I have some not so pleasant discussion about some of what a burning victim suffers during immolation in this post, if graphic discussion of what may have happened to Jessica disturbs you, skip my post.
We aren't going to see anything further on the autopsy reports until they have a suspect in custody.
I will agree in part with what you said. Initially the story was embellished, exagerrated, and enhanced as it first came out. Just look at the nature of the crime itself though, it's sensational (only in the strictest application of the word) and unbelievable.
Look at what we've heard and what applies and what doesn't.
Initially Jessica's father tells the MSM "They squirted lighter fluid in her nose and mouth". Later somewhat corroborated by Ali Alsani somewhat as he relates that the sheriff told him "they poured gas in her mouth."
This one is going to be hard to prove or disprove depending on the amount of damage done internally, and that was intentional. Whether the act was symbolic, or destructive in nature. When you're engulfed in flames, it doesn't matter if it's chemical in nature or not. You are going to have damage to the respiratory system. Fire pulls oxygen from wherever it is. It will follow it into your lungs, it will follow it into your stomach. If Jessica were forced to imbibe an accelerant it would burn inside as well and would definitely do colossal damage. The type of accelerant would dictate the amount of damage and residual matter. If gasoline were used, considering it's flashpoint is a volatile substance, that in mind the damage gasoline would cause would be more devastating. IMNSHO if Jessica had been forced to imbibe petrol, she wouldn't have lived as long as she did, nor would she have had a diaphragm to speak with. Considering lighter fluid as a accelerant, (I'm guessing they're saying lighter fluid like we do in my locale, charcoal staring fluid) that would be an adequate accelerant to start the fire on and in Jessica. Finally the point of this paragraph, she is going to have inhaled accelerant either way. Either in ignited state, or if it were introduced nasal/oral. The concentration of combustible residue will be the telling factor.
Next, was Jessica walking or found prone. Here's what we know, Jessica's father reported to MSM, she had burns over 98% of her body. The only unburnt part of her were the soles of her feet. I know from experience (I was a not so smart teenager) that shoes burn off almost as quickly as clothing, and that if you catch sneakers on fire, you will suffer some serious burns on the soles of your feet. If Jessica were not on her feet when or soon after the blaze began, the soles of her feet would be burned as well I guarantee it. We only have the statement from the Fire chief leaving her prone, next to the car. Which is completely contradictory to other statements with regard to the state of her feet. Why would he lie, he may not have seen her standing or walking, or she had some super durable boots/shoes on, or this is what he was told to say, or he's complicit.
Did Jessica speak? I think she did. This girl suffered hell on earth. I've suffered some bad burns in my day, but nothing like hers and I know the pain that accompanies them. I only hope hers were severe enough to extinguish the nerves with them. I believe her dying work was to try to expose who did this to her. I am however concerned that if the internal damage was so great that she couldn't effectively do so, either as a result of shock and her coherence, or catastrophic damage to the esophageal tract or the larynx.
What I'm trying to say is, don't dismiss something because it seems incredible. First and foremost, the human instinct to survive is incredible. How long did Jessica linger before her body just couldn't fight anymore. Next, that people could execute this child, the way they did, the way they made her suffer is unfathomable to me. Unbelievable, but, they did it.
we parked in a place just like that frequently, and we always chose the road over the side embankments.
