Again, like removing unnecessary person's (family and friends) from the house aka the crime scene, it ought to be basic police work to check behind all doors, especially of rooms. So my response is: for the simple fact of it being their duty.
There was said to be debris from outside in the room/s. So who is right actually?
There was no outside debris found inside the house.
Because I was going to correct myself about it, I will say first: I did find out later (not because of Websleuths) that the ceiling structure obstructed full opening of the basement window.
Again, people are excusing why police weren't more thorough. "Assess the scene" and "gather information" one would think encompasses checking for her presence as standard. To say otherwise excuses it from being done in future. Which the R case shows is not the correct action to take. Comes back to a procedural thing.
I wasn't excusing the police; I was disagreeing with you. In your first statement you said that their main job was to find JBR. You're speaking from the POV of someone who knows the body was in the house all along. On the morning of Dec. 26th, Boulder PD had every reason to believe JBR had been removed from the home by kidnappers, and that led to the actions I've already stated. It sounds like what you really meant was that BPD should have looked inside the wine cellar. I agree; they should have done. However, it's disingenuous of you to fault BPD for not searching one room while you excuse JR and PR for
not searching at all.
There is no logical fallacy in applying common sense which I see LS argue there is a lack of concerning a parental strangulation-cover-up. There is nothing in the R's background and past behaviour to indicate they could strangle the life out of their daughter as a means of covering up. So much simpler to take JB to hospital and call it an accident.
Unless there is something none of us know like JR is a psychopath or PR a devil worshipper.
If there was a cover up, it doesn't seem likely it played out via a parent finishing her off, on the face of it.
You’re shifting the ground of the argument. Here you say it doesn’t seem likely one of the parents killed JBR, but there may be unknowns. Your original statement was:
To assert one of the parents, who by all accounts were loving parents, one night took a homicidal turn to finish off JB and with that level of brutality is when plausibility went out the window for me.
In other words, you don't find it believable that either of JBR's parents could have brutally murdered her as part of a cover-up because they were loving parents. Sorry to be tedious but, yes, this is a logical fallacy. It’s called Fallacy of Personal Incredulity, and it means that because you personally don’t think it’s believable that either of the parents strangled JBR, it is therefore not true that one of them did. No need to take my word for it on this, though. Here is (in part) what
Logical Fallacies - List of Logical Fallacies with Examples has to say:
The Personal Incredulity Fallacy is a logical fallacy which occurs when someone dismisses a claim without providing evidence or logical reasoning to support their disbelief…..This type of fallacy is often used as a means of avoiding the need to provide evidence or logical reasoning to support one’s own beliefs or opinions…..The fallacy relies on the notion that if something seems too unbelievable to be true, then it must not be true. It is an example of confirmation bias…..The fallacy is a type of Informal Fallacy and it is important to remember that just because something seems unbelievable does not mean that it is false.
Originally, you argued that JR and PR were loving parents. Here you add an appeal to common sense and the supposition that nothing in the parents’ background and past behavior suggests they could have strangled JBR, etc.
Unfortunately, these aren’t logically valid arguments. Loving parents have been known to kill their children. Common sense in this context is confirmation bias. We don’t know enough about either parent’s background to rule out the possibility of filicide; and Linda Hoffmann-Pugh stated that during some of the toileting clean-ups PR took JBR in the bathroom, and Linda could hear JBR screaming behind the closed door. Maybe she was just protesting, the way PR said she did if someone tried to drag her out of bed. But, it's possible PR was punishing her in some cruel way.
Sounded weird she was found in a "locked" cellar. That she was in there to begin with was the first odd thing looking at the basement layout. A latch above the door is not something I think is easily seen/known by an outsider. Is this common to similar homes in the area? Did the door have another lock and which lock was in use? Someone else said officer R felt resistance at the door (was it because of the wooden block?). Again, this is conflicting information to yours. Could it be to stop BR getting to where JB was.
So sorry, I don’t know whether other homes in the neighborhood also used the rotating wood block as a latch. We do know the wine cellar was not locked with a conventional lock that morning because Fleet White went to the basement alone as soon as he arrived and opened the wine cellar door, remember?