Tom Wickman Speaks

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/122606/122...amsey2_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]

Originally Posted by 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/122606/122...amsey2_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???

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...mer6_cops.html

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

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally Posted by Athena

? 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]

Originally Posted by Sprocket

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]

Originally Posted by Tober

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

Originally Posted by Athena

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]

Originally Posted by Sprocket

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]

Originally Posted by Sprocket

<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]

Originally Posted by sweetcharlotte

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!!

[Louisadelmar]

Originally Posted by Sprocket

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/st...il01.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]

Originally Posted by Coloradokares

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]

Originally Posted by Louisadelmar

http://www.longmontfyi.com/ramsey/st...il01.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/s...ead.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]

Originally Posted by nuisanceposter

http://66.98.176.96/~tricia/forums/s...ead.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/...313evid1.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/foru...ead.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.”

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]

Originally Posted by 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!!

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]

Originally Posted by sweetcharlotte

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.

[Louisadelmar]

Originally Posted by 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

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--Sudd...d%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]

Originally Posted by 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.

[...]

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

http://marriagepartner.com/talk/mess...tml?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]

Originally Posted by Coloradokares

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]

Originally Posted by shill

It's the Ghost of JonBenet.

Ouch!

[GrrlPwer]

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

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by shill

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!!

[LadyFisher]

Originally Posted by Coloradokares

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!!

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]

Originally Posted by Louisadelmar

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]

Originally Posted by LadyFisher

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]

Originally Posted by Sprocket

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]

Originally Posted by Athena

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]

Originally Posted by nuisanceposter

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]

Originally Posted by Sprocket

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/notoriou...theory_8b.html

[Athena]

Originally Posted by Tober

That's most likely how it was determined.
http://www.crimelibrary.com/notoriou...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]

Originally Posted by Tober

That's most likely how it was determined.
http://www.crimelibrary.com/notoriou...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]

Originally Posted by 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/foru...ead.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...pen&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