Regarding the abrasions found on JonBenet....

[SnarkyCow]

I don't know enough about the abrasions found on JBR's body to form a conclusive opinion of what I believe made the marks. I've heard before, but not for some time, about the possibility of the abrasions being made by the potholder loom found in JBR's room. Has this been discussed and dismissed, or is it still up for debate?

I've been thinking about those marks and I think there is a more rational explanation of how they got there than the following:

1. The Christmas lights on the banister - not a bad theory at all, but I don't believe those lights would get hot enough to leave marks and the coroner said "abrasions" not "burns."

2. Stun Gun - no one, not even the man who dreamed this theory up, can match the abrasions on JBR to the burns left behind by any stun gun on the market. Sure, they got "close," but as we know, "close" only counts in horseshoes and intruder theories (just kidding ).

3. Patsy's rings - I've seen the pictures of her wearing her rings with the stones turned towards her palm, but I would imagine the stones of a ring would leave an identifiable indentation. (Due to the cut of the stones).

I'm not positive how I feel about the "Potholder Loom" theory, but I am curious to hear your opinions. I realize this has probably been discussed before, but please feel free to discuss it again if you are feeling so inclined.

Thanks,

Snarky

[Athena]

Originally Posted by SnarkyCow

I don't know enough about the abrasions found on JBR's body to form a conclusive opinion of what I believe made the marks. I've heard before, but not for some time, about the possibility of the abrasions being made by the potholder loom found in JBR's room. Has this been discussed and dismissed, or is it still up for debate?

I've been thinking about those marks and I think there is a more rational explanation of how they got there than the following:

1. The Christmas lights on the banister - not a bad theory at all, but I don't believe those lights would get hot enough to leave marks and the coroner said "abrasions" not "burns."

2. Stun Gun - no one, not even the man who dreamed this theory up, can match the abrasions on JBR to the burns left behind by any stun gun on the market. Sure, they got "close," but as we know, "close" only counts in horseshoes and intruder theories (just kidding ).

3. Patsy's rings - I've seen the pictures of her wearing her rings with the stones turned towards her palm, but I would imagine the stones of a ring would leave an identifiable indentation. (Due to the cut of the stones).

I'm not positive how I feel about the "Potholder Loom" theory, but I am curious to hear your opinions. I realize this has probably been discussed before, but please feel free to discuss it again if you are feeling so inclined.

Thanks,

Snarky

Personally I believe the items you mention would have caused a "puncture" or indentation on her skin not a superficial abrasion. It was discussed in prior threads at CTV but we don't have access to them anymore. Abrasions and first-degree burns are the same -- superficial injury to the skin. First-degree burns do not cause blisters, etc. They just leave a mark. The term "abrasion" is just a generic term for superficial injury to the top layer of skin especially when the cause is unknown and I don't see a distinction. In addition to that Meyers even admitted that it was possible the marks could have been caused by a stun gun. The stun gun theory IMO has not been proven or disproven. It is inconclusive.

[Tober]

Originally Posted by Athena

Abrasions and first-degree burns are the same -- superficial injury to the skin.

That's a medically inaccurate statement. An abrasion and a first-degree burn are not the same thing. IMO, Tom Wickman's recent statements regarding the stun gun theory settle the issue. A stun gun was not used on JonBenet.

[LindaA]

Originally Posted by Tober

That's a medically inaccurate statement. An abrasion and a first-degree burn are not the same thing. IMO, Tom Wickman's recent statements regarding the stun gun theory settle the issue. A stun gun was not used on JonBenet.

Raising right arm in the air, "I has spoken!" - Mammy Yokum

[sweetcharlotte]

To steal one of louisa's lines - 'snort.'

[Athena]

Originally Posted by Tober

That's a medically inaccurate statement. An abrasion and a first-degree burn are not the same thing. IMO, Tom Wickman's recent statements regarding the stun gun theory settle the issue. A stun gun was not used on JonBenet.

What I find totally unbelievable is that Wickman heard first-hand that Meyer believed the marks could be consistent with a stun gun injury (PMPT: 11/99) so how he can say it was proven they were not it beyond my comprehension. So Wickman echoes the beliefs of the BPD -- and that now makes it fact???? Even Statbucker the stun gun expert of all experts agreed that he may have changed his mind if he was shown Smit's presentation vs the photos that were given to him by NBC and thus his depo was removed from the prosecution's list of experts for Chris Wolf since it did not help them nevermind the fact that he was on Air Taser's payroll. The stun gun theory is inconclusive and has not been proven either way and personally I will agree to disagree with what you believe since you have said nothing to alter my opinion.

Since you make the statement that first-degree burns and abrasions could not be identified the same, please prove to me that it is an inaccurate medical statement and perhaps I will change my mind.

[Louisadelmar]

Originally Posted by Tober

That's a medically inaccurate statement. An abrasion and a first-degree burn are not the same thing. IMO, Tom Wickman's recent statements regarding the stun gun theory settle the issue. A stun gun was not used on JonBenet.

From Police and Security News:

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[...]

[Zoey]

Originally Posted by Louisadelmar

From Police and Security News:

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[...]

I have always said I did not believe the marks on JB's little body were stun gun marks or burns, but after what you just posted, I can see wherein they just might be. I still have some doubt, but this makes sense.

[Athena]

Originally Posted by Zoey

I have always said I did not believe the marks on JB's little body were stun gun marks or burns, but after what you just posted, I can see wherein they just might be. I still have some doubt, but this makes sense.

Zoey I don't necessarily think many people believe they were stun gun marks only that it is possible. The stun gun theory is inconclusive and has not been proven either way thus the reason I argue it. It carries little weight IMO in the commission of the crime and too much emphasis is placed on it. But to argue that it is not possible is just not true.

[Zoey]

For awhile I thought maybe they were cigarette burns. That never seemed to pan out. Then I thought maybe someone had poked at her with that fireplace tool. I just am at a loss as to what those marks could be.

[Tober]

Originally Posted by Louisadelmar

From Police and Security News:

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[...]

The key word there is "or." As I've noted, abrasions and first-degree burns aren't the same thing. Many objects of varying density (soft to hard) can cause abrasions. Only particular objects can cause burns.

[LindaA]

I believe "or low grade burns" is an appositive to abrasions.

[Zoey]

Originally Posted by LindaA

I believe "or low grade burns" is an appositive to abrasions.

I read it the same way you did, as in not meaning two different things, but two similar things, just called different things. Abrasions = low grade burns.

[Zoey]

Originally Posted by Tober

The key word there is "or." As I've noted, abrasions and first-degree burns aren't the same thing. Many objects of varying density (soft to hard) can cause abrasions. Only particular objects can cause burns.

Many things can cause abrasions that look like burns. Ever had a rug "burn"? Ever had road rash? They look like abrasions, that also look like burns. Of course this is just my opinion, from past experience.

[LindaA]

Right, Zoey. I've even heard them referred to as "friction burns."

[Zoey]

Originally Posted by LindaA

Right, Zoey. I've even heard them referred to as "friction burns."

Yes, friction burns. For the life of me I could not think of that! Thank you!

[shill]

Tober is incapable of being wrong. Try not to shatter his delicate ego.

[rashomon]

Originally Posted by shill

Tober is incapable of being wrong. Try not to shatter his delicate ego.

I see Tober as a "just the facts" type of poster, incapable of accepting at face value mere allegations which don't stand up to closer scrutiny.

Keep those posts coming, Tober. This board surely needs them. Kudos to your basic logic and reasoning, supported by facts!

[shill]

Originally Posted by rashomon

I see Tober as a "just the facts" type of poster, incapable of accepting at face value mere allegations which don't stand up to closer scrutiny.

Keep those posts coming, Tober. This board surely needs them. Kudos to your basic logic and reasoning, supported by facts!

So we can call anything we say facts and logical now?

[Zoey]

Originally Posted by rashomon

I see Tober as a "just the facts" type of poster, incapable of accepting at face value mere allegations which don't stand up to closer scrutiny.

Keep those posts coming, Tober. This board surely needs them. Kudos to your basic logic and reasoning, supported by facts!

Sorry Rashoman, but I have to disagree with this. I don't see where Tober is posting "just the facts", as I don't think Tober knows any more of the facts than anyone else on this board does, including myself. Nothing he/she has posted has made me step back and go wow, I didn't know that.

[Athena]

Originally Posted by LindaA

Right, Zoey. I've even heard them referred to as "friction burns."

And friction burns are classified as first-degree burns/abrasions. No getting around it. On an autopsy report the term abrasion is a generic term used for a superficial skin injury period. Tober chooses to ignore that fact but throughout the autopsy the term "abrasion" is used for almost every mark on JBRs body. I also posted a link to an autopsy report where the cause of death of electrical shock and the mark on the man's forearm caused by this burn was categorized as an abrasion. Again it is a generic forensic term for a superficial injury to the skin so I will agree to disagree with Tober's so-called logic. JMO

[watson]

Just a thought on the 'abrsions' or marks on JB that no one seems to have mentioned yet. Only Meyer actually saw and examined the marks, everyone else has just had photo's and that's just the point those photo's weren't taken until about 32 hours AFTER death, and about 20 of those hours (c. 2am Wed till 10 pm Thur.) the body lay without refriderartion. Isn't true that those types of superficial injuries would have changed on a dead body in that time, and they may have looked quite different when they were freshly made on a live person?

[Athena]

Originally Posted by watson

Just a thought on the 'abrsions' or marks on JB that no one seems to have mentioned yet. Only Meyer actually saw and examined the marks, everyone else has just had photo's and that's just the point those photo's weren't taken until about 32 hours AFTER death, and about 20 of those hours (c. 2am Wed till 10 pm Thur.) the body lay without refriderartion. Isn't true that those types of superficial injuries would have changed on a dead body in that time, and they may have looked quite different when they were freshly made on a live person?

Valid point watson. I don't think it was 32 hours after death. Her body was removed at 8PM on the 26th. Wouldn't the pictures have been taken during the examination?

I would like to know your thoughts about the term "abrasions". You seem to be involved with forensics unless I have been "misreading you".

Definition: Abrasion

"In dermatology, an abrasion is superficial damage to the skin, generally not deeper than the epidermis. It is more superficial than an excoriation, although it can give mild bleeding. Mild abrasions do not scar, but deep abrasions may lead to the development of scarring tissue.

Most commonly, abrasion injuries occur when exposed skin comes into moving contact with a rough surface causing trauma to the upper layers of the epidermis.

Such injuries, where caused by abrasive contact with textiles or carpet, are sometimes referred to as 'rug burn' or 'carpet burn'."

[Athena]

Maybe this will help in referring to stun gun injuries as abrasions:

Use of a TASER device in drive (or touch) stun mode can cause marks, friction abrasions, and/or scarring that may be permanent depending on individual susceptibilities or circumstances surrounding TASER device use and exposure.

http://www.rkdefense.com/proddetail.php?prod=44002

A review of the literature yields interesting findings. A 1987 survey by Ordog et al. and reported in the Annals of Emergency Medicine looked at 218 Taser-related injuries. Most were related to the suspect falling after being shocked. These abrasions, contusions and lacerations were treated in the usual fashion with no unusual sequelae.

http://www.ncchc.org/pubs/CC/tasers.html

Upon his arrival in the United States, petitioner was immediately
transferred to Marion Penitentiary. By that time, approximately 24
hours had passed since his apprehension. A physician examined
petitioner and found abrasions on his head, face, scalp, neck, arms,
feet, and penis, as well as blistering on his back. According to the
physician, those injuries could have been caused by a stun gun. Pet.
App. A3.

http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/1990/sg900934.txt


In the 978 times a Phoenix officer has used a Taser, they have never once injured anyone more severely than an abrasion, Force said. He called the weapons "humane" and "the best, most effective tool" police have to capture suspects.

http://www.paloaltoonline.com/weekly....taser28.shtml

Tiny url in case link above does not work:

http://tinyurl.com/yf97os

About 1/3 of US police agencies use tasers.
Injuries caused:
Injuries in 10,485 incidents reporting injury rates:
None: 91%
Minor: 8%
(Puncture wounds from probes, abrasions)
Moderate: 0.3%
(Abrasions, skinned knee, carpet burn, testicle shot, penis shot, cut to mouth, cuts from falling onto glass)
Severe: 0.034%

http://www.gamedev.net/community/for...opic_id=427020

[shill]

Did they ever compare those marks to various cattleprods?

[andU]

Originally Posted by elvislives

Definition: Abrasion

"In dermatology, an abrasion is superficial damage to the skin, generally not deeper than the epidermis. It is more superficial than an excoriation, although it can give mild bleeding. Mild abrasions do not scar, but deep abrasions may lead to the development of scarring tissue.

Most commonly, abrasion injuries occur when exposed skin comes into moving contact with a rough surface causing trauma to the upper layers of the epidermis.

Such injuries, where caused by abrasive contact with textiles or carpet, are sometimes referred to as 'rug burn' or 'carpet burn'."

They can also be caused by a smooth, polished surface, I remember in high school basketball many of the players got 'floor burns'..., especially if the gym floor had just been re-surfaced.