The Bullpen

THX1138 wrote:Now the vic was alive for three to six hours after getting trapped beneath the bookcase - when were the two blows to the head administered? The autopsy report doesn't say. The cod is subdural hematoma, but how long does that take? Was it instantaneous or did it take three to six hours? If it's the former then whoever grabbed him by the arm killed him, because the bruising on the right forearm is perimortem, at the time of death, but if it's the latter, if someone whacked him in the head and it took three to six hours for him to die. The first scenario paints the picture of someone pushing the bookcase over on him and then whacking him on the side of the head twice and leaving him to die. The second gives us odds that the bookcase simply fell over on him and the killer took advantage of the situation to bash his skull in.

The more I think about it the more I think the instant death scenario is out. I'll go so far as to call the real CoD to be the subdural hematoma (SDH) caused by the blunt force trauma (BFT) to his right temporal bone. The pathologist's autopsy report says he was alive for three to six hours before he expired (based on the compression fractures to the 1-3 ribs and breastbone), and when Brennan palpated the skull she gave no indication that there was any blood evident, nor did anyone else. He was struck twice, two blows to the temporal bone, and if they were hard enough to kill him instantly I would think they'd tear the superficial temporal artery apart and I'd expect to see some blood spatter from the initial strike as well as cast off blood from the subsequent strike, but none is mentioned. SO, assuming no blood spatter then whoever hit him did so with just enough force to break the bones but not enough to rupture the skin. Is that a result of the weapon or the force of the blow? If there is any blood spatter and we get that information in subsequent crime scene reports, then a BSA (blood spatter analysis) combined with Hodgins' and Angela's data on the force and angle of the blows, should be able to give us the attacker's relative height - even if they're bent over we can back that out of the data because it would change the angle of the blow.

Also if Cam can look at the intercranial bleed and work backwards from the blood flow rate and the size of the hematoma to how long it would take a SDH of that size to form, we'd have a good idea of about when the vic was died if we coupled that information with the liver temp at the time the body was found. Speaking of liver temp, I noticed that wasn't in the autopsy report so do we have a time of death?

Funny thing is I now completely get why Brennan wants to be at the crime scene herself - there's so much I want to look at and so many questions I want to ask it's not funny.


RM

organized?
oh well.....that helps a lot.....thanks willi.....
it must have some importance though.....I'll have to think about it a little longer

[Only admins are allowed to see this image]

Well It seems that ... somebody was messing with the papers there. If he was organized they would be organized as they were before. I think THE victim had some information about someone and that someone searched something in there. Its my first though. I still suspect Lilly and Charles.

The fact that he was organized has to mean something. While it might not appear that significant at this point, it's obviously meant to mean something important. Was something out of order, maybe found disheveled? It's possible that he does/did have some kind of information, and therefore that could have been the incentive, or at least part of it, for the killer.

Cassiopeia wrote:[Only admins are allowed to see this image]

Well It seems that ... somebody was messing with the papers there. If he was organized they would be organized as they were before. I think THE victim had some information about someone and that someone searched something in there. Its my first though. I still suspect Lilly and Charles.

That's a good point. We can look at his hoarding collection in toto to figure out how he organized things and then look at what was disturbed to get an idea of what the person or persons might have been looking for.

Hoarding is an OCD type of issue. People who hoard do so in a specific manner and store things according to a system that makes sense to them, but they're consistent about it, like putting cleaning supplies on one shelf and sponges on the shelf opposite to them. It's the routine and consistency of hoarding items and placing them "in the proper place" that makes them feel good. So if we can figure out what "pile" they were looking in we can figure out what they were looking for or what they took - could point us to our suspect(s) (we don't know that we're dealing with just one person).

I love clues, but I love evidence more.

RM

But now to think about it, the family lawyer maybe had something to hide or... the matriarh had some secrets that Jonah knew... Umm. We can't eliminate the subjects just jet.

no, we can't
and one question can this type of cancer be induced by some poison or something maybe?
and about one newspaper article is mentioned thathe is the only danger for Charlse to be elected as the new major, maybe that's why he had to die, but a bit simple maybe

okay, so we got the murder weapon, an antique police baton. who would have acess to one of those? the mom is oldish so she might've had one or maybe someone else?

I believe the murder weapon is from his own collection - it says that it was found among Jonah's things - if that is so then anyone could have done it, also it could indicate that this is a crime of passion and opportunity, not actually pre-meditated. I'm going to hold back on speculation until I've got a little more evidence, but I'm starting to get a gut feeling about this.

RM

All very interesting points. I'm gonna have to masticate on this for a little bit and get back to ya!

If it was found amongst Jonah's things, then chances are maybe it could have been his. It's possible that whoever the killer was found it and used it in the heat of that moment so to speak. Interesting.

Also, today's clue. His will was found and Sinclair Vanderhill was his lawyer. Not much that we didn't already know, but I'm thinking if we knew who had a pretty big claim if he died (or vice versa, maybe he or she wasn't going to get anything at all and was retaliating), we might be able to get a clearer picture here.

Maybe the reason Johan got a different lawyer then the families, maybe he doesn't trust Vanderhill all that much.

Charles got mad at Johan for embarassing him at a campaign event.

we might have motive for Charles to kill him. Charles knew that Johan had an antique bat in his office, the bookshelf provided oppertunity, Charles grabbed the bat and hit him in the skull mutiple times then messed up his office, making it look like someone was looking for something.

isn't youtube just lovely sometimes......

Hehe yes...it's just great.

The YT vid does present a certain amount of motive, but is it really motive enough to kill him? It's proof enough that maybe there was a riff between Charles and Jonah, and that things with the family weren't as perfect as some might lead you to believe.

but I don't think that it is enough of a motive to kill someone......but you never know, people can be really strange sometimes

Yes, that's what I was thinking. I don't think it would be enough to kill someone. People can be strange at times, but I don't see it as large enough evidence that he did anything past getting angry at Jonah.

and he must have known that there was a YT vid up.....so it would lead in his direction very soon.....sounds too easy to me.....

The YT vid could be the trigger for the crime. You get a YT vid up there and it has the potential to negatively impact Charles' campaign (perhaps it was put up by his rival as a form of guerilla negative campaigning), and there's no telling how people under pressure are going to react to it. And let's not limit ourselves to Charles as being the sole focus when it comes to that YT vid. Who else could have been impacted? Well let's review:

Edwina Sneed - Mother of Charles and Jonah, very rich and let's not forget in a town like DC where money, power, and politics are what drive the city, very rich translates to very visible in society. She's going to love both of her sons, but Charles is the star of the family and you can bet it's mommy's money that's financing his campaign. Is she going to be happy that Jonah disrupted a campaign event, or worse that there's a YT vid of Charles and Jonah fighting over it? Absolutely not. It's embarrassing to her and that is motive - for society types public perception is extremely important. She's definitely got motive in my book. She's a suspect in my book but I wonder if she has it in her to actually kill Jonah.

Lilly Bellefleur-Sneed - She's a failed model, and a drunk with a public record, she's already low on the family totem pole because she's practically a pariah in high society circles for those very reasons (perception, remember?), so if Charles gets into office she gets a boost in status, and for a failed former super model who's seen her standing in society fall that's worth more than gold to her. She needs Charles to win office more than he does, so she's got motive and is probably my #2 suspect now.

Sinclair Vanderhill - he's the family lawyer, his job is to protect the family. Could he kill Jonah? Sure, I absolutely believe he could. Would he? If there was no other alternative I think he would. Does he have incentive? It's his job to protect the family, and that includes the public face of the family, which right now is Charles, so yes, I think he has motive to kill Jonah. However, he's relatively young and from what we can see of him fit, and he's supposed to have a strong temper. If he were to pick up a police baton and start swinging in a fit of rage, or simply a momentary lapse where his anger overwhelmed him, I have to believe the damage to Jonah would have been far worse. I come back to the lack of blood spatter and the location of the wound, and I keep reaching the same conclusion - we need to know how much force was used to determine the relative mass of the attacker, but my gut tells me it isn't him.

So I think while Charles has to be the #1 person of interest, there's plenty of motive to go around for the other suspects. I still want more forensic evidence.

RM

Ok, so I've just gotten back from camp. Can anyone clue me in as into what is going on?

bones206 wrote:Ok, so I've just gotten back from camp. Can anyone clue me in as into what is going on?

you can look over the evidence in the evidence locker that we have so far and read the theories here.

Jonah was staying at a motel with an unknown blonde.

well, it could be Lily, she's a blonde. and Charles could have gotten jealous if he found out about it. or, Lily could have been staying with Jonah to stay away from Charles or even she knew she needed help and asked Jonah to help her because he is good with feelings.

What if the killer left the keycard there? It could have been dropped, or misplaced, but either way the hotel staff pointed out Sinclair with an unknown blonde. The card could belong to him, or perhaps he used it, which could put him at the scene of the crime. The question remains as to whether or not this 'unknown blonde' was truly unknown, or if it was Lily.

Lily is the mystery blonde... hehe I knew it

so far everything seems to point in the same direction, but I just don't feel like that's what really happened......maybe my gut is speaking to me?