I hope I have corrected my statement to your satisfaction:
The acute injuries were caused intentionally. They bled.
DD, I apologize if my remarks seemed in any way hostile. I was simply trying to have a dialog with you so we could both understand one another’s viewpoints. I’m not trying to get you to say something a certain way, or to say something if you don’t agree with it. In this instance, there are posters (and you may be one of them -- which is fine, if that’s how you feel) who believe the vaginal injuries were inflicted intentionally for the purpose of hiding the chronic injuries. Hence, the
injuries would be intentional. OTOH, if the act that caused the injuries was done for its own reasons (some sort of molestation), the injuries were unintentional but were the
result of what was done. Maybe it’s my OCD kicking in, but it does seem to me to make a considerable difference.
So for the same reason, I’m not simply trying to parse words or pick apart what you say in the following -- I’m just trying to understand your meaning so we both understand one another.
The bleeding does not necessarily indicate intentional trauma.
Good. We agree on this one. :great:
The interior round abrasion was believed to be caused by an object firmer than a digit.
Well, it is believed by some (myself included). Others can’t get over the coroner’s use of the words “consistent with digital penetration”. Taking a strict adherence to the words, some believe the coroner determined that only a finger could have been used to cause it. I don’t believe that’s what the coroner meant, and I'm glad you don't either.
Another on the exterior could have been a point of restraining the child.
I’m not sure if you mean here the apparent bruise -- what the coroner describes as “a very faint area of violet discoloration” on “the right labia majora”. If so, I’m not sure how that might be a point of restraint. My interpretation of that is that it probably lines up with where the object that was inserted (probably the paintbrush, IMO) caused a bruise. I think this because of its size (approximately one inch by three-eighths of an inch), but its orientation with the other vaginal injuries is not mentioned in the AR.
So, we agree the sexual abuse injuries were caused intentionally. Can we also agree an adult caused the acute sexual injuries?
:hand: Nope. (Sorry, we’ll have to part ways on that one.)
We will definitely need to disagree on this point unless you can explain why the tremendous force used was not intended to kill. What reason would anyone have to strike her head so hard it cracks her skull 8" unless it was meant to kill?
If the head blow was intended to kill, why strangle her as well? The head blow would have probably killed her without the strangulation. Why then the sexual molestation, if murder was the intent?
I think the head blow was a reaction to her scream -- an overreaction to shut her up. It was delivered without thinking about exactly how hard to swing or what the result would be. And yes, there may be better ways to try and get her to stop screaming; but other ways might not have been as quick or as certain. How much time did the person have to think out the consequences of what was done (while the scream was continuing)?
While the resulting damage was extreme, I don’t think it took as much force as others seem to think. A child’s skull is not nearly as thick or as brittle as an adult’s. I believe the same weapon that caused the comminuted, depressed fracture was shaped such that it exerted pressure on the sides of the depression causing the skull to split and fracture almost like a wedge had been used. It would have required much more force to cause the same injuries in an adult.
The head injury was not caused by a mild thump. The blunt force trauma closed head injury was a COD.
Yes, I agree; and I too believe it would have killed her -- even without the strangulation. The strangulation hastened her death and confused doctors about the resulting cerebral reactions to the head wound. Each of the insults worked interdependently with one another to throw off the expected results from either one separately. I think that is one of the reasons Dr. Rorke-Adams got it wrong about the length of time between the two. That's also (IMO) why other doctors and so-called "experts" don't agree with one another on that length of time, or in some cases, even the order of injuries.
You believe the strangulation was an accident even though the cord around her neck was in a slip knot. It seems that now I recall reading your excellent hypothesis a while back whereby BR was totally involved in the head bash and accidental strangulation.
I can understand how the cord could become an accidental killing tool. I just don't think it was an accident in this case.
That’s fine if we disagree. We can still have a good dialog and fine tune our theories. I’ve changed things in mine over the years when I felt I was wrong about something because of something a poster might have written or made me think about. I don’t expect everyone (or anyone, for that matter) to agree with me, but I’ll gladly share my thoughts. If you ask me a question, I’ll answer you as soon as I can get to it.
Since BR's knife was reported to be in the area near the body in the basement and that a fiber from the cord was on it, do you suspect BR found its hiding place on the second floor?
Yes (but I’m not sure about the fiber on it). I don’t doubt at all that while LHP was hiding the knife, BR may have been peeking around a corner watching where it went while her back was turned. (If it was me -- I would have:giggle:.) So maybe he didn’t
find it. Maybe he just
recovered it.