Dear Dr. Spitz,

I watched you on CBS' 48 Hours and I have some questions.

Do you really think the marks on JonBenét Ramsey's back and face were from snaps? Two sets of snaps?

Exactly what evidence do you have supporting that belief? Nothing with snaps on it was taken in as evidence or seen in the crime scene photos - - so where are the snaps?

And as a mother and foster mother, I have to tell you we have had kids fall asleep in their beds, in cars, in chairs and on the floors and even on toys! (legos was one I remember) But I have never seen marks like those. They don't look like pressure marks and they sure don't look like bruises - - they are far too defined.

Have you done experiments with snaps to show what injuries might occur - - and how they might be different if sustained right as a person was dying? (I mean, Smit and Dobersen did the experiments to prove THEIR theory - - what have YOU done to prove yours?)

Personally, I have done a lot of research on this. I don't agree with your theory and I believe that Lou Smit and Mike Dobersen are correct in their analysis and vindicated by the experiments they did.

I would welcome more explanation from you. Feel free to contact me at jameson245@aol.com.

Thanks,
jameson

I don't know if a stun gun was used during the murder of JonBenet, but it certainly seems possible, if not probable, at this point. There hasn't been any other reasonable explanation for the source of the two sets of marks on JBR's body, at least any explanation of which I'm aware.

Dr. Spitz pointed out the difference between the appearance of stun gun marks found on a dead JBR and those inflicted on a live pig as part of a test. Fair enough. They do look different in color and size. However, different people have entirely different reactions to skin lesions, and maybe pigs do, too. (I don't have a clue about pigs.) Dr. Spitz, being a doctor, should know that, too. Yet, the only comment he made to support his argument that the lesions on JBR were not made by a stun gun was something like, "Just look at the difference". His counter-argument, that the lesions were caused by "snaps", was completely unsupported.

When the stun gun discussion first came into being years ago, the most common argument against a stun gun being used during the murder was that stun guns didn't leave marks. Now, the argument is that they do leave marks, but not the kind found on JonBenet. What about stun gun marks found on another human being? Why did Dr. Spitz not put this to rest by showing the difference between the marks on JBR and those of an actual stun gun victim, hopefully one of approximitely the same age?

Lou Smit, an ex-detective with impeccable credentials, thinks a stun gun was used on JonBenet. He actually solved a murder years ago in which a stun gun was used, so he has experience in the area. Until Dr. Spitz or someone else comes up with some evidence to support the BPD argument that THERE WAS NO STUNGUN, I'll continue to lean off the fence in the direction of the experienced detective who has at least shown us that that stun guns do leave marks, and the spacing of JBR's wounds could easily have been caused by a stun gun.

He already publically gave his opinion......another ego, that isn't going to change his mind now.

Too bad he didn't consult with Doberman....review the literature, before opening his mouth. Two sets of marks.....the same distance apart. How does he explain the marks on her back?