bombardier
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 5, 2019
- Messages
- 1,588
- Reaction score
- 10,290
the fact that they've been ruled homicides makes me think that they have evidence that the smothering was intentional, or the evidence at the scene ruled out unintentional smothering (no extensive blankets, kids physically able, tox showed no drugs with a tranquilizing/resp depression effect, etc).
some physical signs of 'intentional' smothering in this age group could be damage to the hands (from fighting back), cuts and bruising on the inner lips or inner cheeks (from teeth cutting into while firm pressure is applied), hemorrhage to the face and neck(kind of nonspecific but proves the degree of force used, in this age group one would assume that with that much force the child would wake up and move themselves, often is not visible externally so fits the 'no signs of trauma' narrative), aspiration of whatever material was used to smother (i.e. fibers from the pillowcase, would imply deep breaths were attempted), etc etc
some physical signs of 'intentional' smothering in this age group could be damage to the hands (from fighting back), cuts and bruising on the inner lips or inner cheeks (from teeth cutting into while firm pressure is applied), hemorrhage to the face and neck(kind of nonspecific but proves the degree of force used, in this age group one would assume that with that much force the child would wake up and move themselves, often is not visible externally so fits the 'no signs of trauma' narrative), aspiration of whatever material was used to smother (i.e. fibers from the pillowcase, would imply deep breaths were attempted), etc etc