Help With a Source Please

[JMO8778]

So great to hear from you NP. I miss you too. The unfortunate thing about posting at CL is the infractions. Freshwater was driving me crazy. Literally, not one day went by without her messaging me with an infraction and it got to be where I could not say anything. Sometimes I deserved it, because how can you not with Shill and the others (Evening), but there were many times it was obvious to get me banned. So I just told her to ban me.

Actually I like the argument because I know we are right and we have soooooooo much to back it up. It is unfortunate that I was banned before I got to post BOESP's post on the head injury. You have to read it here. I will find out exactly where, but it fits exactly with Thomas' theory and it is great.

I can understand their not believing Patsy is capable of this. I can. But lets get real with the reasoning they have. Patsy is going to wrap presents all dressed up. Fleet White is the murderer. MacReynolds is the murderer and his wife helped and they redressed the bear in a little Santa Suit. A Muslim is the murdered. No wait, it is a pedofile and Dr. Beuf is in on it. Thre were sex parties with JB. JonBenet went willingly with the MacReynolds to the dark dank basement, bypassing the tree with all the presents. Burke was never heard on the call, riggggggggggght. JonBenet did not have a bed wetting problem. No proof that Patsy wrote the note. Steve Thomas's sole purpose from the start was to get as much information as possble and write a book. Steve Thomas set Mason up. Steve Thomas knows nothing about the case. Lacy is a good person. John Mark Karr is probably the killer.


:blowkiss:

Found it: Why don't you post it on CL and get them all in a tither.

BY BOESP:

"DeeDee, based on physics, an 8.5" fracture that crosses suture lines in a pliable skull isn't likely to come from a low velocity strike that leaves relatively little damage to the underlying matter. The strike probably would generate a linear fracture but not one that travels from the occipital region to the brow line. The wound at the contact point appears to be from a relatively low pressure injury from blunt trauma because there is not enough mutilation of the underlying tissue and the wound isn't deep enough, which is what one would expect to see in a high velocity strike, no matter what the assailant weighed. The length implies high pressure was needed to make the fracture travel the distance it traveled. If it were any other combination other than low velocity/high pressure the wound would likely look differently internally and externally."

So basically, the head injury is more than likely the result of her head hitting "against" something rather than a flashlight or some such object hitting her. There was little damage to the "underlying matter". OH THANK YOU BOESP, THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU. IT goes right along with Thomas' theory.

Post this for Linda A. She loves to say that it was an object that caused the trauma.

That makes sense,and Boesp,if you're reading this thread,and don't mind answering....her head hit with such force,in your opinion,was it really likely to be an accident? Or was there intent to harm,(although I'm not of course,saying it was planned),at the last minute/at the time JB was struggling with Patsy? (I keep thinking of Patsy saying she had flashbacks of JB screaming,so there was a struggle bet. the 2 of them,no doubt,IMO).
Just asking because Mark Fuhrman says it was not an accident,(whom Thomas talked about he case to);he says it was quite intentional.

 

[BOESP]

That makes sense,and Boesp,if you're reading this thread,and don't mind answering....her head hit with such force,in your opinion,was it really likely to be an accident? Or was there intent to harm,(although I'm not of course,saying it was planned),at the last minute/at the time JB was struggling with Patsy? (I keep thinking of Patsy saying she had flashbacks of JB screaming,so there was a struggle bet. the 2 of them,no doubt,IMO).
Just asking because Mark Fuhrman says it was not an accident,(whom Thomas talked about he case to);he says it was quite intentional.

I suspect, based on information available to the public, that her head injury was accidental. The manual strangulation, if that truly happened as we've speculated, didn't kill JonBenet since it would have had to happen first in the sequence of injuries, in my opinion. I think an out of control adult caused the head injury. I speculate the intent was either to get a child to do something it didn't want to do or it was misdirected anger caused by something that triggered sudden rage. I'm on the fence about the ligature strangulation but my guess is it was intended to be staging, although that doesn't seem to be how it turned out since the ligature was a contributing factor that caused clinical death.

I don't know Colorado law and how they classify homicides and what they require as far as proving intent but Fuhrman must have information the public doesn't have if he thought it was purposeful. A lot of states have "reckless homicide" and/or "first degree manslaughter" which are often interpreted to mean the perpetrator by using ordinary rules of common sense would have prior knowledge that their action could cause bodily harm, even death, and a failure to contain that action shows purposeful intent. My understanding, based on Thomas's book, is Fuhrman may have thought they had a Murder One charge (which where I live is premeditated and willful). I don't know how he/they came to that decision.

 

[JMO8778]

I suspect, based on information available to the public, that her head injury was accidental. The manual strangulation, if that truly happened as we've speculated, didn't kill JonBenet since it would have had to happen first in the sequence of injuries, in my opinion. I think an out of control adult caused the head injury. I speculate the intent was either to get a child to do something it didn't want to do or it was misdirected anger caused by something that triggered sudden rage. I'm on the fence about the ligature strangulation but my guess is it was intended to be staging, although that doesn't seem to be how it turned out since the ligature was a contributing factor that caused clinical death.

I don't know Colorado law and how they classify homicides and what they require as far as proving intent but Fuhrman must have information the public doesn't have if he thought it was purposeful. A lot of states have "reckless homicide" and/or "first degree manslaughter" which are often interpreted to mean the perpetrator by using ordinary rules of common sense would have prior knowledge that their action could cause bodily harm, even death, and a failure to contain that action shows purposeful intent. My understanding, based on Thomas's book, is Fuhrman may have thought they had a Murder One charge (which where I live is premeditated and willful). I don't know how he/they came to that decision.

Ok,thx,I just have a hard time equating it all to an accident,like UK said,you usually only see a head injury that severe in a car accident.I can't imagine throwing a child around like that and not thinking it wouldn't cause irreparable damage or even death.

 

[Ames]

Ok,thx,I just have a hard time equating it all to an accident,like UK said,you usually only see a head injury that severe in a car accident.I can't imagine throwing a child around like that and not thinking it wouldn't cause irreparable damage or even death.

You have to consider too...that a child's skull is not as hard as an adults. I posted a link on one of the boards...I will try and find it again....that stated that a child's skull could fracture, from falling off a bicycle..(a low to the ground bicycle, the kind that is made for smaller kids).

Here is some websites that I found about it...I am still searching for the one that I posted awhile back..

http://www.healthtouch.com/bin/ECon...&title=SKULL+FRACTURE+IN+CHILDREN+&cid=HTHLTH

http://www.lpch.org/DiseaseHealthInfo/HealthLibrary/neuro/headinj.html

 

[Solace]

You have to consider too...that a child's skull is not as hard as an adults. I posted a link on one of the boards...I will try and find it again....that stated that a child's skull could fracture, from falling off a bicycle..(a low to the ground bicycle, the kind that is made for smaller kids).

Here is some websites that I found about it...I am still searching for the one that I posted awhile back..

http://www.healthtouch.com/bin/ECon...&title=SKULL+FRACTURE+IN+CHILDREN+&cid=HTHLTH

http://www.lpch.org/DiseaseHealthInfo/HealthLibrary/neuro/headinj.html

This looks like this fits JB's injury:

"
basilar skull fracture
This is the most serious type of skull fracture, and involves a break in the bone at the base of the skull. Children with this type of fracture frequently have bruises around their eyes and a bruise behind their ear. They may also have clear fluid draining from their nose or ears due to a tear in part of the covering of the brain. These children require close observation in the hospital."
Did she have any bruises behind her ear?

 

[Ames]

This looks like this fits JB's injury:

"
basilar skull fracture
This is the most serious type of skull fracture, and involves a break in the bone at the base of the skull. Children with this type of fracture frequently have bruises around their eyes and a bruise behind their ear. They may also have clear fluid draining from their nose or ears due to a tear in part of the covering of the brain. These children require close observation in the hospital."
Did she have any bruises behind her ear?

You know..I THINK she did...I will have to go back and read the autopsy report again. But, it seems like I remember reading that before.

 

[DeeDee249]

I have never seen any bruising mentioned on her head at all. There was livor mortis noted on the right side of her face, this occurs after death. Bruising occurs only while alive. There were the abrasions. But a coroner who is also an ME (not all are) should have noted bruising behind the ear, etc. that could indicate a skull fracture. The only bruising mentioned on the head was on the inside, corresponding to where the brain slammed against the skull from the force of the injury. This wasn't visible until the scalp was reflected (pulled back from the skull) and the skullcap removed.
Of course, we'll never really know the full extent of Mayer's notes, but LA didn't mention bruising of this type, and she observed the autopsy.

My impression of the autopsy is that it was a surprise to Meyer to discover the huge fracture. I assume he did not handle the body himself, no mention of his feeling from the outside what was a horrific fracture (and would probably have been felt from the outside.)
Even the parents MAY not have suspected the awful damage to the little skull. JR carried her upstairs already in full rigor, upright and away from himself. His hands held her in such a way as to have her head above his own, her arms straight up over her head. Though they certainly handled the body, they may not have touched her head so that the fracture was felt.

 

[Ames]

I have never seen any bruising mentioned on her head at all. There was livor mortis noted on the right side of her face, this occurs after death. Bruising occurs only while alive. There were the abrasions. But a coroner who is also an ME (not all are) should have noted bruising behind the ear, etc. that could indicate a skull fracture. The only bruising mentioned on the head was on the inside, corresponding to where the brain slammed against the skull from the force of the injury. This wasn't visible until the scalp was reflected (pulled back from the skull) and the skullcap removed.
Of course, we'll never really know the full extent of Mayer's notes, but LA didn't mention bruising of this type, and she observed the autopsy.

My impression of the autopsy is that it was a surprise to Meyer to discover the huge fracture. I assume he did not handle the body himself, no mention of his feeling from the outside what was a horrific fracture (and would probably have been felt from the outside.)
Even the parents MAY not have suspected the awful damage to the little skull. JR carried her upstairs already in full rigor, upright and away from himself. His hands held her in such a way as to have her head above his own, her arms straight up over her head. Though they certainly handled the body, they may not have touched her head so that the fracture was felt.

That must be what I am thinking of....

 

[DeeDee249]

Probably, Ames. I am sure that was it. Coroner may have been evasive and did some sloppy work (the nail clipper!) but he was an MD/ME also and should have noted something that obvious.

 

[Ames]

Probably, Ames. I am sure that was it. Coroner may have been evasive and did some sloppy work (the nail clipper!) but he was an MD/ME also and should have noted something that obvious.

Didn't he mention some other bruises, on the side of her head...consitant with someone shaking her....(maybe trying to revive her)?

 

[Solace]

Didn't he mention some other bruises, on the side of her head...consitant with someone shaking her....(maybe trying to revive her)?

Cyrill Wecht mentions the above in his book and says was the result of being shaken.

 

[Ames]

Cyrill Wecht mentions the above in his book and says was the result of being shaken.

Thanks...that's what I thought. (I believe that the shaking happened after Patsy realized what she had done...trying to revive her). Gosh, can you IMAGINE what was going through her (Patsy's) mind at that time, it had to have been awful.

 

[DeeDee249]

My impression of those other bruises (that could indicate shaking) is that they were on the INSIDE of the skull, where the brain slams against the inside of the skull, as in "shaken baby syndrome". These kinds of bruises can only be seen by autopsy, as the skull and brain must be viewed to see them. With that kind of shaking, the brain is subjected to an injury similar to a concussion, where the skull is hit (or shaken) so hard that the brain actually moves around violently inside the skull. There is no bruising on the outside at all.
Now, if JBR's head was slammed into something (like a wall or tub or sink) there would be bruising that could be seen, although it may be under the hair. That's why I am one of the RDIs who feel that she was clubbed with something (I think it WAS the flashlight), because that would punch a hole like that in the skull and still not leave a bruise.

 

[Ames]

My impression of those other bruises (that could indicate shaking) is that they were on the INSIDE of the skull, where the brain slams against the inside of the skull, as in "shaken baby syndrome". These kinds of bruises can only be seen by autopsy, as the skull and brain must be viewed to see them. With that kind of shaking, the brain is subjected to an injury similar to a concussion, where the skull is hit (or shaken) so hard that the brain actually moves around violently inside the skull. There is no bruising on the outside at all.
Now, if JBR's head was slammed into something (like a wall or tub or sink) there would be bruising that could be seen, although it may be under the hair. That's why I am one of the RDIs who feel that she was clubbed with something (I think it WAS the flashlight), because that would punch a hole like that in the skull and still not leave a bruise.

You are right...

http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Haven/9101/wecht.html

"The third reference also fascinated the medical detective. He had seen such bruises to the temporal lobes of the brain -- the portions that lie behind the temples on the sides of the head -- and they often resulted from shaking someone and causing the brain to shift inside the skull, striking the bone on the sides. This report offered no reference ot injuries on the outside of the head at those locations, so the internal bruises probably were not the result of blows. "