firefeng, on 06 June 2010 - 01:21 PM, said:
Or as sensible as suggesting one's cause of death is bleeding to death after their fucking heart has stopped. You may as well say that everyone who's died of a goddamn heart attack died of "blood loss".
say wha?
there is a slight difference between blood loss and cardiac arrest. not to mention the fact that carving out someone's heart leaves quite a laceration that blood can escape. just because the pump is gone doesnt mean that the liquid cant flow. the human body can still live with a stopped heart, albeit not for very long. blood will still seep out of the major veins and arteries into the now vacant cavity where the heart used to be, and then flow out the gash in his abdomen/chest. yes, valves in the veins and arteries will stop some of the blood from reversing course, but movement of any kind from the victim will cause blood to seep
(while it is not the same as layng down, the principle still works, just on a more extreme side. try doing a spinning knife edge back fist as fast as you are able to. do it right...or wrong, and you will feel your blood be pulled up from your hand into your forearm or arm. it dont feel good).
but let us not forget that the victim had other wounds, those too would be seeping blood.
now, it all comes down to how much blood did he lose up till the time of death. If it was more than 4 quarts of blood, then the autopsy tech was correct as the human body has 6 quarts of blood, and the human body can survive with 1/3 of it left. however, if the victim had died before that amount of blood loss occured then he died of the trauma incured from the attack (i.e. indiana jones temple of doom moment). only true way to know for sure to look at the autopsy report and forensic evidence. which we dont have. so, im inclined to agree with autopsy tech.
and now that i have successfully bled your eyes with my piss ass internet sentence structure and grammer, im off to class. bye now
Sign In »
Register Now!
Help
Back to top
)
