Exactly. A forensic pathologist worth his salt would be helpful here, too. The coroner reported NO laceration of the scalp, only bruising. I noted that in an earlier post. It means no external bleeding so there was no great loss of blood at the scene.
I agree that the head trauma occured first but I'm not willing to jump the gun and say that she was alive at the time of strangulation. Yes, I know what the coroner's report said but I frankly think the pathologist was just stating what happened to the nearest extent he could readily discern. This was a county paid coroner whose job was to determine cause of death and he's not Michael Baden or whatever. There are numerous cases in the past, one of which Baden corrected, where a county coroner didn't fully expound on crucial details. A man and woman were convicted of murder as a result of his testimony. It had initially been ruled a drug overdose. So yea, it's possible the county coroner was just a tad off.
I definitely agree on the rage aspect, but it's harder to interpret the second wound b/c we don't know the full intent of the perp. Was it to kill in anger or to convincingly deceive. I don't know.
The loss of blood was all internal, between her scalp and skull around her entire head, and also on the right side of her brain. My layman's knowledge is not extensive enough to know exactly how to interpret these facts as regards how quickly it might have caused her death. I speculate that it was a brief time, because I know that massive bleeding leads to loss of blood pressure, which in turn stops the heart.
As for the county cornor's competency, you won't catch me insisting that such people are, by definition, competent.
You're also right that it's hard to interpret the garrotting if one assumes it was done as part of a coverup. But I struggle with that notion now that I've seen the autopsy report/photos. I don't think someone who was just trying to cover up the blow to the head would be prepared for what it would be like to strangle someone to death.
Not intending to be gross here, but it is well to understand exactly what the killer saw and did during that strangulation. The child's lips were turning dark blue. Large amounts of saliva and mucus were coming out of her mouth. If she were conscious when the strangulation started, she would have struggled as best she could. Yet the killer kept going. The killer turned and turned and turned and turned that garrot until it was so tight it made an extraordinarily deep groove in her neck.
And the ligature wasn't around the upper part of her neck, under the jawline where most stranglers kill their victims. The ligature was toward the base of her neck, with the front part going under the Adams apple. The muscles of the neck are stronger there, yet the killer applied immense force to dig that rope very deep into her neck.
I certainly could be wrong, but that, to me, speaks of enormous rage, not something done to cover up a prior act.