1394 users online (258 members and 1136 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 23
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth. Buddha
    Posts
    19,495

    ABRASIONS ARE NOT STUN GUN MARKS (but feel free to exhume and prove otherwise....

    The title of this thread comes from Ned's signature.

    ABRASIONS ARE NOT STUN GUN MARKS (but feel free to exhume and prove otherwise if you like....

    This has always been one of my biggest issues with the Ramseys and their refusal to do what is right.

    From the Judge Carnes' rebuttal, here is the info I have gathered on the Ramseys and why they won't exhume JBR.

    From the Ramsey’s own book, Death of Innocence (HB), p. 194:

    “Back in April 11, Lou Smit, Trip DeMuth, and Steve Ainsworth had gone to John Meyer, the Boulder county coroner, with a single question. "could the marks on JonBenet's body have come from a stun gun?"

    The investigators felt they had discovered a significant clue, and Meyer evidently agreed that the small red marks he observed on JonBenet's body could have come from such a weapon.

    Following this conversation, Smit had spoken to Peter Mang and Sue Kitchen of the Colorado Bureau of Investigation about a stun gun causing the same marks. Could a stun gun leave the red welts found on our daughter? Both Mang and Kitchen believed it was possible. In turn, they suggested that Lou pursue the issue with Araphahoe County Coroner Mike Doberson. In the past, Dobersen had dealt with a crime involving a stun gun. His experience was first-hand and practical, and he should be able to offer some insight.

    During Lou's talk with Doberson, the autopsy photos were studied from every possible angle. After a careful examination, Dr. Dobersen believed that the marks in the pictures did appear to have come from a stun gun. However, Doberson wasn't ready to make a definite public statement unless the body was exhumed.Because the exhumation didn't occur, Smit couldn't obtain the conclusive statement he was seeking. However, the evidence was mounting.”

    FACT: Doberson said he wasn’t ready to make a definite public statement unless the body was exhumed. The next logical step would be exhumation; yet, the Ramseys absolutely refused to do this. Here is why, according to the Ramseys, they refuse to exhume JBR.


    From the ABC program 20/20 transcript March 17, 2000:

    BARBARA WALTERS: Why wasn't the body exhumed?

    JOHN RAMSEY: (PAUSE) Don't know why the police didn't consider that. Uh, we were asked… when this theory first surfaced about a stun gun that if the body were exhumed… it could be proved conclusively but it had to be done fairly quickly. This was… within months of when we'd just buried JonBenet. And I, as her father, could not bring myself to do that. I had laid my child to rest. She was at peace. And that was, ah, that decision I couldn't make.

    BARBARA WALTERS: Even though it might have cleared you?

    JOHN RAMSEY: It wasn't… that was not the priority. The priority was my child was at rest.

    From the 48 hours interview with Erin Moriarty. Oct. 4th 2002 CBS:

    Erin Moriarty: “Wouldn’t that have been or the best way to know or coming the closest to knowing is if you could have exhumed the body and line up a stun gun and see it matches those injuries?”

    Lou Smit: “Sure, I believe that would have been the most accurate way to do it.”

    Erin Moriarty: ( Voice over) Lou Smit admits that in the months following JonBenet’s death, investigators considered going to court to have her body exhumed but decided against it.

    John Ramsey: “We buried our child, she was in peace, that was just a horrid thought.”

    Erin Moriarty: “But, John that might have been the one way to know for sure, that could have resolved the whole issue, because if a stun gun was used, then it was not the parents.”

    John Ramsey: “Certainly, and we’ve got people who told us, who know what they are doing, that with 95 percent medical certainty that a stun gun was used. No question.

    Erin Moriarty: “But you would have known with 100 percent, with certainty, if you had exhumed the body, as tough as that would have been”.

    John Ramsey: “That’s my child you’re talking about, not a body, it’s different.”
    `````````````````````````````````````````````````
    You talk to any parent of a murdered child and they will tell you the same thing.

    They would do whatever it took to help solve their child's murder. Including exhuming the body.

    Was it Shannon Mohr's parents who exhumed her twice? I believe so. They didn't give up.

    To this day there is still a very good chance that the marks could be identified if JonBenet was exhumed. Yet the Ramseys refuse.

    The Ramseys refuse to do the one thing that would prove to the world that they are telling the truth. A stun gun was used. Yet they won't do it.

    By the way, if John truly was a good Christian, then he would know that JonBenet is not in her grave. That is her shell. Her spirit is in heaven. This is a very strong belief of Christians.

    THE ONE THING THE RAMSEYS CAN DO THAT COULD LEAD TO THE KILLER OF JONBENET AND THEY REFUSE.

    Think about this. What if this "intruder" kills again. And uses a stun gun. The Ramseys had it in their power to stop this monster and they didn't .

    Of course we know that is not going to happen. We know there is only one reason why the Ramseys refuse to exhume JonBenet.

    Because there was no stun gun and they know it.

    Plain and simple.
    Help our Administrator Bessie
    Check out our Facebook page
    Follow me on Twitter

    Tricia Griffith
    triciastruecrimeradio@gmail.com
    6300 N. Sage Wood Drive
    Suite H # 214
    Park City UT
    84098






  2. #2
    I agree they don't want to disturb the body, heck they don't even visit the cemetary or tend the grave, and now they've moved states away. It could issues other than the stun gun though. Like all the crap they stuffed in the little coffin with her. Lots of missing fibers and a stuffed animal that was a forgotten second thought. A scarf and a child dead by stangulation, too creepy. But also thinking the panties she was buried in should be checked for DNA.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    753
    I predict one day JonBenet's remains will be stolen.

    You read it here first.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,384
    "JOHN RAMSEY: It wasn't… that was not the priority. The priority was my child was at rest. "



    That statement speaks for itself!!!!!



    The will be no "rest" until the killer(s) are brought to justice as are anyone who helped plan and excute a "cover-up" or acted as an accessory after the fact!
    The saints are the sinners who keep trying...

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1,058
    Quote Originally Posted by Tricia
    We know there is only one reason why the Ramseys refuse to exhume JonBenet.
    Because there was no stun gun and they know it.
    Plain and simple.
    B-I-N-G-O!
    Think about it - The Ramseys could have exhumed the body and virtually cleared themselves overnight, but they didn't want to????

    More importantly! - they could have taken all suspicion off of Burke, who will always have people pointing fingers and whispering behind his back for the rest of his life.

    The Ramseys know there was no stun gun and they dance around every day
    thanking God for putting a dufus like Lou Smit on the case!

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    484
    Quote Originally Posted by Tricia
    John Ramsey: “That’s my child you’re talking about, not a body, it’s different.”
    Alright then, John, what can we see you have done to your child who is not a body? You have abandoned her, John. You have left her all by herself in the cold ground many miles away. How do you live with yourself for that abandonment? You have always been more concerned with being photographed taking care of the place where your child sleeps than you ever were with actually taking care of her. Perhaps you never noticed, John. JonBenet loved to be photographed. She would have been the last person on earth to avoid having herself and her father photographed in the same place, even by tabloid photographers.

    And let us note this, John. You admired your friend Mike Holt when he had his own daughter Julie dug up for no other purpose than to move her from one graveyard to another. Tell us all, John: Was your friend Mike Holt a bad father for doing that? Do you hate him now for doing something you have said you never could do because you love your daughter too much? Go on the record, John: Do you think your friend Mike Holt did not love his daughter?
    "That is my theory, it is mine, and belongs to me and I own it, and what it is too." -- Anne Elk

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    georgia
    Posts
    500
    Great thread. One of the many reasons I believe the Ramsey's are guilty. Why not exhume the body? I will tell you why... they know there are no stun gun marks on JonBenet's body, they are only worried other physical evidence will be revealed. I could suffer the emotional trauma of an exhumation to find the murderer of my daughter.
    Get real. This just makes my blood boil. Christians know that children go to heaven, exhuming a body to find the killer should be a priority. I would demand it.

  8. #8

    Thank you Trish

    And absolutely the NUMBER ONE reason I LOATHE these parents so much.

    Listen to this again and really listen to what John is telling people:

    From the ABC program 20/20 transcript March 17, 2000:

    BARBARA WALTERS: Why wasn't the body exhumed?

    JOHN RAMSEY: (PAUSE) Don't know why the police didn't consider that. Uh, we were asked… when this theory first surfaced about a stun gun that if the body were exhumed… it could be proved conclusively but it had to be done fairly quickly. This was… within months of when we'd just buried JonBenet. And I, as her father, could not bring myself to do that. I had laid my child to rest. She was at peace. And that was, ah, that decision I couldn't make.

    Ned: Notice John IMMEDIATELY shifts blame to the Police department. Then he goes on to state his child was at rest. Right there immediately BELLS go off, because I have NEVER heard any parent EVER of a murdered child, state their child is at peace, if their murderer isn’t caught.

    BARBARA WALTERS: Even though it might have cleared you?

    JOHN RAMSEY: It wasn't… that was not the priority. The priority was my child was at rest.

    Ned: That wasn’t the priority. His child was at rest. This from a man whose has spouted from his mouth over and over again how UNFAIR the public has treated him. Now his priority is NOT to seek out the answers in this daughter’s murder?

    From the 48 hours interview with Erin Moriarty. Oct. 4th 2002 CBS:

    Erin Moriarty: ( Voice over) Lou Smit admits that in the months following JonBenet’s death, investigators considered going to court to have her body exhumed but decided against it.

    John Ramsey: “We buried our child, she was in peace, that was just a horrid thought.”

    Ned: More HORRID then thinking that this could ever happen to another child. Remember Patsy Ramsey saying “hold your babies tight, there is a monster out there?” Seems John Ramsey is More concerned about running for office then has for other children out there that possibly could suffer the same fate has his own daughter. This is the sort of man Michigan wants in office??????

    Erin Moriarty: “But, John that might have been the one way to know for sure, that could have resolved the whole issue, because if a stun gun was used, then it was not the parents.”

    John Ramsey: “Certainly, and we’ve got people who told us, who know what they are doing, that with 95 percent medical certainty that a stun gun was used. No question.

    Erin Moriarty: “But you would have known with 100 percent, with certainty, if you had exhumed the body, as tough as that would have been”.

    John Ramsey: “That’s my child you’re talking about, not a body, it’s different.”

    Ned: Well I guess John Ramsey got what he wanted. I still can and will never understand why with the AUDACITY of this man to flaunt his control the BPD didn’t work with GPD to get JonBenet exhumed without the permission of John Ramsey. The BPD are just so afraid of money. This is my number one beef with the Ramsey’s. They are SICKENING PARENTS, WHO NEVER SHOWED ONE OUNCE OF LOVE OR RESPECT FOR THEIR CHILD. They are LIARS who boldly stared citizens of this country in the face and OUTRIGHT LIED. Both their foundations were farces and they have done ABSOLUTELY NOTHING IN THE MEMORY OF THEIR CHILD. Why would ANYONE vote for a man that FAILED to keep his promises and has absolutely NO CONCERN that this killer that murdered his daughter may kill one of our own children in the same fashion?

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,053
    I think the twin rectangular marks on JonBenet are stun gun injuries. The actual photos of the marks on JonBenet duplicate the test marks on the pig close enough to convince me.

    However, it's probably too late to dig up the body. Under normal conditions the full putrefaction of a buried adult will usually occur in 10 years, and of a buried child in 5 years. JonBenet has been buried for over 7 years.

    Perhaps John Ramsey didn't want the body exhumed for a reason directly opposite of what many of you think. What if it's proven some day that the Ramseys or a close friend of the Ramseys owned a stun gun, and its prongs would leave marks such as those found on JonBenet? The finger of guilt would point to the owner of that stun gun. But if the injuries could not be verified for sure as being caused by a stun gun then reasonable doubt would exist.

    JMO

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1,058
    Quote Originally Posted by BlueCrab
    I think the twin rectangular marks on JonBenet are stun gun injuries. The actual photos of the marks on JonBenet duplicate the test marks on the pig close enough to convince me.
    It was a meat fork BlueCrab. The tests on a pork roast are conclusive.

    Welcome back.


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,053
    Quote Originally Posted by Shylock
    It was a meat fork BlueCrab. The tests on a pork roast are conclusive.

    Welcome back.
    Ah ha! So the killers were tribal cannibals, perhaps from Australia. I thought so. That kinda fits loosely in with my APAC theory (Asian Pacific American Coalition) as the killers. But do cannibals use forks nowadays?

    JMO

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    The Wild West
    Posts
    1,911
    Quote Originally Posted by BlueCrab
    Perhaps John Ramsey didn't want the body exhumed for a reason directly opposite of what many of you think. What if it's proven some day that the Ramseys or a close friend of the Ramseys owned a stun gun, and its prongs would leave marks such as those found on JonBenet?
    Like I keep saying, even if there were a stun gun, it doesn't prove the Ramseys weren't involved.

    IMO since a stun gun would have an effect quite the opposite of subduing a child, the obvious use for a stun gun in this crime would've been to try to revive an unconscious JB.

    Welcome back, BC
    The intruder is innocent! JMO

  13. #13

    Damn Britt

    I never thought of that good fricken point.

    a paniced screaming mother, a father trying to protect his family. In a last attempt effort, tries to revive his dying daughter. This would seem horrific but given the situation, perhaps a last ditch effort? Sort of fits in with his intelligence level, now doesn't it?

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    The Wild West
    Posts
    1,911
    Quote Originally Posted by Nedthan Johns
    This would seem horrific but given the situation, perhaps a last ditch effort? Sort of fits in with his intelligence level, now doesn't it?
    Hey Ned

    No more horrific than an ER episode: Crash cart, stat!... Fire it up... Clear! Zap!

    (but there was no stun gun)
    The intruder is innocent! JMO

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,053
    Abrasions may or may not be stun gun marks. Disabling a person with a stun gun is a violent act, and the simple jamming of the gun hard against a struggling victim can cause an abrasion as well as an electrical burn.

    Dr. John Meyer, who performed the autopsy on JonBenet, is the only board certified forensic pathologist to have examined the possible stun gun injuries. Everyone else is making opinions based on the autopsy photos. It's true Meyer originally believed the marks were abrasions, but has since changed his diagnosis as being consistent with stun gun injuries.

    Incidentally, if it were somehow proven that the tiny twin rectangular marks on JonBenet were actually caused by a stun gun, it would not give the Ramseys a "get out of jail free" card. It could actually help convict them.

    There's circumstantial evidence the Ramseys owned a stun gun because a stun gun instructional video was found in the house. Why save a stun gun instructional video if you don't own a stun gun?

    The Ramseys have denied owning a stun gun, so if some day hard evidence of their having acquired a stun gun is uncovered, it could become powerful evidence in favor of a Ramsey killing JonBenet.

    JMO

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast