Yesterday I looked at some new articles of the absolutely worthless usual media coverage of that case and noticed the new difference of how they now say things like "bludgeoned and strangled" about how that six years child was murdered, after all that time of referring to just the strangulation. Now with having the other fact brought to the public, they probably had no much choice but to pretend honesty. I do not remember from before I started referring to that in the past two years, reading about any head trauma inflicted on that child but in technical material. I saw it first in wikipedia and wondered what is the "fracture" in the skull to which it refers. I even at first used expressions like a child whose skull was "fractured" but then I took into account how it sounds like a minor thing because of the way it was mentioned, and I thought that I could be misleading others by exaggerating the intensity of the trauma in expressing it that way. That is why when in post 1031 I was expressing my former theory about how the murder occurred, I said the brother of this victim "caused" a crack or fracture in the skull of his sister rather than saying he cracked or fractured her skull, to avoid such exaggeration. But then of course everything changed when I saw THAT drawing for the trauma (and I do not know how long it would have taken a layman like me to see the same thing through the medical terms if it were not for whoever took the time to express it through such drawing).
No comments:
Post a Comment