Autopsy Rulings

diamond51 — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 03:14:17 GMT

Paige~Et.al~

Can any of you that are versed in Forensics please explain to me how a ruling is concluded per the autopsy?

From my research, it is not only the external/internal examination of the body and parts, it also has to do with the detective's investigation.

My son, Joshua (19), was found dead in Amsler Park/McGregor, Tx on Feb. 16, 2006. McGregor PD did not investigate, did not ask me, the mother, if Joshua may have been depressed, on anti-depressants, or had made any suicidal gestures....NOTHING, except what time he left our home, which was 10:49PM, not 12:00 as in his statement. [See pic @ www.americaiswatching.org (Joshua Robinson), along with other attached documents, including a statement that a patrol officer was the last person to see Joshua alive in Amsler Park @ 1AM!]

Per the rigor/livor mortis, he had to have died shortly after 1AM!

Autopsy:

"Tardieu spots on the anterior surfaces of the thighs, as well as on the posterior surface of the body." "Red-purple parenchyma with pulmonary edema." "Suicide/Hanging."

No broken neck, no damage to the neck's soft tissues, no peticchiae, only pink, frothy fluid in the lumen of the larynx, major bronchi, and alveoli.

The Medical Examiner told me there was no evidence of strangulation.

Pulmonary edema means a build up of fluid in the lungs, but the autopsy also states there were no abnormal fluid in any cavity.

I have researched this case for 3+ years, and believe that he was murdered by the police, but how do I prove this with no money to exhume or reautopsy?

I was told that Joshua underwent a Medico-legal autopsy. However, Joshua had a bifid uvula...wouldn't this anomaly be evident @ autopsy?

RE: Autopsy Rulings

gary999 — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 10:41:22 GMT

Dear diamond, first let me tell you how sorry I am that you have suffered this tragedy. I can only imagine the pain you are feeling.

When reading your post several thoughts occured to me;

What reason would the police have for murdering your son?

The following statements do appear to be contradictory;

Assuming this is true, why would they place themselves in the position of being a suspect by the patrol officer's statement?

If the police had murdered your son wouldn't the ME also be a part of the cover up?

The following statements seem to be contradictory assuming Suicide/Hanging" was cited by the ME as the cause of death;

No broken neck, no damage to the neck's soft tissues, no peticchiae, only pink, frothy fluid in the lumen of the larynx, major bronchi, and alveoli.

The Medical Examiner told me there was no evidence of strangulation.

Without going thru the expense of an exhumation, is it possible to have the autopsy results reviewed by an authority who specializes in this field? Another medical expert may be able to explain this to your satisfaction, or possibly recommend the next step for you to take if he disagrees with the current autopsy conclusion.

RE: Autopsy Rulings

diamond51 — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 14:43:01 GMT

Yes, my words, or actually those of the Medical Examiner, do seem to be contradictory. This is the reason I believe that the WHOLE truth is not being told....YET!

I don't believe the police intentionally murdered Joshua. I do believe that since the last person to see Josh alive in the park was a patrol officer, more happened than what is being stated. Amsler Park has a 10PM curfew for everyone, and knowing the animosity that exists between McGregor PD and Joshua, it's not likely that the officers simply told Joshua to leave the park!

When I asked the former Interim Chief, Molina, former Chief Wadkins, and the current chief which officer, out of two on duty, had seen Josh, I never got an answer. When I asked them how it was possible that former Officer Norris was able to run a wants & warrants check on the 'unknown' subject, Wadkins said, "It's not like the officers have drivers license numbers in their heads. A wants and warrants check is done in case there's a warrant, it can be dismissed." I said, "Who cares, he's dead!" The current chief said, "The wants and warrants check was done on the complainant, not Joshua Robinson."

Four of the five officers, on scene, resigned simultaneously, in June, 2006.

RE: Autopsy Rulings

gary999 — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 15:01:03 GMT

You asked a question in your original post which I realize I've not answered and that is that I do not know how a cause of death is determined from an autopsy. I did, however, find some of the questions you've raised to be suspicious. Without sufficient funds to exhume and re-autopsy is it possible to submit the ME's report to another competent authority for their review? One other suggestion, is there a news reporter you can discuss this with?

RE: Autopsy Rulings

rocco 70 — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 14:38:13 GMT

THE WORD AUTOPSY I BELEIVE IS LATIN, TRANSLATED IT MEANS FIND THE TRUTH (NOT 100%SURE) an autopsies are performed on any suspicious deaths, or as directed by the coroner, what it can do is find how the person died, they never take for granted the nature of death, example would be a person was found dead, with several knife wounds to his chest, police called it a homicide, anyone who viewed the wounds would have been sure it was a homicide, autopsy proved it was a suicide after he did a little investigation, asked family and friends he was planning suicide, because his girlfriend would not relocate to Israel, he was an Israeli soldier, and had to go back and finish his enlistment, in any event what was once a homicide became a provable suicide.

rocco70

RE: Autopsy Rulings

diamond51 — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 15:49:17 GMT

I believe that what you're saying is my point, exactly!

When a detective/police dept. comes onto a crime scene, where a death is involved, the death is treated as a homicide, until PROVEN otherwise!

In the case of my son's death, the police did not investigate, did not ask me, the mother, if perhaps Joshua may have been depressed, on prescription drugs, illicit drugs, or possibly made any suicidal gestures. The detective only asked me what time he left our home, which was 10:49PM, not 12:00, as in his statement.

From an Internet search, an autopsy is determined by not only the 'look-see', but also by the investigative work. No investigation, no investigative findings.

I taught myself basic forensics, such as manner and cause of death, time of death, rigor/livor mortis, cadaveric spasm, digestion processes related to time of death, medical terminology to understand the autopsy report.

I also know, per the rigor/livor mortis, that Josh had to have died shortly after being seen in the park by a patrol officer.

Regardless, it is vital to the investigation, of who the last person to see the victim alive IS! And the actions or non-actions of the McGregor PD is what made me suspicious in the first place. For example:

I asked the former Interim Chief, the former Chief, Ron Wadkins, and the current chief, which officer, out of two on duty, had seen Joshua. I still don't have that question answered.

I spoke with the former Interim Chief, Chris Molina, on Feb. 22, only 6 days after Josh's death. I asked him how the investigation was progressing, and he told me, "We don't begin an investigation until something suspicious is found." I told him the whole thing is suspicious because my son would not kill himself. He then said, "There are no footprints in the gravel." I asked, "How would you know if 5-6 kids were playing there?" He said, "It would take two people to get him up there." [At this time, I had no idea of how he died.] Out of the blue, he said, "At ten after one, there was nobody in the park." I thought this odd, and when I checked the dispatch logs, I discovered that Molina was NOT on duty nor was there mention of a 'park check' @ 1:10AM!

RE: Autopsy Rulings

gary999 — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 16:43:17 GMT

Ms. Diamond, I'm a bit confused with where you are going with this. You have stated your case regarding the (non) investigation of your son's case and the problems you have with the post mortem and you seem to want to do something. Your problem, as I see it is to find a way to have the investigation re-opened and the apparent contradictory ME report seems to me like a place to start. Do you have another idea you'd like to discuss?

RE: Autopsy Rulings

rocco 70 — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 20:02:41 GMT

DEAR DIAMOND, YOU NEVER SAID WHAT WAS THE OFFICIAL RULING FOR THE CAUSE OF DEATH, OR THE MANNER OF DEATH SUCH AS SUICIDE HOMOCIDE, NATURAL CAUSES, DISEASE, WHAT DID THE AUTOPSY SHOW AS THE CAUSE OF DEATH OR THE MANNER OF DEATH, I KNOW YOU MUST HAVE THE AUTOPSY REPORTS, DOES IT SPECIFY WHY HE DIED(WHAT KILLED HIM) AND HOW DID HE DIE (MANNER OF DEATH) I THINK ALL THE READERS FEEL YOUR TREMENDOUS LOSS AND THE EMOTIONAL PAIN, I WOULD WANT TO KNOW HOW MY LOVED ONE DIED, BUT IT SOUNDS AS THOUGH YOU,VE GONE AS FAR AS YOU CAN AND IT'S BEEN 3+ YEARS NOW, YOU SHOULD TRY LETTING IT GO NOW FOR YOUR OWN SANITY, AND PEACE OF MIND, SOME STATES ALLOW FINANCING HELP FOR INVESTIGATION PURPOSES,LIKE LEGAL AID, IT MAY BE YOUR LAST CHANCE TO GET THE POWERFUL HELP AN ATTORNEY CAN GET, WITHOUT THAT, I THINK YOU SHOULD TRY TO EXCEPT HIS DEATH, OR DIE YOURSELF BY LIVING FOR ANSWERS YOU ALONE CANNT GET.

GOD BLESS YOU AND GOOD LUCK

SINCERLY ROCCO

RE: Autopsy Rulings

Dave Sweeney — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 21:51:48 GMT

Dear Cynthia please take a look at my answer to your previous post. Sorry it took a few days to answer but your fears and thoughts are all valid. Go get U'm. Dave Sweeney

RE: Autopsy Rulings

mzrdmd — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 22:00:02 GMT

First of all, my condolensces on the loss of your son. It is obvious to me that you are suffering. I will pray for you.

Next, I am NOT an expert, so please don't take any of what I say as gospel truth.

A bifid uvula, in my opinion, would most likely NOT be deemed significant during an autopsy, unless the decedent was unidentified which was not the case here.

I also believe that all autopsies of sudden or suspicious deaths are medico-legal autopsies. What other type of autopsy is there ? I don't know of any other type, but that does NOT mean that other types do not exist.

Lastly, cause of death is determined by the actual physical evidence both on/in the body, at the scene, and through investigation.

Not all hangings involve a broken neck. Most do, but not all. In my amateur opinion, a death as described and depicted here could either be a hanging or a strangulation. I believe that the cause of death in all hangings is asphyxiation. In a hanging from a gallows, the neck is usually broken when the person gets "jerked" when the rope becomes taut. This can and does sever the spinal cord, making it impossible for the diaphragm to contract and relax, which means that it is physically impossible for the person to inhale and exhale, and they suffocate. In cases where the neck is NOT broken, the person simply suffocates because not enough air is being exchanged through the constricted trachea. In either case, trauma to the neck is usually obvious, but not always. Again, in my AMATEUR opinion, a hanging or suffocation like the one describes would most likely leave obvious evidence on the soft tissues of the neck.

Did the autopsy report mention whether or not they hyoid bone was fractured ? If a person is strangled, this bone is often broken. Is is a small bone in the front of the neck, shaped like the letter "U".

May the peace of the Lord God Almighty be upon you.