You’ll get no argument from me that fingernail marks exist on the necks of some strangulation victims. Some are from the assailant if it is a manual strangulation, and sometimes they are self-inflicted fingernail marks from the victim in trying to remove the source of strangulation (hands, cord, rope -- whatever the ligature might be). But I’ve seen pictures of fingernail marks. They are usually very pronounced semi-circular (crescent-shaped) marks, they are often accompanied by fingertip bruising, and the direction of the arc is indicative of whether they are self-inflicted or caused by an assailant from behind or in front of the victim. Their pattern also indicates whether the assailant used his left or his right hand. If they are self-inflicted by the victim trying to remove a ligature, they are more often than not scratches rather than simple, single-line semi-circles. The reasons for all this should be self-evident if you take the time to think about it.
I don’t regard Judge Carnes as qualified to draw conclusions about Dr. Meyer’s autopsy that he didn’t himself make. In fact, even though I’m aware that some people do agree with her, she offers no explanation for her conclusion of this. Her conclusion is based on the information given her by one side in a civil suit -- hardly what I would consider reliable. So let’s look at the photo you chose to support your earlier statement...
First, in the case of self-inflicted marks by the victim, they will almost always be above the ligature. So what you’ve circled below the ligature cannot be fingernail marks, unless you accept that the initial strangulation was actually from the ligature being lower on her neck while she was still alive and conscious. In fact, I’ll give you that, because I happen to believe that this was the case. I believe that she died while the ligature was in the lower area of her neck where the blanched line remains. But that line is too low for the marks you’ve circled to be very likely to be the result of her attempting to remove the ligature. And again, self-inflicted marks are usually scratches rather than fingernail-shaped indentations, especially if they are inches above the source of strangulation.
Actually, a closed wound only refers to the fact that the skin was not broken. It would be highly unlikely for the skull to actually protrude through the skin -- and unnecessary for it to be considered an open wound.
Neither of these two items have anything to do with the swelling or the bleeding inside her skull.
Whether or not either of these occurs depends on several factors. The most likely cause of blood or cerebrospinal fluid (or a mixture of the two) in the ear or nostrils is the existence of a basilar fracture (fracture of the base or floor of the skull). Basilar fractures are extremely rare and there is nothing in the AR to indicate that this happened. Other factors are exact location of the fracture, length of time between injury and death, and body position. While Meyer mentions “a small amount of tan mucous material” in the nostrils and “a pattern of dried saliva and mucous material” on the right cheek, he also states that this “does not appear to be hemorrhagic”. We don’t know the results of any testing done to determine the hemorrhagic content of the dried fluid, but just in looking at the photos I wouldn’t be so quick to rule out hemorrhagic content in the dried mucous due to its color. Also worth noting here is that Meyer’s comment about it not appearing to be hemorrhagic was made before reflecting the scalp and discovery of the skull fracture (IOW, he had no reason at that time to suspect bloody mucous from a skull fracture.).
This would only be found if the head blow landed on an area on (or very close to) her face.
It’s correct that no swelling was noted externally by Meyer before he cut into her scalp and peeled it back. Swelling was found internally though, and it was so noted.
I have a lot of respect for Dr. Wecht, but that doesn’t make him infallible. (If you don’t believe that, just look into the facts behind his public declaration about Pittsburgh Steelers offensive lineman Terry Long’s death and his later retraction and unannounced amendment to the death certificate when he was proven wrong.) In this case, Wecht just plain got it wrong (IMO). There was no “sex game gone awry”, no erotic asphyxia (auto or otherwise), no twisting of her collar causing the neck bruise, no “carotid artery reflex”, and there was much more blood in the cranium that was documented in the AR than was mentioned by Wecht. His statement above that “the blood continues to flow” (but that it didn't in the Ramsey case) does not take into account that it would be restricted going to and/or exiting from the skull and the brain once the ligature is tightened around her neck regardless of whether or not she was still alive. He only mentions the amount of blood in one area, ignoring the rest of the blood, and claims there was not enough blood to indicate she was alive at the time of the head blow. But then, acknowledging the entire amount of blood throughout her skull in the different layers of membranes around her brain would contradict his theory that the head blow came afterwards.
How do you square Doberson’s comment with the other experts who said that the strangulation had to have occurred as long as an hour or even two hours after the head blow? How do you square it with Denver Health Medical Center’s chief neurologist Dr. Kerry Brega who said that it is “not uncommon for people with skull fractures to not have any bleeding”?
All (IMO) incorrect conclusions based on her outward appearance and the incorrect interpretation of what is written in the AR. Regardless of who each of us believes is responsible for this child's death, the facts shouldn't change. There was a degree of cerebral edema, and there was considerable bleeding inside the skull. As Anti-K appropriately put it (forgive me for not having the exact quote), there was as much blood in the skull as the pressure and the space inside would allow. And this is what proves she was alive at the time the head blow was delivered.
These two CODs often accompany one another. Quite common, pretty typical, actually...
No problem here with disagreeing on conclusions. I just wanted to know what you were looking at to see the fingernail marks you referred to, and I wanted to understand why you would refer to a lack of swelling and bleeding in the skull. JonBenets brain weighed 1450 gm. Depending on whether you calculate it by weight alone or by percentage of body weight, it was 15% to 25% more than what should be expected in a 6 to 7 year old female:
Sorry, Mama. Hopefully my last post clears up any confusion I may have caused. I realize which thread Im on -- Im not trying to go against the terms. I simply want to make sure we all understand the evidence. If we draw different conclusion, thats fine. But Id rather we do it based on correct information instead of information that is clearly incorrect.
No apology necessary...
My mistake, AK. I gave you credit for something someone said that I thought made a lot of sense. I thought it was you because I do agree with some of the things you say at times. I should have taken the time to llook for the exact words.Far too busy these last few weeks (and the next few!) to do any posting, but Ive been trying to follow things as best I can. Just wanted to say that I do not recall saying anything like what otg claims (post 1485, above). I did say something about however much blood there was, it was still less than what was expected. And, contrary to what otg says about what I said, I actually think that the space inside the skull and pressure would have allowed for more bleeding - but, the garrote and death prevented that.
Also, whichever side of the What Came First side one is on, I hope that we all realize that the blow was struck while the victim was alive. While the blow could have come during the asphyxiation, it could not have come after.
Not sure when Ill have time to post again. Carry on.
...
AK
Ill try to answer you questions briefly (respectfully keeping in mind which thread Im on). Well... as briefly as Im capable of (apologies) without mentioning possible suspect names. But if you want to discuss my answers further, maybe we should take it to a neutral thread so I dont get in trouble for posting on this one.
I completely disagree with everything you said here, UKG. But I won't go into it on this thread. You and I are not wanted here.
I find the use of a stun gun to be most consistent with the evidence, but I am not so sure it's primary function would have been to incapacitate the victim. Along with petechiae, Dr. Meyer observed abrasions on the neck, and he referred to them as such in the AR. He also noted a superficial abrasion on the victim's chin.
