Seriously - I have to ask

[Jeana (DP)]

We all agree that it's an horrific injury. A child's skull cracks more easily than an adults.

Are we sure about this??? I always thought it was the other way around.

 

[sissi]

We've seen the head skull and the damage that was caused. It's here:-

http://www.jameson245.com/redskull.jpg

We all agree that it's an horrific injury. A child's skull cracks more easily than an adults.

Not sure what the original source of the 300lb man is though - whether that is a fact or whether it was someone's comment which perpetuated into a "fact".

Go hunting, source it, it was one of "the RDI's original experts"

 

[Jayelles]

Are we sure about this??? I always thought it was the other way around.

I think the bones of a child are more flexible than an adult's but a young child can fracture their skull falling from a chair.

If we're talking about a headblow..... ?????

 

[Jayelles]

Go hunting, source it, it was one of "the RDI's original experts"

Are we talking about a credible source then?

 

[Jeana (DP)]

I think the bones of a child are more flexible than an adult's but a young child can fracture their skull falling from a chair.

If we're talking about a headblow..... ?????

I'm still confused. Couldn't an adult fracture their skull from falling from a chair? If there's a blow to the head either an adult or a child could get a fracture, depending on how hard the fracture is and what part of the skull is hit.

 

[Jayelles]

I'm still confused. Couldn't an adult fracture their skull from falling from a chair? If there's a blow to the head either an adult or a child could get a fracture, depending on how hard the fracture is and what part of the skull is hit.

Maybe. I don't know any adults who fractured their skull from a short fall. You read about battered babies with dozens of fractures to their skulls.

 

[sissi]

Spitz was very convincing promoting his flashlight fits into skull depression theory. There is a difference, in the way a child's body absorbs energy, it is more flexible true as well, and far less likely to break, however, when "swung or dropped from a distance" one would expect accompanying neck injuries.

 

[Britt]

The idea that brutality is an indication that a parent couldn't have done it is one of the great fallacies. Parents have decapitated children. Wonder how that one went over?

Exactly, SuperDave. The injuries, in and of themselves. say nothing about who inflicted them.

Besides, in a staged crime like this, it's obvious why a smart parental perp would deliberately stage a shocking non-parental type crime scene.

 

[Jayelles]

I'm pretty clueless about medical matters. I concede to everyone else on this.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

Maybe. I don't know any adults who fractured their skull from a short fall. You read about battered babies with dozens of fractures to their skulls.

Thanks. Didn't mean to throw your thread off track~~!

 

[Seeker]

IMO, nothing will be gained from seeing these images other than a voyeuristic pleasure for those who seek it.

Actually that's not why some of us would want to see it. Some of us would like to see all the evidence for purely scientific reasons.

What draws people to want to look at these kinds of images?

It's like "Roll Up, Roll Up - see her little face in death here...."

If there was really noticeable damage done to her head I would want to see it to see how bad it really was. That may come from working in a pathology lab though. I'm still curiouse about how certain injuries look and if they could be post mortem or not.

 

[Britt]

Part of the reason so many jumped on the "Ramsey did it bandwagon "was because exculpatory evidence was hidden, while those with lies and innuendo were given a free reign to promote a hateful myth. It's not pleasant, in fact it's horrible to face "the fact" that this child was so brutalized, but it's a FACT...

Yes, it's a fact, but it is NOT "exculpatory evidence."

 

[Jayelles]

Actually that's not why some of us would want to see it. Some of us would like to see all the evidence for purely scientific reasons.


If there was really noticeable damage done to her head I would want to see it to see how bad it really was. That may come from working in a pathology lab though. I'm still curiouse about how certain injuries look and if they could be post mortem or not.

That is precisely the point Seeker. We HAVE seen the damage to her head. We saw it without her face being shown. This photo Sissi is talking about has been discussed by journalists and by jameson. We've already see part of the photo - but the upper part of her face has always been cropped out for the sake of decency. It doesn't show anything other than more of her little face - dead. There is nothing in her autopsy report about damage to her upper face. The only difference between the photos we've seen and this photo is that this one does not crop out her upper face. Those who have seen it said it was very upsetting - not because there were previously unseen/unreported injuries, but because they were looking at her little face in death.

What is to be gained from that? Really?

Her casket was open at the funeral - do you think the Ramseys would have displayed their little beauty queen if she had a badly damaged face?

All you would be doing would be looking at the face of the victim and I personally feel that is intrusive. You see other images of victims and often their faces are cropped out or they have black rectangles covering their upper faces - that is for decency and respect. It's why we cover the faces of the dead.

Does Jonbenet not deserve that?

 

[Seeker]

That is precisely the point Seeker. We HAVE seen the damage to her head. We saw it without her face being shown. This photo Sissi is talking about has been discussed by journalists and by jameson. We've already see part of the photo - but the upper part of her face has always been cropped out for the sake of decency. It doesn't show anything other than more of her little face - dead. There is nothing in her autopsy report about damage to her upper face. The only difference between the photos we've seen and this photo is that this one does not crop out her upper face. Those who have seen it said it was very upsetting - not because there were previously unseen/unreported injuries, but because they were looking at her little face in death.

What is to be gained from that? Really?

Her casket was open at the funeral - do you think the Ramseys would have displayed their little beauty queen if she had a badly damaged face?

All you would be doing would be looking at the face of the victim and I personally feel that is intrusive. You see other images of victims and often their faces are cropped out or they have black rectangles covering their upper faces - that is for decency and respect. It's why we cover the faces of the dead.

Does Jonbenet not deserve that?

I was under the impression that what sissi was talking about was the upper section (brow area) of her head only, not her entire face.

I think looking at her skull, with blood all over it is just, if not more so intrusive than looking at the top brow of her head.

BTW I already said that this photo was probably created for shock value and not a real photo. BTW you can actually see her forehead in this photo and the crack in her skull was on the right side of her head. If there were any distortion of her face/head it would be noticeable here.

If you lighten the photo just a bit it's easier to see.

 

[Jayelles]

That is not the photo that was described by the journalist in last week's article. Nor is it the one jameson claims to have a copy of because the photo you posted has been in the public doman for some time and jameson said the one that the journalist and she have a copy of is not.

Bless her little heart.