Hello All,
We really don't know too much of the reality in this case yet do we? We have
this report:
>>According to Perkins County Sheriff Jim Brueggeman, the death of 28-year-old Corrie Wood of Grant is being investigated as a homicide. Brueggeman says preliminary autopsy results show that Wood suffered blows to her head and body.<<
We have heard some "heresay" (or rumors) that at first they did not think this was a homicide. I can't recall the source of this information, so don't know how reliable it is at all. If this information is at all reliable, it might help us to understand other hearsay that people were permitted to clean up afterwards.
In other words, in a town where there hadn't been a murder in 20 or so years, and without the immediate appearance of a homicide, it was perhaps thought to be a natural death (or death from alcohol poisoning, overdose, or attempt at suicide etc.) It is not uncommon to want to cleanse the bedding and padding upon which someone has died (and sooner rather than later, as it is painful to see). As I recall, bladder and bowels let loose? (or am I incorrect here?) Additionally, perhaps the first responders attempted IV or other procedures to try to revive the person and this caused some blood to drip onto the sheets, as they hurriedly worked. On the other hand, if someone was unconscious and dying due to an "unseen" brain bleed, their bladder or bowels might have let down maybe?
Now it seems a bit strange that first responders would not have noticed blows to head and body, but perhaps they were not obvious or visible yet? (hair might have covered the head injury area, bumps or lacerations may not show yet or even be present, blows to the body might not have bruised yet or remained reddended.) If the face had not been injured, violence against it would not have shown, right?
I do not believe that we have any official notice of the presence of blood at the scene? If there had been "signs of violence" wouldn't the first responders have at least called that out, certainly they are trained to see that? So perhaps there were no signs of violence yet, or they could have been cleaned up prior to the call for help (though not necessarily). If someone was struck upon the back or side of the head, they might just collapse leaving no outward sign of violence, right? And what if someone slipped in the shower and cracked their head and body in falling?
This report states:
>>The Nebraska State Patrol has taken over the investigation of the beating death of a Grant, Neb., woman, who was found unresponsive in her bed Saturday morning.<<
As I read "unresponsive," the meaning is not very clear to me. Might this mean that there was respiration and heartbeat, but perhaps Corrie was not deceased yet. If that is the case, perhaps a pumping heart continued brain bleed leading to death. If there was blunt force to the head, might that not mean that the head was not penetrated (i.e. the skin or bone might not have been fractured?), thus no wound seen?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blunt_trauma
>>On Saturday morning, her boyfriend, Scott Petro, called authorities. Wood was pronounced dead a half-hour later.<<
Where do they pronounce someone dead? Who pronounces them dead? Do they do so when there are no signs of brain waves? No respiration or heartbeat after X amount of time? Who pronounced Corrie dead and where did they do so? At the home? How far is the hospital ER from their home?
Did Scott call 911? Is there a tape available? Note that the above says that Scott called authorities.
I don't know that we can actually be assured that this was really a beating, there were "blows to the head and body" suffered, per reports. Might these have been a slip and fall (having drank a little too much, or being weak from not eating or or or), then consciousness and going to bed and then dying from the injuries?
Not in defending Scott (because I clearly do not know the guy or his real history), and he may be very worth defending, think about it. Scott is a convicted felon. How frightening might it have been for Scott to call authorities knowing that he had a record? (is he on probation?) If hearsay is correct and Corrie and he did have a verbal fight, that night, about who was to get their things and move out (known by friends), how much more frightening would this have been for him to know and then call authorities? Whether Scott was or was not guilty of perpetrating any violence upon Corrie, might he not have thought, "No one will believe me, I have to get out of here." He did not leave, he called authorities.
Look at this webpage, and if this is the same Scott Petro and it seems to be, he says:
>>I am GUILTY of what I've been sentenced on<<
How many sentenced people ADMIT their guilt (of maybe a very stupid blunder, OJ hasn't!)? Oh, and it would be nice if someone who knew the situation explained it to us. Is this public record?
I'm thinking about Scott, not to defend him, but to try to weigh incoming article and hearsay. Guilty or not guilty of any violence against Corrie and suspecting her to be dead (or dying), why would Scott call authorities? Why would he not just grab his child and run (and where was his child that night?, babysitter or other parent?, Corrie's child was with her daddy)? Or why would he not just throw everything and run? IF Scott had any thought in the world that any violence against Corrie had been committed (by himself or anyone else) or might be noted in autopsy (and Scott does not appear to be ignorant, so I might guess that he knew there would be an investigation of a young death or dying), why wouldn't he have picked up and just run? Perhaps he didn't because he was uninvolved in any violence whatsoever?
Some hearsay said he got a DUI that night. That should be on the record if it is at all true. If so, his whereabouts should have been somewhat trackable. Did he appear at his and Corrie's home somewhat sobered up and find Corrie? Where is the evidence here? Can anyone check upon whether there is any truth to this DUI? AND when did Scott call authorities, at what hour, and at what time was she pronounced dead? (and again, where?)
And about hearsay that Scott did not show at Corrie's funeral, there is hearsay that he was asked not to do so. If this is true, it could be for any number of reasons, the family knew that Corrie's child would be there with her dad?, and the family didn't want to cross any lines that might have been troubled at that time, so asked Scott to respect that? The parents weren't sure what had happened, and had never learned to love Scott as Corrie once did (they bought a home together, ran a business together, were raising children together)? We just really don't know the real circumstances. We know that the death of a young woman occurred and there were questionable circumstances. If Scott did not appear at that funeral, might it have been out of respect for what he might have been asked, despite any personal pain he might have been feeling? We don't know.
So many unanswered questions...
Oh... And, where is the mother of Scott's son? This little one was evidently conceived and born not long after Scott's release from prison. I would not want to accuse this mother of anything, but who is she, where is she and how is it that a convicted felon gets custody of a little boy? Is it because the convicted felon is thought to be a better parent? And how would a "possibly troubled" female parent feel if their little boy was calling another woman mommy?
I noticed that the URL of the Obit is changed:
http://www.imperialrepublican.com/303313.html
Wrinkles
