Tom Wickman Speaks

[Sprocket]

Being interviewed in several segments on Fox News by Carol McKinley. Tom Wickman was the lead investigator, who has never spoken publicly before.

Wickman says that they proved the marks on JonBenet's face were NOT caused by a stungun but were in fact, bruises.

http://media2.foxnews.com/122606/122606_mckinley_ramsey2_300.wmv

In subsequent interviews, he indicated that the DNA has never been determined to be caucasian because there is not enough there left, to test for race.

[Athena]

Being interviewed in several segments on Fox News by Carol McKinley. Tom Wickman was the lead investigator, who has never spoken publicly before.

Wickman says that they proved the marks on JonBenet's face were NOT caused by a stungun but were in fact, bruises.

http://media2.foxnews.com/122606/122606_mckinley_ramsey2_300.wmv

In subsequent interviews, he indicated that the DNA has never been determined to be caucasian because there is not enough there left, to test for race.

I would like to know how they proved they were not stun gun marks or marks caused by anything electrical since the body was not exhumed and there were no details offered? I do think though there has been too much emphasis on the stun gun anyway and even if it had been used we still don't know who would have used it.

Re: the DNA and race I can accept this to be true since anything I've ever read re: the race was put out only by Wood and seemed to be repeated. At least it was clarified that DNA CAN determine race or at least race makeup since I've read many posters' claims that DNA cannot determine race and the research I've done says differently.

You state that the DNA was discussed in a subsequent interview. Would you aappen to have a link to that interview as well whether video or written?

TIA

[Athena]

? re: Wickman.

Didn't he leave the BPD before the DNA was isolated???

[Sprocket]

The statments were made on fox news in small snippets of the interview that was done with Tom. They were shown on various programs throughout the day.

It is enough proof for me that the lead investigator on the case who has never spoken publicly before made the statements about the stun gun and the DNA. To me, that's enough that the police were able to determine there was no stun gun. I don't need to know how it was done. My "guess" would be probably an informal discussion/interview with the Dr. who performed the autopsy.

Wickman was also the only investigator who was present through the entire grand jury proceedings. There are many references for this statement.

Here is one:

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/6502/primer2/primer6_cops.html

They would have known from the beginning of the collection, how much material was left/available for future testing.

[thewhitewitch1]

? re: Wickman.

Didn't he leave the BPD before the DNA was isolated???

Apparently he is still interested in the case and keeps up on things.

[Tober]

It is enough proof for me that the lead investigator on the case who has never spoken publicly before made the statements about the stun gun and the DNA. To me, that's enough that the police were able to determine there was no stun gun.

Same here. Tom Wickman's statements confirm even further what many highly qualified experts have been saying for years, namely, that there was no stun gun.

[Athena]

Same here. Tom Wickman's statements confirm even further what many highly qualified experts have been saying for years, namely, that there was no stun gun.

The BPD NEVER believed a stun gun was used, but the theory was presented to the Grand Jury by Smit. We don't know what the Grand Jury's thoughts were. I still say it could not be proven either way without exhuming the body. The Grand Jury heard both sides. JMO

[Sprocket]

I still say it could not be proven either way without exhuming the body.

Evidently the the man in charge of the evidence (on the JonBenet case) Tom Wickman concluded differently, as did the rest of the BPD, who had direct access to the coroner who performed the autopsy.

Find an independent source other than Lou Smit (e.g. Dr. Henry Lee, BPD detective, numerous other individuals who reviewed the autopsy) that agrees the stun gun theory is a possibility. I don't believe you will be able to find one outside of the Ramsey support camp.

[LadyFisher]

Evidently the the man in charge of the evidence (on the JonBenet case) Tom Wickman concluded differently, as did the rest of the BPD, who had direct access to the coroner who performed the autopsy.

Find an independent source other than Lou Smit (e.g. Dr. Henry Lee, BPD detective, numerous other individuals who reviewed the autopsy) that agrees the stun gun theory is a possibility. I don't believe you will be able to find one outside of the Ramsey support camp.

I don't think it's really accurate to call Smit or John Douglas part of a Ramsey support camp! I believe these two men came to their conclusions after many hours of research of evidence/nonevidence and yes, they interviewed the Ramseys thoroughly! I don't believe for a second if either of these gentlemen felt the Ramseys to be guilty that they wouldn't go to the proper authorities with their info! The fact of the matter is, there are marks on JBs body, where did they come from. Just from viewing the pics, it does appear to be stun gun marks....what do you think they are? Smit asked Meyer if they could have been, and he said yes! I would like to know exactly what they are, and how do RDIs put them into their scenario of the murder? I've read the ring theory, and the little Christmas light burns, I don't buy either of those! The stun gun theory imho makes the most logical sense!

[sweetcharlotte]

<snip>

To me, that's enough that the police were able to determine there was no stun gun. I don't need to know how it was done. My "guess" would be probably an informal discussion/interview with the Dr. who performed the autopsy.

<snip>



His "opinion" - IMO - would not carry much weight in a court of law.

[Coloradokares]

His "opinion" - IMO - would not carry much weight in a court of law.


Who is the "his" ....whose opinion - in your opinion - would not carry much weight in a court of law? The doctor that did the autopsy regarding a stun gun?


:lol: No offense Sweetcharlotte. But you got your Christmas wish. I have a headache .....upset stomach.... Pepto Bismol please :(

[LindaA]

Coloradokares,
I think Sweet is referring to Tom Wickman, the subject of the thread.

Are you snowed in again? Hope you have Pepto-Bismol on hand!! :seeya:

[Louisadelmar]

Evidently the the man in charge of the evidence (on the JonBenet case) Tom Wickman concluded differently, as did the rest of the BPD, who had direct access to the coroner who performed the autopsy.

Find an independent source other than Lou Smit (e.g. Dr. Henry Lee, BPD detective, numerous other individuals who reviewed the autopsy) that agrees the stun gun theory is a possibility. I don't believe you will be able to find one outside of the Ramsey support camp.

http://www.longmontfyi.com/ramsey/storyDetail01.asp?ID=33

A Denver-area forensic pathologist who examined the autopsy photos for Boulder police said Smit’s theory is plausible.

“Unless some other evidence is presented to me, the most likely explanation for those injuries is that they were caused by a stun gun,” Dr. Michael Doberson told “Today.”

[sweetcharlotte]

Who is the "his" ....whose opinion - in your opinion - would not carry much weight in a court of law? The doctor that did the autopsy regarding a stun gun?


:lol: No offense Sweetcharlotte. But you got your Christmas wish. I have a headache .....upset stomach.... Pepto Bismol please :(

I wish sickness on no one. Hope you're feeling better.

[nuisanceposter]

http://www.longmontfyi.com/ramsey/storyDetail01.asp?ID=33

A Denver-area forensic pathologist who examined the autopsy photos for Boulder police said Smit’s theory is plausible.

“Unless some other evidence is presented to me, the most likely explanation for those injuries is that they were caused by a stun gun,” Dr. Michael Doberson told “Today.”

http://66.98.176.96/~tricia/forums/showthread.php?t=3135


From The Boulder Daily Camera - January 13, 1998.

"They came over and showed me some pictures from the (Ramsey) autopsy and asked for my opinion, whether they could be stun gun injuries," Dobersen recalled. "I told them that they could be; that was a possibility. But there were a lot of things they could do to narrow down the possibilities of what it could be."

Dobersen told Boulder investigators to do what The New Yorker reports they eventually did - measure the distance between the wounds and compare that to stun guns.

"Besides," he added, "the only definitive way to tell if electrocution was involved in JonBenet's death is to re-examine her body and look for very characteristic changes in skin tissue."
"You really can't tell from a photo," Dobersen said.

[Louisadelmar]

http://66.98.176.96/~tricia/forums/showthread.php?t=3135


From The Boulder Daily Camera - January 13, 1998.

"They came over and showed me some pictures from the (Ramsey) autopsy and asked for my opinion, whether they could be stun gun injuries," Dobersen recalled. "I told them that they could be; that was a possibility. But there were a lot of things they could do to narrow down the possibilities of what it could be."

Dobersen told Boulder investigators to do what The New Yorker reports they eventually did - measure the distance between the wounds and compare that to stun guns.


"Besides," he added, "the only definitive way to tell if electrocution was involved in JonBenet's death is to re-examine her body and look for very characteristic changes in skin tissue."
"You really can't tell from a photo," Dobersen said.

Don't know why RDIs always miss that word 'definitive.'

The following sounds to me like BPD was holding back evidence in the hopes of shaping his opinion:

http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/extra/ramsey/0313evid1.shtml
Newsweek also reported that it asked Arapahoe County coroner Dr. Michael Doberson to review evidence from Smit that a stun gun was used on JonBenet. Doberson was provided pictures the police never showed him, according to the magazine. Doberson was quoted as calling the stun gun theory compelling.

[nuisanceposter]

You still can't tell from a photo if a stun gun was used. What brand of stun gun is it? They don't know. The closest they can come is an AirTaser, but that isn't certain.

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=3135

Also from Death of Innocence (p. 195)

(07-12-1997) "Smit had narrowed down the potential weapon to an Air Taser stun gun, which could have left the exact marks photographed on JonBenet."


FACT:

From Smit’s Appearance on Larry King Live – 5-28-01

05-28-2001 Smit on LKL: "I am not positive that it is an Air Taser stun gun."

05-28-2001 Smit on LKL: "Meaning that the Air Taser stun gun is as close as we've been able to find to the marks on JonBenet.


Experts who do not agree it was a Stun Gun:

Dr. Werner Spitz. Nationally known pathologist who has worked on other famous cases including the assassination of JFK.

From the 48 Hours Oct. 2002 interview:

Erin Moriarty (voice over) “Instead, Spitz believes the large dark mark on JonBenet’s face was left by a snap on a piece of clothing.

Dr. Spitz: “You know like the snaps they have on blue jeans for instance. If you look at this one below the ear, this thing here. if you look at it closely with a magnifying glass you will see within this brownish mark is a boat shaped structure which is missing with any of the other injuries.”

Dr. Cyril Wecht:

"The stun gun theory has been around for some time. I know for a fact that this was submitted to various experts in stun guns and manufacturers, criminalists, forensic pathologists, law enforcement people, they all rejected it."

"I also know for a fact that Mr. Smit, pursuant to his own request, presented this to one of the top-flight forensic scientists, who along with another top-flight forensic scientist of a different subspecialty, rejected it."

(Court TV - The Crier Report - 05/01/01)



Air Taser, the maker of the stun gun Smit is convinced was used in the JonBenet Ramsey case, says Smit’s theory is wrong.

From Boulder’s The Daily Camera, May 2, 2001 (Christopher Anderson)

“Air Taser representative Stephen Tuttle said he was contacted by an investigator early on in the case and provided Smit with the same model to conduct his experiments.

"I am bewildered. I don't know what to think about the theory," Tuttle said. "It defies the logic of what the weapon does."
Tuttle conceded that two marks are close to the width of the contacts of an Air Taser, but said that's where the similarities end.

"We have never seen those types of marks when you touch somebody with a stun gun," he said. "We are talking hundreds of people that have been touched with these devices. I can't replicate those marks."

Tuttle said it is uncommon for the stun gun to leave only two marks on the skin. The body moves away from the stun gun, causing multiple, erratic marks.

"How you can keep this thing perfectly still, not once, but twice on a squirming child? It doesn't make any sense," he said. "I hope that doesn't throw water on somebody's investigation."
He also said the Air Taser does not render people unconscious.
Nebraska Dr. Robert Stratbucker, who has conducted several experiments on stun guns and is considered a courtroom expert, said he takes "considerable issue" with Smit's stun gun theory.
Stratbucker said it is "pure nonsense" that the stun gun would leave a blue mark in between red marks on the skin as Smit claimed.

"I have not seen ever, ever any blue marks, and I don't know what the cause of any blue mark could be," he said.

During a May 2, 2003, phone conversation between Steve Tuttle, spokesperson for Air Taiser, and a representative of Forums for Justice.com, Mr. Tuttle stated the following.

“We are still as perplexed to this day as to why any investigator would think a stun gun, a Taser stun gun, was used in the JonBenet Ramsey case.

Several things would make a Taser gun extremely difficult to use as in the scenario presented by the investigator:

*Our company has never encountered those kinds of marks on humans. Humans instinctually respond to pain and move during stun applications.

*A stun gun is very LOUD.

*The technology at the time of the crime would only allow the user to keep a person at bay with the stun power of seven watts, not incapacitate him or stun him into unconsciousness. The person would still be able to scream, squirm, kick and yell.

*If a stun gun were used, in order to leave the type of marks made by the electrodes on a person, there would also have to be significant indentations in the skin, caused by the front of the stun gun. The electrodes do not protrude that much. To get marginal effect from the seven watt device, the user would have to aggressively drive in the stun gun on a pressure point , which would leave large indentations that would show up on a deceased person. They would be very noticeable. Once again this wouldn't stun the person into unconsciousness nor would it immobilize them. It would, however, cause a great deal of pain - so much so the person would be screaming.

*Taser contacted the police when they first heard their stun gun was being used to support a theory that a child was immobilized with the stun gun, leaving the marks that can be seen in the autopsy photos. Taser expressed, emphatically, that the theory of the stun gun is perplexing, as it doesn't make sense.”

[Sprocket]

Even with all these expert opinions that the marks found on JonBenet are not what a stun gun would leave on her body....still we have individuals think it's possible because a single pathologist (who did not view the body) says you need to dig up the body to be sure.

No, you don't have to dig up the body. The AUTOPSY clearly states that the marks found were ABRASIONS not burns.

I don't know how clearer we can get.

[Coloradokares]

Coloradokares,
I think Sweet is referring to Tom Wickman, the subject of the thread.

Are you snowed in again? Hope you have Pepto-Bismol on hand!! :seeya:

Thanks LindaA Can lightening strike twice They are saying on our local stations that this is unprecedented 2 storms of this magnitude in less than a week. DIA is all snarled up again. Stores can't get stocked properly. And sore backs abound from shoveling. Ayekarumba!! I like snow but this is
ridiculous!!

[Coloradokares]

I wish sickness on no one. Hope you're feeling better.

Sorry that was an misquided attempt at humor. As in you'd love to give me a headache Hope that is better understood now. However this snow out here is getting ridiculous. Two major storm fronts dumping all this snow on us is according to Kathy Sabine one of our local meterologists unprecedented in the history since they starting keeping records out here of record storms and snowfalls. :seeya:

[Louisadelmar]

Even with all these expert opinions that the marks found on JonBenet are not what a stun gun would leave on her body....still we have individuals think it's possible because a single pathologist (who did not view the body) says you need to dig up the body to be sure.

No, you don't have to dig up the body. The AUTOPSY clearly states that the marks found were ABRASIONS not burns..
I don't know how clearer we can get


This has been gone over time and again. Stun gun marks have, in other cases, been described as abrasions.

http://www.ipicd.com/docs/P&SN--SuddenDeathPartII--revised%20050206.pdf

[...]
Scientific Fact: When used in a drive stun (or touch stun)mode (without the barbs), handheld stun devices, such as theNOVA XR-5000, NOVA Spirit, ULTRON II, and TASER-branddevices, usually do cause friction abrasions, or low-grade burns.These are usually harmless, unless the individual picks at anyscab which may form which can cause an infection. Friction abra-sions will not cause a sudden death[...]

[Louisadelmar]

You still can't tell from a photo if a stun gun was used. What brand of stun gun is it? They don't know. The closest they can come is an AirTaser, but that isn't certain.

[...]

So what would Stratbucker and Doberson have to testify about at this trial?

http://marriagepartner.com/talk/messages/6/9529.html?1117220682
[…]
Assistant Suffolk District Attorney Janet Albertson sought to delay the start of jury selection to give her time to respond to a defense motion to keep out testimony from two stun gun experts. Because it would have delayed the start of the trial, the defense withdrew its request for a hearing on the scientific reliability of testimony expected to be offered by Dr. Michael Dobersen of Colorado and Dr. Robert Stratbucker of Nebraska.

The basis for the withdrawn motion was that no New York court has qualified a witness as an expert in stun guns, a nonlethal, hand-held device that immobilizes a person for as long as 30 minutes. Lawyers for Pelosi said they would deal with the issue when it comes time to cross-examine Dobersen and Stratbucker, who have offered sometimes conflicting opinions about whether a stun gun was used by the killer of 6-year-old JonBenet Ramsey in Colorado in 1996.

"I think it is a very good motion. The only reason I'm withdrawing it is because there is no bail," Pelosi told the court.

Schargel told reporters to expect vigorous cross-examinations of the "so-called stun gun experts," who were shown photos of Ammon's wounds but did not have access to the body, which was cremated.

[…]
and this


Source: http://www.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/
ny-lipelo1125,0,2828577.story?coll=ny-topstories-headlines



Riverhead
Prosecution rests in Pelosi case

BY ROBIN TOPPING
STAFF WRITER

November 24, 2004, 9:33 PM EST

Theodore Ammon was repeatedly zapped with a stun gun and the killer may have held him from behind in a choke hold while applying the gun directly to his neck, a Colorado coroner suggested in testimony Wednesday.

That testimony from Michael J. Dobersen, the medical examiner for Arapahoe County, provides foundation for the prosecution's theory that Daniel Pelosi used a stun gun before killing Ammon in October 2001 in the master bedroom of the millionaire's East Hampton home.

Dobersen said the stun gun's use and the choke hold scenario was supported by a line of small red marks on Ammon's left lower back, a larger Y-shaped wound on the right side of Ammon's neck and severe fractures to Ammon's larynx.

Pelosi bought a stun gun in March 2001 and turned one over this year to police. Assistant District Attorney Janet Albertson, who finished presenting her case Wednesday six weeks after testimony began, said Pelosi used such a weapon to incapacitate the larger Ammon before beating him to death.

Dobersen's testimony backed up prosecution witness Robert Stratbucker, who testified Tuesday. Both men have presented themselves as experts on the effects of stun guns. But Pelosi's defense attorney, Gerald Shargel of Manhattan, sharply attacked Stratbucker's credibility, especially in light of Stratbucker's position as medical director of a company that manufactures stun guns.

Dobersen, a forensic pathologist who has performed stun-gun experiments on animals with Stratbucker, said he has worked on a half-dozen cases involving the weapons. He said the gun leaves characteristic red points from the gun's twin electrodes and bigger wounds from random arcs of electricity when applied intensely to larger areas.

Although Stratbucker testified that the Y-shaped wound on Ammon's neck was from the stun gun being held there for several minutes, Dobersen said it was caused by the stun gun moving over the area just above the skin.

In his cross-examination, Shargel tried to imply that Dobersen was influenced by Stratbucker's conclusions and by prosecutors saying a stun gun was suspected in the case.

But Dobersen, who has testified in hundreds of murder cases and remained unruffled on the stand, insisted that no matter what anyone told him, "Stun gun would be number one on my list of possibilities."

Still, he acknowledged that he had differed with Stratbucker on whether a stun gun was used in the case of JonBenet Ramsey, a 6-year-old girl whose 1996 murder in Boulder, Colo., remains unsolved. In that case, Stratbucker said a stun gun was not used, but Dobersen said, "I felt very strongly that these were stun gun wounds."

Like Stratbucker, Dobersen came to his conclusions on the Pelosi case after reviewing photos of the body and crime scene. He was the last witness before the prosecution rested, with the defense case to begin Wednesday before State Supreme Court Justice Robert W. Doyle in Riverhead.

[…]

[shill]

I've only seen stun guns used on television in the show "Cops", and on grown adults.
It doesn't seem to knock them out, just paralyzes their muscles as they scream out in pain.
IMO it would be of little use in a crime like this and it's existence is not needed to support an intruder theory.

The excitement of Christmas morning opening presents, and visiting people all day until after 9pm is a potent sedative to a six year old. You should be able to fire off a canon in their bedroom and not wake them.

[shill]

Thanks LindaA Can lightening strike twice They are saying on our local stations that this is unprecedented 2 storms of this magnitude in less than a week. DIA is all snarled up again. Stores can't get stocked properly. And sore backs abound from shoveling. Ayekarumba!! I like snow but this is
ridiculous!!

It's the Ghost of JonBenet.

[LindaA]

It's the Ghost of JonBenet.

Ouch! :no:

[GrrlPwer]

I'm not a scientist or anything but i always thought the marks looked like they come from a stun gun:shrug:

[LindaA]

I'm no scientist, either, but I'd like to know how a snap could cause a round abrasion. And the marks on JBR's body look round to me. A round mark would, IMO, be caused by someone lying on a round object and it's pressing into the skin. This would cause a bruise, but there would be no friction. I doubt a snap would cause friction even if it were rubbed across the skin. In that case, the mark would be elongated, not round, any way. Likewise with the potholder loom. That might cause a bruise if someone lay on it, but how would it cause an abrasion? And how could they get in those areas of her body? IMO, there is no logical explanation for the marks other than a stun gun and I"m not 100% convinced of that either. JMO.

[Louisadelmar]

I'm no scientist, either, but I'd like to know how a snap could cause a round abrasion. And the marks on JBR's body look round to me. A round mark would, IMO, be caused by someone lying on a round object and it's pressing into the skin. This would cause a bruise, but there would be no friction. I doubt a snap would cause friction even if it were rubbed across the skin. In that case, the mark would be elongated, not round, any way. Likewise with the potholder loom. That might cause a bruise if someone lay on it, but how would it cause an abrasion? And how could they get in those areas of her body? IMO, there is no logical explanation for the marks other than a stun gun and I"m not 100% convinced of that either. JMO.

I agree. Also if she were laying on the "snaps" after she died the pressure would cause a white mark not a red one.

[Coloradokares]

It's the Ghost of JonBenet.

Nothing at all like the Christmas 10 years ago. That was a crisp light dusting this is measured in feet not inches. Unprecedented in recorded history for two back to back storm cells of this magnitude to hit within less than a week.
We personally had 38 inches down on the most level area of our lawn. Not much had melted down. Now we are getting even more. We are beginning to loose our sense of humor!! :seeya:

[LadyFisher]

Nothing at all like the Christmas 10 years ago. That was a crisp light dusting this is measured in feet not inches. Unprecedented in recorded history for two back to back storm cells of this magnitude to hit within less than a week.
We personally had 38 inches down on the most level area of our lawn. Not much had melted down. Now we are getting even more. We are beginning to loose our sense of humor!! :seeya:

I have a cousin living out in your neck of the woods, we will be praying for all of you! Stay safe CO! Keep your spirits up, this too will pass! Have a very Happy New Year everyone!

[Athena]

I agree. Also if she were laying on the "snaps" after she died the pressure would cause a white mark not a red one.

I would also think a hard object such as a snap would leave an indentation on the skin not just a superficial abrasion.

[Coloradokares]

I have a cousin living out in your neck of the woods, we will be praying for all of you! Stay safe CO! Keep your spirits up, this too will pass! Have a very Happy New Year everyone!

Thanks we are staying in and staying safe as much as possible. Happy New Years Lady Fisher and everyone. CK

[Athena]

Evidently the the man in charge of the evidence (on the JonBenet case) Tom Wickman concluded differently, as did the rest of the BPD, who had direct access to the coroner who performed the autopsy.

Find an independent source other than Lou Smit (e.g. Dr. Henry Lee, BPD detective, numerous other individuals who reviewed the autopsy) that agrees the stun gun theory is a possibility. I don't believe you will be able to find one outside of the Ramsey support camp.

When they had gathered sufficient information, Ainsworth, Pete Hofstrom, Trip DeMuth, and Detective Sgt. Wickman met with the coroner, John Meyer. 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.

Ainsworth met with Dr. Robert Deters a pathologist on the case of a 13 month old girl from Larimer County who had been murdered in 1988. Deters examined the photos of JBR and agreed that the marks were consistent with a stun gun injury but he did not think the body had to be exhumed. Deters believed that nothing more could be learned by examing the skin tissue.

Source PMPT November 1999 (written after the grand jury disbanded)

[nuisanceposter]

When they had gathered sufficient information, Ainsworth, Pete Hofstrom, Trip DeMuth, and Detective Sgt. Wickman met with the coroner, John Meyer. 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.

Ainsworth met with Dr. Robert Deters a pathologist on the case of a 13 month old girl from Larimer County who had been murdered in 1988. Deters examined the photos of JBR and agreed that the marks were consistent with a stun gun injury but he did not think the body had to be exhumed. Deters believed that nothing more could be learned by examing the skin tissue.

Source PMPT November 1999 (written after the grand jury disbanded)

Right, the GJ that I'm hearing didn't even vote...

Meyer's exact words were "consistent with"? I don't remember that at all. Could you please tell me what page numbers of PMPT this was on?

[Athena]

Right, the GJ that I'm hearing didn't even vote...

Meyer's exact words were "consistent with"? I don't remember that at all. Could you please tell me what page numbers of PMPT this was on?

Hi NP, Happy New Year!!!

I copied the above statement "verbatim" from p431.

[Tober]

To me, that's enough that the police were able to determine there was no stun gun. I don't need to know how it was done. My "guess" would be probably an informal discussion/interview with the Dr. who performed the autopsy.
That's most likely how it was determined.
http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/famous/ramsey/theory_8b.html

[Athena]

That's most likely how it was determined.
http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/famous/ramsey/theory_8b.html

Yes Wickman did meet with Meyer but he is only echoing the opinion of the BPD NOT Meyer:

When they had gathered sufficient information, Ainsworth, Pete Hofstrom, Trip DeMuth, and Detective Sgt. Wickman met with the coroner, John Meyer. 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.

Ainsworth met with Dr. Robert Deters a pathologist on the case of a 13 month old girl from Larimer County who had been murdered in 1988. Deters examined the photos of JBR and agreed that the marks were consistent with a stun gun injury but he did not think the body had to be exhumed. Deters believed that nothing more could be learned by examing the skin tissue.

Source PMPT November 1999

[Coloradokares]

That's most likely how it was determined.
http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/famous/ramsey/theory_8b.html

Tober I find you very knowledgeable and credible about the facts as I have learned them to be. Are you also from around Boulder? If so its very refreshing.

[rashomon]

You still can't tell from a photo if a stun gun was used. What brand of stun gun is it? They don't know. The closest they can come is an AirTaser, but that isn't certain.

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=3135

Also from Death of Innocence (p. 195)

(07-12-1997) "Smit had narrowed down the potential weapon to an Air Taser stun gun, which could have left the exact marks photographed on JonBenet."


FACT:

From Smit’s Appearance on Larry King Live – 5-28-01

05-28-2001 Smit on LKL: "I am not positive that it is an Air Taser stun gun."

05-28-2001 Smit on LKL: "Meaning that the Air Taser stun gun is as close as we've been able to find to the marks on JonBenet.


Experts who do not agree it was a Stun Gun:

Dr. Werner Spitz. Nationally known pathologist who has worked on other famous cases including the assassination of JFK.

From the 48 Hours Oct. 2002 interview:

Erin Moriarty (voice over) “Instead, Spitz believes the large dark mark on JonBenet’s face was left by a snap on a piece of clothing.

Dr. Spitz: “You know like the snaps they have on blue jeans for instance. If you look at this one below the ear, this thing here. if you look at it closely with a magnifying glass you will see within this brownish mark is a boat shaped structure which is missing with any of the other injuries.”

Dr. Cyril Wecht:

"The stun gun theory has been around for some time. I know for a fact that this was submitted to various experts in stun guns and manufacturers, criminalists, forensic pathologists, law enforcement people, they all rejected it."

"I also know for a fact that Mr. Smit, pursuant to his own request, presented this to one of the top-flight forensic scientists, who along with another top-flight forensic scientist of a different subspecialty, rejected it."

(Court TV - The Crier Report - 05/01/01)



Air Taser, the maker of the stun gun Smit is convinced was used in the JonBenet Ramsey case, says Smit’s theory is wrong.

From Boulder’s The Daily Camera, May 2, 2001 (Christopher Anderson)

“Air Taser representative Stephen Tuttle said he was contacted by an investigator early on in the case and provided Smit with the same model to conduct his experiments.

"I am bewildered. I don't know what to think about the theory," Tuttle said. "It defies the logic of what the weapon does."
Tuttle conceded that two marks are close to the width of the contacts of an Air Taser, but said that's where the similarities end.

"We have never seen those types of marks when you touch somebody with a stun gun," he said. "We are talking hundreds of people that have been touched with these devices. I can't replicate those marks."

Tuttle said it is uncommon for the stun gun to leave only two marks on the skin. The body moves away from the stun gun, causing multiple, erratic marks.

"How you can keep this thing perfectly still, not once, but twice on a squirming child? It doesn't make any sense," he said. "I hope that doesn't throw water on somebody's investigation."
He also said the Air Taser does not render people unconscious.
Nebraska Dr. Robert Stratbucker, who has conducted several experiments on stun guns and is considered a courtroom expert, said he takes "considerable issue" with Smit's stun gun theory.
Stratbucker said it is "pure nonsense" that the stun gun would leave a blue mark in between red marks on the skin as Smit claimed.

"I have not seen ever, ever any blue marks, and I don't know what the cause of any blue mark could be," he said.

During a May 2, 2003, phone conversation between Steve Tuttle, spokesperson for Air Taiser, and a representative of Forums for Justice.com, Mr. Tuttle stated the following.

“We are still as perplexed to this day as to why any investigator would think a stun gun, a Taser stun gun, was used in the JonBenet Ramsey case.

Several things would make a Taser gun extremely difficult to use as in the scenario presented by the investigator:

*Our company has never encountered those kinds of marks on humans. Humans instinctually respond to pain and move during stun applications.

*A stun gun is very LOUD.

*The technology at the time of the crime would only allow the user to keep a person at bay with the stun power of seven watts, not incapacitate him or stun him into unconsciousness. The person would still be able to scream, squirm, kick and yell.

*If a stun gun were used, in order to leave the type of marks made by the electrodes on a person, there would also have to be significant indentations in the skin, caused by the front of the stun gun. The electrodes do not protrude that much. To get marginal effect from the seven watt device, the user would have to aggressively drive in the stun gun on a pressure point , which would leave large indentations that would show up on a deceased person. They would be very noticeable. Once again this wouldn't stun the person into unconsciousness nor would it immobilize them. It would, however, cause a great deal of pain - so much so the person would be screaming.

*Taser contacted the police when they first heard their stun gun was being used to support a theory that a child was immobilized with the stun gun, leaving the marks that can be seen in the autopsy photos. Taser expressed, emphatically, that the theory of the stun gun is perplexing, as it doesn't make sense.”
NP - very informative post as, which I'm going to copy into my permanent notes.
Thanks for continually providing so much valuable info on the JBR case!

[Athena]

Sure Steve Tuttle would really admit that a stun gun could have been used:

In July 1996, a 29-year-old woman, Kimberly Lashon Watkins, died after being shot by police with a taser gun in Pomona, California. The Los Angeles County Sheriff's department said that she had been driving under the influence of drugs and had crashed into a wall and a parked car, before resisting arrest. The Sheriff's Deputy is reported to have described the taser gun as "a kind of debilitating thing where the shock is supposed to catch you off guard... Something from the charge did not agree with her system." After being shot with the taser gun, Kimberly was taken to hospital where her heart stopped. An autopsy was pending.
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGACT400011997?open&of=ENG-CYP

WHAT ARE THE AFTEREFFECTS?
A person hit with an AIR TASER will feel dazed for several minutes. The pulsating electrical output causes involuntary muscle contractions and a resulting sense of vertigo. It can momentarily stun or render an attacker unconscious. Yet, the AIR TASER’s low electrical amperage and short duration of pulsating current, ensures a non-lethal charge. Moreover, it does not cause permanent damage or long-term aftereffects to muscles, nerves or other body functions. A January 1987 Annals of Emergency Medicine study reported TASER technology leaves no long term injuries compared with 50% long term injuries for gun shot injuries.
http://www.factsfinder.com/products/stunguntaser.htm

January 1995 First AIR TASER production model successfully introduced at Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas.
January 1996 Dr. Stratbucker tested power settings of the AIR TASER and subsequently tested increased power setting of up to four times the power setting of a 7 Watt AIR TASER to establish a power setting safety margin for the AIR TASER and for higher power. These experiments corroborated earlier findings in consulting reports and peer review journals that the electrical emissions from stun type pulse generators, delivered to the body surface do not cause serious cardiac rhythm abnormalities in the otherwise healthy heart including electrical outputs equivalent to 400% the capacitance and 300% the battery voltage of the AIR TASER.
http://www.taser.com/pages/pr/corpbackground.html

[rashomon]

Sure Steve Tuttle would really admit that a stun gun could have been used:

In July 1996, a 29-year-old woman, Kimberly Lashon Watkins, died after being shot by police with a taser gun in Pomona, California. The Los Angeles County Sheriff's department said that she had been driving under the influence of drugs and had crashed into a wall and a parked car, before resisting arrest. The Sheriff's Deputy is reported to have described the taser gun as "a kind of debilitating thing where the shock is supposed to catch you off guard... Something from the charge did not agree with her system." After being shot with the taser gun, Kimberly was taken to hospital where her heart stopped. An autopsy was pending.
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGACT400011997?open&of=ENG-CYP

WHAT ARE THE AFTEREFFECTS?
A person hit with an AIR TASER will feel dazed for several minutes. The pulsating electrical output causes involuntary muscle contractions and a resulting sense of vertigo. It can momentarily stun or render an attacker unconscious. Yet, the AIR TASER’s low electrical amperage and short duration of pulsating current, ensures a non-lethal charge. Moreover, it does not cause permanent damage or long-term aftereffects to muscles, nerves or other body functions. A January 1987 Annals of Emergency Medicine study reported TASER technology leaves no long term injuries compared with 50% long term injuries for gun shot injuries.
http://www.factsfinder.com/products/stunguntaser.htm

January 1995 First AIR TASER production model successfully introduced at Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas.
January 1996 Dr. Stratbucker tested power settings of the AIR TASER and subsequently tested increased power setting of up to four times the power setting of a 7 Watt AIR TASER to establish a power setting safety margin for the AIR TASER and for higher power. These experiments corroborated earlier findings in consulting reports and peer review journals that the electrical emissions from stun type pulse generators, delivered to the body surface do not cause serious cardiac rhythm abnormalities in the otherwise healthy heart including electrical outputs equivalent to 400% the capacitance and 300% the battery voltage of the AIR TASER.
http://www.taser.com/pages/pr/corpbackground.html

What does the Kimbely Lashon Watkins case have to do with the Ramsey case? There are no similarities whatsoever, since Watkins obviously was drugged when hit with the stun gun.
In terms of Tuttle's stun gun info re the Ramsey case:
From Boulder’s The Daily Camera, May 2, 2001 (Christopher Anderson)

“Air Taser representative Stephen Tuttle said he was contacted by an investigator early on in the case and provided Smit with the same model to conduct his experiments.

"I am bewildered. I don't know what to think about the theory," Tuttle said. "It defies the logic of what the weapon does."
Tuttle conceded that two marks are close to the width of the contacts of an Air Taser, but said that's where the similarities end.

"We have never seen those types of marks when you touch somebody with a stun gun," he said. "We are talking hundreds of people that have been touched with these devices. I can't replicate those marks."

Tuttle said it is uncommon for the stun gun to leave only two marks on the skin. The body moves away from the stun gun, causing multiple, erratic marks.

"How you can keep this thing perfectly still, not once, but twice on a squirming child? It doesn't make any sense," he said. "I hope that doesn't throw water on somebody's investigation."
He also said the Air Taser does not render people unconscious.

For further info, see NP's # 17 post on this thread.

[Athena]

Kimberly's death had nothing to do with JBR or the point I was making re: the stun gun. Those are articles I had saved because of discussions at CTV so I apologize for not editing prior to posting.

Re: the number of marks left by a stun gun I have read many articles where each attack leaves only two marks so I don't know why Steve Tuttle would deny that. Here are some examples and if you do a search many articles depicting two marks caused by stun gun come up:

“At autopsy two reddish, dot-like lesions where found on the chest and histological examination revealed electric current-related changes

http://tinyurl.com/thkf3


"Their policy is stun first, ask questions later," says Hentoff. He claims to have seen "dozens of pictures" of jail inmates with stun burns. "You'll see two little marks close together like vampire bites on their bodies," says Hentoff. "Those are the stun-gun marks."

http://tinyurl.com/y3rb73

The report says Page was shot once, but she said it was twice and showed two marks on her arm and side.

http://www.policeone.com/police-products/less-lethal/taser/articles/91449/

Once the shock and pain subside, the victim has just two small marks.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2955019.stm


http://www.geocities.com/lovelypigeon/stungun_pigskin_backmarks.html

[nuisanceposter]

Kimberly's death had nothing to do with JBR or the point I was making re: the stun gun. Those are articles I had saved because of discussions at CTV so I apologize for not editing prior to posting.

Re: the number of marks left by a stun gun I have read many articles where each attack leaves only two marks so I don't know why Steve Tuttle would deny that. Here are some examples and if you do a search many articles depicting two marks caused by stun gun come up:

“At autopsy two reddish, dot-like lesions where found on the chest and histological examination revealed electric current-related changes

http://tinyurl.com/thkf3


"Their policy is stun first, ask questions later," says Hentoff. He claims to have seen "dozens of pictures" of jail inmates with stun burns. "You'll see two little marks close together like vampire bites on their bodies," says Hentoff. "Those are the stun-gun marks."

http://tinyurl.com/y3rb73

The report says Page was shot once, but she said it was twice and showed two marks on her arm and side.

http://www.policeone.com/police-products/less-lethal/taser/articles/91449/

Once the shock and pain subside, the victim has just two small marks.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2955019.stm


http://www.geocities.com/lovelypigeon/stungun_pigskin_backmarks.html



Well...in the first link, the marks caused by the stun gun left evidence of current being used. That was not proven on JonBenet. I have to assume that when Meyer conducted the autopsy, if he had thought the abrasions looked like burns more so than abrasions, he'd have said so.

The second link speaks of burn marks caused by the electrical current. It also says that the people being stun gunned aren't falling into unconsciousness immediately upon being stun gunned, and many are screaming and resisting, requiring more applications of the stun gun - in one case, a man was killed after being stun gunned 21 times. There are only two sets of marks on JonBenet, and I have to believe that she would have screamed when stun gunned, especially when hearing from another poster on another board who owns a stun gun and has used it on himself that there is NO WAY to avoid screaming in pain.

In the third link, "The reports also show seven out of 10 of the suspects were sober, just over half had been committing crimes and 70% were injured in some way by the Taser, though none seriously in those first 12 weeks of use. One suspect was seriously injured in early July when he fell and hit his head on the street after being shot by the Taser, but he recovered, Kuspa said." Based on this, I am further convinced that a stun gun, which is loud itself, would have caused JonBenet to scream in pain.

The last link is primarily about a different sort of stun gun. From the article: "A laser helps target victims up to 21 feet (6.4 metres) away.

When the darts strike, a five-second 50,000-volt charge that will penetrate clothing up to two inches (five centimetres) thick is released down the cable, causing the suspect's muscles to contract uncontrollably.

That causes temporary paralysis.

Once the shock and pain subside, the victim has just two small marks."

I don't believe the abrasions on JonBenet indicated that two prongs had embedded themselves in her skin, and she certainly would have been able to scream herself hoarse and fight off an attacker who zapped her. There is no evidence on JonBenet whatsoever that she struggled with her killer AT ALL.

We have to consider the technology of stun guns of 1996, and these are recent articles. The stun guns of a decade ago would not have been as quiet to operate and as accessible as stun guns of today, and I suspect they may not have been as gentle on the skin.

Add to that Lou Smit's inablilty to determine exactly which brand and model of stun gun could have been used, and his incorrect statements that JonBenet struggled with her killer and had blood under her nails (which we know she didn't), and you can see how Smit's stun gun theory can easily be questioned to the point of being nothing more than idle speculation. He has zero credibility with me after hearing him **** out incorrect information about the murder - he can't account for the pineapple, other than it was brought by the intruder - yet when Meyer checked, the pineapple in JB's system was poorly chewed and in good enough condition to be found to be consistent down to the rind with what was in the bowl on the table. He said an intruder came in through that window but the spider web says no one did. Not to mention backing up Tracey blaming people who didn't kill JB - Karr, Gigax, etc.

How many times does Smit have to be wrong before he's dismissed? Once, for me, but the IDI need him to be right so bad they overlook what he's gotten wrong.

There are other possibilities for the marks on JonBenet, and until those are proven to be incorrect, they are just as valid as the stun gun theory.

[LindaA]

Nuisance, please describe what you believe to be the source of the so-called stun-gun marks on JB's body.

Your characterizaion of the IDIs as being so desparate that they "need" Smit to be right is just silly. Nobody needs for the Rs to be innocent. Some of us just don't think there is concrete proof they are guilty. Show me the proof and I'll believe. Until then, I'll continue to doubt their guilt. I'd rather err on the side of not accusing a guilty party than wrongly accusing somseone of murder.

Some questions: If JB had been hit with a stun gun while asleep, would she have screamed out or would she have been uinconscious before she could react. Would that not then explain why she didn not fight with her attacker?

Second, can we assume that a small child would be affected in the same way as an adult by a stun gun?

I have watched many videos of grown men taking hits with stun guns, and they do not always scream in pain. (Least you wonder about my viewing habits, let me tell you that correctional officers are required to take a hit with a stun gun and these training sessions are taped. I work in a prison and have been required to attend training sessions where these have been shown.)

[nuisanceposter]

I have no idea what caused those marks, but I am far from convinced it was a stun gun, especially when Smit can't find a brand and model to match the marks and has gotten crucial information in this case wrong before. It's like the blue line he said came from the stun gun - stun guns don't leave blue lines on the people they stun. The blue line is electricity between contacts - how is that going to leave a blue line on the person zapped?

Obviously you do need him to be right, or you wouldn't trot out his implausible theory on a daily basis and cite him as a valid source of information.

The proof, for me, consists of a distinct lack of forensic evidence of anyone other than a Ramsey having been in the house that night, the multitude of contradicting stories the Rs have told (they'd have no reason to lie and hinder investigation with contradicting stories if they weren't involved), and the fact that I believe Levin was telling the truth about the fiber evidence linking Patsy to the crime scene and body.

You've said yourself that if that was proven to be true, you might change your stance - well, personally, I believe it is true, and Levin wouldn't have said it unless it was true, and he knew it was true because he had been to the CBI lab in person. Dropping the line of questioning when asked about it so as not to give out information he isn't required to does not prove he was lying about the fiber evidence existing in the first place. There is nothing about that interview that suggests Levin was being deceitful with the Rs to force a confession, or that he was trying to force a confession at all.

I'm not sure JonBenet would have been knocked unconscious by a stun gun had one been used on her, but it's true that there may be a difference between how it affects a child versus an adult. I do believe JonBenet was completely unconscious when strangled to death, but considering I've supplied two different sources with experts stating that the head wound was fully developed, I believe she was unconscious from the head wound and not a stun gun.

I think a circa mid-90s stun gun would have been loud enough to have been heard by others in the house, even if she didn't scream. I suppose it's possible that she was zapped and didn't scream, but you have to look at all the other pieces of the puzzle - the staging, for one. The wrist restraints that never would have restrained a live child. The tape that had bloody mucous on it, indicating it was applied to her face after she was dead. The holes in the stories of the Rs, and their convenient amnesia and unwillingness to assist in the investigation - JR admitted they hired PIs to keep them out of jail, not find the killer, and he also said they didn't read the reports from their investigators - go check out Ellis Armistead and why he quit the case...it was because he no longer believed his employers the Rs were as innocent as they tried to claim. The lack of forensic evidence of an intruder and the inclusion of fiber evidence placing Patsy in the crime scene. The RN that Patsy was never excluded from being author of.

There's too much that indicates the Rs were involved and not enough that indicates anyone else was, imo.

[LindaA]

originally posted by Nuisanceposter:
snip> Obviously you do need him to be right, or you wouldn't trot out his implausible theory on a daily basis and cite him as a valid source of information.<snip

Excuse me, when have I ever trotted Lou Smit out even once? You are obviously just as confused about who has posted what as you are about other facts in this case. And no, I don't need him to be right, I don't need the Ramsey's to be innocent. I don't need anything in this case -- not even for people to agree with me.

Until someone with some knowledge of same can tell me with some certainty a plausible theory as to what could have caused those marks, I will have to consider the theory of a stun gun to be possible. After all, as you said, any theory has to take into account all evidence in this case. Those marks on JBR are evidence and have to be accounted for.

You can stubbornly cling to the belief that Levin would never lie about the fibers, but it had been explained numerous times why he could have done so without fear of consequences. I don't doubt the red fibers were from Patsy's clothes. After all, she put her to bed. Moreover, there is no other reference to the dark fibers matching JR's shirt. The interview did not have to be confrontational in order for the interviewer to lie. As a matter of fact, that's a classic tactic. Ever hear of the "good cop, bad cop" routine? There is more reason to believe he was fishing than not. So no, I haven't seen the proof. If those fibers exist, JR would be sitting in a Colorado prison.

You can believe there was no one else in that house only if you ignore many facts about the case. Sure some of the fibers found there had nothing to do with the case. No one believes fibers were shed there only during the commission of the crime and not before or after. But there are fibers there, including some on JB's hands that might well have come from the murderer.

I don't buy the head wound was fully developed theory, either. There are just as many experts who say otherwise.

Actually, my only firm belief about this case is that there is evidence we have no knowledge of and that explains why Colorado LE is still looking for a perpetrator and we are discussing it 10 years later. I don't have all the facts, and you don't have all the facts. For you to stubbornly assert that you are right and the IDIs are all wrong and desparate enough to cling to any straw to establish the Ramseys' innocence is foolish. You are ignoring facts in the case as much as any IDI.

[Zoey]

:beer: originally posted by Nuisanceposter:
snip> Obviously you do need him to be right, or you wouldn't trot out his implausible theory on a daily basis and cite him as a valid source of information.<snip

Excuse me, when have I ever trotted Lou Smit out even once? You are obviously just as confused about who has posted what as you are about other facts in this case. And no, I don't need him to be right, I don't need the Ramsey's to be innocent. I don't need anything in this case -- not even for people to agree with me.

Until someone with some knowledge of same can tell me with some certainty a plausible theory as to what could have caused those marks, I will have to consider the theory of a stun gun to be possible. After all, as you said, any theory has to take into account all evidence in this case. Those marks on JBR are evidence and have to be accounted for.

You can stubbornly cling to the belief that Levin would never lie about the fibers, but it had been explained numerous times why he could have done so without fear of consequences. I don't doubt the red fibers were from Patsy's clothes. After all, she put her to bed. Moreover, there is no other reference to the dark fibers matching JR's shirt. The interview did not have to be confrontational in order for the interviewer to lie. As a matter of fact, that's a classic tactic. Ever hear of the "good cop, bad cop" routine? There is more reason to believe he was fishing than not. So no, I haven't seen the proof. If those fibers exist, JR would be sitting in a Colorado prison.

You can believe there was no one else in that house only if you ignore many facts about the case. Sure some of the fibers found there had nothing to do with the case. No one believes fibers were shed there only during the commission of the crime and not before or after. But there are fibers there, including some on JB's hands that might well have come from the murderer.

I don't buy the head wound was fully developed theory, either. There are just as many experts who say otherwise.

Actually, my only firm belief about this case is that there is evidence we have no knowledge of and that explains why Colorado LE is still looking for a perpetrator and we are discussing it 10 years later. I don't have all the facts, and you don't have all the facts. For you to stubbornly assert that you are right and the IDIs are all wrong and desparate enough to cling to any straw to establish the Ramseys' innocence is foolish. You are ignoring facts in the case as much as any IDI.


:beer: