Welcome, Guest
You have to register before you can post on our site.

Username
  

Password
  





Search Forums

(Advanced Search)

Forum Statistics
» Members: 7
» Latest member: John Andrew
» Forum threads: 1,617
» Forum posts: 5,124

Full Statistics

Online Users
There are currently 11 online users.
» 0 Member(s) | 11 Guest(s)

Latest Threads
BPD's Dream Team
Forum: odds and ends
Last Post: jameson245
Yesterday, 05:53 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 1
Espirit News Article
Forum: odds and ends
Last Post: jameson245
Yesterday, 03:06 PM
» Replies: 6
» Views: 838
Teabag question - photo #...
Forum: Fleet and Priscilla White
Last Post: jameson245
Yesterday, 01:58 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 1
GSLDPD99178617
Forum: DNA found in panties
Last Post: jameson245
05-17-2020, 01:02 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 351
May 2020 Boulder Camera a...
Forum: odds and ends
Last Post: Dave
05-11-2020, 12:29 PM
» Replies: 1
» Views: 558
GSLDPD99178617
Forum: What is in the news - staying up to date
Last Post: jameson245
05-08-2020, 08:04 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 260
Bobby Brown = friend of L...
Forum: Names to remember
Last Post: jameson245
05-05-2020, 05:17 PM
» Replies: 1
» Views: 241
odds and ends people
Forum: Names to remember
Last Post: jameson245
05-04-2020, 06:42 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 159
James Rapp
Forum: Names to remember
Last Post: jameson245
05-02-2020, 11:29 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 146
me on Lin Wood
Forum: Some Important quotes
Last Post: jameson245
04-25-2020, 09:45 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 304

 
  fibers on bat found on north side of house
Posted by: jameson245 - 02-20-2017, 05:57 PM - Forum: Fiber and Hair Evidence - No Replies

From Newsweek May 19, 2000

Police found fibers from the (basement) carpet on a baseball bat in the bushes outside the house, leading Smit to believe the killer used it to bludgeon JonBenet.

Print this item

  window in the news
Posted by: jameson245 - 02-20-2017, 05:52 PM - Forum: Broken window/ Spider web - No Replies

A basement window was open, and the window well outside showed signs of fresh disturbance. But the police inexplicably rejected an officer's request to bring in police dogs to find a possible scent trail. Smit noticed leaves and debris, including foam packing peanuts, outside the house in the window well. Inside the basement, he saw similar leaves and foam peanuts, including one 60 feet away in the room where JonBenet was found--a possible sign an intruder coming through the window had tracked the debris through the basement. "The wind sure didn't blow those in there," Smit says. Smit also saw a fresh print from a Hi-Tec shoe, a brand no one in the family owned.

From Newsweek 3/19/2000

Print this item

  Police tried to hide Lou's evidence
Posted by: jameson245 - 02-20-2017, 05:50 PM - Forum: Stun Gun - Replies (2)

From "The Intruder Theory", a story published in Newsweek on 3/19/00


"Examining autopsy photos, Smit noticed unusual sets of abrasions on JonBenet's back and face. Smit wondered if they had been made by a stun gun--an unlikely weapon for a parent to use on a child. Smit measured the marks and discovered they matched a brand of stun gun called the Air Taser. He began to believe the killer may have used the stun gun on JonBenet as she slept, then carried her to the basement. The Boulder police were skeptical of Smit's stun-gun theory, and showed some of the autopsy pictures to Arapahoe County coroner Dr. Michael Doberson, who had researched stun-gun wounds. Doberson said he didn't think the marks were from a stun gun. But recently, NEWSWEEK asked Doberson to review Smit's stun-gun evidence. Doberson says the police never showed him Smit's pictures comparing the size and orientation of the marks with the electrical contacts on the Air Taser. He now calls Smit's stun-gun theory "compelling.""

Print this item

  Newsweek describes interview day
Posted by: jameson245 - 02-20-2017, 12:03 AM - Forum: Ramsey cooperation - Replies (1)

   

Print this item

  Partial list of neighbors
Posted by: jameson245 - 02-19-2017, 10:39 PM - Forum: Neighbors - Replies (1)

SCHAFFNER, SABINE H 715 15TH ST                                                    HOLLAND, B 730 15TH ST

                                                                                                                   FORTIER, JEAN 743 15TH ST


STANTON, MELODY AND LUTHER 738 15TH ST
                                  BRUMFITT, DIANE 745 15TH ST


LIMERICK, JEFFREY W AND PATRICIA N 752 15TH ST
                                                                                                                  RAMSEY, JOHN B AND PATSY 755 15TH ST



BARNHILL, JOE AND BETTY 764 15TH ST
                                                                                                                  GIBBONS, SCOTT AND PRISCILLA FREEMAN  765 15TH ST
NUHN, AINSLEY AND KATI SNARE 774 15TH ST
                                                                                                                   CORNWELL, C H 777 15TH ST
                                                                                                                  

                                                                                                                   VANN, PATRICK R 789 15TH ST



I am not sure this is correct, hopefully someone can help with this.

Print this item

  Diane Hollis polygraph
Posted by: jameson245 - 02-19-2017, 07:46 PM - Forum: Polygraphs - Replies (7)

transcript from BORG Peter Boyles with polygrapher Gene Parker 

PB: This man's name came up in a couple of news articles and news stories when John and Patsy Ramsey first announced to the entire world that they had passed the polygraph test. Please say "Good Morning" to Gene Parker. Mr. Parker has himself a former Police Chief . He also has been well involved in the polygraph business. Mr. Parker, Good Morning.

GP: Why Good Morning, from Meeker, Colorado.

PB: Thanks for coming on the show. There seems to be a number of things. I spoke with Mr. Parker yesterday in a private conversation. There's been an awful lot of talk about your involvement or on-involvement in this case. So let me bring up a couple of the questions that seem to be out there quite a bit. Did you ever do any work for John Ramsey or for his company prior to this?

GP: No, I never did.

PB: OK. Had you ever met the Ramseys?

GP: No, I never had.

PB: Who approached you to do this exam initially?

GP: Back on 11 December, '97 I was requested by a national newspaper to confirm the authenticity of a Diane Hollis, who is a former executive secretary of John Ramsey, as to her statement as to, ahh, what had occurred in, ahh, conversation in the Ramsey office.

PB: For the folks in our audience, what did Ms. Hollis say had occurred in terms of a conversation?

GP: She stated that, ahh, there was conversation going on with, umm, some remorse as to, ahh, what had taken place at the murder scene.

PB: Could you go further, elaborate further from that, Gene, if you would?

GP: Ohhhh, let me see. I'm looking at a deposition that I wrote at the time and, uhhh, regarding, uhh, the accuracy of the examination. But, the gist of it was that, uhhh, "Were you told that John Ramsey was molesting JonBenet? That Patsy saw it, swung at John but hit JonBenet instead?" And there was a 88% probability that Miss Hollis was truthful with her "Yes" response utilizing an instrument of the United States Government polygraph for that purpose.

PB: That's why this is significant. That, there's another very significant part of this as well. Again, if you would, Gene, the best of your knowledge who was Miss Hollis and what was her job working for John Ramsey?

GH: She was an executive secretary
.
PB: And how did she come across this information?

GH: That, at this point, with due respect to your very fine radio station, I would be unable to provide for you, other than the fact that records show that Miss Hollis was an executive secretary for John Ramsey.

PB: And you tested Miss Hollis?

GH: Yes.

PB: And when Miss Hollis told you what you've just told us that she said, she tested out which way, true or false?

GH: Way to the absolute probability of truthfulness. That same, the same question was formulated three different ways and to each of those three different ways, uhhh, she, uhhh, the results of the examination shows that she was, the probability of truthfulness was very accurate, in the high 90's. The examination took approximately three hours and the actual exam itself about, uhh, 5 minutes times 3 times that was given to her.

PB: Now what's important about this is the Ramseys now tell us that they have total faith and trust in all polygraphs. And yet here comes this. And I don't know how much of this has ever gotten attention before so I wonder what their reaction will be, and I'm not asking for a comment from you. If we could then move on.
Were you ever requested or did anyone ever come to you about doing the Ramsey polygraph on John and Patsy?

GH: Yes.

PB: Yep.

GH Some short period of time ago I received a telephone call from some people that identified themselves as attorneys for John Ramsey.

PB: Did they mention names or could you mention their names?

GH: Yes, they mentioned names but I'm not at liberty to give those out, with due respect.

PB: All right. Fair enough.

GH: At which time I said "yes" since I had done the first one that...

PB: By the way Gene, did they know you had done the Hollis exam?

GH: Yes. Yes. In so much that I utilized an instrument perfected by the United States government and I had done the first Hollis polygraph which kind of started the whole thing that, "Yes, I would be more than happy to examine John and Patsy." And I quoted my fee. At which time I stated that because of the high profile of the case that it would require that a urine examination be done with a medical doctor and a registered nurse, for obvious reasons, presence. Uhhhm, the attorney said, who stated that he was an attorney, I had reason to believe that he was, stated, "Fine, they would get back to me." Some three hours later I received a telephone call from that same telephone number on my Caller-ID that I originally had got stating that they had declined my offer, they had found someone that would not require a urine examination, thank you very much.




PB: But that, that other person would be the legendary now Mr. T, the guy in NJ, who finds, after testing Patsy a number of times, he can't get an accurate read which I am told, and I certainly don't have any expertise, that when you keep getting inconclusive results, you've got a liar.

GP: Yes and no. Uhhh, there are---the human mind is a very strange thing, a very complex thing in so much as that a lot of things can cause an inconclusive.


PB: But how many inconclusives can you keep getting?

GP: With this instrument I rarely get one.

PB: Hang on, Gene. Let me bring you back and get a wrap-up.

Break

PB: ...He had an opportunity to do a lie, ahh, polygraph, I say lie detectors and I've been told time again and again and again Don't say that, but polygraph examination on a woman who also plays out in this as well, her name is Hollis, and ahh, Miss Hollis, Diane Hollis was the former executive secretary to John Ramsey. And he did a polygraph on her. You were, I believe it was, if I know anything about this, this took place in Arvada? Or would you rather not say?

GP: In that area.

PB: Fair enough. And what she told you is that she was told, and again this is a former executive secretary, she was told by someone in the organization, or someone, I shouldn't even set it up that way but

GP: I think maybe I can help you. She had a conversation several times with a personal secretary of John Ramsey.

PB: And she also was the executive secretary.

GP: Right, the executive had discussion with the personal secretary of John Ramsey which stated incidents of remorse and of some discussion as to what really took place.

PB: And what she was told, the fact that you say that 88% probability that this woman is telling the truth.

GP: That's correct. I'm looking at my notes here to the second relevant question, uhhhm, "Did you give, did you have the discussion with the personal secretary which lasted over an hour and a half period of time regarding what took place with JonBenet Ramsey?" and there was a 97% probability she was truthful, that she gained the information from the personal secretary.


PB: Wow! And then they, when initially they came to you to do some polygraphing and then you wanted them to take a UA and they would not do it. Why would that be important or significant, Gene, to the uninitiated?

GP: This was again the follow-up, where the media and, uhhh, events of the time had brought it to the head that it has now that I received a phone call to take in, OK, a polygraph examines John and Patsy. And because of the high profile of the case, because of their great monetary abilities and ability of certain drugs that are available that could affect the human body system that is examined by polygraph why I insisted that there be a registered nurse and a MD there to take a urine examination prior to the examination. So there would be no doubt in anyone's mind that anything might have caused reaction to change to whatever from what it really is. At which time, some three hours later, the law office called back and stated "Thanks but no thanks."

PB: So if you wanted to do a UA on whether or not they were doing...

GP: Whether they had used a drug. Which could, which very well could cause for an inconclusive, let alone could even take and show a truthful being deceptive.


[size=medium][color=#333333][font=ARIAL]PB: What's interesting about this is, even if, because clearly if they were, if they could pass a UA, they'd have come to you. And I'm guessing that.

GP: Sure.

PB: But they couldn't pass the UA so they go to another guy who doesn't require a UA and they still, Patsy still comes out on two occasions inconclusive, apparently--Carol McKinley from Fox News in an interview with the Ramseys, they did tell her they're both taking Prozac and if you watch Patsy Ramsey on TV you know there's more than just Prozac going on there. I don't know if you know that but you can certainly believe it.

GP: Yes, my Masters being in Psychology I have studied the effects of drugs probably as reasons that I polygraph for the Department of Defense. And I have found that there are certain drugs, let alone in that financial-ability category of the Ramseys to take certain drugs that could very easily cause it, which was the reason why I required a medical doctor and an RN which is I think only about the fifth or sixth time in my 20 some odd years of polygraphing that I've needed it.

PB: Gene, if they'd 've given you a hot UA

GP: Umhmm.

PB: That, that kills the whole thing?

GP: That's correct.

PB: Would you like to, I mean, I don't know what further comments...By the way, do you mind if I give your web site a plug or?

GP: Yeah, go ahead. At 64 years of age, anything.

PB: Yeah (chuckling) what are they gonna do to you, right? Actually, I've got a couple of web sites and phone numbers. What would you like to give out to the public?

GP: Oh, I don't know, the one that's http://www.PolygraphPlace.com/ColoradoPolygraph is one.

PB: Do it again and do it slow.

GP: http://www.PolygraphPlace.com/ColoradoPolygraph

PB: Fair enough.

GP: And then there is the expert pages for the world in different categories. http://www.ExpertPages.com And when you get to that click into experts in polygraphs and you'll see a map, click into experts of the world, in this case, click on Colorado.

PB: We will say goodbye off air and I know we'll be in touch and I know we'll speak again, Gene. Thank you for being on KHOW this morning. hang on. OK?

Print this item

  Toriello tests - inconclusive
Posted by: jameson245 - 02-19-2017, 07:32 PM - Forum: Polygraphs - No Replies

Tester: Polygraph results unexplained
By Christopher Anderson
Camera Staff Writer
May 27, 2000

The polygraph examiner whose tests on John and Patsy Ramsey came up inconclusive says he can't explain the results.

Gerard Toriello, of Clifton, N.J., said Friday he conducted three tests on the couple in an Atlanta law office on April 17 and 18 - the first polygraph tests the Ramseys took.

The Ramseys underwent the tests six days after Boulder Police Chief Mark Beckner Beckner announced his offer for the couple to take lie detector tests conducted by the FBI.

On April 17, Toriello tested John Ramsey for three hours. On April 18, he tested Patsy Ramsey for four hours and John Ramsey again for about two hours.

They were asked if they inflicted the injuries that caused the death of their daughter, JonBenét, in December 1996. The wording, Toriello said, was similar to that in polygraph tests the Ramseys later passed.

Toriello said all three tests he conducted came out inconclusive, based on a numerical score and using the "zone comparison" technique, the same type of test the couple later passed under a second polygrapher who re-tested the couple.

Asked why the tests were inconclusive, Toriello echoed what the Ramseys' attorney, Lin Wood, has been saying for three days: "If we knew what caused an inconclusive test, it wouldn't be an inconclusive test. We would be able to address that factor."

Reasons for inconclusive results can include anxiety, mental fatigue or physical fatigue, Toriello said.

He said both John and Patsy were taking Prozac when he administered the tests. Toriello said the medication can dull the galvanic skin responses during the test, but the results of the tests would not necessarily be affected.

The examiner can factor in the medication's affects when reviewing the charts, he said. The medication would not cause one response to be higher on one question and not on another, he said.

Toriello said he could not disclose the scores or the charts that accompany the test until Boulder police and prosecutors first have a chance to evaluate them.

After Toriello's tests, the Ramseys retook polygraph tests with Los Angeles polygrapher Ed Gelb. Patsy Ramsey's first test with Gelb had "artifacts," most likely because of her physical movement or animated gestures when answering questions, Wood said.

After three marred tests, the Ramseys went on to pass five polygraph tests by Gelb.

Those test results were quality-checked by San Diego polygrapher Cleve Backster, called the grandfather of modern polygraph techniques. Backster confirmed that the Ramseys passed the tests.

The Ramseys paid for all the tests. They say they want the Boulder police and the Boulder County District Attorney's Office to review the results.

Boulder Police Chief Mark Beckner said police are willing to look at any information that could help the case, but the results will not remove the Ramseys from suspicion.

The couple refused to take polygraph tests administered by the FBI. Polygraphs are not admissible as evidence in Colorado courts, although they are used frequently by law enforcement agencies as an investigative tool.

In a Friday interview on Larry King Live, Gelb said his tests can only determine whether someone was attempting deception when answering questions. He said the tests are 95 percent accurate.

"I don't think a polygraph has anything to do with guilt or innocence," he said.

May 27, 2000

Print this item

  Ed Gelb test results
Posted by: jameson245 - 02-19-2017, 07:21 PM - Forum: Polygraphs - Replies (8)

May 24, 2000  Atlanta, Georgia

ED GELB, POLYGRAPH EXPERT: Thank you, Lin. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

I think, in the interest of time, my reading to you the result report of the polygraph examinations may be the most succinct way to provide you with the information that I gleaned from all of the examinations that I conducted with the Ramseys. So I think that I will actually read the report to you. We'll have time for questions and answers, but I think this will give you a basic understanding of the process.

This is a report that was directed to L. Lin Wood, the attorney in this matter. "Psychophysiological detection of deception examinations of John and Patsy Ramsey. This is summary report covering a series of examinations of John and Patsy Ramsey, conducted between May 6 and May 17 of the year 2000. The examinations were conducted in Atlanta, Georgia and Los Angeles, California. The issues under consideration dealt with the allegation that the Ramseys were involved in the murder of their daughter, JonBenet, who was found dead in the Ramsey home in Boulder, Colorado, December 26, 1996. Case information was provided by attorney L. Lin Wood and, through numerous reports of the murder in print.

"During extensive pre-test interviews, both John and Patsy Ramsey denied involvement in JonBenet's murder. These examinations were requested by the Ramseys who agreed that the results of the examinations could be given to the authorities prior to their knowing the outcome themselves.

"The equipment utilized, an axiton (ph) computerized polygraph calibrated to factory specifications were used for the five series of examinations.

"Technique, a zone comparison technique was utilized for all of the examinations with three polygrams being collected for each of the five series conducted. The zone comparison technique has been validated in numerous studies conducted for United States governmental agencies. The resultant polygrams were numerically scored on a 7- position scale by the primary examiner Edward I. Gelb, Ph.D, and then subjected to quality control and blind scoring by Cleve Baxter, the originator of the numerical scoring system.

"John Ramseys examinations: Two series of single-issue examinations were conducted with John Ramsey. In a single issue examination all of the relevant questions are necessarily included in one and are designed to mean the same thing; hence, it is a single- issue examinations.

"The first examination was conducted to determine if he had direct involvement in the murder. In other words, whether John inflicted the injuries that caused the death of JonBenet.

"The second examination was conducted to determine whether John knew who killed JonBenet.

"The questions asked during the two single-issue examinations follow with John Ramsey's answers.

"Series one, John Ramsey. Question 1: Did you inflict any of the injuries that caused the death of JonBenet. Answer: no.

"2. Regarding JonBenet, did you inflict any of the injuries that caused her death. Answer: No.

"3. Were those injuries that resulted in JonBenet's death inflicted by you? Answer: No.

"Conclusion: Based on the numerical scoring of the examination in this series, John Ramsey was telling the truth when he denied inflicting the injuries that caused the death of his daughter, JonBenet. "Series 2, John Ramsey, Question 1. Do you know for sure who killed JonBenet? Answer: No.

"Regarding JonBenet, do you know for sure who killed her? Answer: No.

"Are you concealing the identity of the person who killed JonBenet? Answer: No.

"Conclusion: Based on the numerical scoring of the examinations in this series, John Ramsey was telling the truth when he denied knowing who killed JonBenet.

"Patsy Ramsey's examinations. The first polygraph examination was unusable due to distortions. Appropriate cautions were suggested to eliminate the artifacts so that conclusive results could be obtained. Three series of single-issue examinations were conducted with Patsy Ramsey. The first examination was conducted to determine if Patsy Ramsey had direct involvement in the murder. In other words, whether Patsy inflected the injuries that caused the death of JonBenet. The second examination was conducted to determine whether Patsy knew who killed JonBenet. The third examination was conducted to determine if Patsy wrote the ransom note that was found at the scene.

"The questions asked during the three single-issue examinations follow with Patsy Ramsey's answer.

"Series one, Patsy Ramsey: Did you inflict any of the injuries that caused the death of JonBenet? Answer: No."

"Regarding JonBenet, did you inflict any of the injuries that caused her death. Answer: No.

"Were those injuries that resulted in JonBenet's death inflicted by you? Answer: No.

"Conclusion: Based on the numerical scoring of the examinations in this series, Patsy Ramsey was telling the truth when she denied inflicting the injuries that caused the death of his daughter, JonBenet.

"Series two, Patsy Ramsey. Do you know for who inflicted the injuries that caused the death of JonBenet? Answer: No.

"Regarding JonBenet, do you know for sure who killed her? Answer: No.

"Are you concealing the identity of the person who killed JonBenet? Answer: No.

"Conclusion: Based on the numerical scoring of the examinations in this series, Patsy Ramsey was telling the truth when she denied knowing who killed JonBenet.

"Series 3, Patsy Ramsey: Did you write the ransom note that was found in your house? Answer: No.

"Question 2: Regarding the ransom note, did you write it? Answer: No."

"Question 3: Is that your hand-writing on the ransom note found in your house? Answer: No."

"Conclusion: Based on the numerical scoring of the examinations in this series, Patsy Ramsey was telling the truth when she denied writing the JonBenet ransom note.

"Quality control: A separate report covering the quality control of these examinations has been written by Cleve Baxter, who is one of the world's foremost experts in the field of detection of deception and the person who originated numerical scoring. Baxter's independent analysis corroborated the findings of the undersigned primary examiner.

"Final conclusion: Based on extensive polygraph examination, neither John nor Patsy Ramsey were attempting deception when they gave the indicated answers to the relative questions."

Print this item

  April 30, 1997 until tests taken
Posted by: jameson245 - 02-19-2017, 06:48 PM - Forum: Polygraphs - Replies (10)

Quote:During the April, 1997 interviews, both John and Patsy were carefully approached about taking polygraphs.  Note they were never asked to take them, no one said they would set them up.  The truth is, the police weren't prepared to give the family polygraphs and some did not WANT to deal with the results if they said the Ramseys were telling the truth.


From John Ramsey's Interrogation by Steve Thomas and Tom Trujillo. Also present were Pat Burke, Bryan Morgan, Pete Hoffstrom and Jon Foster
April 30, 1997 - Boulder, Colorado


STEVE THOMAS: "John, one of the things, as you know better than anybody, at some point, if you’re not involved in this, we’ve got to take you out of the bucket. And you’ve been in it for four months and you certainly know why you’re in that bucket is you’re in the house, and I don’t need to say anything more than that. But, and I ask this question of Patsy, and where it might come out if (inaudible), but I’ll ask it. And I’m not asking you to take one, but if you were to take a polygraph, how would you do?"

JOHN RAMSEY: "Well, what I’ve been told is that, and I felt tremendous guilt after we lost JonBenet, because hadn’t protected her, like I failed as a parent. And was told that that’s, with that kind of emotion you shouldn’t take a lie detector test because you did have that guilt feeling, and, but, so I don’t know about the test, but I did not kill my daughter if that’s what you want to ask me. She was the most precious thing to me in the world. So if the lie detector test is correct and it was done correct, I’d pass it 100%."

STEVE THOMAS: "John, let me tell you this, I feel like an encyclopedia salesman sometimes, because I‘ve gone to a number of people in this thing, and it’s hard to convince somebody to take a polygraph test. But I’ve been successful on occasion with some people that I’ve been concerned about, and used what I’ve been told, is one of the ten best FBI calligraphers to do that. And I’ll ask you point blank, at some point in this, would you take a polygraph?"

JOHN RAMSEY: "I would be insulted if you ask me to take a polygraph test, frankly. I mean if you haven’t talked to enough people whose telling you what kind of people we are. You guys, I mean, I will do whatever these guys recommend me to do. We are not the kind of people you’re trying to make us out to be."

@@@@@@@@@@@@  This is the subject as put to Patsy on the same day.  @@@@@@@@@@

PATSY RAMSEY: "What does it take to move past me?"

STEVE THOMAS: "Well, let me ask you this, and I know Pat Burke’s going to jump all over me. And I know, well, let me ask you his way. I’m not asking you to take one, but hypothetically, if you took a polygraph, how would you do?"

PATSY RAMSEY: "I’m telling you the truth. I would, I mean I don’t know how those things work, but if they tell the truth, I ‘m telling the truth. I’ve never ever given anybody a reason to think otherwise. I want to find out who did this, period."



STEVE THOMAS: "Does that mean, yes, you’d pass it?"



PATSY RAMSEY: "Yes, I would pass it. I’ll take ten of them, I don’t care, you know. Do whatever you want."



STEVE THOMAS: "Patsy, let me make this clear to you. As much as you feel, and certainly from the media."


PATSY RAMSEY: "I don’t care what the media says. I do not give one diddly squat what the media says. Sorry, I didn’t mean to interrupt you. I just want to find out who did this."

Print this item

  The stun gun company denies possibility
Posted by: jameson245 - 02-19-2017, 05:10 PM - Forum: Disproving Myths - No Replies

There is more on the stun gun thread but I just want to share this part of the interview with Steve Tuttle of Air Taser:

AFTER VIEWING LOU'S PRESENTATION Tuttle was asked if the effect of the stun gun might be different if the victim was forced to stay still during the attack.

Reporter: 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

Print this item