive to a mom with 3 kids, a business, and an outside job--but I will take it as a compliment that my posts stand out amongst others.

I thought jayelles was saying I was posting here under a different hat, but now you're agreeing with her and kinda insinuating that I am a poster at Forum for Justice under another hat....???? Now I am curious, please tell the name of the hat you think I am????

Julianne, I am not insinuating anything. You are inferring from what I posted that that was what I was implying. I was simply saying that a poster could have one name here and another at another site.

 

[Solace]

In the portion of the depo I just read, Lin Wood asked several confusing questions and butts in on Stratbucker before he can answer them. It's very rude and quite frankly NOT the way to extract full and accurate information from an expert witness.

IMO, Lin Wood's entire objective was to discredit Dr Stratrbucker because he perceived him to be a threat to the Ramsey defence. Lin Wood would not get away with this in a court of law where the objective is to extract as full and accurate testimony as possible in order that the jury can make an informed decision.

Another example of Lin Wood's spinning is coming out on LKL and saying because Lacy attended Patsy's funeral, it proves she is innocent. One has to be careful when they use Lin Wood to further an argument. The man is lethal in that he will destroy most pro Lin Wood arguments by his own actions.

 

[Ames]

Solace...clean out your PM box!!!

 

[Ames]

Hi Ames, one could be wearing one "hat" here and another "hat" at another forum, such as Forum for Justice.

I think that I just used to call it Nickname...or Screen name....I will call it "hat" from now on. I have to be in the LOOP....LOL (and be hip and happening). I would be happy just to be able to join FFJ...they have shut down the registration there for some reason.

 

[Solace]

Solace...clean out your PM box!!!

Okay. I did it.

 

[Ames]

I post everywhere as Jayelles. I like things to be as simple as possible. I don't really understand why some people like to have different hats all over. Some are open about it and I respect that, but I've seen countless occasions where a different hat is used for the purpose of deception.

It always intrigues me why the "BORG" are more likely to keep the same hat wherever they post. Why don't we see the same RST hats cropping up on different forums? Are the RSt more likely to only post at one forum?

I used to post on another board as Ames, too. I wouldn't change my "hat" for the same reason that you don't change yours....keep it simple. I would be all confused if I posted different places using different "hats"...it would be like having split personalities...now, lets see...WHO AM I on THIS board? Even though they have closed the registration at FFJ, I still like to get on there and lurk, I have been reading your impressive posts on there a long time. This may sound corny, but I feel fortunate to get to post with you on WS...since I can't do it on FFJ. And I agree with you, there are some posters that change their hats to be deceptive. There were two IDI's (or RST) from another board ...that shall remain nameles...because I don't want to get into trouble with the MODS, that came over to WS under a different "hat"...and copied and pasted my entire posts (which is against the rules) onto the "other" board. That is the reason that my signature says what it does..at the end of all of my posts.

 

[Ames]

Okay. I did it.

LOL...okay. I will try to resend what I sent to you.

 

[Nehemiah]

And please tell me what BORG is. I know IDI, RDI and even RST. But what in the heck is BORG----I know the R has to be Ramsey.

Julianne, it is:
Bent on Ramsey Guilt
Believer of Ramsey Guilt

 

[Ames]

Julianne, it is:
Bent on Ramsey Guilt
Believer of Ramsey Guilt

Thanks for posting this, because I had no idea what BORG meant EITHER. DUHHHH