Stun gun or ring bruise?

Judged:

1

1

1

NanceeDrew wrote:

Ive read several stories over the years about kids who have been beaten to death by their own mothers,and in a number of cases they note "small cigarette burn like marks" on the bodies of the children. And later they find out that they are in fact bruises from the stone in the mother's ring. Obviously I know the measurements of the marks are uniform in placement,and there is even a possiblity of the mark from the electricity arc being present,though faint,but has anyone considered this alternative?
Or have they already and its in some awful book I will never read.

Judged:

2

2

2

FoolsGold wrote:

They are stun gun marks.
They are not from rings, snaps, buttons, doo-dads, trained insects, un-trained insects, snakes or frogs. They are stun gun marks.
This seems to upset people for some reason.
Obviously the intruder was well acquainted with bondage, he probably knew a little bit about inflicting pain and wanted to learn more about it.

Judged:

1

1

1

NanceeDrew wrote:

Ive read several stories over the years about kids who have been beaten to death by their own mothers,and in a number of cases they note "small cigarette burn like marks" on the bodies of the children. And later they find out that they are in fact bruises from the stone in the mother's ring. Obviously I know the measurements of the marks are uniform in placement,and there is even a possiblity of the mark from the electricity arc being present,though faint,but has anyone considered this alternative?
Or have they already and its in some awful book I will never read.

Judged:

2

1

1

FoolsGold wrote:

They are stun gun marks.

This seems to upset people for some reason.

Judged:

2

1

1

Capricorn wrote:

<quoted text>
They are not stun gun marks according to every expert with the exception of Dr. Doberson who also won't swear to it.
Sorry to burst that bubble; and where was the pain? She was knocked out and had no bruising to show there was any pain or torture. And then lovingly wrapped up and re-dressed
While horrific, hardly any real pain thankfully

Patricia Fox wrote:

<quoted text>
You can bet your boots, that if this ever were proven to have been a stun gun, it was not wielded by an adult. NO ADULT would have to zap a 45 lb. child 3 times to subdue them. A stun gun in this case would indicate someone wielding it that didn't have a clue the damage they were doing.

Judged:

1

1

1

Charlie Chan wrote:

<quoted text>
Hi Patricia,
Actually, because the stun gun is high voltage but low amperage, the size of the target makes very little difference. Of course, it would do heavy damage to an infant, but it would also do heavy damage to an elderly adult too. Whether you weigh 45 pounds or 200 pounds, the impact of a stun gun would be the same, except that a larger person in naturally physically stronger than a 45 pound child, but a child will have a lot quicker recovery from that type of shock.
It would not be wise to use a stun gun on anyone, large or small.
CC

Judged:

2

2

1

Charlie Chan wrote:

<quoted text>
Hi Capricorn,
Michael Doberson was NOT an expert. He is a coroner for the BPD. His knowledge of stun guns are very near to zilch. EVERY expert say that the marks did not come from a stun gun, because a stun gun mark on a living person would show movement by that person. Even the marks on an anesthetized pig were different.
CC

Judged:

1

1

1

Capricorn wrote:

<quoted text>
You are correct in that he isn't a stun gun expert, but still a doctor which comes down to semantics. At the end of the day, it still wasn't a stun gun that left those abrasions
The marks on the pig were of different dimensions despite the doctored photos that Jameson put up many years ago. How embarrassing when she was busted, but the point remains that they weren't stun gun marks

Patricia Fox wrote:

<quoted text>
I think you just proved my point.

Judged:

2

2

2

Patricia Fox wrote:

<quoted text>
You can bet your boots, that if this ever were proven to have been a stun gun, it was not wielded by an adult. NO ADULT would have to zap a 45 lb. child 3 times to subdue them.

Judged:

2

1

1

FoolsGold wrote:

<quoted text> I have often thought that there are other indications of youthfulness and inexperience, however, both a youth and an adult might bring a stun gun along with him for defensive purposes. And being in possession of a stun gun an intruder of any age or disposition might well get the notion to experiment with it.
I agree that a stun gun would not be used by an adult for compliance. I don't even think it would be used by a 12 year old for compliance purposes. The bondage was a reflection of the intruder's desires. The pain of the stun gun served, I think, the same purpose. It inflicted pain on a helpless six year old girl and that entertained him. It was not for inducing some sort of compliance.

Judged:

3

3

3

Charlie Chan wrote:

<quoted text>
The problem is that there was no stun gun. The experts declared that the marks came from something else.

Judged:

3

3

1

Biz wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't know what experts you are referring too. The experts I saw said it was likely a stun gun. Exact measurements measuring an air taser. You don't have a source, do you? I thought so.

Judged:

1

1

1

NanceeDrew wrote:

Ive read several stories over the years about kids who have been beaten to death by their own mothers,and in a number of cases they note "small cigarette burn like marks" on the bodies of the children. And later they find out that they are in fact bruises from the stone in the mother's ring. Obviously I know the measurements of the marks are uniform in placement,and there is even a possiblity of the mark from the electricity arc being present,though faint,but has anyone considered this alternative?
Or have they already and its in some awful book I will never read.

Judged:

1

1

1

Biz wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't know what experts you are referring too. The experts I saw said it was likely a stun gun. Exact measurements measuring an air taser. You don't have a source, do you? I thought so.

Judged:

2

2

2

Patricia Fox wrote:

<quoted text>
You can bet your boots, that if this ever were proven to have been a stun gun, it was not wielded by an adult. NO ADULT would have to zap a 45 lb. child 3 times to subdue them. A stun gun in this case would indicate someone wielding it that didn't have a clue the damage they were doing.