Thanks, SD.
Re the pendant: wasn't there supposedly a cross (crucifix) attached to the necklace originally?
Is damage usually done to the tongue, larynx or hyoid bone in the course of ligature strangulation? I'm aware that one or more of these is sometimes damaged during manual strangulation.
To what do you attribute the "limited" petechial hemorrhaging? Would you say that it indicates that the heart continued to beat for some period of time while the noose was in place; or was the child dead when it was installed; or, to put it another way--was ligature strangulation a factor which contributed to the child's death?
"Same here. It's possible the neck abrasion was made prior to the cord being applied." I concur. In addition to the "big" triangular abrasion there is a least one long abrasion (I recollect) which might have been inflicted by means other than the cord. It's similar in appearance to some photos which I have seen of abrasions on the necks of other victims of strangulation where the ligature was not found at the scene.
You say that it appears that the perp had no knowledge of what the ligature staging should look like. What should it look like? There should be no necklace nor hair caught up in the ligature? Can not one in haste intend to actually strangle rather than to stage strangulation? Would the child's parent/s be in such haste under the circumstances? What person might be in such haste? Yes, it was the hair entwined in the tie on the stick that made me think that either: (1.) the stick was added (for what purpose, I'm not sure) after the fact of the strangulation; or (2.) the apparatus in it's entirety, as found at the scene, was applied while the child lay unconscious from the blow or perhaps from being stunned and thus immobilized.
What do you make of the one fiber, consistent with the cord fibers, found on the child's bed? Some say this suggests that one or more of the cords was/were installed at that location. If the neck cord were installed at that location, would that be suggestive of kidnapping? Does one first strangle a child before whisking her away?
When I say that the abrasions on the front of the neck, whether many or few in the eyes of the beholder, are suggestive of a struggle, I mean they suggest that the child hadn't been immobilized prior to infliction of the neck trauma, and the mere fact of the abrasions suggest that the neck trauma may have been inflicted during an attempt--whether successful or not--to subdue the child. I'm trying to understand what happened; trying to account for all the injuries; I consider a neck abrasion an injury. If I saw no abrasions on the front of the neck (total absence) I would be more inclined to suspect staging, unless I had an explanation for the abrasions which accommodated staging.
I'm bothered (not satisfied that I understand them) by these abrasions. I believe at least one expert saw evidence that the child clawed at the noose. I, with my untrained eye--the real one, not the glass one--see no such evidence. Further, there was no mention in the AR of damage to the fingernails; in fact it was mentioned that they were long enough to need clipping (or words to that effect). As you know, often when the victims of strangulation claw frantically at a ligature, there is nail and even sometimes finger damage.
I was hoping to get a rise out of sissi, but I'm truly thankful for your answers. Permit me two last questions: (1.) has the foreign DNA under the nails been matched in any degree to the foreign DNA in the underwear? and (2.) how do two (2) drops of blood in the underwear equate to the "several red areas of staining" mentioned in the autopsy report?
Sincerely,
RedChief
