webbsleuths crime sleuthing community Crime Links: JonBenet Ramsey Darlie Routier Martha Moxley West Memphis Three [ Main ] [ New Topic ] [ How-To ] [ Search ] "Dixie's Child Stun Gunned" Table of Contents ................................................................... Dixie's Child Stun Gunned, Misty, 14:26:48, 8/11/2000 ... like PW, Nandee, 14:50:52, 8/11/2000, (#1) Dixie, Misty, 14:58:27, 8/11/2000, (#2) Misty, maxi, 14:59:42, 8/11/2000, (#3) Maxi, Misty, 15:02:24, 8/11/2000, (#4) Misty, Murphy, 15:05:00, 8/11/2000, (#6) How convenient, Texas 1, 15:03:16, 8/11/2000, (#5) Look Guys, Misty, 15:10:18, 8/11/2000, (#7) What the h*ll, CKJK, 15:31:09, 8/11/2000, (#8) Child Pornography, Misty, 16:16:53, 8/11/2000, (#9) baby bottoms, maxi, 16:38:21, 8/11/2000, (#10) Misty, Nandee, 17:05:11, 8/11/2000, (#11) I WONDER HOW, debradear, 18:14:28, 8/11/2000, (#12) Stairway to hell, starcrossed, 18:33:16, 8/11/2000, (#14) no baby, sissi, 18:29:35, 8/11/2000, (#13) Are we stupid?, Webcat55, 18:51:26, 8/11/2000, (#16) I_saw_them, MadT, 18:46:17, 8/11/2000, (#15) Misty..., wondering, 18:59:41, 8/11/2000, (#17) Report her!, Seajaye1, 20:32:13, 8/11/2000, (#23) doesn't add up, starcrossed, 20:39:02, 8/11/2000, (#24) Intent, Blazeboy3, 14:47:50, 8/12/2000, (#86) A Request, Ruthee, 19:18:28, 8/11/2000, (#18) Ramseys pervert supporters?, sissi, 19:24:19, 8/11/2000, (#19) Ruthee, TLynn, 19:46:38, 8/11/2000, (#20) Sissi, debradear, 19:51:57, 8/11/2000, (#21) The stun gun, pinky5, 19:56:56, 8/11/2000, (#22) Leave Ruthee Alone, NightsTears, 21:20:31, 8/11/2000, (#25) If Ruthee posts the pictures, ..., Maikai, 21:35:35, 8/11/2000, (#26) According to this thread,, pinky5, 22:01:21, 8/11/2000, (#27) I also applaud Misty, NightsTears, 22:48:15, 8/11/2000, (#29) Totally agree, starcrossed, 22:22:57, 8/11/2000, (#28) I just think it is, pinky5, 22:59:30, 8/11/2000, (#30) Blazeboy3, Blazeboy3, 14:52:26, 8/12/2000, (#87) Assuming Dixie's association, starcrossed, 23:28:20, 8/11/2000, (#31) starcrossed, pinky5, 23:49:12, 8/11/2000, (#32) I thought, Misty, 03:49:40, 8/12/2000, (#33) Misty,, mysteptoes, 03:53:34, 8/12/2000, (#34) My, Misty, 04:25:09, 8/12/2000, (#35) Misty, I am so relieved, starcrossed, 06:00:50, 8/12/2000, (#37) askme.com response by jameson, Seajaye1, 06:24:37, 8/12/2000, (#38) Misty,, mysteptoes, 05:07:56, 8/12/2000, (#36) Okay, Misty, 06:56:55, 8/12/2000, (#40) Misty & Lance, starcrossed, 07:21:49, 8/12/2000, (#44) What about the marks?, lance55, 06:49:50, 8/12/2000, (#39) Lance, pinky5, 06:57:58, 8/12/2000, (#41) Lance, pinky5, 07:14:37, 8/12/2000, (#43) Where is MM?, maxi, 07:25:31, 8/12/2000, (#45) Stun gun used, starcrossed, 07:37:24, 8/12/2000, (#47) Food for thought, ACandyRose, 08:11:46, 8/12/2000, (#49) CandyRose, KrayonC, 09:15:39, 8/12/2000, (#62) Poor Madison, KrayonC, 08:08:00, 8/12/2000, (#48) Maxi, pinky5, 08:20:51, 8/12/2000, (#51) Misty, KrayonC, 08:16:57, 8/12/2000, (#50) The stun gun marks, Misty, 08:33:40, 8/12/2000, (#54) Reporting to police...., Maikai, 08:29:27, 8/12/2000, (#52) Maikai, ACandyRose, 09:22:01, 8/12/2000, (#66) stun gun experts? Common sens..., starcrossed, 09:20:10, 8/12/2000, (#64) Maikai, pinky5, 08:37:51, 8/12/2000, (#56) marks left, Nandee, 08:37:03, 8/12/2000, (#55) Yeah, post #46 was mine, , Maikai, 08:31:39, 8/12/2000, (#53) Maikai, Misty, 08:49:56, 8/12/2000, (#58) Nevermind...this darn 'puter....., Maikai, 08:44:20, 8/12/2000, (#57) Good point, Pinky...., Maikai, 08:50:22, 8/12/2000, (#59) The intended purpose, pinky5, 09:01:22, 8/12/2000, (#60) Maikai, Misty, 09:19:52, 8/12/2000, (#63) Nope, Pinky.....no , Maikai, 09:15:05, 8/12/2000, (#61) One study......and I'm outta t..., Maikai, 09:42:54, 8/12/2000, (#67) Maikai..., starcrossed, 10:22:01, 8/12/2000, (#71) Maikai, pinky5, 09:20:31, 8/12/2000, (#65) Pinky5: Oh, the Selevtive Outr..., lance55, 10:17:07, 8/12/2000, (#70) Misty, I know where you're com..., Maikai, 10:15:26, 8/12/2000, (#69) Pinky, Ruthee, 10:12:44, 8/12/2000, (#68) ACandyRose, lance55, 10:26:31, 8/12/2000, (#72) A CandyRose, post #66......, Maikai, 10:46:15, 8/12/2000, (#73) Starcrossed...just for you, Maikai, 10:59:14, 8/12/2000, (#75) Maikai, ACandyRose, 11:13:40, 8/12/2000, (#78) One doesn't have to be a "..., Seajaye1, 10:52:27, 8/12/2000, (#74) More on stun gun...this one is..., Seajaye1, 11:06:28, 8/12/2000, (#76) Maikai, pinky5, 11:16:40, 8/12/2000, (#79) Forgive me,, La Contessa, 11:07:21, 8/12/2000, (#77) Answer re: What is DS, Seajaye1, 11:17:11, 8/12/2000, (#80) DS kids.., Nandee, 11:20:35, 8/12/2000, (#81) Seajaye1, Nandee, 11:23:32, 8/12/2000, (#82) La Contessa, starcrossed, 11:24:47, 8/12/2000, (#83) Dixie, part two, maxi, 11:27:00, 8/12/2000, (#84) Misty..., twilight, 11:33:24, 8/12/2000, (#85) Attitude, Blazeboy3, 15:19:22, 8/12/2000, (#88) ................................................................... "Dixie's Child Stun Gunned" Posted by Misty on 14:26:48 8/11/2000 Include Original Message on Reply Hello? What is wrong with this picture? http://161.58.21.56/dcf/jams/2370.html [ alert ] [ edit ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY w QUOTE ] [ MAIN ] [ LOBBY ] 1. "... like PW" Posted by Nandee on 14:50:52 8/11/2000 Include Original Message on Reply The doctor must have been from California!! [ remove ] [ alert ] [ edit ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY w QUOTE ] [ MAIN ] [ LOBBY ] 2. "Dixie" Posted by Misty on 14:58:27 8/11/2000 Include Original Message on Reply has edited her post and taken away the pictures. She took PICTURES. However, I was smart enough to save the stuff. [ remove ] [ alert ] [ edit ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY w QUOTE ] [ MAIN ] [ LOBBY ] 3. "Misty" Posted by maxi on 14:59:42 8/11/2000 Include Original Message on Reply How about putting up a quicky webpage over at tripod so we can all see them? [ remove ] [ alert ] [ edit ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY w QUOTE ] [ MAIN ] [ LOBBY ] 4. "Maxi" Posted by Misty on 15:02:39 8/11/2000 Include Original Message on Reply NOTE: Last edited on 15:02:39, 8/11/2000 You are asking a puter challenged person to perform what would seem to be a very magical thing. Maxi, I don't think it's right to put those pictures up. I can't believe she did that. [ remove ] [ alert ] [ edit ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY w QUOTE ] [ MAIN ] [ LOBBY ] 6. "Misty" Posted by Murphy on 15:05:00 8/11/2000 Include Original Message on Reply I wanna see ... Email them to webmaster@munitrading.com please? [ remove ] [ alert ] [ edit ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY w QUOTE ] [ MAIN ] [ LOBBY ] 5. "How convenient" Posted by Texas 1 on 15:03:16 8/11/2000 Include Original Message on Reply that she has a doctor living on one side of her and a cop on the other and a 'ER just down the road'! [ remove ] [ alert ] [ edit ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY w QUOTE ] [ MAIN ] [ LOBBY ] 7. "Look Guys" Posted by Misty on 15:10:43 8/11/2000 Include Original Message on Reply NOTE: Last edited on 15:10:43, 8/11/2000 this looks a little like child abuse to me. I am not sending them to anyone. If I send them to anyone, it will be the cops. [ remove ] [ alert ] [ edit ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY w QUOTE ] [ MAIN ] [ LOBBY ] 8. "What the h*ll" Posted by CKJK on 15:31:09 8/11/2000 Include Original Message on Reply happened? I was too late in the reading!! Dang. So Dixie's daughter was stunned in the arse and she took pictures and posted them? Are we supposed to believe that? I mean believe she was 'accidently' stunned by a neighbor kid? It sounds like someone is a little too into investigating some theories. Sorry to be so negative, (and I DO feel sorry for the poor child) but it seems just a little too coincidental to me. So - someone give me the low-down on what was said. I want to see the pictures too. [ remove ] [ alert ] [ edit ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY w QUOTE ] [ MAIN ] [ LOBBY ] 9. "Child Pornography" Posted by Misty on 16:16:53 8/11/2000 Include Original Message on Reply As I see it, Dixie posted child pornography. It was very obscure photos, but she posted pics of her kid's bu** for the SAKE of PROVING the RAMSEYS ARE INNOCENT AND THERE REALLY WAS AN INTRUDER. What will Team Ramsey do NEXT. Isn't there a song about San Jose? Here is the original post which is being sent to the coppers along with the pictures. "Ouch, neighbor's kid zaps Madison with stun gun" Posted by Dixie on Aug-11-00 at 03:31 PM (EST) This morning Madison went to play with a neighbor's son. My neighbor is a physician who is taking a year off with a new baby. The other child is about 6. Anyway, he got a hold of his dad's stun gun and zapped Madison in the butt with it. She DID NOT scream, she simply dropped like a rock (according to the mother). She (the mom) called me, Madison was not completely unconscious but absolutely out of it for about 10 minutes. She weighs 65 lbs. Those are the marks that were left through her shorts, I think, cause it could have been bare skin where it was located if she was bent over. There was no mark on the shorts. The stun gun was a Stunmaster and the heads were not square but if you look at the mark on the left, it is not round either like you'd expect it to be, it is more rectangular. I only had the vid cam to take the photo with so it's the best shot I could I could get. The mom is an M.D. so we saw no reason to call a doctor or 911, she kept check on Madison's vitals and they were fine. Madison says it does not hurt. Though it may have at the time, she doesn't "member". This was just a fluke accident (thank God there were no loaded guns in the house) and she did not know her husband had left it within the child's reach. No harm, no foul but this is what a stun mark looks like on a child taken within a few moments (about 10) of a single discharge from a stun gun with rounded prongs. Incredible. Now, for those of you who would ask, no, I do not think this mother was negligent, and no I do not intend to do anything about it. The stun gun is locked up safe and she tended to her son over playing with it. Madison is unharmed. Dixie IS DIXIE A MEMBER OF TEAM RAMSEY? Some think so. If so, was this a publicity stunt? How low will these folks go. [ remove ] [ alert ] [ edit ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY w QUOTE ] [ MAIN ] [ LOBBY ] 10. "baby bottoms" Posted by maxi on 16:38:21 8/11/2000 Include Original Message on Reply or even the bottoms of older children, are not in and of themselves pornographic. The fact that some perverts find them sexually stimulating changes nothing. We can't allow weirdos to set social norms. Some people find shoes sexually stimulating, but that doesn't make pictures of shoes pornographic. It's all in the context. [ remove ] [ alert ] [ edit ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY w QUOTE ] [ MAIN ] [ LOBBY ] 11. "Misty" Posted by Nandee on 17:05:11 8/11/2000 Include Original Message on Reply "Here is the original post which is being sent to the coppers along with the pictures." When something is posted on the web, how do you know which "coppers" to send the information to?? [ remove ] [ alert ] [ edit ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY w QUOTE ] [ MAIN ] [ LOBBY ] 12. "I WONDER HOW" Posted by debradear on 18:17:30 8/11/2000 Include Original Message on Reply NOTE: Last edited on 18:17:30, 8/11/2000 NOTE: Last edited on 18:15:28, 8/11/2000 We can all be so moral..yet allow a CERTAIN CD to be on the market...HOUSES OF THE HOLY..by LED ZEPPELIN. with little nacked 5 and 6 years old GIRLS ..WITH LONG BLONDE HAIR .. WITH THEIR NACKED BODIES AND THE CRACK OF THEIR BABY BUTTS SHOWING.. CLIMBING UP ROCKS. .. THAT IS THE COVER ..NO ONE PROTESTED.They sold millions.???? How can this be???????? FIRST RELASED IN 1973.... [ remove ] [ alert ] [ edit ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY w QUOTE ] [ MAIN ] [ LOBBY ] 14. "Stairway to hell" Posted by starcrossed on 18:33:16 8/11/2000 Include Original Message on Reply Ahhh... but, did Led Zeppelin's album cover have pictures of naked 6 year old's butts with stun gun marks on them?? So, would that mean Debradear you want these pictures of Madison re-posted? I agree with Misty. In my view, taking a stun gun to a child is child abuse (and if Dixie didn't--well she's guilty of neglect for not taking Madison to ER-- she already has medical problems that a stun gun could have made worse.) and I would think a picture that shows a form of child abuse viewing a part of a child's privates would be considered pornagraphic. [ remove ] [ alert ] [ edit ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY w QUOTE ] [ MAIN ] [ LOBBY ] 13. "no baby" Posted by sissi on 18:29:35 8/11/2000 Include Original Message on Reply I don't know what to think of this,but I do know that a ten year old is not a baby,and most likely starting puberty. A shirt would have been appropriate,as would more covering of the buttocks. [ remove ] [ alert ] [ edit ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY w QUOTE ] [ MAIN ] [ LOBBY ] 16. "Are we stupid?" Posted by Webcat55 on 18:51:26 8/11/2000 Include Original Message on Reply Does Dixie think that this entire scenario is believeable? The entire thing reeks of lies from someone who seems to be a pathological liar anyway. Dixie must think that everybody except her is stupid and gullible. That entire story is pure tripe. The pediatrition mom has her own home crash cart-gimme a break. It's a wonder the doc's kid didn't use the defibrillators on Dixie's kid. LOL This just goes to show what a nut case Mrs. PhD wannabe Dixie is. She is doing things beyond sane limits to try and shove the stun gun theory down our throats. [ remove ] [ alert ] [ edit ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY w QUOTE ] [ MAIN ] [ LOBBY ] 15. "I_saw_them" Posted by MadT on 18:46:17 8/11/2000 Include Original Message on Reply >>>>As I see it, Dixie posted child pornography. It was very obscure photos, but she posted pics of her kid's bu** for the SAKE of PROVING the RAMSEYS ARE INNOCENT AND THERE REALLY WAS AN INTRUDER. What will Team Ramsey do NEXT<<< this_is_all_true_IMO the_pics_were_awful obviously_a_young_girl_with a_naked_bottom it_should_be_investigated ps_my_keyboard_is_fried [ remove ] [ alert ] [ edit ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY w QUOTE ] [ MAIN ] [ LOBBY ] 17. "Misty..." Posted by wondering on 18:59:41 8/11/2000 Include Original Message on Reply You are doing the right thing...there is no way she can justify posting her naked child on the internet, stun gun marks or not.(surely she knows what certain types of people read the internet...it's sick) It's a scam and it should be investigated. IMO ofcourse. [ remove ] [ alert ] [ edit ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY w QUOTE ] [ MAIN ] [ LOBBY ] 23. "Report her!" Posted by Seajaye1 on 20:32:13 8/11/2000 Include Original Message on Reply I post over on the Delphi forums...ACR mainly...have been reading this with much anger...that stupid woman...I sure hope you do report her, to the cops and to Child Protective Services. That little girl has DS...which is known for causing neurological and HEART problems...the stungun can affect both. Why on earth would she not rush this child to the ER?! I posted a little about the effects of stunguns, and they have caused deaths! Here is what I got off of an internet site: "Some police departments authorize the use of tasers and stun guns to subdue suspects and several deaths have occurred following use of stun weapons" "Portable, easy to use, and with the potential to inflict severe pain without leaving substantial visible marks on the human body, electro-shock stun equipment is, Amnesty International believes, particularly open to abuse by unscrupulous law enforcement officials. Of concern also is evidence which suggests that electro-shock devices may produce harmful or even fatal effects, particularly in the case of persons suffering from heart disease, neurological disorders or who are under the influence of drugs." that last sentence...heart disease and neurological disorders, both affect DS kids... She makes me sick...I hope she gets her butt busted...and her neighbor the "Doctor", too. Cj [ remove ] [ alert ] [ edit ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY w QUOTE ] [ MAIN ] [ LOBBY ] 24. "doesn't add up" Posted by starcrossed on 20:39:02 8/11/2000 Include Original Message on Reply Dixie posted that the neighbor said that Madison "dropped like a rock" when she was zapped. The neighbor had to be there at the moment of impact to see it. That to me sounds fishy. A doctor that has a crash cart in her home? Madison's doctor lives 2 blocks away, and just happened to have the day off so he could make a house call to see if she was okay? Of course, Dixie doesn't mention any of this until she is critisized for being neglectful towards Madison's health. Meanwhile, threads are disapearing from the swamp. [ remove ] [ alert ] [ edit ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY w QUOTE ] [ MAIN ] [ LOBBY ] 86. "Intent" Posted by Blazeboy3 on 14:47:50 8/12/2000 Include Original Message on Reply I think the intent was to educate. We are all here to learn lessons from our mistakes. If you are perfect, please stand up. [ remove ] [ alert ] [ edit ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY w QUOTE ] [ MAIN ] [ LOBBY ] 18. "A Request" Posted by Ruthee on 19:18:28 8/11/2000 Include Original Message on Reply If anyone has saved the picture that Dixie posted on the LH forum Please send me a copy. I plan to crop the photo to show the marks only. I also plan on putting the cropped photo on my stun gun web page along with a serious discussion to show to what lengths these Rameys pervert supporters will go to reinforce a lie. I appreciate any help anyone can give me. Ruth [ remove ] [ alert ] [ edit ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY w QUOTE ] [ MAIN ] [ LOBBY ] 19. "Ramseys pervert supporters?" Posted by sissi on 19:24:19 8/11/2000 Include Original Message on Reply Now ,that was an offensive comment.Until this case is solved,not even the psychics(such as your claim) have agreed on anything. I believe an intruder murdered Jonbenet,and I am not a pervert. [ remove ] [ alert ] [ edit ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY w QUOTE ] [ MAIN ] [ LOBBY ] 20. "Ruthee" Posted by TLynn on 19:46:38 8/11/2000 Include Original Message on Reply In all due respect, I believe you would be exploiting the situation -- no matter what the purpose. [ remove ] [ alert ] [ edit ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY w QUOTE ] [ MAIN ] [ LOBBY ] 21. "Sissi" Posted by debradear on 19:51:57 8/11/2000 Include Original Message on Reply Time takes care of things. you did good. [ remove ] [ alert ] [ edit ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY w QUOTE ] [ MAIN ] [ LOBBY ] 22. "The stun gun" Posted by pinky5 on 19:56:56 8/11/2000 Include Original Message on Reply is a theory, not a lie. [ remove ] [ alert ] [ edit ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY w QUOTE ] [ MAIN ] [ LOBBY ] 25. "Leave Ruthee Alone" Posted by NightsTears on 21:20:31 8/11/2000 Include Original Message on Reply Let's get something straight: RUTHEE has not exploited anyone, she has not stun-gunned any children, she has not photographed a child nude while telling them to expose their buttocks and bend over. NO, RUTHEE has cared about JonBenet Ramsey and the insights she has had and put up on her website have helped me a great deal, and I bet they have helped law enforcement too. She has documented lies told by certain people, and has spent time and money putting the evidence before us, not suppositions or innuendo, but copies of actual conversations, and documentation of lies and falsifications. IF Ruthee wants to put a photo of a child on her website, I personally believe she is trustworthy and would post it just as she said she would-cropped to show only the injury itself. RUTHEE cares about JONBENET, DIXIE cares about DIXIE... but not about her own daughter. DIXIE is a criminal. What's next, a garrote to the other child's neck, conveniently photographed with the poor little child's tongue hanging out? Someone in the San Jose CA area please call the police about this woman, and help Madison receive medical attention at a HOSPITAL. [ remove ] [ alert ] [ edit ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY w QUOTE ] [ MAIN ] [ LOBBY ] 26. "If Ruthee posts the pictures, she's" Posted by Maikai on 21:35:35 8/11/2000 Include Original Message on Reply exploiting this. There is no reason to continue this on the internet---no reason to post the pictures of this child. She should be offlimits. [ remove ] [ alert ] [ edit ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY w QUOTE ] [ MAIN ] [ LOBBY ] 27. "According to this thread," Posted by pinky5 on 22:01:21 8/11/2000 Include Original Message on Reply Misty is the only poster who has copies of Dixie's posts. I applaud Misty on her decision to only supply the cops with this info, if anyone. So it looks like Ruthee is SOOL. [ remove ] [ alert ] [ edit ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY w QUOTE ] [ MAIN ] [ LOBBY ] 29. "I also applaud Misty" Posted by NightsTears on 22:48:15 8/11/2000 Include Original Message on Reply In standing up for the integrity of Ruthee and her website, I in no way meant to imply that I do not admire and urge Misty to proceed with notifying the CA authorities about Madison's ordeal. Of course, the welfare of this child is the most important thing. I am extremely concerned about the children in the Lafoya household. Misty, for what it's worth, you have my support and encouragement in obtaining help for Madison. You did a marvelous job with the documentation of the Email hoax and the perpetrator of the whole shebang. I know you are a person of integrity and principle. I can like Ruthee's work and Misty's work too, can't I? :) [ remove ] [ alert ] [ edit ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY w QUOTE ] [ MAIN ] [ LOBBY ] 28. "Totally agree" Posted by starcrossed on 22:22:57 8/11/2000 Include Original Message on Reply with your assesment of Ruthee. Her web pages on JonBenet, IMO, are the most credible and believable pages out there. I would trust Ruthee's word that she would crop a picture... if Misty doesn't provide her with the picture then I respect her decision. However, I do look forward to reading about this issue on her web-pages, picture or no picture. When I read her post, I took it to mean that she was speaking of mainly 2 or 3 "outragoes" Ramsey supporters... One in paticular comes to mind! *G* [ remove ] [ alert ] [ edit ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY w QUOTE ] [ MAIN ] [ LOBBY ] 30. "I just think it is" Posted by pinky5 on 22:59:30 8/11/2000 Include Original Message on Reply a grave error to ASSUME association between Dixie & the Ramseys &/or team just because she posts on Jameson's forum; perhaps I'm coming from the fact I post here & there, but I have no personal/business association with Jameson, the Ramseys, or the team. Facts are one thing, assumptions are quite another. [ remove ] [ alert ] [ edit ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY w QUOTE ] [ MAIN ] [ LOBBY ] 87. "Blazeboy3" Posted by Blazeboy3 on 14:54:04 8/12/2000 Include Original Message on Reply NOTE: Last edited on 14:54:04, 8/12/2000 Ditto. Its reminds me of working a crossword puzzle. [ remove ] [ alert ] [ edit ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY w QUOTE ] [ MAIN ] [ LOBBY ] 31. "Assuming Dixie's association" Posted by starcrossed on 23:28:20 8/11/2000 Include Original Message on Reply I don't think people assume Dixie's association with the Ramsey's just because she posts on Jameson's forum. It's her ACTIONS that speaks louder than her posts (and I'm not just speaking of today's horrible incident.) There's the PHD that was pulled out of a hat. She was in JAG when she didn't even have a college degree? She scanned a chewed up pinneapple, she used "prongs" on her child in her garage to make marks? All of these things were pretty incredible to some people. But, today takes the cake. I don't know if she's involved with The Ramsey's, and I don't really care. It just seems she went to desperate lengths to prove them innocent-- maybe at the price of her children. I view you totally different from Dixie. I read your thoughtful posts (even on the occasion when I visit "the swamp") I've never assumed you had a personal association with Jameson or the Ramsey's. Your last line really caught my eye. >Facts >are one thing, assumptions are quite >another. Sorry if I'm making no sense Pinky5-- I'm getting very sleepy. [ remove ] [ alert ] [ edit ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY w QUOTE ] [ MAIN ] [ LOBBY ] 32. "starcrossed" Posted by pinky5 on 23:53:27 8/11/2000 Include Original Message on Reply NOTE: Last edited on 23:53:27, 8/11/2000 I getcha; & I was assuming. [ remove ] [ alert ] [ edit ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY w QUOTE ] [ MAIN ] [ LOBBY ] 33. "I thought" Posted by Misty on 03:49:40 8/12/2000 Include Original Message on Reply about this last night. I am reporting the incident. I have the information I need to do that. Pinky and Sissi: I respect both of you and I applaud your ability to continue to post on forums where the intruder theorists are so outnumbered. I don't know whether Dixie is part of the team; it appears that she may be however. I would hope that she thought of this on her own and it was not part of any master plan. Perhaps Dixie is not lying and this incident did happen. If that is the case, then her neighbor will be able to colloborate her story. This is a matter for the authorities, not the message board. Again, no pictures will be sent to anyone. [ remove ] [ alert ] [ edit ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY w QUOTE ] [ MAIN ] [ LOBBY ] 34. "Misty," Posted by mysteptoes on 03:53:34 8/12/2000 Include Original Message on Reply even if Dixie did not lie about the incident, the posting of the kid's bare bottom is an exploitation of her child and might constitute as child pornography. You are right to report this to the authorities, imo. That picture was out of line. [ remove ] [ alert ] [ edit ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY w QUOTE ] [ MAIN ] [ LOBBY ] 35. "My" Posted by Misty on 04:37:26 8/12/2000 Include Original Message on Reply NOTE: Last edited on 04:37:26, 8/12/2000 There are so many bad things about this incident, I can't even begin to tell you. Will Jameson continue to allow Dixie to post? After all, I was dismembered (had to edit this word: sounds terrible, doesn't it: "dismembered" ...lol) because I dared to question Jameson's involvement with the Patricia Letter Writer episode. I was not given my $50 back. If Dixie is allowed to continue posting, is Jameson, then, committing internet fraud? Does she hold different rules for different folks? Perhaps Jeanilou should have further pursued this endeavor instead of focusing solely on the copyright issue. She did have a point about that issue. This is child neglect or child abuse or exploiting children or something ... that I have no doubt about. [ remove ] [ alert ] [ edit ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY w QUOTE ] [ MAIN ] [ LOBBY ] 37. "Misty, I am so relieved" Posted by starcrossed on 06:00:50 8/12/2000 Include Original Message on Reply you are reporting Dixie to the authorities. I feel so badly for Madison. You have many supporters here backing your decision. I too, am wondering about Jameson. Yesterday she was deleting Dixie's threads left and right. However, on Askme.com she didn't think anything was wrong with Dixie not taking Madison to the ER and compared the Stun Gun blast to an electrical fence shock her kids got once!! If she's claiming Dixie did no wrong, then why is she deleting so many of her threads? If Dixie leaves "the swamp" where will she turn up next? I pray the authorities do something. I don't see how they could ignore a picture such as the one she posted. [ remove ] [ alert ] [ edit ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY w QUOTE ] [ MAIN ] [ LOBBY ] 38. "askme.com response by jameson" Posted by Seajaye1 on 06:24:37 8/12/2000 Include Original Message on Reply I was the one who asked that question on the crime board. I am surprised she had the gall to answer...why am I surprised? lol. I could not believe she compared the jolt from a stungun that dropped the child "like a rock" to an electric fence...I've touched fences and it is no more than a slight muscle contraction in the arm...jameson's answer REALLY showed her stupidity. The stun gun is much more powerful...it can "drop" a 200 lb. man, for pity's sake! I also have a question in to the Medical area of askme.com, so far no responses. I am very curious to hear a "real" medical opinion. Also whether any Doc.'s have heard of a "home crash cart." Puh-leeze... Let's hope Dixie has since woken up and taken her daughter in for another opinion. I'll bet she was scared to take her in, 'cause they most likely would have gotten CPS involved, ya know? As well they should have! Poor kid. :( [ remove ] [ alert ] [ edit ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY w QUOTE ] [ MAIN ] [ LOBBY ] 36. "Misty," Posted by mysteptoes on 05:09:01 8/12/2000 Include Original Message on Reply NOTE: Last edited on 05:09:01, 8/12/2000 with those kind of discretions, I doubt Jameson's website will ever become too popular or last too long. Pretty soon she will be all alone in hir own little forum talking and agreeing with hirself. Thank goodness for your efforts and the First Amendment. [ remove ] [ alert ] [ edit ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY w QUOTE ] [ MAIN ] [ LOBBY ] 40. "Okay" Posted by Misty on 06:56:55 8/12/2000 Include Original Message on Reply I called the city police where Dixie is located and gave them the information. They are sending child welfare out there. I have the event #, which I am not going to post; however, I can call back and find out what action has been taken. That I will post. They took Jameson's website url down. I did explain that the pictures and posts had been removed. Someone needs to contact Jameson's server and relay these events. I will send the post and pictures directly to that server, if requested. Also Jameson's post at askme.com needs to be included. [ remove ] [ alert ] [ edit ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY w QUOTE ] [ MAIN ] [ LOBBY ] 44. "Misty & Lance" Posted by starcrossed on 07:21:49 8/12/2000 Include Original Message on Reply Way to go with all of your efforts. Thank you for keeping us posted. I am so glad that child welfare is going over there to check on Madison. Lance, The only smoke & mirrors are the ones that Jammy has installed in her forum. Most of this thread is about concern for a child's wefare... But I suppose you are concerned about the "terroristic cops" and what they may do to "poor" Dixie to break her constitutional rights, right? What about the 10 year old's rights? Does she have any? Do you think she cheerfully got down on all fours to have her mother take vid-cam pictures of her butt? Do you think that little little girl, at such a fragile age was happy her mom was posting these pictures on the internet for all to see? What about HER RIGHTS?? Do they mean nothing??? [ remove ] [ alert ] [ edit ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY w QUOTE ] [ MAIN ] [ LOBBY ] 39. "What about the marks?" Posted by lance55 on 06:51:56 8/12/2000 Include Original Message on Reply NOTE: Last edited on 06:51:56, 8/12/2000 Without getting into the child abuse stuff, what about the stun gun marks? Apparently a stun gun does leave distinctive marks, just like Lou said. I am in awe at the smoke-and-mirrors I see used here in this thread to try to deflect the discussion away from this reality. Even bold open and veiled threats directed at everyone who may come across real evidence that does not support the BPD. I find that quite chilling of the Frist Amendment and sends a rather clear message: IF YOU CAN'T HELP US CONVICT, KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT! Is this thread evidence of police power run amuck? Perhaps there was child abuse/Kiddy-porn, but what about the police abuse of potentially innocent people?" If they cannot post evidence to help defend themseleves in the public debate, why don't the police just skip the public debate and bring in a team of Philedelphia cops to kick the crap out of the Ramseys? [ remove ] [ alert ] [ edit ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY w QUOTE ] [ MAIN ] [ LOBBY ] 41. "Lance" Posted by pinky5 on 06:57:58 8/12/2000 Include Original Message on Reply Are you proposing Misty give copies of the stun gun marks to Ruthie? [ remove ] [ alert ] [ edit ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY w QUOTE ] [ MAIN ] [ LOBBY ] 43. "Lance" Posted by pinky5 on 07:14:37 8/12/2000 Include Original Message on Reply you said: Without getting into the child abuse stuff, what about the stun gun marks? Apparently a stun gun does leave distinctive marks, just like Lou said ______________________________________ I don't think anyone would argue that stun guns don't leave distinctive marks, but whether the marks on JBR are from a stun gun or a particular stun gun, the only test that would have validity would be one which used the same stun gun as the perp did on a 6 yr old weighing the same as JBR. Besides that, her body would have to be exhumed, but it is too late for that. It's too late for it to become a fact. [ remove ] [ alert ] [ edit ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY w QUOTE ] [ MAIN ] [ LOBBY ] 45. "Where is MM?" Posted by maxi on 07:25:31 8/12/2000 Include Original Message on Reply MM said that the guy at Air Taser said the taser wouldn't drop a child. Is the type of stun gun Dixie's child was supposedly stunned with different? MM, come back and help us out here! [ remove ] [ alert ] [ edit ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY w QUOTE ] [ MAIN ] [ LOBBY ] 47. "Stun gun used" Posted by starcrossed on 07:37:24 8/12/2000 Include Original Message on Reply on Madison was a "StunMaster".... That's what Dixie said anyhow. [ remove ] [ alert ] [ edit ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY w QUOTE ] [ MAIN ] [ LOBBY ] 49. "Food for thought" Posted by ACandyRose on 08:21:14 8/12/2000 Include Original Message on Reply NOTE: Last edited on 08:21:14, 8/12/2000 I posted this over on my forum and thought I would bring it over here because I can. From: ACANDYROSE Aug 12, 2000 7:56 am To: MadT (MADTODDLER) unread (43 of 48) 1627.43 in reply to 1627.42 prev next I read a post that she video taped the child afterwards and that is where she got the picture from so she had the possibility of many still shot selections from that video opposed to one single snap shot. If that was the "best shot" can you imagine what the rest looked like? And excuse me, I don't care if the "doctor neighbor" had a full emergency room set up in her basement, why was this not reported to the police? Why was the DS child not taken to the ER? Dixie also said in one of her posts that this "doctor neighbor" was taking off a year from her work because of a new baby. Does this mean that the "doctor neighbor" was not a practicing physician and was on medical leave from her profession and then does that mean she should have referred the child to a practicing physician? The older child had access to a stun gun, a weapon around a new baby as well as a visiting neighbor child. I suppose that Dixie now has a Ph.D. on stun gun usage?? Well, let's take a little step backwards here. If this story is true then one big thing that Dixie has just proved (besides being an idiot and neglectful mother) is that there are incidences that a possible (maybe normal, wealthy, successful) "doctor neighbor" family just covered up an incident that was not reported to the police. Now let's take this a step further since so many like to do theories and the sort on true crime. What would happen if the newborn baby had been stun gunned by the older child and had died. If the "doctor neighbor" screamed intruder and if the family had been investigated then there would be NO PREVIOUS REPORTS of any incident that anything had happened in that household, right? It just kind of got shoved under the carpet. If the "doctor neighbor" had denied that they ever owned a stun gun would Dixie then come forward and admit that her child had been stun gunned by the "doctor neighbor" child to prove that a stun gun did exist in that household or because of the cover-up would Dixie's lips be SEALED? Or would Dixie start a "doctor neighbor" spin team forum on the Internet to talk about this theorized case and post that this "doctor neighbor" family had no history of any reports? Dixie doesn't think that the Ramsey's could have covered up the crime yet she has no problem covering up for her "doctor neighbor" by not reporting it to the police when her own child is stun gunned. Think about that. Even if the story is false, Dixie has proven several things. One, that a family can have an incident happen in their home without it being reported to the police. Two, that a unrelated neighbor would cover up for another neighbor on an unreported incident. Three, that a unrelated neighbor would cover up for another neighbor to protect themselves for not reporting the incident when it happened. Four, that an incident can exist in a home with no record of any incidents with the local police department or family services. Thank you Dixie. Your attempt to prove the stun gun theory just bit you in the butt. (pun intended) And did Madison's physician "document" this incident in the child's medical records back in his office since he attended the child in a professional capacity (per Dixie) as yet another "doctor neighbor" friend, child's physician, whatever? And then there is the "neighbor cop" who did or did not report this incident? And then let's pretend this whole incident never happened as Dixie reported it on the forum threads. Let's say Dixie stun gunned her own child to prove the stun gun theory then video taped her, scanned the video for the best still shot and then uploaded that to an Internet server and posted the link on a forum. When and/or if family services show up at Dixie's on this Internet forum reported incident and if the child really does have these stun gun marks on her butt yet if there is no report with the police or in the child's physician records, will the "doctor neighbor" and "doctor child's physician" and the "cop neighbor" all come forward to back up Dixie's claims and admit they never reported the incident? Food for thought or as Snowball said to Stuart Little, "Talk to the butt!". End of my post on the ACR Forum ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ My personal opinion: This was one of the most idiotic displays of being over zealous to jump on the stun gun theory I have ever seen. My personal message to Jameson's members: You can shove it under the carpet and pretend this didn't happen on your forum but it did and for weeks many of you have been rallying Dixie on. Whether the story is true or not, many of you have been posting that the Ramsey's could not have covered this crime up yet Dixie just proved she did cover up this incident and now you are willing to shove this under the carpet and again cover it up. Why, so it doesn't make you look bad? I have more respect for "Sparrow" for speaking up. Thank God a member like "Sparrow" was willing to speak up on behalf of Dixie's child and tell it like it was. This hoax (if it was one) should be made an example of by every forum on the Internet following this murder case. It is not a matter of discrediting Dixie again but to show the lengths that a forum member will go to prove a theory. Those who are willing to shove this story under the carpet are willing to cover-up for the Ramsey's on anything they say or do. I don't know if the Ramsey's are innocent or guilty. We don't have enough evidence on our tables to come to that conclusion so we can only theorize on what we do have. Dixie has proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is possible to cover-up and have a motive. [ remove ] [ alert ] [ edit ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY w QUOTE ] [ MAIN ] [ LOBBY ] 62. "CandyRose" Posted by KrayonC on 09:15:39 8/12/2000 Include Original Message on Reply Oh my! What an EXCELLENT post. [ remove ] [ alert ] [ edit ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY w QUOTE ] [ MAIN ] [ LOBBY ] 48. "Poor Madison" Posted by KrayonC on 08:08:00 8/12/2000 Include Original Message on Reply Not only does she get zapped, her Mom doesn't waste any time snapping pictures of the marks (while they're fresh) and posting them on the Internet. Couldn't even wait till she had a real camera. ("gotta get this to Jams, gotta get this to Jams") I don't guess Dixie thought that one out very well. She's in big trouble. Trust me, none of us want ANYTHING to do with those pictures. As much as I'd like to see a "cropped pic" for comparison purposes......no way. Maybe Misty could give us an "artist's rendering" of the marks.....lol I could SWEAR that I've seen a picture of the actual JBR "stun gun" marks somewhere, but I can't remember where. [ remove ] [ alert ] [ edit ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY w QUOTE ] [ MAIN ] [ LOBBY ] 51. "Maxi" Posted by pinky5 on 08:20:51 8/12/2000 Include Original Message on Reply Where is post 46? I know post 42 was moved to PL. [ remove ] [ alert ] [ edit ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY w QUOTE ] [ MAIN ] [ LOBBY ] 50. "Misty" Posted by KrayonC on 08:16:57 8/12/2000 Include Original Message on Reply (I just HAVE to ask) Did the marks just show "redness"? Were they marks that looked like they might fade away in a few hours? Gotta say that YOU made all the right choices in your handling of the "Dixie Drama"....that's worthy of a great big "ATTA GIRL." [ remove ] [ alert ] [ edit ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY w QUOTE ] [ MAIN ] [ LOBBY ] 54. "The stun gun marks" Posted by Misty on 08:33:40 8/12/2000 Include Original Message on Reply reminded me of the artist's rendition that was on 48 hours or wherever. That's all I will say on the subject. This to me, is to much like child explotation. Maxi, sorry for my outburst to Lance; it was a little much for me to just walk away from. There are many valuable lessons to be learned from this incident. ACR has made some very valid points regarding how FAR someone will go to prove a point. I'm not sure this was a cover up. Certainly this could be a total lie and those marks are not from her daughter at all. Will Jameson ban Dixie? She should. And, she should do it publically -- as she did me. If she doesn't, then she is certainly showing favoritism. [ remove ] [ alert ] [ edit ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY w QUOTE ] [ MAIN ] [ LOBBY ] 52. "Reporting to police...." Posted by Maikai on 08:29:27 8/12/2000 Include Original Message on Reply One of you legal experts out there, please tell me why this incident had to be reported to the police, if there was no CRIMINAL intent involved in the use of it, and it was an accident? To the stun gun experts----what is your basis in saying this was a major medical emergency that had to have the services of an ER room? Stun guns are legal in just about every state. If they are so likely to cause permanent injury or create an immediate medical emergency, why are they allowed to be sold? BTW: there are 3 different types of Stunmasters--l00,000, 200,000 and 300,000 volts. One poster said there were deaths from the use of stun guns. The study also went on to say, that there were extenuating circumstances in just about every perp it was used on, and the cause of death was not the stun gun itself. Several were on drugs, and had OD'd. In light of the pediatrician coming to visit also, isn't that enough? Do you think an MD would not document the medical file? [ remove ] [ alert ] [ edit ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY w QUOTE ] [ MAIN ] [ LOBBY ] 66. "Maikai" Posted by ACandyRose on 09:22:01 8/12/2000 Include Original Message on Reply Maikai, Some posters may have lived a sheltered life and not realize that there are nut cases out there who do things for attention but these type of things really do happen. Child abuse really does happen. Child exploitation really does happen. This woman named Dixie posted a picture on Jameson's forum of her child's rear end just to prove a stun gun theory. Think about that. This may not have been a "major medical emergency" but then again it may have been but then only a qualified physician could determine that. Is a stun gun a weapon? Is it used to disable somebody whether it leaves marks or not? Is it an item that should be allowed to be available for small children to have access to? Did the "doctor neighbor" mother know when she found Dixie's child laying for the ten minutes that the child had not been zapped with the stun gun more than one time? Did she know that? Here is a hypothetical case. Maybe you can relate better without Dixie being part of the story. If you were in a small convenient store with your young child and suddenly some men walked in and had plans to rob the place. They shove all of the customers including you and your child to the back room. Your child starts screaming and one of the robbers uses a stun gun on her and zaps her to the floor. Within seconds the robbers grab the money and are out the door and gone. Your child lay motionless on the back room floor. One of the other customers who is in the back room with you and your child is a physician and quickly looks at your child for you. If the "customer physician" took the child's vital signs and said she appeared to be okay would you just drop it at that? Or would you take her to the ER to have her checked out? And after it was all over and the child seemed okay would you dash home and take videos of the child's rear end and dash off to get them on the Internet so you could post them on the forums? What mother in her right mind would post pictures of her young child's rear end on the Internet whether it had stun gun marks or not? You wrote: "One of you legal experts out there, please tell me why this incident had to be reported to the police, if there was no CRIMINAL intent involved in the use of it, and it was an accident?" I ask you Maikai, if Patsy had no criminal intent on harming JonBenet Ramsey and it was an accident and she fell down the stairs should it have been reported to the police? Are you saying that if any incident involving a child is "not with criminal intent" and was only an accident that it should not be reported to the police? [ remove ] [ alert ] [ edit ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY w QUOTE ] [ MAIN ] [ LOBBY ] 64. "stun gun experts? Common sense!" Posted by starcrossed on 09:20:10 8/12/2000 Include Original Message on Reply >To the stun gun experts----what is >your basis in saying this was >a major medical emergency that had >to have the services of an >ER room? I am no stun gun expert- and I'm guessing that you aren't one either. But please refer to Seajaye1 post #23 about a stun gun's deadly side effects on people who already have physical problems, just like Madison does. You are assuming Dixie's neighbor had a crash cart in her home. You are assuming that her pediatrician made a house call. After seeing Dixie destroy her own credibility in the past, I am not going to assume anything about her claims until they are confirmed by authorities. [ remove ] [ alert ] [ edit ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY w QUOTE ] [ MAIN ] [ LOBBY ] 56. "Maikai" Posted by pinky5 on 08:37:51 8/12/2000 Include Original Message on Reply you said: If they are so likely to cause permanent injury or create an immediate medical emergency, why are they allowed to be sold? _____________________________ Guns can cause death, but they can be sold. [ remove ] [ alert ] [ edit ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY w QUOTE ] [ MAIN ] [ LOBBY ] 55. "marks left" Posted by Nandee on 08:37:03 8/12/2000 Include Original Message on Reply Stun guns leave "burn" marks on the body. The autopsy report called the marks on JB "rust colored abraisions". If the Ramsey's really wanted to prove the marks were made by a stun gun, they should have had her body exhumed. [ remove ] [ alert ] [ edit ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY w QUOTE ] [ MAIN ] [ LOBBY ] 53. "Yeah, post #46 was mine, " Posted by Maikai on 08:31:39 8/12/2000 Include Original Message on Reply and I thought it was a very good and mild caveat to Misty, and her posting of information that could be construed as slander/libel. [ remove ] [ alert ] [ edit ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY w QUOTE ] [ MAIN ] [ LOBBY ] 58. "Maikai" Posted by Misty on 08:49:56 8/12/2000 Include Original Message on Reply Remember, I have the original post. I have the pictures. If anyone would like to challenge any information I have posted, please go right ahead. [ remove ] [ alert ] [ edit ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY w QUOTE ] [ MAIN ] [ LOBBY ] 57. "Nevermind...this darn 'puter....." Posted by Maikai on 08:58:42 8/12/2000 Include Original Message on Reply NOTE: Last edited on 08:58:42, 8/12/2000 just doesn't work right sometimes. I saved the post, since AOL keeps kicking me off, and when I opened it, it was blank. My caveat to Misty is, you did what you felt you had to do......don't jump to conclusions and post things that might be construed as slander/libel. This could be an innocent accident, and if anything a bit of bad judgment in posting the whole thing, with photos in light of other attacks by internet posters on Dixie. The "other" forum took the threads off as soon as objections were raised. There are plenty of studies out there, that reveal stun guns used on a living person will cause marks. There are plenty of medical websites that post pictures of body parts---I suppose some would intrepret that as porno. I think you have to look at it in context. We did have a discussion on this on the "other" forum, in which Dixie took part. There were medical abstracts posted. She may have known stun guns do not generally harm. I really feel uncomfortable about the whole thing---and am hoping this was just a very weird coincidence and accident. [ remove ] [ alert ] [ edit ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY w QUOTE ] [ MAIN ] [ LOBBY ] 59. "Good point, Pinky...." Posted by Maikai on 08:50:22 8/12/2000 Include Original Message on Reply "Guns can cause death, but they can be sold." 'Course we know guns can cause permanent harm and death, and can cause an immediate medical emergency. All the literature on stun guns I've read, and that includes medical literature, do not indicate great bodily harm or medical emergencies. They're used routinely by police departments to temporarily subdue someone...and the stun gun literature even points out that if someone uses them to defend themself, to get away from the perp immediately, because the effects do not last. [ remove ] [ alert ] [ edit ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY w QUOTE ] [ MAIN ] [ LOBBY ] 60. "The intended purpose" Posted by pinky5 on 09:01:22 8/12/2000 Include Original Message on Reply of stuns guns was usage on adults, I presume. Do the studies indicate affects on children, or are there any such studies? [ remove ] [ alert ] [ edit ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY w QUOTE ] [ MAIN ] [ LOBBY ] 63. "Maikai" Posted by Misty on 09:19:52 8/12/2000 Include Original Message on Reply You see, I thought this out very carefully. We have two issues here -- not one. We have, at the very least, an accident. (Possible neglect.) We also have: pictures posted to a website showing a child's bu** with stun gun marks. Nah, this one I go the whole 9 yards with. I'm not in the wrong at all. [ remove ] [ alert ] [ edit ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY w QUOTE ] [ MAIN ] [ LOBBY ] 61. "Nope, Pinky.....no " Posted by Maikai on 09:15:05 8/12/2000 Include Original Message on Reply studies on children----can you imagine trying to get permission to do that? I recall some studies on adult prisoners, and I think cops volunteered for one.....most of them are on animals....and then some retrospective ones. [ remove ] [ alert ] [ edit ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY w QUOTE ] [ MAIN ] [ LOBBY ] 67. "One study......and I'm outta t..." Posted by Maikai on 09:44:45 8/12/2000 Include Original Message on Reply NOTE: Last edited on 09:44:45, 8/12/2000 thread: TITLE: Electronic gun (Taser) injuries. AUTHORS: Ordog GJ; Wasserberger J; Schlater T; Balasubramanium S SOURCE: Ann Emerg Med 1987 Jan;16(1):73-8 CITATION IDS: PMID: 3800082 UI: 87098113 ABSTRACT: The Taser is an electrical weapon used for immobilization. Two hundred eighteen patients who were shot by police with a Taser for violent or criminal behavior were compared to 22 similar patients shot by police with .38 Specials. The long-term morbidity rate was significantly different for "tasered" victims (0%) and for those with bullet wounds (50%) (P less than .05). The mortality rate was also significantly different between "tasered" victims (1.4%), and gunshot wound victims (50%) (P less than .05). Possible complications associated with Taser wounds included contusions, abrasions, and lacerations (38%); mild rhabdomyolysis (1%); and testicular torsion (0.5%). Although 48% of "tasered" patients required hospitalization, all but one was for a preexisting injury or toxic or psychiatric problem. We conclude that Tasers are relatively safe when compared to shooting with more conventional weapons. MAIN MESH HEADINGS: *Electric Injuries [ remove ] [ alert ] [ edit ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY w QUOTE ] [ MAIN ] [ LOBBY ] 71. "Maikai..." Posted by starcrossed on 10:22:01 8/12/2000 Include Original Message on Reply the study you posted did not state what side effects could happen to a 10 year old girl who has Downs Syndrome if she was to be "tasered." [ remove ] [ alert ] [ edit ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY w QUOTE ] [ MAIN ] [ LOBBY ] 65. "Maikai" Posted by pinky5 on 09:20:31 8/12/2000 Include Original Message on Reply I was thinking mainly on victims of stun gun usage, if they were still alive, that is. [ remove ] [ alert ] [ edit ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY w QUOTE ] [ MAIN ] [ LOBBY ] 70. "Pinky5: Oh, the Selevtive Outrage!" Posted by lance55 on 10:17:07 8/12/2000 Include Original Message on Reply 41. "Lance" Are you proposing Misty give copies of the stun gun marks to Ruthie? Absolutely! If the evidence of stunn gun marks exists, it should not be destroyed, or swept under the rug by those who have that evidence. I do not care how it was obtained, crimes, bad judgment, or a legal/illegal and dangerous/harmless experiment on a living little girl, or anything else not specifically forbidden by the Constutiton, such as beating a confession out of a suspect. If there is evidence that has a bearning on this case, guilty or innocent, THEN CROP IT AND POST IT! I am reminded of the ugly ghoulish corpse mutilater who crushed the skull of a dead little girl with a maglight flashlight to prove the falshlight could have been the instrument to cause the injury. I would not want to call that "scientist" a friend, and I am even more outraged at that creepy science than at posting the butt of a little girl on the net for every pedophile to see; but damn it, evidence is evidence; and once it exists, it cannot be ignored or destroyed or in my book someone is obstructing justice! My objection is to the self-serving selective outrage and the desire to supress important evidence by police supporters! This is not the work of detectives or sleuths, or of truly outraged people, it is the work of propagandists who are doing a rather obvious, and therefore bad job, of population control! [ remove ] [ alert ] [ edit ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY w QUOTE ] [ MAIN ] [ LOBBY ] 69. "Misty, I know where you're coming" Posted by Maikai on 10:15:26 8/12/2000 Include Original Message on Reply from. I have very mixed feelings about the whole thing. If the events were as posted, and I have no reason to believe otherwise, it's a lot of to do about nothing. On the other hand, I can see where suspicions could be raised, in light of the stun gun discussions previously, and concern about a child. But there is such a thing as coincidence, and I tend to believe that's all it was. And unfortunately, some will read into the photos something that was not intended. [ remove ] [ alert ] [ edit ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY w QUOTE ] [ MAIN ] [ LOBBY ] 68. "Pinky" Posted by Ruthee on 10:12:44 8/12/2000 Include Original Message on Reply A theory becomes a lie when you know the "theory" is not true. I haven't seen the photos. I don't believe the photos show stun gun marks, if they do, Dixie should be behind bars not posting on the internet. I believe people find it easy to forget that the Ramsey family approves of, and provides much of the information that appears on Susan Bennetts web site. Bluefire continues to post his obscene ideas and links. Susan Bennett continues to support his deranged efforts to support the Ramseys. Dixie with her stun gunned child, reminds me of Susan Bennett and her children's vaginal exams for school admission. The real problem here is that the people who post these "real life" experiences to make their point see nothing wrong with them. They only realize that their thinking may be against the norm when they see outrage from others. If there had been no adverse comment, Dixie's photos would be there today. She see nothing wrong with posting those photos. The same goes for Susan Bennett. [ remove ] [ alert ] [ edit ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY w QUOTE ] [ MAIN ] [ LOBBY ] 72. "ACandyRose" Posted by lance55 on 10:26:31 8/12/2000 Include Original Message on Reply #49. Even if the story is false, Dixie has proven several things. One, that a family can have an incident happen in their home without it being reported to the police. Two, that a unrelated neighbor would cover up for another neighbor on an unreported incident. Three, that a unrelated neighbor would cover up for another neighbor to protect themselves for not reporting the incident when it happened. Four, that an incident can exist in a home with no record of any incidents with the local police department or family services. Ms Rose, were any of those things ever in doubt? Certainly, these things can and do happen. The ONLY question is did they happen in THIS CASE? [ remove ] [ alert ] [ edit ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY w QUOTE ] [ MAIN ] [ LOBBY ] 73. "A CandyRose, post #66......" Posted by Maikai on 10:46:15 8/12/2000 Include Original Message on Reply geez, I just can't extract myself from this. Anyway, in the case of the robbery of a convenience store, no way I'd take anyone's word nothing was wrong. It'd be off to the ER room, and then calling an attorney (just in case)...part of the reason legal---ya never know who you might want to sue, and you need to document. Not that long ago, I knew nothing about stun guns---I know more now, and most of what I've learned is that they don't cause any harm. If I knew nothing about them, and I saw someone zapped, I'd call 9ll. I think the most harm they could cause is disruption of electrical impulses in someone with pre-existing condition. I still don't like the things, and am surprised they're as commonly available as mace. Now....the question in my mind is, is there any requirement if someone is accidentally zapped by a stun gun to report it to police? Particularly when there is no criminal intent involved? I don't know the answer to that. Kids have accidents all the time---they get hold of things; put screwdrivers and other things in sockets; get hold of prescription drugs for adults; fall down stairs; drown in swimming pools; engage cars---they get into things. Now...to equate Dixie's situation to a hypothetical situation of an accident between JBR and Patsy? A bit of stretch...because of the amount of staging afterwards this would have entailed on Patsy's part...the knowledge of crime, and the movies, access to a stun gun. Nope, didn't happen. And if the blow to the head came first, JBR was alive...her heart was beating....there would have been time to call police, and that would have been a logical response. If Patsy was so clever, she could have come up with a clever answer to the injury. [ remove ] [ alert ] [ edit ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY w QUOTE ] [ MAIN ] [ LOBBY ] 75. "Starcrossed...just for you" Posted by Maikai on 11:01:21 8/12/2000 Include Original Message on Reply NOTE: Last edited on 11:01:21, 8/12/2000 More studies. If I understand the technical jargon correctly, the effects are based on calculations of the effect of voltage on a human body. If a kid is shocked, or an adult, or animal, a shock is a shock, and "apparently" the same. TITLE: Electronic weaponry--a question of safety [published erratum appears in Ann Emerg Med 1991 Sep;20(9):1031] AUTHORS: O'Brien DJ AUTHOR AFFILIATION: Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Louisville School of Medicine, Kentucky 40292. SOURCE: Ann Emerg Med 1991 May;20(5):583-7 CITATION IDS: PMID: 2024801 UI: 91221348 ABSTRACT: Electronic weapons represent a new class of weapon available to law enforcement and the lay public. Although these weapons have been available for several years, there is inadequate research to document their safety or efficacy. Two of the most common, the TASER and the stun gun, are reviewed. The electronic weapon was initially and still is approved by the US Consumer Product Safety Commission; its approval was based on theoretical calculations of the physical effects of damped sinusoidal pulses, not on the basis of animal or human studies. These devices are widely available and heavily promoted, despite limited research into their safety or efficiency and despite recent animal studies documenting their potential for lethality. TITLE: Electric shock devices and their effects on the human body. AUTHORS: Robinson MN; Brooks CG; Renshaw GD AUTHOR AFFILIATION: Forensic Science Service, Huntingdon, Cambs. SOURCE: Med Sci Law 1990 Oct;30(4):285-300 CITATION IDS: PMID: 2263172 UI: 91087733 ABSTRACT: Stun guns, shock batons and cattle prods are electric shock devices which can be used as weapons against the human body. Stun guns cause temporary incapacitation of the body whereas the other devices do not. The electrical outputs of examples of each type of device were measured using a digital storage oscilloscope at the moment when the device was discharged across resistors chosen to simulate the resistance of the human body. The outputs from the stun guns and the non-incapacitating devices have characteristic waveform shapes and magnitudes: significantly, the peak current from the stun guns is two orders of magnitude greater than from the other devices. To understand the possible hazardous effects of these outputs on the human body, the output parameters were related to the available information on the effects of electric currents on the human body and on the electro-immobilization of farm animals. [ remove ] [ alert ] [ edit ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY w QUOTE ] [ MAIN ] [ LOBBY ] 78. "Maikai" Posted by ACandyRose on 11:13:40 8/12/2000 Include Original Message on Reply You wrote: "If Patsy was so clever, she could have come up with a clever answer to the injury." Maybe she did........... Listen Carefully !!! [ remove ] [ alert ] [ edit ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY w QUOTE ] [ MAIN ] [ LOBBY ] 74. "One doesn't have to be a "stun gun expert..."" Posted by Seajaye1 on 10:52:27 8/12/2000 Include Original Message on Reply Any one with common sense would have their child checked at the hospital after such an incident. *Especially* if that child had other medical issues. I would say DS is a major "other medical issue." It affects the HEART. This is from a medical page about DS and treating it in childhood: "Congenital Heart Disease: Severe malformations which cannot be definitively treated remain a major cause of morbidity and mortality throughout childhood. Close liaison with a paediatric cardiologist should be maintained." and this: "...Neurological surveillance is essential." ---- I previously posted info. on stungun effects (also taken from the web) that specifically point to deaths occuring in ADULTS with previous heart problems or neurological problems. Now, it doesn't take a PhD(!) to figure out that that little girl needed to be taken to the hospital...testing needed to be done and she most likely would have been admitted at least overnight for observation...any responsible Mom would have rushed their child to the ER..so what if they end up being told "Oh, no harm done, your child will be fine"...so what? Why take the chance with a child's life? Here is a quote from a state department of corrections site...from the department standards! c. Except in an emergency, (not a pre-planned use of force) the use of taser weapons or similar weapons will not occur until medical staff have screened the inmate('s) medical records to determine whether there are any unique medical problems which must be taken into consideration when making the decision to use this technology." ---- Why not take her to the ER? Because the staff there *would* have most likely questioned the story and called in CPS to investigate? Or even called the police? Hospital staff are morally and legally bound to report such things... No, instead, she got out her camera and made this little girl, who had just been "barely conscious" for 10 mintues, pose for filming of her butt. Makes ya wonder...make ME sick. [ remove ] [ alert ] [ edit ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY w QUOTE ] [ MAIN ] [ LOBBY ] 76. "More on stun gun...this one is good. " Posted by Seajaye1 on 11:06:28 8/12/2000 Include Original Message on Reply Jams better get her act together...she still has archived stun gun posts...one of which I find highly interesting...talks about the effects on a CHILD. ------ "from the Denver Post Dec 1997" Posted by jams on Jul-23-00 at 04:41 PM (EST) The effects of a stun gun could be dramatic with a child since a child's nervous system is more sensitive than an adult's, according to the owner of three security shops in the metro area. "It could have a quicker impact and a more dramatic impact on a child," said Frank Brown, owner of three Mace Security Center stores.  A stun gun interrupts signals to the neuromuscular system with an electric pulse and immobilizes the victim temporarily, Brown said. It makes it impossible for that person to move for anywhere from 5 to 30 minutes, depending on the sensitivity of the person. He said other factors also affect the time the person is immobilized, including how long they are in contact with the stun gun and the strength of the device. Stun guns can leave small burn marks on the skin, a Denver police spokesman said Saturday. "They actually burn the body,"  said Sgt. Dennis Cribari. The guns usually have two prongs on them that deliver the jolt of electricity and leave marks that look like "a little round dot or burn," said Cribari.  The guns can cause bruising from the muscles contracting, Brown said. Brown said you don't need a permit to carry a stun gun, but you must be 18 years old to buy one. There are several different kinds of stun guns, ranging in price from $25 to $300, according to various shops. There is a more dangerous, but much less common, form of the stun gun that actually uses small darts attached to wires to deliver the jolt. Those are supposed to be sold only to police agencies, said one gun dealer. Normal stun guns must be used at close range and contact must be made, while the other version of the stun gun can be used from as far as 10 to 15 feet away. One gun-shop manager in Lakewood said that his shop stopped selling stun guns several years ago because they had faded in popularity. The manager, who did not give his name, said Coloradans may have lost interest because the guns don't work that well through heavy winter clothing. However, gun merchants around metro area offered conflicting information about the devices. At a gun store in Arvada, a store manager said that stun guns "hurt like the very dickens if you get hit with one," and said they would work through winter clothing. ------ Rather interesting, no? [ remove ] [ alert ] [ edit ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY w QUOTE ] [ MAIN ] [ LOBBY ] 79. "Maikai" Posted by pinky5 on 11:16:40 8/12/2000 Include Original Message on Reply I did a search on 'taser injuries'. One of these was U S Consumer Product Safety Commission site(I didn't save it), which is referenced in your post article. In one place, it did state adverse affects could be had by the elderly, children, & whose with heart problems. Their conclusions were based on healthy adults, which is not the majority of the population. [ remove ] [ alert ] [ edit ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY w QUOTE ] [ MAIN ] [ LOBBY ] 77. "Forgive me," Posted by La Contessa on 11:07:21 8/12/2000 Include Original Message on Reply but I seem to be acronym challenged, today. What is DS and why would a stun gun, used on one so afflicted, be more dangerous than its use on anyone else? [ remove ] [ alert ] [ edit ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY w QUOTE ] [ MAIN ] [ LOBBY ] 80. "Answer re: What is DS" Posted by Seajaye1 on 11:17:11 8/12/2000 Include Original Message on Reply Down Syndrome...the child who was "stunned" has it. It affects the heart greatly, (heart problems are, fact, a major cause of death in DS patients) and I'm sure you know the other effects of the disorder. See my previous post about it, and about the effects of a stun gun on someone with heart and/or neurological problems. Even if she didn't have this disorder, she is only a child, she should have been seen at the hospital, IMO. [ remove ] [ alert ] [ edit ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY w QUOTE ] [ MAIN ] [ LOBBY ] 81. "DS kids.." Posted by Nandee on 11:20:35 8/12/2000 Include Original Message on Reply Don't Downs Syndrome kids have heart problems? Seems to me that being hit with a stun gun could alter her heart rhythm and that alone would make me take her to the hospital.... Sounds like Munchausen By Ramsey Syndrome to me! A little far to go to try to clear the Rammers.... [ remove ] [ alert ] [ edit ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY w QUOTE ] [ MAIN ] [ LOBBY ] 82. "Seajaye1" Posted by Nandee on 11:23:32 8/12/2000 Include Original Message on Reply Two great minds that think as one!! [ remove ] [ alert ] [ edit ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY w QUOTE ] [ MAIN ] [ LOBBY ] 83. "La Contessa" Posted by starcrossed on 11:29:13 8/12/2000 Include Original Message on Reply NOTE: Last edited on 11:29:13, 8/12/2000 DS is Downs Syndrom which Dixie's child Madison has. DS children suffer amoung other things-- heart problems. SeaJaye1 has explained above (with an article) that stun guns could cause deaths in people who have heart problems. edited to add: Seejaye & I must have been writing at about the same time. Sorry for the repitition! [ remove ] [ alert ] [ edit ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY w QUOTE ] [ MAIN ] [ LOBBY ] 84. "Dixie, part two" Posted by maxi on 11:27:00 8/12/2000 Include Original Message on Reply Please continue on Dixie, part two. [ remove ] [ alert ] [ edit ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY w QUOTE ] [ MAIN ] [ LOBBY ] 85. "Misty..." Posted by twilight on 11:33:24 8/12/2000 Include Original Message on Reply I support your actions in that I don't see that you had any other choice. However...I will say this... Ahhhhh. Very clever. I see it now. Be sure and keep track of which police department you sent the info to, so that when it is supeonaed, they will have to produce it. There will be so much controversy and red tape tied to these pictures, that when the prosecutor says...'but hey, wait a minute they're not real', s/he will be drowned out in a chorus of pornograph/child abuse issues. And the jury will be left with the impression that there are photos that prove the stun gun exists, and that the 'evil forces of justice' are once again trying to prevent their exposure to the light of day. Very clever. And I thought they'd pink-noted most of their spin team. Guess not. Now, I could be wrong, but it seems to me that all this is very convenient. I hope Misty has not been used to establish 'questionable' evidence for later use. [ remove ] [ alert ] [ edit ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY w QUOTE ] [ MAIN ] [ LOBBY ] 88. "Attitude" Posted by Blazeboy3 on 18:44:03 8/12/2000 Include Original Message on Reply NOTE: Last edited on 18:44:03, 8/12/2000 Is there really any right or wrong or is it ones attitude? What is our goal here--to save the world from anything wrong happening. I choose to believe most humans do wish we could perfect this world and the first step should be to remember that "energy follows thought". What are you all thinking, the choice is ours alone(its called free will in our thinking). [ remove ] [ alert ] [ edit ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY w QUOTE ] [ MAIN ] [ LOBBY ]