Above is your original question in response to:
"Originally Posted by UKGuy
Darlene733510,
And I might think you are correct, JDI alone, does not explain away all the evidence.. "
You didn't ask what evidence proves John was the killer but your responses below seem to say you are looking for evidence that proves John did it. If I am wrong in this assumption please correct me. Investigative procedure looks for all evidence then evaluates it after the fact instead of looking for evidence that proves or disproves what the investigator already believes.
BOESP,
Could be I was being conversational in tone, rather than analytical.
I think an investigator has no option but to gather the evidence, evaluate it, propose a theory, all after the fact.
Any RDI theory should be falsifiable otherwise whats the point? So if you have evidence that is consistent with your favorite RDI theory then its a candidate solution.
There are three or four competing RDI theories. I would test these against the current forensic evidence to see if any fall down.
As an example the R's version of events falls down with the pineapple evidence.
In DocG's theory its assumed JR placed the ransom note on the stairs then returned to bed. This is not fact, so anything flowing from it might be moondust.
I look for coherence in a theory, to date, BDI exhibits this feature, it is also reasonably consistent, more so than either JDI or PDI. This does not prove BDI correct, it just seems to hang together better, or explains more of the forensic evidence.
.