Right, so rather than risk being indicted for murder, or accessory to murder, they'd have taken the lesser charges, and they could do that anytime they wanted to give up their charade about the intruder which kept them under the "umbrella of suspicion". It was never to late to stop facing much more serious charges.Evidence tampering, perjury, obstruction were all charges that could have been applied from the minute the police showed up on that doorstep.
I don't know how you can't see the garrote being a diversion. Without it you have a girl with a cracked skull and evidence of sexual assault lying in her basement. Wouldn't you think that would have raised a few more eyebrows than the other scenario?<quoted text>
I guess I don't see the garrotte as a diversion because the head wound wasn't visible, so who's being diverted, and for what? Why divert from a wound that can't be seen until she's on the autopsy table?
W/o the garrotte, but before autopsy, there would be a lifeless girl (probably) with no visible indication of the COD, no evidence of sexual assault, until the autopsy. IMO the RN doesn't make it look any less like one of the parents did it than if there were no note.
The RN suggests Jonbenet has been kidnapped. When the body is found, it's quite obvious she hasn't been. Even w/o knowing what killed her, and w/o knowing about the SA, it looks like she was killed by a family member and a phoney kidnapping was staged. Or partly staged.
Do you think the garrotte made the RN more believable? I don't.