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

Discussion in 'JonBenet Ramsey' started by Tricia, Jun 10, 2004.

  1. Tricia

    Tricia Owner Websleuths.com Staff Member Administrator

    Messages:
    23,606
    Likes Received:
    1,697
    Trophy Points:
    113
    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.
     
  2. Loading...


  3. popcorn

    popcorn Inactive

    Messages:
    136
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  4. BrotherMoon

    BrotherMoon Former Member

    Messages:
    753
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I predict one day JonBenet's remains will be stolen.

    You read it here first.
     
  5. VespaElf

    VespaElf Little Miss Showcase(runner-up)

    Messages:
    2,380
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    "JOHN RAMSEY: It wasn't… that was not the priority. The priority was my child was at rest. "



    That statement speaks for itself!!!!! :rolleyes:



    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!
     
  6. Shylock

    Shylock Former Member

    Messages:
    1,058
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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!
     
  7. why_nutt

    why_nutt New Member

    Messages:
    484
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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?
     
  8. gretchen

    gretchen Former Member

    Messages:
    500
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  9. Nedthan Johns

    Nedthan Johns New Member

    Messages:
    1,371
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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?
     
  10. BlueCrab

    BlueCrab New Member

    Messages:
    3,053
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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
     
  11. Shylock

    Shylock Former Member

    Messages:
    1,058
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It was a meat fork BlueCrab. The tests on a pork roast are conclusive.

    Welcome back.
     
  12. BlueCrab

    BlueCrab New Member

    Messages:
    3,053
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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
     
  13. Britt

    Britt New Member

    Messages:
    1,911
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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 :)
     
  14. Nedthan Johns

    Nedthan Johns New Member

    Messages:
    1,371
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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?
     
  15. Britt

    Britt New Member

    Messages:
    1,911
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Hey Ned :D

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

    (but there was no stun gun)
     
  16. BlueCrab

    BlueCrab New Member

    Messages:
    3,053
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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
     
  17. TLynn

    TLynn New Member

    Messages:
    350
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Even IF there was - it would not have knocked JonBenet unconscious. I did some research a while back and it would only make her "flop like a fish."

    The coroner described the marks as abrasions...perhaps the markings are similiar to the air taser, but tasers don't leave abrasions. It's my understanding they leave burn marks.

    There was no stun gun - if memory serves, Smit had just solved a long time murder mystery by discovering a stun gun was involved...guess, he was hoping history would repeat itself.

    Smit tries to push square pegs into round holes.
     
  18. BlueCrab

    BlueCrab New Member

    Messages:
    3,053
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0
    TLynn,

    Sorry, but I'm afraid you're likely wrong on both counts.

    I don't know where you did your research, but I know there have been no experiments on how six-year-old girls are effected by stun gun hits. JonBenet would not have simply flopped like a fish -- she would probably have died from a pro-longed stun gun hit. According to Dr. Sara Redding and Dr. Ronald Kornblum, chief medical examiner in Los Angeles, Taser use by the cops in L.A. have been associated with at least 16 deaths in L.A. County.

    The coroner, Dr. John Meyer, changed his opinion about the abrasions on JonBenet and stated the marks were consistent with stun gun injuries.

    JMO
     
  19. Shylock

    Shylock Former Member

    Messages:
    1,058
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Meyer said "anything's possible", which isn't exactly a standing endorsement of the stun gun myth.

    But more importantly, you're forgetting that Chief Beckner has said the BPD has evidence which proves there was no stun gun. That evidence is probably blood on the inside of her shirt from the "abrasions". Stun guns don't make people bleed.
     
  20. BlueCrab

    BlueCrab New Member

    Messages:
    3,053
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0

    So Beckner can prove a negative. Fantastic!

    JMO
     
  21. Nedthan Johns

    Nedthan Johns New Member

    Messages:
    1,371
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    BC: TLynn,

    Sorry, but I'm afraid you're likely wrong on both counts.

    I don't know where you did your research, but I know there have been no experiments on how six-year-old girls are effected by stun gun hits. JonBenet would not have simply flopped like a fish -- she would probably have died from a pro-longed stun gun hit. According to Dr. Sara Redding and Dr. Ronald Kornblum, chief medical examiner in Los Angeles, Taser use by the cops in L.A. have been associated with at least 16 deaths in L.A. County.

    Ned: Actually BC you have not done your research either. Just recently we posted two accounts of young children that were stun gunned by air taser’s. One was repeatdly stunned by police officers because she was not cooperating and kicking the windows of the police car. Not only did she not passout but she only screamed louder in more pain.

    The coroner, Dr. John Meyer, changed his opinion about the abrasions on JonBenet and stated the marks were consistent with stun gun injuries.

    Ned: He also said he could NOT prove with 100% certainty that they were from a stun gun unless the body was exhumed. The stun gun theory is laughable to me, because, Prosecutors can put the manufacturers of the stun gun on the stand and they have already refuted that their equipment would make those marks, not to mention, would NOT incapacitate a 6 year old child. Now logically a jury with any brain is going to weigh that against a Dr. who “Thinks they could be stun gun marks, but doesn’t have the body to prove it.” They also would weigh the fact that presented with this evidence, that the Ramsey’s REFUSED to exhume their daughter to prove it. Now if I was on a jury, that would speak volumes in itself. Plus any good Prosecutor could give several different reasons for those marks. You did see the filth in that basement room where she was dumped, not to mention the suitcase is also a good source. IMO the stun gun makes for a LOUSY argument for an intruder. Because it in itself doesn’t rule out parental use. The Ramsey’s owned a video on the use of one.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice