Hi Madeleine. I need to clarify before I can respond to your post. I believe Patsy is responsible for the head injury (but I don't believe the head injury is what killed JB). So, for me, that leaves one of the other three as being the killer.
I think Patsy struck her and that head injury would have killed her eventually. I also believe she fashioned the rope.
I am wondering something legally...if that were true, that Pasty head bashed and and someone else came along and strangled her with the rope hastening death. Wouldn't they both be guilty of different degrees of murder? But, if they conspired to stage that would make both guilty of the first degree premeditated murder if the rope was used to end her life. What would it be if the rope was intended only as staging and unknowingly finished her off? Which came first? head blow or rope.
I think all of these questions come into play when trying to understand why they were never charged. It's a tangled mess.
I am wondering something legally...if that were true, that Pasty head bashed and and someone else came along and strangled her with the rope hastening death. Wouldn't they both be guilty of different degrees of murder?
But, if they conspired to stage that would make both guilty of the first degree premeditated murder if the rope was used to end her life.
What would it be if the rope was intended only as staging and unknowingly finished her off?
Which came first? head blow or rope.
I think all of these questions come into play when trying to understand why they were never charged. It's a tangled mess.
Maybe it's different if the head blow would eventually have killed her anyway.Can you be charged of murder if you kill someone who is already dying?
I don't like to put interpretive things in an autopsy report.
Dunno why I feel like LAUGHING.Everything he wrote in it is interpretive,no exact COD,no TOD,nothing clear about the injuries down there.
Not so much misconstrued as stated in an evasive or unclear manner.
It is not unusual for a coroner to state only what he SEES or observes when autopsying the body. But for example, when there is a stab wound, it should be described as a stab wound and not just a hole in the body. If the knife is present in the crime scene, the coroner should be able to tell if that knife made the specific stab would, as opposed to some other sharp object.
It is clear in this case that Mayer did not KNOW what caused her vaginal injuries or caused her to bleed in a quantity sufficient to require wiping.
What would've been a clear manner? Should he have stated PR and JR obviously deposited their lint on JBR's underwear, longjohns, and the garrote? That the older injuries were obviously caused by JR? That the DNA is obviously incidental?
Seriously, though: what should the coroner have stated more clearly, and in doing so further support RDI?
I remember one article in the archives where Meyer was saying that he didn't put everything in the report because there are some things he will talk about only on the stand.Is this ok?Is this how it works?
Wecht also questioned why there was no estimated time of death in the autopsy.
But Meyer said it isn't unusual not to include an estimated time of death in an autopsy report.
"The investigation is still ongoing," Meyer said. "There may be some point that comes up during the investigation that might have an influence on what that estimated time of death is. I don't like to put interpretive things in an autopsy report."
Yeah right "I don't like",he just left the door open for a loooooooooooooot of interpretation by what he didn't do.
Might as well throw the autopsy report along with the ransom note in the trash. You're not going to solve this case with either one. There's nothing in the autopsy report or the ransom note that would allow you to draw any important conclusions.
I mean, the ransom note was a big lie, right? It was so bogus. There was no kidnapping, JBR was left there!
The autopsy report seems to be yet another example of how things can be easily misconstrued even by professionals.