interrobang schrieb:Wo kann man den kontext zu den 17 cm nachlesen?
Z. B. hier:
"Q. Now, going back to the diagram on page 2 of Exhibit 1, in the center of the diagram there are markings that appear to me to say right in the center 10 with arrows on either side, and 17 with arrows pointing up and down. Is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And below that 17 and the arrow, it says "missing." Am I reading that correctly?
A. Yes.
Q. Can you tell, was something that was 10 by 17 missing?
A. No.
The space measured 10 by 17, and there was missing bone there. But the missing parts were all fragmented, and there were irregular margins all around the space.Q. I guess the question would be: Were skull fragments missing from this 10-by-17 area space, or does this just mean that there were fractures in the skull from the 10-by-17 space?
A. Most of that space, the bone was missing. There were a lot of small fragments attached to the scalp as it was reflected, but most of that space, the bone was missing, some of which--I think two of which we subsequently retrieved.
Q. When you said that you subsequently retrieved, you were pointing at the figure at the bottom of the page?
A. Yes. That was one of them.
Q. So this is the portion at the bottom of the page that looks roughly half-circular with a notch on one of the sides of it?
A. Yes.
Q. Would that be correct?
A. Right.
Q. Where it says 10 by 17 missing, would that be referring to 10 centimeters by 17 centimeters?
A. Right. "
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/boswella.htmDas ist auch was für dich, @groucho. Der liebe Doktor erklärt uns ganz genau, daß die unregelmäßigen Ränder
rundherum der 10 x 17cm großen Wunde waren.
Lambach schrieb:17 cm reichen weit in den Hinterkopf hinein.
Original anzeigen (0,2 MB)Groucho schrieb:Äh, ja, worum denn sonst?
