This is  the most shocking photograph, actively nourishing the myth about the ripping up the abdomen of a pregnant woman and pulling the dead foetus out of it.

It should be mentioned that this very scene is not recorded on video-chronicles congesting the Internet. This demonstrates the unwillingness of the authors to show the surrounding background. It means that even if in the photograph a victim of an aggression is shown, the act of this aggression didn’t take place in the vicinity of Aghdam-city (the real location where the events took place and which the Azerbaijani prefer to call “Khojaly ”)

The focus is on the foetus, while other parts of the composition are “smeared” in order to conceal the true location of the dead body, in particular, hospital stretchers on which the body lies, and, consequently, the fact of arrangement.

Now we will in turn consider the discrepancies in this photo:

1) The flat contours, the form and the line of the section undoubtedly indicate that it is a classical sectional cut, which means that it is not an act of sadism but a purposeful forensic-medical procedure. And the exaggerated myth about an “infuriated Armenian” ripping the abdomen of a pregnant woman, in this case, is rather a lame argument.

2) Hands with medical gloves are distinctly viewed.

3) There lies a scalpel on the body. Well, they were short of armaments during the war, however, a scalpel could hardly have been included in the arsenal of the Army of Liberation of Nagorno-Karabakh.

4) A white bed-sheet, carefully covering the intimate parts of the body, gets as far as the head of the child, who is put to the dead body. It is evident that they wanted to avoid having a living child touch the corpse. Are there many cases when pathoanatomists, after having pulled a child out of mother’s womb, wrap it up so carefully not to let it touch a dead body? This is only a proof of the fact that the photo demonstrates not a retrieval of the foetus from the abdomen, but putting the foetus on the abdomen! Besides, having a scalpel with a standardized size, as an orientator, it is easy to figure out the height of the child, the size of the head, the length of the arms and legs and define that these sizes correspond to the live-born child’s sizes which would have been impossible according to the photo produced by the Azerbaijani side.

5) The person, “taking the foetus out” is in a surgical coat, and not in a standard medical or military uniform which once more indicates that a professional treatment was accomplished by a medical worker.

6) The hands holding the foetus: only a professional obstetrician could hold the head of a child so warily, and that of a live and not of a dead new-born child.

7) The photo clearly demonstrates the saw cuts of the ribs. A person, who is more or less familiar with the anatomization of the bodies, will confirm: it is IMPOSSIBLE to cut the thorax with a standard or military knife, without using special equipment like a special saw or a scalpel!

8) Pay attention to the right hand of the corpse: the swelling and the coloration of the integument point out the fact that the prescription of the death is no less than 24-36 hours whereas the skin coloration of the child is light and smooth, and swellings or other putrid effects are not observed. It was hardly possible for the foetus to remain alive in the womb of the mother who had died more than twenty-four hours before. The fact that, in the photo, the child is alive, is beyond any doubt.

9) The line of the light and the dark on the hips: one can state with a definite portion of probability that these are posthumous changes of integument (putrid stains) and that the body lied on the abdomen, and the inner part of the thigh which is not darkened, accounts for it. In other words:

a) the pregnant woman could not have died lying on her back, the indicative of which is the darkening of integument,
b) she could not have lied on her abdomen either, as she was pregnant and because of her belly, her hips should have stayed hanging and then the inner parts of the hips must have been darkened as well.

10) A heightened blur for a black-and-white photograph and the absence of granularity peculiar to black-and-white photographs indicates that repeated corrections of the photograph are made in the Photoshop or any other editing program.

11) Shifted focus. In order to fix the focus in this way, the photograph must have been taken by a camera with tilt-shift lens, a very expensive and rare photographic apparatus which appeared much later than in 1992.

12) The absence of the “victim’s” photographs from other angles. After searching in the Internet for some time, we found a horrific photograph on the Balkan events which supposedly gave this idea to the azeri propaganda. As an argument for this point serves the fact that the azeri propaganda s’ photo appeared no sooner than in 2004 (in any case we found older copies neither in the Internet nor in the video- chronicles.

To compare, pay attention to the cutting line, the pose of the foetus and how the pathoanatomist is holding the dead foetus pulled from the womb of the mother in the photograph below. This is a photograph of the victims of Balkan slaughter. These photographs are filed according to all the rules of collection of factual material which is not observed in the case of “Khojaly ” photographs.

COMMENTS