Post by Angela on Apr 19, 2009 10:54:28 GMT -5
POSTED IN THE OLD MESSAGE FORUM
Q: Why didn’t the autopsy show that Marie was pregnant?
A: Today they could and would do a complete autopsy that would explain the evidence or lack of evidence of a pregnancy. Autopsies in 1929 were not what they are today. What passed for an autopsy back then would not meet the criteria for one today. There is no mention anywhere on any of the death certificates that a medical examiner examined the bodies. It only mentions the Coroner's name, C.J. Helsabeck. A Coroner cannot perform an autopsy because his is a political appointment. A medical Examiner is a physician and therefore qualified to perform autopsies. A Coroner's job is simply to pronounce that a death has occurred.
Charlie's brain was removed and an autopsy performed on it but it was performed not by the coroner but by a pathologist at Johns Hopkins University. I have never seen any evidence that a full body autopsy was performed on Marie or any of the others. I don't believe even the coroner had heard the rumors back then of Marie being pregnant. Therefore he would not have known to look for that. Also, more than one person claimed they heard that Marie was pregnant. We have a man in our documentary who said he heard his mother say Marie was pregnant and that was on the day of the funeral in 1929. It was also told by another man in 1930 who was giving tours of the cabin.
As for exhuming the bodies, it is too long in the past for any sort of autopsy to be performed on the bodies. We spoke to university folks on this subject when we were inquiring about Charlie's brain, and the examination that was done on it at Johns Hopkins University. They said that after that much time, any examination of the remains would be a question for archeology, not forensic science.
Marie was embalmed (which wrecks havoc on DNA samples0 and also their caskets were made from a cheap material so I was told and their caskets were not placed in vaults. Therefore the caskets would have disintegrated pretty quickly which in turn would have left their bodies exposed and vulnerable to the elements which in turn would have caused total decomposition a good while back. Also, she wasn't far enough along for there to be any kind of remains on a child, and a DNA test on her bones wouldn’t answer if she was pregnant. It really is lost in history, and it doesn't help at all that we got really solid testimony both that she was and wasn't pregnant...
Q: Why didn’t the autopsy show that Marie was pregnant?
A: Today they could and would do a complete autopsy that would explain the evidence or lack of evidence of a pregnancy. Autopsies in 1929 were not what they are today. What passed for an autopsy back then would not meet the criteria for one today. There is no mention anywhere on any of the death certificates that a medical examiner examined the bodies. It only mentions the Coroner's name, C.J. Helsabeck. A Coroner cannot perform an autopsy because his is a political appointment. A medical Examiner is a physician and therefore qualified to perform autopsies. A Coroner's job is simply to pronounce that a death has occurred.
Charlie's brain was removed and an autopsy performed on it but it was performed not by the coroner but by a pathologist at Johns Hopkins University. I have never seen any evidence that a full body autopsy was performed on Marie or any of the others. I don't believe even the coroner had heard the rumors back then of Marie being pregnant. Therefore he would not have known to look for that. Also, more than one person claimed they heard that Marie was pregnant. We have a man in our documentary who said he heard his mother say Marie was pregnant and that was on the day of the funeral in 1929. It was also told by another man in 1930 who was giving tours of the cabin.
As for exhuming the bodies, it is too long in the past for any sort of autopsy to be performed on the bodies. We spoke to university folks on this subject when we were inquiring about Charlie's brain, and the examination that was done on it at Johns Hopkins University. They said that after that much time, any examination of the remains would be a question for archeology, not forensic science.
Marie was embalmed (which wrecks havoc on DNA samples0 and also their caskets were made from a cheap material so I was told and their caskets were not placed in vaults. Therefore the caskets would have disintegrated pretty quickly which in turn would have left their bodies exposed and vulnerable to the elements which in turn would have caused total decomposition a good while back. Also, she wasn't far enough along for there to be any kind of remains on a child, and a DNA test on her bones wouldn’t answer if she was pregnant. It really is lost in history, and it doesn't help at all that we got really solid testimony both that she was and wasn't pregnant...
