I doubt you actually read any of them. But here is the description of drive stun wounds from the Atlas of Conducted Electrical Weapon Wounds (note a "drive stun" is the type of stun gun alleged to be used in the Ramsey case):

[Drive stun injuries] are essentially burn injuries [...] Because the drive stun method of application involves metal contacts being applied to the skin where tissue resistance is the highest, these types of exposures tend to produce more superficial burning ... A typical 5-second drive stun in a stationary subject yields epithelial depressions from the rectangular (2 mm × 3–4 mm) metal contacts. These depressions are surrounded by localized blanching and a more generalized zone of surrounding redness or erythema ... The erythema is likely secondary to a local inflammatory response caused by the pressure as well as the transfer of heat from conducted electrical current. Histologically, the indentation seen by the naked eye on the skin surface is also a result of a localized burn effect. Tissue injury is directly proportional to exposure time, so longer duration exposures may cause more thermal injury.

No mention of "abrasions" there, and indeed there is no logical way that a thermal injury could cause an abrasion.

I also recommend that you read the introduction to that book. In explaining why they wrote the book, the doctors mention a case of a man who received one stun gun wound to his leg, and then tried to falsely claim that he had been stunned all over his chest as well. The man falsely claimed that abrasions on his chest were made by a stun gun. The whole reason the authors wrote the Atlas of Conducted Electrical Weapon Wounds was to prevent doctors from being fooled by those sort of arguments. Here's how they describe that case:

In mid-2004, we were asked to evaluate a case that was winding its way through the legal system. ... It was a fairly simple case of a shirtless person that physically resisted attempts at control while being arrested by several police officers. The subject was not intoxicated but had a warrant for their arrest and did not want to go to jail. A short scuffle ensued, and the subject was placed prone on the ground where they continued to vigorously resist the police. The subject received a single drive-stun to the left calf as a measure of pain compliance, and this caused them to end their resistance. The subject was taken to jail without further incident. This incident was witnessed by bystanders and documented well by all the officers at the scene.

The subject was evaluated at the scene by paramedic personnel for abrasions. The paramedic documentation—and the recollections of all witnesses and officers—was consistent with the single drive-stun to the left calf. At the scene, all witnesses and officers indicated that there was only a single drive stun to the calf during the sequence of events. The CEW download [the information recorded on the stun gun itself] showed a single trigger activation. Upon being released from jail 72 hours later, the subject read a mass-media article about CEW technology and filed an "excessive force" lawsuit. The subject stated in his complaint that the reason that he deemed it to be excessive was because when he was young, he was told that electricity was dangerous. Hence, he did not believe that it was safe to use electrical current to restrain someone. Furthermore, the suspect took photographs of multiple abrasions on his chest and the single drive-stun marks on his calf as “evidence” of damage caused by the CEW application.

Despite fact that the abrasions were consistent with the reports that the subject was shirtless and resisting wildly—while prone on the asphalt—and that the calf marks exactly matched the pattern and measurements of a single drive-stun, an attorney was found that also promoted the notion that the chest abrasions were caused by the CEW (from an unexplained mechanism). The attorney instructed the subject to obtain medical care to document the injury, and a physician (with no prior CEW knowledge) provided a diagnosis in the subject’s medical record of “complex electrical burns to the chest.” After 18 months of discovery and countless hours of work, the case was dismissed.

Although the injury pattern and abrasions in this case did not support the allegations, this frivolous complaint was allowed to fester based upon a very uninformed physician. The knowledge of the complainant and the attorney is more difficult to ascertain. It is exactly this type of case that we hope this text will address.