1001 users online (184 members and 817 guests)  


Websleuths News


Results 1 to 14 of 14
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,389

    Facts about the Stun gun

    Ramsey supporters claim that a stungun was used on JonBenet. This is not a fact - far from it, the claim is far from proved as I will demonstrate. One asks - "if the claim is weak, why push it so hard? " The answer to that is simple. There is no proof that the ramseys owned a stungun. True they had a video, apparently in Spanish which *might* be an instructional video on the use of stunguns or it might have been a promotional video - although one might ask why it would be in Spanish if that were the case. I have personally got an instructional video for a sewing machine which is in Japanese! The bottom line is - there is little credible information about that video.

    However, many people agree that if it could be proved that a stungun was used, then it would point AWAY from the Ramseys as perps. This is why I believe the hard core of Ramsey supporters push the stungn theory as though it were a case fact.

    Stungun Experts - for and against - Stratbucker
    *The* leading expert on stunguns is without doubt Dr Robert Stratbucker who has been studying and documenting their use since the 1980s. He is on record as saying that in his expert opinions, the marks on JonBenet were NOT made by a stungun.

    Dr Stratbucker has performed extensive stungun experiments on not only pigs, but on human volunteers photographing the marks minutes, hours and (in one case) days after the stunning. In most cases, the marks disappeared very quickly indeed.

    Ramsey expert - Doberson
    Team Ramsey hired their own expert - one Dr Michael Doberson who performed an experiment on an anaethsetised pig and declared that they matched the marks on JonBenet. Most of us who have seen the photographs disagree with him. The marks on the pig were little pink marks (which looked like little burns) which were vaguely rectangular in shape - i.e. the same shape as the stungun prod. The twin marks were also exactly the same distance apart as the stungun which was used in the experiment.

    Gerald Boggs
    Ramsey supporters compare JonBent's injuries to one Gerald Boggs who was known to have been stungunned before he was murdered. There are autopsy photos of Gerald Boggs which are used to compare the marks with JonBenet. What the Ramsey Supporters don't tell you is that the photo of Gerald Boggs was taken 6 months after his death - when he was exhumed. He was exhumed because the coroner who performed his autopsy FAILED to recognise the marks as stungun marks. His body was exhumed to perform further tests as proof of stungun use would help to solve the case. In the original autopsy photos, the marks are not similar to the marks on Jonbenet. They are however, similar to the marks on the stungunned pig! (i.e. little pink marks resembling burns)

    Michael Doberson fails to recognise genuine stungun marks!
    Also of interest, is the name of the coroner who FAILED to recognise the stungun marks during the original autopsy .... His name was Dr Michael Doberson! (i.e. the Ramsey stungun "expert").

    Having stunned a pig, Dr Doberson went on record as saying that he believed the marks on JonBenet were made by a stungun. This came as a great surprise to case followers because Dr Doberson was already on record as saying that "you can't really tell from a photograph". Interesting eh?

    Dr Werner Spitz - says no stungun
    Another forensic expert, Dr Werner Spitz is also on record as saying that the marks on JonBenet weren't made by a stungun. His explanation is simple - "Stungun marks don't look like that".

    Then we have the problem of the distance btween the marks. In the case of the pigs, the pairs of marks matched exactly in distance with the prods on the stungun. Lou Smit and RST not only claimed that JonBenet was tortured with a stungun, they even claim to know the brand of stungun - a Taser. Unfortunately for them, Taser don't make a stungun which matches the distance of the marks on JonBenet - despite what the RST.

    Amateur analyses of the marks
    Some years ago, Cutter, a former member of Websleuths, performed an experiment with the images of the pig and JonBenet and posted that they didn't match in distance. His work is here:-

    http://gemart.8m.com/ramsey/stungun.html

    I was sceptical and I set out to find flaws in Cutter's analysis. Using the metal rulers as a benchmark, I performed my own analysis and was gobsmacked to find that my findings agreed with Cutter's. There was no doubt - the marks on JonBenet did NOT match the marks on the pig and they did NOT match the stungun which the RST claimed was used.

    jameson used fraudulent images
    More worryingly, I discovered that without doubt, the image which jameson245 displays on her website showing the "match" between the pig marks and the marks on JonBenet had without doubt been doctored to make it a match., In reality, the marks on JonBenet were much smaller and closer together. Significantly, this image had the rulers cropped out! jameson claimed that someone else was responsible for the image, but it now appears to have been removed (perhaps in response to my repeatedly posting the proof that it was fake?).

    RST arguments to explain weaknesses of stungun theory
    Over the years, the RST have come up with various arguments to explain the weaknesses in the stungun theory. Such as

    RST ARGUMENT "She moved when she was being stunned so her skin stretched".

    (This is to explain why the marks do not match any known stungun in distance between prods.)

    My response:- this is in direct contradiction to their explanation for there only being one "stungun" mark on her face. The perfect lipprint on the duct tape suggested she was dead or unconscious when it was applied. Whty stungun a dead or unconscious victim?

    RST ARGUMENT "The stungun could have been modified"

    My response:- unlikely if you've ever seen a stungun. The prods are short and set into a rigid casing which could be made of some kind of hard muoldable man-made material.

    The stungun and the duct tape
    Another problem with the stungun theory is the fact that there is only one PAIR of marks on JonBenet's body. The mark on her face is just that - one mark. One pair of marks does not make a "pattern". So the RST have tried to come up with explanations as to why there was only one mark on the face:-

    RST ARGUMENT "the second prod landed on the tape across her mouth"

    There are a few problems with this:-

    1) There is a possibility (I am not claiming this as a fact) that if one prod had landed on the duct tape, that it would have prevented the device from working. Duct tape has insulating qualities bt I don't know if they are sufficiently insulating.

    2) Perfect lip imprints on the duct tape suggest that she was already dead or unconscious when it was applied. Why stungun a dead or unconscious child?


    RST ARGUMENT :- jameson has claimed that a white mark on her face in one of the photos is actually gum from the back of the duct tape and that this was caused by the second prod of the stungun MELTING the gum on the back onto JonBenet's face.

    I admit I was interested by this one - especially as I could not get a satisfactory asnwer to me question about whether the duct tape would insulate against a stungun or not. Alas, I see several problems with it too:-

    1) If this was the case - why didn't Lou Smit shout it from the rooftops as it would surely be strong support of his stungun theory?

    2) The duct tape wasn't white!


    "You can't tell from a photograph!"
    RST ARGUMENT - Photographic evidence of stungun marks has been used (and accepted) before in a case involving none other than Dr Robert Stratbucker!

    Why would experts say that "you can't tell from a photograph" if photographs of stungun marks have been acceptable in court before?

    One pair of marks does not constitute "a pattern"
    This had me stumped for while but yesterday, I read a post which helped to clear this up. The case in question was that of a man called Jackson for the murder of Karen Styles. Karen was stungunned REPEATEDLY by Jackson and the court both presented and accepted phtographs of her injuries as proof that a stungun had been used.

    Note the word REPEATEDLY.

    Think Pastry
    Imagine you are looking at lovely pie. The pastry crust is covered in patterns of little holes clustered in straight lines of 5 little holes. It wouldn't take an expert to conclude that the holes had been made by someone stabbing the pastry with a fork! However, if you were shown a photo of pasty with one little hole - could you say from that photo that a fork had been used?

    That is the difference between the Ramsey case and the Jackson case. There are no REPEATED pairs of marks - just one .... and a half.

    RST ARGUMENT "There were TWO pairs of marks on JonBenet's body - where are you getting your case information from?"

    This is a very interesting one. On a thread yesterday, RST Margoo was sharp about this - she insisted that there were TWO PAIRS of marks on JonBenet's body. Mike agreed with her and said this was "as per the autopsy report". A poster asked Margoo to provide a source for her statement that there were two PAIRS of marks. And this went unanswered - twice. A third request for clarification resulted in the thread being locked.

    So why won't the RST provide a source for their being TWO PAIRS of marks on JonBenet's body "as per the autopsy report"?

    Where is the second cheek mark on the autopsy report?
    Simple - it doesn't exist. Margoo is wrong and Mikie is wrong. The autopsy report quite clearly describes:-


    III. Abrasion of right cheek

    IV. Abrasion/contusion, posterior right shoulder

    V. Abrasions of left lower back and posterior left lower leg
    And in more detail:-

    The cheek abrasion (singular):-

    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. In
    the lateral aspect of the left lower eyelid on the inner conjunctival
    surface is a 1mminmaximum dimension petechial hemorrhage. Very fine,
    less than 1mm petechial hemorrhages are present on the skin of the
    upper eyelids bilaterally as well as on the lateral left cheek. On
    everting the left upper eyelid there are much smaller, less than 1mm
    petechial hemorrhages located on the conjuctival surface. Possible
    petechial hemorrhages located on the conjunctival surfaces of the
    right upper and lower eyelids, but livor mortis on this side of the
    face makes definite identification difficult.
    The back abrasions (twin marks)
    On the left lateral aspect of the lower back,
    approximately sixteen and one-quarter inches and seventeen and
    one-half 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 one-eighth by one-sixteenth of an
    inch and the more inferior measures three-sixteenths by one-eighth
    of an inch.
    http://www.cnn.com/US/9703/ramsey.ca...l.autopsy.html

    The leg abrasions are described as scatches and have not been claimed as stungun marks by any expert - Ramsey or otherwise.

    It is therefore very unclear what it is that Margoo and Mikie are calling the second part of the pair on JonBenet's cheek.


    RST - dishonesty does not pay
    It is a pity that the RST chose not to provide their source for there being TWO PAIRS of marks. I'd like very much to have heard Margoo answer that on one of the two visits she made back to the thread before it was prematurely locked.

    Not answering.... locking threads without answering an important questions about evidence ... not good.

    It is a pity that in supporting the Ramseys, some people feel it necessary to lie about the evidence. It does nothing positive for the Ramseys' defence.
    Last edited by Jayelles; 07-13-2006 at 04:06 PM.
    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
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,389

    Stratbucker

    The RST claim that Dr Strabucker was "discredited" in the Ramsey case. I'd like to make the basis for this claim clear to readers.

    Dr Strabucker was hired by Taser as their medical expert and consultant. He was hired because of his extensive expertise abut stunguns and their effects on the cardiovascular system.

    Lin Wood, Ramsey lawyer deposed Dr Stratbucker in the Wolf vs ramsey case. The deposition is online and can be found here:-

    http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/05...atbuckerMd.htm

    Lin Wood used his deposition time with Dr Stratbucker to focus on his professional association with Taser. He does not give Dr Stratbucker any opportunity to explain WHY he did not believe the marks were made by a stungun. He interrupted Dr Stratbucker to stop him from giving any answer which would elaborate into an expert opinion about the stungun theory in the ramsey case.

    Lin Wood's objective was clear - to manipulate the public record and to remove Dr Stratbucker as an expert witness on the basis of a conflict of interest.

    It worked. Dr Stratbucker was removed by Darnay Hoffman from the Wolf case. The details of this are unclear. Did Darnay remove him or did he request to be removed? Having read the deposition, I could well understand Dr Stratbucker becoming increasingly vexed by Lin Woods tactics.

    Stratbucker was NOT discredited on the basis of any professional incompetency and remains the #1 expert on stunguns.
    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

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    8,868
    Jayelles,

    Thanks for the information, so nicely detailed.

    I dont consider the notion that a stun-gun was used on JonBenet to be credible.

    From memory did it not originate from the same source that gave us a psychopathic intruder and a sexual device e.g. the garrote?

    CNN Larry King Live: Aired May 28, 2001 - 21:00 ET
    SMIT: I don't believe there's strong, credible evidence the other way at all. If it's not the Ramseys, then it's an intruder. If there is no intruder, then it has to be the Ramseys.

    I see very little credible evidence that John or Patsy Ramsey murdered their daughter.
    In the same interview he also gave us this nugget:

    CNN Larry King Live: Aired May 28, 2001 - 21:00 ET
    SMIT: The intruder's motive might be just as it seems. I've worked many homicide cases, and the crime normally is as it seems, Larry. Don't make it complicated. If this is initially portrayed as a kidnapping and a murder, don't try to make it into something else. A ransom note was written. Somebody came into the Ramsey home, and they had with them duct tape. They had with them a rope. They had with them a stun gun. They had intended to do something that night.

    The victim was JonBenet. It could have just as well been Burke.

    Someone...

    KING: The other -- the son, the brother.
    So Lou Smit is publicly declaring as fact that a stun-gun was brought into the Ramsey house, not simply by a Somebody but also a They e.g. indefinite singular and a plural all in the same sentence mmm.

    So that was 2001.


    Lets travel back to March 2000:
    Denver Rocky Mountain News March 2000
    Dr. Michael Doberson said he recently examined photos of injuries found on the chin and lower back of slain 6-year-old beauty queen and compared them to a Taser stun gun.

    "It just looked to me, superficially, that it fits," Doberson said.

    The two electrodes on the end of the stun gun were within a millimeter of the two injuries on the little girl's chin, Doberson said. He also noticed where a small metal bar on the weapon also could have left a mark.

    It's the first time a medical authority has confirmed the possibility a stun gun was used on the girl who was found slain in her Boulder family home Dec. 26, 1996.
    Where did that come from?

    Well:
    Denver Rocky Mountain News March 2000
    Private investigator Lou Smit brought the autopsy photos, along with a Taser stun gun, to Doberson about two weeks ago, the doctor said.
    Also:
    Denver Rocky Mountain News March 2000
    Doberson noted that any stun-gun wounds on JonBenet would not have been lethal.
    And:
    Denver Rocky Mountain News March 2000
    Boulder County Coroner John Meyer declined to comment on Doberson's opinion.

    "I don't think it's appropriate for me to give my opinion on this at this point," Meyer said. "If it ever does go to trial, I would be called as a witness. So it wouldn't be ethical for me to comment."
    Also:
    Denver Rocky Mountain News March 2000
    Beckner said he is familiar with Smit's theory that a stun gun was used on JonBenet. "I can say, we have evidence to the contrary," Beckner said.

    Beckner said he was disturbed that Smit decided to talk about evidence in the unsolved case.

    "He's willing to go out and talk about his theory, but in so doing, he ignores a lot of other evidence," Beckner said.

    The Ramseys have said they never owned a stun gun, and one was not found at the house.
    So the same person who introduced the idea that the patently staged garrote was a sexual device constructed by a professional. Also gave us the stun-gun.

    This was a detective with access to more forensic evidence that we have, including all the crime-scene photos, yet he discounts JonBenet's hair being embedded into the knotting on the paintbrush handle.

    I think its possible that Lou Smit had one too many prayer sessions with the Ramsey's?


    This is why I dont think the stun-gun idea is at all credible e.g. its source is not either!


    .

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    13,221
    RST ARGUMENT "She moved when she was being stunned so her skin stretched".

    (This is to explain why the marks do not match any known stungun in distance between prods.)

    My response:- this is in direct contradiction to their explanation for there only being one "stungun" mark on her face. The perfect lipprint on the duct tape suggested she was dead or unconscious when it was applied. Whty stungun a dead or unconscious victim?

    RST ARGUMENT "The stungun could have been modified"

    My response:- unlikely if you've ever seen a stungun. The prods are short and set into a rigid casing which could be made of some kind of hard muoldable man-made material.


    I can speak to that. The stun gun would have left a kind of stippling on a live, thrashing victim. And the one I use is made of ABS, which is a hard, plastic material. The user's manual states clearly that any modification of the device will void the warranty, among other things.

    "He's willing to go out and talk about his theory, but in so doing, he ignores a lot of other evidence," Beckner said.

    Doesn't seem to bother him, any.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,670
    Jayelles: fantastic info re stun guns. You've done a lot of work here - kudos!! If only Lou Smit had been half as thorough, he would have thought twice before presenting his stun gun nonsense.

    Quote Originally Posted by UKGuy
    So Lou Smit is publicly declaring as fact that a stun-gun was brought into the Ramsey house, not simply by a Somebody but also a They e.g. indefinite singular and a plural all in the same sentence mmm.

    So that was 2001.


    So the same person who introduced the idea that the patently staged garrote was a sexual device constructed by a professional. Also gave us the stun-gun.

    This was a detective with access to more forensic evidence that we have, including all the crime-scene photos, yet he discounts JonBenet's hair being embedded into the knotting on the paintbrush handle.

    I think its possible that Lou Smit had one too many prayer sessions with the Ramsey's?

    This is why I dont think the stun-gun idea is at all credible e.g. its source is not either!
    Like Patsy, Smit can't even get his own intruder stroy straight, flip-flopping from 'one' intruder to 'they'.
    Now which is it, Louie? Did the whole foreign faction squeeze themselves through the narrow basement window? The picture I get from visualizing this is priceless, lol. But what about your lone sexual predator then?

    Delmar England pointed out that Smit's being a detective does not automatically make him an expert in garrotes or stun guns.
    But instead of consulting experts who could have verified or disproved his assumption, Smit obviously thought that people would take everything which comes out of his mouth as gospel.

    D. England said that Smit knew no more about garrotes than the bungling fool who created the garrote scene, and no more about stun guns than the average layperson.
    Anyone who can tie a shoelace could tie the type of knot which was around JB's neck. And what please is 'sophisticated' about tying a piece of cord around a stick? Even a kindergartner can do that. Sophisticated, lol. For example, we once played the fairy tale "Sleeping Beauty" and needed a spindle. I took a knitting needle, started wrapping wool around it and then handed it over to five-year-old Stephanie who continued with the wrappings until it looked like a real spindle. Stephanie completed the job in no time, and I must say far more neatly than Patsy with her mummy-wrapped handle.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    13,221
    Quote Originally Posted by rashomon
    Jayelles: fantastic info re stun guns. You've done a lot of work here - kudos!! If only Lou Smit had been half as thorough, he would have thought twice before presenting his stun gun nonsense.


    Like Patsy, Smit can't even get his own intruder stroy straight, flip-flopping from 'one' intruder to 'they'.
    Now which is it, Louie? Did the whole foreign faction squeeze themselves through the narrow basement window? The picture I get from visualizing this is priceless, lol. But what about your lone sexual predator then?

    Delmar England pointed out that Smit's being a detective does not automatically make him an expert in garrotes or stun guns.
    But instead of consulting experts who could have verified or disproved his assumption, Smit obviously thought that people would take everything which comes out of his mouth as gospel.

    D. England said that Smit knew no more about garrotes than the bungling fool who created the garrote scene, and no more about stun guns than the average layperson.
    Anyone who can tie a shoelace could tie the type of knot which was around JB's neck. And what please is 'sophisticated' about tying a piece of cord around a stick? Even a kindergartner can do that. Sophisticated, lol. For example, we once played the fairy tale "Sleeping Beauty" and needed a spindle. I took a knitting needle, started wrapping wool around it and then handed it over to five-year-old Stephanie who continued with the wrappings until it looked like a real spindle. Stephanie completed the job in no time, and I must say far more neatly than Patsy with her mummy-wrapped handle.
    It's that kind of real-world know-how that makes this so easy!

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,389
    What I feel about this is that we can't expect detectives like SMit and Thomas to know everything about everything - that's why experts get consulted.

    I like to shop around for a few opinions when I'm confronted with something I don't understand. I look for consensus among experts and I look at the credentials of the experts. It's all we can do really when we're trying to make sense of something.
    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

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Detroit 'Burb
    Posts
    2,832

    Another Idea

    Do they make stun-guns in foreign countries that are smaller than American ones? I believe you said the marks on JonBenet were smaller. Apologies in advance if I read it wrong.

    Not saying it was a foreign faction, of course not, or that any stungun was or was not used, just asking If smaller ones are manufactured anywhere in the world, and if so, someone here could have brought one home, from their travels wherever. At times the marks have looked like cigarette burns to me. (Before eye surgery.) Not to anyone else, I suppose.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    8,868
    Quote Originally Posted by Eagle1
    Do they make stun-guns in foreign countries that are smaller than American ones? I believe you said the marks on JonBenet were smaller. Apologies in advance if I read it wrong.

    Not saying it was a foreign faction, of course not, or that any stungun was or was not used, just asking If smaller ones are manufactured anywhere in the world, and if so, someone here could have brought one home, from their travels wherever. At times the marks have looked like cigarette burns to me. (Before eye surgery.) Not to anyone else, I suppose.

    Eagle1,

    I think I know what you mean here?

    They remind me of an injury I had myself years ago where similar marks appeared, but I forget the circumstances, but not the marks!

    Rather than cigarette burns they remind me of contusions resulting from a heavy blow.

    Its either that or from pressure applied locally by some object?

    The reason I remember my own marks is I was surprised to see them, I dont think they were evident immediately, and took days to go away.

    .

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Detroit 'Burb
    Posts
    2,832

    Similar Experience?

    UKGury, try to remember how you got the marks, will ya? That's very interesting. It must have been something that didn't hurt much?

    That guy who'd been dead and buried for 6 mo. still had his marks. Why would some go away and some not?

    JonBenet's casket was open at the funeral, correct, guys? So her marks, at least the one on her face, had faded, or maybe were covered by the scarf that JR put in at the last minute?


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    The Wild West
    Posts
    1,911
    The thing about a stun gun is, it doesn't exonerate the Ramseys.

    Even if it were real, it'd be irrelevant to solving the case.

    Even if one clings to the "a parent wouldn't torture their child" myth, this alleged stun gun could've been used by a parent to try to revive an unconscious JonBenét (which is the only use of a stun gun that might even make any sense in this case).
    The intruder is innocent! JMO

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Detroit 'Burb
    Posts
    2,832

    Web Search

    Searching Stun Batons and Stun Guns this morning, I learned that apparently a baton is more powerful. Security guards use them. There are telescoping ones, that I suppose can be carried in a pocket.

    They are apparently being used in Afghanistan, four Marines having marks on their backs often. (They go shirtless?) http://www.lazycat.orgnews/index.php?show=2&method=word

    A police chief in Oklahoma doing some testing using the strongest stun gun they could find held the stun gun just below his jawbone. Isn't that where one of JonBenet's marks was located? Don't know why he picked that spot, or if it means someone with police training did it.
    http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=206638

    I was looking for different sizes, and foreign ones, only went four pages into the results and didn't find much, so far.

    No, it doesn't exonerate or implicate the R's, since they obviously could have owned one, which mysteriously disappeared afterward, Or, could the Instructions in Spanish brochure have been left by the killer/killers? Hard to tell if it's a clue or staging or what. Hm.....

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    13,221
    "Or, could the Instructions in Spanish brochure have been left by the killer/killers?"

    I don't know. It doesn't make sense for them to do that, PLUS, I think John himself said that it was given to him on a trip (the tape with instructions, I mean).

    "What I feel about this is that we can't expect detectives like SMit and Thomas to know everything about everything - that's why experts get consulted."

    Right!

    "At times the marks have looked like cigarette burns to me. (Before eye surgery.) Not to anyone else, I suppose."

    There are a few, Eagle1. Can't remember who, just now.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Detroit 'Burb
    Posts
    2,832

    Yes, JR Was Given the Spanish Video, He Said

    That's right, we did hear that someone gave JR the Spanish Instructions video on some trip. I wasn't sure so I didn't mention it, but someone else remembers too, just about as much as I do.

    The details, A trip to where? I think it's in PMPT? Anyone remember?



Similar Threads

  1. FACTS-Just the FACTS- LIST ONLY- NO DISCUSSION -FACTS ONLY
    By not_my_kids in forum Haleigh Cummings
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 04-29-2010, 07:12 PM
  2. He used a stun gun!
    By thebird in forum Jaycee Lee Dugard
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 09-17-2009, 05:44 PM
  3. Stun Gun
    By Solace in forum JonBenet Ramsey
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: 10-15-2006, 03:34 PM
  4. The Stun Gun
    By calicocat in forum JonBenet Ramsey
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 09-08-2006, 01:23 PM
  5. Stun Gun
    By Nedthan Johns in forum JonBenet Ramsey
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-02-2004, 09:39 AM