Do you think a Stungun was used?

[Ellie9]

The sundress picture really does bring up something. I wouldn't put abuse past anyone. I know it can be very easily hidden from all outsiders, and that all types of people can become abusive. Could there be another reason for the nearly identical markings in sundress picture and autopsy picture? Someone said that train track male part matched the markings. Wouldn't have the housekeeper heard the zap sound a stun gun would make? Perhaps what PR did in the bathroom is unrelated - for example she pulled her hair or swatted her butt.

 

[Annapurna]

How about the most simple explanation? It was summertime. She was outside. She was 5. I really don't see the marks as identical. They look like mosquito bites.

To introduce the stun-gun theory overcomplicates everything. It is not necessary or likely. There is no proof the R's owned one. A stun-gun is not needed to subdue a 6-year old, nor to punish her. Like you said, why not just spank her? I do believe there was abuse in the home, but nothing so depraved as to electrocute a small child. PR would not do that, I know we say 'they don't look like the would do that" is not a proper argument, but to consider PR going out and buying a stun-gun to abuse her children with is far-fetched. Considering how high-profile this case was, why wouldn't the store worker who sold it to her have come out? Investigators searched for proof and found none (Smit not included, as he was not following the evidence but rather fitting it to his theory.)

There is a difference between electrical burns and abrasions.

 

[andreww]

Smit tried very hard to find a match and couldn't. Experts from stun gun companies said the marks weren't from a stun gun. And finally the marks in the sundress photo look way too far apart. The prongs are somewhere about 1.5 inches apart if I recall correctly.

The whole stun gun thing was just team Ramsey trying to scare the public in to thinking there was a madman out there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[DeDee]

I do not necessarily believe the stun gun was purchased as a tool for torture. Perhaps maybe more for keeping one in line of obedience.

I had an EMG [Electromyography measures muscle activity from an electrical response.]. I would just soon die than have another one. The pain is so sharp it takes your breath away. If applied to the legs, one standing would certainly fall. It is similar to being tased.

Raise your hand if you have a Stun Gun booklet in your home, especially in 1996. The odds are highly unlikely that any of us possess a taser gun unless affiliated in the law enforcement field. However, I've considered purchasing one recently as a form of protection against would be muggers and ****s. That is something I would have not considered doing twenty years ago.

Raise your hand if you've visited Amsterdam, the *advertiser censored* capital of the world. Why do you think the R's traveled to Amsterdam?

Why are the records from Access Graphics computers forever sealed?


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-ramsey-interview-part-2/

http://web.dailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/2000/0206deposition.html

 

[andreww]

Off topic, but from the interview you posted DeDee.

John: "Well, I can remember Patsy saying what shall we do, it says not to call the police, it had no... We had no choice, I mean I would have gone mad sitting there, hoping someone would call, I would have gone absolutely mad. It was going through my mind was how do we, okay, what do we do? Do we set up roadblocks, can we close the area?

Patsy: "Right."

But John, Patsy swore she didn't read the note? How could she say the note said not to call the police?

John: "[The friend said] 'Your daughter was ransomed twice last week, once by the kidnapper and once by the police, and here's what happened. They refused to release her body for burial unless you submit at first to an interrogation to the police department.' And we said, 'Oh boy, the worm has turned, what are these people about?' And it changed the whole chemistry and how we looked at the police. They were not there to help us."

Okay John, when exactly did that happen? Day 3? 4? 5? What was your excuse for not submitting to an interview on the first few days? You are so full of $hit.

Patsy: "It's just people you know, they're trying to find something. They tried to zero in on something: 'Oh, hey, here she went to the doctor more than twice a year, so let's pick on that. Oh he traveled to Amsterdam, must be *advertiser censored*.' You know, I mean it's sick, sick, sick, sick."

How many times did she go to the doctor Patsy?

 

[OliviaG1996]

Off topic, but from the interview you posted DeDee.



But John, Patsy swore she didn't read the note? How could she say the note said not to call the police?



Okay John, when exactly did that happen? Day 3? 4? 5? What was your excuse for not submitting to an interview on the first few days? You are so full of $hit.



How many times did she go to the doctor Patsy?

BBM: The fact that PR was complaining about people saying JBR visited the doctor more than twice a year is, quite frankly, ridiculous. JBR visited the pediatrician more than 25 times between March 1993 and November 1996. More than twice a year? More than eight times a year would be way more accurate. Harshly underestimating the times her daughter went to the doctor has not helped her case at all, has it?

 

[Anti-K]

How about the most simple explanation? It was summertime. She was outside. She was 5. I really don't see the marks as identical. They look like mosquito bites.

To introduce the stun-gun theory overcomplicates everything. It is not necessary or likely. There is no proof the R's owned one. A stun-gun is not needed to subdue a 6-year old, nor to punish her. Like you said, why not just spank her? I do believe there was abuse in the home, but nothing so depraved as to electrocute a small child. PR would not do that, I know we say 'they don't look like the would do that" is not a proper argument, but to consider PR going out and buying a stun-gun to abuse her children with is far-fetched. Considering how high-profile this case was, why wouldn't the store worker who sold it to her have come out? Investigators searched for proof and found none (Smit not included, as he was not following the evidence but rather fitting it to his theory.)

There is a difference between electrical burns and abrasions.

First, I have absolutely no opinion as to whether or not a stun gun was used. None. maybe yes, maybe no. unconvinced either way. Skeptical. Anyway…

I can’t help but want to comment on this: to introduce the stun-gun theory overcomplicates everything.

If the evidence suggests or is indicative of stun gun use, then that’s the evidence. stun gun use only overcomplicates some theories. RDI theories. But, if the evidence says stun gun use, then that’s the evidence. To reject it would mean reasoning by theory (belief) instead of by evidence.
.

Marks on legs: they could be bites of some kind. I can’t remember if they’re mentioned in the AR, but I don’t think they were; so… they’re probably nothing. I wonder what they would look like in a high quality photograph (or, in person). I suspect they would look quite different.
…

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Off topic, but from the interview you posted DeDee.



But John, Patsy swore she didn't read the note? How could she say the note said not to call the police?



Okay John, when exactly did that happen? Day 3? 4? 5? What was your excuse for not submitting to an interview on the first few days? You are so full of $hit.



How many times did she go to the doctor Patsy?

According to the following, it was 2 days after the body was discovered BBM:
DIANE SAWYER: (on camera) Why did they get a lawyer?
MICHAEL BYNUM: I went, as their friend, to help. And I felt that they should have legal advice -- nothing more, nothing less.

DIANE SAWYER: So you're the reason they got a lawyer?
MICHAEL BYNUM: I'm the one.

DIANE SAWYER: It did not occur to them first?
MICHAEL BYNUM: They certainly never made any mention of it to me.

DIANE SAWYER: I'm trying to imagine, if I am in the middle of this agony and my friend says to me, "You better get a lawyer " I think I'd go, "What? What?"
MICHAEL BYNUM: Well...

DIANE SAWYER: This horrible thing has happened to my child. There's a note here. I should get a lawyer?

MICHAEL BYNUM: Well, first of all, that was not the words that I used. I told John there were some legal issues that I thought needed to be taken care of. And John just looked at me and said, "Do whatever you think needs to be done," and he and Burke -- he went into a room to talk with Burke and so I did.

DIANE SAWYER: What made you think there were legal issues?
MICHAEL BYNUM: I was a prosecutor. I know how this works. I know where the police attention's going to go, right from the get go.

DIANE SAWYER: (voice-over) And he says that's exactly what happened. By Saturday, two days after the murder that the police were openly hostile. An assistant DA gave him some news.

MICHAEL BYNUM: He said the police are refusing to release JonBenet's body for burial unless John and Patsy give them interviews. I have never heard of anything like that. I said to the DA, "I don't know whether or not this is illegal, but I'm sure it's immoral and unethical." I just was not willing to participate and facilitate or do anything other than to say "no." Not only no, but hell, no, you're not getting an interview. And I did say that.

DIANE SAWYER: Did they authorize you to say that?
MICHAEL BYNUM: John and Patsy? No. Absolutely not. They weren't in the room. They didn't know what was going on. And I wasn't going to bring them in on it. I did it.

DIANE SAWYER: (voice-over) In the end, the body was released. The funeral was in Atlanta. Bynum insists the Ramseys still didn't know what he had told police when they suddenly accepted an invitation to go on CNN.
PATSY RAMSEY (From CNN Tape): If anyone knows anything, please, please help us.
DIANE SAWYER: (on camera) Was it a mistake?
MICHAEL BYNUM: Yes and no. At this point in time, with everything that's happened to them, it's pretty difficult for them to do anything that isn't going to be criticized. If they do something, it's criticized that they did. If they don't, it's criticized that they don't.

DIANE SAWYER: But of all the things that solidified suspicions against the Ramseys, probably the biggest was that four-month delay in granting police a formal interview. Bynum says the Ramseys wanted to talk, but their attorneys insisted that a member of the DA's office be present. Why? He says because police were so hostile and the DA makes the final decision whether the prosecute. He insists that the big holdup was that police waited so long to let the DA's office in.
MICHAEL BYNUM: The primary issue preventing an interview for all that time, despite everything people were told in the media, was the issue of the presence of the DA in there.

DIANE SAWYER: What about this assumption on people's part that if it had been them and their child and they were innocent, they would have said, "I don't care what you say, attorneys, I am going down -- I'm going to -- I'm not going to just give an interview. I'm going to camp out down there to make sure they know everything I know, and that they're on the trail of who did this. Nothing is going to stop me."
MICHAEL BYNUM: I think there's nothing wrong with that approach and that idea. But I want to tell you, for anyone in the circumstance that John and Patsy Ramsey were in, you go ahead and do that and pick up the pieces later because you're going to be shredded. And I know that there are good police. I know there are good police in Boulder, Colorado, but I've also seen it from the prosecution side. I've seen it from the defense side if a focus occurs what that means. And it means they're coming, and you better get ready.

DIANE SAWYER: Innocent or not?
MICHAEL BYNUM: Absolutely. Absolutely.

ABC PRIMETIME LIVE (10:00 pm ET) SEPTEMBER 10, 1997
http://tinyurl.com/kz46jzv
…

AK

 

[andreww]

According to the following, it was 2 days after the body was discovered BBM:
DIANE SAWYER: (on camera) Why did they get a lawyer?
MICHAEL BYNUM: I went, as their friend, to help. And I felt that they should have legal advice -- nothing more, nothing less.

DIANE SAWYER: So you're the reason they got a lawyer?
MICHAEL BYNUM: I'm the one.

DIANE SAWYER: It did not occur to them first?
MICHAEL BYNUM: They certainly never made any mention of it to me.

DIANE SAWYER: I'm trying to imagine, if I am in the middle of this agony and my friend says to me, "You better get a lawyer " I think I'd go, "What? What?"
MICHAEL BYNUM: Well...

DIANE SAWYER: This horrible thing has happened to my child. There's a note here. I should get a lawyer?

MICHAEL BYNUM: Well, first of all, that was not the words that I used. I told John there were some legal issues that I thought needed to be taken care of. And John just looked at me and said, "Do whatever you think needs to be done," and he and Burke -- he went into a room to talk with Burke and so I did.

DIANE SAWYER: What made you think there were legal issues?
MICHAEL BYNUM: I was a prosecutor. I know how this works. I know where the police attention's going to go, right from the get go.

DIANE SAWYER: (voice-over) And he says that's exactly what happened. By Saturday, two days after the murder that the police were openly hostile. An assistant DA gave him some news.

MICHAEL BYNUM: He said the police are refusing to release JonBenet's body for burial unless John and Patsy give them interviews. I have never heard of anything like that. I said to the DA, "I don't know whether or not this is illegal, but I'm sure it's immoral and unethical." I just was not willing to participate and facilitate or do anything other than to say "no." Not only no, but hell, no, you're not getting an interview. And I did say that.

DIANE SAWYER: Did they authorize you to say that?
MICHAEL BYNUM: John and Patsy? No. Absolutely not. They weren't in the room. They didn't know what was going on. And I wasn't going to bring them in on it. I did it.

DIANE SAWYER: (voice-over) In the end, the body was released. The funeral was in Atlanta. Bynum insists the Ramseys still didn't know what he had told police when they suddenly accepted an invitation to go on CNN.
PATSY RAMSEY (From CNN Tape): If anyone knows anything, please, please help us.
DIANE SAWYER: (on camera) Was it a mistake?
MICHAEL BYNUM: Yes and no. At this point in time, with everything that's happened to them, it's pretty difficult for them to do anything that isn't going to be criticized. If they do something, it's criticized that they did. If they don't, it's criticized that they don't.

DIANE SAWYER: But of all the things that solidified suspicions against the Ramseys, probably the biggest was that four-month delay in granting police a formal interview. Bynum says the Ramseys wanted to talk, but their attorneys insisted that a member of the DA's office be present. Why? He says because police were so hostile and the DA makes the final decision whether the prosecute. He insists that the big holdup was that police waited so long to let the DA's office in.
MICHAEL BYNUM: The primary issue preventing an interview for all that time, despite everything people were told in the media, was the issue of the presence of the DA in there.

DIANE SAWYER: What about this assumption on people's part that if it had been them and their child and they were innocent, they would have said, "I don't care what you say, attorneys, I am going down -- I'm going to -- I'm not going to just give an interview. I'm going to camp out down there to make sure they know everything I know, and that they're on the trail of who did this. Nothing is going to stop me."
MICHAEL BYNUM: I think there's nothing wrong with that approach and that idea. But I want to tell you, for anyone in the circumstance that John and Patsy Ramsey were in, you go ahead and do that and pick up the pieces later because you're going to be shredded. And I know that there are good police. I know there are good police in Boulder, Colorado, but I've also seen it from the prosecution side. I've seen it from the defense side if a focus occurs what that means. And it means they're coming, and you better get ready.

DIANE SAWYER: Innocent or not?
MICHAEL BYNUM: Absolutely. Absolutely.

ABC PRIMETIME LIVE (10:00 pm ET) SEPTEMBER 10, 1997
http://tinyurl.com/kz46jzv
…

AK

Very nice AK, but let's look at this logically. The body was discovered at about 1:00 on Thursday. Police requested an interview Thursday afternoon and the Ramsey's refused. I know for a fact that they attempted to talk to them again on Friday but were refused again. An interview didn't happen on Saturday morning either.

So let's face it, it looks more like the Ramsey's never having any intention of talking to the police and coming up with this "corpse being held hostage " ruse as a way of justifying it to the public.

I think even you are smart enough to see that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[icedtea4me]

I do not necessarily believe the stun gun was purchased as a tool for torture. Perhaps maybe more for keeping one in line of obedience.

I had an EMG [Electromyography measures muscle activity from an electrical response.]. I would just soon die than have another one. The pain is so sharp it takes your breath away. If applied to the legs, one standing would certainly fall. It is similar to being tased.

Raise your hand if you have a Stun Gun booklet in your home, especially in 1996. The odds are highly unlikely that any of us possess a taser gun unless affiliated in the law enforcement field. However, I've considered purchasing one recently as a form of protection against would be muggers and ****s. That is something I would have not considered doing twenty years ago.

Raise your hand if you've visited Amsterdam, the *advertiser censored* capital of the world. Why do you think the R's traveled to Amsterdam?

Why are the records from Access Graphics computers forever sealed?


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-ramsey-interview-part-2/

http://web.dailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/2000/0206deposition.html

Access Graphics had one of its offices based in Amsterdam, that's why they traveled there. And even though Amsterdam is known as a *advertiser censored* capitol, I do trust you're intelligent enough to know that there are other things there than just *advertiser censored*.

 

[icedtea4me]

I believe there is the possibility that JonBenet may have been stunned, but not stun-gunned.

 

[Broken Angel]

Marks on legs: they could be bites of some kind. I can’t remember if they’re mentioned in the AR, but I don’t think they were; so… they’re probably nothing. I wonder what they would look like in a high quality photograph (or, in person). I suspect they would look quite different.
…

AK

If anyone would like to look at that abrasion closely let me know, I have that picture in HQ.

 

[Annapurna]

The bites on her leg were from an earlier photoshoot in the summertime, they are completely unrelated to the other marks.

There is no evidence of the stun-gun. None. It is pure fantasy.


Anti-K, the stun gun overcomplicates IDI as well. JB would have screamed bloody murder if she were zapped. No ifs ands or buts about it.


KANE: The thing about the stun gun that everybody keeps coming back to. There was one person who was qualified who actually looked at that little girl’s body on the autopsy table and that was Dr. Meyer, who’s a forensic pathologist. He looked at those very marks and said that they were abrasions. It is a quantum leap-you can take a stun gun and put it up against somebody’s body...and it’s going to leave a burn. It dosen't leave an abrasion. So all these other opinions that have come out that said that this was a stun gun, there is absolutely no way they would ever get into evidence because there is no evidence that these were burns.
ABRAMS: But, ... there were other experts like Mr. Doberson and others and Lou Smit who have said they absolutely believe that there was a stun gun used.
KANE: But they’re basing that based on photographs of marks on her body. When the uncontradicted evidence of Dr. Meyer is that these were not burns.



This is the picture Lou Smit used to determine there was a stun gun used:View attachment 85657

The marks that match the ones on JB's face are from a body that was exhumed 8 Months after he was killed. The red marks are actual stun gun marks and they look nothing like any of JB's wounds. The ones on her back do not fit the dimensions of the taser. On Smit's experiments with a taser on pig skin, the burns matched the distance between the prongs perfectly. Additionally the marks are rectangular. If you look at the marks on JB, you will notice that one is rectangular. If you align the rectangular shape with that of the taser, at the correct angle of the rectangle, they do not align. It would be impossible for the Air Taser stun gun with electrodes that are 3.4 centimeters apart to create marks on JB that are 2.9 centimeters in distance.

There is a reason most experts who look at his case do not see evidence of the stun-gun. Dr. Wecht, I'm sure you all know his name, doesn't agree. The person who did the original autopsy (and actually saw and felt the marks) did not think they were burns.

Ultimately, we would have only known if the R's had allowed her body to be exhumed. I think they didn't want to because they knew there was no stun-gun, and with Smit pushing that theory the IDI scenario looks more plausible.

 

[Annapurna]

Angel, I would like to see the HQ photo & any others. The photos from this crime are hard on the eyes! In more way than one, but higher quality is always better.
Thanks!

 

[Anti-K]

Very nice AK, but let's look at this logically. The body was discovered at about 1:00 on Thursday. Police requested an interview Thursday afternoon and the Ramsey's refused. I know for a fact that they attempted to talk to them again on Friday but were refused again. An interview didn't happen on Saturday morning either.

So let's face it, it looks more like the Ramsey's never having any intention of talking to the police and coming up with this "corpse being held hostage " ruse as a way of justifying it to the public.

I think even you are smart enough to see that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That’s one way of looking at it Andreww, but it is a heavily biased way.

Up until Bynum stepped in and the incident with the body (regardless of version, there was an incident) occurred, things were good. The hours spent with the Ramseys before the body was discovered allowed for informal interviews and observation, the forensic evidence was given that night. Interviews were attempted later that night and the following day, but they were not pursued with any aggression. IMO, if pursued with aggression, at least Mr Ramsey may have acquiesced, even if Bynum insisted on tagging along.

Regardless, these events and the decisions made may have helped to make the Ramseys look suspicious, but there are not indicative of guilt. And, for many people these events and decisions made don’t even add up to suspicion. There is something subjective about how one views this.

I think the simple (yes, IDI) explanation for this is that the Ramseys were completely messed up and the cops cut them some slack, and then lawyers got involved (as explained by Bynum) and the thing with the body happened and things quickly escalated (and/or deteriorated) from there; bad decisions were made (by everyone!) and enemies were made and lines were drawn. There’s plenty of blame to go around.
…

AK

 

[Anti-K]

The bites on her leg were from an earlier photoshoot in the summertime, they are completely unrelated to the other marks.

There is no evidence of the stun-gun. None. It is pure fantasy.


Anti-K, the stun gun overcomplicates IDI as well. JB would have screamed bloody murder if she were zapped. No ifs ands or buts about it.


KANE: The thing about the stun gun that everybody keeps coming back to. There was one person who was qualified who actually looked at that little girl’s body on the autopsy table and that was Dr. Meyer, who’s a forensic pathologist. He looked at those very marks and said that they were abrasions. It is a quantum leap-you can take a stun gun and put it up against somebody’s body...and it’s going to leave a burn. It dosen't leave an abrasion. So all these other opinions that have come out that said that this was a stun gun, there is absolutely no way they would ever get into evidence because there is no evidence that these were burns.
ABRAMS: But, ... there were other experts like Mr. Doberson and others and Lou Smit who have said they absolutely believe that there was a stun gun used.
KANE: But they’re basing that based on photographs of marks on her body. When the uncontradicted evidence of Dr. Meyer is that these were not burns.



This is the picture Lou Smit used to determine there was a stun gun used:View attachment 85657

The marks that match the ones on JB's face are from a body that was exhumed 8 Months after he was killed. The red marks are actual stun gun marks and they look nothing like any of JB's wounds. The ones on her back do not fit the dimensions of the taser. On Smit's experiments with a taser on pig skin, the burns matched the distance between the prongs perfectly. Additionally the marks are rectangular. If you look at the marks on JB, you will notice that one is rectangular. If you align the rectangular shape with that of the taser, at the correct angle of the rectangle, they do not align. It would be impossible for the Air Taser stun gun with electrodes that are 3.4 centimeters apart to create marks on JB that are 2.9 centimeters in distance.

There is a reason most experts who look at his case do not see evidence of the stun-gun. Dr. Wecht, I'm sure you all know his name, doesn't agree. The person who did the original autopsy (and actually saw and felt the marks) did not think they were burns.

Ultimately, we would have only known if the R's had allowed her body to be exhumed. I think they didn't want to because they knew there was no stun-gun, and with Smit pushing that theory the IDI scenario looks more plausible.

I write in Word, and I save everything. I was just looking through my files and am surprised to find that I posted a fair bit on this topic!! Good grief. And, more than once I started a post with, “I never get into stun gun discussions but…” LOL. I kill me. With a memory this bad, I just might be a Ramsey. And, I forgot.

As rebut to Kane quote:
P. 271 (Nook version) of PMPT Meyer wouldn’t commit himself to a definite answer.
P. 332 (Nook version) of PMPT After reviewing the photos and this new information Meyer concluded that the injuries on JonBenet's face and back were, in fact, consistent with those produced by a stun gun.
.

There is some evidence suggestive of stun gun use (see my post here: http://tinyurl.com/jp95h3n ). I don’t think there is any definitive evidence; but, I haven’t seen a (IMO) believable alternative explanation, either. I file this under Maybe Evidence.

One way a stun gun can fit with IDI without complication was explained in the post referenced above. it could also have been that the killer had unrealistic expectations, and that when he used it he was surprised, maybe even – gasp – shocked! Maybe he was prepared and muffled it and her with a pillow or a blanket or his body or in the basement and far away…

I don’t accept it and I don’t reject it. I know that it complicates RDI but that it can fit IDI with ease (zapped her in the basement after the head blow made her incapable of response, sort of like poking something with a stick – or, a model railroad track.). It is what it is. Maybe Evidence.
.
The Ramseys were never even given the chance to say no to an exhumation, but the decision would not have been in their hands, anyway.
…

AK

 

[Madeleine74]

No stun gun whatsoever. Train tracks, esp the connector end is a match.

 

[Ellie9]

No stun gun whatsoever. Train tracks, esp the connector end is a match.

I see the train tracks too, personally. Now the question I have is if train tracks were used to hurt jonbenet, then was it from staging to add stuff that looked like an assault, or was it done before death, even before the head blow.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[webweaved]

No stun gun whatsoever. Train tracks, esp the connector end is a match.

Wow. Never thought of that before. The train tracks...also located downstairs. Good grief. The more I learn about this case or ponder about this case the more my stomach turns and my brain hurts...my heart hurts. WTH was going on in that house. Who are these people!? Overkill of a 6 year old and now electrocution by train track? If your theory fits, what were they thinking IF this occurred? They'd jump start her back up since she wasn't responding? I never understood why people tried to claim the child might have had CPR applied to her. I never read that in the autopsy report. JB didn't have cracked ribs. Someone desperately trying to resuscitate their child after an accident is going to bruise those ribs and cause damage (not meaning to) while desperately trying to get the child to breath. I never read anywhere that occurred. Please correct me if I'm wrong. These people were once my neighbors in ATL. I just can't wrap my mind around what theory fits. Before you ask, I'm of the (RDI) and I have my reasons....but why was all of the craziness necessary? Over staged, over the top, insane. Were P and J really that smart? Some of these theories make them out to be super intelligent. They never set the alarm system in their homes no matter where they lived. I find it hard to believe they owned a stun gun. They struck me as unafraid, happy go lucky or dumb go lucky people. Even when JR was confronted by an alleged intruder in ATL post JB death, he did not have anything on him to defend himself. JMO. Total opinion.

 

[webweaved]

If anyone would like to look at that abrasion closely let me know, I have that picture in HQ.

I would like to see any and all photos in high quality. Please. This case bothers the mess out of me!