old thread
#1
Go back to previous page
Forum URL:
http://www.webbsleuths.com/cgi-bin/dcf/dcboard.cgi
Forum Name:
more and more JBR
Topic ID:
399
#0, Stun gun evidence
Posted by jameson on Dec-30-02 at 11:06 AM

Quote:Look at the page - - let's discuss it!
http://www.jameson245.com/stungun.htm

#1, RE: Stun gun evidence
Posted by jameson on Dec-30-02 at 11:09 AM
In response to message #0

Quote:From the 2nd documentary:
NARRATOR - The Boulder police rejected Smit evidence about a stun gun. They spoke to Colorado's
leading expert pathologist
Mike Dobersen - and claimed he discounted the possibility.
MIKE DOBERSEN - That's right - and that was something of a mistatement since my real conclusion
was that I couldn't, at that
time, say whether it was a stun gun injury or not because we had to have a weapon to compare it to.
NARRATOR - When Smit brought him the Air Tazer stun gun, Doberson took a different position.
MIKE DOBERSEN - Lou had found a weapon with characteristics which fit as exactly as you could
expect, the injuries on
JonBenét's body.
NARRATOR - Since then Mike Dobersen has conducted experiments on anaesthetized pigs. The Tazer
stun gun exactly
replicated the injuries on JonBenét and the distance, 3.5 centimeters, between those injuries.
MIKE DOBERSEN - My experiments, and the observations that we made and all the work that's been
done, I feel that I can
testify to a reasonably degree of medical certainty that these are stun gun injuries.

It isn't going to get better than that - - and no one has come up with any reasonable alternative source for those marks. Lou Smit on MSNBC clearly states that once you know HOW to identify a stun gun wound, they are easy to identify, not like anything else.

[b]#2, AIR TASER interview
Posted by jameson on Dec-30-02 at 11:11 AM
In response to message #1
[/b]

Quote: "AIR TASER interview"
MSNBC reporter: "... Taser International, the company that manufactured the stun gun Smit believes
was used in this crime. Steven, thanks for being here. In fact, he says it was an AIR TASER 34,000.
You've got one with you, show us how it works.
Steven Tuttle - Taser International: "Well, what you have is the stun gun version of the Air Taser. If
I push back the safety here, (firing stun gun in air)I can activate the actual stun gun and that's what
we... you have to apply to a person to keep them at bay, so to speak.
Reporter: Can you apply it to your arm?
ST: I can, ah, it's not fun, but (applies to arm held in air, the contact is brief and repeating as the
arm jumps away) AH (he grunted) It's very disconcerting and makes you want to stay away from it.
It's somewhat painful. To me that just felt like pins and needles hitting on my arm right now and I
want to get away from that pain.
Reporter: Did it leave a mark?
ST: Not at all. (Showing arm)
Reporter: Let's take a look at a couple of ... we still-framed just a moment ago duting this package
here... the front end of that Air taser, let's take a look at it right now. You can see, there you see,
how far apart are the two sort of electrodes that come out there? Are they roughly 3.5 cm apart?
ST: That's fairly close, yes.
Reporter: And there's another look at it there. OK, the reason I ask that is that Lou Smit took your
product, the 34000 Air Taser, he tested it on an anaestitized pig, hard to say, and produced the
same marks that were discovered on JonBenét Ramsey - not in one place, but in two separate
places. What do you make of that?
ST: Well, actually, we helped supply that Air Taser for the testing. We were as interested in this
case as Lou Smit is. We've worked with him from the very beginning of the case. The one thing that's
interesting is that the marks that the pigs have do look fairly similar to what's on JonBenét Ramsey.
What's unusual is that, if you saw my arm, it was going off in many, many directions. It's extremely
painful, uh, not even painful, just I wanted to get away from it. I don't know how you could leave
this particular device in one solid spot, not once but twice
Reporter: Yeah, but your arm wasn't restricted against a bed. What if a child abut, oh say, 35-40
pounds, age 6, is in a bed, asleep, somebody comes over without her hearing and uses a stun gun,
that taser you've got right there in your hand, and while holding her down uses it on her back and
her neck and face area?
ST: Well, that's an interesting idea because if I do this to a child of say 6 years of age while they're
in the middle of a very deep sleep, they're going to have fairly the same reaction I did. They're going
to want to get instinctually away from the pain. It would be almost be like being hit with a hot iron
while sleeping. It may take an extra second but you are going to wake up, kick, flail and scream....
Reporter: But didn't you tell our producer that if you do this to a hundred people you will get 100
different reactions? Right?
ST: You'll have about a hundred different reactions but most of them will be different screams,
different yelps, different people kicking. You will certainly not see any incapacitation at all. That's the
key to this issue is that you're NOT going to get incapacitation
Reporter: What are you gonna get?
ST: You're gonna get what I did just now and I'm still feeling it... I don't like the fact that I did that
to myself... I would want to get away from that pain...
Reporter: No temporary paralysis?
ST: None whatsoever. There's a lot of places on the internet, if you look up stun guns. It's
completely false as to what these things do as far as incapacitation rates. These are good devices to
keep somebody at bay at best.
Reporter: Is it possible, even though it may not have produced the desired reaction of incapacitation,
is it possible to produce the very same marks? Let's take a look, by the way, on the autopsy photo...
there you see, 3.5 cm apart, is it possible to produce those marks with what you have in your hand
there, Steven?
ST: I can't do it and I've never been able to replicate it on a person in my 7 years with the company.
Neither has anybody in our company been able to replicate those
Reporter: Are you telling me that your taser has never left a mark on any human being or any animal?
ST: It certainly leaves a mark in some cases like a reddish mark. I'm looking at my arm right now and
I've got little red spots here, all over the place - cause the electricity's dancing all over the place.
I'm not able to keep it in one spot. If I were to keep it in one spot, I might be able to get those two
3.5 cm type width spots but what's key here is even if I'm a 30 pound person, I'm going to get
instinctually away from this pain. If you were to have it, especially in two spots to be perfectly still, I
just don't know how....
Reporter: You're not being restrained and you don't have duct tape across your mouth but, Steven,
I'm afraid we're out of time. I want to thank you so much for coming here today and showing us how
it works, we appreciate it. Steven Tuttle of Taser International.
AFTER VIEWING LOU'S PRESENTATION
R: ...heard that story we had on during the break. Do you buy the theory? Does it hold water?
ST:I don't know. It's bewildering to us as a company. We were approached by Lou Smit in the very
beginning of the investigation. We provided a list of people who had the actual AIR TASER in
Colorado. We've also provided them a lot of information...
MISSING SECTION!!!!!!!
R: ...distinctive marks that appear to be the same spread. I think you have an AIR TASER with you
right now and there are in fact - - can you hold it up? - there are two electrodes in the end, right?
ST: There are two electrodes right here what they are talking about is actually leaving marks here
and they are about 3 1/2 cm apart and they're fairly similar in width if you were to measure those
two.
R: Now here's the big question - Can someone hold that to somebody without them flinching or
moving back?
ST: That's the crux of the bewilderment from our company's perspective. I'm going to go ahead and
do this on my arm. I don't like doing this at all but
R: I'm sure you don't
ST: I want to try to hold it there as long as I can. Now this would be simulating anybody's reaction.
(He grimaced and held the stun gun to his arm, he did NOT cry out or make any noise until he pulled
the stun gun away.)
UH! That is exceedingly painful to say the least, it's something instinctually I want to get away from
R: OK, but you're a grown man, Let's take ourselves to the crime scene. This is a little girl who was
asleep, she's 6 years old, what's to say a grown man can't hold her down and just simply hold that to
her?
ST: Well, that could be done, but what we're seeing is a mark that's not moving and as you saw my
arm flailing about... even if someone is heavier,holding that down, that person is going to wake up
immediately and instinctively want to get away from the pain.
R: What about the the notion of incapacitating someone? Is this, obviously when you're being
shocked there, you're out of it for that moment, but when you took it away, you were fine. Will it
knock somebody out?
ST: That is very, very crucial to the issue here, it will not knock someone out, it will not render them
mute. They will kick and scream. I did my best to not scream into the microphone here because it
was very uncomfortable.
R: Once you took it away, though, you were fine?
ST: ... once you stop it. And it's very loud when it's in the air. It does go much more silent as Lou
Smit pointed out with the pillow. It does go more silent when you stick it in the skin. However, the
minute that person breaks contact you do get that loud arcing sound. And again, it just simply would
not cause incapacitation
R: Mr. Tuttle, I can certainly understand why a company would not want their name or product
associated with a crime in this case. Do you see any reasonable possibility that it COULD have been a
TASER and that a child that young COULD have been incapacitated?
ST: It could have been ours and I certainly, we want to work with the investigators, we have from
the very beginning. Um, I don't know. It's bewildering to see if this was ours. The measurements are
close. They're not exact, but I don't know. That's what's stupifying - is you've got two separate
marks that are crystally clear, perfect, without any movement shown on the suspect's, oh, I'm sorry,
on JonBenét. I just don't understand that, how that can be there. (Showing his arm) I don't have the
marks here, they're all over the place. I'm not sure if you can see... from me moving, they've gone
everywhere. Ah,
R: Certainly not as deep as what we saw there. You mentioned... we're quickly running out of time...
you mentioned that you provided list of those who had been sold. Is this something you have to
register to buy?
ST: Yes We do require as a company that if a person purchases an AIR TASER, we are going to know
who that person is. They are registered in a data base and if it's used in the TASER mode, which
would incapacitate somebody, it's going to emit little confetti tags that would match back to the
owner. In this case the taser was not used so we don't have these confetti tags. But we do have
serial numbers. If they find one, we could match that up to who it was sold to.
R: Steven Tuttle, we do appreciate you spending the time with us today.
ST: Thank you


[b]#3, great deposition to study
Posted by jameson on Dec-30-02 at 11:21 AM
In response to message #2
[/b]

Quote:http://www.webbsleuths.com/dcf/jbr_evidence/46.html
I have some serious work to do here - - back in a few hours - - but forthose who really want to know this case - - this stun gun subject can fill your day - - honest - - there is a TON of stuff out here to study on that.


[b]#4, RE: great deposition to study
Posted by jameson on Jan-30-03 at 09:35 PM
In response to message #3
[/b]

Quote:bump


[b]#5, incomplete experiments
Posted by addiewalker on Feb-01-03 at 05:42 AM
In response to message #4
[/b]

Quote:Well, now you've piqued my interest. Were those poor piggies ever tested with a fireplace poker to see what sort of marks it would leave?


[b]#6, RE: incomplete experiments
Posted by jameson on Feb-01-03 at 09:06 AM
In response to message #5
[/b]

Quote:I don't knowof any tests being done using the poker. Maybe now those tests will be done. Who knows what the new team will do? There won't be many leaks.


[b]#7, Opinion re' stun gun
Posted by BlueCrab on Feb-02-03 at 11:15 AM
In response to message #6
[/b]

Quote:In my opinion the evidence is compelling that a stun had been used on JonBenet.
However, the evidence that the stun gun had to have been employed by an intruder is weak. No intruder would have stayed in the house long to have committed all of the acts that been attributed to him. The totality of all of the evidence in this case, IMO, points to either a Ramsey family member or a houseguest as having used the stun gun on JonBenet.
Stratbucker's deposition, incidentally, was an interesting read.
BlueCrab


[b]#8, RE: How Long?
Posted by Margoo on Feb-02-03 at 11:32 AM
In response to message #7
[/b]

Quote:No intruder would have stayed in the house long to have committed all of the acts that been attributed to him.

Blue Crab - how long do you think the killer needed to commit "all of the acts"?


[b]#9, RE: How Long?
Posted by BlueCrab on Feb-02-03 at 12:10 PM
In response to message #8
[/b]

Quote:Margoo,
The "dining" on pineapple; the sexual assault; the accidental killing; and the naive staging to make it look like an intruder did it (including the writing of the ridiculous ransom note) -- IMO would take 2 to 3 hours minimum.
BlueCrab


[b]#10, RE: How Long?
Posted by Margoo on Feb-02-03 at 01:32 PM
In response to message #9
[/b]

Quote:Blue Crab: Without embellishing, how long? That is to say, no "dining on pineapple", no staging. Just the ransom note and the killing. How long - minimum and maximum.


[b]#11, RE: How Long?
Posted by BlueCrab on Feb-02-03 at 03:29 PM
In response to message #10
[/b]

Quote:Margoo,
The fake ransom note was a big part of the staging. It alone would have taken, IMO, a minimum of 1 hour and a maximum of 2 hours to write.
An intruder would have had no reason to even write a ransom note, let alone three pages of childisn nonsense. Only a family member would have had a motive to try to direct suspicion away from the family.
BlueCrab


[b]#12, RE: How Long?
Posted by Margoo on Feb-02-03 at 03:38 PM
In response to message #11
[/b]

Quote:LAST EDITED ON Feb-02-03 AT 03:39 PM (EST)
 
Dodging the answer?Smile
Without embellishing - how long? I'm not asking for your opinion as to who did or did not do it. I'm asking for a time line for the mechanics of this case - write ransom note, get JB, kill JB. Try to set aside your "theory" and guesstimate how long?


[b]#13, RE: How Long?
Posted by BlueCrab on Feb-02-03 at 03:57 PM
In response to message #12
[/b]

Quote:Margoo,
Please set aside YOUR theory when you ask a question.
For instance, there was no "getting" of JonBenet. She was already there. I'm not trying to avoid anything. I'm just not a mindreader, so I don't know what the hell you're driving at.
I can't give time estimates of YOUR theory. Only you can do that.
BlueCrab


[b]#14, RE: How Long?
Posted by Margoo on Feb-02-03 at 04:20 PM
In response to message #13
[/b]

Quote:Excuse me - getting JB was a reference to going to her room or whatever location you wish to name and getting her in a position to murder her.
There was no reference in my question to ANY theory (no mention of breaking in, no mention of leaving the scene, just the bare bones of what we ALL KNOW. Someone had to "get" JB, kill her, and write a ransom note.)


[b]#15, I can't estimate your theory
Posted by BlueCrab on Feb-02-03 at 08:02 PM
In response to message #14
[/b]

Quote:Margoo,
I can't estimate the timeline for YOUR theory.
In my theory no one had to go "get" JonBenet. She voluntarily came downstairs with Burke, wearing her Barbie nightgown and carrying her white blanket because it was a cold winter night. There were one or two other young people involved in re' to my theory, one of them a teenager.
IMO JonBenet snacked on fresh pineapple that Burke took from the refrigerator (fingerprints on the bowl); they ended up in the basement experimenting with erotic asphyxiation (the AEA device still around her neck); JonBenet was accidentally asphyxiated (the autopsy report: she died by asphxia); the crime scene was staged to appear to be a kidnapping (the fake ransom note) by ruthless foreign terrorists (the extreme tightening of the AEA device around the neck, the bash on the head, and perhaps the use of a stun gun).
In my theory there were one or two others involved in the killing and most of the staging. They were overnight guests of Burke. John and Patsy didn't discover what was going on until about 4:00 A.M. that morning when they got up early to get ready to go to the airport.
I have no idea what your theory consists of. Sorry.
Just my opinion.
BlueCrab


[b]#16, RE: Just answer the question, please
Posted by Margoo on Feb-02-03 at 08:13 PM
In response to message #15
[/b]

Quote:BC stated - No intruder would have stayed in the house long to have committed all of the acts that been attributed to him.
M asked - Blue Crab - how long do you think the killer needed to commit "all of the acts"?

Blue Crab, what's with all the dancing around with regard to my question as copied above? I am not asking for YOUR theory (but you slipped it in anyways) and I am not providing MY theory or asking you to guess what MY theory might be.
You stated "no intruder would have stayed in the house long (enough) to have committed all of the acts that (have) been attributed to him". That implies that you have an idea of how long that would take.
How long do you think the intruder would need - would have to have stayed in the house - to commit all of the acts attributed to him?


[b]#17, RE: Just answer the question, please
Posted by BlueCrab on Feb-03-03 at 08:45 AM
In response to message #16
[/b]

Quote:IMO there was no intruder. It was an inside job committed by a family member. Why do I have to estimate a detailed timeline for something I don't believe in? I gave you several rough estimates but you pretend I didn't answer you.
Nevertheless, I'll say it once more:
IMO it would take an intruder about two to three hours to accomplish all of the things that have been attributed to him after somehow breaking into the house and finally exiting the house.
It's totally unrealistic for me to believe that a lone intruder would break in and stay in someone's occupied house for 2 to 3 hours without fear of being discovered to abduct JonBenet from her bed, force her to eat pineapple, manufacture an AEA device using materials from the house, sexually abuse her, kill her and mutilate the body, clean up the body and put oversized panties on her, perform other staging including taking the time to write a childish three-page fake ransom note using materials from the house, but not take the body with him as he exited the house never to be heard from again.
Okay Margoo, now let's hear a synopsis of YOUR theory and how long it would take to commit this crime.
Just my opinion.
BlueCrab


[b]#18, Bluecrab
Posted by MGC on Feb-03-03 at 09:07 AM
In response to message #17
[/b]

Quote:Do you think the Grand Jury considered the Burke theory?


[b]#19, RE: Bluecrab
Posted by jameson on Feb-03-03 at 09:54 AM
In response to message #18
[/b]

Quote:The Grand Jury got to see Burke for themselves.


[b]#20, RE: Bluecrab
Posted by BlueCrab on Feb-03-03 at 01:02 PM
In response to message #19
[/b]

Quote:MGC,
Yes, the grand jury not only considered the Burke-did-it theory but, IMO, they solved the crime by using the testimony from over 100 witnesses to finally conclude that Burke and another young boy was involved.
The jury of eight men and three women met for 13 months -- from September 15, 1998 to October 20, 1999. It was a powerful investigative grand jury that had its own team of professional investigators to follow up on whatever the witnesses told the jurors. In a grand jury the witnesses, without legal counsel, are required to tell the truth to the jurors under pain of imprisonment.
I'm convinced the grand jury solved the crime in 1999, it involved children too young to prosecute, a court protection order was placed on everyone who knew the truth, and the active investigation was terminated. In such situations in Colorado the disrict attorney is given the authority to dispose of the case in any way he decides is best.
The case has been a catch 22 situation for the authorities ever since the grand jury adjourned. They can't tell the truth without violating the court's order protecting the identities of the children, in accordance with Colorado law. The authorities are forced to dance all around the issue when it comes up in the media.
Burke testified in front of the grand jury for five hours. After he testified the GJ took a several month break while the investigators dug deep into what he had told the jurors. When the GJ reconvened in October of 1999 it summoned Susan Stine and the two older Ramsey children to testify and then permanently adjourned. No indictment was issued, no written report was made, and the court slapped a gag order on everyone who knew the truth. The active investigation was terminated, and that's the way the case remains to this day.
It's interesting to note that the two most important witnesses in the case -- John and Patsy Ramsey -- were not called to testify infront of the GJ. One doesn't have to wonder much in re' to why their testimony wasn't needed.
In my opinion there were two very young boys involved in the accidental death of JonBenet. However, the staging to make it appear to be the work of foreign terrorists was extremely brutal. Therefore, I believe there could be another perp still out there whom the grand jury failed to identify in 1999. This person, an overnight guest at the house that night, was a teen at the time of the crime. IMO he did much of the staging, including helping to write the bizarre ransom note.
Just my opinion.
BlueCrab


[b]#21, RE: Bluecrab
Posted by Fencesitter on Feb-03-03 at 01:18 PM
In response to message #20
[/b]

Quote:If the Grand Jury 'solved' the murder and decided not to indict - well they couldn't because they were underage - but surely to goodness the DA Mary Keenan would be aware of that? Why is she starting a new investigation and spending all that money if the case is solved and closed?


[b]#22, RE: Bluecrab
Posted by BlueCrab on Feb-03-03 at 02:28 PM
In response to message #21
[/b]

Quote:Please don't hold your breath waiting for something to happen with the new Mary Keenan investigation. Investigations cost money, so if the bucks don't show up earmarked specifically for the Ramsey investigation then nothing much is going to happen.
However, if it's believed to be another perp out there who has slipped between the cracks, along the lines of my BDI/GJ theory involving an older teenager, then you'll probably see a lot of action from the Mary Keenan camp.
Just my opinion.
BlueCrab


[b]#23, The new investigation
Posted by jameson on Feb-21-03 at 01:53 AM
In response to message #22
[/b]

Quote:The DA has investigators - they are already being paid to investigate this case. They can ask for help from other agencies - and some of those will not be charging for that work. Other people will volunteer their time - like Lou Smit. The investigation will move forward - and it will be a lot better than was done before.
The stun gun injuries will surely be part of the investigation. Colorado people who owned those stun guns may well be asked where they were that night. (The people AND their stun guns). Sounds right to me.


[b]#24, Heard from Air Taser
Posted by jameson on Mar-03-03 at 01:52 PM
In response to message #23
[/b]

Quote:Steve from Air Taser wrote me. He said he had noticed "traffic regarding this case" and said he didn't remember being shook up by the MSNBC story. He said the stun gun injury leaves "no marks" and asked me if there was any way he might be of assistance.
What follows is my reply:

I am going to assume that someone is forwarding my posts to you. I recently posted the transcript of the interview that you did - both parts - before you saw Lou Smit's presentation and after.

It was my personal observation that the presentation did unnerve you a bit - I think you hadn't considered the possibility of a child being pressed down on her bed as the stun gun was applied. Under those circumstances she could not have moved away and tests proved that the marks left would be near identical to those on her body.
Here is a question and answer from that interview:
"R: Mr. Tuttle, I can certainly understand why a company would not want their name or product associated with a crime in this case. Do you see any reasonable possibility that it COULD have been a TASER and that a child that young COULD have been incapacitated?
ST: It could have been ours and I certainly, we want to work with the investigators, we have from the very beginning. Um, I don't know. It's bewildering to see if this was ours. The measurements are close. They're not exact, but I don't know. That's what's stupifying - is you've got two separate marks that are crystally clear, perfect, without any movement shown on the suspect's, oh, I'm sorry, on JonBenét. I just don't understand that, how that can be there. (Showing his arm) I don't have the marks here, they're all over the place. I'm not sure if you can see... from me moving, they've gone everywhere. Ah..."
I follow the case closely, I don't know if you remember but we spoke on the phone long ago...
No one has come up with any reasonable explanation for thos marks other than they were from a stun gun. The Air Taser is the weapon that leaves the closest marks when applied to a victim who is unable to move (anaesthetized) and then dies.
I agree the wounds wouldn't match those on a person who was flailing around and then immediately started to heal - but I have been in Denver with Dr. Dobersen and Lou Smit, have been to the animal hospital where the experiments took place and spoke to others who were part of those tests.... and I believe a stun gun was used. Possibly an Air Taser.
Can you assist me in some way? I don't see how. But if you want to set up lab experiments and document the effects of your stun gun in the same way Smit and Dobersen have.... I would be willing to post those results on the Internet. If you convince me it could not have been YOUR product, I will post that.
But for now my opinion is that a stun gun was used, that she was pressed into her mattress and didn't have any chance to escape - and that the stun gun may well have been an Air Taser.
That isn't saying anything bad about you or your company - - people get murdered in all kinds of ways - you can't blame the manufacturer of something that is misused for evil. He could have chosen a gun or knife or poison - - it isn't your fault if our SickPuppy chose a stungun.
I hope you understand this is not a personal assault on you or your company - it is just what I believed happened here - and the evidence I have seen supports that.
You are welcome to disprove it if you care to try. I will always be here if you want to share.
jameson


[b][b]#25, RE: Heard from Air Taser
Posted by jameson on Apr-16-03 at 10:07 AM
In response to message #24
[/b][/b]

Quote:Air Taser isn't interested in talking -
Othe stun gun marks - no two stun gun injuries are alike -- even if the same stun gun is used. Several reasons:
#1 the skin is not a rigid surface, it stretches and contracts, bends...
#2 the prongs of the stun gun can be in contact but at different angles, differing pressures
#3 the length of time the prongs are in contact with the skin would also determine the size and intensity of the injury


[b][b]#26, RE: voltage?
Posted by BraveHeart on Apr-16-03 at 11:01 AM
In response to message #25
[/b][/b]

Quote:I think the voltage would also have something to do with the type of injury or mark left, with higher voltages making a more severe or larger bruise, all other factors remaining constant.
I also think that the longer you hold the device to the skin of the victim the more the muscles are affected and the greater the effect of disabling, up to a point where the muscles are totally fatigued.
And this is redundant but important to consider....the device can be modified to deliver a greater voltage. Information on stun gun "kits" or books that show you how to build one have been on the web for years. A modified or home built device might be more desirable from a criminal's viewpoint as it would probably be harder to trace or less likely to leave traceble marks.
Another point of interest to me, if I understand this correctly, is that you can be touching the person you are stunning and not be shocked. That is to say, you could hold your hand over the victim's mouth, perhaps covering their mouth with some fabric (like a glove) to prevent skin contact with the victim, to prevent them from crying out while stunning them.


[b][b]#27, RE: voltage?
Posted by jameson on Apr-16-03 at 12:22 PM
In response to message #26
[/b][/b]

Quote:tapes of people getting "zapped" are available. Some cry out, others don't.
In this case, I would imagine the killer put a pillow over Jon's face - - that would explain the pillow being toward the foot of the bed the next morning.


[b][b]#28, RE: voltage?
Posted by Margoo on Apr-16-03 at 02:06 PM
In response to message #27
[/b][/b]

Quote:LAST EDITED ON Apr-16-03 AT 02:52 PM (EST)
 
http://www.paktronix.com/lewis95.html
Here is a link to the some very good information on the tests done on stun guns.
edited to note: While yesterday this site was accessible, for some reason it does not seem to be today. Keep trying, it's a good one.


[b][b]#29, RE: voltage?
Posted by Mikie on Apr-16-03 at 02:27 PM
In response to message #28
[/b][/b]

Quote:In the movie "Anger Management" the psychologist, (Jack Nicholson), was using some kind of hair stimulating device that looked like a low voltage stun gun or something. It shot lightning bolts down to his head.


[b][b]#30, RE: voltage?
Posted by jameson on Apr-16-03 at 06:52 PM
In response to message #29
[/b][/b]

Quote:Stratbucker was removed as an expert in the Wolf case - - I don't know howmuch I trust any of his work.


[b][b]#31, RE: voltage?
Posted by Margoo on Apr-16-03 at 09:21 PM
In response to message #30
[/b][/b]

Quote:Don't blame ya. But this study was Stratbucker, Marsh, and Dobersen.


[b][b]#32, RE: voltage?
Posted by jameson on Apr-29-03 at 12:42 PM
In response to message #31
[/b][/b]

Quote:Let's keep the stun gun discussion on this thread and leave the other for the "confession"
moving messages...
why_nut

I remember seeing a demonstration of stun guns or tasers and they had the men line up and hold
hands and the guys at the end got stunned and they all fell down.
You believe everything you see, without question? This is gullibility beyond words. What you saw was
staged for profit, not to demonstrate a viable electrical phenomenon. Ask former poster Dave: he
always had a grip on science and can tell you that the electrical resistance of all that skin alone would
not be able to be overcome by the meager amperage (not voltage, which means nothing, but
amperage, which is what gives electricity its kick) of a 9-volt-powered stun gun.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jameson"

>I remember seeing a demonstration of stun guns or tasers
>and they had the men line up and hold hands and the guys at
>the end got stunned and they all fell down.
>
>You believe everything you see, without question? This is
>gullibility beyond words. What you saw was staged for
>profit, not to demonstrate a viable electrical phenomenon.
>Ask former poster Dave: he always had a grip on science and
>can tell you that the electrical resistance of all that skin
>alone would not be able to be overcome by the meager
>amperage (not voltage, which means nothing, but amperage,
>which is what gives electricity its kick) of a
>9-volt-powered stun gun.
Why_Nut - the video I saw was for law enforcement - to show the power of the taser. I
watched it to look for the sounds - - some made noises and others were quiet. But they
certainly all did fall down.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jayelles

And they were holding hands right? So you have a line of big men holding hands and the one at the
end gets shocked and he collapses in a dead weight (I think the term is 'flops like a fish' - unable to
steady himself) - pulling the guy next to him down. The third guy is pulled down by the weight of the
first two and so on. They don't let go of the hands because the natural reaction of you fall is to cling
on to something.
That doesn't sound very scientific to me LOL!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

why_nut

Why_Nut - the video I saw was for law enforcement - to show the power of the taser.
The point stands, and stands firm. The stun gun seller wanted to sell stun guns to law enforcement,
not to sacrifice sales because their product does not do something particularly impressive. They
mocked up a video which purported to show a phenomenon which does not exist due to various
scientific principles. I have seen videos from manufacturers who claim that you can lose ten pounds
overnight by taking a single pill. Is this true? No, it is not. Neither are the videos which claim to show
how applying a stun gun to one's torso will result in the loss of fat and a six-pack of abdominal muscle.
Are such manufacturers found to be fraudulent? Yes, they are. Does a fraudulent manufacturer go out
of its way to tell you how fraudulent it is being by saying, "See these men? They fell down, but it
cannot happen that way. Still, buy our stun gun"? No, that does not happen. You can try to argue
with science, but you will have to do it with other science, not by saying that you saw a video, so it
must be true (and you dare to criticize the tabloids, which work on the similar principle that if it is in
print, it must be true?). Skin is naturally resistant to electricity. If it were not, your muscles would
paralyze upon getting a shock from a doorknob in winter (10,000 volts!). Gather up your evidence and
come back to us, and maybe you can build a convincing case.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
why_nut

And they were holding hands right? So you have a line of big men holding hands and the one at the
end gets shocked and he collapses in a dead weight (I think the term is 'flops like a fish' - unable to
steady himself) - pulling the guy next to him down. The third guy is pulled down by the weight of the
first two and so on. They don't let go of the hands because the natural reaction of you fall is to cling
on to something.
The Rockettes have a similar routine when they perform as toy soldiers during the Christmas show, and
I was never under the impression that the effect was done by stun-gunning the first soldier.


[b][b]#33, Margoo
Posted by Jayelles on Apr-29-03 at 01:05 PM
In response to message #32
[/b][/b]

Quote:>>Don't blame ya. But this study was Stratbucker, Marsh, and Dobersen.
LOL - I guess that discredits Doberson then!


[b][b]#34, interesting
Posted by jameson on Apr-29-03 at 01:19 PM
In response to message #33
[/b][/b]

Quote: Officer injured in stun gun demonstration
Madison - A demonstration of a Taser stun gun at the Dane County Jail left
a sheriff's officer with a head injury.
Sgt. Krist Boldt was taken to a hospital with a gash on his head that required
four staples to close.
Boldt was playing the role of an unruly inmate during a media event to show
the public the two new stun guns that the Sheriff's Department bought for use
at the jail and in court.
Another officer, Sgt. Pat Price, was playing the role of a jail supervisor armed
with a Taser. Price shot the Taser at Boldt, who was supposed to fall forward
onto a protective mat. Instead, Boldt fell backward and smacked his head on
the floor.
He was released from the hospital after a CT scan showed no other head
injury, said sheriff's Capt. Brian Willison.
The stun guns cost $650 each, and the department has no plans to stop using
them, he said.
From Journal Sentinel staff and The Associated Press.


[b][b]#35, Jameson
Posted by why_nut on Apr-29-03 at 01:27 PM
In response to message #34
[/b][/b]

Quote:Another officer, Sgt. Pat Price, was playing the role of a jail supervisor armed with a Taser. Price shot the Taser at Boldt, who was supposed to fall forward onto a protective mat. Instead, Boldt fell backward and smacked his head on the floor.
And why is this interesting? Because he was completely uninjured by the stun gun? Because he was injured by falling on the floor? Because he was injured in the same way that professional stunt men are injured when not playing the role of someone being stunned by a gun, but who aim for a mat and miscalculate, hitting floor where no mat is? Because falling forward requires pushing off with the balls of the feet, whereas falling backwards simply requires the relaxation of one's knees and Boldt relaxed his knees instead of using his feet to push him forward?


[b][b]#36, Why_Nut
Posted by Jayelles on Apr-29-03 at 02:15 PM
In response to message #35
[/b][/b]

Quote:I just thought on something else that is wrong with this stun-gun video for LE.
Supposing two police officers are trying to restrain a violent criminal and one of the officers uses the stun-gun on the criminal. If the stungun shoots through anyone in contact with the person being stungunned, then that would mean that the other restraining officer would collapse too - AND possibly the officer using the stungun if he was still holding on to the criminal. Sounds like something out of Monty Python!
NOT a good advertisement for selling stunguns to LE LOL!!


[b][b]#37, RE: Stun Gun Evidence - Why?
Posted by Terrance on Apr-29-03 at 02:59 PM
In response to message #36
[/b][/b]

Quote:There is evidence of Stun Gun, no question.
I don't understand why the BPD were so against this obvious evidence. Were they just trying to cover up their inability to see the evidence in the first place? Perhaps they suspiciously saw it as a threat to their Ramsey/Accident theory. Perhaps there is even more of a story here. Surely an undercover cop working in the same area might know or be aware of weird transients.
Poor girl. She was probably prodded to do something, like eat pineapple down in the basement. Then he took the bowl back up to the kitchen. Sounds crazy doesn't it? But then, whoever did this is crazy.
One suspect was later found with a stun gun in his pack sack. Why would a weird homeless transient own a Stun Gun? Well, it is a defensive weapon, but it is also an easily concealed weapon and therefore more likely an attack weapon. But a stun gun doesn't kill, so I conclude that a weird transient might own it for manipulation.


[b][b]#38, RE: Stun Gun Evidence - Why?
Posted by BraveHeart on Apr-29-03 at 06:32 PM
In response to message #37
[/b][/b]

Quote:I have read previously that the charge does NOT pass through one person into the next for precisely the reason mention by Jayelles above. In close contact, as in a scuffle, an officer is supposed to be able to stun their opponent without harming themself. Maybe this is the PR they want us to believe? I don't personally know. We need to contact Super Dave for this one.


[b][b]#39, RE: Not hand-to-hand combat
Posted by Margoo on Apr-29-03 at 11:26 PM
In response to message #38
[/b][/b]

Quote:Don't the police departments use the type of stun guns that "throw darts"?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1537484.stm
has a photo of the type I'm thinking of.
The stun gun "Air Taser" that Lou Smit has photographed and used in the tests with Dobersen is not the same as the PD issued ones.


[b][b]#40, RE: Not hand-to-hand combat
Posted by Margoo on Apr-30-03 at 01:05 AM
In response to message #39
[/b][/b]

Quote:LAST EDITED ON Apr-30-03 AT 01:06 AM (EST)
 
Don't the police departments use the type of stun guns that "throw darts"?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1537484.stm
has a photo of the type I'm thinking of.

Correction - the article has a photo and a diagram of the type I'm referring to.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/816759/posts

scroll down to the bottom and in the photo you can see the electrical connection to the darts used on this suicidal man.


[b][b]#41, RE: Not hand-to-hand combat
Posted by Margoo on Apr-30-03 at 04:37 AM
In response to message #40
[/b][/b]

Quote:>>Don't blame ya. But this study was Stratbucker, Marsh, and Dobersen.
LOL - I guess that discredits Doberson then!
Nope, actually, I don't blame jameson for not trusting Stratbucker because of the lousy job he did for Darnay/Wolf. That it makes her suspicious of Stratbucker's motives in the Wolf/Ramsey suit as one of Darnay's discredited experts and his ties to Taser does not surprise me at all and has no impact on the integrity of Dobersen (or Marsh or Kitchen). They do not have a working relationship with Taser.

Correction, the study was done by Stratbucker, Marsh, Dobersen, and Kitchen.
http://www.paktronix.com/lewis95.html


[b][b]#42, RE: Not hand-to-hand combat
Posted by Margoo on Apr-30-03 at 04:58 AM
In response to message #41
[/b][/b]

Quote:http://www.buffzone.com/opinion/guest/15eguest.html
Dr. Mike Dobersen, the Arapahoe County Medical Examiner, who has worked closely with Smit, particularly on the pig skin experiments, says that "the experiment reveals precisely the same marks and cell changes that were seen on JonBenét." He tells us that "to a degree of medical certainty," a stun gun was used on JonBenét.
This is, to say the least, extremely important, since the Boulder police also approached Dobersen about the marks. They showed him the photos, and then reported — in an obvious attempt to borrow from the authority of his office and his expertise — that he had said it was impossible to tell whether they were stun gun marks or not. As he states in the program, that is not what he said. He asked them for more information, including more photos and a stun gun that matched the marks. He never heard from them again, and it was Smit who brought him the Tazer and the close-up photos of the injuries. One would hope that law enforcement would continue to respect his authority now that he says, with great conviction, the marks were caused by a stun gun.
Now, why would the Boulder police say Dobersen said something different than he actually said? Then, when Dobersen clears up what he actually said, and gets the additional information he asked for, and says "the experiment reveals precisely the same marks and cell changes that were seen on JonBenét", why would the Boulder police - who searched him out as THE expert on stun guns - ignore his expert opinion? Was the BPD looking for "answers" or not?
Perhaps this statement by Steve Thomas was the prevailing attitude:
"It was hard not to stop and read, for we kept finding material we had never seen before, such as potential 'points of entry' for an intruder and diagrams suggesting 'open' doors. I kept wondering why was this sh*t in the official files? Didn't the DA's investigators realize the potential damage?"
Were they afraid (if there was a trial) that if this information regarding stun guns and intruder evidence were in the police files, disclosure to the defense would be required and make itself known, undermining the prosecution of a non-intruder (Ramsey)?


[b][b]#43, RE: Expert Support of Stun Gun
Posted by Margoo on Apr-30-03 at 05:33 PM
In response to message #42
[/b][/b]

Quote:LAST EDITED ON Apr-30-03 AT 05:35 PM (EST)
 
Besides, Dobersen, these "experts" are known to agree that the abrasions on JonBenet's face and back were consistent with a stun gun:
(Who knows, there may be more!)
Dr. Meyer, who did the autopsy,
Sue Kitchen, CBI investigator and
Dr. Robert Deters (pathologist) all agreed the marks were consistent with a stun gun.
Deters concurs with Dobersen: "...but he didn't think the body had to be exhumed. Nothing more would be learned by examining the skin tissue'"
Doberson, Kitchen, and Deters all had EXPERIENCE with stun gun deaths and the corresponding marks.
PMPT pb 349, 431


[b][b]#44, Margoo
Posted by why_nut on Apr-30-03 at 05:51 PM
In response to message #43
[/b][/b]

Quote:Sue Kitchen, CBI investigator
As nearly as I can tell, Kitchen's job at the CBI is as agent in charge of doing background checks, with the bulk of her appearances in public concerning the subject of gun purchases. She does not have any kind of medical training. That does not especially give her experience with identifying anything involving forensic pathology, such as wounds on skin. When she is quoted as saying that it was possible the marks on JonBenet's skin were from a stun gun, she was speaking as any other person with an opinion can.


[b][b]#45, RE: Margoo
Posted by jameson on Apr-30-03 at 05:57 PM
In response to message #44
[/b][/b]

Quote:Stratbucker's deposition said it all - - and he was the best Darnay Hoffman could find to fight Smit and Doberson.


[b][b]#46, RE: Margoo
Posted by why_nut on Apr-30-03 at 06:00 PM
In response to message #44
[/b][/b]

Quote:And to pre-empt any challenge to the premise that she must have appeared in the Paktronix paper because she helped research it, I observe that her name appears last on the list, likely because she had the least to contribute to it. I suspect that her role was to make it possible for the actual researchers (Stratbucker, Marsh and Dobersen) to gain access to what the paper refers to as a "recently adjudicated capital criminal case" which formed the source of the research. I also suspect that she is the person of the group who could verify the facts stated about "During the past decade ubiquitous access, highly restrictive gun control laws, and bargain basement pricing have put several hundred thousand of these LTLW's into the hands of professionals and amateurs alike." In her role as gun-control agent, she would have that knowledge whereas Stratbucker, Marsh and Dobersen would not ordinarily have it.


[b][b]#47, RE: Margoo
Posted by Margoo on Apr-30-03 at 06:43 PM
In response to message #46
[/b][/b]

Quote:LAST EDITED ON Apr-30-03 AT 06:45 PM (EST)
 
Page 349 pb PMPT (approx 269 in hc)
"... on April 16, Lou Smit drove to Lakewood, just outside Denver, to see CBI inspector Pete Mang, who had begun his career at the FBI. Mang suggested that Smit talk to Sue Kitchen, another CBI investigator, who had worked on a murder case in Steamboat Springs in which a stun gun was used. Two days later, Kitchen told the investigators that in her opinion, the small abrasions could have been made by a stun gun. She referred them to Araphoe County coroner Mike Dobersen ...."
Mang seemed to have "faith" in Kitchen's opinion and experience. No reference to a meaningless job description or meaningless contribution to a research study. Just a referral to her for the question regarding stun guns. Sounds like her colleagues respected her opinion - and hardly a "joe" off the street with an opinion.

Page 431 pb PMPT (1st chapter of Part 3)
"When they had gathered suffiecient information, Ainsworth, Pete Hofstrom, Trip DeMuth, and Detective Sgt. Wichman 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 porduced by a stun gun.
Soon after, Ainsworth learned of a 1988 Laramer County murder in which a stun gun had been used on a thirteen-month-old girl, who had been sexually assaulted and killed. Ainsworth met with Dr. Robert Deters, the pathologiest 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."


[b][b]#48, RE: Margoo
Posted by why_nut on Apr-30-03 at 07:32 PM
In response to message #47
[/b][/b]

Quote:Mang seemed to have "faith" in Kitchen's opinion and experience. No reference to a meaningless job description or meaningless contribution to a research study. Just a referral to her for the question regarding stun guns. Sounds like her colleagues respected her opinion - and hardly a "joe" off the street with an opinion.
And what was Peter Mang's own level of expertise in the field of forensic pathology? As deputy director of the CBI, he may wield the power of an impressive title, but on the ground, when one needs to evaluate skin for signs of whether a wound was from a stun gun or whether it was, as defined by the examiner who saw it in person, an abrasion, Mang does not necessarily have the ability to say that the wound is definitely one thing and not another, nor can he convey credibility to those whom he begs off answers to. Donald Trump may be a big name in the field of real estate, but I would not consider him an expert on the circuitry of doorbells, even though he uses them and has personal experience with them every day. He hires people to have that knowledge, just as Mang hires other people to have the actual forensic pathology knowledge that can identify a stun gun mark as being distinct from an ordinary abrasion. Tell me that Smit talked to actual lab technicians who touched samples, put their eyes to microscopes and photographed the results, and I will listen.


[b][b]#49, RE: Margoo
Posted by jameson on Apr-30-03 at 07:47 PM
In response to message #48
[/b][/b]

Quote:"Tell me that Smit talked to actual lab technicians who touched samples, put their eyes to microscopes and photographed the results, and I will listen."
and be more impressed than you were with his work with Doberson?


[b][b]#50, RE: Margoo
Posted by Margoo on Apr-30-03 at 08:46 PM
In response to message #48
[/b][/b]

Quote:LAST EDITED ON Apr-30-03 AT 08:50 PM (EST)
 

Nobody even got an opinion from Mang. Nobody asked Mang for an opinion. Mang provided the referral to Kitchen. His referral to her implies some credibility. What's with all this stuff about Mang? Trump would refer you to the "doorbell circuitry people" as Mang referred Lou Smit to Kitchen - for her expertise. Funny how you start posting about Mang and denigrating Kitchen and ignoring Marsh and Dobersen and Deters.
Dobersen has done extensive tests/research on this question and is THE expert on stun gun marks. Lou Smit more than talked to him. Are you ready to listen?


[b][b]#51, RE: Margoo
Posted by why_nut on May-01-03 at 01:04 AM
In response to message #50
[/b][/b]

Quote:Funny how you start posting about Mang and denigrating Kitchen and ignoring Marsh and Dobersen and Deters.
Next up, Matthew Marsh. What do you think his credentials are in analyzing stun gun injuries? Why, he has none at all. He is a Linux geek, his field of expertise is computer networking systems, not forensic pathology. I begin to see that the article presented on the Paktronix site is not, in fact, at all a scientific, peer-reviewed piece of work but a bit of hobbyist writing that gave all concerned an opportunity to play with stun guns and pigs without being held to any sort of scientific standard by qualified third parties.
Tally so far: a woman who runs background checks to control gun sales, a man who makes a living from networking computers, a doctor who has performed perhaps ten autopsies in thirty years, and another doctor who is considered the premiere expert on stun gun injuries on the basis of having contributing to the analysis of exactly one case where a stun gun was verified as being used.
So, what about that Dobersen? He had to be told that a stun gun was used, I hope you know. Investigators found a stun gun in a suspect's car, went to Dobersen, and essentially told him that they would be very, very pleased if he would confirm for them that Gerald Boggs had been stunned once by the stun gun found, because, even though Boggs had died of a bullet to the head, the actual weapon could not be found and they were most frustrated about not being able to pin the murder on their preferred suspect. Dobersen got lucky, in that when he had Boggs dug up, streaming nuclei were found. I invoke the old saying about a stopped clock being right twice a day. Let me ask: If Steve Thomas had had a hand in solving the Ramsey case, would you have called him Colorado's premiere homicide investigator on the basis of having solved one homicide case?
Robert Deters: He had the singular distinction, in his role as a pathologist, of deciding that sixteen-month-old Salvador Rodriguez had died of complications from an ear infection. It was later found out that the child had died from a deliberate blow to the head by his mother's boyfriend, who was convicted of the murder.


[b][b]#52, Stratbucker
Posted by Jayelles on May-01-03 at 02:06 AM
In response to message #51
[/b][/b]

Quote:Wasn't his deposition disallowed because he had some business dealings with Air Taser and not because he was inept as an expert? and that he hadn't declared the business dealing?
Also, isn't Stratbucker considered more of an expert on stunguns than Doberson?


[b][b]#53, RE: Stratbucker
Posted by jameson on May-01-03 at 08:57 AM
In response to message #52
[/b][/b]

Quote:His deposition is online. He was removed and you can guess for yourself what was going through Darnay's mind at that point.
Doberson is the expert, I believe there are problems with Stratbucker. LP did the research there - I suggest you go to her for that.


[b][b]#54, The Past
Posted by why_nut on May-01-03 at 10:38 AM
In response to message #53
[/b][/b]

Quote:Revisiting past stun gun uses, savor this story from the New York Times, March 30, 1985:
Stun Gun Fails in Action
The first on-the-job use of a gun designed to temporarily knock a suspect unconscious failed last night, when a suspect threw a table at the police and had to be shot a second time and then wrestled to the ground, a spokesman said. The spokesman, Officer Tony Vallelong, said the gun ''was unsuccessful, I'm sorry to say,'' after the suspect, an emotionally disturbed 28- year-old man in an apartment on West 19th Street, was shot with the ''Taser'' stun gun, but pulled out the weapon's electrodes and had to be shot again after he hurled a table at the police.


[b][b]#55, RE: The Past
Posted by Jayelles on May-01-03 at 10:55 AM
In response to message #54
[/b][/b]

Quote:I found these:-
1) That Dr Robert Stratbucker IS an expert
"In a recent medical review conducted by Dr. Robert Stratbucker, Medical Director for TASER International and internationally respected expert in the field of electrical safety"
http://www.airtaser.com/pr/documents/020...lities.doc
2) That JonBenet's marks were considered to be unlike any stungun marks that the people who know them best had seen
"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." "

http://web.dailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/...lrams.html
3) What Stratbucker thought of the information that Lou Smit was putting out about the stungun
"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."


http://web.dailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/...lrams.html


[b][b]#56, Stratbucker anecdotes
Posted by why_nut on May-01-03 at 11:07 AM
In response to message #55
[/b][/b]

[quote]
I found this story from the May 1st, 1993 edition of the Irish Times. I doubt Dobersen would ever have been so bold in his tests!
Let doctors at least take heart from the achievements of one of their number; here is an unsolicited encomium for Dr Robert Stratbucker, both a medical doctor and an electrical engineer who recently was giving evidence at the trial of Charles Bagley, a British professor who is charged with murdering his wife in order to get her life insurance and to have sex with as many of his students as he liked (apparently Professor Bagley was always true to his wife in his fashion; always true to her in his way).
Yvonne Bagley died in the bath and Charles's defence was that the death was accidental. The Bagley house was being renovated and a soldering iron left from work fell into the bath and electrocuted her.
[i]It is at that this point that the hero of the tale, Robert Stratbucker, makes his entrance, his cape flowing in the wind. He testified that it would take a current of hundreds of milliamperes to electrocute an adult; the s
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)