PDA

View Full Version : Patsy's Rings


Jayelles
01-12-2004, 02:58 PM
At yonder forum, the poster Margoo has held up a post by Wolfmarsgirl for ridicule on a thread entitled "Theories that don't work".

Wolfmarsgirl had made a post some time ago regarding a PDI theory which involved Patsy causing the abrasions on JonBenet with her rings. Wolfmarsgirl conceded that for her theory to work, Patsy's rings needed to have been in reverse (i.e. stones pointing inwards) but that since her own rings sometimes slipped, maybe Patsy's did too.

Well, some time back, there was an image of Patsy which showed her wearing her rings with large stones pointing inwards. There was some discussion about it on the forums. A few days ago, I came acorss another, better image which clearly shows that Patsy had two very large stoned rings facing the palms of her hands. The two images were not taken on the same day.

Margoo dismissed the ring theory as one might dismiss a little green man theory, but is it really so far fetched to suppose that two hard ringstones might caused a pair of abrasions?

I shall send the image to Maxi and ask her to post it here.

Jayelles
01-12-2004, 03:10 PM
I have sent the image to your Hotmail account. Could you possibly post it for me?

Barbara
01-12-2004, 03:31 PM
Unless one's rings are extremely tight, ALL rings will turn around all the time. Even bands will turn. Sometimes we are unaware that they turn. We tend to right them without even thinking as if second nature.

Try it you'll see. See if you can make a mental note that you are righting your ring and you'll realize how often you do it without even realizing it.

That is one reason I always preferred a band ring, but even they turn around.

Not such a far fetched theory at all

Maxi
01-12-2004, 03:33 PM
I'll try. Tex is our master image poster, but I haven't seen her today.

I've wondered if a ring might have caused the large triangular abrason. Perhaps in the process of someone trying to remove the cord?

Toth
01-12-2004, 03:39 PM
Essential to the 'ring theory' is that at the time of this supposed bedwetting incident Patsy would have had to have been wearing her rings in the middle of the night.

Not totally impossible, though highly unlikely.

DejaNu
01-12-2004, 03:47 PM
It's an interesting theory but one flaw I can see is IF those marks were caused by ring stones, PR would have had to handle the crime scene bare-handed. If she had gloves on, even with the rings, there would have been sufficient padding over the stones to prevent leaving skin impressions. To the best of our collective knowledge, no fingerprints or palm prints were found on the body, which leads me to believe gloves were worn.

Toth, I always wear my rings to bed every night, especially wedding rings. Women don't usually take them off. I would think it would be highly likely PR keeps hers on too, not the other way round.

Maxi
01-12-2004, 03:56 PM
http://mywebpage.netscape.com/maxiyorkie/JBRPatsyrings2.jpg

little1
01-12-2004, 04:16 PM
Could be a possibility, but I don't think with those particular rings she is wearing in the photo.

Britt
01-12-2004, 04:21 PM
Maxi and Jayelles - great photo. Thanks for posting that.

DejaNu - good point, but the rings could have made the abrasions just after the incident and before clean-up, staging, possible washing, possible shirt-changing (and possible glove use) began.

Maxi - IMO the big mark on the front of the neck could have been from a hand/fingers gripping JB while they pulled the cord to strangle her.

Jayelles
01-12-2004, 04:37 PM
I don't take my wedding and eternity rings off.

You can see from this photo that Patsy did wear large stoned rings and that she did wear them facing in. This is one of two photos I've seen of Patsy's inturned rings and she was wearing a light coloured outfit in the other photo.

I have in front of me, a life sized image of the marks on JonBenet and if I slightly play my fingers, the distance between the marks matches up.

The point I am making is that Wolfmarsgirls theory is not in the least far-fetched.

DejaNu
01-12-2004, 04:42 PM
Britt: "DejaNu - good point, but the rings could have made the abrasions just after the incident and before clean-up, staging, possible washing, possible shirt-changing (and possible glove use) began."

I guess that would depend on what theory we're employing in association with ring stone wounds, Britt. I believe the head wound occurred first with an almost immediate effort to cover it up, i.e., ligature strangulation. Then I believe the body washing, shirt-changing, etc. commenced. The absence of fingerprints on the ligature and body suggest to me that gloves were used when the ligature was applied and the subsequent clean-up/obstruction efforts occurred. Whomever the perp, he/she was very careful not to leave those telltale prints anywhere (but the pineapple bowl of course)....and this would IMO prevent ring imprints. I do not believe the head wound was intentional, and the subsequent efforts to misdirect was a profound and continuing panic reaction, including the RN. But then, I could be totally off base too.....

Jayelles
01-12-2004, 04:52 PM
Essential to the 'ring theory' is that at the time of this supposed bedwetting incident Patsy would have had to have been wearing her rings in the middle of the night.

Not totally impossible, though highly unlikely.

Toth - rage scenarios don't have to be about bedwetting. I don't think the bedwetting scenario has much basis.

Remember that if JonBenet ate the pineapple BEFORE she went to the Whites, then her TOD would be close to the time the Ramseys returned home from the Whites - i.e. when Patsy would still have been wearing her rings.

Toth
01-12-2004, 05:05 PM
Toth - rage scenarios don't have to be about bedwetting. I don't think the bedwetting scenario has much basis. Ofcourse the bedwetting scenario is absurd, so is Patsy killing JonBenet due to a sudden realization that she was going to be too short to win the Miss America pageant. So too is this, they came home from the Whites party and the gift delivery around town and Patsy suddenly flew into a rage and killed JonBenet with her rings.

Jayelles
01-12-2004, 05:17 PM
I have posted this before - you are the only person whom I have ever seen posting the 'too short to be Miss America' theory. Did you make it up?

Are you saying that all rage is predictable? No it's not outwith the realms of impossibility. People can and do snap - all the time.

tipper
01-12-2004, 05:32 PM
I saw it too. It was here, either in 2000 or 2001. Can't remember the poster, Nandee? maybe. I believe it was in the same thread that talked about JonBenet wearing "dentures." Sorry I can't be more specific. As I recall the thread was about the depth of Patsy's disappointment if JonBenet didn't end up as Miss America. I don't know how totally serious the poster was but they did say it.

But my reason for posting now is to say I think the ring theory would only work if she was wearing two large solitaires. Anything else would not leave such clean margins.

Toth
01-12-2004, 05:57 PM
I have posted this before - you are the only person whom I have ever seen posting the 'too short to be Miss America' theory. Did you make it up? No, I actually read it, I believe it was on this forum. I know I thought it was hilarious and when I realized the poster was serious about it, I couldn't believe how stupid people can be.

why_nutt
01-12-2004, 06:33 PM
No, I actually read it, I believe it was on this forum. I know I thought it was hilarious and when I realized the poster was serious about it, I couldn't believe how stupid people can be.

You also claim to have actually heard of the story of a crime committed on videotape in Florida, a crime where no forensic evidence was found, yet that turned out quite the failure for you when you had it proved to you that a great deal of forensic evidence was found. I see you no longer cite that anecdote. You would do well to follow your own example, and give up offering anecdotes you cannot prove are true. Goodness knows, there are ample examples of other ridiculous theories you can draw upon. I offer the theory advanced by a very stupid person of your acquaintance, who wants to believe JonBenet was killed as part of a Celtic sacrifice and in accordance with her fate as determined by her astrological chart. Try that one on for size. "A poster believes that JonBenet was killed by intruder Druids, and is serious about it."

Imon128
01-12-2004, 07:02 PM
I saw it too. It was here, either in 2000 or 2001. Can't remember the poster, Nandee? maybe. I believe it was in the same thread that talked about JonBenet wearing "dentures." Sorry I can't be more specific. As I recall the thread was about the depth of Patsy's disappointment if JonBenet didn't end up as Miss America. I don't know how totally serious the poster was but they did say it.

But my reason for posting now is to say I think the ring theory would only work if she was wearing two large solitaires. Anything else would not leave such clean margins.


Please don't nail Nandee for things without asking Nandee first. Thanks.

SisterSocks
01-12-2004, 07:23 PM
I do remember the Wolfmargirls theory. Infact the last time she told it here --was as a reply to a thread Was it a stun gun?

It hope Pats didn't kill Jon Benet--but its a good theory.


Socks :twocents:

eliza
01-12-2004, 07:53 PM
I do remember the Wolfmargirls theory. Infact the last time she told it here --was as a reply to a thread Was it a stun gun?

It hope Pats didn't kill Jon Benet--but its a good theory.


Socks :twocents:

I also find the ring theory very possible. It doesn't need to have been Patsy as the killer though. If an accident occured like in a BDI theory, Patsy may have held her daughter after finding the body thus leaving marks from her rings on the body.

SisterSocks
01-12-2004, 11:41 PM
I also find the ring theory very possible. It doesn't need to have been Patsy as the killer though. If an accident occured like in a BDI theory, Patsy may have held her daughter after finding the body thus leaving marks from her rings on the body.


Well If it was a terrible accident. I am sure she would have held her tight ,trying to wake her up? Yup.. The rings. On the fence about the ;) ;) stun gun indeed.

Maxi
01-13-2004, 12:48 AM
The dentures idea came from the info that pageant contestants with missing teeth sometimes wore little bridges until their new teeth grew in.

Blazeboy3
01-13-2004, 12:56 AM
OK...I'm shamefully trulthfully "confused beyond imagination as to what now???!!!" ... know what??? ... ~~~ ???... me either ... ~~~ :crazy: >>??? :doh: :chicken: :blowkiss: :croc: :hand: :p :laugh: :cool: :silenced:

... ANYONE HAVE THE REASON/ANSWER???...!!!~~~

Jayelles
01-13-2004, 04:23 AM
Wecht speaks in his latest book about post mortem injury which indicated that JonBenet had been shaken and he theorised that she had been shaken in an attempt to revive her.

SisterSocks
01-13-2004, 09:27 AM
[QUOTE=tipper]I saw it too. It was here, either in 2000 or 2001. Can't remember the poster, Nandee? maybe. I believe it was in the same thread that talked about JonBenet wearing "dentures." Sorry I can't be more specific. As I recall the thread was about the depth of Patsy's disappointment if JonBenet didn't end up as Miss America. I don't know how totally serious the poster was but they did say it.
QUOTE]



Jon Benet had NOT lost any baby teeth. <DOI> Although ,she had some loose... in the the paegant world these dentures are called Flippers and they can only be used after the child has lost top front or bottom front teeth.
Socks :)

Jayelles
01-13-2004, 10:04 AM
I saw it too. It was here, either in 2000 or 2001. Can't remember the poster, Nandee? maybe. I believe it was in the same thread that talked about JonBenet wearing "dentures." Sorry I can't be more specific. As I recall the thread was about the depth of Patsy's disappointment if JonBenet didn't end up as Miss America. I don't know how totally serious the poster was but they did say it.

So basically, this "theory" about JonBenet not growing tall enough was posted maybe 3/4 years ago by one poster? Yet Toth continues to tout it as though it was a theory collectively held by a large number of people on certain forums?

But my reason for posting now is to say I think the ring theory would only work if she was wearing two large solitaires. Anything else would not leave such clean margins.

Perhaps. It does bear considering though that 1) the Boulder Police have consistently dismissed the stungun theory and 2) they have never released the photos taken of the Ramseys at Fleet Whites.

We don't know what the new investigation team think, but I've always thought it was odd that the White's Christmas Day photos have been retained within the police file.

When I did my stungun image experiment and compared the pigmark photos with the images of JonBenet, I created real-life size images of both using a metal "Weights and Measures Approved" ruler (that means that officially, it is accurate). My printouts include scans of the ruler and these match the real ruler. The autopsy rulers also match the real ruler on the front plane (which is the essentail one).

The thing that surprised me most about the real-size image of JonBenet is how small the marks actually are. The images we see on the Internet have been blown up in size. In reality, the marks are about the size of a normal undilated adult (eye) pupil. I printed these out on white paper and also on clear acetate so that I could overlay the pigmarks with the marks on Jonbenet. Overlaying them clearly shows they don't match. The pigmarks are bigger and spaced farther apart.

Anyway, I put rings with stones on my middle and ring fingers, turning them inwards and it doesn't take much a a stretch of the fingers to get the stones to match up with the marks. I have small hands. It wouldn't take particularly large ringstones to make those marks.

Imon128
01-13-2004, 10:24 AM
Jayelles, good post. I have a tab that has a photo of Patsy with her ring facing the inside of her hand. I sent it here to WS's and it was posted ever so long ago. You do good work, gal! :)

Arielle
01-13-2004, 01:04 PM
I just wanted to reply to the poster who said that wearing gloves would have provided enough of a "cushion" to prevent abraisions from rings. If the gloves worn were thin, such as latex exam gloves, the rings would be perfectly able to make marks. I have to take my rings off at work because the points holding the stones in will actually rip through the gloves if they are subjected to enough wear agains them.

WolfmarsGirl
01-13-2004, 11:41 PM
Jayelles,

I tried to PM you yesterday and again today and it is telling me that your inbox is full, or something to that effect :(

Anyway, thank you for letting me know 'they' were discussing my theory. And, thank you for your support. You're a sweetie :)

Awesome picture of Patsy's ring, btw. I think a ring that size could certainly damage the skin in the same manner we see on JBR's autopsy photos.

Here is the link for my ring 'experiment,' in case anyone missed it:

http://www.geocities.com/wolfchick942003/photopage.html

WolfmarsGirl
01-13-2004, 11:48 PM
Essential to the 'ring theory' is that at the time of this supposed bedwetting incident Patsy would have had to have been wearing her rings in the middle of the night.

Not totally impossible, though highly unlikely.

Toth, you probably don't understand what 'mommy brain' is. I certainly do. Menial tasks like removing rings before you go to bed (if you are lucky enough to even remove your clothes) are sometimes, if not frequently overlooked.

I never, ever remove most of my rings. Some of them won't even fit over my knuckle. I have a few that are precious to me and I would rather just keep them on (and clean them with a toothbrush when needed)
:sick:, believe it or not.

I also keep my watch on all of the time. It is just a matter of what you get used to doing.

I mean, heck, some of us even put the same clothes on the next morning that we just wore the night before...Know anyone like that? :waitasec:

Maikai
01-14-2004, 12:03 AM
The stones on both are different...and the "abrasions" on JBR are the same distance apart. and same shape, except for the one on her face which is similar to Boggs, and would result in the stun gun not being flat against her face. And Doberson had more than just looking at pictures. He could magnify and compare the marks on Boggs, and their appearance from the electrical charge, to those on JBR. IT WAS A STUN GUN, FOLKS.

I think the Patsy being short story came from her being the shortest Miss America contestant ever entered. If not THE shortest, then one of the shortest. Most of them were tall and leggy.

WolfmarsGirl
01-14-2004, 12:50 AM
The stones on both are different...and the "abrasions" on JBR are the same distance apart. and same shape, except for the one on her face which is similar to Boggs, and would result in the stun gun not being flat against her face. And Doberson had more than just looking at pictures. He could magnify and compare the marks on Boggs, and their appearance from the electrical charge, to those on JBR...

Maikai,

Correct me if I am wrong :), but I thought the two sets of marks on JBR were close to being equadistant, but not exact by any means.

Maybe someone else can help me with my source for this information. I am drawing a blank here...

Anyway, I believe one of the problems raised with the stun gun theory is the fact that the markings are not, in fact, the same distance apart on the body. A stun gun would make identically spaced abrasions.

Jayelles
01-14-2004, 06:02 AM
Yes, my inbox appears to be full! I shall get around to cleaning it out sometime later today.

I have never seen your ring photos before. Could you explain a little bit about them? What fingers did you have them on? How far apart were the marks?

About the marks on JonBenet. There is only one mark on her face in any photo that I have seen. Ramsey supporters have suggested that the other stungun prod landed on the duct tape and that is why it isn't visible - but this theory gets discredited as it necessitates the duct tape being on her mouth BEFORE the perp stunned her to subdue her - in which case why is there a perfect lip print on the duct tape and not signs that her mouth was moving?

IMPORTANT - there is an image on *******'s website showing a comparison of the pigmarks and the marks on JonBenet. This image is quite misleading (intentionally or otherwise) in that the photo of JonBenet has been ENLARGED so that it matches the pigmarks. In reality, the marks on JonBenet are smaller. I would certainly urge anyone who has 100% faith in *******'s integrity to check THAT one out!

When I did this experiment, I urged people to replicate it. I explained exactly how I did it and it would have been straightforward for anyone else to repliate. As far as I am aware, none of my critics attempted to replicate it although many sneered at it and ******* called it a 'BORG' experiment (whatever that might mean!)

Margoo attacked it saying that it had many errors of logic, but despite my many appeals for her to tell me what these were (I asked 6/7/ times), she was unwilling (or perhaps more likely 'unable') to do so.

Maxi posted an image of bite marks on her daughter and I would say that the marks on JonBenet do look like what one would imagine vampire bites to look like. They certainly resemble Maxi's bite image more than the pigmarks do.

The marks on JonBenet look like bruising. The RST say this could be achieved if the stungun were pressed hard against her. Yes they also say that the larger mark on her face could be explained if the prod didn't make full contact ??????? So are we to believe that the perp pressed the prods into her to bruise her and then lifted it slightly to stun her?

Shylock
01-14-2004, 08:50 AM
except for the one on her face which is similar to Boggs, and would result in the stun gun not being flat against her face. And Doberson had more than just looking at pictures. He could magnify and compare the marks on Boggs, I think the problem is you're looking at the marks on Boggs after he had been in the ground for a year. The fresh marks from Bogg's autopsy look nothing like anything on JonBenet.

You can't compare apples and oranges and say you have grapes--it just doesn't work that way. The marks on Boggs look even less similar to what is on JonBenet then Smit's pig marks do.

Nehemiah
01-14-2004, 09:28 AM
The marks on JonBenet look like bruising. The RST say this could be achieved if the stungun were pressed hard against her. Yes they also say that the larger mark on her face could be explained if the prod didn't make full contact ??????? So are we to believe that the perp pressed the prods into her to bruise her and then lifted it slightly to stun her?

Jayelles, on the program last night, Smit said that with a stun gun infliction, one of the two marks would be larger. Maybe he did say it was due to pressing in; I'm not sure if he said why. I just remember him making reference to the fact that one would be larger and then he showed the pictures of Boggs and how the marks resembled.

Jayelles
01-14-2004, 09:51 AM
I think the problem is you're looking at the marks on Boggs after he had been in the ground for a year. The fresh marks from Bogg's autopsy look nothing like anything on JonBenet.

You can't compare apples and oranges and say you have grapes--it just doesn't work that way. The marks on Boggs look even less similar to what is on JonBenet then Smit's pig marks do.

In Bogg's pre-burial photo, the stungun marks resemble the marks on Doberson's pig.

Jayelles
01-14-2004, 09:57 AM
Jayelles, on the program last night, Smit said that with a stun gun infliction, one of the two marks would be larger. Maybe he did say it was due to pressing in; I'm not sure if he said why. I just remember him making reference to the fact that one would be larger and then he showed the pictures of Boggs and how the marks resembled.

I think that a stungun would produce even marks if there was even pressure/distance between the skin and each prod. Apparently if there is not actual contact, the electricity dances around and causes amore scattered appearance to the marks. However, I am referring to the much darkened appearance of JonBenet's marks. That darkening resembles bruising which could only be caused by a stungun if it were thrust against her hard enough for the prods to bruise her skin (even without the electricity being triggered).

In the past, the RST have suggested that this did in fact happen - that the perp jabbed at JonBenet so brutally with the stungun that the prods bruised her skin - but there is no reason for the perp to do that if he could just put the stungun close to her and press the trigger causing more severe pain and momentary incapacitation.

why_nutt
01-14-2004, 11:16 AM
In Bogg's pre-burial photo, the stungun marks resemble the marks on Doberson's pig.

I think some deception, or at the very least an ignoring of data right in front of one's eyes, has been going on on the subject of the marks on JonBenet's face. The traditional pairing of face marks said to be from the stun gun are these:

http://s92053900.onlinehome.us/group1b.jpg

But wait a minute. Why is it that this other pair of marks are ignored, even though the marks look just like each other, requiring no mental gymnastics to explain why one should be so much larger than the other?

http://s92053900.onlinehome.us/group2b.jpg

In my opinion, Smit wants the single large mark to be from a stun gun. He is not open to the possibility of anything else (and if anybody wants to argue that point, present evidence that Smit has offered any other explanation for it, tested that alternate theory, and rejected it). But since a stun gun cannot disable a person unless both probes make electrical contract with each other through a circuit completed by a person's skin and body, he had to find another mark which would be spaced near enough to the large mark to serve as a probe artifact. So he picked the small, faint mark nearby. (A mark, by the way, which was originally covered by a flake of material. Stun-gun advocates want the flake to be an artifact of adhesive melted off the tape as the stun gun was fired through it. They fail to state that the tape is not said, by even the mose diehard Ramsey defender, to have a melted spot on it.)

Barbara
01-14-2004, 11:58 AM
I do not have a source, but someone else here might. It is my understanding that Smit has re-evaluated his statements on the use of an Air Taser stun gun. Originally, that was the big statement, but after having had it refuted by others, he had conceded that it might not be an Air Taser after all. I am not sure about his stun gun theory being reconsidered or just the brand of Stun gun he is backpedalling about. Hope someone else can clarify. My memory ain't what it used to be for details on sources, books, page numbers and the like anymore :crazy:

The RST has stated that Steve Tuttle's reason for denying that it is the Air Taser is because it is "bad for business". What a crock! The Air Taser stun gun is sold because of its use as a STUN GUN! There is no business loss associated with a stun gun doing its job. If anything, it would have gotten him free advertising. I am sure nobody wants their products associated with the death of anyone, especially a child, but for heaven's sake, can you imagine companies making weapons denying that their weapons were used to harm or kill someone? THAT'S WHY THEY CALL THEM WEAPONS!!!!! WHY WOULD ANYONE BUY A STUN GUN THAT WOULD NOT DO ITS JOB?

As far as the wearing of rings; I never take my rings off. I do not have any female friends who remove their rings either. I do remove my watch and other jewelry after coming home from work, but not the rings. I got curious and asked the women I work with and only one woman said she took off her rings at night before bedtime. So for the record, the majority of women never take their rings off.

tipper
01-14-2004, 12:15 PM
My recollection is that Smit allowed there might be a stun gun somewhere that was an even better fit to the marks than an Air Taser. If I get a chance I'll look for the quote later today.

As far as the rings go I think it depends on whether Patsy regularly changes her rings to go with whatever she's wearing. I wear one ring on my right hand that has been passed along to the oldest surviving female for generations. I never take that off. Everything else gets taken off every night (as do my earrings) since I don't know what I'll be wearing tomorrow. Do the pictures of Patsy's rings always show the same ring or is there a variety?

Arielle
01-14-2004, 01:39 PM
Just for the record, I take all my jewelry off before bed every night. I have "very thin skin" and I tend to bruise very easily. If jewelry is left on when I sleep, I will look like I beat myself up in the morning. But I admit I am in the minority.

Jayelles
01-14-2004, 02:14 PM
Just out of curiosity...

If, as Why_Nut states above, a stungun needs both prods to make contact with the skin in order for it to complete it's circuit - what would be the effect if one prod was on duct tape? Would duct tape conduct electricity?

Jayelles
01-14-2004, 02:18 PM
Where did you obtain the above images of the other marks? Is there one with an autopsy ruler in it?

Jayelles
01-14-2004, 03:16 PM
Margoo has quoted from my initial post on this thread and has pointed out on Yonder Forum that it wasn't Wolfmarsgirl's POST she was ridiculing, but her THEORY that she was ridiculing.

Margoo states that the marks could not have been made by any means other than a stungun.

Margoo is aka MIBRO from this forum. It is interesting that she is claiming that someone (i.e one of our members E-MAILED her my post from this PRIVATE forum. So, either we have a mole (in which case certain posters are placed immediately under the umbrella of suspicion) or Margoo is not being honest about having received me post via e-mail.

If one of our members is e-mailing posts to Margoo, are they also e-mailing posts/threads to *******????

Shawna
01-14-2004, 06:25 PM
A slithery serpent made those marks. :D


http://medicalimages.allrefer.com/large/snake-bite.jpg

http://www.herpnet.net/bite/closeup_bitemarks_S.jpg

sariebell
01-14-2004, 06:33 PM
Hello all! It's been a while since I posted here.

To me, it seems ridiculous to suppose that the marks would be made by a stun gun rather than a pair of rings on a hand. Wouldn't it be more logical to assume the ring idea than a stun gun? I have always believed the stun gun idea to be "horse pockey"...very far fetched. I think the ring idea holds a lot of merit!

Jayelles, the pics that you posted are rather curious. Indeed, larged stoned rings do turn in toward the palms, but I find myself adjusting them, rather than just wearing them like that. That picture really serves to support the ring theory, in my opinion. :clap:

BlueCrab
01-14-2004, 10:14 PM
Just to get the discussion back on the right track from a technical standpoint; from "How Stun Guns Work", by Tom Harris:

"When you press the stun gun against an attacker and hold the trigger, the charge passes into the attacker's body. Since it has a fairly high voltage, the charge will pass through heavy clothing and skin. But at around 3 milliamps, the charge is not intense enough to damage the attacker's body unless it is applied for extended periods of time."

JMO

Maikai
01-14-2004, 10:17 PM
had access to all the available data, and repicated the marks by the doing the pig experiments. Doberson made a pretty strong statement in saying that he's convinced with a high degree of medical certainty a stun gun was used. This didn't come from nowhere---he read all the available literature worldwide--and there's been plenty published---just do a medline search; he had experience based on his originally missing the abrasions on Boggs; and he did the experiments.

Wolfsmar asked about the distance. I don't recall if both sets were exactly the same distance, but they were close. I do think Smit qualified his statement about it most likely being an Air Taser---that it could be another gun, but the Air Taser was the most similar.

WolfmarsGirl
01-14-2004, 11:23 PM
Yes, my inbox appears to be full! I shall get around to cleaning it out sometime later today.

Oh, ok. I was hoping it wasn't just a system error I was getting while using my 'Mac.' :)

I have never seen your ring photos before. Could you explain a little bit about them? What fingers did you have them on? How far apart were the marks?

I used my middle finger and my ring finger. Both rings are round stones with four-prongs and both are about the same size.

They landed almost exactly 3.5 centimeters apart (which I thought was kind of spooky). However, I didn't have a 'real' ruler; I used one that belonged to Wolfkid (I think it was a 'Powepuff Girls' ruler, or some other cereal-box type of thing...Ugh.)
:D

Anyway, it didn't take much of a squeeze to accomplish the marks. I do tend to bruise easilly, but, heck, these marks were visible most of the day!

Shylock
01-15-2004, 12:56 AM
Doberson made a pretty strong statement in saying that he's convinced with a high degree of medical certainty a stun gun was used.
Doberson made an even STRONGER statement previous to that when he said "you really can't tell by a photograph". That statement was so strong that it impeached anything he said afterward. It's obvious Doberson's opinion changes to whatever gets him the most publicity at the time.
Thankfully, the ham cooked his own rice...

IMO

Jayelles
01-15-2004, 02:34 AM
I personally don't think rings with huge stones would slide round that easily because they'd be prevented from doing so by the adjacent finger. It's curious that Patsy has her rings on both hands facing her palms. Someone suggested she did that because she didn't want to appear ostentatious on camera. I considered that, but have decided that if she knew she was going to be ON camera - I think that photo appears to be from a TV programme like Larry King - John was sitting beside her and I cropped him out - then surely the easiest thing would be not to wear the rings???

Does anyone think rings with huge stones would slide round by themselves?

twilight
01-15-2004, 03:49 PM
If you go back to the autopsy report rather than relying on the Spin Team, you will see that the marks on JB's back are both on the same side. The distance between is an 'up and down' thing. They are on her right back, which would mean that facing her and with her hand under her, Patsy's left hand would be the one the ring would be on...her wedding rings. Wedding rings often turn...ask any jeweller who has welded rings etc. to stop this problem. Pick her up - unable to believe she is dead. Get no response...lay her back down. In disbelief - repeat entire process. Two marks in close proximity.

The mark on JB's face on the right side would be caused by the large ring on Patsy's right hand if she backhanded JB in anger. And I say if. This is an abrasive mark and could be caused by a large stone in a ring.

As for how often Patsy removed her rings at night...just have a gander at the photos in DOI. You see Patsy and John with baby JB in the hospital after giving birth, and low and behold - she's got her rings. This would suggest to me that either 1) she wore them to bed, or 2) she paused on her way out of the house, doubled over in pain and with a sense of urgency, to put them on. {{I don't know about you guys, but I'll go with number 1...}} The large ring on her right hand is white and shiney, and she is wearing a light coloured polka-dot hospital gown, so would this be good fashion co-ordination? Beats me?

Now, where's CSI when you need them. Surely the marks or photos thereof could be matched to Patsy's rings, or photos thereof???

Blazeboy3
01-20-2004, 05:54 AM
If you go back to the autopsy report rather than relying on the Spin Team, you will see that the marks on JB's back are both on the same side. The distance between is an 'up and down' thing. They are on her right back, which would mean that facing her and with her hand under her, Patsy's left hand would be the one the ring would be on...her wedding rings. Wedding rings often turn...ask any jeweller who has welded rings etc. to stop this problem. Pick her up - unable to believe she is dead. Get no response...lay her back down. In disbelief - repeat entire process. Two marks in close proximity.

The mark on JB's face on the right side would be caused by the large ring on Patsy's right hand if she backhanded JB in anger. And I say if. This is an abrasive mark and could be caused by a large stone in a ring.

As for how often Patsy removed her rings at night...just have a gander at the photos in DOI. You see Patsy and John with baby JB in the hospital after giving birth, and low and behold - she's got her rings. This would suggest to me that either 1) she wore them to bed, or 2) she paused on her way out of the house, doubled over in pain and with a sense of urgency, to put them on. {{I don't know about you guys, but I'll go with number 1...}} The large ring on her right hand is white and shiney, and she is wearing a light coloured polka-dot hospital gown, so would this be good fashion co-ordination? Beats me?

Now, where's CSI when you need them. Surely the marks or photos thereof could be matched to Patsy's rings, or photos thereof???

Super observation AND question...what's the ANSWER/SOLUTION? ... who is CSI anyhow/way? ,.. I've had a wedding ring/band on for 18 yrs and couldn't get it off if I wanted too anytime/anyhow/anyway ...4 kids (I'm sure that had something to do w/it:...??? surely there's an explanation: "fat" maybe???)?!!!@@@!!!~~~!!! ... seriously in 18 yrs I"VE NOT HAD THESE "WEDDING RINGS OFF!!!"...???

WolfmarsGirl
02-06-2004, 05:05 PM
http://mywebpage.netscape.com/maxiyorkie/JBRPatsyrings2.jpg

Ok, here is a link to ACandyRose, where there is an autopsy close-up photo of the mark on JBR's cheek.

http://www.acandyrose.com/jonbenetfacemarks.jpg

Now, adjust your contrast on your monitor until you can see the tiny marks inside the large mark.

Here is what I see. It is so clear that I have been crying off and on for about half an hour. I will never, ever believe any other theory now that I have seen this.

If you look closely at JBR's abrasion, you will see two, tiny abraisions that resemble slightly rounded squares. Right below and between these two squares, you can see another tiny square shape. Then, below that one, there are two additional marks. When I first saw this pattern pop out at me, it looked like a tiny pair of eyes and a nose...If you look at the picture and look for the eyes and nose, it is very clear...

Now, look at Patsy's ring from the photo above posted by Jayelles and Maxi. Look at the one on her right hand.

Previously, I thought this ring matched the mark on JBR's cheek in size and shape. Now, however I see that the pattern in Patsy's ring matches the pattern in the abrasion!

Just look at the photos. She is wearing a large 'cluster' ring that is comprised of many stones set individually.

Since we only have a distant photo of this ring, you can only make out the vague pattern. However, I see the same 'eyes and nose' I see in the abrasion on JBR's cheek. It is so clear that it is chilling. And I don't want to see it. But, I can't see anything else but the matching pattern.

Surely, LE has this ring in evidence. Or, do you think it is gone? If it were found, I have no doubts whatsoever that a match can be made of the ring to the autopsy photo that would be as exact as a fingerprint!

WolfmarsGirl
02-06-2004, 06:17 PM
Sorry, I wanted to bump this because I think it is important. Need some opinions.

Ivy
02-06-2004, 06:30 PM
Very exciting, WMG! I about fell over when I saw the photo showing Patsy's rings turned inside. I can see the smaller marks inside the abrasion, and they do appear as if they could have been made by the cluster on Patsy's ring. I hope the ring was taken into evidence at some point, but ya never know...

Dr. Werner Spitz also must have noticed the smaller marks within the large one, because he said he thought the abrasion was made by a clothing gripper snap, and that what appeared to be the gripper logo was even visible.

What do you plan to do with your discovery? Who in LE could you trust to share it with?
___
IMO

WolfmarsGirl
02-06-2004, 07:18 PM
Thanks for responding Ivy. I am just about sick from thinking about this today...So, I guess I am not going completely insane by seeing the matching pattern?

Ok. There is no stun gun anywhere that would leave the tiny pattern.

What do you think I (or we as a forum) should do with this information? Do you think LE saw the match as well?

Should Smit be told about this?

I think this is the closest piece of evidence that can actually tie Patsy to the crime...Unless, of course, there is some way she could have pressed the ring against JBR's face THAT hard innocently. I don't think so.

Or, maybe the defense would be that someone else had a similar ring...

My head is spinning...

Ivy
02-06-2004, 08:05 PM
WMG...Since Lin Wood has the DA's office in his hip pocket, and Smit is convinced the Rs are innocent, maybe you should tell Beckner about it, even though the BPD isn't involved in the case right now. Someday they might be again, and besides, even now Beckner would know what to do with the information, and he could pass it on to Keenan if he thinks it would do any good. At the very least he could save it for a new DA, one who'd stand up to Lin Wood and his threats.

I really don't know what you should do. Maybe other posters have some better ideas.
___
IMO

tipper
02-06-2004, 08:45 PM
If you take the picture of Patsy's ring, show it at 200% and make it a negative; it appears to have a line of baguettes across the ring. If you show the mark on JonBenet's face at 400% the mark appears to have 3 or 4 round spots (almost like tiny bubbles or blisters) approximately in the center. I don't see how the two can match up.

Ivy
02-06-2004, 09:42 PM
tipper, I did that but didn't see what you describe. Maybe my eyes are bad.

___
IMO

BlueCrab
02-06-2004, 10:32 PM
tipper, I did that but didn't see what you describe. Maybe my eyes are bad.

___
IMO


I agree it's possible the cluster ring on Patsy's right hand might have caused the abrasion on JonBenet's right cheek, but I too don't seem to be able to see the "faces" or the match between the ring and the abrasion in the pictures.

Also, for a ring to have caused an injury like that would probably have taken a hard punch to the face -- which is possible but not likely. Only if Patsy was extremely high on some kind of drug, such as PCP, could I visualize her punching JonBenet in the face that hard.

JMO

tipper
02-06-2004, 10:37 PM
tipper, I did that but didn't see what you describe. Maybe my eyes are bad.

___
IMO
Nah it's just one of the frustrations of not being able to do this sort of thing live and in person so you both know you are looking at the same thing. I'll go back and have a look WITH my reading glasses on. I don't usually need them for the computer but perhaps my eyes are being 'creative' and I don't know it. :)

Britt
02-06-2004, 11:10 PM
Also, for a ring to have caused an injury like that would probably have taken a hard punch to the face -- which is possible but not likely. Only if Patsy was extremely high on some kind of drug, such as PCP, could I visualize her punching JonBenet in the face that hard.
Punching? What about slapping? A face slap with the ring turned inward as they are shown in the photo.

BlueCrab
02-06-2004, 11:27 PM
Punching? What about slapping? A face slap with the ring turned inward as they are shown in the photo.

Yes, I agree. In fact, for a female slapping is more likely than punching. I should of thought of that first, but you gotta forgive me -- I'm just a male.

JMO

Ivy
02-06-2004, 11:37 PM
Britt, I agree that if the mark was from Patsy's ring, it could have been caused from a slap. If it was, I think it could have been from a panicky attempt to revive her. I'm a BDIer, so I guess it's natural I'd consider that a possiblility.

tipper, I know what you mean, yet I sometimes do think that even though my vision is good, my perception's goofed up, because I don't always see what other posters see in case-related photos. :waitasec:
___
IMO

WolfmarsGirl
02-06-2004, 11:50 PM
If you take the picture of Patsy's ring, show it at 200% and make it a negative; it appears to have a line of baguettes across the ring. If you show the mark on JonBenet's face at 400% the mark appears to have 3 or 4 round spots (almost like tiny bubbles or blisters) approximately in the center. I don't see how the two can match up.

Tipper, can you post the retouched photos with the negative images?

cookie
02-07-2004, 12:00 AM
Isn't the mark on the right side of JonBenet's face? If the ring is one that Patsy would always wear on her right hand as in the picture, then the mark should be on the opposite side. Are you saying that Patsy is behind her when the mark would be made, or, are you talking about her facing JonBenet and having her right arm wrapped around her head so that the ring would be pressed on her face? I don't exactly know how to say this.

tipper
02-07-2004, 12:27 AM
Tipper, can you post the retouched photos with the negative images?
Sure, if you can 'break it down Barney style' and tell me how to do it. Best I could get is the little red x in a box. Tried the FAQs and that didn't help. Couldn't find the 'Browse' button it said I needed. Will try again tomorrow.

Ivy
02-07-2004, 12:37 AM
Cookie, one way it could have happened would be if JonBenet's face (or her whole body) was turned to her left when she was slapped. Another way would be if Patsy slapped her using an arm motion like a tennis backhand, but striking with her palm.

__
IMO

cookie
02-07-2004, 01:37 AM
Thank Ivy. Guess I'm a little dense tonight, so I think I'll just give it up and go to bed.

WolfmarsGirl
02-07-2004, 03:21 AM
Isn't the mark on the right side of JonBenet's face? If the ring is one that Patsy would always wear on her right hand as in the picture, then the mark should be on the opposite side. Are you saying that Patsy is behind her when the mark would be made, or, are you talking about her facing JonBenet and having her right arm wrapped around her head so that the ring would be pressed on her face? I don't exactly know how to say this.


Cookie, this is how I see it. You have to visualize this, or try to hug your own child this way...I showed my husband this tonight with my daughter as my hugee, lol. He said, "Oh, so you mean Patsy killed her and then felt bad about it, so she was rocking her..." Exactly.

Quoting myself here:

...I sat on the floor with my child in my lap, with her
legs both hanging over my left leg. She was kind of
sitting up, laying her weight on her left hip, facing
me. I held her head in my right hand and the fingers
on my right hand ended up on her right cheek and/or or
on her neck. So, I gave her a kiss on the nose, lol...

My left arm was over her right side and my left hand
ended up, quite naturally, on the lower, left side of
her back.

This is typically how I hold her when I 'rock' my
great-big baby girl, or when I carry her quickly in a
rain-storm (when walking would be too slow), or any
other time I have to move her in a hurry and I want to
get a good grip on her and hold her close at the same
time.

Try it with your own child. Make sure his or her face
is close to your face (and don't forget the kiss on
the nose.) This hug kind of looks like holding a
guitar.

Now, back to Patsy's rings (or not). Now, if PR
accidentally killed (or thought she killed) JB, there
would have been a lot of squeezing and rocking with
mother and child in this exact position. If PR was
wearing two or more rings on each hand AND she held,
and squeezed JB in this manner, (a little too hard out
of grief and overwhelming anguish) would those rings
leave marks similar to the "stun gun" marks? I think
so.

The positioning of where a grown-up's fingers would
land on a child of JB's size match up perfectly to
where the marks were found on her body. AND, the
distance between the marks (within each set of marks)
is just about the distance between two adult fingers...

WolfmarsGirl
02-07-2004, 03:27 AM
Sure, if you can 'break it down Barney style' and tell me how to do it. Best I could get is the little red x in a box. Tried the FAQs and that didn't help. Couldn't find the 'Browse' button it said I needed. Will try again tomorrow.

Tipper, I am not sure either...I always thought my errors in posting photos had to do with the fact that my hubby is "Mac" crazy, lol, and we don't own a 'normal' PC in the whole stack of computers in our house. So, when I posted ring photos of my hand, I just went and got a website for posting pics and then posted the links for this forum...

I think Jayelles emailed the above Patsy photo to Maxi and then Maxi was able to post it. Maybe that would work.

Jayelles
02-07-2004, 04:54 AM
A mark like that doesn't have to come from a punch. Pressure causes injury too. IF there was an accidental killing, Patsy would have been utterly distraught. Imagine her clutching JonBenet in desperation, nursing her very tightly.

If I am comforting my Tootsie, she would sit across my knee and I would have one arm surrounding her back and possibly with my hand on her side or overlapping her tummy a bit at the front and I would use my other hand to pull her head close to me, An inward turned ring on my ring finger would fall just about at her ear.

Which side of her torso was the pair of marks on? Were they on the same side as the mark on her face?

Did Patsy cuddle from the left or right? I remember seeing a life science programme on TV which covered this and how it was connected to the brain and that most people had a natural preference. It caused some discussion at the time and celebrities such as Diana were discussed.

There is ONE picture in DOI that shows Patsy holding JonBenet in her right arm. So if Patsy cuddled from the right then her left hand would support JonBenet's head and any inward turned ring would leave an impression on the right hand side of JonBenet's face.

Of course, it is possible that the photo is the wrong way around in DOI - that happens. Also, it is just ONE photo of Patsy holding JonBenet/a baby.

BlueCrab
02-07-2004, 10:03 AM
Which side of her torso was the pair of marks on? Were they on the same side as the mark on her face?

The large face mark was on the right side of JonBenet's cheek, near the ear. The tiny twin rectangular marks were on the left lower side of JonBenet's back. There were also tiny twin rectangular marks on the lower left leg near the back of the ankle, but there's no photo of these.

JMO

Shylock
02-07-2004, 10:28 AM
I wouldn't spent a whole lotta time posting photos for comparison. It's not like Patsy only owned ONE ring.

About the only thing you could do is blow-up the mark on her face and look for a pattern that might have been caused by the prongs on a ring.

And don't doubt that if the Ramseys were ever asked for the jewelry Patsy was wearing that night they will find it was some of the stuff the phantom intruder who broke into the Vinings house took. That "cheap K-Mart jewelry" that was missing.

cookie
02-07-2004, 11:00 AM
Thanks so much for taking the time to post that explanation. I can mentally see exactly what you are talking about.

WolfmarsGirl
02-07-2004, 04:54 PM
No problem, Cookie :)

I have a link below to an example of a cluster ring. I have read a few things about ring settings, and it seems that there is just about any way to set a cluster ring. However, one of the most popular settings is a group of seven small stones (six on the outside and one in the middle).

Take a look at the link:

http://www.london-victorian-ring.com/vcluster.htm

On JBR, I see an X shape made by two top little marks, one in the middle, and two bottom little marks. The 'eyes and nose' I was refering to would be made by the top two shapes and the middle shape. All together, the pattern looks like an X.

I can't see Patsy's ring clearly enough to see if this is, indeed, a 'cluster ring'. The only thing I DO see when I look at her ring is a distinct X pattern in the middle that looks, to me, exactly like what I see on JBR (the 'eyes and nose' I mentioned are the top and middle of the 'X').

Now, if you look at the 'victorian cluster' rings on the page I posted, you can very, very clearly see stones that would end up exactly where the tiny little marks appear on JBR's large abrasion.

Of course, the rings in the ad I posted are made with seven stones. I think Patsy probably only has five predominant stones on top of the cluster,(in the center of the ring, at the highest peak).

I say this because I don't see the top middle stone and the bottom middle stone mark on JBR's skin. These two additional marks would be evident if someone was wearing a seven-stoned cluster ring. Instead, we only see marks from five stones (minus the top middle and bottom middle stone from my link).

As you can see, the tiny little marks within the abrasion are squared and angled. This shape would be caused by a square setting (the prongs form a square) around round-cut stones. If you take a look at my 'hand experiment,' you can see the square marks which were actually made by round stones.

I am sorry. I am convinced, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Patsy Ramsey, at the very least, squeezed JBR that night with a large cluster ring on her right hand and two round, four-pronged rings on her left hand.

No doubts whatsoever.

Jayelles
02-07-2004, 05:03 PM
Werner Spitz remarked that he thought there was a boatshaped mark within the mark on JonBenet's face. He believes that mark may have been caused by a snap or a button.

I blew up the mark on JonBenet's face and marked off the boat-shaped structure. I can't post the image here, but I did post it at a Delphi forum which you access here:-

http://forums.delphiforums.com/What_happened/messages

The thread is under General Discussion and is titled The Stungun. The graphic is in post 3 or 4 of that thread.

WolfmarsGirl
02-07-2004, 09:15 PM
Werner Spitz remarked that he thought there was a boatshaped mark within the mark on JonBenet's face. He believes that mark may have been caused by a snap or a button.

I blew up the mark on JonBenet's face and marked off the boat-shaped structure. I can't post the image here, but I did post it at a Delphi forum which you access here:-

http://forums.delphiforums.com/What_happened/messages

The thread is under General Discussion and is titled The Stungun. The graphic is in post 3 or 4 of that thread.

Hi Jayelles. Thanks for the link. I did take a look at the picture you posted. It does look a little like a boat.

I see a bit more definition in the picture. I altered the original picture by changing the colors and saturation, etc until I got a much more defined view. Now, it looks green, but there are definitely squares there. I count five of them, lined up like I described, in the shape of an X. I would think they could be from a button, except that they are all square marks, not circular marks like you would see from a button.

I can't get Patsy's ring photo to have enough definition to enhance. The pixels are just way too large. I can only see the pattern in the picture when I view it from a distance. Up close, it is all fuzzy.

I will try to email the picture that I worked on to admin, so they can post it.

Maxi
02-08-2004, 03:55 PM
Here's Wolfmars Girl's image. It's coming out kind of green. If you'd like me to try to color correct it or make it larger, please let me know.

http://mywebpage.netscape.com/maxiyorkie/jonbenetfacemarkscopy.jpg

Toltec
02-08-2004, 05:53 PM
What if Patsy cupped her hands around JonBenet's face and then started shaking her out of unconciousness?

If it was Patsy's ring that caused the mark on JonBenet's right side...and Patsy's ring that caused the triangular shaped abrasion...then it stands to reason that Patsy made attempts to revive JonBenet. If that is so...then it is my belief that it was Patsy who inflicted the injuries on JonBenet.

This is my opinion and may not be copied.

WolfmarsGirl
02-08-2004, 09:43 PM
Here's Wolfmars Girl's image. It's coming out kind of green. If you'd like me to try to color correct it or make it larger, please let me know.

http://mywebpage.netscape.com/maxiyorkie/jonbenetfacemarkscopy.jpg

Thanks Maxi! Actually, I extracted a bunch of colors out of the picture and adjusted the contrast, etc., until I could see the pattern as much as possible. And, hence, the green :):)

If you can make it bigger, that would be great!

Now, if anyone cannot see the "X" shaped pattern I was talking about, then I am at a loss as to how to point it out to them.

I tried to work with Patsy's ring photo to show the matching pattern, but the pixels are too large and sharpening and highlighting is making the detail fade instead of enhancing it.

Thank you again Maxi!

WolfmarsGirl
02-08-2004, 09:46 PM
Also, Jayelles, see, the 'boat' impression kind of fades away as you can see (or, at least I can see :))five distinct square shapes. Although, I do understand the boat idea.

WolfmarsGirl
02-08-2004, 09:52 PM
What if Patsy cupped her hands around JonBenet's face and then started shaking her out of unconciousness?

If it was Patsy's ring that caused the mark on JonBenet's right side...and Patsy's ring that caused the triangular shaped abrasion...then it stands to reason that Patsy made attempts to revive JonBenet. If that is so...then it is my belief that it was Patsy who inflicted the injuries on JonBenet.

This is my opinion and may not be copied.

Maybe, Toltec, but I think this extra-large cluster-ring impression would end up on JB's right cheek, in that case. This abrasion is on her left cheek and the pair of abrasions is on her lower, left back. The location of the marks end up where your hands would end up if you rocked a small child and squeezed at the same time.

If Patsy did, in fact, try to revive JB, then, yes, of course, she is the perp. Unless, she found the body and knew Burke did this.

BlueCrab
02-08-2004, 11:10 PM
Maybe, Toltec, but I think this extra-large cluster-ring impression would end up on JB's right cheek, in that case. This abrasion is on her left cheek and the pair of abrasions is on her lower, left back. The location of the marks end up where your hands would end up if you rocked a small child and squeezed at the same time.

If Patsy did, in fact, try to revive JB, then, yes, of course, she is the perp. Unless, she found the body and knew Burke did this.


The mark is on JonBenet's RIGHT cheek. The triangular mark is on the front-left neck. The back marks are on the lower left part of the back. There are also similar marks on the back of the left leg near the ankle.

JMO

Maxi
02-08-2004, 11:49 PM
I tried to make it bigger, but it loses too much definition.

WolfmarsGirl
02-09-2004, 02:23 AM
The mark is on JonBenet's RIGHT cheek. The triangular mark is on the front-left neck. The back marks are on the lower left part of the back. There are also similar marks on the back of the left leg near the ankle.

JMO

Yep...You are correct. I stand corrected. Her right cheek is exactly where the mark would end up as I described. Sorry, my mistake.

If Patsy were standing over her, trying to revive her, then, I think the mark would be on the left cheek...

Thanks for catching my goof.

WolfmarsGirl
02-09-2004, 02:27 AM
Toltec, I am sorry. I can't tell my left from my right sometimes. I said the marks would end up on JBR's right cheek if PR tried to revive her. They were on her right cheek. I meant, at least I was thinking, "right cheek as you look at the child." My mistake.

As my child would say, "Duh Mommy!" :)

WolfmarsGirl
02-09-2004, 02:28 AM
I tried to make it bigger, but it loses too much definition.

Thank you so much for trying Maxi! :)