Yes...but it was listed on the autopsy as a cause of death, so in effect it was one of the murder weapons, whether the person applying it realized she was still alive or not. The unknown factor is whether the OTHER cause of death (the head bash) happened before or after the strangulation.
You, the jury
- Thread starter WHITEFANG
- Start date
New Posts
-
-
TX TX - Terri 'Missy' Bevers, 45, killed in church/suspect in SWAT gear, Midlothian, 18 Apr 2016 #49
- Latest: I am not Sherlock H.
-
Yes...but it was listed on the autopsy as a cause of death, so in effect it was one of the murder weapons, whether the person applying it realized she was still alive or not. The unknown factor is whether the OTHER cause of death (the head bash) happened before or after the strangulation.
madeleine
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2008
- Messages
- 4,972
- Reaction score
- 88
The unknown male DNA is not my favourite IDI piece of evidence,STILL, it's more than enough to create reasonable doubt.IIRC it happened with the grand jury.
madeleine
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2008
- Messages
- 4,972
- Reaction score
- 88
Question:
The autopsy report says:
Final diagnosis:VII.Ligature of right wrist.Doesn't this mean that the cord applied on the right wrist was tight and left visible marks(cause it's listed as DIAGNOSIS)?Just asking,I am not sure what it means.
The autopsy report says:
Final diagnosis:VII.Ligature of right wrist.Doesn't this mean that the cord applied on the right wrist was tight and left visible marks(cause it's listed as DIAGNOSIS)?Just asking,I am not sure what it means.
madeleine
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2008
- Messages
- 4,972
- Reaction score
- 88
Alex Hunter depo:
9 Wood: Chief Beckner confirmed yesterday that the
10 investigation had retained the services of Chet
11 Ubowski, obviously through CBI, Leonard Speckin,
12 Edwin Alford and Richard Dusak to at various times
13 perform handwriting analysis on the ransom note in
14 comparing it and analyzing other individuals'
15 writings. You were familiar with those four
16 individuals?
17 Hunter: Yes.
18 Wood: Are you familiar with their results as
19 they pertain to Patsy Ramsey?
20 Hunter: Yes.
21 Wood: Those four individuals are well respected,
22 are they not?
23 Hunter: Yes.
24 Wood: You also know Howard Ryle and Lloyd
25 Cunningham?
106
1 Hunter: Yes.
2 Wood: Within the community Howard Ryle and Lloyd
3 Cunningham are highly regarded and well respected,
4 aren't they?
5 Hunter: Yes.
6 Wood: You were given the benefit of Howard Ryle
7 and Lloyd Cunningham's opinions in this matter in a
8 presentation that was done for the investigation
9 through the Ramsey attorneys, correct?
10 Hunter: Yes.
11 Wood: I'm correct that there was not of the six
12 individuals any examiner that identified Patsy Ramsey
13 as the author of the note; am I right?
14 Hunter: That's right.
madeleine
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2008
- Messages
- 4,972
- Reaction score
- 88
24 Wood: And without asking for names, there were
25 other individuals who were under suspicion whose
108
1 handwriting was analyzed that were not eliminated as
2 the author of the note; am I right?
3 Hunter: That's correct.
25 other individuals who were under suspicion whose
108
1 handwriting was analyzed that were not eliminated as
2 the author of the note; am I right?
3 Hunter: That's correct.
madeleine
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2008
- Messages
- 4,972
- Reaction score
- 88
IMO the right wrist knot being tied LOOSELY is just a misunderstanding.
Why?
I think this was the first photo taken of it,where IMO it's clear that it's NOT loosely.
And THEN they probably took a second photo were it seems loosely indeed but maybe they already touched/tried to remove it.
Why?
I think this was the first photo taken of it,where IMO it's clear that it's NOT loosely.
And THEN they probably took a second photo were it seems loosely indeed but maybe they already touched/tried to remove it.
No, but FW was right behind him and he would have see the position of her hands as well as whether the ligatures were tight and if he hands were swollen. If they were swollen, they would have still been swollen when she was brought up and later examined by the coroner. The ligature being described as such is not dependent on how tight it was tied. While the photo shows the cord as being tight enough to pull the fabric in a bit, it is not tied tight enough to make a mark. Neither Arndt or FW has said they touched the wrist ligature. Believe me, if either one had done so, someone there would have said so. Especially with FW- JR would have said it he saw FW touch her wrists (or anything else). Mayer did not touch the ligatures until he removed them at the autopsy, and then he did not untie them, rather he cut them, marking with a marker pen where he made the cuts. This is done to preserve the knots as evidence.
As to her being beaten- I doubt it, though it is a popular phrase used in the media with this case (i.e. "found beaten and strangled") . Mayer would have noted that. There were some bruises- one on her posterior shoulder that could represent her being pressed against the floor or something pressing against her shoulder while she was alive (had to be- bruises like that are not postmortem). The bruising (also described as contusions) in the vagina are not the result of being beaten. I haven't seen all the photos, just as no one else here has seen them, but what I have seen as well as the autopsy report do not indicate she was beaten.
A coroner can tell (as can most people looking at the body) whether someone has been beaten.
madeleine
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2008
- Messages
- 4,972
- Reaction score
- 88
I was thinking that someone touched/tried to loosen the knot after photo nr 1 and before photo nr 2 was taken.I think Meyer wrote that report after all the photos were taken?
JR said the knots were tight and photo nr 1 shows exactly that.IMO
Re what FW or Arndt might have seen,it's obvious to me they both had other things on their mind.Arndt wasn't after preserving the scene/body,sadly,so I doubt she paid attention to something like this,remember,she was busy trying not to get killed by JR.(LOL)
Both those photos were autopsy photos (NOT crime scene photos), taken in the morgue before the body was undressed. We have no publicly released photos of her wrists taken in situ on the floor of the home- the one photo we have shows her hands in brown paper bags as she is lying on the living room rug.
Mayer describes himself as following proper procedure, which would have been to cut the ligatures off, not try to untie them. We can only assume morgue any morgue workers would be aware of this and the body should have remained in the body bag coming from the home until the time Mayer himself was attending the body for the autopsy.
However, we all know that Mayer was not a stickler for proper procedures, as the unsterile nail clippers use is well known. But I would think no one else would have had the opportunity to try to untie the ligatures.
madeleine
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2008
- Messages
- 4,972
- Reaction score
- 88
What about the other thing I was talking about.Why was the right wrist ligature mentioned under diagnosis?I don't really understand that.Why mention it under diagnosis if the cord didn't leave any marks or if it's not significant (anatomically speaking).
madeleine
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2008
- Messages
- 4,972
- Reaction score
- 88
I know and that's why I am not so sure re your last sentence.
Not exactly sure if this is what you mean, but- the cord was not on the left wrist at all from the time she was brought up. When Mayer examined the body, only the right wrist had a ligature on it, and the loop for the left wrist had fallen off. Because a coroner us supposed to describe the appearance of the deceased literally (saving his opinions for his notes or not at all) he would only mention the wrist having the ligature.
It is thought that the other wrist ligature was so loose as to have fallen off, but no one can say with certainty that is what happened. It may not have ever been on her wrist in the first place. JR has claimed her wrists were tied together, but we know that is not accurate because rigor mortis would have kept them together even after the cord was removed. If he instead meant only that her wrists were both connected with the cord, we can consider any of these things- he simply slid one of the slip knots open and one wrist was freed or he untied it, which would have taken enough time that FW would have seen him do it and he has not said whether this happened. Of course, the loose loop STILL had the knot, so we know JR wasn't telling he truth when he said he untied it. If he TRIED to untie it, the knot would show evidence of that, and it has not been noted, nor has FW (the only other eyewitness to the wineceller crime scene) said that he did so.
The coroner had to mention it under diagnosis because it was there and it was tied and it was part of an erstwhile restraining device that may have played a part in the crime, whether staged or not. If her diagnosis was "ligature strangulation"- the wrist cord was part of the ligature.
If this wasn't what you meant, try to explain it differently and I will try to answer.
It's what I'm here for.
Correct. What I wouldn't give to get my hands on it!
I understand.
Wouldn't we all?
Well, I've said it before, but it bears repeating: I wonder whether or not "beyond a reasonable doubt" is the right standard to use. I think that's too great an onus to put on a jury in our modern society.
Question:
The autopsy report says:
Final diagnosis:VII.Ligature of right wrist.Doesn't this mean that the cord applied on the right wrist was tight and left visible marks(cause it's listed as DIAGNOSIS)?Just asking,I am not sure what it means.
I'm pretty sure it doesn't. In the report itself, it states, quote:
Tied loosely around the right wrist
and
Examination of the right extremities is unremarkable. The only thing noted around the right wrist is her morgue ID bracelet.
Sorry, madeleine. It was a good question.
I agree, SD. That can be thought to mean that the only way to not have reasonable doubt is to SEE the crime being committed for yourself, as even eyewitness accounts (if there are any) can be deemed not reliable. If that were the case, only crimes that each and every member of each and every jury had actually seen for themselves would be deemed "beyond a reasonable doubt".
And in every jury there are different opinions about what reasonable doubt may mean to them as individual jurors.
Yes, Beckner confirmed that their services had been retained. Beckner mentioned nothing about what they said in regards to PR, and in fact, was not even asked.
Isn't that what I said? None of them would identify her as the writer with courtroom certainty which is what they're talking about. Their off-the-record opinions were varied, as Wood said in Beckner deposition, based on the extent of their respective analyses.
But none of them said at ANY time that she did NOT write it. To do that, she would have to fall into the category of "elimination," and we all know that didn't happen. Even her own hired experts couldn't do that.
I also wonder just how much Alex Hunter knows.
Like I said, Mama and Papa Super didn't raise any foolish children. They didn't raise any liars, either.
IMO the right wrist knot being tied LOOSELY is just a misunderstanding.
Why?
I think this was the first photo taken of it,where IMO it's clear that it's NOT loosely.
Well, I'm looking at the same photo you are, and it looks preety loose to me. I could get out of it.
And THEN they probably took a second photo were it seems loosely indeed but maybe they already touched/tried to remove it.
I doubt that. What reason would they have not to take the two photos one right after the other?