Do you think a Stungun was used?

[THE BUNK]

If you have a stun gun, you also have a device to use detain John Ramsey as well. The only real person who pose a threat to an intruder. If the intruder brought a stun gun, he would have killed more than one person. He could kill the rest of the family and leave John Ramsey unconscious to wake up to the horror of his whole family dead.

 

[Theonly1]

Never bought the stun gun theory. I like the train track theory as the tracks are right outside the room she was discovered.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I believe there was a stun gun and I believe it fits with the crime.

 

[pukasonqo2]

I believe there was a stun gun and I believe it fits with the crime.

take a look at kolar's book, chapter 10 where he shows pictures of the marks in JB's body and the comparison pics of the experiment done with the stun gun and the railroad tracks where the tracks seem more likely to have caused the marks on JB

this was a very silent crime, a person hit with a stun gun does not fall gracefully and quietly to the floor, they scream as it is very painful.

if a child like JB would have been hit with one i would think she would have screamed the house down

how does a stun gun fits with the crime? if an IDI you don't want any chances of waking up the rest of the household, and why not kidnap JR then? once he is incapacitated the small foreign faction could take him, is easier to look after an adult than a child in captivity


lupus est homini *advertiser censored*, non *advertiser censored*, non quom qualis sit novit

 

[DeDee]

Always leaned toward there being a stun gun used in the Ramsey household but one never surfaced. The train track with the missing center pin fits the injuries on her back but not the larger abrasion on her face, rt cheek.

Speaking of surfacing, the longer no one matches the DNA sample entered into CODIS, the more likely it remains that the degraded, unsourced DNA was insignificant to the murder. The silent distance from 1996 to present date of a true intruder lead reinforces a RDI.

I cannot imagine the terror this child must have experienced what with the nylon cord choking and the broken paintbrush twisting, the head bashing and toy train tracks poking, and splinters being deposited in her vagina and left to be found in oversized undies.

Will there ever be justice for JonBenét?

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

take a look at kolar's book, chapter 10 where he shows pictures of the marks in JB's body and the comparison pics of the experiment done with the stun gun and the railroad tracks where the tracks seem more likely to have caused the marks on JB

this was a very silent crime, a person hit with a stun gun does not fall gracefully and quietly to the floor, they scream as it is very painful.

if a child like JB would have been hit with one i would think she would have screamed the house down

how does a stun gun fits with the crime? if an IDI you don't want any chances of waking up the rest of the household, and why not kidnap JR then? once he is incapacitated the small foreign faction could take him, is easier to look after an adult than a child in captivity


lupus est homini *advertiser censored*, non *advertiser censored*, non quom qualis sit novit

I don't subscribe to Kolar's theories and speculation. Burke had nothing to do with this crime. Nothing at all. Kolar puts forth BR as a suspect to sell books.

There was a stun gun. It fits with the crime. IMO

 

[gramcracker]

Burke had nothing to do with this crime. Nothing at all.

theory and speculation. nothing more

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

theory and speculation. nothing more

Actually that is fact. It has been said over and over that Burke Ramsey was NEVER a suspect and only ever a witness. He is not charged nor has he ever been a POI.

 

[gramcracker]

because of his age. that is the only reason

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

because of his age. that is the only reason

Nope. That argument does not hold water. If it was burke and he had done it, that would have been the end of the case. It would have been closed immediately. If it was burke they don't just start looking for other suspects they can fit into the crime to cover. They name the killer and then they move on from it. Just like they did in Florida where that 8 yr old killed his grandmother. The case is solved. That is the end.

That is a ridiculous argument by someone trying to sell a book.

 

[gramcracker]

nope. because a child does not function in a vacuum. actions and behaviors are apparent even if they are overlooked/denied and permitted to continue when good sense dictates otherwise. hence, someone of legal age can be held accountable for not intervening when said child is a danger to others (GJ TBs)

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

nope. because a child does not function in a vacuum. actions and behaviors are apparent even if they are overlooked/denied and permitted to continue when good sense dictates otherwise. hence, someone of legal age can be held accountable for not intervening when said child is a danger to others (GJ TBs)

It does not matter. You are wrong on this. If a child did this even if they are under the legal age the case is closed. That is it they have their culprit. They don't start trying to pin the murder on other people just to close it. It IS CLOSED.

Now if they felt the R's were bad parents then what would have happened is that they would have been investigated and most likely lost custody of Burke. The thing that is missing here is there is no evidence that they were ever bad parents.

Burke is not now nor has ever been a real suspect in this crime. That is fact. The only one who wants him to be wrote a book. go figure.

Just like this case

"The boy won't face charges. Under Louisiana law, a child younger than 10 is exempt from criminal responsibility."

http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/25/us/louisiana-boy-kills-grandmother/

He is still the one who did it and they know that. They investigated and know that he did it intentionally. the case is closed. He however can not and will not be charged.

 

[pukasonqo2]

I don't subscribe to Kolar's theories and speculation. Burke had nothing to do with this crime. Nothing at all. Kolar puts forth BR as a suspect to sell books.

There was a stun gun. It fits with the crime. IMO

theory and speculation with photographic evidence?

the problem i find with your line of approaching this case is that, anything that does not fit your own theory gets dismissed or mock. you judge experts, people with experience in their own fields and dismiss them or give them ulterior motives

regardless of whom kolar thinks killed JB he didn't pull the idea of no stun gun off the sky, his theory was reinforced by experiments which were recorded and photographed




lupus est homini *advertiser censored*, non *advertiser censored*, non quom qualis sit novit

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

theory and speculation with photographic evidence?

the problem i find with your line of approaching this case is that, anything that does not fit your own theory gets dismissed or mock. you judge experts, people with experience in their own fields and dismiss them or give them ulterior motives

regardless of whom kolar thinks killed JB he didn't pull the idea of no stun gun off the sky, his theory was reinforced by experiments which were recorded and photographed




lupus est homini *advertiser censored*, non *advertiser censored*, non quom qualis sit novit

You can make a lot of things look like a lot of things if you want to.

I don't subscribe to his line of thinking. I find it faulty and fantastical.

 

[CherCher]

Scarlet, you make a very good point about the "BR did it" line of thought, but fail to take into consideration that this line of thought was not further investigated. It is a theory that has some credence, but was not followed up on IMO. And the "powers that be" at the time were bound and determined that the Ramseys (any of them) wouldn't be implicated in this crime.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Scarlet, you make a very good point about the "BR did it" line of thought, but fail to take into consideration that this line of thought was not further investigated. It is a theory that has some credence, but was not followed up on IMO. And the "powers that be" at the time were bound and determined that the Ramseys (any of them) wouldn't be implicated in this crime.

It was investigated. He was always a witness never a suspect. It is not because he was 9 but because he did not do it and they know it.

He was not a suspect because he could not be charged. That just does not hold water. He was not a suspect because the police NEVER believed he did it.

 

[pukasonqo2]

You can make a lot of things look like a lot of things if you want to.



I don't subscribe to his line of thinking. I find it faulty and fantastical.

of course you do

you might not subscribe to his line of thinking, that i can understand but to cast doubts to his professionalism? now you are implying that he doctored the photographs. anybody who does not agree with IDI has their motives, professionalism either mock or questioned in your posts but you do not come with any new possibilities, proof, experiments or rebuttals that make sense or accept questioning of those without dismissing the person asking for proof




lupus est homini *advertiser censored*, non *advertiser censored*, non quom qualis sit novit

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

of course you do

you might not subscribe to his line of thinking, that i can understand but to cast doubts to his professionalism? now you are implying that he doctored the photographs. anybody who does not agree with IDI has their motives, professionalism either mock or questioned in your posts but you do not come with any new possibilities, proof, experiments or rebuttals that make sense or accept questioning of those without dismissing the person asking for proof




lupus est homini *advertiser censored*, non *advertiser censored*, non quom qualis sit novit

I am not saying he doctored anything. I am saying that just because that is his explanation and conclusion does not mean it is right. I don't think his theories are correct or in line with the evidence.

People all get to choose their sources on this and other cases. He is not a good source for me.

 

[THE BUNK]

Is there a corresponding burn mark on any of Jonbenet's clothes or bedsheets? Why would he need to use the gun on her bare skin?

 

[DeeDee249]

Is there a corresponding burn mark on any of Jonbenet's clothes or bedsheets? Why would he need to use the gun on her bare skin?

I don't believe there is.