Too little blood?

Discussion in 'Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum' started by Sylvia, Apr 23, 2005.

  1. Sylvia

    Sylvia FFJ Senior Member

    Involved in the murder investigation of JB was forensic expert Dr. Werner Spitz came to the following conclusions, see Steve Thomas book page 254:

    “First there had been a manual strangulation, by twisting the collar of the shirt, with the perpetrator’s knuckles causing the neck abrasion. That was consistent with a rage-type attack.
    Then came the devastating blow to the head, followed by the garrotte strangulation. The detectives felt this could have been done either to ensure death or as part of a staging. Another doctor said that the head was hit with a great force and that the cracking of the skull would have made a tremendous noise. It was agreed that the cord around the throat was applied to a victim who offered little or no resistance, probably as she lay grievously wounded by the head injury.â€

    Spitz writes in his book “MEDICOLEGAL INVESTIGATION OF DEATH, Guidelines for the Application to Crime Investigation†co-written with Fisher on page 588:
    “Epidural (Extradyral, sybperiosteal) Hemorhage.
    In the absence of a bone-eroding process, a vascular malformation, or following a surgery, epidural bleeding is almost always the result of mechanical trauma. The majority of epidural hematomas occur in the presence of a skull fracture that causes the dura to separate from the bone, and simultaneously results in a tear of a dural artery, its branches and/or occasionally of a vain, sometimes both. Because the dura is a markedly adherent to the inner table of the of the skull of elderly, epidural hematomas in his age group are very uncommon. In persons with elastic skulls, particularly children there may be skull deformation with separation of the dura from the bone without skull fracture; yet, an epidural hematoma may occur. In children, the dura at the edges of each of the skulls bones has not united with that of the adjacent bone. As a result epidural hematomas in children may be limited to the dura lining o a single bone or involve several bones separately. If the bleeding source of an epidural hemorrhage is from injured veins, the amount of blood is usually insignificant, except if a large sinus is involved.â€
     
  2. DocG

    DocG Banned

    According to Dr. Wecht, the small amount of blood indicates that the victim was already dead when the blow was delivered.

    I agree with Spitz regarding the unlikelihood of her being conscious when the "garotte" was applied. Patches of her hair are intertwined with both knots. In other words, as the device was being constructed, her hair was being torn out of her head. She would have been screaming bloody murder. The duct tape wouldn't have stopped her, since such a small piece could easily have been dislodged by jaw movements. She would also have been struggling, which would have made it all but impossible to tie those knots. It's not easy to understand why the attacker would have wanted to construct the "garotte" that way, but the fact remains, it WAS made that way, her hair was literally being torn out of her head as the knots were tied.

    We are all but forced to conclude that the initial attack involved neither the head blow nor the "garotte." Nevertheless, the cause of death was asphyxiation. So Spitz's theory about manual strangulation does make a lot of sense. I'm wondering what evidence he sees for her being strangled using her collar. I've thought for some time that the attacker strangled her with his hands, possibly unintentionally. "Gentle" strangulation by accident, is not unknown and can leave no visible signs.

    If she had been manually strangled in such a manner, the attacker might first have tried to revive her without success and then struck her in the head to alleviate any possible suffering by killing her instantly. He might then have feared his prints might be retrievable from her throat, so devised the "garotte" to both destroy those prints and suggest an attack by a maniacal intruder. The patches of hair in the knots suggest that it was rapidly constructed right on top of her dead body by someone in a panic.

    I do not think there is any longer much doubt as to who that someone was. This was NOT a blow struck by a mother in a rage over bedwetting or anything else. This was strangulation. The only motives I can see would be either deliberate strangulation to silence the victim or "accidental" strangulation during some sort of intimate act. The logical person to suspect is the father. Since clearly there was no intruder, and John Ramsey has demonstrably lied to misdirect investigators from the obvous insider staging at the basement window, there would seem to be only one conclusion to draw.
     
  3. Sylvia

    Sylvia FFJ Senior Member

    Was Wecht invited by the BDP to join the investigation? Did he see the tissue slides? And isn't that the same Wecht who so virgeously declared baby Conner was born alive and lived for a few days, and Scott Peterson wasn't the murderer, that Wecht?

    Sorry but that one doesn't count with me!

    BTW, isn't he under investigation right now, I know I read it somewhere.
     
    Last edited: Apr 23, 2005
  4. DocG

    DocG Banned

    The interpretation of the blood evidence is pretty clear on its face. You don't need to cowtow to Wecht to see that, it's straigntforward stuff. This was a massive blow which cracked most of her skull wide open, as can be clearly seen from the very disturbing autopsy photo. If she'd been alive when struck, there'd have been huge amounts of blood. Wecht has been known to come up with some pretty controversial interpretations, but this isn't one of them, it's basic forensics.

    Wecht is perpetually being "investigated" by Republicans in this area (Allegheny County Pa.) because of the balancing act he does between his official county coroner responsibilities and his outside consulting activities. He's a leader in the Democratic party, and a liberal, so the Republicans have been out to destroy him for years. This is an old issue which has surfaced many times. As I understand it Wecht is especially careful to keep the two sides of his career strictly separate and has always been subject to scrutiny. He's been accused of all sorts of things but continues to survive and thrive as a very popular local politician and world renowned forensic authority.
     
  5. Sylvia

    Sylvia FFJ Senior Member

    I see you decided not to answer my questions, that just means I am right on target. And I prefer to listen to more than one, instead of one fool who made himself ridiculous during the Peterson trial.

    Oh BTW Spitz didn't even mention precious Patsy! He just gave his opinion as to what was the sequence of events, which was confirmed by other experts. There is no use in blowing the head of someone who's dead anyhow, makes absolutely no sense at all.

    Still I refuse to discount her and hold her responsible as well! I refuse to give her a free ticked.


    For those who want to know the investigation going on against Wecht:

    http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05043/456692.stm

    Saturday, February 12, 2005

    By Jonathan D. Silver, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette



    Allegheny County District Attorney Stephen A. Zappala Jr. has launched a criminal investigation of county Coroner Dr. Cyril H. Wecht for possible violations of state and federal law.

    The investigation concerns $5,000 paid to Wecht by a law firm representing a man killed in 2002 during a scuffle in Mount Oliver with police.

    Wecht, who recommended that Zappala pursue homicide charges in the death of Charles Dixon, earned the money by writing a report for a federal lawsuit brought by Dixon's family against Mount Oliver police. The suit was settled for $850,000.

    The criminal case remains under review at the district attorney's office.

    "There is evidence that the coroner is using his public office for personal, pecuniary gain. We have evidence he's making money," Zappala said yesterday.
     
  6. twinkiesmom

    twinkiesmom Member

    <<We are all but forced to conclude that the initial attack involved neither the head blow nor the "garotte." Nevertheless, the cause of death was asphyxiation. So Spitz's theory about manual strangulation does make a lot of sense. I'm wondering what evidence he sees for her being strangled using her collar. I've thought for some time that the attacker strangled her with his hands, possibly unintentionally. "Gentle" strangulation by accident, is not unknown and can leave no visible signs.>>

    I also wonder if she could have been burked (asphyxiation by pressure to the chest). It would seem to me that a small child being assaulted could stop breathing under the weight of an adult sitting on her chest.
     
  7. sue

    sue Member

    I can see several scenarios that could fit this in a totally accidental and non-rage way (it does not explain all of the fiber evidence, but I'm just talking about how head injury could occur with strangulation, as a way to stimulate thought). On thing to keep in mind is that if JB was pulling in one direction and her mom or dad was pulling in the opposite direction, they would counteract each other. If her mom/dad stopped pulling before JB did, JB would continue moving away from her mom/dad in kind of a rebound (her movement away from mom would no longer be counteracted with mom's pulling). If JB let go first, she would be pulled strongly in the direction her mom/dad was pulling her.
    It's also possible that the strangulation and head injury occurre almost simultaneously.

    Child fell asleep or almost fell asleep in the car on the way home, but woke up when they got home. She got enough sleep that once she got home, she got her second wind. She's kind of excited because tomorrow, they are traveling for more Christmas, then going to Disney World and on a cruise. She's way too excited to sleep. (Most kids, when they get to that point are physically tired, but so alert that there is no way they are going to bed. When my own kids were little and got to that point, they got really silly, and a bit clumsy with tiredness. The next step after silly is grouchy and crabby.)
    Now, add to that a mom who is tired and just wants to go to bed. She's still in the clothes she wore that evening. She knows they all have to be up early for travel and if the daughter doesn't go to bed soon, it's going to be impossible to wake up early. She hasn't packed yet and still has some presents to wrap. She's in no mood for dealing with an uncooperative, silly child. She just wants the kids to go to bed and be quiet so she can get her work done and go to bed herself.
    The child is stalling because she doesn't want to go to bed. She managed to get a snack, even though she was supposed to go straight to bed when they got home. She won't put on pajama top, wants to sleep in her red turtleneck shirt.
    Scenario #1)
    At that point, she's dancing/prancing around her room. As she goes by, mom grabs what she can get ahold of, the neck of the child's shirt, as the child runs past the foot of the bed. The child thinks it's a funny game and tries to get away. As the mom holds the shirt, it stretches and twists in the mom's hand, getting tighter around the child's neck (try twisting a shirt around your own neck -it doesn't take much force to get quite tight and a turtleck would take less, since it's already tight). The mom realizes she's holding it too tight and lets go, or the child slips, hitting her head on the bedpost at the foot of her bed as she falls. Mom hears the crack and the child is unconscious. Because of the severity of the injury, her breathing and heart rate are slowed, which would slow down the blood flow in her brain, resulting in less epidural bleeding.
    (and, I don't know if veins or arteries are involved in her injury, but as noted above, injury to veins would cause less bleeding).

    Scenario #2)
    At that point, the child is taken to the bathroom by the mom. The child doesn't want to go, but the mom is firm that she needs to go so she doesn't wet her bed. As the child laughs and tries to run away, the mom grabs what she can get ahold of, the neck of the shirt. As the child is still trying to run away, the shirt gets tight and starts to strangle the child, the child falls and hits her head on the tub.

    Scenario # 3)
    At that point, the child finally fell asleep. The mom did some of the things she needed to get done and then went into the child's room to wake her just enough to go to the bathroom. The child didn't want to get put of bed, was uncooperative, already wet and would not stand up to walk to the bathroom. The mom grabs her shirt and as the child struggles to stay in bedroom, she slips and hits her head on the bedpost.

    Scenario # 4)
    Same scenario as # 3, but the mom gets the child to the bathroom. Since she has already wet her pullup, the mom wipes her lower body off. Mom is hurrying and is a little rough cleaning the vaginal area. In the course of trying to get the girl taken care of in the bathroom, the child is struggling and the mom grabs the neck of the shirt. Child falls and her head is hit on the toilet or side of the tub.

    Scenario # 5)
    Same scenario as # 4, but since the mom is trying to pack and get things ready, the dad takes the girl to the bathroom.

    After an accidental fall, they should call 911 (but might not if they thought she was dead or close to dead). She might have thrown up or choked after the head injury, soiling the turtleneck (which was rinsed later) and making it necessary to clean her up.
    An accidental fall could be explained, but how can an accidental strangling be explained? It would be almost impossible to explain as an accident, so it necessitates a cover-up.
    And, both parents would have incentive to do a cover-up of an accidental straggling. A fall would not be in the news, but a strangling would (and would bring allegations of child abuse, damage to the family's livelihood, social standing etc.).

    Anyway, some food for thought.
     
  8. Sylvia

    Sylvia FFJ Senior Member

    Twinkiesmom, of course that could also stop someone from breathing, only then there would have been bruises on her chest. Which were not there at the time of the autopsy.
    But there are clear bruises in the neck area, consistent with knuckles imprints
     

    Attached Files:

  9. Sylvia

    Sylvia FFJ Senior Member

    Sue, it is always food for thought. And I don't claim to have the right answer to everything. But I do stick with what the scientist involved tell me.

    Of course with the description Spitz gives several scenarios are possible. The time between the manual strangulation and the hit on the head and final strangulation would have to occured within 30 minutes, that is for sure, as then the brain begins to swell. That wasn’t found during the autopsy. Only I do not believe in a non rage attack, meaning there was rage. Only whether it was directed at JonBenét or at someone else and JonBenét was hit by accident, can not be determined.

    And yes, I still have problems with the fiber evidence, plus with the signs of chronicle sexual abuse. I believe she was chronicle abused, due to the chronic inflammation of the vaginal mucosa.

    I agree she was awake upon arrival at their home, Burke told us that. But she was at one time also awake in the car, check out the Stine story for that.

    Yes, the hit on the head would have rendered her unconscious and most likely due to the severity of the head injury the heartbeat and breathing would have slowed down. The reference to the lack of blood is out of a forensic autopsy book written by Spitz and Fisher.

    I also agree that the manual strangulation occurred to control her one way or another. Who did that is unknown to me. Yet it wouldn’t have had to cause dead.

    An accidental hit against the tub, doesn’t seem so likely to me, but then again that is my opinion only. As at that point they could have called for help and get her to a hospital as soon as possible. After all it would have been an accidental fall.

    I still believe she must have been hit on the head with a heavy object and with a tremendous force. A skull doesn’t fracture so easily and the main injury was at the top of the head.

    The accidental fall if possible could have been explained, yes, accidental strangulation no way.

    What is also a problem to me with the blow to the head as last, is that would be totally useless and only point to a rage/anger directed towards the victim. A parent would, again to my opinion, not hit a dead child on the head in a rage/anger attack in such a way that there would be such a severe head trauma. That is more the act of a stranger or a extreme sadistic killer. And I do not believe in any intruder theory.

    What also bugs me is the refusal to admit they gave her pineapple, while a bowl with pineapple was found in the kitchen. I know that is would have been useful to know when she ate pineapple as through the rate of digestion they would have been able to give a more exact time of when death occurred.

    What exactly happened I don’t know, but four persons went in that house and only three survived. And to me one or two of them are the murderers.
     
  10. Elle

    Elle Member

    The red top still troubles me!

    Sue,

    Excuse my interrupting the flow of these posts for a minute, but when the red top crops up, I like to draw attention to Steve Thomas' account: Patsy Ramsey told the police on the 26 December she put a red turtle shirt on JonBenét, and later changed her testimony to the one her little daughter was found dead in - the white one with the sequined star.

    Steve Thomas writes, a red top was found wrung out on JonBenét's counter. In the National Enquirer Police Files, Patsy Ramsey draws attention to the fact she was fussing with JonBenét's red top on the ironing board, confirming her changed statement. She's crafty and knows how to cover her tracks.

    It makes me angry that she was never challenged more on this red top situation.

    Patsy may have been spiteful too, by paying her daughter back for not wearing the red top to the Whites' party, to be the "look alikes" she craved; therefore made her wear it in bed (?) Who knows? An argument may have started right there and ended up in JonBenét's accidental death.

    Thanks Sue, for letting me blow off some steam.

     
  11. sue

    sue Member

    Me too.
    It's obvious that the red top has some involvement/relevance. If Patsy was "fussing with it on the ironing board", it would not have been found wrung out on the counter. "Wrung out" implies to me that it was wet. If Patsy had wet in to iron it for JB to wear to the party, she would have slightly dampened it, not wet it enough to ring it out. If it was wet, no matter how much she ironed it, it wouldn't have dried.
    Patsy could have made her wear it to bed, or I could see JB refusing to wear the red "twin" top and then putting it on to wear to bed. I can see her being a little bratty about it and getting her mom mad because she would not wear it to the party, but now she would. I think something happened to that top that made it necessary to rinse it out. When asked, Patsy forgot that, so her first reply was that JB wore it to bed. When the evidence showed that JB was not wearing the red top when found, it became a problem.
    DR. Cyril Wecht has been quoted saying the fracture was the top of the head (which would imply someone hitting down on the head from above), but the autopsy findings show the fracture was on the front, side to the back of the skull. A fall would be unlikley to cause an injury to the top of the head, but a fall could easily cause an injury to the side of the head. If the force of the fall was concentrated by felling onto/into an edge of something, less force would be needed to fracture the skull than if a fall was onto a large, flat surface.
    PMPT paperback, page 56, talking about the autopsy findings:
    There was a linear fracture on the right side of the child's skull, running about 8 1/2 inches from the front to above her right ear. Near the back of her skull, at one end of the linear fracture, there was a displaced rectangular section of the skull, about 3/4 by 1/2 inch. A heavy blow had caused the fracture.
    The full autopsy report indicates a fracture of the right side of the head (You can access the autopsy report here: http://childsearch.us/site8/ramsey_autopsy_report.html)

    if you are talking about a fall, like a fall downstairs, I don't it could cause that kind of injury. But, a forcefull fall, hard push into something that was not flat (like a bedpost or the corner of a tub) could cause a fracture that would look like a strike. Especially, if not only the child fell into it, buit the adult's weight was also behind the fall.

    There is agreement that vaginal trauma occurred, but not agreement about what it means:
    PMPT paperback, page 467
    Dr. Richard Krugman - dean of the CU Health Sciences Center and a nationally known child abuse expert who had consulted with the police and DA since March - told the media that on the basis of what he'd read in the report, JB was not a sexually abused child. Then he added, "I don't believe it's possible to tell whether any child is sexually abused based on physical findings alone." The presence of semen, evidence of a sexually transmitted disease, or the child's medical history combined with the child's own testimony were the only sure ways to be confident about a finding of sexual abuse, Krugman told reporters.
    Physical abuse was another matter. Krugman had occasionally seen injuries to little girls' genitals that were related to toilet training and had nothing to do with sexual abuse. In children, one had to separate sexual from physical abuse. By now, detectives had learned that at age six, JB was still wetting the bed and was asking adults to wipe her after she was done on the toilet. It was possible that the injury to her vagina was a result of punishment.
    Cyril Wecht, a forensic pathologist who was appearing regularly on talk shows about the case, scoffed at Kruman's remarks. "How can anyone say, with the blood and the abrasions, that this was not sexual assault? What is he talking about?" Wecht theorized that JB had died during sex play that had gone astray.

    There is also not agreement on which came first, strangulation or head injury. Some of those who believe strangulation occurred first "buy in" to the so called "garrotte" and the so called "hand bindings".
    From PMPT, paperback version, pages 467 and 468:
    "My guess is that the child had her head whacked against something and then was still alive and strangled," said Dr. Robert Kirschner, a retired deputy chief medical examiner for Cook County, Ill.
    Dr. Ronald Wright, formerly the medical examiner for the Fort Lauderdale area, stated flatly that it was clear the vagina had been penetrated. He also believed that she'd probably been struck by a blunt object, such as a baseball bat or heavy flashlight. He too took issue with Krugman's interpretation. "Somebody's injured her vagina. And she's tied up. Doesn't that make it involuntary sexual battery?" Wright asked.

    According to the
    Bonita Papers, "Dr. Meyer easily removed the white cord tied to the right wrist by slipping it over JonBenet’s hand. " The other cord has already fallen off during the course of moving her body, so I wouldn't exactly say she was tied up. If a restraint can be slipped off that easily, it's not a restraint.

    My personal feeling is that if the head injury occurred because Patsy walked in on JR doing inappropriate things with JB, there would have been more than one body found in that house (or, at the very least, JR would have had some major bruises himself). If she was angry at him and hit JB by mistake, she'd be even more angry about hitting JB by mistake and more likely to have hurt him.
     
  12. Sylvia

    Sylvia FFJ Senior Member

    I do know the autopsy report as it is in my files.

    “Skull and brain: Upon reflection of the scalp there is found to be an extensive area of scalp hemorrhage along the right temporopaterial area extending from the orbidal ridge, posteriorly all the way down to the occipical area. This encompasses an area measuring approximately 7 x 4 inches. This grossly appears to be fresh hemorrhage with no evidence of organization. At the superior extension of this area of the hemorrhage is a linear to comminuted skull fracture which extends from the right occipital to posteroparietal area forward to the right frontal area across the parietal portion of the skull. In the posterorarieral area of this fracture is a roughly rectangular shaped displaced fragment of the skull measuring one and three-quarters by one-half inch. The hemorrhage and the fracture extend posteriorly just past the midline if the occipital area of the skull. This fracture measures approximately 8.5 inches in length.â€

    The side of the skull to my opinion would be near the ears or below. Being on top of the skull to me doesn’t mean exactly in the middle. However I should have explained that better. To make it up see photo attached.

    As for Wecht’s opinion that doesn’t make any impression to me, I read his book and found it absolutely ridiculous. And I can not think of any injuries to her vagina as a result of punishment, but then that is me. But in Steve Thomas book is mentioned page 342â€Detective Harmer presented a surprising autonomy lesson on vaginas to a meeting attended primarily by men. She showed a picture of the vagina of a normal healthy six-year old girl and contrasted that with a photo of the vagina of JonBenét. Even to the uninformed the visual difference was apparent, and Harmer cited the experts who said there was evidence of “chronic sexual abuse,†although the detectives referred to it as “prior vaginal trauma.â€

    Also the autopsy report states: “The smallest piece of tissue, from the 7:00 position of the vagina wall/hymen, contains epithelial erosion with underlying capillary congestion. A small number of red blood cells is present on eroded surface, as is birefringent foreign material. Acute inflammatory infiltrate is not seen.â€

    I never implied she was restrained in any way by cords. That was part of the staging.

    If JonBenét was hit by accident I don’t think there would have been more hitting if you mean on J. Ramsey. I think there would have been total panic. And being both involved would make sure none of them would ever talk.

    As already pointed out to you Sue, you can have your interpretation of what happened, but I have my own. I almost do not base my anything on PMPT as that book is on many points, to me, unreliable. Although I do use it from time to time. One thing I never do is claim that my vision is what actually happened, it is just my vision. Point is I wasn’t there when it happened.
     

    Attached Files:

  13. sue

    sue Member

    I didn't mean to imply that you did and I agree that it was part of the staging. I wrote that because part of the quote from Dr. Ronald Wright said she was restrained. There are probably other readers who do think she was restrained, so my pointing out that the wrists were not really restrained was for them.
    I think we are disagreeing about what to call the same part of the body. I would call the side of the skull any part that would touch a pillow if lying on the side. It sounds like you might be calling the area above the ears the top.
    This is a website that has a good illustration of the skull of a child, pointing out the different structures/bones. I'm not sure if the link will open to the home page for the skeleton or to the skull page - if it's the home page, just click on the "skull" link.
    The illustration is obviously of the left side of the skull, but JB's skull was fractured on the R side.
    Comparing the illustration to the photograph, the fracture is a fairly straight line from the bottom of the frontal bone along the parietal bone just above where the temporal bone joins the parietal bone. Where a part of the parietal bone forms a little rectangle shaped area below the joint, the fracture doesn't follow that line, but goes pretty much in a straight line to the occipital bone. The bone fragment is in the posteroparietal (back part of the parietal area), so it's at the side back of the skull.
    I wasn't there either and I don't have a particular theory of what might have happened. I do have some feelings about what probably did not happen, but I don't know what did. I'm not out to disprove anyone else's idea; just to offer what I see that might help to spark someone else's thoughts that could possibly lead to justice.
     
  14. twinkiesmom

    twinkiesmom Member

    Sylvia,
    I wonder if there would have been bruises on her chest from someone sitting on it as opposed to striking blows?

    There's no question about the strangulation and head blow being real. I wonder if these were desperate attempts to finish her off after she perhaps accidentally stopped breathing during the sexual assault?

    Isn't it in PMPT that the author surmises that PR wouldn't have wanted JBR to live in a brain-damaged state that would have resulted from lack of oxygen to the brain?
     
  15. Sylvia

    Sylvia FFJ Senior Member

    Sue, sorry for the misunderstanding about the restraining, yes, I agree with you it was absolute a part of the staging. So was the tape on her mouth.

    Yes I think we sort of disagree on the bones of the brain, to me the Frontal and Parietal bones are the top bones of the brain (but hey, I am no doctor, just an amateur that reads a lot.)

    Hey, sparks are always welcome, you never know what light it might bring :D
     
    Last edited: Apr 25, 2005
  16. Sylvia

    Sylvia FFJ Senior Member

    Twinkiesmom, no actually never thought of that. But as far as I remember the bruises on her chest were small. My opinion is that they had hidden her somewhere else before taking her down to the basement, or as the call it wine cellar. Something must have pressed against her skin when the blood settled and made those markings, I believe. Only the Ramseys were in a hurry to bury the evidence (body) and already on the 27th they were screaming "ransoming the body." So quite some test that should have been performed on the body weren't.

    No, I do not believe in Wecht's theory. I read the book found it silly and to far fetched. Although I do believe she was chonically abused.

    I read that brain-damaged state in Hodges book "A mom gone bad," and to be honest I would't put it past PR, even not past JR.
     
  17. sue

    sue Member

    I am a nurse and when I took anatomy class, we were taught that one good way to know what was the lateral (side) part of the body was to think of the body lying down on an exam table. If the person was lying on their back, the part of the body that was touching or facing the table was the posterior part of the body. The part of the body that was facing away from the table is the frontal area. If the person lies on their side, the parts of the body facing or touching the table are lateral. The part of the head that never touches the table while lying down is the crown or the top.
    So, the frontal and parietal bones have both lateral areas and top of the head areas. The "disagreement" may be a translation problem. I do know that the autopsy final diagnosis II B. is listed as Linear, comminuted fracture of right side of skull.
    The areas that were fractured on JB's skull are the lateral areas of the parietal and frontal bone. The fracture continues to the occipital bone (at the rear of the head), from lateral to just past midline.
     
  18. Sylvia

    Sylvia FFJ Senior Member

    Sue thanks for the lesson. I'll keep it in mind.

    Only still I, personally, believe she was hit on the head with a heavy object. By accident or intent maybe, I don't know for sure. Although my first thought is accidental. :winko:
     
  19. Elle

    Elle Member

    Thank you for this explanatory lesson, Sue. This really helps. I know there are quite a few posters here, who are very knowledgeable on this subject. I learn something new every day just by coming here, not always case related.
     
  20. sue

    sue Member

    I am so glad that you took this in the manner that it was meant. I very much respect your postings. They make me think (even if we don't always agree) :winko:
    Actually, I don't have any specific explanation/scenario in mind. I am open minded to anything that anyone else comes up with. I see my role as being the person who says "have you thought of this" or "there is more than one way this could occur" or "try this idea in your thoughts." There is no way that anyone's ideas are not valid as long as the conclusions being made fit the true facts that we know. For example, the people on the Swamp who say an intruder fed JB pineapple mixed with (I think they said) mistletoe are not fitting their conclusion to the facts or logic

    After I posted the explanation about the skull, I wondered why I was getting so specific and then it came to me. There are so few things in this case that we can actually say this is fact. The location and extent of the skull fracture is one of them. I think we need to keep the things we know for fact as close to the fact as possible when talking about them. Sometimes changing a fact a bit changes the possible ideas that can flow from that fact.

    I do not claim to be an expert, but I know enough to make some educated guesses.
    The location tells us some things about what might have happened to cause that injury - in this case, the injury apears to be caused by contact with some heavy or solid, fairly blunt object. But whether the contact was from being hit or falling and whether it was accidental of intentional, the injury can't tell us. That's where we can all have our own thoughts and hopefully, at some point, some of the thoughts will lead to the solution.

    One other thing I wanted to point out. If you go back and look at the illustration of the child's skull, you will see some lines dividing the different parts of the skull. Those are not just for the purpose of illustration. Those are actual seams, called sutures.
    Until about age 12 years, those sutures are not totally closed in order to accomidate growth of the brain and the bones that make up the skull. Because the sutures are not fused together, that is a weak point of the skull. However it occurred, if JB had been hit higher up on the head, farther away from the sutures, we might be having a lot different discussion.
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice