While the release of the final autopsy report on the brutal black-on-white murder of Emily Haddock tends to rebut the possibility that Emily was also raped, a few individuals within the white nationalist community remain skeptical.
To familiarize yourself with the case or to refresh your memory, click HERE to view all previous posts on this case.
One skeptic in particular, an individual identified as Melcur, flat-out posted on the Vanguard News Network Forum that "this is not the final report". Melcur is generally well-informed, being associated with the informative and influential PC Apostate blog (achieving an Alexa rating of around 352,000 before it got censored by Google/Blogger and was forced to migrate to Wordpress). For those keeping track, here's the new URL for PC Apostate:
Another, identified as White Pride, wasn't quite as pronounced in his skepticism, but did express some doubts. Here's what White Pride posted on a Stormfront blog:
After the type written part of the "autopsy" there are a couple of pages of diagrams of the body showing the blood on her arm and leg as well as the entry and exit wounds from the two gunshots.
In summary it basically says that Emily was shot twice, once in the face and once in the left side of her head from the rear of her skull.
She was not dead at the time of the shots but probably bled out over a period of time afterward.
While the "autopsy" report does not state anything about rape, it is still highly questionable as to why it took so long to receive a copy of the report and why, in a case described by veteran detectives as "brutal", is the full "autopsy" so small and lacking in details?
Also note that the "official autopsy" manages to state Emily's age as 11, which was taken from a false report on a local TV stations web site. By the time his "autopsy" was put together the "professionals" in the Medical Examiners Office would probably have enough information from Emily's parents to know that, in fact, Emily was 12.
At best, this report seems hastily put together in order to quell the public outrage and outcry for information.
And yet, still no coverage by the MSM.
The black-on-white crime spree continues without notice by the masses...
The seven-page report in PDF format can be accessed through Rapidshare. Or you can view most of the contents of pages 1 through 4 HERE. It does not say "Final" in the title. But here's why I believe it is the final autopsy report. While the date of the examination is listed as September 22nd, 2007, the report shows that it was digitally signed by John D. Butts MD on November 5th, 2007, as certification. Now if this isn't the final report, why is it even certified by Dr. Butts in the first place? Or why didn't Dr. Butts sign it earlier, at the time of the examination?
This is the first autopsy report I have ever seen, so I admit I am unfamiliar with what a final autopsy report should look like, in terms of detail, length, and volume of information. I do NOT discount the possibility that I might be proven wrong. But until I see objective evidence to the contrary, I will consider this the final report. And it was important enough to get this information out on the blogosphere, not only to inform those who were concerned, but to also compensate for the failure of the mainstream media to keep up the pressure.
Even more importantly, this report rebuts the rising concern over the possibility that Emily Haddock was raped. Here are the salient points:
(1). On page 2, continuing under the subcategory "External Description", the report states "There is no evidence of genital trauma".
(2). On page 4, under the heading "Reproductive", the report states "No vaginal injury is noted".
(3). Back to page 2, under the subcategory "External Description", the report states "No foreign materials are evident beneath the fingernails". The significance of this observation is that the overwhelmingly majority of rape victims, unless they are completely immobilized in advance, will attempt to resist their attacker, even involuntarily. They use their hands. This means skin cells from the attacker can get embedded in the victim's fingernails. The report clearly states that there is NO foreign materials beneath the fingernails. So this becomes corroborative evidence that rape was unlikely.
In addition, the criminal records of the perpetrators do not effectively support the possibility of rape. The prepetrators have track records of violent crimes. But these crimes were predominantly opportunistic, "smash-and-grab" type crimes. The perps would not want to increase their chances of discovery by hanging around the crime scene long enough to rape Emily Haddock. Further, when groups of blacks rape a victim, it's usually gang rape - all of them get involved. This would have taken additional time and further increased the chances of apprehension.
The use of the term "brutal" by detectives was most likely intended to describe the ENTIRE crime scene, and not just the body. If Emily bled out, as it is possible, then the surrounding floor or carpet would be soaked in blood, thus creating a "brutal" appearance. The autopsy report is intended to describe only the body, and not the entire crime scene.
The age discrepancy (12 in the first part of the report vs. 11 towards the end) is most likely a clerical error. Because our public schools emphasize diversity over competency, its products emerge less literate and attentive to detail than they once were. Consequently, one sees more errors in grammatical expression and lack of quality control with each passing day (consider the atrocious misuse of the plural possessive, e.g. it's vs. its).
And why is the final report so "small"? Perhaps it's because only one part of the body was injured - the head. The techincal descriptions of the bullet wounds and the damage seem complete - just how much more can be said about it? Noteworthy, but not necessarily a critical anomaly.
White Pride is absolutely correct in his assertion of a mainstream media blackout. If it had been five white guys murdering a black girl, there'd be Jesse and Al and 20,000 blacks invading and occupying the town where it occurred, just like Jena, LA. This is why we in the alternative media must keep this case alive. This is why I decided to post the results of this autopsy, even at the risk that it may prove not to be the final autopsy.