"Stun Gun" marks

[BBB167893]

JonBenet's soft pliable skin, when jammed with the metal electrodes of a stun gun, will grossly distort. Her skin, when compared to the marks inflicted on the tough skin of a test pig, cannot be compared. The thick skin of a pig will not distort and will leave a near-perfect "signature mark" (burns) every time. JonBenet's skin will distort and thus the signature mark will also be distorted.

My point exactly! I have been stunned in the past. And it always looked like I'd been attacked by a swarm of bees. Not two neat marks.

 

[BlueCrab]

Good Lord Bluecrab - you really need to read Stratbucker's deposition and try to understand what he said.

Stratbucker drew his conclusions about the stungun from the autopsy and from 4 other images which weren't cropped. He stated that NBC showed him a picture and asked him if these marks could be from a stungun. That image was cropped and he said HE COULDN'T TELL FROM THAT PHOTO. He wasn't saying that he "didn't know". "can't tell" and "don't know" are not the same thing.

Supposing I posted a cropped photograph of a face. The cropped portion I show you has part of a cheek, part of a nose and a little bit of lip. I ask you "Is this a photo of JonBenet Ramsey?". You look at it and say "I can't tell". I ask you "Could it be?". You reply "It could be". I ask you "Do you think it is?". You reply "I really cannot tell from that photo".

You aren't relling me that you wouldn't recognise a photo of Jonbenet if you saw one. You aren't saying that this definitely IS or ISN'T a photo of Jonbenet. You are saying that you cannot tell from this particular photo! You subsequently find an uncropped version of the same photo and you see it isn't Jonbenet and THEN you state your comclusions.

Do you think you should be discredited for being unable to draw a firm conclusion from the first photo? Of course not. An idiot might draw a conclusion from a cropped photo, but Dr Stratbucker refused to draw any conclusion from a photo which had the rulers cropped out - as any reputable professional would do.

Jayelles,

Stratbucker is playing low IQ when it comes to the autopsy photos he looked at in New York. He knows EXACTLY what photos he was looking at. There are only a few autopsy photos of the stun gun injuries on JonBenet in existance.

NBC brought him to New York for the explicit purpose of looking at several autopsy photos and, based on the wording in the autopsy, giving his opinion on whether or not the injuries shown in the photos were stun gun marks. He was there for no other reason. Therefore, Stratbucker wouldn't have gone to New York without thoroughly reviewing the autopsy photos ahead of time.

Also, we don't know how much, if any, of the photo was cropped and how relevant the part that was cropped actually was. NBC wouldn't have mutilated the photo.

BlueCrab

 

[BlueCrab]

Blue Crab: I just looked at pictures from "Myths of Jon Benet Ramsey" They are measuring the center line and the it does not amount to what you are reporting. It is very clear from the photos. Are you saying the pictures are wrong.

Solace,

You are obviously looking at an article by Cutter, a former Websleuth's poster, titled "The Ramsey Stun Gun Myth". If you are using that article, please don't go by what Cutter says about the measurements -- MEASURE THE DISTANCES YOURSELF. Do not use Cutter's "magic red line" and other incorrect conclusions.

To do this correctly you've got to mark on a conventional ruler or any other device the distance, centerline to centerline, between JonBenet's two stun gun injuries shown in the photo. Then overlay this mark on your ruler on John Meyer's autopsy ruler shown in the same photo.

The mark you made will show the distance, measured center line to centerline, between the twin injuries is 3.5 to 3.6 cm.

Repeat this procedure for the distance between the metal electrodes on the stun gun.

The mark you made will show the distance, measured centerline to centerline, between the twin electrodes is also 3.5 to 3.6 cm.

The problem with Cutter's measurements appears to be that he measured between the inside edges of the injuries, and correctly got 2.9 cm; but he then measured centerline to centerline between the electrodes and got 3.5 cm. Therefore he was comparing apples and oranges.

The distances between the twin injuries and the twin electrodes are approximately the same -- 3.5 cm. If you measure them yourself from Cutter's own autopsy photos used in his article, you'll see that I'm right.

BlueCrab

 

[coloradokares]

Re my deja-vu.....:-

http://websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1128496&postcount=90

and

http://www.webbsleuths.org/dcforum/DCForumID20/168.html#45

Your GOOD!! Hats off to you...:clap:

 

[Solace]

Perhaps she'll tell us. She was happy to let me apologise and think I'd been mistaken in thinking she reminded me a poster whom I know is from Arizona on the grounds that she claims to be from new England.

She then accused me of saying she'd been deceptive when I hadn't done any such thing at that point in time. I then find posts of hers on another thread at this forum where she says she IS from Arizona and not from New England as she claims at the tops of her posts.

The rest of my posts are just to explain who Ashley is and where she comes from. I don't know for sure if Julianne IS Ashley. but at the end of the day, if Ashley IS posting here under a different hat she should hang her head in shame after the things she's posted about Tricia elsewhere. She doesn't seem to have renewed her membership at jameson's and she's probably burnt her boats in posting at Margoo's new forum after she slagged it off at jamesons.

I think you are right Jayelles.

Julianne, by jove, I think she's got you. Nothing left to do but fess up and shame the devil. Come on you can do it.

 

[coloradokares]

Perhaps she'll tell us. She was happy to let me apologise and think I'd been mistaken in thinking she reminded me a poster whom I know is from Arizona on the grounds that she claims to be from new England.

She then accused me of saying she'd been deceptive when I hadn't done any such thing at that point in time. I then find posts of hers on another thread at this forum where she says she IS from Arizona and not from New England as she claims at the tops of her posts.

The rest of my posts are just to explain who Ashley is and where she comes from. I don't know for sure if Julianne IS Ashley. but at the end of the day, if Ashley IS posting here under a different hat she should hang her head in shame after the things she's posted about Tricia elsewhere. She doesn't seem to have renewed her membership at jameson's and she's probably burnt her boats in posting at Margoo's new forum after she slagged it off at jamesons.

Not sure I am accurate but I also feel that I recognized the writing style along with several other recent posters writing style from another forum as well. What I have come to understand is some people sign on to forums, not to discuss the facts of the case but with the sole intent of harassment and stalking and bringing personal vendetta type arguments from one forum to another. That should be abundantly obvious when they take new hats to disquise their idenitys. There is legal remedy for these actions. Yes I have taken the time to ascertain that and how to obtain such remedy under the law recently. I do not wish to false accuse anyone. And I would always take great care in making sure I would not do that. However enough is enough. I for one do not wish to be a part of any difficulties on this or any other forum for that matter. I will strive very hard not to do so. That is not my style. However it is not my style to be harassed and stalked for amusement either. And that is all I got to say about that. To coin a phrase by Forrest Gump

 

[Solace]

Not sure I am accurate but I also feel that I recognized the writing style along with several other recent posters writing style from another forum as well. What I have come to understand is some people sign on to forums, not to discuss the facts of the case but with the sole intent of harassment and stalking and bringing personal vendetta type arguments from one forum to another. That should be abundantly obvious when they take new hats to disquise their idenitys. There is legal remedy for these actions. Yes I have taken the time to ascertain that and how to obtain such remedy under the law recently. I do not wish to false accuse anyone. And I would always take great care in making sure I would not do that. However enough is enough. I for one do not wish to be a part of any difficulties on this or any other forum for that matter. I will strive very hard not to do so. That is not my style. However it is not my style to be harassed and stalked for amusement either. And that is all I got to say about that. To coin a phrase by Forrest Gump

Well Said!

 

[BBB167893]

If you are using that article, please don't go by what Cutter says about the measurements -- MEASURE THE DISTANCES YOURSELF.

I DID!

 

[Jayelles]

I did too.

 

[Jayelles]

Not sure I am accurate but I also feel that I recognized the writing style along with several other recent posters writing style from another forum as well. What I have come to understand is some people sign on to forums, not to discuss the facts of the case but with the sole intent of harassment and stalking and bringing personal vendetta type arguments from one forum to another. That should be abundantly obvious when they take new hats to disquise their idenitys. There is legal remedy for these actions. Yes I have taken the time to ascertain that and how to obtain such remedy under the law recently. I do not wish to false accuse anyone. And I would always take great care in making sure I would not do that. However enough is enough. I for one do not wish to be a part of any difficulties on this or any other forum for that matter. I will strive very hard not to do so. That is not my style. However it is not my style to be harassed and stalked for amusement either. And that is all I got to say about that. To coin a phrase by Forrest Gump

Are we talking about satanic grins by any chance? I'd bet a shilling that I know who was behind that.

 

[BlueCrab]

I DID!

Then please tell us what your stun gun and injury measurements came out to.

BlueCrab

 

[BBB167893]

You wouldn't like the answer, BC.

incidentally, people, there's a big elephant in the room about the stunner NObody wants to talk about.

Here it is: to me, the origin of the stun gun theory is suspect. The reason being that Mr. Smit just whipped it up out of thin air totally on his own, then shopped around until he found someone who agreed with him. He's known for doing that in this case. That's one of several reasons why I couldn't be an IDI anymore. It would likely have been different if the coroner, say, had come up to him and said, "Lou, I think these marks are such and such, but the cops won't listen to me. Maybe you will." That's not how it happened.

Savvy?

 

[BlueCrab]

You wouldn't like the answer, BC.

Then you didn't follow my directions careful enough in scaling. Or you may have made the same mistake that Cutter made. There's only one answer: 3.5 cm, give or take 1 cm. Tell me what measurement you got for the stun gun and what measurement you got for the injuries, and I'll tell you where you went wrong.

BlueCrab

 

[BlueCrab]

You wouldn't like the answer, BC.

incidentally, people, there's a big elephant in the room about the stunner NObody wants to talk about.

Here it is: to me, the origin of the stun gun theory is suspect. The reason being that Mr. Smit just whipped it up out of thin air totally on his own, then shopped around until he found someone who agreed with him. He's known for doing that in this case. That's one of several reasons why I couldn't be an IDI anymore. It would likely have been different if the coroner, say, had come up to him and said, "Lou, I think these marks are such and such, but the cops won't listen to me. Maybe you will." That's not how it happened.

Savvy?

So the coroner, John Meyer, missed it during the autopsy. But he later corrected himself and admitted the injuries on JonBenet are consistent with stun gun injuries. Drs. Michael Doberson, Robert Deters, and most other board certified forensic pathologists who have had experience identifying stun gun injuries on murder victims also agree the marks on JonBenet are consistent with stun gun injuries.

BlueCrab

 

[coloradokares]

Are we talking about satanic grins by any chance? I'd bet a shilling that I know who was behind that.

I love that. Shilling. And I might get thrown into the toaster for this one but I am willing to bet that it did not even end there. Got any ideas on who I am thinking of now? Not to mention several other posters recently arrived. Just like Patsy was so easily recognized in the ransom note. Why do they think writing styles and wording are not recognizable. Changing hats does not hide a thing. Silly isn't it. In fact if it were not so frustrating, childish and stooopid. We should be happy. They are just proving the point about Patsy and ransom note. Transparent as glass.

 

[BBB167893]

Then you didn't follow my directions careful enough in scaling.

To the letter.

Tell me what measurement you got for the stun gun

Two: 3.5 for that one, closer to four on my own.

and what measurement you got for the injuries,

2.8. I tried it three times.

and I'll tell you where you went wrong.

No doubt you will.

But he later corrected himself and admitted the injuries on JonBenet are consistent with stun gun injuries.

And he corrected his correction later. Michael Kane said on Dan Abrams' show in 2003 that the coroner said they were abrasions, not burns. Somehow I doubt that Kane didn't talk to the man many times.

Drs. Michael Doberson, Robert Deters, and most other board certified forensic pathologists who have had experience identifying stun gun injuries on murder victims also agree the marks on JonBenet are consistent with stun gun injuries.

Are you familiar with Werner Spitz's take on the marks? He said that you can see distinctive marks inside the marks. I can verify it myself.

 

[Jayelles]

As I am very interested in the "stungun" debate, I decided to purchase Stephen Singular's book about Gerald Boggs' murder. It arrived this morning and it confirms that Michael Doberson was indeed the pathologist who failed to recognise the stungun marks on Gerald Bogg's body. What's more, it actually reveals a surprising little gem in the tale - and one which I've never read before..... read on....

From Charmed to Death, Stephen Singular pb. I am paraphrasing this, but if anyone specifically wants quotes, I can provide them. I'm just wary of copyright.

Basic facts according to Stephen Singular:-

1. Michael Dobersen conducted Gerald Boggs' autopy on October 23, 1993.

2. Boggs had been dead approximately 2 days when he was autopsied

3. Dobersen noted a "a circular area of redness near the victim's right ear and some minor abrasions on the ear itself. "

4. Dobersen did not attach any particular significance to these marks.

5. In the months which followed, police and prosecutors were struggling to find a piece of physical evidenec which linked the suspects to the murder of Gerald Boggs.

6. CBI agents retrieved a stungun from one of the suspects' cars and they wondered if it could have been used to torture the vctim.

7. (I love this bit) They contacted an expert on Stunguns - none other than Dr Robert Stratbucker who suggested that they conduct experiments on a pig to see if this particular stungun caused these particular marks.

8. In July 1994, Dr Stratbucker then travelled to Denver where he and Dobersen conducted said experiments. (Strabucker was an established expert on stunungs and experiments on both pigs and humans)

9. The stungun did produce similar marks but more examinations were required.

10. Keen for a resolution, the Boggs family agreed to an exhumation.

11. Michael Dobersen conducted a second autopsy and concluded that the marks were consistent with a stungun and he believed that Boggs had been exposed to a stungun assault on his face of a minute or more. EDITED TO CLARIFY - The ASSAULT on his face lated for more than one minute he didn't say that the stungun had been applied for more than a minute. i.e. Doberson believed that Boggs had endured more than a minute of electrical shocks - each lasting between 2 and 5 seconds.


12. Dr Dobersen was fiercely challenged in the courtroom.

So there we have the RST "expert" - Dr Dobersen. Famed for identifying stungun marks on Gerald Boggs...... oh no...wait...that would have been Dr Robert Stratbucker!!!

EDITED TO ADD - Interestingly, the alternative explanation for the mark on Bogg's face was that it had been caused by the muzzle of the .22 calibre gun which killed him being pressed against his face.

This post may not be copied and pasted elsewhere without permission!

 

[BlueCrab]

11. Michael Dobersen conducted a second autopsy and concluded that the marks were consistent with a stungun and he believed that Boggs had been exposed to a stungun assault on his face of a minute or more.

Jayelles,

Thank you for providing that excerpt from Singular's book. Item number 11 from your post interests me in particular:

"Michael Dobersen conducted a second autopsy and concluded that the marks were consistent with a stun gun and he believed that Boggs had been exposed to a stun gun assault on his face of a minute or more."

There is no controversy among most experts, including both Dobersen and Stratbucker, that Boggs had been stungunned. The cops even found the stun gun in the killer's car.

If the marks on Boggs face are compared to the marks on JonBenet's face, the two are almost identical. Each of the two have this large ugly burn mark on the right side of the face near the ear caused by, IMO, one of the electrodes of a stun gun. In both cases the burn mark caused by the second electrode of the stun gun is barely visible.

As you know, most hits from a stun gun are for only a few seconds. (The length of a hit from an Air Taser, for instance, automatically shuts off after 5 seconds.) After holding the trigger for more than a few seconds the electrical burn mark on the skin increases in severity.

Please note that Dobersen, and assumably Stratbucker too, estimated that the stun gun trigger was held on Boggs face for an amazing 60 seconds or more, brutally torturing him and leaving the large severe burn on his face.

Therefore, IMO, since the measurements of the marks on JonBenet's back match the electrodes of a conventional Taser brand hand-held stun gun (not an Air Taser) and the burn on JonBenet's face is almost a carbon copy of the burn on Boggs face, then JonBenet, like Boggs, had been sadistically tortured with a stun gun.

BlueCrab

 

[Jayelles]

Please note that Dobersen, and assumably Stratbucker too, estimated that the stun gun trigger was held on Boggs face for an amazing 60 seconds or more, brutally torturing him and leaving the large severe burn on his face.

Not that wasn't what I said or what Dobersen concluded. The ASSAULT on his face lated for more than minuted. Not that the stungun had been applied for more than a minute. Let me clarify - Doberson believed that Boggs had endured more than a minute of electrical shocks - each lasting between 2 and 5 seconds.

An alternative suggestion for the mark on Bogg's face had been that it was caused by the muzzle of the .22 calibre gun which killed him being pressed against the side of his face.

The information in the book explains why Dobersen said that you can't really tell from a photograph. According to Singular, during the second autopsy, Dobersen closely examined the circular area of redness again and noted that they were in fact like small burns.

 

[BBB167893]

The marks on Boggs were raised with red edges. The marks on JB were reddish-brown and smooth, relatively.