JonBenet Ramsey case "stun gun" theor...

JonBenet Ramsey case "stun gun" theory debunked

Posted in the JonBenet Ramsey Forum

First Prev
of 7
Next Last
candy

East Lansing, MI

#1 Dec 3, 2012
In this video,

Chief Kolar BLOWS AWAY the Scam's BOGUS "stun gun" theory. The video is an excerpt from his full presentation at the Wilkinson Public Library in Telluride earlier this Fall.

Finally, SEE WITH YOUR OWN EYES that the prongs of an Air Taser DON'T MATCH the marks on JonBenet's back. The Air Taser was the closest in proximity to the type of marks on JonBenet that LOU AND DOBERSEN said ONLY matched a Taser. Dr. Stratbucker told Lou in 1997 THAT THE MARKS DIDN'T MATCH, but stubborn old Lou just went shopping until he found someone who said they did. WELL, SEE FOR YOURSELF. Then, as Chief Kolar said, cops always have a PARTNER in cases, and this is the reason why. Chief Kolar showed those marks to a retired cop, who SOLVED what those marks DO match. TRAIN TRACKS found in Burke's train room, in his bedroom (says Chief Kolar). SEEING IS BELIVING AGAIN, as you can SEE the Boulder Police produced video "one on one" as Chief Kolar described it, MATCHING PERFECTLY THE MARKS AND SPACING ON JONBENET'S BACK.

THIS IS A HUGE FIND, that goes straight to the heart of the Scams intruder theory. And it's OBVIOUS as I posted many times through the years WHY the Scams NEVER publicly released their "stun gun" pig testing results to the scientific community, UNLIKE THE GERRY BOGGS CASE. Because, because, because, the first thing any Medical Examiner or Doctor is going to do is MEASURE those prongs distance on an Air Taser and COMPARE THEM to the marks on JonBenet's body, AND FIND OUT QUICKLY THOSE MARKS DON'T MATCH AND COULD NOT HAVE COME FROM A TASER.

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#2 Dec 3, 2012
I posted this on the other thread but since it has its own deserving thread, I am repasting it here

Hi Candy,

The link won't work. When you go there, it says that the video has been removed by the user, BUT if you put in the search; Kolar's name + JonBenet Ramsey,it will come up and it is at the Wilkinson Library

It was excellent Candy. Thank you so much for bringing it to everyone here

The video and photos are amazing from what I've seen. I look forward to watching it in more detail but the pictures say it all

AMAZING

Since: Sep 11

Alberton, South Africa

#5 Dec 4, 2012
That link doesn't work. It doesn't matter anyway as Kolar was just running around chasing his own tail because EVEN IF it could be proved that a stun gun didn't cause those marks, it still doesn't disprove the intruder theory. Moreover, his bias and fervour in promoting his BDI theory makes him less worthy of credibility than people like Dr Michael Dobersen, a medical examiner and leading stun gun expert, who felt the evidence of a stun gun was "compelling", and the coroner, Dr Meyer, who saw JonBenet's injuries for himself and felt they were consistent with marks made by a stun gun. From PMPT (pb page 431):

"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.

Soon after, Ainsworth learned of a 1988 Larimer County murder in which a stun gun had been used on a thirteen-month-old girl, Michaela Hughes, who had been sexually assaulted and killed. Ainsworth met with Dr Robert Deters, the pathologist on the case and showed him the autopsy photos of JonBenet. Deters agreed that the marks were consistent with a stun gun injury, but he didn't think the body had to be exhumed. Nothing more would be learned by examining the skin tissue. Ainsworth asked Deters if a child of six would be immobilized by a stun gun's electrical shock. Not only would the child be paralyzed, the coroner said, but she would have been unable to scream. That raised the question of whether JonBenet had screamed before the stun gun was used on her - if one was used".

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#6 Dec 4, 2012
Purposefully stating that the link doesn't work when there are two posts telling posters how to get it is probably the most obvious of the spin to date. Congrats

"It doesn't matter" is also one of the popular convenient "outs" when someone is cornered, but that said

You would be better listened to if you had a comment AFTER watching the video and seeing for yourself that the stun gun does NOT fit and the train tracks are an EXACT match

Carry on
Heloise

Manchester, UK

#7 Dec 4, 2012
Lynette, it is very difficult to predict how any given person will react to being tasered. I saw a TV show the other day where people were getting up immediately after being tasered and immediately returning to whatever nefarious activity had warranted the use of a stun gun in the first place.

However, that is by-the-by: Kolar has made a mockery of the stun gun notion although I think actually reading the autopsy and descriptions of the contusions etc should have put paid to that idea in the first place.

Kolar says that Smit never read the police reports and I think it showed.
Heloise

Manchester, UK

#8 Dec 4, 2012
candy wrote:
In this video,http://www.youtube.com/w atch?v=8ZML-hzTpEAXX
Chief Kolar BLOWS AWAY the Scam's BOGUS "stun gun" theory. The video is an excerpt from his full presentation at the Wilkinson Public Library in Telluride earlier this Fall.
Finally, SEE WITH YOUR OWN EYES that the prongs of an Air Taser DON'T MATCH the marks on JonBenet's back. The Air Taser was the closest in proximity to the type of marks on JonBenet that LOU AND DOBERSEN said ONLY matched a Taser. Dr. Stratbucker told Lou in 1997 THAT THE MARKS DIDN'T MATCH, but stubborn old Lou just went shopping until he found someone who said they did. WELL, SEE FOR YOURSELF. Then, as Chief Kolar said, cops always have a PARTNER in cases, and this is the reason why. Chief Kolar showed those marks to a retired cop, who SOLVED what those marks DO match. TRAIN TRACKS found in Burke's train room, in his bedroom (says Chief Kolar). SEEING IS BELIVING AGAIN, as you can SEE the Boulder Police produced video "one on one" as Chief Kolar described it, MATCHING PERFECTLY THE MARKS AND SPACING ON JONBENET'S BACK.
THIS IS A HUGE FIND, that goes straight to the heart of the Scams intruder theory. And it's OBVIOUS as I posted many times through the years WHY the Scams NEVER publicly released their "stun gun" pig testing results to the scientific community, UNLIKE THE GERRY BOGGS CASE. Because, because, because, the first thing any Medical Examiner or Doctor is going to do is MEASURE those prongs distance on an Air Taser and COMPARE THEM to the marks on JonBenet's body, AND FIND OUT QUICKLY THOSE MARKS DON'T MATCH AND COULD NOT HAVE COME FROM A TASER.
It is an astonishing find, Candy.

Separately, why would someone knock a child unconscious then her or taser her then knock her unconscious? Do the stun gun theorists even think about these things?

Since: Sep 11

Alberton, South Africa

#9 Dec 4, 2012
Here is part of a comment posted by BlueCrab at Websleuths which I found interesting. Since I'm including a link, I trust it's okay for me to re-post it here.

"The stun gun site you were referred to is from Cutter, a former poster on this forum and a highly informed poster. However, Cutter made some measurement mistakes on his Stun Gun Myth website.

For instance, Cutter measured from the inside edges of the twin marks on JonBenet and stated the distance was 2.9 cm. But the proper way to measure marks such as these is from center line to center line of the twin marks. In other words, from the middle of one mark to the middle of the second mark.

When measured from center line to center line the distance is about 3.6 cm -- the same distance, center line to center line, of the actual electrodes on an Air Taser stun gun. These measurements can be lifted from the photos on Cutter's own website.

Cutter's other main point was that the tiny rectangular marks on JonBenet didn't exactly line up. However, when a stun gun is applied to the soft and pliable skin of a human and slightly twisted, the resulting mark on the pliable skin will also be slightly twisted and not line up perfectly. This was confirmed by experiments I made on my own arm.

Therefore, it appears that the evidence from the autopsy pictures show that a stun gun was likely used on JonBenet."

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/archive/inde...

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#10 Dec 4, 2012
Heloise wrote:
Lynette, it is very difficult to predict how any given person will react to being tasered. I saw a TV show the other day where people were getting up immediately after being tasered and immediately returning to whatever nefarious activity had warranted the use of a stun gun in the first place.
However, that is by-the-by: Kolar has made a mockery of the stun gun notion although I think actually reading the autopsy and descriptions of the contusions etc should have put paid to that idea in the first place.
Kolar says that Smit never read the police reports and I think it showed.
Hi Heloise,

Kolar does make a mockery of the stun gun but that won't prevent it's use as still being touted amongst those who will not admit they were wrong. A picture is worth a thousand words and the video with the photos of an exact match with the train tracks is something that continues to show how much Smit was there for the sole purpose of putting a spin on any evidence that was dangerous to the Ramseys

Smit was called in as a loyal law enforcement officer and given the attachment he formed with the Ramseys, as told IMO, he was the one, given his (cough cough) reputation that Hunter believed could pull off the spin side of the Ramseys and the evidence that damned them IMO

There are many who never believed the stun gun nonsense, never believed that the DNA was a smoking gun and that there was much hidden. While it hasn't really added, now that it is pretty much obvious, to posters' existing theories in most cases of RDI, it is nice to know that our beliefs were based on the truth and not opinion. It's good to get some validation of long time beliefs about this case.

This case will never see a courtroom which is sad, but it's fair to say that little by little, with info coming forward, it is pretty much solved and narrowed down to the people known to be in the house that night IMO
Heloise

Manchester, UK

#11 Dec 4, 2012
Capricorn wrote:
<quoted text>
Hi Heloise,
Kolar does make a mockery of the stun gun but that won't prevent it's use as still being touted amongst those who will not admit they were wrong. A picture is worth a thousand words and the video with the photos of an exact match with the train tracks is something that continues to show how much Smit was there for the sole purpose of putting a spin on any evidence that was dangerous to the Ramseys
Smit was called in as a loyal law enforcement officer and given the attachment he formed with the Ramseys, as told IMO, he was the one, given his (cough cough) reputation that Hunter believed could pull off the spin side of the Ramseys and the evidence that damned them IMO
There are many who never believed the stun gun nonsense, never believed that the DNA was a smoking gun and that there was much hidden. While it hasn't really added, now that it is pretty much obvious, to posters' existing theories in most cases of RDI, it is nice to know that our beliefs were based on the truth and not opinion. It's good to get some validation of long time beliefs about this case.
This case will never see a courtroom which is sad, but it's fair to say that little by little, with info coming forward, it is pretty much solved and narrowed down to the people known to be in the house that night IMO
I agree with every word of that, Cappy. Slowly the pendulum is swinging back to where I believe the truth lies. It is actually astonishing how far the RST will go to distort the truth. I daresay we RDI have had moments ofw hich we aren't proud but compare the fact that RDI went after CSI's lies even though they supported our theories with the IDI RST* concealing such facts as the faeces-covered candies purely because they reflected badly upon the Ramsey family.

*I understand that, when pushed, some IDI have admitted knowing about this for years - down to what sort of candies were involved.

“WAX ON”

Since: Jul 10

WAX OFF

#12 Dec 4, 2012
So you are using a poster from another forum AND the National Enquirer as sources today? Charming, LOL.
Lynette 22 wrote:
Here is part of a comment posted by BlueCrab at Websleuths which I found interesting. Since I'm including a link, I trust it's okay for me to re-post it here.

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#13 Dec 4, 2012
Heloise wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree with every word of that, Cappy. Slowly the pendulum is swinging back to where I believe the truth lies. It is actually astonishing how far the RST will go to distort the truth. I daresay we RDI have had moments ofw hich we aren't proud but compare the fact that RDI went after CSI's lies even though they supported our theories with the IDI RST* concealing such facts as the faeces-covered candies purely because they reflected badly upon the Ramsey family.
*I understand that, when pushed, some IDI have admitted knowing about this for years - down to what sort of candies were involved.
The REAL question is why, when information was available to some IDI, like what has come out in recent weeks, it was kept hidden

IF the Ramseys were truly innocent, why in the world would they make such an effort to HIDE evidence?

The only explanation is that it is not favorable to the Ramseys so they kept factual info secret so nobody else would find out? Foolish at best. Eventually, everything or nearly everything comes out as we have seen and hiding it only proves that some IDI are either in denial or intellectually challenged. I go with the former in most cases.

There is no reason to hide the facts when everyone CLAIMS to want the truth. IF they really wanted the truth, they would have provided it along with other known evidence and then try to rationalize its existence instead of just keeping it hidden

I have said for 15+ years that many IDI really believe the Ramseys to be involved, but can't bring themselves to admit they were wrong or they just like the crowd they are "hangin" with.

Otherwise, for everyone other than Jameson herself (who I always believed KNEW the Ramseys guilty), I think it became a social circle that most didn't want to jeopardize

JMHO

“WAX ON”

Since: Jul 10

WAX OFF

#14 Dec 4, 2012
Clarification - in this instance you = IDI.

More specifically it was Mama who used the NE and Lynette another poster for a source, thus proving all along what the RDI have said, they = IDI will use anyone or anything to prove their point.
DrSeussMd wrote:
So you are using a poster from another forum AND the National Enquirer as sources today? Charming, LOL.
<quoted text>

Since: Feb 12

San Diego, CA

#16 Dec 4, 2012
Smit made a LOT of conflicting statements. Among them was the "stun gun theory". On one side of his mouth, he said that JB fought valiantly for her life, on the other side, he says she was incapacitated with a stun gun.

In a futile attempt to create an intruder from nothing, Smit looked for anything that could be used as evidence to support one, and there is none. You cannot create something from nothing.
CC

“WAX ON”

Since: Jul 10

WAX OFF

#17 Dec 4, 2012
I agree with you and Heloise regarding the stifling and/or hiding of information.

Not unlike Smit, their case cannot rest on the facts in evidence on this case, and it is akin to Henri posting only the part of a transcript that leaves one impression, when three lines or so further down the transcript it blows the first idea out of the water.

It seems they got the 'talent' naturally because Smit taught them how to do it. He knew his stun gun didn't match his experiment, but went forward with "maybes" and "close" still in the vein that his information was earth shattering and correct. HE WAS WRONG, and he still continued to publicize HIS version of the findings as fact.
Capricorn wrote:
<quoted text>
The REAL question is why, when information was available to some IDI, like what has come out in recent weeks, it was kept hidden
IF the Ramseys were truly innocent, why in the world would they make such an effort to HIDE evidence?
The only explanation is that it is not favorable to the Ramseys so they kept factual info secret so nobody else would find out? Foolish at best. Eventually, everything or nearly everything comes out as we have seen and hiding it only proves that some IDI are either in denial or intellectually challenged. I go with the former in most cases.
There is no reason to hide the facts when everyone CLAIMS to want the truth. IF they really wanted the truth, they would have provided it along with other known evidence and then try to rationalize its existence instead of just keeping it hidden
I have said for 15+ years that many IDI really believe the Ramseys to be involved, but can't bring themselves to admit they were wrong or they just like the crowd they are "hangin" with.
Otherwise, for everyone other than Jameson herself (who I always believed KNEW the Ramseys guilty), I think it became a social circle that most didn't want to jeopardize
JMHO

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#18 Dec 4, 2012
Bakatari wrote:
Smit made a LOT of conflicting statements. Among them was the "stun gun theory". On one side of his mouth, he said that JB fought valiantly for her life, on the other side, he says she was incapacitated with a stun gun.
In a futile attempt to create an intruder from nothing, Smit looked for anything that could be used as evidence to support one, and there is none. You cannot create something from nothing.
CC
Hi there Bakatari,

If I haven't already welcomed you back, welcome back. I hope everything went as smoothly as you had hoped during your absence and glad to see you back

Smit was no more than a glorified internet poster IMO. Most of everything he had to say or "develop" was planted by an internet poster that he ILLEGALLY confided in and shared case evidence with. That alone tells you that he wasn't the hot shot that he was portrayed to be. There are instances where Smit has said things ver batim from posts right off the forum.

I had always thought that Smit was honest but duped. Now I realize, having given him the benefit of the doubt in the beginning and up until recently, that he was just another Ramsey shill, placed on this case, informally or not, to muddy the waters and help Hunter, Haddon and the Ramseys.

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#19 Dec 4, 2012
DrSeussMd wrote:
I agree with you and Heloise regarding the stifling and/or hiding of information.
Not unlike Smit, their case cannot rest on the facts in evidence on this case, and it is akin to Henri posting only the part of a transcript that leaves one impression, when three lines or so further down the transcript it blows the first idea out of the water.
It seems they got the 'talent' naturally because Smit taught them how to do it. He knew his stun gun didn't match his experiment, but went forward with "maybes" and "close" still in the vein that his information was earth shattering and correct. HE WAS WRONG, and he still continued to publicize HIS version of the findings as fact.
<quoted text>
Hi there Seuss,

Like I said yesterday, they threw anything and everything up the flagpole to see who would salute and like lemmings, because Smit said it, even though so much of it was taken from a forum, it was believed in droves because it came from Smit's mouth. You are correct in the HE WAS WRONG and has yet to have been RIGHT about anything.

Such a shame and the fact that these "games" were played only reinforces the belief that the reason is to let the Ramsey family get away with murder/obstruction of justice/and so many other charges that would be filed if the truth were to be known

That wasn't going to be allowed to happen when wealthy people hire Haddon, friend of Hunter, friend of Smit

It really is that simple
Heloise

Manchester, UK

#20 Dec 4, 2012
Capricorn wrote:
<quoted text>
The REAL question is why, when information was available to some IDI, like what has come out in recent weeks, it was kept hidden
IF the Ramseys were truly innocent, why in the world would they make such an effort to HIDE evidence?
The only explanation is that it is not favorable to the Ramseys so they kept factual info secret so nobody else would find out? Foolish at best. Eventually, everything or nearly everything comes out as we have seen and hiding it only proves that some IDI are either in denial or intellectually challenged. I go with the former in most cases.
There is no reason to hide the facts when everyone CLAIMS to want the truth. IF they really wanted the truth, they would have provided it along with other known evidence and then try to rationalize its existence instead of just keeping it hidden
I have said for 15+ years that many IDI really believe the Ramseys to be involved, but can't bring themselves to admit they were wrong or they just like the crowd they are "hangin" with.
Otherwise, for everyone other than Jameson herself (who I always believed KNEW the Ramseys guilty), I think it became a social circle that most didn't want to jeopardize
JMHO
What a brilliant post, Cappy! I think you've analysed that perfectly. WRT Jameson, I always thought that her soliciting evidence to be sent directly to her was the biggest 'tell' that
she wanted to disrupt the investigation and any possible prosecution. She isn't stupid so she had to know that her involvement in the chain of evidence would compromise the forensic and legal integrity of the whole thing. Why would anybody who wanted us to 'remember the child' do anything to harm the investigation? I don't think she or IDI at large have ever successfully explained that.

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#21 Dec 4, 2012
Heloise wrote:
<quoted text>
What a brilliant post, Cappy! I think you've analysed that perfectly. WRT Jameson, I always thought that her soliciting evidence to be sent directly to her was the biggest 'tell' that
she wanted to disrupt the investigation and any possible prosecution. She isn't stupid so she had to know that her involvement in the chain of evidence would compromise the forensic and legal integrity of the whole thing. Why would anybody who wanted us to 'remember the child' do anything to harm the investigation? I don't think she or IDI at large have ever successfully explained that.
There is only one explanation why anyone would want to harm the investigation; guilt

I don't think it is more complicated than that :)
WV Sleuth

United States

#22 Dec 4, 2012
Heloise wrote:
<quoted text>
What a brilliant post, Cappy! I think you've analysed that perfectly. WRT Jameson, I always thought that her soliciting evidence to be sent directly to her was the biggest 'tell' that
she wanted to disrupt the investigation and any possible prosecution. She isn't stupid so she had to know that her involvement in the chain of evidence would compromise the forensic and legal integrity of the whole thing. Why would anybody who wanted us to 'remember the child' do anything to harm the investigation? I don't think she or IDI at large have ever successfully explained that.
-- Well, wasn't she a JUSTICE OF THE PEACE at one time? Doesn't that make her legal? No? Like when she posted FWs *SEALED* deposition on her site, she wasn't protected by being a 'journalist?'- No? Wow, just wow.
-- As for Ms. Jams, she is a puke who EDITED the information she gathered on this case, and pushed it to her faithful for a price. She made some good money off the Ramseys, it's a pity this case ABOUT JON BENET had to be further tainted with her butting her no$e into it..
Heloise

Manchester, UK

#23 Dec 4, 2012
WV Sleuth wrote:
<quoted text>
-- Well, wasn't she a JUSTICE OF THE PEACE at one time? Doesn't that make her legal? No? Like when she posted FWs *SEALED* deposition on her site, she wasn't protected by being a 'journalist?'- No? Wow, just wow.
-- As for Ms. Jams, she is a puke who EDITED the information she gathered on this case, and pushed it to her faithful for a price. She made some good money off the Ramseys, it's a pity this case ABOUT JON BENET had to be further tainted with her butting her no$e into it..
Stoppit: I nearly spat my tea over my laptop reading that :D

You are right, though: she did damage the case and made the most sickening justifications for her actions. For me, the attack on the Pugh family was right at the top of her hit parade of shame and having Karr on her site 'to help us understand paedophiles.' Oh, please.....

But she did give us some moments of comedy gold (or what would be comedy gold if it weren't so tragic), like comparing her play to 'To Kill a Mockingbird' and her rebuttals...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 7
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

JonBenet Ramsey Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
You Won't Find Any Evidence 22 min Let It Snow 73
Nice Day for a Plaid Wedding Yeah 34 min Let It Snow 4
There was Slim Fast Everywhere (May '17) 41 min Let It Snow 32
Patsy Powerless SAHM 49 min Let It Snow 30
Immaculate (Jul '17) 51 min Let It Snow 12
We Both Got Bikes 1 hr Let It Snow 35
We're Not Involved - Read My Lips 1 hr Let It Snow 2
More from around the web