Did Rachel die instantly?

Hi guys. So I'm reading the book "Columbine" and it says Rachel was killed instantly. What do you think happened? Sorry if this has been posted a lot.

Personally, I believe Richard Castaldo's initial account in the emergency room, when he was crying and recounting what happened with Rachel to his mother. The memory was freshest then and he'd had no time to be exposed to the Cassie Bernall myth. So no, I don't think she died instantly. I think she really did say yes. However, I don't think it would've mattered what her answer was, I think they'd have killed her anyway because it was the first murder and their adrenaline was pumping. By the time they got to Val, I don't think it was as "exciting" anymore, and so she was spared either by sheer luck or by Dylan getting distracted.

She did not say yes, nor was she even asked the question. She probably didn't even see them coming, she was shot three times, and then the fourth time in the head killing her. In between the 3rd and 4th shot, Eric shot Castaldo.

I don't have her autopsy summary sheet handy, and unfortunately, that's all we have to go on when these questions pop up. But, I'm fairly certain there was no blood in her lungs or any of the other tell tell signs that indicate someone lived at least long to enough to draw a breath. Just google Rachel Scott autopsy report and you should be able to read that.

Again, it's just the summary page, but it does speak of her wounds and if blood had been found in the lungs they *should have* noted that on the summary sheet.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] I agree with you wholeheartedly on everything you said. I never bought the She Said Yes story.

I don't know about "instantly", but I'd say within a minute or two...Idk..I still don't think the "do you still believe in god?" discussion happened.

It's entirely possible Castaldo heard what he perceived to be her moaning or crying. Death, especially violent deaths, are ugly things and there's no grace to it. People can and do make sounds as they die, a person may be dead, but agonal breathing may cause some to think the person is still alive. There's neuromuscular responses that happen at and after death, that, again, could cause someone to believe the person is alive. There's so many variables and factors that would take forever to type up and explain, but that's a pretty condensed version. If she's isn't die instantly, she died rapidly, in my opinion.

Tomb wrote:

It's entirely possible Castaldo heard what he perceived to be her moaning or crying. Death, especially violent deaths, are ugly things and there's no grace to it. People can and do make sounds as they die, a person may be dead, but agonal breathing may cause some to think the person is still alive. There's neuromuscular responses that happen at and after death, that, again, could cause someone to believe the person is alive. There's so many variables and factors that would take forever to type up and explain, but that's a pretty condensed version. If she's isn't die instantly, she died rapidly, in my opinion.

Very useful info, I could not verbalize it so accurately (though I have some idea about the question).

SCOTT, RACHEL

AUTOPSY REPORT

JCCO [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

PATHOLOGICAL DIAGNOSES:

1 Perforating gunshot wound to the head with:
A Entrance, left temple.
B Exit, right parietal scalp.
C Fractures of the calvarium and basilar skull.
D Perforating lacerations of the cerebral hemispheres including associated hemorrhage.

2 Perforating gunshot wound to the trunk with:
A Entrance, left lower chest.
B Exit, right upper chest.
C Perforating lacerations of the left lung, heart and right lung.
D Associated bilateral hemothoraces, hemopericardium and hemomediastinum.
E Fracture of the right fourth rib.

3 Perforating gunshot wound to the left upper extremity with:
A Entrance, left posterior arm.
B Partial exit, left anterior arm.
C Recovery of bullet fragments, within bullet track.
D Fracture of the left humerus and associated neurovascular and soft tissue injury.

4 Perforating gunshot wound to the left lower extremity with:
A Entrance, posterior left thigh.
B Exit, medial left thigh.
C Soft tissue injury only.

5 Early postmortem decomposition.

OPINION:

This 17-year old female sustained multiple gunshot wounds at her high school. She was
pronounced dead at the scene. Her death is attributed to severe craniocerebral trauma and
multiple visceral lacerations due to a perforating gunshot wounds to the head and trunk. Also
seen at autopsy were perforating gunshot wounds to the left upper extremity and left lower
extremity. Toxicologic analyses of body fluids obtained at the time of autopsy were negative. In
view of the scene and circumstances surrounding the death and autopsy findings, the manner
of death is classified as homicide.

These are basically immediately fatal injuries. I would be surprised if she even knew she'd been shot.

I think she was gone in no time. She never said yes. She was never asked the question. Eric never grabbed her by her hair. Etc. She was gone as quick as a finger snap.

FreeJust wrote:

I think she was gone in no time. She never said yes. She was never asked the question. Eric never grabbed her by her hair. Etc. She was gone as quick as a finger snap.

Where does all this "they asked her if she believed in Dog" and "Eric grabbed her by her hair" come from? Not sure why someone would make this stuff up. It's like they're trying to Hollywood-ize the shooting. Is this Cullen again?

sympathyforEandD wrote:

FreeJust wrote:

I think she was gone in no time. She never said yes. She was never asked the question. Eric never grabbed her by her hair. Etc. She was gone as quick as a finger snap.

Where does all this "they asked her if she believed in Dog" and "Eric grabbed her by her hair" come from? Not sure why someone would make this stuff up. It's like they're trying to Hollywood-ize the shooting. Is this Cullen again?

I believe we all agree no dog question was involved.

If she had been asked "do you believe in Dog" and answered "yes", Eric would have spared her.

sympathyforEandD wrote:

FreeJust wrote:

I think she was gone in no time. She never said yes. She was never asked the question. Eric never grabbed her by her hair. Etc. She was gone as quick as a finger snap.

Where does all this "they asked her if she believed in Dog" and "Eric grabbed her by her hair" come from? Not sure why someone would make this stuff up. It's like they're trying to Hollywood-ize the shooting. Is this Cullen again?

Well, that propaganda filled movie doesn’t help...but it’s just another one of those Columbine rumors that just won’t go away.

FreeJust wrote:

sympathyforEandD wrote:

FreeJust wrote:

I think she was gone in no time. She never said yes. She was never asked the question. Eric never grabbed her by her hair. Etc. She was gone as quick as a finger snap.

Where does all this "they asked her if she believed in Dog" and "Eric grabbed her by her hair" come from? Not sure why someone would make this stuff up. It's like they're trying to Hollywood-ize the shooting. Is this Cullen again?

Well, that propaganda filled movie doesn’t help...but it’s just another one of those Columbine rumors that just won’t go away.

It is so strange to me that people invent stuff about the shooting that didn't happen. Loons with too much time on their hands seem to glom on to this case in particular. Wasn't someone impersonating Sue Klebold at one point?

sympathyforEandD wrote:

FreeJust wrote:

sympathyforEandD wrote:

FreeJust wrote:

I think she was gone in no time. She never said yes. She was never asked the question. Eric never grabbed her by her hair. Etc. She was gone as quick as a finger snap.

Where does all this "they asked her if she believed in Dog" and "Eric grabbed her by her hair" come from? Not sure why someone would make this stuff up. It's like they're trying to Hollywood-ize the shooting. Is this Cullen again?

Well, that propaganda filled movie doesn’t help...but it’s just another one of those Columbine rumors that just won’t go away.

It is so strange to me that people invent stuff about the shooting that didn't happen. Loons with too much time on their hands seem to glom on to this case in particular. Wasn't someone impersonating Sue Klebold at one point?

Indeed there was.
Which is more sad and disgusting than anything else.

But, to somewhat defend the propaganda filled movie...it’s not so much the fault of the people who made it. Remember, all they really had to go by is what they were told by the family. So it probably would’ve been better to not even have made it in the first place.