"I can't believe a parent could garott their own child, then smash her head in and leave her in such a state, even if they only tried to "cover up" an accidental death of some kind......"
That seems to be a sentiment of many on this forum. I have no idea if the Ramseys were or were not responsible. But the reasoning quoted above, used as an argument for why the Ramsesy COULDN'T have killed their child, is what I can't understand. Parents kill their children all the time...it's in the news frequently. Murderers, by their very nature, don't think like I do, so I don't project my reasoning onto them.
I think it's easy to get caught up in the wagon axle on this ligature thing. We don't even know for sure if that was the precipitating cause of death.
I can understand why someone wouldn't WANT to believe it, but it's hard to see why someone would logically deny it's possibility when there are numerous case histories of parents killing their children in multitudes of ways.
Using this logic, I could come up with all sorts of reasons why various crimes, being 'unimaginable', could not have occured. Something about that reasoning doesn't ring true to me.
Just a thought or two.
Yes, we do know that it was the cause of death. It's listed on the autopsy report as the cause. She had petechial hemorhages on her face, eyelids, eyes caused by it. Yes, her head was also bashed in, but craniel trauma doesn't cause petechial hemorhages, strangling does.