The Ambiguity Of The "Tool" And The "Letter L"

It has occurred to me that all of us that are following the course of events in the Roseboro murder case may be dealing with some misunderstanding or some ambiguity in the little facts that have been publicized to date.
Many of us have wondered about the mention of the "L-shaped wound" that Jan Roseboro suffered prior to winding up in the swimming pool of her back yard.
I know that I was one who tried to determine just what "tool", as the DA's office called it, would have left the impression of an "L" on a person's skull.
After numerous reviews of all that has been publicized so far, I think we "overthought it".
Not until the trial will we know the DA's theory in any concrete sense, but the articles and the quotes that have been published have not been clear and not all have been factual or true to quoting the person in the article.
At this point, it seems more factual to state that Jan Roseboro suffered an "L-shaped wound" to the area of her head behind the left ear. This wound "would have caused significant bleeding."
It wasn't stated clearly, ever, whether the wound was clearly in the shape of an L or if it bore the impression of the letter "L".
It is the former, apparently, not the latter.
It has been made public, however, that the authorities believe the wound to have been caused by a tool.
Many items, when used to whack someone in the head, from behind, can cause an L-shaped wound. A common 2X4 would do that. The edge and side are at a ninety degree angle.
But they have claimed it was a tool. Would a hammer do it? Would a level?
What common tools are found in most every household in America? What tools would be lying nearby, clearly accessible, in the home or by the pool?
If the events of that night were not planned, and Michael Roseboro "snapped", what tool could have possibly been nearby, benignly, just part of the daily life of a typical American family?
If Jan was attacked inside her home and then taken out to the pool, what tools did Michael Roseboro have that would have become an instant weapon of attack?
Jan Roseboro was struck from behind, by a person, wielding a tool, that left a bleeding wound behind her ear. That wound was L-shaped. That tells me it was a flap injury.
Cranial lacerations bleed profusely.
Was she struck with such force by the person wielding the tool that she flew into the pool as a result of the strike?
Were the wounds that appeared all over her body open or closed? Should anyone have expected those wounds to leave a great amount of bleeding? Or was the expected blood flow primarily from the head wound?
Kicking, beating and strangling Jan could have produced some blood, in all probability, just a small amount.
Did the fight take place by the side of the pool, where she was beaten and struck? And when she attempted to get away from her attacker, did he or she then grab the tool and strike Jan in the back of the head with sufficient force to throw her into the pool, unconscious? Or did the force of the strike throw her into the pool, injured but alert, where her attacker then forced her underwater until she was dead?
That would certainly explain the lack of blood evidence in any great amount.
When Jan entered the pool she was alive. But was she conscious? She drowned. That is a fact. But did the autopsy reveal any signs of her being held forcibly under the water?
There wasn't the need for an extensive clean up as many of us have surmised. There just wasn't that much blood outside the watery confines of the family pool.
And what little blood may have been flung by the attacking injuries, that clean up was minor compared to the optional possibilities.
The lack of blood evidence is what the defense is hanging Michael Roseboro's freedom and life on.
The lack of blood evidence is what the prosecution is hanging his conviction on.
There was no great clean up as we thought. Jan Roseboro bled into the pool for the most part.
Any additional blood would have been poolside, where the first responders found her, supposedly receiving CPR from her husband. We do know that she did shed a great deal of blood on the gurney once placed there.
But one question does arise....
Was that "tool" left nearby to be used when she turned her back? Was an argument or fight even necessary or expected? Or was Jan going to be bludgeoned and thrown into the pool by the force no matter the course of events that night?
Michael Roseboro had a phone conversation with Angela Funk that evening.
And Jan Roseboro died.
If not for the sheer brutality and number of attack wounds all over Jan's body, this may have looked like a slip-and-fall drowning.
One gash in her head could have been attriubuted to be the cause of a fall into the pool, with a resultant drowning. There may have been suspicion, but this also may have gone down in the books as a terrible accident.
If Michael Roseboro simply wanted to be free to marry Angela Funk and planned to kill his wife, why would he beat her so savagely?
If this was a premeditated murder, why didn't this case go the way of Laci Peterson, with state-wide searches and pleas for information? Jan could have just "disappeared".
If Mike wished his wife dead and planned for that, how easy would it have been to have staged a "suicide"? Their marriage certainly had enough heartache for some to wonder if she might have not been able to take any more pain.
The beating that Jan Roseboro suffered prior to drowning is a key element of this case and is screaming for attention. The beating that she suffered after her husband had a phone conversation with Angela Funk.
How much louder can that scream?