“She had a skull fracture and was strangled with the garrot. Either the fracture or the strangulation could have caused death.”
I personally considerer the garrot to be mutilation.
Especially when you consider the theory that one of the parents accidentally injured her and then garroted her as a “coverup” instead of calling 911.
“As for your finding it hard to believe that parents would “mutilate” their children, it happens every day.”
I understand that - but there has to be proof to back this accusation - yes?
Did the doctors find evidence that Jon Benet had been abused?
Did her brother exhibit signs of abuse?
Or - did the family doctor, family, and friends seem to think they treated their children normally?
Has anyone come forward to support this theory they were secret child-torturers who were selling their daughter’s body?
“BTW, strangling a small child with a garrot is a sign of one of two things: Either massive overkill, or a murderer who didn’t think he or she had the hand strength to do it without a tool like a garrot.”
According to who?
The BTK killer resorted to the garrot beccause he simply enjoyed it.
“Given the facts of the case, it is entirely reasonable to be skeptical that the murder was a totally random act committed by a complete stranger to the Ramseys.”
Given the facts of the case it can also be reasonalbe to be skeptical that the murder was committed by the Ramsey’s or with cooperation from the Ramseys.
“Given the facts of the case” - we don’t really know what happened until we find the owner of that dna.
Whatever your personal viewpoint, the fact remains that garroting is not mutilation, which is defined as "to cut up or alter radically; to cut off or permanently destroy an essential part."
I understand that - but there has to be proof to back this accusation - yes? Did the doctors find evidence that Jon Benet had been abused?
Which "accusation?" Mutilation or abuse? You've said you don't believe parents would mutilate their child. That's what I've rebutted. Everything else you've thrown in is not something I've even discussed.
The BTK killer resorted to the garrot beccause he simply enjoyed it.
The BTK killer did not murder very young children. How else can garroting a child Jon Benet's age be described except as a sign of massive overkill? Or as a sign that the murderer didn't think he or she had the hand strength to strangle the child without a tool? In fact, it's massive overkill no matter what else can be said of this murder.
Given the facts of the case it can also be reasonable to be skeptical that the murder was committed by the Ramsey’s or with cooperation from the Ramseys.
If the Ramseys are, indeed, innocent of this crime, the murder could have been (and likely was) committed by someone who knew them. A little reading comprehension goes a long way. I said, "Given the facts of the case, it is entirely reasonable to be skeptical that the murder was a totally random act committed by a complete stranger to the Ramseys." Nothing in that statement accuses the Ramseys in any way.