I see your point. Do you believe that the physical and forensic evidence that has, as you noted, been "rehashed" over the years, have any bearing on JMK's guilt or innocence? Could it?
Let's look at JMK specifically. Since he has been charged (or will be) could the evidence that has necessarily already been discussed aid in a conviction? I would think so. Is it not important then, to learn something about what that evidence is? I would think so.
If that evidence exculpates JMK would that be relevant? I would think so. I understand what you're saying, I just don't think there is any way to dodge all that stuff, despite how much it has already been discussed, if we're talking about JMK's possible role in this crime. It is, after all, the very evidence of the crime he's accused of!
So, you're right, my posts do keep going back to the parents. But that, unfortunately, is b/c the evidence we know about has a unique nexus with them that doesn't appear, so far, with JMK. When and if it does I'll be all over it.
I do think that taking a 2nd look at the known evidence as it could relate to an intruder has bearing.
I don't think it has a "unique nexus" to the parents and the grand jury didn't think so either. So there is no point in returning there again and again because they didn't arrest the parents, they arrested JMK.
Since most of the evidence hasn't been looked at from the intruder angle but only from the parents did it angle. It's time for a fresh look and a fresh reinterpretation and how it relates to the recent arrest and what little new information that's been released.