> Evidence is never exculpatory if you really and truly just don't want it to be exculpatory.

That certainly would appear to be the case in the forums. Although I'm not 100% committed to the use of a stun gun, it does seem to be the most reasonable explanation for the marks on JonBenet's body. I think the snap, boat, light switch, etc. simply don't come close to measuring up to a stun gun as possible sources of the marks.

But, to say, THERE WAS NO STUNGUN simply does not match the information we have so far. The question is, does anyone truly - I mean TRULY - believe that a snap was more likely to cause two sets of equidistant marks than a stun gun? And, could they really think that a snap was so much more likely to be the source that a stun gun can be completely eliminated as even a possibility?

I don't think so.

Dr. Spitz' proof that a stun gun wasn't used was for us to "just look" at the difference between the marks on the pig and the marks on the body. He was there to present the opposing viewpoint, yet he couldn't tell us why the difference in appearance was meaningful. Then he went on to say if we only had a microscope we could see the boat, which may be one of the most pathetic attempts to convince an audience of something I've ever seen. That was really disappointing. I really don't want to embrace the use of a stun gun, but a couple of more visits with Dr. Spitz and I will have no choice.