Thanks for the reply, JMO, but you're not listening? It wasn't a tabloid, nor the R's, but a columnist for, I think, Newsweek, Daniel Glick, so he should be pretty reliable. I found his name during a search and can't remember what search term I used, it was so many days ago.
Nobody here is accusing McReynolds of the murder, tho' he may well have been in some way involved, and whatever he said about being upset does not prove anything at all. Anybody would say that. It's no more reliable than the tabs. Let's don't be suckers about him just because he was old and had had some heart surgery. The harp business is WEIRD, no matter how you slice things. He and his wife must have at least KNOWN something, tho' I'm sure she'd deny it too, just a formality.
If we're going to be sleuth wannabe's, don't we have to be totally objective, no emotional involvement with either side? Naturally the RDI"s keep saying the R's were "nervy", "lowdown", and like that, but is that even approaching detached "professional" sleuthing? Just the facts, please, as Jack Web used to say on TV. Yes, we should be totally objective. The man was not involved. There is no trace of him or his fibers or anything else in that house. He was a sloppy man, just to look at, and he could not have pulled it off without some of his beard at the very least being left in the basement.
Let's focus on those other kids, what did they die of, instead of the old man? Thanks again for your reply, of course.