The primary cause of death was asphyxiation, she would have survived the head injury had she received immediate medical attention, so I've heard. As for the head injury, there was a substantial fracture but no scalp trauma. John Ramsey was overheard on the phone, 20 minutes after finding the body, discussing with his pilot a flight to Atlanta, a police officer interrupted him to tell him he had to stay in town. 24 hours later he had separate attorneys for he and his wife.
I don't know . . . The autopsy report states there was an extensive area of scalp hemmoraging, a scalp contusion and multiple contusions to the right side of the head. coroner report. The skull fracture is massive and extended over half the childs head and there is a shattered area with a large section of skull displaced. This was likely a mortal injury, it was clearly intended to be one. I think most legal experts would suggest this is proper.
I concur with Red. I saw a special on the other night (which really creeped me out, BTW) and it basically said that the person who committed this crime would have had to have been a HUGE monster. Anyone capable of doing what was done to the girl would have to have been a real monster. From different things I have seen, it just doesn't seem the parents were capable of such an atrosity. It's not like they have a history. People don't just, out of the blue, rape their daughter, choke them, and crack the skull. Plus, wasn't there a window left open in the basement supposedly?
The appearance of the fracture is not necessarily indicative of the seriousness of the injury to the brain. There was a contusion to the brain. I've heard medical opinions that the injury may have caused anything from a serious headache to paralysis, coma, etc., but not immediate death. Nothing about the injury spefically indicates intent, i.e. imprint of a weapon. Asphyxiation killed her. Of course they need separate attorney's as defendants but that wasn't the case. No innocent person needs a criminal defense attorney the day after their child is murdered. I would not fault them though after the "umbrella of suspicion" was in place.
I think the difference is that you are quoting medical opinions ( which are valid) and red is quoting the actual coroners report which report much serious trauma to the head than just fall or a serious headache. I don't think anyone is arguing that asphyxiation didn't kill her, but what I, in particular, am saying is that the actions taken against this girl conclude that someone really messed up did them...
No doubt, you are correct. This guys explains it better than I. http://patfish.blogspot.com/2005/05/true-crime-precious-doe-remember.html
I agree with you, I have always thought that Patsy killed her daughter, I have never believed that she planned to do it though. I don't know what happened that night, I just think that something made Patsy Ramsey snap, and then her and John both did what they had to do in order to cover things up.
The Ramseys have no motive for murder. Especially Patsy who was reliving her beauty pageant days through her daughter. What mother deals with bedwetting by bashing in the skull of their daughter? This story is a real fantasy supported by no evidence. This child was killed intentionally by somebody, perhaps by a jealous brother. On the other hand, the Ramseys surely seemed to be impeding the investigation and Pasty got very upset in the TV interview when the son was mentioned as a suspect. Many things were staged at the crime scene.
I can't remember what show I watched, but it had these two guys on it both agreeing that there was no way the ramsey's did it. One was a former Boulder detective who said the police fouled up the investigation so badly that a lot of crucial things were left uninvestigated. Like the fact that there was a window that was open in the basement.
The above theory is plausible, and is not so farfetched. If Jon Benet was killed as an act of rage in the heat of the moment there would have been no descernible motive. And the flashlight with no prints is very strange indeed. You would certainly expect it to have prints all over it. Because it was found in the kitchen laying out in the open, it had certainly been used recently. Obviously it was wiped clean, but the only reason to wipe it clean of prints would be if it were the murder weapon. Ant the behavior of the parents is also strange. They did everything they could to impede the investigation. Not the actions you would expect from grieving parents who had just lost a child due to an act of violence. You would expect them to cooperated completely with the investigation. Either they committed the crime or they know who did and are protecting the person, suggesting it is a member of the family such as the son. It is hard to imagine them wanting to protect anyone else.
