Stun Gun

Discussion in 'JonBenet Ramsey' started by Solace, Sep 22, 2006.

  1. Solace

    Solace New Member

    Messages:
    4,807
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Okay, bear with me. But I have a question re the stun gun and I have read all the pros and cons. One con I read was that the marks would have been red. However, my son brought to my attention a video he saw on stun guns and the marks they left were black and the spacing looked similar to JB's marks.

    So help me out here and tell me what you think. Thanks, Solace:banghead:
     
  2. Loading...


  3. SuperDave

    SuperDave Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    13,263
    Likes Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Except, as Cutter has shown, the spacing was all wrong.
     
  4. Solace

    Solace New Member

    Messages:
    4,807
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Okay, I guess I have to read about it again. As I recall, the spacing is off also. But they do look similar.

    Do you have any ideas as to what the marks were?
     
  5. julianne

    julianne Former Member

    Messages:
    1,810
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Has it been determined that the amount of spacing between the points on stun guns is universal??? Or, does it vary with the make/model of the stun gun?
     
  6. PagingDrDetect

    PagingDrDetect New Member

    Messages:
    310
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    There was NO STUN GUN. The ME noted the marks were ABRASIONS not burns. A stun gun leaves burns, not abrasions. There is NO expert who believes the marks were made by a stun gun. Even that idiot Dobson that Tracey/Smit payed off to say they were stun gun burns contradicted himself in that crockumentary because he previously stated publically that you couldn't tell what the marks were from a photograph, which is all he had to go by.

    EVERY SINGLE EXPERT HAS NIXED THE STUN GUN THEORY... EVERY ONE.

    The whole stupid stun gun theory that Smit came up with is ridiculous on its face as a stun gun does not render a person unconscious, which was the whole POINT to the stun gun theory.
     
  7. SuperDave

    SuperDave Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    13,263
    Likes Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    48
    "Has it been determined that the amount of spacing between the points on stun guns is universal??? Or, does it vary with the make/model of the stun gun?"

    Pretty standard, julianne.

    "There was NO STUN GUN. The ME noted the marks were ABRASIONS not burns. A stun gun leaves burns, not abrasions. There is NO expert who believes the marks were made by a stun gun. Even that idiot Dobson that Tracey/Smit payed off to say they were stun gun burns contradicted himself in that crockumentary because he previously stated publically that you couldn't tell what the marks were from a photograph, which is all he had to go by."

    He was on CourtTV last night talking about Gerald Boggs. The marks on Boggs were raised and red with greyish centers, just like mine.

    "The whole stupid stun gun theory that Smit came up with is ridiculous on its face as a stun gun does not render a person unconscious, which was the whole POINT to the stun gun theory."

    Right, the stunner works by making the muscles work inefficiently. You wear yourself out.
     
  8. angelwngs

    angelwngs New Member

    Messages:
    4,986
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Dave,
    I'm just thankful that you've not been this dedicated to any case in which you suspected the use of carbon monoxide poisoning or antifreeze or some untraceable toxin! We NEED and appreciate you around here!!! ;)

    May I ask, when you tested the stun gun, how long were its effects noticable with you?
     
  9. SuperDave

    SuperDave Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    13,263
    Likes Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    48
    "May I ask, when you tested the stun gun, how long were its effects noticable with you?"

    Well, I didn't time it, but I'd say a few minutes. The idea is for the effects not to be permanent. See, the way it works is by delivering a high voltage but with a low amperage.
     
  10. angelwngs

    angelwngs New Member

    Messages:
    4,986
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ahh... Thank you. On a much smaller less 'stunning' scale, similar to the electric fence I touched barefoot, as a child ???... It knocked me senseless and immobile for several minutes! :eek:
     
  11. SuperDave

    SuperDave Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    13,263
    Likes Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    48
    "Ahh... Thank you. On a much smaller less 'stunning' scale, similar to the electric fence I touched barefoot, as a child ???... It knocked me senseless and immobile for several minutes!"

    I wouldn't doubt it! Although, the fence may have had a higher amperage than my stunner does. You're lucky you weren't hurt worse than that!
     
  12. cappuccina

    cappuccina Former Member

    Messages:
    1,186
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    ...this is not rocket science folks....The more you apply the Occam's Razor theory of solving crimes to this case, the easier it gets...
     
  13. JMO8778

    JMO8778 ..at the beach!

    Messages:
    5,554
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    True,and another thing that makes it easier is to read DOI as well as look at what the R's say,esp JR.Whenever he talks,everything starts to make sense if you look at it the opposite way,which is why I think the head wound came first.(JR says it came last).It seems they both want things to appear so differently from what probably actually happened.
     
  14. Nuisanceposter

    Nuisanceposter Remembering Little Miss Christmas

    Messages:
    1,399
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I have to agree with the opposite idea, JMO8778. I think anytime the Rs support anything is when they know it's not the case, such as with the stun gun. They back up the stun gun theory as hard as they do because they know no stun gun was used and it's nothing but advantageous to them to get others to believe it was. Same with the EA strangulation situation - they back that up because they know that isn't what happened, but it sure helps them look like they didn't do it if people believe it did. Same thing with the head wound coming after the strangling.
     
  15. UKGuy

    UKGuy Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    9,193
    Likes Received:
    153
    Trophy Points:
    63
    The Stun Gun is another Lou Smit fairy-tale.

    I always imagined him and John meeting at his house, exchanging pleasantries, then getting down to business.



    .
     
  16. Tricia

    Tricia Owner Websleuths.com Staff Member Administrator

    Messages:
    23,683
    Likes Received:
    2,185
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Just in case one of the fine posters at WS still thinks there was a stun gun involved I would ask you to read right here.

    http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=4708

    Please keep in mind when John Ramsey was asked by Barbara Walters why he did not exhume JonBenet to do more tests to prove the stun gun theory he said he just wanted to let "JonBenet Rest."

    Two things.

    First...if your child was murdered and by exhuming her you would help move forward the investigation wouldn't you do it? You wouldn't hesitate for a moment would you.

    Second...if John and Patsy are true Christians then they know JonBenet is not in the grave. She is not "resting" there. It is her shell.

    There is only one reason why John and Patsy did not want to exhume JonBenet....they knew there was no stun gun.

    Better to keep floating the stun gun rumor than to have it disproved by exhumation.
     
  17. sandraladeda

    sandraladeda Inactive

    Messages:
    2,588
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    After you follow this case for awhile, some theories that perpetually crop up start to drive you crazy :banghead: I already said on another thread I am sick of the AE theories, and this stun gun theory drives me nuts!!! I totally agree with the comments about the RST "opposite idea", and about using Occam's Razor. To say AE (base on the fact that there was strangulation) and that there was a stun gun used (based on "marks" on the body) does NOT follow Occam's Razor.....:banghead: It follows "hearing hoofbeats and concluding it's horses"...imho...
     
  18. SuperDave

    SuperDave Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    13,263
    Likes Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Tricia, excellent, as always.
     
  19. JMO8778

    JMO8778 ..at the beach!

    Messages:
    5,554
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Exactly !! Good observations! ::clapping::
     
  20. JMO8778

    JMO8778 ..at the beach!

    Messages:
    5,554
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Kinda makes you wonder which God they're praying to, doesn't it.....
     
  21. leighl

    leighl New Member

    Messages:
    45
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    1. There is no doubt that the media is a strong force in swaying public opinion. A group of jurors may be given a host of important evidence only to have it ignored because in the back of the juror's minds what they heard on tv or read through the newspaper first becomes paramount to any evidence later presented in court.

    2. PR was a journalism major and most likely was aware of the tremendous psychological impact, power, and influence the media has public opinion, i.e., the opinion of any potential jury.

    3. Both PR and JR began early on to try and influence/create a reasonable doubt of their guilt through various media outlets, again to influence any potential jury in case either of them were arrested or the finger was pointed at Burke.

    4. Along comes LS with the stun gun theory. J&PR are faced with two scenarios:

    A) Exhume JB's body. If a stun gun had been used, such evidence would support an IDI theory/give credience to the idea that the R's were innocent.

    B) Don't exhume JB's body. The R's know there was no stun gun used so they don't want the stun gun theory to be questioned; not exhuming JB's body allows a sense of doubt among the general public (and any potential jury pool) to continue to circulate (and prevented any other telling evidence to be potentially discovered upon re-examination of JB's body by the ME).

    5. J&PR stated they did not want JB's body to be exhumed because the request was made shortly after JB had been laid to rest. This is completely understandable, however, if this was the case, why not allow the body to be exhumed at a later date? What parent (or indeed any human being) would want to live with the slightest doubt of whether they were involved in their daughter's brutal murder when they have a chance to potentially exonerate themselves once and for all. The answer is clear, J&PR knew there was no stun gun involved, they knew not exhuming JB's body would always allow room for doubt in case the matter ever went to trial.
     

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