Snapping Turtle vs Human bites

Maybe it wasn't an adult alligator snapping turtle that attacked the bodies.

I found this:

"hatchlings and juveniles usually live in small streams"

at http://www.arkive.org/alligator-snapping-turtle/macrochelys-temminckii/

Sorry, but "the people claiming animal predation" are certified forensic pathologists who have years of experience examining bodies and photos of animal predation. These experts have not definitively said that the animal predation was alligator snapping turtles or any specific animal. One expert (Sptiz) speculated that the attacks were by canines (dogs or coyotes or wolves, maybe). The fact is that the experts have only testified that the wounds were animal predation, not knife wounds. Beyond that is nothing but speculation, but the experts were clear that no knife was involved.

The bodies were underwater, so the range of likely predators is very limited. It would have to be animals that swim/live in the water. Again, given the branch was very narrow and shallow (too shallow for fish other than a possible minnow or tadpole) and with with steep, solid banks and few areas for snapping turtles to burrow, live or even swim, it seems highly unlikely. Hatchlings or juveniles would also be unlikely, since, again, the area around the branch/crime scene is not conducive to building snapping turtle nests. They need large areas of mud, gravel or sand for that.

Add to that the fact the bodies weren't there very long and hadn't much time to begin decomp, freshwater animal predation seems highly unlikely IMO.

That said, I've never made up my mind about who the murderer(s) were. I've just always felt the snapping turtle theory was a red herring or simply an honest mistake. The experts may be forensic pathologists, but they're likely not experts about wildlife habitats in that area.
 
Sorry, but "the people claiming animal predation" are certified forensic pathologists who have years of experience examining bodies and photos of animal predation.
Then they should have no trouble demonstrating the basis for their claims by presenting the autopsy photos along with photos of comparable wounds from know animal predation, and I'd be happy to review any such analysis if they ever bother to present as much. However, I'm also aware of the fact that if one shops around enough you can find people who will tell you most anything you'd like to hear, so I'm not about to take anyone's word as if it were gospel, experts or otherwise.

Jessie wasn't correcting him.
Detective Ridge suggests "Just one piece", Misskelley replies "Just a fold up knife." That's a correction, again please check all the dictionaries you need to come to terms with that fact.
 
Then they should have no trouble demonstrating the basis for their claims by presenting the autopsy photos along with photos of comparable wounds from know animal predation, and I'd be happy to review any such analysis if they ever bother to present as much.

Present them to who? what exactly are you saying here?

Are you asking for an explanation to the explanation?

Do you believe that your review of their analysis out ways their expert forensic knowledge some how?

However, I'm also aware of the fact that if one shops around enough you can find people who will tell you most anything you'd like to hear.

I'm sorry, but this is just absurd, to suggest a renowned forensic pathologist (and under oath) would simply lie or "follow the path" and possibly damage his career for a few dollars is ridiculous. not to mention several others as well.
 
Present them to who?
The defense gave a press conference back in 2007 where both Dr. Werner Spitz and Dr. Richard Souviron gave nothing more than vague claims like "there are small animals and large animals", "a dog or other carniverous animal", and animals such as dogs". They didn't show any examples from other cases demonstrating predation from dogs or any other animal for comparison though though, just two autopsy photos from this case showing some scrapes.

Souviron also claimed " I concur with Dr. Spitz, that you don't have to be a rocket scientist to look at these things and know that these are bite marks", even though Spitz never mentioned bite marks any neither of them showed autopsy photos other than those two of the scrapes which obviously weren't bite marks, from dogs or otherwise. then Souviron went on to argue "I have a case in which that same type of injury is documented and occurred on an individual, and is reported in a textbook", yet he didn't name the even name the textbook, let alone the case or the animal he's claiming managed to deglove someone. And now we're expected to take such people's words that it was turtles?

Do you believe that your review of their analysis out ways their expert forensic knowledge some how?
I don't believe they've ever actually given an analysis for anyone review, though I'd be happy to be proven wrong on that.

I'm sorry, but this is just absurd, to suggest a renowned forensic pathologist (and under oath) would simply lie or "follow the path" and possibly damage his career for a few dollars is ridiculous. not to mention several others as well.
Nobody's prefect. It's absurd to imagine otherwise and just take people's claims on faith, experts or otherwise. That said, you can watch relevant section of the aforementioned press conference here:

[video=youtube;ZBbdsZKRaTU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBbdsZKRaTU[/video]
 
Nobody's prefect. It's absurd to imagine otherwise and just take people's claims on faith, experts or otherwise.

While I do agree with this, this is not what you insinuated originally, that being some kind of "I'll say whatever you want" type situation.

That said, you can watch relevant section of the aforementioned press conference here:

Thanks for the link, just on this, would I be wrong in my assumption that this is just what it is , a press conference, I wouldn't have expected an in depth review of all findings from them but more of a summarized presentation of their findings. Full disclosure would have surely been better presented in a possible re trial. JMO
 
While I do agree with this, this is not what you insinuated originally, that being some kind of "I'll say whatever you want" type situation.
I wasn't making any such insinuation. Rather, I was simply point out that if one asks enough people, framing their questions with the intent of prompting a desired response, eventually people are likely to be found who prove susceptible to such suggestion. Granted, I can't rule out the possibility that they are being intentionally deceptive, but I've no reason to insinuate as much as long as the benign alternative exists. But for instance, note what Spitz said during the press conference:

I might say to you, in a, in a, just a couple of words, when these pictures first came to me, I couldn't understand what this issue was all about because it was so obvious that these are animal product. And I thought by the attorneys, it took maybe seconds to make that observation.
How many autopsy photos could Spitz look at in a matter of seconds? Was he even sent all the photos to look at? Did he look at the photos which Peretti suggested were consistent with the Lake Knife? And again, where is even one example of animal predation which is consistent with the wounds of any of the victims, let alone all the wounds? Beyond that, where is there any example of carnivorous animals that go up and scratch and such at corpses but don't fill their bellies? Where is there any actual evidence to support their claims at all? The world may never know.

Thanks for the link, just on this, would I be wrong in my assumption that this is just what it is , a press conference
Looked to me like smoke and mirrors, put up by people full of themselves, and fooling themselves. Much like the previous nonsense about human bite marks. But again, I'd be happy to be proven wrong.
 
As to Spitz and his determination of animal predation: A renowned forensic pathologist who literally wrote the book on forensic pathology shouldn't need more than a few seconds' look at autopsy photos to determine that the wounds were a result of animal predation. So, if at least some of the wounds are the result of animal predation, it should make an intelligent person question the prosecution's theory of Satanic ritual killing - which is what was presented at the original trials. They have tried to back away from it now, and, IMO, that original motive is at least part of the reasoning behind the acceptance of the Alford pleas.The State knows that the original detective work was woefully lax and the Alford plea afforded them a way to save face.

However, as I've said before, I seriously doubt that any State or Commonwealth would release a convicted murderer who was already incarcerated just to save face because their original motive was off! I would think that they would be anxious for a new trial in which they could present a more compelling motive - that is if they're truly interested in justice and not in advancing their political careers. Again, an intelligent person must question why the State would release convicted murderers if those murderers are actually murderers and not victims of injustice!
 
it should make an intelligent person question the prosecution's theory of Satanic ritual killing - which is what was presented at the original trials.
It doesn't take much intelligence to search the transcripts and come to terms with the fact that the prosecution never suggested the murders took place in the course of a ritual. I'd bet even Misskelley could do it.
 
It doesn't take much intelligence to search the transcripts and come to terms with the fact that the prosecution never suggested the murders took place in the course of a ritual. I'd bet even Misskelley could do it.

You really should go back and read the transcripts if you believe they never referenced or suggested the possibility of ritualistic killings. It took me 5 minutes and no, I'm not doing your homework.
 
Substantiating other people's claim's isn't my homework, and I've yet to see anyone ever come close to substantiating the claim that "the prosecution's theory" was that of "a Satanic ritual killing". That said, I've previously taken considerable time to investigate that of-repeated claim anyway, and have yet to find one instance of Fogleman or Davis even using the term ritual or a synonym thereof in the course of the trials, let alone ever presenting an argument in that regard.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
176
Guests online
1,915
Total visitors
2,091

Forum statistics

Threads
589,950
Messages
17,928,076
Members
228,013
Latest member
RayaCo
Back
Top