On your first para: No problem, sometimes I want to check on what I've assumed and I did write a response to you that I hadn't backed up factually with quotes.
On your second para: Sadly it does seem as if the whole of Sara's body was injured, every square inch. But I still think that an adult biting a child is very strange. I once heard a parent saying when his toddler bit him, he bit back. That was his response to curb the behaviour, don't know if it worked. That was decades ago though. Otherwise I tend to think that biting is a kind of child-like behaviour, toddlers bite each other or parents, young sisters bite each other or their brothers instead of punching. IMO - only my impression, could be wrong. Whereas adults biting each other can certainly have a sexual component, as far as I've read anyway.
Your post was correct, there was a bite on Sara's INNER thigh and that's also where the bruising marks indicative of suction were. Further, the inner thighs are an erogenous zone in females (
7 Most Erogenous Zones On a Woman) so that bite in itself could be termed sexual abuse. MOO. I don't know if it will be, but it could be. I'm a survivor of childhood sexual abuse due to touch on a body area that's not one of the top areas you think of... and know that it's not always taken seriously or not as serious as more usual forms by courts, doctors, sadly even therapists and psychologists, in general I mean. I've never been to court with mine and won't be doing so, but it's something I notice when reading about court cases.
It can of course be argued that the presumed thigh bite was 'just' a physical injury, nothing else. Tho having an adult human head in between a child's thighs for any reason other than looking at an injury or similar, especially with their mouth up close there instead of their eyes, comes across as very, very strange to me. MOO JMO
Poor Sara. Safe and pain-free now, but at the very least two years of ongoing pain before she died far too young.