1306 users online (247 members and 1059 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 29
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    886

    question re stun gun and head blow

    I have a question regarding the "possible" use of a stun gun. Not knowing what the effects of using a stun gun on a person of any size or age, I was wondering if the following scenario might be plausible. This of course, assumes that a stun gun was indeed used in this crime. I would appreciate if this thread did not degenerate into a fight over whether or not a stun gun was actually used. There are plenty of those threads out there, including an active one at the moment. Please try to stick to this topic.

    Here goes, if JonBenet was stun gunned during the commission of this crime, is it possible that she could have fallen stiffly against something hard/sharp and that this is what caused the head injury? The person who had done the deed would not necessarily realize the extent of this head injury as there was no outside evidence of it (external bleeding). The perp would most likely have been expecting JonBenet to fall and/or become unconcious with the use of the stun gun so would not find this unusual when it happened.

    The theory that I'm thinking of right now is that Burke, or someone else, was playing with JonBenet that night and used the stun gun on her to see what would happen. A kind of boys will be boys thing. When she fell and hit her head, he was more or less expecting something of the kind. However, when she failed to come around after a short period of time, he went and got Mom/Dad to help. She was shaken by a parent (the shaken baby bruises noted in Wecht's book) to try to rouse her. When this didn't work, they assumed she was dead, possibly of a heart attack or some complication from using a stun gun on a small child. To try to deflect the blame from Burke, the cover-up was devised.

    Does this make sense? Is it possible that something like this would have happened? Would she have been able to fall at enough velocity to cause a head wound such as was found? Would she have been able to "catch herself" with her hands to keep from hitting her head even if a stun gun had been used? Does anyone know for sure what the effect of using a stun gun on a small child is? I know I've read that some say that she'd be concious and able to scream if one was used. I've also read that she'd be unconcious and limp or unconcious and stiff. I need clarification.

    I'm starting to come around to a possible BDI theory, but somehow I just can't see the erotic asphyxiation as Blue Crab suggests happening. I know it does happen in children that young, but somehow it doesn't feel right in this situation.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    230
    I do find the part about the stun gun and head blow being a possible result of use from a stun gun to be a valid possibility. I would think (don't know for sure, just speculating) that on a small child as JonBenet was that the voltage from a stun gun would completely incapacitate her. It may have caused a reaction to which her breath was taken away from her immediately and therefore could not scream immediately. The force from such a volt might possibly have sent her flying into a counter top or even landing on the concrete floor thus, causing the massive head blow. The only problem I have with this theory is that from my personal experience, MOST of the time (not ALL of the time according to others) when someone sustains a massive head blow such as this, there is definitely a lot more blood in the head. The skull was cracked tremendously so, and usually the blood will just fill up inside and outside the cranium and slow down once the heart has stopped pumping and the little bit left is drained. The amount of blood in her head was consistent with what I perceive to be the little bit of drainage that would occur if a head blow occurred after she was already dead from strangulation. I realize others completely disagree with this, but I am basing this on head injuries and radiologic images I have personally seen.

    Perhaps if the stun gun was used, it killed her and then she fell and hit her head.....just not sure this adds up with the evidence we do have. One thing that may help in seeking answers to this would be to know if there is a degree of voltage one could adjust on a stun gun, maybe this would bring about more regarding this possible theory. Not sure though.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Amongst the beautiful Washington Islands
    Posts
    2,492
    Does this make sense?
    NO!

    1. I think it would be very difficult to fall or otherwise "bump" into something and create that type of an injury...it would be more likely that a fall would create a contusion under the skull.

    2. You would have to assume that Burke and JB played with stun guns as opposed to other toys.


    I think it is extremely cruel, that not only do people insist on accusing the parents, but can't leave this boy alone...you might read the info about the fact that the police have "cleared" Burke. ...and then LEAVE HIM ALONE!

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,053
    Quote Originally Posted by Fran Bancroft

    I think it is extremely cruel, that not only do people insist on accusing the parents, but can't leave this boy alone...you might read the info about the fact that the police have "cleared" Burke. ...and then LEAVE HIM ALONE!

    Sorry Fran,

    Burke has never been cleared. The authorities are careful not to use the word "cleared" when it comes to Burke. They will use terms like "he's a witness and not a suspect", but no one of authority will state that Burke is cleared. That includes Chief Beckner, District Attorney Keenan, ALL of the judges, etc.

    Yes, Arielle. The scenario you described is possible, but not probable. IMO JonBenet would had to have fallen from a high height of some kind for the body to gain the velocity needed to crack the skull in two.

    There are no studies available on what the effects a stun gun hit would be on the body of a six-year-old 45-pound female child. Tasers are 50,000 volts and are not adjustable in the field. What is important is the length of time the stun gun prongs are held against the subject with the trigger pulled. So long as the trigger is squeezed, the 50,000 volts keeps coming. Most stun gun hits are for one or two seconds. It's hard to go beyond two seconds because the subject is violenty fighting, twisting, and flopping like a fish to escape the pain.

    Unfortunately, JonBenet was bound with cords, so she couldn't easily avoid the pain from the 50,000 volts. IMO, judging from the burn injuries, the gun was held against JonBenet for five seconds or more. It could have even been the cause of death (by paralyzing the respiratory muscles and asphyxiating her). The flopping could have caused the shaken baby syndrome.

    The hit on the head was last because there was only about two teaspoons of blood on the brain, which would have been residual blood. With the skull split in two and a rectangular section of bone knocked out, there should have been much more blood on the brain.

    JMO

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    886
    Okay, does anyone know if Meyer looked at her heart in detail to see if there was any possible problem there? I'm thinking of cardiac arrest or tachyardia (I can't spell that) from the massive voltage applied to her via the stun gun. I realize that the petechaial hemohrages (spelling problems again) are indicative of strangulation. Do petechial hemohrages also occur if some other type of ashphyixiation death occurs, such as Blue Crab suggested with the stun gun paralyzing her respiratory tract.

    Fran: Just so you know, I am actually an intruder did it person. I am not actually accusing Burke here, I just included his name as the most likely person to be "playing with JonBenet" with a stun gun. And no, I'm not suggesting that this was a regular thing for them, just that it was one of those things. You know, kids wondering, "Hey what happens if I do this?" and not thinking about hte possible consequences of the action. This whole stun gun idea is just as valid if the intruder brought the stun gun with him/her and used it on her purposely rather than a tragic accident by Burke. Although, then there isn't a coverup, only the way it was meant to look.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    US
    Posts
    1,599
    Good thread, Arielle. Perhaps someone with stun gun experience will post and add to this.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    14,185
    If a stun gun causes so much pain, it seems to me that one being used on JonBenet 4 times would be a means of torture. I haven't seen the amount of stun gun marks being addressed by any of the experts. Surely 4 stuns wouldn't be necessary and she would have been subdued enough at some point to get the garotte around the neck, but what kept her from crying out between the strangling and head blow? Did the killer take another piece of tape or a gag with him? The experts must not be telling all the info they know about the studies of stun guns because someone must know for sure if a person can cry out when being stunned or how long a stun lasts.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,053
    Quote Originally Posted by txsvicki
    If a stun gun causes so much pain, it seems to me that one being used on JonBenet 4 times would be a means of torture. I haven't seen the amount of stun gun marks being addressed by any of the experts. Surely 4 stuns wouldn't be necessary and she would have been subdued enough at some point to get the garotte around the neck, but what kept her from crying out between the strangling and head blow? Did the killer take another piece of tape or a gag with him? The experts must not be telling all the info they know about the studies of stun guns because someone must know for sure if a person can cry out when being stunned or how long a stun lasts.

    Txsvicki,

    I agree with you that, if a stun gun was used on JonBenet, multiple jolts on a six-year-old girl who was gagged and bound with rope, would have to be considered torture.

    If tortured, I would guess that to keep her quiet a handkercief or sock was likely stuffed into her mouth and kept in place with the duct tape. That would answer the question about the source of the artifact found on the tip of JonBenet's tongue.

    There were three apparent stun gun hits on JonBenet, not four. The double rectangular injuries were on the right side of the face, on the lower left back, and on the lower left leg near the ankle. Coroner John Meyer originally described the injuries in the autopsy report as abrasions, but later changed his diagnosis of the marks as consistent with stun gun injuries. From the autopsy report:

    FACE: "Located just below the right ear at the right angle of the mandible, 1.5 inches below the right external auditory canal is a 3/8 X 1/4 inch area of rust colored abrasion.....Located on the right side of the chin is a 3/16 X 1/8 of an inch area of superficial abrasion."

    BACK: "On the left lateral aspect of the lower back, approximately 16 1/4 inches and 17 1/2 inches below the level of the top of the head are two dried rust colored to slightly purple abrasions. The more superior of the two measures 1/8 X 1/16 of an inch and the more inferior measures 3/16 X 1/8 of an inch. There is no surrounding contusion identified."

    LEG: "On the posterior aspect of the left lower leg, almost in the midline, approximately 4 inches above the level of the heel are two small scratch-like abrasions which are dried and rust colored. They measure 1/16 by less than 1/16 of an inch and 1/8 by less than 1/16 of an inch respectively."

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    514
    The coroner stated that the injury to JonBenet's skull and brain were "consistent with a BLOW TO THE HEAD".
    Not a fall.

    Bluecrab it was never 100% clear to the coroner which injury - asphyxiation or head blow - came first, as both would have been fatal.
    So he listed both on cause of death right next to each other. Purposely.

    But Dr. Henry Lee stated in his recent book, very matter of factly, that the head blow came FIRST.

    It was probably so nearly fatal that most bodily functions ceased and the teeny bit of life left in JonBenet (unbeknownst to the perp who thought she was DEAD after the head blow and came up with staging to have a VISIBLE sign of "how" she died - however fake) was just enough to cause the petechial hemorages seen on JonBenet. Therefore, the stager (IMO Patsy) inadvertently CAUSED the final action of death by pulling the cord around her neck. But she thought she was already dead from the head blow (most likely inflicted in a fight with JonBenet by Burke IMO).
    Many forensic experts believe the head blow came first. Taking the autopsy report into account and all. It fits.
    This post is my opinion.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    753
    Quote Originally Posted by K777angel
    The coroner stated that the injury to JonBenet's skull and brain were "consistent with a BLOW TO THE HEAD".
    Not a fall.

    Bluecrab it was never 100% clear to the coroner which injury - asphyxiation or head blow - came first, as both would have been fatal.
    So he listed both on cause of death right next to each other. Purposely.

    But Dr. Henry Lee stated in his recent book, very matter of factly, that the head blow came FIRST.

    It was probably so nearly fatal that most bodily functions ceased and the teeny bit of life left in JonBenet (unbeknownst to the perp who thought she was DEAD after the head blow and came up with staging to have a VISIBLE sign of "how" she died - however fake) was just enough to cause the petechial hemorages seen on JonBenet. Therefore, the stager (IMO Patsy) inadvertently CAUSED the final action of death by pulling the cord around her neck. But she thought she was already dead from the head blow (most likely inflicted in a fight with JonBenet by Burke IMO).
    Many forensic experts believe the head blow came first. Taking the autopsy report into account and all. It fits.
    No it doesn't fit.

    Q. How can damage to the skull like that occur without splitting the skin?

    A. The head was covered or the object that hit the skull was padded.

    Q. What are the odds of that being the case in an accident?

    A. Zero.

    Q. How does the content of the ransom note fit with the accident/cover-up theory?

    A. It doesn't.


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,053
    Quote Originally Posted by K777angel

    Bluecrab it was never 100% clear to the coroner which injury - asphyxiation or head blow - came first, as both would have been fatal.
    Angel,

    Not quite. The coroner said cause of death was asphyxia by strangulation. He didn't say cause of death was by trauma to the head. He said the asphyxia was "associated" with the head trauma, but cause of death was by asphyxia. A person can only die from one cause, even though there were two entirely different potentially fatal injuries.

    IMO the strangulation came first because of the petechial hemorrhages on JonBenet's neck on both sides of the cord imbedded in her neck and because of the petechial hemorrhages on her eyelids. Only live bodies can pump blood to form those kinds of petechial hemorrhages.

    The smash to the head was postmotem because there was only two teaspoons of blood on the brain. There would have been much more blood on the brain if she was alive when her skull was split in two and a section of bone in the skull punched out.

    Also, it doesn't make much sense to construct a complicated AEA device as staging to put around her neck trying to make the murder look like a garroting. Garrotes don't look like that. A real garrote is usually just a single length of rope or wire with two handles, usually consisting of mere knots at each end so the assailants hands don't slip off as he is strangling the struggling victim from behind.

    JMO

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    58

    The elaborate knot on the garrote was a message.

    The elaborate knot on the garrote was a message - ARCHERY KNOT. The beaver hair is used in ARCHERY too. The cord is used in ARCHERY.
    The knot, the cord, the beaver hair.
    Burke, John and Patsy had no motive to do a "message murder" or to write an 'explaination letter." Why would Burke, John or Patsy point to an ARCHER? They didn't. They were victims of a nut with multiple personalities.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,475
    Quote Originally Posted by Arielle

    Here goes, if JonBenet was stun gunned during the commission of this crime, is it possible that she could have fallen stiffly against something hard/sharp and that this is what caused the head injury?
    Hi Arielle, what do you mean when you say "fallen stiffly"?

    When someone is stun gunned they don't really "stiffen up". The body tenses, but as soon as the charge is stopped they fall limply if standing. The stun gun theory is really not a "theory" as any 8th grader can tell you. A "theory" is something that has been tried and proven to be true...there is no truth in fact about a stun gun being used.

    Stun guns do not leave those types of marks unless the weapon was held in place for a prolonged period of time.

    Also all the experts seem to disagree on which came first. The head injury or the strangulation. I think they both happened at the same time. If the headblow had happned first there would have been much more blood than they found, if the strangulation occured first there would have been less blood. Nobody except the killer knows if JB was standing, sitting, or laying down when all this happened, but it's possible during the strangulation and impending death she banged her head against something hard enough (adrenalin can cause spurts of super strength even in kids) to crack her own skull.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,053
    Quote Originally Posted by BigAppleDetective
    Burke, John and Patsy had no motive to do a "message murder" or to write an 'explaination letter. They were victims of a nut with multiple personalities.

    BigAppleDetective,

    If all of the Ramseys are innocent, then why are they lying and covering up for "a nut with multiple personalities" who murdered their daughter? You know as well as I do they would do this ONLY if a Ramsey family member was involved.

    JMO

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    230
    I don't see a cover up to be quite honest with you. Anything that has been mentioned here before to suggest the Ramsey's did it can be explained to fit an intruder as well.



    And regarding BrotherMoon's comment above about the skull bashing and the skin not being broke- That happens all the time. Sometimes the skin breaks and sometimes it doesn't, and when the skin isn't broken and the person is alive, they get a big ol' goose egg from where the blood is filling up under the skin when the skull isn't broken. The type of head injury she sustained would have a tremendous amount of blood intracranially and extracranially. IMO.

    Watch Trauma: Life in the ER sometime. You will see some of both types of head injuries there. They will do a CT scan (CAT scan) and you frequently see patients with hematomas and intracranial bleeds. You can see the blood clear as a bell on a CT scan on an alive patient. I will see if I can round up a scan of a postmortem patient and show you guys the difference.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast