Stun gun or ring bruise?

Lynette 22 wrote:

<quoted text> I know what you mean about those photos, Mama2. They break my heart too. I can look at the photos of her back and her little hand, but it's the photo of her neck and part of her face that kills me.
Exhuming her body would have been the only way to determine whether or not a stun gun was used, but it's very understandable the Ramseys didn't want to go that route. Their little girl had been brutally murdered and had been through enough. Moreover, she'd suffered the indignity of her autopsy photos published for all to see, her genitals, toileting habits and underwear discussed, there was speculation about her being previously sexually abused, etc. Exhuming her body would have been the final insult.
The anti-Ramseys will obviously fight tooth and nail against the idea of a stun gun being used because it points away from the parents, but the almost identical marks on Gerald Boggs and JonBenet tell their own story and IMO offers the only logical explanation.

I believe the "stun gun" theory is entirely possible. It is unfortunate that this possibility was not investigated prior to the release of her body...

Lynette 22 wrote:

<quoted text>Gerald Boggs was assaulted with a stun gun, but the marks were initially described as abrasions, same as in the case of JB. But eight months after being buried, his body was exhumed and the tissue tested for evidence of electric shock and it was confirmed the marks were from a stun gun. From photos we can see his marks and JonBenet's marks were almost identical.
You need to scroll quite far down:
http://www.jameson245.com/doc2usa.htm
Unless someone can provide an alternative theory with some evidentiary support to explain those marks, I believe it's logical to conclude they were made by a stun gun.

--- Hi Lynette--Thanks for the link, thats the 1st time i've read or looked at it- there is some new insight there for me---Marks on the back and on the legs i would consider a stun gun -- but the large mark below the right ear IMO is a thumb imprint of a right gloved hand chokeing her-- if you go to crime scene photos jonbenet- IMO there is a better photo of this mark than the one you provided in that link-- enlarge the photo 400% on the spot- within the spot there is a curved darker line -- and it is curved the obposit way a thumb nail would be with a right hand choke holt, but with a glove on it would curve the way it shows- I'll swear you can even count 7 stictes of the seam of a glove where its sewed together

robert wrote:

<quoted text>--- Hi Lynette--Thanks for the link, thats the 1st time i've read or looked at it- there is some new insight there for me---Marks on the back and on the legs i would consider a stun gun -- but the large mark below the right ear IMO is a thumb imprint of a right gloved hand chokeing her-- if you go to crime scene photos jonbenet- IMO there is a better photo of this mark than the one you provided in that link-- enlarge the photo 400% on the spot- within the spot there is a curved darker line -- and it is curved the obposit way a thumb nail would be with a right hand choke holt, but with a glove on it would curve the way it shows- I'll swear you can even count 7 stictes of the seam of a glove where its sewed together

. Im not sure which injury you are referring to that looks like a thumb impression. Wear can I find the specific picture showing this mark?

robert wrote:

<quoted text>--- Hi Lynette--Thanks for the link, thats the 1st time i've read or looked at it- there is some new insight there for me---Marks on the back and on the legs i would consider a stun gun -- but the large mark below the right ear IMO is a thumb imprint of a right gloved hand chokeing her-- if you go to crime scene photos jonbenet- IMO there is a better photo of this mark than the one you provided in that link-- enlarge the photo 400% on the spot- within the spot there is a curved darker line -- and it is curved the obposit way a thumb nail would be with a right hand choke holt, but with a glove on it would curve the way it shows- I'll swear you can even count 7 stictes of the seam of a glove where its sewed together

Hi Robert. Nice to see you back :).

I went to the following site
http://crimeshots.com/CrimeScene1.html
and looked at the photo marked "enlargement of unusual mark on right side of face". I started enlarging the photo, but as the image got bigger and bigger I had to stop as I felt too sickened to continue. Sorry, I'm just a squeamish sissy when it comes to certain things.

I trust your opinion though and from what you described I would be inclined to agree that the mark could have been caused by the thumb pressure of a gloved hand, especially as even the stitches in the seam of the glove can be seen.

Thanks for posting this, I'm very glad you did. Sorry I wasn't able to take a good look and offer my opinion. Hope you understand. But perhaps other less squeamish posters can take a look and tell us what they think.

Lynette 22 wrote:

<quoted text> Hi Robert. Nice to see you back :).
I went to the following site
http://crimeshots.com/CrimeScene1.html
and looked at the photo marked "enlargement of unusual mark on right side of face". I started enlarging the photo, but as the image got bigger and bigger I had to stop as I felt too sickened to continue. Sorry, I'm just a squeamish sissy when it comes to certain things.
I trust your opinion though and from what you described I would be inclined to agree that the mark could have been caused by the thumb pressure of a gloved hand, especially as even the stitches in the seam of the glove can be seen.
Thanks for posting this, I'm very glad you did. Sorry I wasn't able to take a good look and offer my opinion. Hope you understand. But perhaps other less squeamish posters can take a look and tell us what they think.

--- I forgot to mension that i croped the spot and enlarged it -- that way you are not looking at the rest of the boby-- I know what you mean by not being able to look at the photo--I myself don't make a habbit of looking at morbid scines ,but i just had to look at these to understand the killer- every time i go back to study the photos i get mad, and sorry for her at the same time-- mad that this one time killer has not been taken in

Mama2JML wrote:

<quoted text>. Im not sure which injury you are referring to that looks like a thumb impression. Wear can I find the specific picture showing this mark?

-- Its the only large round mark just below the right ear on the neck-- Lynette posted a link on the post below yours-- study these photos with the concept of a right hand chokeing from the front of the neck-- you can make out a full palm print on the neck. IMO she was choked to death 1st

robert wrote:

<quoted text>--- I forgot to mension that i croped the spot and enlarged it -- that way you are not looking at the rest of the boby-- I know what you mean by not being able to look at the photo--I myself don't make a habbit of looking at morbid scines ,but i just had to look at these to understand the killer- every time i go back to study the photos i get mad, and sorry for her at the same time-- mad that this one time killer has not been taken in

Hi Robert. I did as you recommended and copied the spot only and then enlarged it. It was a good idea, because although it looked more gross, it somehow looked less gruesome, if that makes any sense.

Enlarging the image made it less clear, but I think I see what you mean. There are lines on the lower part of the image which could be stitches from a glove. The curved darker line could very well be from a thumb nail. I'm impressed at how sharp you were at noticing that and making some sense of it because to me looking at that image was like a lay person looking at an ultrasound scan: unless someone explains it to you, you won't understand what you're looking at.

I'm sure you don't enjoy looking at morbid photos any more than I do, Robert, but you did what you needed to do and I commend you for that. I too feel both anger and sadness at what was done to this little girl and her family and the injustice of her killer (so far) escaping retribution.

Mama2JML wrote:

<quoted text>. Im not sure which injury you are referring to that looks like a thumb impression. Wear can I find the specific picture showing this mark?

Go to the link I posted, Mama2, and then do as Robert advised. Take a good look at the enlarged image of that mark, if you will, and let us know what you think. Your opinion would be appreciated.

Lynette 22 wrote:

<quoted text>Go to the link I posted, Mama2, and then do as Robert advised. Take a good look at the enlarged image of that mark, if you will, and let us know what you think. Your opinion would be appreciated.

I will do that, thank you both!

Lynette 22 wrote:

<quoted text>Go to the link I posted, Mama2, and then do as Robert advised. Take a good look at the enlarged image of that mark, if you will, and let us know what you think. Your opinion would be appreciated.

:o( I can't tell. Any help would be appreciated! I'm not sure what I'm looking at/for...

Mama2JML wrote:

<quoted text>
:o( I can't tell. Any help would be appreciated! I'm not sure what I'm looking at/for...

-- Go to Lynette's link in post 72, skroll down to photo named "enlargement of unusual mark on right side of face" Right click on mouse to" save as" -- you can send it to your photos in what ever program you have for pictures-- once there you can use your tools to crop only the mark-- play with the lighting, and many other focuses-- Just enlargeing works for me. there is 7 stiches imprinted from a glove there -- Brown cotton fibbers were found at the crime scene-- Brown cotton gloves? This would be contrary to M&Ms thread that sudgest that fingerless gloves was used- Both mean that there was no accidental head wound-- Is it the 1st thing one does when there is an accident is put on gloves to finish them off? Look at the straight on photo of the neck area-- on the left side is a large red mark, this is the heel of a hand print-- she was choked to death with a gloved right hand 1st. the rest of the marks on the legs and back could well be from a stun gun, but I leave room for other explanations

robert wrote:

<quoted text>-- Go to Lynette's link in post 72, skroll down to photo named "enlargement of unusual mark on right side of face" Right click on mouse to" save as" -- you can send it to your photos in what ever program you have for pictures-- once there you can use your tools to crop only the mark-- play with the lighting, and many other focuses-- Just enlargeing works for me. there is 7 stiches imprinted from a glove there -- Brown cotton fibbers were found at the crime scene-- Brown cotton gloves? This would be contrary to M&Ms thread that sudgest that fingerless gloves was used- Both mean that there was no accidental head wound-- Is it the 1st thing one does when there is an accident is put on gloves to finish them off? Look at the straight on photo of the neck area-- on the left side is a large red mark, this is the heel of a hand print-- she was choked to death with a gloved right hand 1st. the rest of the marks on the legs and back could well be from a stun gun, but I leave room for other explanations

Are you talking about the large red mark that starts at the line of the ligature and extends downwards Robert? Because if you are i think that is an area of subcutaneous bleeding caused by the tightness of the garotte

robert wrote:

<quoted text>-- There are two marks that that point to what I'm getting at-- One is the round mark by the right ear(and the most important one for ID that a glove was used) the other is the one you asked about --Without anyway to dememstate what I'm seeing ,do this-- put your right hand around your throat as if you wanted to chock the life out of someone- note the contact points -the thomb is under your rihgt ear-the base or heal of your hand is on the left side of your neck and lower -this contact point would leave the triangle shape bruse you mensioned just below the rope mark-I can also makeout the other side of the plam but not as clearly. I checked the spaceing of stitches on different gloves --as I said earier i counted 7 stitches imprintrd in the round bruse by the right ear. according to the measurements of the bruse by Meyers- the imprinted stitches would match gloves with a 16 to 20 stitch per inch sewing patern-- any expert in crime anolizing of photos should see this- and prove the Rs didn't do this- She was choked to death with a gloved right hand

Robert, looking at the photos as posted on crimeshots -

http://www.crimeshots.com /CrimeScene1.html

are you talking about the marks shown in the photos labelled 'Right side of face and bruising on neck' and 'Front of neck depicting the unusual unidentified mark'? Because if you are then I think the marks were all caused by strangling with the cord that was found around her neck and also by the chain necklace that she was wearing that was pressed against her neck in places when it got caught beneath by the cord. I think the cord had been tightened around her neck more than once. Maybe even two or three more times before the final fatal tightening. I think that is the reason there are extra marks lower down on her neck, these being the marks made when the cord was in a different position when it was tightened earlier. It is very hard really to make things out on these reproduced photos and I don't even know if I'm even talking about the marks you mean. Lou Smit talked about seeing scratch marks around the cord that he thought she made with her fingernails but I can't see these, unless they are what i think was made by the chain necklace. Sorry I can't be more helpful.

robert wrote:

<quoted text>--- Try again--- The 7 stitchs imprinted in the round bruse mark just below the right ear show up as a white doted curved line. this is something I should have mensioned in other posts 'that it shows up as a white doted line

Can you direct us to exactly which photo you mean please robert

robert wrote:

The most valueble thing about this is that it would be premeditated to put on gloves or an attemp to hide the ID of the prep. One could say that it was cold out and the Rs had gloves on and JB pissed in the car and one of the Rs done a number on her- Then you have BR saying she walked up the stairs to bed-- And of corse according to some ,she had to be in good enough shape to eat some pineapple

I do think the person who tightened that cord around her neck was wearing brown gloves - there were brown cotton fibres found on the cord, the duct tape and the paintbrush. I think he wore gloves for comfort so the cord didn't cut into his own skin when he tightened the cord.

If I am talking about the right marks, I just don't think they are bruises, they are too red IMO

aussiesheila wrote:

<quoted text>I do think the person who tightened that cord around her neck was wearing brown gloves - there were brown cotton fibres found on the cord, the duct tape and the paintbrush. I think he wore gloves for comfort so the cord didn't cut into his own skin when he tightened the cord.

Brown fibers on the cord, but (likely) no DNA. I surmise the perp wore gloves as well, during the entire commission of the crime, ONLY during the sexual assault, did he remove them. I believe the murderer was sexually motivated and could not gain full pleasure from the experience without removing his gloves. Disgusting, I know, but this is still my opinion.:o/

Mama2JML wrote:

<quoted text>
Brown fibers on the cord, but (likely) no DNA. I surmise the perp wore gloves as well, during the entire commission of the crime, ONLY during the sexual assault, did he remove them. I believe the murderer was sexually motivated and could not gain full pleasure from the experience without removing his gloves. Disgusting, I know, but this is still my opinion.:o/

And what is the evidence an intruder was there? You keep leaving that part out, why?

BrotherMoon wrote:

<quoted text>And what is the evidence an intruder was there? You keep leaving that part out, why?

I guess you don't think any of what I perceive to be evidence of an intruder is actually evidence of an intruder. The unsourced DNA is the greatest indicator, IMO.

Mama2JML wrote:

<quoted text>
I guess you don't think any of what I perceive to be evidence of an intruder is actually evidence of an intruder. The unsourced DNA is the greatest indicator, IMO.

Unsourced DNA is not> unsourced DNA.