"And we can't forget the petechial hemorrhaging at the site of the ligature. She was most definately alive when she was being strangled."
I see what you're saying but I'm not entirely convinced about that. Since ph is the result of bursting capillaries I'm not sure what would happen within minutes of death if pressure in those capillaries was increased under the pressure of a ligature. The blood isn't circulating, but I don't know how long it takes the blood to 'back-drain' out of the capillaries after death...
"I think the reason people want the head injury to happen right about the same time that she was strangled is because it otherwise doesn't make sense why the injury would happen after she died. What would be the point, right?"
I think that's key to why some experts have given a window of about 45 minutes max between the events. I suspect there are some subtle issues about blood back-flow and hemorrhage that is the basis for that conclusion - but I don't know yet.
"But if her head was accidentally whacked on the way through the basement and up the stairs when her body was found then that would make sense."
Then why would blood DIFERENTIALLY pool BETWEEN layers of the BBB if it wasn't due to the head injury itself? And why would the coroner not mention livor mortis in that area when he mentions it elsewhere? In fact, Meyer specifically identified it as subdural hemorrhage. I think that's perfectly clear. So, the idea that the head injury was sustained after death is scientifically untenable.
"If anyone can find an autopsy report of someone who was strangled to death, please look at the portion of the report that discusses the brain. See what it says.
If anyone can find an autopsy report on someone who had a closed head injury then see what it says about the lungs and pancreas, and any petechial hemorrhaging.
That would go a long way in understanding what happened to JonBenet."
I agree. I had googled this before and read that head trauma can create ph and conditions very similar to death by asphyxiation and it can be hard to distinguish them. I'll try to find that link again...
"And why would the coroner not mention livor mortis in that area when he mentions it elsewhere?"
When he cut her scalp, he didn't expected to see her skull cracked in half. Agree? I mean, there were no obvious signs of trauma. No swollen lump or anything.
In the autopsy report he says, "Upon reflection of the scalp there is found to be an extensive area of scalp hemorrhage...
So that is in the scalp itself.
"This grossly appears to be fresh hemorrhage with no evidence of organization.
This is what initially caught my eye and eventually led me to the theory that her skull was cracked well after she was dead.
Fresh meaning recent? Not sure, but combined with "no evidence of organization: (clotting), that tells me that she was dead when it happened.
Looking through the rest of his comments on her brain he says, "No inflammation is identified." Now, I'll readily admit that I don't know all there is to know about hemorrhaging. I'm hoping that someone can come up with something medically that could refute my theory. So far that hasn't happened. But, what I've pointed out is what leads me to think that her skull fracture happened long after she was dead. Believe me, I'm still searching for medical info to support or refute the idea. If you or anyone can come up with something then that would be really helpful.