718 users online (79 members and 639 guests)  


Websleuths News


Results 1 to 12 of 12
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,389

    Experts

    One-Eyed-Jack posted this at jameson's:-

    Talking about the expertise of Lou Smit over DocG, another thing I've noticed about BORG posters is they are unable to comprehend how to distinguish between which expert is probably more expert than another. They'll accept what Dr. Stratbucker has to say about the stungun marks in the Ramsey case despite his conflict of interest over what Dr. Doberson had to say who had no such conflict.


    I think this is perhaps aimed at me and quite frankly, I consider it to be an extraordinary statement. OEJ seems to think that the fact Doberson hasn't been hired as a medical expert by Taser makes him MORE of an expert!! Does that mean that if John West (fish processors) offer me a job as a consultant because of my long history of expertise in fish biogenetics ... then I will cease to become an expert in my field????

    I consider Stratbucker to be more of an expert on stunguns because of his extensive research on the subject spanning three decades. I spent some time researching the work he has done on stunguns and was amazed to discover papers written on experiments which he had conducted as far back as the 1980s.

    He has conducted many experiments with stunguns - involving human guinea pigs (not just pigs) and he is an expert witness on stunguns in many states. He was studying stunguns DECADES before Doberson.

    He was hired byTaser BECAUSE of his expertise. His association with Taser doesn't nullify his expertise.

    The FACT is that Doberson didn't recognise real stungun marks when he performed the original autopsy on Gerald Boggs. The RST don't like this fact and conveniently forget it or omit it. Since his embarrassing Boggs faux pas, Doberson has done research on stunguns and has himself become recognised as something of an expert on stunguns ... but he has nowhere near the level of experience as Stratbucker on the subject.

    Another fact is that Stratbucker didn't even have a conflict of interest as OEJ claims, because Taser wasn't being held responsible in any way. Lou Smit originally claimed that he thought the marks on JonBenet were made by a Taser - but then he backtracked and said that Taser was only the "closest". Even if a stungun had been used (and that has certainly NOT been proven) - it wasn't the fault of Taser.

    Statbucker makes a good living from being an expert witness. Neither he nor Taser had anything to lose if he had agreed that the marks had been made by a stungun but he had everything to lose if he had been proved wrong.

    Both Stratbucker and Werner Spitz said that the marks did not resemble stungun marks.

    I choose my experts based upon their level of experience and track record - NOT because they are saying what I want to hear. Doberson's track record on the subject of stunguns is flawed... FACT.
    This is only my opinion

    Let the focus be on Madeleine




    Together we can make a difference





    Alert Viewer in Scotland

    Member of Websleuths since April 2000

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    6,341
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayelles
    One-Eyed-Jack posted this at jameson's:-

    [/color]

    I think this is perhaps aimed at me and quite frankly, I consider it to be an extraordinary statement. OEJ seems to think that the fact Doberson hasn't been hired as a medical expert by Taser makes him MORE of an expert!! Does that mean that if John West (fish processors) offer me a job as a consultant because of my long history of expertise in fish biogenetics ... then I will cease to become an expert in my field????

    I consider Stratbucker to be more of an expert on stunguns because of his extensive research on the subject spanning three decades. I spent some time researching the work he has done on stunguns and was amazed to discover papers written on experiments which he had conducted as far back as the 1980s.

    He has conducted many experiments with stunguns - involving human guinea pigs (not just pigs) and he is an expert witness on stunguns in many states. He was studying stunguns DECADES before Doberson.

    He was hired byTaser BECAUSE of his expertise. His association with Taser doesn't nullify his expertise.

    The FACT is that Doberson didn't recognise real stungun marks when he performed the original autopsy on Gerald Boggs. The RST don't like this fact and conveniently forget it or omit it. Since his embarrassing Boggs faux pas, Doberson has done research on stunguns and has himself become recognised as something of an expert on stunguns ... but he has nowhere near the level of experience as Stratbucker on the subject.

    Another fact is that Stratbucker didn't even have a conflict of interest as OEJ claims, because Taser wasn't being held responsible in any way. Lou Smit originally claimed that he thought the marks on JonBenet were made by a Taser - but then he backtracked and said that Taser was only the "closest". Even if a stungun had been used (and that has certainly NOT been proven) - it wasn't the fault of Taser.

    Statbucker makes a good living from being an expert witness. Neither he nor Taser had anything to lose if he had agreed that the marks had been made by a stungun but he had everything to lose if he had been proved wrong.

    Both Stratbucker and Werner Spitz said that the marks did not resemble stungun marks.

    I choose my experts based upon their level of experience and track record - NOT because they are saying what I want to hear. Doberson's track record on the subject of stunguns is flawed... FACT.
    The coroner said the marks were what?

    If not marks from a stungun, the marks were from?
    It's not what a man knows that makes him a fool, it's what he does know that ain't so. .... Josh Billings

  3. #3
    What about the mark on her right face...near her ear? Where is the other mark if this is a stun-gun?
    ...We have said to ourselves, look, there is never going to be a victory in this, there is no victory...John Ramsey: 6/24/98

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,389
    Quote Originally Posted by Wudge
    The coroner said the marks were what?

    If not marks from a stungun, the marks were from?
    The coroner described the marks as abrasions (not burns). It isn't the job of the coroner to suggest how the marks were made.

    I posted on another thread about a programme which I saw last week. I was working and the tv was on so I was only half watching. It was the Trevor MacDonald show (very highly respected) and the subject was domestic violence. My interest was sparked when some photos were shown of a woman's injuries because they looked exactly like the marks on Jonbenet. The victim had been beaten. As I hadn't really been watching or listening, I missed the details about the case and the victim's description of the assaults, but the assailant was called Philip Stone. I'd have been interested to know what made the marks on that woman. I doubt it would be a stungun because they are illegal here and only riot police carry them.
    This is only my opinion

    Let the focus be on Madeleine




    Together we can make a difference





    Alert Viewer in Scotland

    Member of Websleuths since April 2000

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    8,868
    Personally I consider the stun-gun issue to be a red-herring, like the psychopathic garroter.

    There are cases where an Expert-Witness can demonstrate some feature of a case is wholly contradictory.

    But more generally the use of expert-witnesses is determined by the fees you can pay.

    So you can request the opinion you pay for, in the UK the use of such tactics has led many mothers to be incarcerated simply on the basis of the opinion of an expert-witness, and the defense lacking the deep pockets cannot similarly impress the Jury.

    In essence the use of Expert-Witnesses is to present an Argument by Authority, its kind of the inverse of an ad-hominem presentation.


    .

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Oriental, North Carolina
    Posts
    939
    Quote Originally Posted by UKGuy
    Personally I consider the stun-gun issue to be a red-herring, like the psychopathic garroter.

    There are cases where an Expert-Witness can demonstrate some feature of a case is wholly contradictory.

    But more generally the use of expert-witnesses is determined by the fees you can pay.

    So you can request the opinion you pay for, in the UK the use of such tactics has led many mothers to be incarcerated simply on the basis of the opinion of an expert-witness, and the defense lacking the deep pockets cannot similarly impress the Jury.

    In essence the use of Expert-Witnesses is to present an Argument by Authority, its kind of the inverse of an ad-hominem presentation.


    .
    UKGuy, couldn't agree more. I still believe in the principle of Occam's Razor and think this case is a simple one. The problem was the botched initial investigation; thus, rendering it unsolvable in a court of law.

    gaia
    Simplicity...patience...compassion

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    6,341
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayelles

    SNIP

    It isn't the job of the coroner to suggest how the marks were made.

    SNIP
    Not true.
    It's not what a man knows that makes him a fool, it's what he does know that ain't so. .... Josh Billings

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,389
    Quote Originally Posted by Wudge
    Not true.
    The coroner's job is to examine the body and record what he finds. If you read the autopsy, it is purely a description of her injuries - no speculation as to how they were caused.
    This is only my opinion

    Let the focus be on Madeleine




    Together we can make a difference





    Alert Viewer in Scotland

    Member of Websleuths since April 2000

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    9,061

    Hmmm

    Quote Originally Posted by Toltec
    What about the mark on her right face...near her ear? Where is the other mark if this is a stun-gun?


    --->>>In haste this morning, I cannot remember IF there were other marks the same size as the right cheek one???

    A new thought for me this morning after ten years, I think that one right cheek mark could have been caused by a frontal backhanding slap with a ring stone making the mark. The stone would have made the bigger connection to the cheek area. moo

    .
    Opinions expressed by me, are mine, based on life experience, and known facts of any given case.





    """I am just a pixel in the universal plan."""

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    8,868
    Quote Originally Posted by Camper
    --->>>In haste this morning, I cannot remember IF there were other marks the same size as the right cheek one???

    A new thought for me this morning after ten years, I think that one right cheek mark could have been caused by a frontal backhanding slap with a ring stone making the mark. The stone would have made the bigger connection to the cheek area. moo

    .

    Camper,

    You may not be far out. There was many unaccounted contusions and abrasions on JonBenet, and not where you would expect them given a ligature strangulation.

    One theory I have assumes either from sexual abuse or parental punishment JonBenet screams, and tells her assailant she is going to tell someone, her assailant continues to slap and punch her head from side to side, possibly incurring the contusions, then her assailant realizes he/she wants JonBenet silenced so she is manually strangled, maybe using an item of clothing, or the struggle causes JonBenets top to bunch up, inflicting the red weal. Once she is no longer breathing, her assailant lets her go thereby injuring the back of her head.

    So a ring could have definitely played a part.


    .


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,389
    Quote Originally Posted by UKGuy
    Camper,

    You may not be far out. There was many unaccounted contusions and abrasions on JonBenet, and not where you would expect them given a ligature strangulation.

    One theory I have assumes either from sexual abuse or parental punishment JonBenet screams, and tells her assailant she is going to tell someone, her assailant continues to slap and punch her head from side to side, possibly incurring the contusions, then her assailant realizes he/she wants JonBenet silenced so she is manually strangled, maybe using an item of clothing, or the struggle causes JonBenets top to bunch up, inflicting the red weal. Once she is no longer breathing, her assailant lets her go thereby injuring the back of her head.

    So a ring could have definitely played a part.


    .
    Maybe the marks were caused by the paintbrush being jabbed into her?
    This is only my opinion

    Let the focus be on Madeleine




    Together we can make a difference





    Alert Viewer in Scotland

    Member of Websleuths since April 2000

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    8,868
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayelles
    Maybe the marks were caused by the paintbrush being jabbed into her?

    Jayelles,

    Yes , why not, even some other object?

    I think JonBenet was the subject of a sustained physical assault, followed by a manual strangulation.

    Its even possible as she was being strangled, her assailant, was simultaneoulsy bashing her head against some hard surface. Causing contusions on the side of her face?

    And once JonBenet became unconscious, she was throttled to death.


    .



Similar Threads

  1. Why did IDI experts focus on JDI?
    By madeleine in forum JonBenet Ramsey
    Replies: 49
    Last Post: 10-07-2009, 05:56 PM
  2. Where are the experts?
    By Nedthan Johns in forum JonBenet Ramsey
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 07-11-2008, 06:28 PM