Do you think a Stungun was used?

Are you convinced by the stungun theory?

  • Yes - I am 100% convinced that a stungun was used

    Votes: 54 18.4%
  • No - I've read the facts and I'm not convinced

    Votes: 179 60.9%
  • I have read the facts but I am undecided

    Votes: 51 17.3%
  • What stungun theory?

    Votes: 10 3.4%

  • Total voters
    294
Either you are misunderstanding his statement or he misspoke. From my understanding of how that test is conducted, there would be no way they could isolate the results of a commingled sample.

Bottom line is that nobody can say with 100% certainty that the stain was saliva right? That's all I need the jury to hear.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Even if it is, andreww, Henry Lee found saliva DNA in packages that weren't even opened yet.
 
Kolar; p. 304:
I met with the man who had worked so diligently to enhance the DNA sample identified as Distal Stain 007-2. Denver Police Department crime lab supervisor Greg Laberge met me for lunch in early December 2005 and advised me that the forensic DNA sample collected from the underwear was microscopic, totally invisible to the naked eye. So small was it in quantity consisting of only approximately 1/2 a nanogram of genetic material, equivalent to about 100-150 cells, that it took him quite a bit of work to identify the 10th marker that eventually permitted its entry into the CODIS database.

DNA samples generally consist of 13 Core loci markers, so it is important to note that Distal Stain 007-2 is not a full sample of DNA, and the FBI requires at least 10 markers be identified before an unknown sample can be entered into the national CODIS database.

Thank you. Good night.
 
Even if it is, andreww, Henry Lee found saliva DNA in packages that weren't even opened yet.

I don’t believe it was ever stated that Lee, or anyone, found “saliva DNA” on new panties. I think this is just one more thing that you’ve gotten wrong.
...

AK
 
I don’t believe it was ever stated that Lee, or anyone, found “saliva DNA” on new panties. I think this is just one more thing that you’ve gotten wrong.
...

AK

He never said it wasn't. And it's certainly possible he told it to somebody working the case, because that was the working theory as to how it got there, if John Douglas is to be believed. (Usually he ISN'T, but even an idiot can be right.)

And as for what you think, Anti-K, I've said it before: I've probably forgotten more about this case than most people will ever learn.
 
He never said it wasn't. And it's certainly possible he told it to somebody working the case, because that was the working theory as to how it got there, if John Douglas is to be believed. (Usually he ISN'T, but even an idiot can be right.)

And as for what you think, Anti-K, I've said it before: I've probably forgotten more about this case than most people will ever learn.

I don't think "he never said it wasn't" is the same as "he stated that it was".

Your memory might be playing tricks on you SD?
 
I don't think "he never said it wasn't" is the same as "he stated that it was".

Okay, folks, this is what he said:

Dr. Lee: Right. We did some a test on new garment. A lot of time the new garment, a panty, just come out of package, you found foreign DNA. Because today we use a very sensitive method of STI, that’s the third generation of DNA testing now. You multiply the DNA millions of copies then you test that multiplied copies.

Your memory might be playing tricks on you SD?

Hey, I'll admit that I'm burned out on this case. After so many years, it all starts to blur together. However, look again. I took what Lee said and combined it with the statements (both public and attributed) to the prosecution team and drew the obvious conclusion.
 
The stun gun theory was another in a long line of misdirection attempts by one or both Ramseys. They were desperate to confuse matters as much as possible, so any crackpot theory that supported the intruder scenario was "put out there" as a possibility. The greater the confusion, the less certain the public (or, more importantly, a jury) could be of their guilt.
 
I posted a comment about the circular injuries possibly being cigarette burns but noone responded. What do you guys think?
 
It makes me sad to see sleuthers goin at it and getting upset with eachother. Just agree to disagree.
This thread is about the stungun, right? I just spent 30 min reading thru a vaginal swab debate hoping to get a tiny sliver of stungun info.

For what its worth..... the marks on her face are so ugly..... not like a bruise or "abrasion". To me it looks like a burn... an ugly as hell burn. I should google cigarette burns.... either pre or post mortem. Thinking outloud...
I cross referenced patsys rings as well.
Id believe that if her rings were glowing red hot embers. Ha.
Patsy mentions "smoking until they find the killer" in DOI. And then later in the same breath says she decided to stop because she realized she wasnt hurting the media and such, only herself.
Saliva would be on a cigarette butt. And sometimes the smokers fingers if say, they take a drag after licking their lips.

Im a smoker and of course ive burned myself on accident. They are perfectly round burns....
Any thoughts?
.....
 
I posted a comment about the circular injuries possibly being cigarette burns but noone responded. What do you guys think?

The problem there, allysaurus, is that the autopsy report itself does not describe them as burns of any kind, but abrasions, ie, scratches.
 
But if i were to scratch myself with some thing round or circular it wouldnt make a perfect circle mark, right? Do they look more like a burns to you?
 
But if i were to scratch myself with some thing round or circular it wouldnt make a perfect circle mark, right? Do they look more like a burns to you?

Honestly, I think if they were burns, the flesh would be much redder and raised. Gerald Boggs had a stun gun used on him when he was killed, and those marks look nothing like these. Neither did the marks I had when I was zapped. (There's a story for you!)
 
Youre logic cuts out the train tracks too right?
Im just so stuck on the cigarette thought. Im BDI firm but i feel like he was only responsible for the head bash and maybe the parents decided cigarette burns would look like the work of an evil intruder?
If this comment shows up twice i had to re submit it after losing cell service. Sry!
 
The problem there, allysaurus, is that the autopsy report itself does not describe them as burns of any kind, but abrasions, ie, scratches.

The main thing is that the coroner saw the injuries up close in the flesh. I should think he'd be astute enough to tell the difference between an abrasion and a cigarette burn.
 
But if i were to scratch myself with some thing round or circular it wouldnt make a perfect circle mark, right? Do they look more like a burns to you?

The injury below the right ear is described in the autopsy report as being "a 3/8 x 1/4 (2/8) inch area of rust colored abrasion". Therefore, it is not a perfect circle mark.
 
Okay i see your point. But my cigarette burns sometimes are oval, given it doesnt happen often but after twelve years of smoking ive seen perfect round and oval burns.
And superdave,
You said they should be more red if they were burns, icedtea says rust colored. Thats translates red on deceased skin to me?
 
Okay i see your point. But my cigarette burns sometimes are oval, given it doesnt happen often but after twelve years of smoking ive seen perfect round and oval burns.
And superdave,
You said they should be more red if they were burns, icedtea says rust colored. Thats translates red on deceased skin to me?

The coroner should have been able to tell whether the marks were postmortem. They were not. Blood will turn rust-colores when exposed to the air, so that would be in keeping with an abrasion, where the top layers of the skin were rubbed away. Some minor bleeding may occur- we have all had scrapes. I have always thought the marks looked like cigarette burns. Of course, I am looking only at a photo, and not even an original photo. I would think the coroner would recognize instantly whether these marks were burns.
 
Youre logic cuts out the train tracks too right?

I'm not sure. I can see how the ends, if they were sharp-edged, could scratch someone.

Im just so stuck on the cigarette thought. Im BDI firm but i feel like he was only responsible for the head bash and maybe the parents decided cigarette burns would look like the work of an evil intruder?
If this comment shows up twice i had to re submit it after losing cell service. Sry!

I couldn't say. I've never gotten into the BDI area.
 
At first I didn't care for the discussion of the marking being cigarette burns, but it does add to discussing all possibilities. What it does challenge is that this was more thought-out and even collaborated. I've always imagined the staging to be more panicky desperation. Cigarette burns would look like it was someone other than the family members. Unfortunately, I believe a coroner would be able to recognize cigarette burns and would identify them as such.

The train track theory is a good one but it would require intent in a jabbing motion and not an accidental bump or fall against something. That leads to theories of intent in children's play getting out of hand.

I've often wondered about the distance of the marks. I had to convert it to inches in order to get an idea of how far apart the markings were. They're about 1 and 1/8 inches. I have no idea what they could be. My imagination has only been able to think of the width of ribbon and the backside of a molded medallion, but those prongs would never stick-out far enough to create those bruises. I really have no clue about what cause those marks. Still, this was a house full of toys.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
194
Guests online
1,978
Total visitors
2,172

Forum statistics

Threads
589,964
Messages
17,928,417
Members
228,021
Latest member
Ghost246
Back
Top