I didn't really follow this case for the past 10 years so maybe I'm missing something. Here's my question: How can the theory be supported that the murder was to cover up an accident and/or familial abuse? The skull fracture occurred first, but there was no cut. The killer could not possibly have known the extent of the head injury unless he happened to have a CAT scan machine in his pocket. She may have been unconscious, but a reasonable person might think that she had a concussion and would survive. But this killer went ahead and strangled her, with a garrote no less. Somebody really, really wanted her to be good and dead. I have seen somewhere a theory that the skull fracture may have occurred in the bathtub when Patsy was cleaning her up. Then she flipped out and committed the murder to cover up the accident and supposed abuse. Huh? The signs of abuse are apparently somewhat debateable and might not have been discovered if there wasn't a murder investigation. Why would Patsy leave blood on the body and undies if she was covering up the abuse? I have always been on the fence and still am, but the skull fracture confuses me. I had never realized how huge it was, yet totally invisible. I come to the conclusion that there was no accident in the whole thing and that she was deliberately and brutally murdered simply because somebody wanted her to be dead and set about to make that happen by whatever means necessary.