Has no one ever thought of the fact that those marks could be old stun gun injuries (if stun gun at all), and not a part of that night's crime injuries? Why couldn't they be in a different stage of healing, almost completely scabbed over, and would not look like fresh burns? I don't mean the larger one on her face, but the two smaller ones on her back, and even the similar looking set on her legs from the other picture often compared to.
I know there's a lot of back and forth on this, and I don't have a decision on it yet one way or the other, but I do wonder if a stun gun was used on her....but maybe it's not as definitive and easy to tell one way or the other, because they are older, healing injuries.
If the injuries are a few days to a couple weeks old, they could just look like abrasions at that point.... Not all her injuries or bruises found may have been fresh from that night...
Stun guns apparently are becoming seemingly more common in discipline & child abuse: