Evidence of....... Evidence suggestive of.....

Discussion in 'Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum' started by sue, Apr 28, 2005.

  1. sue

    sue Member

    This morning I was looking at some charts at the hospital where I work in order to decide whether some patients had infections or not. You might think that would be pretty straighforward, but a lot of medicine is not black and white, but varying shades of grey. In the case of infections, there is no one test that means "infection" vs "not infection". The doctor needs to put oa lot of things together to decide if the evidence is leaning more toward infection.

    That made me think of discussions I 've been reading lately about the evidence in the JBR case and I thought I might shed some light on/remind people about ways to look at evidence.

    There are certain things that have only one explanation; those things are evidence of all by themselves. For example, a skull fracture is evidence of an injury to the head. Some things about the skull fracture might be evidence suggestive of a particular set of circumstances or a particular item causing the injury. But, the skull fracture by itself only tells you that there was a head injury.

    Evidence that is suggestive of something points in a particular direction, but does not mean that is the correct direction. The more evidence suggestive of something that points in the same direction, the more likely it is that it's pointing correctly. But, it may be that the people who are looking at the evidence are only looking in one direction, or only have experience in that direction - or have a bias toward going in that direction. One joke in medicine is that if you go to a surgeon, he/she will suggest surgery as the solution, no matter what the problem is. It can be that way in anything.

    The final thing to remember is that the coroner doing an autopsy already knows that the person is dead and He/She is looking for things that could possibly have caused the death. That doesn't mean that the cause(s) listed is written in stone as the reason this person died or that anyone with a similar injury would always die, only that it was one of the things that was so out of the normal that it was a likely cause.
  2. Why_Nut

    Why_Nut FFJ Senior Member

    Interesting perspective.

    Evidence suggestive of: JonBenet's supposed act of having fallen asleep in the car. Could this be evidence suggestive of the skull fracture having happened at the White house, thus bringing on what looked like sleep but was really unconsciousness? I have had this theory floating around in my toolbox for a while. It has always been interesting to see that John and Patsy have next to nothing to say about Patsy's behavior at the party at the White house, and the only time JonBenet's presence at the house is noted is during the playtime with John and Fleet making the paper jewelry.

    By the way, whatever happened to that paper jewelry? Obviously, in an entirely innocent Ramsey scenario, JonBenet would have finished some of the beads at least, and John and Patsy would have brought the beads and the kit home with them. Yet all we have on record is John removing JonBenet from the car, with neither John nor Patsy saying what happened to the kit. Patsy makes mention in her 1998 interview that JonBenet's bead kit involved melting beads together, which might be evidence suggestive of some part of the kit having a burning tool, which could be evidence suggestive of where those supposed stun gun marks came from if JonBenet mishandled the melter (or, for that matter, if Burke or his friends grabbed it from her briefly and started waving it around, briefly striking JonBenet's cheek and side).
  3. sue

    sue Member

    You've got it. I thought of this yesterday when I was looking at chest Xrays on a chart that had findings that were listed as "suspect for pneumonia. Would be helpful to corrolate with physical findings." That's pretty common.

    I also did some looking around on the internet about skull fractures and found that some pretty horrendous skull fractures in children are not actually that serious -like for some linear skull fractures, they just send the child home for observation with the family. The point I was trying to make about the Coroner having a dead patient (duh, like that is news to anyone) is that the Coroner is used to seeing people whose injuries killed them. He might not know how many people with the same injury normally live. And, even if he did, it's a different ball game when you are talking about children.
    We need a pediatric neurologist or someone who can tell us what symptoms would have been associated with a head injury that caused that type of damage and how long after the injury they could occur. Along with what sort of internal damage might be expected and when. If she could have been injured many hours earlier, the head injury might be a red herring (possible totally innocent scenarios could be children doing something in the house they should not have done or an injury that occurred before the party). Or, it could have occurred with the parent's knowledge (accidentally or not) and care was negelcted.

    I hadn't thought about that jewelry, but yes, what happened to it? I've got a whole box of things like that that my kids made and then, you can't just throw it away. It becommes one of their treasures.
  4. Elle

    Elle Member

    Great posts WN and Sue. Makes one think it is possible the head injury may have taken place at the White's party, but Burke's testimony was that JonBenét got out the car and walked in front of him, while Patsy and John are the ones who said she was fast asleep. Burke is old enough now to confirm which one it was, is he not? He should be interviewed again.

    Those marks on JonBenét's face made me think of the gadget for "copper tooling" a long time ago ... but had there been an accident with this kind of tool, it wouldn't have been two distinct round marks, there would have been traces of the edge of the tool being dragged on her cheek from the original burn, and there isn't. Just two distinct circles.
  5. Texan

    Texan FFJ Senior Member

    I'm not a pediatric neurologist

    but the crack to JBR's head is not the kind of thing she would have been sent home for observation for. That was a major injury with depressed bone at one end and bruising and swelling of the brain. I really don't think she would be capable of getting up and walking after that.
    As far as her chances of survival if she had emergency treatment immediately - it would probably be difficult for anyone to say definitely if she would have made it or not. In my un-doctor opinion she would have needed some rehabilitation if she had survived and would have suffered permanent effects.
  6. EasyWriter

    EasyWriter FFJ Senior Member

    Thu Apr 28 22:35:38 CDT 2005

    “Default Evidence of....... Evidence suggestive of.....â€

    Sue, you offer several worthy admonitions, but my focus goes to
    “Evidence suggestive of....†as pivotal in any situation. The
    priority implied is correct identification of the evidence.

    “Evidence that is suggestive of something points in a particular
    direction, but does not mean that is the correct direction.â€
    (From post)

    True, but it is likewise true that whatever is imagined to be
    evidence and is not evidence is certain to lead in the wrong
    direction. In the Ramsey case, a listing of these incidents would
    be very long. Indeed, it is precisely the failure to identify the
    actual evidence with fallacy set as premises for thought that
    underlies the eight year plus “investigation†with the voluminous
    media fallout of every type and scope.

    “Murderâ€, “beaten and strangledâ€, “sexually assaultedâ€,
    “sophisticated garrote†and other terminology has been front and
    center from the beginning. This is not evidence. It is fallacy.
    Murder, meaning a premeditated act, has not been established by
    the evidence. Indeed, the contrary is true. The evidence says
    precipitated accidental death. Evidence is genital damage via
    object intrusion. There is no evidence of the act related to
    sexual gratification, a logical and legal distinction for the
    designation of sexual assault.

    As for “beaten and strangledâ€, the beaten part comes out of thin
    air. The strangled part comes from assumptions unsupported by the
    factual and actual evidence. Since fallacy, not evidence, has set
    the direction from the beginning, is it any wonder that over
    eight years later with the expenditure of much time and money,
    there has been no official resolution.

    “The more evidence suggestive of something that points in the
    same direction, the more likely it is that it's pointing
    correctly. But, it may be that the people who are looking at the
    evidence are only looking in one direction, or only have
    experience in that direction - or have a bias toward going in
    that direction. One joke in medicine is that if you go to a
    surgeon, he/she will suggest surgery as the solution, no matter
    what the problem is. It can be that way in anything.†(Ibid)

    Very true and very relevant. Many of the theories are simply wild
    speculation without any attachment to reality. Others are
    likewise false, but lay claim to supporting evidence in the form
    of expert opinion. The autopsy report is an important instance.

    CLINICOPATHLOGIC CORRELATION: Cause of death of this six year old
    female is asphyxia by strangulation associated with
    craniocerebral trauma. (From coroner’s report)

    C. Petechial hemorrhages, conjunctival surfaces of eyes and skin
    of face (ibid)

    Since many declare the coroner’s report states death by
    strangulation, apparently, they can’t define the term,
    associated.†Dr. Meyer’s obviously could not isolate a single
    cause of death. Yet, from the outset, not only has John and Patsy
    Ramsey promoted the myth of death by strangulation, many in LE
    and most of the media have done so as well, and still do.

    There was no damage to the internal throat as would have been
    with a violent and harsh strangulation. This finding is
    consistent with the fact that the cord was tied around the neck;
    never used with intent to strangle; just to make it appear so.

    With no internal throat damage, in all probability Dr. Meyer
    including strangulation came from seeing petechial hemorrhages
    which do show up in death by strangulation. He took his cue on
    cursory surface appearance. “Evidence suggestive of†(your post)
    is not conclusive. Petechial hemorrhages also show up in
    instances where death is not by strangulation. Seeing the cord
    around the neck and seeing the petechial hemorrhages and not
    knowing it was staging, it was easy for him to reach this
    conclusion which is not necessarily correct.

    “But, it may be that the people who are looking at the evidence
    are only looking in one direction, or only have experience in
    that direction - or have a bias toward going in that direction.â€

    The damage done by the skull fracture is not in doubt. The high
    probability is that she would have never recovered from it. There
    is no evidence to say for sure that there was any strangulation
    at all. Yet, the certainty of the skull fracture and the
    certainty of the damage, has for the most part, been assigned a
    role secondary to the conclusion of death by strangulation when
    there is no evidence of strangulation as primary, nor even as a
    contributing role. The skull fracture fits with the known
    evidence. The alleged strangulation does not. It fits only as
    staging, which leads to a lot of other conclusions.

    By the nature of mind (natural law) two minds, or any number of
    mind that make the same identifications of entities and
    relationships, will always reach the same cause\effect
    conclusion. This common can come about only from common frame of
    reference. This can happen only by identification of common
    objectively real, i.e., by identification of the evidence which
    is synonymous with truth.
  7. Why_Nut

    Why_Nut FFJ Senior Member

    Easywriter, you make a good point. If we say "evidence suggestive of," that almost by definition counts the thing being discussed as truly evidence, even though it might not be. Perhaps we should shape the terms differently. We can discuss "evidence" (the ligature), and we can also discuss "information and artifacts suggestive of evidence" (the area of chronic inflammation).

    For example:

    The ligature around JonBenet's neck is actual evidence that she was killed and that killer should be held responsible. It is impossible for the ligature to have gotten around JonBenet's neck in anything other than a homicidal context.

    The marks on JonBenet's side, and the single mark on JonBenet's cheek, are artifacts suggestive of evidence, and may or may not be related to the act of homicide. They may simply be damaged skin tissue gotten in an innocent context earlier than the time the criminal activity began, and because the marks are damaged tissue, they would begin decaying earlier than the intact skin around them, thus giving the appearance of evidence of homicide when they are not.
  8. Elle

    Elle Member

    This was not just a bump on the head from a bad fall. You're right! I don't think this little girl would have recovered from such a traumatic head injury.
  9. sue

    sue Member

    I am not saying it was the kind of thing that she would have been sent home for observation (or even that she would have recovered without permanent effects). My point was that some things that are pretty horrendous looking to lay people, are not as severe or immediately life threatening as they look. (For example, here is a report of a patient with a depressed skull fracture after being hit in the head with a baseball bat. You can see from the pictures on image 2 that his skull is really depressed in so you can see the shape of his skull is affected (the view is from the top - the portion of the head that is parallel to the ground when standing). Obviously, his injury was not as severe as JB's, but he came into the ER alert and oriented, just complaining of some visual problems and a headache. And that amount of distortion of his skull was probably readily visible.
    In head injuries, there is not a direct relationship between size of fracture and amount of damage; more important is the location and extent of damage to brain tissue. Since brain tissue can be injured both by the initial injury and by bleeding/swelling that occurs after, the symptoms might not all show up at the same time. Swelling or bleeding inside the skull has nowhere to go and quickly puts pressure on the brain. Bleeding outside the skull can cause a large swelling bruise on the scalp and might not cause many symptoms at first. Here's another
    good article about head injury.

    From the autopsy:
    Upon reflection of the scalp there is found
    to be an extensive area of scalp hemorrhage along the right
    temporoparietal area extending from the orbital ridge,
    posteriorly all the way to the occipital area. This
    encompasses an area measuring approximately 7x4 inches. This
    grossly appears to be fresh hemorrhage with no evidence of
    organization. At the superior extension of the is area of
    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 skull.

    This is bleeding outside the skull (on the scalp) and is one nasty large area that would need medical treatment. I know enough to say that. I don't know enough to say how quickly after the injury it all appeared or what symptoms it caused.

    From the autopsy, this was what was inside the skull:
    On removal of the skull
    cap there is found to be a thin film of subdural hemorrhage
    measuring approximately 7-8 cc over the surface of the right
    cerebral hemisphere and extending to the base of the cerebral
    hemisphere. The 1450 gm grain has a normal overall
    architecture. Mild narrowing of the sulci and flattening of
    the gyri are seen. No inflammation is identified. There is a
    thin film of subarachnoid hemorrhage overlying the entire
    right cerebral hemisphere. On the right cerebral hemisphere
    underlying the previously mentioned linear skull fracture is
    an extensive linear area of purple contusion extending from
    the right frontal area, posteriorly along the lateral aspect
    of the parietal region and into the occipital area. This area
    of contusion measures 8 inches in length with a width of up
    to 1.75 inches. At the tip of the right temporal lobe is a
    one-quarter by one-quarter inch similar appearing purple
    contusion. Only very minimal contusion is present at the tip
    of the left temporal lobe. This area of contusion measures
    only one-half inch in maximum dimension. The cerebral
    vasculature contains no evidence of atherosclerosis. Multiple
    coronal sections of the cerebral hemispheres, brain stem and
    cerebellum disclose no additional abnormalities. The areas of
    previously described contusion are characterized by purple
    linear streak-like discolorations of the gray matter
    perpendicular to the surface of the cerebral cortex. These
    extend approximately 5mm into the cerebral cortex.
    Examination of the base of the brain discloses no additional

    There is really not that much compared to the outside and is mostly contusions. Was this enough damage to cause immediate symptoms? I don't know, but I don't think so.

    What I am saying is that just because it is a large injury, assumptions are being made that it was immediately incapacitating. I don't know that it was.

    The possible scenarios change based on how quickly symptoms occurred after the head injury. Assumptions I'm making because I believe there is a lot of factual backup for them are that there was no intruder, there was a cover up and that at least one of the parents was involved in the cover up.
    (These are not necessarily things I believe happened, just illustrations of how the scenario can change based on one assumption -how quickly the head injury was obvious).

    If the injury could have occurred an hour or hours before symptoms showed up:
    • the injury could have occurred at home or at the Whites.
    • the parents might have been unaware of it (injury between Burke and JB or at the Whites with other children ).
    • one parent could have been unaware of it.
    • both parents could have been unaware of it.
    • one or both parents might be aware of the head injury, but not the circumstances that led to the injury.
    • if they were aware of the injury, they could have not realized it needed immediate care or they may have chosen not to get care.
    • when Patsy went to wake JB for a bathroom trip around midnight, she may have found her unresponsive or near death.
    • a possible motive for a cover up could be to hide the fact that they did not seek care earlier and now, as a result had a dying/dead child.
    • the head injury may be coincidental or indirectly, not directly, connected to the situation that lead to her death - ie, if she was being sexually abused and was killed in the course of that.
    • the person doing the cover up may not have been aware that a head injury was involved.
    If the symptoms would have shown up very quickly after the injury:
    • at least one parent would have been very aware the injury occurred and how it occurred.
    • the injury occurred at home.
    • the parent who discovered the injury is likely to have been involved in the occurance of the injury.
    • JB was thought to be dead, close to death or severely impaired soon after the injury occurred.
    • the person doing the cover up was aware of and trying to cover up a head injury
    Last edited: May 1, 2005
  10. sue

    sue Member

    Easywriter made some good points. When I wrote
    I probably shouldn't have used the word "evidence", so I'll try to explain a bit more.
    The term used in medicine is usually just "Suggestive of" and it means - this is a path you might want to investigate. Like, if a chest xray shows changes that are "suggestive" of pneumonia, that doesn't mean that the patient has pneumonia, just that the xray looks like it might be. The only pieces of the puzzle the radiologist has is what he/she can see on the xray (and the little bit of text written to order the test). The doctor, who has more pieces, may decide that pneumonia is not a path to go down.

    I was thinking of evidence in the meaning of "an outward sign" rather than in the meaning of "proof", so maybe "SIGNS SUGGESTIVE OF" would be better. The point I was trying to make was the point that Easywriter made:
    You also picked up one of the things I noticed in the autopsy (which I did not actually read in detail until about a month ago): there are signs of JB not having been strangled (anyone strangled enough to kill them would have some damage to the inside of the throat).

    And, people need to remember that the person doing the autopsy has about as many pieces of the puzzle as the radiologist in the pneumonia chest xray story above. They are just reporting what they observed.
  11. EasyWriter

    EasyWriter FFJ Senior Member

    When I wrote
    "evidence suggestive of,"
    I probably shouldn't have used the word "evidence", so I'll try
    to explain a bit more.â€

    I see nothing wrong with the terminology. Ordinarily, in the same
    circumstance, I would use “logical inference†from a probability,
    but not a certainty. The logical inference from a certainty is a
    certainty. The reason I followed your “evidence suggestive ofâ€
    was because it makes the point that “suggestive of†is not a
    final conclusion; that it takes investigation and correlation of
    other evidence to make final determination.

    “I was thinking of evidence in the meaning of "an outward sign"
    rather than in the meaning of "proof", so maybe "SIGNS SUGGESTIVE
    OF" would be better.â€

    Evidence is evidence. The term, evidence, as active form, is
    evidencing. The question is what is being evidenced. Everything
    is evidence of something; foremost, evidence of itself. Some
    times what appears as face value is evidence. Other times face
    value appearance is deceiving, hence, is not evidence.

    The primary question is what is the actual evidence? What are
    its characteristics? How do these characteristics relate to other
    items in terms of evidence? Evidence is truth. Truth is
    consistent, hence, one item of evidence never contradicts another
    item of evidence. Everything must correlate without
    contradiction, including the time frame of a given event, or

    This all goes back to your caveat that a “suggestive of†may be,
    but is not necessarily the correct conclusion. That was what I
    was pointing out using Dr. Meyer’s report as an example; and also
    an example of his professional direction of thought that led him
    to his conclusion that did not include all the evidence. He
    didn’t understand that the “garrote scene†was bogus, hence, his
    conclusion did not incorporate it in his thinking. The cord
    around the neck is evidence, but not evidence of strangulation.
    It is evidence of a staged crime scene.

    “You also picked up one of the things I noticed in the autopsy
    (which I did not actually read in detail until about a month
    ago): there are signs of JB not having been strangled (anyone
    strangled enough to kill them would have some damage to the
    inside of the throat).â€

    Since at a glance, I knew the “garrote†was phony, the logical
    inference was discount of surface appearance. It was no surprise
    there was no internal throat damage since the cord was just
    clumsily tied around the neck. Envisioning the hand positions
    involved in the tying and the nature of the tie, it was obvious
    to me that strangulation of any substantial force was literally
    impossible with this set up.

    Failure to correctly identify the evidence is an absolutely
    certainty of a wrong conclusion. Correct identification is the
    whole ball game. Correctly identify the evidence in the Ramsey
    case and you will find that any and every intruder theory
    contradicts the evidence, therefore, without even a minute trace
    of merit.
  12. DocG

    DocG Banned

    The cause of death is given as strangulation. The head trauma is "associated with" the cause of death. The head trauma is NOT given as the cause of death. Nothing is gained by pretending there is some problem connected with the definition of the word "associated." If the head blow had come first, that would almost certainly have killed her on the spot. Take another look at the autopsy photo of her skull. If the attacker had then decided to construct a "garotte," and she were still, by some miracle, alive, then she would certainly have died while that cumbersome device was being constructed.

    The greatest weakness of your theory, EasyWriter, has to do with motive. It's not enough to look for evidence of staging. One must also be able to explain the REASON for the staging. There is no way strangulation, with a "garotte" or otherwise, is going to point away from a head blow. So, what, exactly, is being staged? If the head blow had come first there would have been NO way of hiding that fact.

    I agree that the "garotte" was staging, your analysis of that is convincing. But it could not have been staging to point away from a head blow. As I see it, the only possible reason for such a device would be to point away from manual strangulation. And obliterate any prints that could have resulted from that. I think she was killed by gentle strangulation, probably not intentional. But certainly murder, intentional or not.
  13. wombat

    wombat Member

    [​IMG] [​IMG]

    Lacking a medical degree, I cannot say that the injuries to her neck would or would not have killed her. However, I can say that it appears that these horrible injuries to her neck were severe and violent, rather than the side effects of the "staging" phase of the crime, which would have occured during the non-passionate, planned part of the event. It looks to me as though the child was beaten somehow at the neck - that one large bruise is a result of impact, not pressure.

    We also have read that bits of green tinsel similar to the garlands that Miss Patsy the Overdecorator wrapped around the circular stairway were found in JonBenet's hair - that in combination with the "banging" injuries to her neck and head could mean that she was dragged violently down the stairs. For that to happen the child screaming and awakening her brother/mother/father would mean that she was unconcious or gagged.

    I'm arguing the opposite of what I believe in some sense, because I don't believe in intruders, and I believe Patsy at least helped in the staging, and probably in the homicide. So perhaps the child fell/was pushed down the stairs in an altercation between the parents that started in her room, where John was interfering with her sexually, and Patsy discovered them.

    Only the "garotte" was applied tightly - the ties around her wrists and the small piece of duct tape were easily removed by Mr. Ramsey, so they would not have been functional during the sexual transaction. Maybe the garotte, then, was actually a garotte used during the horror of a child rape. But those bruises - Lou Smit et al get all het up about a stun gun, but that big nasty bruise at the front of her throat could actually have caused a severed injury to the trachea and the neck bones. (once again, not a doctor!)

    The garotte and the wrist ligature look like macrame knots to me, which I do know about. Most of the stuff applied to her body came from Patsy's stashes downstairs - duct tape from framed pictures, garotte stick from the paintbox, cord from - maybe a doll, maybe draperies. The paraphanalia in combination with the phrasing of the note puts Patsy there at least during the cover up, and maybe during the events that made the cover up necessary.
  14. Why_Nut

    Why_Nut FFJ Senior Member

    That triangular bruise is so interesting, not even necessarily for what it is, but what it is next to. Look at the skin to the side of it, JonBenet's left, our right. The skin on JonBenet's left neck, from the bottom of the triangle to the top, is perfectly intact, not a single scratch or abrasion. As much as people concentrate on the abrasions, that perfect area of skin ought to serve as some sort of indicator all on its own with regards to what happened. For sure, the Ramsey-defender theory that the ligature was put on JonBenet and then slipped upwards is invalidated by that unmarked skin.You cannot make a circle with a cord around a person's neck, and then have only a part of the cord's circle leaving abrasions while other parts of the cord magically float off the skin and hover until it lands in the final furrow.
  15. Cherokee

    Cherokee FFJ Senior Member

    I was looking at the bruise again, and noticed something else. There are slight curves at the edges on two sides of the bruise.

    In this post, I've outlined the curves in the photo.

    In the next post, I've connected the curve indentations with a straight lines.

    What does the imprint remind you of?

    Attached Files:

  16. Cherokee

    Cherokee FFJ Senior Member

    Bruise curve outline and connection lines.

    Attached Files:

  17. Why_Nut

    Why_Nut FFJ Senior Member

    Interesting! My instinctive reaction was, knuckles from a fist grabbing a shirt's neckline. Twist a right-handed fist to the assaulter's right, JonBenet's left, and the neckline might dig into the right side of her neck, and pull away or at least loosen up on the left side, while leaving an abrasion from knuckles dragging on the skin at the gripping point of the fist.

    Time for some experiments, people?
  18. DocG

    DocG Banned

    Well, don't anyone experiment on ME, thank you. :beagle:

    If someone (Patsy?) suddenly grabbed her that way, it might have broken her neck. But strangulation takes time. Patsy would have had to twist the thing around her neck and maintain the pressure for at least a full minute or more. That's no accident. That's murder.

    I'm not a coroner and I really don't know what to make of that "traingular" mark on her neck. Wecht IS a coroner and he says the strangulation must have been gentle. "The lack of hemorrhages under the skin of the neck proved to him that there was no real intent to strangle JonBenet." (Who Killed . . . p. 101) Also there were no fractures of any of the delicate bones or cartilages of the neck. The neck mark might have grown to look a lot worse over time than it actually was. That might have been where the strangler's thumb was located. The thumb could have produced a bruise, even if the pressure had been relatively light. If the pressure had been strong, there would certainly have been bone damage.

    Wecht sees it as a gentle application of the "garotte" which "accidently" strangled her. But that does NOT gibe with the hair entwined in the knots, as well as other details revealed in Delmar's analysis, which tell us the garotte is most likely post mortem staging. The only other possibility I can think of is gentle MANUAL strangulation, very possibly unintentional, during the course of sexual molestation.
  19. wombat

    wombat Member

    It's more than that "triangular" mark - it's the circular ones and the scrapes, along with the massive head injury (I'm not posting THAT photo) that suggests battering, or bashing, to me. I haven't see photos of her face but I understand that there were some scrapes on it as well. My point is, the evidence doesn't show just one bash (the head fracture) and one strangulation (the garrotte) - there were other injuries as well (please don't anyone post about zapping with stunguns!) that should tell us more about what happened.

    In regard to the triangular mark - her neck was much smaller than the photos make it seem, so I don't think that four fingers made that mark. This is evidence of something hitting her/squeezing her to make a bruise, but not damage the trachea or neck bones. When she was hit to make the skull fracture, perhaps there was a rebound against something else.

    Again, if she was pushed down the stairs, or fell while running away from something, one event could have made all of these injuries.
  20. Texan

    Texan FFJ Senior Member

    wouldn't I like to know...

    I would sure like to know what went on that night. Sometimes I see these pictures and I just want to know what the heck happened. She was laying face down when the rope was tied around her neck because her hair was falling forward as it got caught up in the rope and the "knot" is in back also. But the dried saliva trail runs down her cheek so she was on her back when the saliva ran down and also you can see some tan (bloody mucous?) stuff came out her nose and ran down also. This stuff had to be dry before the duct tape was put on.
    I wish I could have a vision. :poke:
  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