This is an interesting fact, and one I wasn't aware of until now. Yes, I agree with you that it tilts back toward the direction of a cover up.
BTW, my gut instinct has always been that someone either in the family or close to the family killed that child. Unless the Boulder authorities come up with truly damning evidence against Karr, I'll have trouble believing he's the killer.
My feeling about 'whodunit' is that there is a mountain of forensics and physical evidence pointing to inside the family. I haven't yet found a shred of objective evidence for an intruder. I've heard lots of theories about one, and many of them DO make sense, I just haven't seen anything I would call objective evidence. The question in my mind is, "is it possible to place the forensics in an alternate scenario involving an intruder"? I think the answer is yes, but the probability diminishes as I learn more about the case.
Then again, I wouldn't make a good juror either b/c my bar for conviction would be high. That's why I want to be very careful not to ACCUSE PR or any of the Ramseys of anything. I think most juries, if it hadn't been for the RSM (Ramsey Spin Machine), would have convicted PR easily. They do it in thousands of other cases with less evidence.
So far, the JMK situation hasn't told me jack. That could change, but so far, nothing. If he can conjure up the missing end of the paint brush, or pony up matching DNA, or whatever, that would change. In other words, objective evidence not based on theories and interpretations of fact. But I haven't seen it yet.
Did you see my post about the 16 or so questions regarding the evidence? I think most of them constitute objective evidence pointing to inside the family. That's all we have so far.