True or False?

Maybe we can reach a concensus as to what the facts are with a thread like this; devote it to argument concerning the facts.

True or false?: There are three sets of identical marks (skin irregularities) on JBR's body that some think may have been made by the application of a stun gun. Note, the question is not whether the marks are evidence of the use of a stun gun, but whether such marks were discovered.

This should be an easy one...

RedChief said:

Maybe we can reach a concensus as to what the facts are with a thread like this; devote it to argument concerning the facts.

True or false?: There are three sets of identical marks (skin irregularities) on JBR's body that some think may have been made by the application of a stun gun. Note, the question is not whether the marks are evidence of the use of a stun gun, but whether such marks were discovered.

This should be an easy one...

Click to expand...

Hi Red Chief--True

hmm..not that easy, I thought there were two sets, one on her face ,one on her back that shared the characteristics of stun gun marks, no puncture, no bleeding ,no bruising , no swelling.

Sissi,

I think I very well could be mistaken here, but wasn't there also a set on her leg or ankle area?

angelnsb said:

Sissi,

I think I very well could be mistaken here, but wasn't there also a set on her leg or ankle area?

Click to expand...

You may be right! Some of the items get blurred with time, I may have forgotten that set.

Yes, leg included.

Do my eyes deceive me or do I really not find any reference in the autopsy report to those two marks on the jaw/neck. The coroner reported one mark (he called it an abrasion) just below the right ear at approximately the right angle of the mandible. I think that's the big one that's so easy to see in the photos. The coroner reported another abrasion (mark, if you prefer) on the right side of the CHIN. Surely that mark is not included in the afore-referenced identical sets of marks. Where is the second mark that is supposed to be a companion to the mark under the ear? Is it on the neck? Why can't I see it in the photos? Help me out here.

Does anyone, besides me (I, if you prefer), find it interesting that the two marks (abrasions) on the back of the lower left leg (4 inches above the heel) were the only marks described as "scratch-like"?

ah..that's right! This is why I never include them, if they are scratchlike they abraded the skin, which leaves us with only two sets of possible stun gun marks.

There is only one "pair" of marks on her body. The marks on her leg are not considered to be made by a stungun (see Stratbucker's deposition on this - that is confirmed by Lin Wood).

Then there is only one mark on her face. Proponents of the stungun argue that this is because the second stungun prong "landed" on the duct tape. This in itself raises certain questions:-

1. There was a perfect lip print on the duct tape suggesting that she was dead or unconscious when it was applied. Why stungun someone who is dead or unconscious?

2. Duct tape insultates against electricity. It can be used as electrical tape but is not recommended because it contains cotton fibres. These aborb moisture making the tape less effective as insultation. Now the question about this is whethere it would eb effective insulation against a high voltage such as a stungun. I don't know the answer to this question - nor do any of the people whom I asked. It is possible that if one prong of the stungun landed on duct tape, that it would interfere with the working of the stungun.

3. Michael Doberson is not an expert on stunguns. He was the pathologist who conducted the autopsy on Gerlad Boggs (who WAS stungunned) and he failed to recognise the stungun marks. Robert Stratbucker OTOH has been an expert on stunguns for decades and has conducted dozens of experiments on humans and animals. He believes that the marks on JonBenet were not made by a stungun. Lin Wood "discredited" Stratbucker in his deposition - but on technicalities. He failed to discredit Dr Stratbucker's expertise and he also failed to ask Dr Stratbucker WHY he did not believe the marks were not made by a stungun. I believe this was a deliberate tactic and that things would have played out very differently in a court of law.

Also, it is interesting to note that when jameson was asked to name the doctor who conducted Bogg;s original autopsy, she claimed that she couldn't recall (as if she would forget something like that).

In my opinion, one pair does not constitute a "pattern". I would like answers to the above questions from unbiased experts. Unfortunately the RST have proved time and then time again that they will spin and distort the truth in defence of the Ramseys. This in itself does the Ramseys no favours. People like honesty.

RedChief said:

Maybe we can reach a concensus as to what the facts are with a thread like this; devote it to argument concerning the facts.

True or false?: There are three sets of identical marks (skin irregularities) on JBR's body that some think may have been made by the application of a stun gun. Note, the question is not whether the marks are evidence of the use of a stun gun, but whether such marks were discovered.

This should be an easy one...

Click to expand...

TRUE.

Jayelles,

Excellent synopsis with lots of applicable information!

As a person with a degree in electrical engineering and with more than a few years experience with the transmission and distribution of electrical energy (popularly referred to as "power"), I can assure you that in order to answer your question definitively about the resistivity of the tape over her mouth, I would have to know the thickness and composition (chemically; i.e. whether polyethylene, ethylene-propylene, silicone rubber, etc.) of the tape; but, I am reasonably certain that if it were run-of-the-mill duct tape, it would offer little resistance to the flow of energy (current) at the voltage generated by the gun (several thousands of volts). I think John characterized it as some other kind of tape of the sort that is used as a fastener in sailing. I sometimes use duct tape, or whatever other kind of tape I can find in a cluttered and overflowing mox-nix drawer to effect repairs on extension cords and the like--too lazy to go down to the hardware store and purchase UL approved electrical tape. Even "Scotch" transparent tape will work, but will be far from being a permanent repair; but, that is because the voltages involved with home electrical cords are LOW (120-240 volts) compared to those produced by a stun gun.

The current involved in stunning with a gun is pretty low (milliamps compared to amps), but that would vary with the brand name and model number, so the gun probably wouldn't even "know" the duct tape was there. However, and this is only a guess, there might not be much of a mark, if any, left by the probe that was on the tape; but, I was under the impression that the tape was on the mouth and not on the neck; of course, I don't know the dimensions of the tape; it could have been wrapped around her ears for all I know. The higher the voltage the lower the amount of current required to operate at the same power and transfer the same amount of energy over the same period of time. I believe the guns are rated in joules per second, no?

Someone once mentioned the possibility that the mysterious marks on the body of JBR might have been produced by the same electric fence that shocked Burke. NO! You can grab these things and hang onto them for as long as you are able (nasty little jolt like that received from a spark plug) and you will suffer no ill effects and require no dermatological intervention; the current is very low (but sufficient to discourage deer, etc.) and intermittent (pulsed).

Now, we're cookin'...but let us not stray too far from the object of the thread which is to ascertain the facts.

RedChief,

The tape on JonBenet was Shurtape brand black duct tape manufactured in Hickory, N.C. by Shurtape Technologies sometime in late November of 1996 and was availlable to be sold at McGuckin's Hardware in Boulder at the time of JonBenet's death. It's manufacturing run, with an identifiable composition, was for only a short time and therefore the roll, if found, could be identified and be a significant clue. The tape on JonBenet's mouth was estimated to be 5" long. The roll from which it was torn is missing and no other piece of tape in the house matched the tape on JonBenet.

Duct tape, incidentally, is made by pressing three layers of materials together. The top layer is polyethelyne plastic; the middle layer is fabric; and the bottom layer is rubber-based adhesive.

BlueCrab

BlueCrab,

Thanks for the tape info.

OK, if the thickness is approximately that of other brands of duct tape with which I'm familiar, the voltage at the skin between the points of contact of the electrodes of the stun gun would be reduced on the order of a thousand volts or so; that would be a small percentage of the total voltage available at the electrodes so interference would be minimal. Depending on how long the voltage was applied, there may or may not be some carbonization in the polyethylene of the tape caused by the heat generated by current flowing through the resistive material. I suppose we don't know whether that is the case. Ohm's law requires that the sum of the voltages around a loop add to zero; i.e., that the applied voltage (the voltage of the source measured while the current is flowing) be equal to the sum of the drops (current x resistance) around the loop. If the electrodes were applied directly to the skin (no air dielectric) and directly to the tape adhering closely to the skin (again, no air dielectric), then grossly the drops would be in the tape and in the tissue, including the skin, between the electrodes. Dielectric is a fancy term for an insulating material. It would not be possible to map the exact path of the current in the skin, tissue and muscles, etc., because of the unknown distribution of conductive materials. The current WOULDN'T travel ONLY via the shortest path between the electrodes; if that were the case then no stunning would result. Stunning (somewhat of a misnomer) involves rapid cycling of muscles so as to produce more or less instant fatigue. What effect stunning would have on the brain (it's fairly well protected) I do not know. It might or it might not produce unconsciousness. Obviously, probably, if sufficent current could be circulated through critical brain structures, given that the brain is an electrical organ, disruption resulting in normal functioning and possibly even in death might result. That is not to say I know for a fact that anyone has ever been electrocuted in such fashion (brain circuit disruption) by a stun gun.

I might add that in videos shown on TV that I have seen, almost always the victim of stunning SCREAMS while the stunning is taking place. It is apparently a painful process and one that I wouldn't choose, to immobilize someone in the circumstances under which JBR is alleged to have been immobilized. However, if it were possible (this I don't know) to stun in such a manner and at such a place on the body to effect paralysis of the diaphragm, it might be impossible for the victim to scream or otherwise vocalize. There might, however, be some sound associated with the rapid cycling of the current through the diaphragm. The decibel level of this imagined sound I would not care to guess. It might only be a brief (though possibly loud) "whuff."

Wish I had a pig ready for slaughter that I could experiment on. Of course, I'd whack him on the head first so as to avoid hurting him with the stunning experiments.

Why does there seem to be so much mystery surrounding the effects of stunning with these devices?

Okay RedChief, using Ohm's Law as I understand it, I think what you are saying is that since R (the duct tape) = E (the 50,000 V.) divided by I (the minimal current), then the resistance of the duct tape would be minimal and therefore not prevent the second prong of the stun gun from functioning.

IOW, the duct tape would have allowed the electrical circuit from the prong of the stun gun that rested against the tape to have been completed, even though there is little evidence of any stun gun "signature mark" on the skin at that spot (under the tape).

The only other concern then is: Was the tape that stretched across JonBenet's mouth actually long enough to have allowed it to be less than 1 3/8" (the distance between the stun gun's prongs) from the more obvious stun gun mark (large round red mark) on the cheek near the ear? I measured this distance on my 8-year-old granddaughter and it appeared the tape across the mouth would have had to be a minimum of about 6" to 7" long to have reached back that far. Rumor has it that the tape was only 5" long.

BlueCrab

BlueCrab,

You say..."Okay RedChief, using Ohm's Law as I understand it, I think what you are saying is that since R (the duct tape) = E (the 50,000 V.) divided by I (the minimal current), then the resistance of the duct tape would be minimal and therefore not prevent the second prong of the stun gun from functioning.

IOW, the duct tape would have allowed the electrical circuit from the prong of the stun gun that rested against the tape to have been completed, even though there is little evidence of any stun gun "signature mark" on the skin at that spot (under the tape)."


I say--As to the resistance of the duct tape: Well, actually the resistance of the duct tape would likely be quite a bit greater than that of the skin, etc., initially, so initially a considerable voltage, say, 45,000 volts (lasting only few microseconds) could develop across the tape (in the direction of the current which would probably be generally perpindicular to the tape), but eventually the insulation provided by the tape would break down (it is the case with most insulating materials, including polyethylene, that as soon as it's insulating capacity is exceeded, current begins to flow and the molecular structure begins to change), so it's resistance would be a function of time--the longer the time, the lesser the resistance. If and when it substantially carbonized, it's resistance could drop to a value even less than that of the skin, in which case most of the voltage drop would develop within the skin and flesh. This is a dynamic situation and would be an example of non-linear resistance--resistance that is not constant but changes with time and possibly even the magnitude of the voltage applied. So, this is not an easy thing to analyze and predict even though, in principle, the mechanisms involved are not all that complex. Polyethylene will eventually deteriorate under electrical stress (it's usually rated in kilovolts per inch) and develop "trees" which will ultimately result in substantial leakage and eventual arcing and short circuit. The upshot of all this is that this duct tape wouldn't prevent stunning. You might try sticking a piece of this tape to the electrode of a stun gun and seeing if it prevents the electrodes from arcing. I think you'll find that it doesn't. The stun gun won't even "know" it's there. Prevent the circuit from being completed, no it wouldn't. I think you'd find that if you measured the voltage across the electrodes while they were applied to the skin (don't try this at home), it would be appreciably less than 50,000 volts. You could calculate how much current would be necessary to maintain 50,000 volts. I think you'd find that it would be much more current than the gun could deliver. The 50,000 volts is probably an open-circuit rating (no current).


You say---"The only other concern then is: Was the tape that stretched across JonBenet's mouth actually long enough to have allowed it to be less than 1 3/8" (the distance between the stun gun's prongs) from the more obvious stun gun mark (large round red mark) on the cheek near the ear? I measured this distance on my 8-year-old granddaughter and it appeared the tape across the mouth would have had to be a minimum of about 6" to 7" long to have reached back that far. Rumor has it that the tape was only 5" long."

I say---Ah hah! So we should find a mark within a 1-3/8 inch radius of the large mark near the ear. Have you found it?

"Stun gun? Can you buy those?"

True or false?:

The ownership of the bat found in the yard, the one with a fiber or fibers on it, consistent with fibers from the carpet in the basement, has yet to be determined?

Helgoth committed suicide as opposed to being murdered or the victim of an accidental gunshot wound?

Helgoth owned a wolf-dog?

Helgoth owned an air-taser stun gun?

Helgoth owned Hi-Tec boots?

Helgoth was unnaturally fond of little girls?

The BPD has yet to turn over the Helgoth boots to the DA?

Wolf, on the evening of December 26, while watching a breaking TV news report of the death of JBR, prior to the disclosure of her injuries to the public, exclaimed to his lady friend, Ms. Dilson, "I hope the fxxxxx dies. He was sexually abusing her." or words to that effect?

Question regarding the above: how could Wolf know (or even suspect) that Ramsey was abusing his daughter, prior to the disclosure of the nature of her death?

Wolf was eliminated as the writer of the ransom note?

Wolf was antagonistic toward big business, especially of the military-industrial kind?

Wolf had never interviewed any employee of Access Graphics?

Wolf was fully cooperative with the Boulder Police from the get-go?

Handwriting analysis was done on exemplars provided by Mrs. Santa?

Kevin Raburn was thoroughly investigated?

Comment regarding the above "suspect": Do you remember the Clutter Case, the subject of In Cold Blood, by Capote? Do you remember that one of the perpetrators (who claimed he wasn't the shooter, but was tried, convicted and executed anyway) admitted to passing bad checks and egaging in theft and the like, but denied ever killing anyone? "I ain't no killer", he said. Remind you of anyone connected to this case?

Kevin Raburn had funds amounting to $118,000 (ample means) that he could dip into following his release from prison?

Comment regarding the above "suspect": Recall that the aforementioned participant in the Clutter killing hatched the scheme to rob the Clutters while still in the big house?

Keep them true or false questions coming.

Is it or is it not a fact that........?

RedChief said:

Ah hah! So we should find a mark within a 1-3/8 inch radius of the large mark near the ear. Have you found it?

Click to expand...

RedChief,

Correct. If a Taser brand hand-held stun gun had been used, there should have been another burn mark about 1 3/8" (actually 3.5 cm) from the big ugly mark near JonBenet's right ear. There isn't. That's why I was asking about what would happen to the skin if the second prong of the stun gun rested against the duct tape when the trigger was pulled.

Of course, no two stun gun "signature marks" (electrical burns on the skin from the prongs of the stun gun) look alike. There are endless variables, such as the pressure of the twin prongs against the skin (or clothing); the angle of the prongs on the skin; the toughness of the skin at that particular part of the body; the length of time the trigger is held; etc. So they all look different. Also, during a struggle the sharp, steel prongs themselves can cause abrasions on the skin that might look like electrical signature marks.

Strangely, when a stun gun is pressed firmly against the victim there is less of a signature mark (and sometimes no signature mark) made on the skin. Conversely, when the gun is held slightly away from the skin an arc is created that more severely burns the skin.

With this background, can we reasonably make a determination that the injury on the right side of JonBenet's face is an electrical burn from one of the prongs of a stun gun, even though there appears to be little or no evidence of the second prong of the gun having caused an injury?

BlueCrab

BlueCrab,

There is another mark along the jaw line toward the chin. It's much less prominent than the big mark below the ear. It's roughly 1.5 inches from the big mark. I used the distance from the external auditory canal as a reference. The coroner said that the big mark was 1.5 inches from that. The distance from the big mark to the much-less-prominent mark is about the same. That could be our "missing mark".

The big mark doesn't look like an abrasion to me; looks more like a burn.

The big triangular patch on her neck doesn't look like an abrasion to me either. I can't figure what made it. JBR's neck has been pretty roughed up, even below the ligature. What's your explanation for that?

Any thoughts on whether the burn mark along the jaw line could have been cause by a hair curling iron?

JBR had a lot of hair that her mother, obviouly, had to style for her.

Were there any signs of burn like injuries that might have occured on Chritmas Eve while getting dressed or doing her hair before any festivities?

The mark/burn on her neck looks very much the result of a curling iron.

Miss Daisey said:

Any thoughts on whether the burn mark along the jaw line could have been cause by a hair curling iron?

JBR had a lot of hair that her mother, obviouly, had to style for her.

Were there any signs of burn like injuries that might have occured on Chritmas Eve while getting dressed or doing her hair before any festivities?

The mark/burn on her neck looks very much the result of a curling iron.

Click to expand...

Miss Daisey,

I don't think so. There's a picture of JonBenet taken early Christmas morning and there are no visible injuries on her face or neck.