GA - Kendrick Johnson, 17, Suspicious Death, Jan. 10/11, 2013, #2

[Tawny]

Maybe he didn't mention it because he just did not see it. Maybe the first pathologist made a mistake.

That seems unlikely. :moo:

 

[ferretnurse]

I can't believe the first one missed it. He would have to be extremely incompetent. He dissected the neck. What about petechiae or purpura? I get petechiae on my face if I vomit, from the pressure. They're considered broken blood vessels, similar to a bruise, and can look purple. I also had some from surgery because I was upside down for the surgery.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

That seems unlikely. :moo:

Apparently not, since the second pathologist noted bruising and the first one did not. It seems factual.

 

[Sherp]

Apparently not, since the second pathologist noted bruising and the first one did not. It seems factual.

The Georgia Bureau of Investigation Doctor who did the original autopsy is a Board Certified Forensic Physician. Her autopsy has been peer reviewed. Anderson appears to be a nobody in the forensic world. The GBI post is the factual one without question. 6 State GBI investigators and 3 technicians were on scene almost immediately as they were called in by the Sheriff ASAP as he recognized this was a hot potato and needed attention by the big boys of the State. A local Doc did not do the autopsy but a highly credentialed and respected GBI female physician. The State stands by the peer reviewed autopsy. Anderson's has not been peer reviewed. We need Dr. Braden, Perper, and Henry Lee in on the review or do a third autopsy.
The GBI came out with their conclusion four months after this tragic event.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

The Georgia Bureau of Investigation Doctor who did the original autopsy is a Board Certified Forensic Physician. Anderson appears to be a nobody in the forensic world. The GBI post is the factual one without question. 6 State GBI investigators were on scene almost immediately as they were called in by the Sheriff ASAP as he recognized this was a hot potato and needed attention by the big boys of the State. A local Doc did not do the autopsy but a highly credentialed and respected GBI female physician. The State stands by the peer reviewed autopsy. Anderson's has not been peer reviewed. We need Dr. Braden, Perper, and Henry Lee in on the review or do another post.
The GBI came out with their conclusion four months after this tragic event.

That is great, but there is an autopsy that recounts bruising.

It can't be ignored. I am sure the feds will look into it and investigate and we will see what they have to say about it, But at this point, It is still part of the case and needs a second look.

 

[gxm]

Maybe the reason the first pathologist (i think thats who it was, mobile right now) didn't mention the bruise is because it wasn't a bruise but rather pooling of blood. Who is the first to have mentioned the bruise (aside from the emts, to whom pooling blood most likely would look like a bruise)?

MOO

IIRC, the GBI autopsy included tissue samples of the area. The second autopsy did not. The jaded part of me says that this is because the person conducting the second autopsy did not want to rule out bruising. I have little faith in the privately purchased second autopsy. JMO. OMO. MOO.

 

[Tawny]

Apparently not, since the second pathologist noted bruising and the first one did not. It seems factual.

My personal opinion is that it is biased and unreliable. As others have stated, the first autopsy (with tissue sample examination) was peer reviewed, the second was not. The first autopsy holds more weight, bottom line. Again, JMO.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Here is the thing. I get that you and a few others hate Crump. I get it. He won't be getting a Christmas card from me either, But I am not going to fault him for making sure people are paying attention to this case. His big mouth serves a purpose.
This whole case feels wrong. It feels neglected, it feels pushed under the rug. It feels really bad.

I have not seen a blatant lie. Not yet.

I'm right there with on this one Scarlett !


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Karmady]

My personal opinion is that it is biased and unreliable. As others have stated, the first autopsy (with tissue sample examination) was peer reviewed, the second was not. The first autopsy holds more weight, bottom line. Again, JMO.

To say the least, imo. He is from Florida and obviously knows what Crump is all about. Not sure if he's worked for him before, but I'm sure he has hopes of working for him again in the future. Crump hired him to create an issue, so he did, imo. Pretty easy to do with an exhumed body without worrying about being proven a fraud. Especially in a community apparently more than ready and willing to believe the unbelievable. jmo

 

[Tawny]

I agree.

BTW, for what it's worth, I feel that questioning the motives and bias of hired "experts" is not equal to questioning the motives or truthfulness of the family. I will question a hired individual up and down, and even outright doubt their integrity and honesty, but I don't question the family's integrity or honesty. They are victims and are grieving, regardless of the outcome. JMO!!

 

[Tulessa]

How do we know they are missing?
I have seen no sources say that except attorneys and the family.
I think the family is listening to an attorney who spins and twists truth.
They deserve better.

JMO

If a child can't be found, THAT child is considered missing. I respectfully don't get, what's so hard to understand about that.:seeya:

 

[Kimberlyd125]

If a child can't be found, THAT child is considered missing. I respectfully don't get, what's so hard to understand about that.:seeya:

Who says they can't be found?
Besides Crump.

That's my question.

Just because they were not returned to the family does not mean they are "missing".

I respectfully don't get, what's so hard to understand about that.

 

[Tulessa]

Who says they can't be found?
Besides Crump.

That's my question.

Just because they were not returned to the family does not mean they are "missing".

I respectfully don't get, what's so hard to understand about that.

Respectfully, where are they? :loveyou:

 

[Kimberlyd125]

Respectfully, where are they? :loveyou:

I have no idea. But then, I'm not a part of the investigation.
Because I don't know where they are does not mean they are missing either.

Last I saw mention of them, GBI says they were released with the body. So perhaps we should ask the transport company or the funeral home.
I don't think the funeral home is talking though. Since the newspaper ordeal. I think they are being investigated.

Crump's camp is making it sound sinister because the clothes are "missing". Ohhhh.... makes for a great murder cover plot huh?
Like LE is covering something up. When it's obvious from GBI's report, they were with the body when the body left them.


Simple concept really.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

Lowndes County Sheriff's officials say the statements of his body being moved and his clothes being misplaced are untrue.

http://www.walb.com/story/22142655/lowndes-officials-announce-kendrick-johnson-autopsy-results

 

[Tawny]

Well there ya go.

...that claim was made and refuted way back in MAY and it's still being spread. -_-

 

[ferretnurse]

I'm so frustrated with the amount if misinformation that's out there. I made the mistake of reading the Facebook page, and wanted to bang my head against the wall. So many rumors and blatant untruths out there, and the media, once again, feeds the fire. I am so sad, I seriously feel that so many are using this poor boys death for financial gain and to further their own agenda.

 

[IzzyBlanche]

Well there ya go.

...that claim was made and refuted way back in MAY and it's still being spread. -_-

However--the refutation is coming from the very entity who would have the most to lose if the claim were true (the sheriff's office).

Whose statement that the body was not moved was refuted by the coroner who stated it was and has not recanted on that statement AFAIK...

so...sheriff's refutation vs. coroner's refutation of sheriff's refutation = whose refutation is one to believe?

 

[Karmady]

However--the refutation is coming from the very entity who would have the most to lose if the claim were true (the sheriff's office).

Whose statement that the body was not moved was refuted by the coroner who stated it was and has not recanted on that statement AFAIK...

so...sheriff's refutation vs. coroner's refutation of sheriff's refutation = whose refutation is one to believe?

Of course the body was moved. The gym teacher pulled down the mat and the emt's extricated him far enough to pronounce him dead.

jmo

 

[Tawny]

I don't recall anybody saying the body wasn't moved. I must have missed that somewhere.