5/21/2009
My bizarre interpretation of the 36 injuries
The coroner's report is out and it confirmed that David Widjaja died from falling. But how to explain the 36 injuries on his bodies and trunks, and a bruise on his neck.
Let me to emplain, assuming that he died from the fall. David must be one of those kids that like to cut themselves. So all the wounds and lacerations must be self inflicted, cutting left, cutting right, change hand, cut and cut, all 36 times. With so many cuts, blood must be dripping all over his body and the places he walked through.
As for the bruise on his neck, a karate expert chop would probably kill him or broke his neck, and leaving behind a big bruise. But if the chopper is not a karate expert, then the bruise may not kill him and will be lighter.
And for the many other bruises and abrasions, he must have rolled and rolled as he landed from his fall, like a judoka trying to break his fall.
My interpretation is not meant to be true. Just bizarre.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
No, no, Redbean
For all your imagination, this will never fully explain how the cut arrived and why it is not been questioned. You see everything must fit the picture that absolved of all suspicion on conspiracy to do student in.
The coroner may be the one making the 36 cuts in order to find out the extent of damage. That is why the cuts are never explained as coroner make the cut. Now the case must close to move on. Nevermind if coroner admit whether he make the cut or not. What is more important is to humdump a cause to move on.
Actually, the cuts according to the coroner, is common for such falls cases.
The only still unknown fact at this moment is, did David slit his wrist or not.
"Actually, the cuts according to the coroner, is common for such falls cases."
Hmmm... the coroner should demonstrate that himself by falling on same height. Redbeans will do the checking and confirmation.
If you say that
"Actually, the cuts according to the coroner, is common for such falls cases."
Then what there to say that the wrist slit is not "coincidentally" one of the cuts incurred ?
"The only still unknown fact at this moment is, did David slit his wrist or not."
Therefore statement 1 and 2 must be mutually exclusive for case to drag on.
Post a Comment