The stun gun may have been an Air Taser brand stun gun.

The following interviews were done in the same day - - first the one interview - - then Lou Smit presented his photos and reports - - and ... well, you can see the difference when Steve Tuttle came back for the second interview.

I wish I could play the tape for you here, can't do that - - but I will say I felt Tuttle was shook up because he realized that he had been wwrong - - it WAS possible a stun gun was pressed into JBR as she was pressed into her bed, pressed into a floor. She couldn't have gotten away - she was just a child.

Anyway - here are the interviews.

"AIR TASER interview"

MSNBC reporter: "... Taser International, the company that manufactured the stun gun Smit believes
was used in this crime. Steven, thanks for being here. In fact, he says it was an AIR TASER 34,000.
You've got one with you, show us how it works.
Steven Tuttle - Taser International: "Well, what you have is the stun gun version of the Air Taser. If
I push back the safety here, (firing stun gun in air)I can activate the actual stun gun and that's what
we... you have to apply to a person to keep them at bay, so to speak.
Reporter: Can you apply it to your arm?

ST: I can, ah, it's not fun, but (applies to arm held in air, the contact is brief and repeating as the
arm jumps away) AH (he grunted) It's very disconcerting and makes you want to stay away from it.
It's somewhat painful. To me that just felt like pins and needles hitting on my arm right now and I
want to get away from that pain.

Reporter: Did it leave a mark?

ST: Not at all. (Showing arm)

Reporter: Let's take a look at a couple of ... we still-framed just a moment ago duting this package
here... the front end of that Air taser, let's take a look at it right now. You can see, there you see,
how far apart are the two sort of electrodes that come out there? Are they roughly 3.5 cm apart?

ST: That's fairly close, yes.

Reporter: And there's another look at it there. OK, the reason I ask that is that Lou Smit took your
product, the 34000 Air Taser, he tested it on an anaestitized pig, hard to say, and produced the
same marks that were discovered on JonBenét Ramsey - not in one place, but in two separate
places. What do you make of that?

ST: Well, actually, we helped supply that Air Taser for the testing. We were as interested in this
case as Lou Smit is. We've worked with him from the very beginning of the case. The one thing that's
interesting is that the marks that the pigs have do look fairly similar to what's on JonBenét Ramsey.
What's unusual is that, if you saw my arm, it was going off in many, many directions. It's extremely
painful, uh, not even painful, just I wanted to get away from it. I don't know how you could leave
this particular device in one solid spot, not once but twice

Reporter: Yeah, but your arm wasn't restricted against a bed. What if a child abut, oh say, 35-40
pounds, age 6, is in a bed, asleep, somebody comes over without her hearing and uses a stun gun,
that taser you've got right there in your hand, and while holding her down uses it on her back and
her neck and face area?

ST: Well, that's an interesting idea because if I do this to a child of say 6 years of age while they're
in the middle of a very deep sleep, they're going to have fairly the same reaction I did. They're going
to want to get instinctually away from the pain. It would be almost be like being hit with a hot iron
while sleeping. It may take an extra second but you are going to wake up, kick, flail and scream....

Reporter: But didn't you tell our producer that if you do this to a hundred people you will get 100
different reactions? Right?

ST: You'll have about a hundred different reactions but most of them will be different screams,
different yelps, different people kicking. You will certainly not see any incapacitation at all. That's the
key to this issue is that you're NOT going to get incapacitation

Reporter: What are you gonna get?

ST: You're gonna get what I did just now and I'm still feeling it... I don't like the fact that I did that
to myself... I would want to get away from that pain...

Reporter: No temporary paralysis?

ST: None whatsoever. There's a lot of places on the internet, if you look up stun guns. It's
completely false as to what these things do as far as incapacitation rates. These are good devices to
keep somebody at bay at best.

Reporter: Is it possible, even though it may not have produced the desired reaction of incapacitation,
is it possible to produce the very same marks? Let's take a look, by the way, on the autopsy photo...
there you see, 3.5 cm apart, is it possible to produce those marks with what you have in your hand
there, Steven?

ST: I can't do it and I've never been able to replicate it on a person in my 7 years with the company.
Neither has anybody in our company been able to replicate those

Reporter: Are you telling me that your taser has never left a mark on any human being or any animal?

ST: It certainly leaves a mark in some cases like a reddish mark. I'm looking at my arm right now and
I've got little red spots here, all over the place - cause the electricity's dancing all over the place.
I'm not able to keep it in one spot. If I were to keep it in one spot, I might be able to get those two
3.5 cm type width spots but what's key here is even if I'm a 30 pound person, I'm going to get
instinctually away from this pain. If you were to have it, especially in two spots to be perfectly still, I
just don't know how....

Reporter: You're not being restrained and you don't have duct tape across your mouth but, Steven,
I'm afraid we're out of time. I want to thank you so much for coming here today and showing us how
it works, we appreciate it. Steven Tuttle of Taser International.

AFTER VIEWING LOU'S PRESENTATION

R: ...heard that story we had on during the break. Do you buy the theory? Does it hold water?
ST:I don't know. It's bewildering to us as a company. We were approached by Lou Smit in the very
beginning of the investigation. We provided a list of people who had the actual AIR TASER in
Colorado. We've also provided them a lot of information...
MISSING SECTION!!!!!!!
R: ...distinctive marks that appear to be the same spread. I think you have an AIR TASER with you
right now and there are in fact - - can you hold it up? - there are two electrodes in the end, right?

ST: There are two electrodes right here what they are talking about is actually leaving marks here
and they are about 3 1/2 cm apart and they're fairly similar in width if you were to measure those
two.

R: Now here's the big question - Can someone hold that to somebody without them flinching or
moving back?

ST: That's the crux of the bewilderment from our company's perspective. I'm going to go ahead and
do this on my arm. I don't like doing this at all but

R: I'm sure you don't

ST: I want to try to hold it there as long as I can. Now this would be simulating anybody's reaction.

(He grimaced and held the stun gun to his arm, he did NOT cry out or make any noise until he pulled
the stun gun away.)

UH! That is exceedingly painful to say the least, it's something instinctually I want to get away from

R: OK, but you're a grown man, Let's take ourselves to the crime scene. This is a little girl who was
asleep, she's 6 years old, what's to say a grown man can't hold her down and just simply hold that to
her?

ST: Well, that could be done, but what we're seeing is a mark that's not moving and as you saw my
arm flailing about... even if someone is heavier,holding that down, that person is going to wake up
immediately and instinctively want to get away from the pain.

R: What about the the notion of incapacitating someone? Is this, obviously when you're being
shocked there, you're out of it for that moment, but when you took it away, you were fine. Will it
knock somebody out?

ST: That is very, very crucial to the issue here, it will not knock someone out, it will not render them
mute. They will kick and scream. I did my best to not scream into the microphone here because it
was very uncomfortable.

R: Once you took it away, though, you were fine?

ST: ... once you stop it. And it's very loud when it's in the air. It does go much more silent as Lou
Smit pointed out with the pillow. It does go more silent when you stick it in the skin. However, the
minute that person breaks contact you do get that loud arcing sound. And again, it just simply would
not cause incapacitation

R: Mr. Tuttle, I can certainly understand why a company would not want their name or product
associated with a crime in this case. Do you see any reasonable possibility that it COULD have been a
TASER and that a child that young COULD have been incapacitated?

ST: It could have been ours and I certainly, we want to work with the investigators, we have from
the very beginning. Um, I don't know. It's bewildering to see if this was ours. The measurements are
close. They're not exact, but I don't know. That's what's stupifying - is you've got two separate
marks that are crystally clear, perfect, without any movement shown on the suspect's, oh, I'm sorry,
on JonBenét. I just don't understand that, how that can be there. (Showing his arm) I don't have the
marks here, they're all over the place. I'm not sure if you can see... from me moving, they've gone
everywhere. Ah,

R: Certainly not as deep as what we saw there. You mentioned... we're quickly running out of time...
you mentioned that you provided list of those who had been sold. Is this something you have to
register to buy?

ST: Yes We do require as a company that if a person purchases an AIR TASER, we are going to know
who that person is. They are registered in a data base and if it's used in the TASER mode, which
would incapacitate somebody, it's going to emit little confetti tags that would match back to the
owner. In this case the taser was not used so we don't have these confetti tags. But we do have
serial numbers. If they find one, we could match that up to who it was sold to.

R: Steven Tuttle, we do appreciate you spending the time with us today.

ST: Thank you

Robert A. Stratbucker, Health Tech. Corp., 10744 West Center Road, Omaha, NE 68124
Matthew G. Marsh, Paktronix, 1506 North 59th Street, Omaha, NE 68104
Michael J. Dobersen, Coroner - Medical Examiner, Arapahoe County, Littleton, CO 80120
Susan Kitchen, Agent, Colorado Bureau of Investigation, Littleton, CO 80120

Abstract - This report uses elements of a recently adjudicated capital criminal case to emphasize the importance of biomedical engineering research to the workings of the criminal justice system. We relate the cutaneous signature effect of commercially available battery powered hand held electric pulse generators, commonly called "stun guns", more officially Less Than Lethal Weapons (LTLW). We cite examples of how data from this research may be of critical assistance to the criminal justice system. We present the physics and patho-physiologic effects of such LTLWs on experimental animal subjects and attempt to correlate reactions that characterize such skin responses in humans both living and dead. We discuss and compare the relationship between electrically produced signature effect and mechanically produced Triple Response, an injury phenomenon characteristic of many tissue surfaces such as skin, described by Sir Thomas Lewis<1> long before external pacers, defibrillators, stimulators, ablators, foresors, TASER's, and their progeny.

A. Introduction

Forensic bioengineering may be thought of as a hybrid science which deals with the effects of physical phenomena and the devices which create them as related to causation and proof before the law. In this paper we consider several patho-physiologic effects on the skin produced by what are popularly, albeit incorrectly, known as "stun guns".
There now exists a large selection of pen-cell powered, hand held shock devices of simplistic electrical design capable of producing a series of less than half-joule, morphologically complex, electrical pulses at the rate of 5 to 25 per second. These pulses are most often 50 to 150 Kilovolt, 3 to 5 cycle damped transients with an energy peak in the 1000 meter radio navigation band. Finger activated bursts of these pulses of 1 to 5 seconds duration are applied by operators to the limbs and torso of human subjects. These devices have proliferated rapidly since the introduction of the semi-ballistic and operationally more complicated TASER by Cover<2> in the 1970's. During the past decade ubiquitous access, highly restrictive gun control laws, and bargain basement pricing have put several hundred thousand of these LTLW's into the hands of professionals and amateurs alike. While electronically similar to several important contemporary medical devices, LTLW's were introduced without medical claims in the early 1980's via the consumer marketplace and have thus bypassed the exhaustive governmental and scientific review accorded their medical counterparts. Currently only an occasional ad-hoc investigation or market research study is found in the easily accessible literature.
Our report deals primarily with certain cutaneous manifestations of LTLW electrical shocks, particularly the reproducibly characteristic "signature effect" on the skin. This signature effect almost always contains the three elements required of the well known Lewis Triple Response namely:
1. The rapidly formed (3-10 seconds) red spots directly beneath two or more points of energy application whose mechanism is capillary dilatation from endogenous histamine like substances released in the localized region of mild injury;
2. The "flare" or expanding reddening response due to neighboring cutaneous arteriolar dilatation from localized post synaptic antidromic nerve impulses (axon reflex);
3. The formation of wheals within the reaction sites due to increased vascular permeability in the dilated region.
A critically important requirement for development and subsidence of the Lewis Triple Response is the presence of a functional cutaneous circulation. In other words, the signature response to the typical low energy level electric current injury from a stun gun burst is arrested within seconds of the abolition of vascular perfusion. It follows that any residual signature response from application of a stun gun to a victim's body would necessarily have to have been initiated before death and not afterwards. Furthermore, post shock subsidence of the signature effect is arrested and "frozen" in place if death occurs within minutes of a well developed signature response. We believe this latter effect has not yet been reported.
The resemblance of the signature effect to the Lewis Triple Response provides a methodology for use in determination of forensic significance. We analyze this signature response in the context of bioengineering and physiology. As is typical of most forensic science this report follows the form of a careful case study rather than a controlled experimental design. The data obtained have in recent months served well the jury-based judicial process in criminal cases. Hopefully, with experimental reinforcement, they will serve as well the scientific needs of the bioengineering community.

B. Methods

In a previous paper<3> a method was detailed to quantify the signature effect from LTLW application to healthy human volunteers. Those results and the methods of obtaining them have been used as evidence in numerous court cases involving alleged "stun gun" injuries. The case herein required additional data to meet the legal requirements of Frye vs U.S.<4>, which sets new and higher standards for technical and scientific evidence, particularly in capital matters. The decedent's body in this case had several generally circular markings on the exposed skin of the face which at autopsy were thought to be muzzle abrasions from a handgun. Law enforcement questioned this interpretation after finding the accused in possession of several stun guns.
Recalling the human studies cited above<3> a similar method of skin effect analysis was proposed using anesthetized pigs. This conferred an advantage over human experiments in that detailed surface effects could be documented photographically while permitting generous biopsy sampling of the sites for detailed histologic examination. Ten serial LTLW applications were applied to the abdominal skin of a 30 Kg domestic shoat under halothane-oxygen anesthesia. The duration of continuous pulse administration was systematically varied at dwell times from two to thirty seconds duration. Sequences of both ohmic and arcing contact with the skin was used. The LTLW probes were directly connected to the tuned output tank coil with no ohmic ground reference. In no case was any excoriation or disruption of the skin seen prior to biopsy. All three elements of the triple response were seen in all sites although wheal formation in the pig is substantially less than in humans for equal energy levels. A repeat of the above sequence under potassium chloride induced ventricular fibrillation showed no demonstrable signature effects as circulation was arrested within seconds of shock application. All runs and sites were biopsied for subsequent sectioning and staining. Parenthetically, purposeful attempts to stimulate the heart using an identical LTLW applied variously over the precordium were of no measurable effect<5>.

C. Results

There were several noteworthy histologic findings from the pig skin experiments. These findings were remarkably similar to the cutaneous pathology seen in super-threshold shocks as reported in Spitz & Fisher<6>, and also in findings from Japan<7>.
1: Nuclear streaming and vaculization: Alignment of cell nuclei along the current path through skin.
2: Epidermal thinning and wheal formation.
3: Dermal hyalinization: Coagulation of dermal collagen.
4: Vascular congestion: Dilation and engorgement of dermal capillaries with blood.
Relatively little is known about histologic changes that take place using threshold intensity electric shocks to healthy human skin. Most published data on electric shock skin changes come from industrial accidents where current densities are always much higher causing severe trauma to the skin.

D. Discussion

All the aforementioned surface reactions of the skin to threshold electrical pulse application bear a striking resemblance to the Lewis Triple Response. As in the Lewis response, the initial reddening of the immediate epidermal focus occurs only when there is normal blood circulation to the skin. The flare reaction requires an intact and functioning local nervous system. Finally, when capillary pressure is zero the wheal reaction cannot occur. In the case of a circulation acutely arrested during signature response development, reversal of the established signature response, a process requiring minutes to hours, and in rare cases even a few days, cannot occur thus leaving a blurred but permanent record of the signature response.
If the LTLW is applied such that only the generated arc contacts the skin there is a very well defined visible signature response. If the device is applied with the probes touching the skin (ohmic contact) there is less visible signature effect. The arc tends to spread the signature response over a wider area. This is most likely due to the arc concentrating the current density at the interface between arc and skin. An increased IR drop due to the limited area of contact defines the current channel to tightly focused beginning and end points. Applying the probes to the skin broadens the current interface and the better electrical contact acts to diffuse the current density.
Little has been published in the medical or bioengineering literature on the interaction of biologic systems with high voltage low current electrical pulse devices. Stratbucker<8> reported the first animal studies involving the devices in the bioengineering literature in 1986 with further treatment of the effect on skin and cardiovascular systems in Stratbucker & Marsh <3> in 1993. Investigations to date into these effects have been ad hoc at best, since legitimate funding sources are nonexistent. The impetus for this study was from state law enforcement agencies attempting to adduce collateral and supporting proofs of guilt in a widely publicized recently adjudicated capitol case.
References
<1> T. Lewis, Zotterman, "Vascular reactions of the skin to electrical injury, Part VIII", J. Physiology LXII, pg 280-288, 1926-27
<2> J. H. Cover, Personal Communication 1989
See also US Patent #s 3803463,4253132
<3> R.A. Stratbucker, M.G. Marsh, "The Relative Immunity of the Skin and Cardiovascular System to the Direct Effects of High Voltage - High Frequency Component Electrical Pulses.", Proc. 15th Ann. Conf. IEEE Eng. Med. & Bio. Soc., Oct. 1993
<4> Frye vs. U.S., 293 Fed. 1013, 1923
<5> Stratbucker for Douglas County Sheriff's Dept.
<6> Spitz & Fisher (ed), "Medicolegal Investigation of Death (Guidelines for the Application of Pathology to Crime Investigation)", 3rd Ed., 1993
<7> N. Ikeda, Harada, Suzuki, "Homocidal manual strangulation and multiple stun gun injuries", Am. Jour. Forensic Med. & Path., 13v4:320-323, 1992
<8> R.A. Stratbucker, "The assessment of potential cardiac hazards in the use of hand-held electronic law enforcement devices", Proc. 8th Ann. Conf. IEEE Eng. Med. & Bio. Soc., Nov. 1986

I don't think I quite understand: 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.

There were no "confetti tags", so does that mean (a) it was not used in the "Taser mode, which would incapacitate somebody", or that it was
(b) not an Air Taser, or that it was (c) a modified Air Taser?

I find Steve Tuttle's confusion over the type of marks on JonBenét versus the marks he was getting in his demonstration baffling. He seems hung up on the fact that she would have been moving around, trying to get away from the sting of the stun and the marks would have been numerous smaller marks. I think the reporter was trying to give him the scenario that most likely matched the situation JonBenét was in - held down and stunned. Moving away from the probes was not an option even with all of her 45 pounds of resistance.

I think JonBenét's marks clearly indicate both probes were NOT making direct contact with JB's skin. One was and one was NOT and that is what created the larger burn-looking mark.

I would think the noise factor would not have been at the level demonstrated when the gun is not making contact with anything but air. Jameson, what kind of noise did it make while contacting Steve Tuttle's skin?

Jameson, what was the date of this taping? Was this before or after Stratbucker's failed attempt to assist Taser in ducking any connection to this murder case?

Steve Tuttle clearly did not want to believe his product could have been used in the attack and was not considering the possibility that the victim was lying in bed, was likely pushed into her bed immobile as the stun gun was applied.

You asked, "Jameson, what kind of noise did it make
>while contacting Steve Tuttle's skin?" - - It made noise - and any stun gun does when held up in the air. When pressed into skin or material, however, the sound is FAR less. Lou demonstrated that when he was interviewed by Barbara Walters.

I don't know how the date compares to Stratbucker's involvement. I found Stratbucker to have no credibility in this matter - he didn't do the experiments and had a reason to find the Air Taser was NOT involved... so I didn't care about the timeing then and don't now.

Bottom line is this - - the expert who did the experiments is willing to say on the stand that it was a stun gun. I see no credible opposition supporting their opinions with experiments.

Further, no one has come up with any reasonable atlernative source for those marks.

So, the marks were part of the attack that took place at the time of the murder. the marks were caused by astun gun. The Ramseys had no stun gun and it seems the stun gun was brought in by the killer.

That is important evidence and needs to be taken seriously.

Some SickPuppy was in Boulder that night and he had a stun gun. Someone may be understanding that now for the first time and that may be enough for them to go forward and let LE know who Sickpuppy is.

The BORG can ignore the marks or say some loon denies they are from a stun gun - - but the facts are there - - someone hurt JonBenét that night with a stun gun - - and that is evidence. Hard evidence that should NEVER be ignored.

No one on the BORG side of this discussion has come up with any reasonable explanation for the marks.

Smit and Doberson did the experiments and they would stand in court and defend their position.

I have met with Smit and Doberson - been with them while they were interviewed on this subject. I believe them.

I have read the BORG denials - - they don't ring true at all - - they are spewing nonsense - - denials but not in a reasonable fashion. Bottom line is they know that the parents didn't have a stun gun and they don't want to admit the marks are from a stun gun- - so they argue the point - - but we are too smart to believe that crap, aren't we?

Furthermore, post shock subsidence of the signature effect is arrested and "frozen" in place if death occurs within minutes of a well developed signature response. We believe this latter effect has not yet been reported.

In other words, comparing the marks from a living person to those on someone who died after being stunned, is not accurate since the deceased's body functions are halted. Thus, the marks remain on a corpse and are diminished (healed) on a live person.

I've been saying that for eons!

Anyone ever see 'snaps' or 'buttons' with miniture boats engraved in them? Snaps or buttons that could cause that kind of abrasion?

Normally when marks such as Spitz refers to are found on a body after death, they are impressed (indentations) into the flesh, not abraded into the skin. Sometimes a killer will deposit a victim in the trunk of a car and the body, resting against some object (in one case a discarded license plate) takes on the impression of that object. The killers of some hit-and-run victims have been caught when the impression of their vehicles grillwork has been found on the deceased. Those indentations in the skin do not turn dark brown to purple because the victim dies and blood flow stops at that time. The marks on JonBenet were made with enough time prior to her death for them to become engorged with blood but not soon enough for the body's circulation to 'erase' the damage.

Rainsong

1) A short burst of 1/4 second duration will startle an attacker, cause minor muscle contractions, and have a repelling effect.

2) A moderate length blast of 1 to 4 seconds can cause an attacker to fall to the ground.

3) A full charge of 5 seconds can immobilize an attacker, causing disorientation and loss of balance. Attacker may fall to the ground, weak or dazed for some minutes afterwards.

http://www.airtaserandstungunstore.com/training.shtml

Rainsong

The female weighs 115 lbs and was handcuffed at the time, but was experiencing a psychosis and on the way to the emergency room a taser had to be used. The taser was applied to her while she was struggling, in the area just below her right breast, and the electrodes entered through a t-shirt and a heavy sweatshirt. The marks were constant and round and did not spread. They looked exactly like those on JonBenet.

The BORG can come up with no reasonable alternative for those marks.

Interesting enough, the coroner who did the experiments had once worked on another case that involved a stun gun. When Mike Doberson he did the initial autopsy on Gerald Boggs, HE noted some abrasions - - it was after the funeral, when someone talked about a confession that a stun gun was mentioned. A stun gun was found, the body was exhumed, the marks checked... and the person who used the stun gun on Boggs was convicted of murder.

When Mike Doberson did the experiments for the Ramsey investigation, he was not shocked that the initial autopsy did not correctly identify the marks - - he just went on and did what it took to find out if Lou Smit's theory was right - - and it was.