Ramsey supporters claim that a stungun was used on JonBenet. This is not a fact - far from it, the claim is far from proved as I will demonstrate. One asks - "if the claim is weak, why push it so hard? " The answer to that is simple. There is no proof that the ramseys owned a stungun. True they had a video, apparently in Spanish which *might* be an instructional video on the use of stunguns or it might have been a promotional video - although one might ask why it would be in Spanish if that were the case. I have personally got an instructional video for a sewing machine which is in Japanese! The bottom line is - there is little credible information about that video. However, many people agree that if it could be proved that a stungun was used, then it would point AWAY from the Ramseys as perps. This is why I believe the hard core of Ramsey supporters push the stungn theory as though it were a case fact. Stungun Experts - for and against - Stratbucker *The* leading expert on stunguns is without doubt Dr Robert Stratbucker who has been studying and documenting their use since the 1980s. He is on record as saying that in his expert opinions, the marks on JonBenet were NOT made by a stungun. Dr Stratbucker has performed extensive stungun experiments on not only pigs, but on human volunteers photographing the marks minutes, hours and (in one case) days after the stunning. In most cases, the marks disappeared very quickly indeed. Ramsey expert - Doberson Team Ramsey hired their own expert - one Dr Michael Doberson who performed an experiment on an anaethsetised pig and declared that they matched the marks on JonBenet. Most of us who have seen the photographs disagree with him. The marks on the pig were little pink marks (which looked like little burns) which were vaguely rectangular in shape - i.e. the same shape as the stungun prod. The twin marks were also exactly the same distance apart as the stungun which was used in the experiment. Gerald Boggs Ramsey supporters compare JonBent's injuries to one Gerald Boggs who was known to have been stungunned before he was murdered. There are autopsy photos of Gerald Boggs which are used to compare the marks with JonBenet. What the Ramsey Supporters don't tell you is that the photo of Gerald Boggs was taken 6 months after his death - when he was exhumed. He was exhumed because the coroner who performed his autopsy FAILED to recognise the marks as stungun marks. His body was exhumed to perform further tests as proof of stungun use would help to solve the case. In the original autopsy photos, the marks are not similar to the marks on Jonbenet. They are however, similar to the marks on the stungunned pig! (i.e. little pink marks resembling burns) Michael Doberson fails to recognise genuine stungun marks! Also of interest, is the name of the coroner who FAILED to recognise the stungun marks during the original autopsy .... His name was Dr Michael Doberson! (i.e. the Ramsey stungun "expert"). Having stunned a pig, Dr Doberson went on record as saying that he believed the marks on JonBenet were made by a stungun. This came as a great surprise to case followers because Dr Doberson was already on record as saying that "you can't really tell from a photograph". Interesting eh? Dr Werner Spitz - says no stungun Another forensic expert, Dr Werner Spitz is also on record as saying that the marks on JonBenet weren't made by a stungun. His explanation is simple - "Stungun marks don't look like that". Then we have the problem of the distance btween the marks. In the case of the pigs, the pairs of marks matched exactly in distance with the prods on the stungun. Lou Smit and RST not only claimed that JonBenet was tortured with a stungun, they even claim to know the brand of stungun - a Taser. Unfortunately for them, Taser don't make a stungun which matches the distance of the marks on JonBenet - despite what the RST. Amateur analyses of the marks Some years ago, Cutter, a former member of Websleuths, performed an experiment with the images of the pig and JonBenet and posted that they didn't match in distance. His work is here:- http://gemart.8m.com/ramsey/stungun.html I was sceptical and I set out to find flaws in Cutter's analysis. Using the metal rulers as a benchmark, I performed my own analysis and was gobsmacked to find that my findings agreed with Cutter's. There was no doubt - the marks on JonBenet did NOT match the marks on the pig and they did NOT match the stungun which the RST claimed was used. jameson used fraudulent images More worryingly, I discovered that without doubt, the image which jameson245 displays on her website showing the "match" between the pig marks and the marks on JonBenet had without doubt been doctored to make it a match., In reality, the marks on JonBenet were much smaller and closer together. Significantly, this image had the rulers cropped out! jameson claimed that someone else was responsible for the image, but it now appears to have been removed (perhaps in response to my repeatedly posting the proof that it was fake?). RST arguments to explain weaknesses of stungun theory Over the years, the RST have come up with various arguments to explain the weaknesses in the stungun theory. Such as RST ARGUMENT "She moved when she was being stunned so her skin stretched". (This is to explain why the marks do not match any known stungun in distance between prods.) My response:- this is in direct contradiction to their explanation for there only being one "stungun" mark on her face. The perfect lipprint on the duct tape suggested she was dead or unconscious when it was applied. Whty stungun a dead or unconscious victim? RST ARGUMENT "The stungun could have been modified" My response:- unlikely if you've ever seen a stungun. The prods are short and set into a rigid casing which could be made of some kind of hard muoldable man-made material. The stungun and the duct tape Another problem with the stungun theory is the fact that there is only one PAIR of marks on JonBenet's body. The mark on her face is just that - one mark. One pair of marks does not make a "pattern". So the RST have tried to come up with explanations as to why there was only one mark on the face:- RST ARGUMENT "the second prod landed on the tape across her mouth" There are a few problems with this:- 1) There is a possibility (I am not claiming this as a fact) that if one prod had landed on the duct tape, that it would have prevented the device from working. Duct tape has insulating qualities bt I don't know if they are sufficiently insulating. 2) Perfect lip imprints on the duct tape suggest that she was already dead or unconscious when it was applied. Why stungun a dead or unconscious child? RST ARGUMENT :- jameson has claimed that a white mark on her face in one of the photos is actually gum from the back of the duct tape and that this was caused by the second prod of the stungun MELTING the gum on the back onto JonBenet's face. I admit I was interested by this one - especially as I could not get a satisfactory asnwer to me question about whether the duct tape would insulate against a stungun or not. Alas, I see several problems with it too:- 1) If this was the case - why didn't Lou Smit shout it from the rooftops as it would surely be strong support of his stungun theory? 2) The duct tape wasn't white! "You can't tell from a photograph!" RST ARGUMENT - Photographic evidence of stungun marks has been used (and accepted) before in a case involving none other than Dr Robert Stratbucker! Why would experts say that "you can't tell from a photograph" if photographs of stungun marks have been acceptable in court before? One pair of marks does not constitute "a pattern" This had me stumped for while but yesterday, I read a post which helped to clear this up. The case in question was that of a man called Jackson for the murder of Karen Styles. Karen was stungunned REPEATEDLY by Jackson and the court both presented and accepted phtographs of her injuries as proof that a stungun had been used. Note the word REPEATEDLY. Think Pastry Imagine you are looking at lovely pie. The pastry crust is covered in patterns of little holes clustered in straight lines of 5 little holes. It wouldn't take an expert to conclude that the holes had been made by someone stabbing the pastry with a fork! However, if you were shown a photo of pasty with one little hole - could you say from that photo that a fork had been used? That is the difference between the Ramsey case and the Jackson case. There are no REPEATED pairs of marks - just one .... and a half. RST ARGUMENT "There were TWO pairs of marks on JonBenet's body - where are you getting your case information from?" This is a very interesting one. On a thread yesterday, RST Margoo was sharp about this - she insisted that there were TWO PAIRS of marks on JonBenet's body. Mike agreed with her and said this was "as per the autopsy report". A poster asked Margoo to provide a source for her statement that there were two PAIRS of marks. And this went unanswered - twice. A third request for clarification resulted in the thread being locked. So why won't the RST provide a source for their being TWO PAIRS of marks on JonBenet's body "as per the autopsy report"? Where is the second cheek mark on the autopsy report? Simple - it doesn't exist. Margoo is wrong and Mikie is wrong. The autopsy report quite clearly describes:- And in more detail:- The cheek abrasion (singular):- The back abrasions (twin marks) http://www.cnn.com/US/9703/ramsey.case/final.autopsy.html The leg abrasions are described as scatches and have not been claimed as stungun marks by any expert - Ramsey or otherwise. It is therefore very unclear what it is that Margoo and Mikie are calling the second part of the pair on JonBenet's cheek. RST - dishonesty does not pay It is a pity that the RST chose not to provide their source for there being TWO PAIRS of marks. I'd like very much to have heard Margoo answer that on one of the two visits she made back to the thread before it was prematurely locked. Not answering.... locking threads without answering an important questions about evidence ... not good. It is a pity that in supporting the Ramseys, some people feel it necessary to lie about the evidence. It does nothing positive for the Ramseys' defence.