Well, I can't say that I doubt it, but I sure consider it as possibly incorrect.
Imo, the cord around the wrists served no purpose other than staging and misdirection. So it makes sense to me to suspect that the same cord used to make the faux garrote might be seen in the same light.
Also, imo the faux garrote really served no real purpose beyond what a plain piece of cord would have done. I feel that each occupant of the house was physically capable of strangling an unconscious six year old girl without the need for knots and a handle. AND, even if they did need a handle, there is no need to break the paintbrush as the full paintbrush would serve the exact same purpose.
And what evidence does Meyer show that the ligature that he was presented with was the very same ligature that killed JB? None that I see. Of course it would seem apparent at the time, but in retrospect I feels it's worthy of consideration because as I said before there were people in the house actively trying to conceal the true nature of what happened. They did it with the wrist bindings, the wipedown, the paintbrush, the tape over mouth, the note etc. Yet for some reason we are to assume that the faux garrote is the genuine article?
How do we know that a similiar cord, cable, etc was actually used and was replaced with the garrote? Maybe someone felt that the nature of the cord used somehow implicated the killer. How do we know that whatever it was did'nt walk with the blunt instrument, tape, and notepad pages?
Excellent analysis and deductions, wengr! Thank you.
Just to add one small detail (in addition to the mysterious white line bellow the strangulation abrasion on JB's neck): from an autopsy report and photos available to the public today, you wouldn't find the mark from the ligature's knot! None! But it should be there if the actual strangulation has been performed by the rope with the knot on it...hmmmm.....:banghead: