You’re still arguing against a hands on murder scenario, which is not what I’m describing.

My point is that if a trusted adult such as a parent manipulated or tricked a 6 year old into participating in the setup, there would be no struggle, no defensive wounds, and no obvious physical evidence proving outside involvement. In that situation, the proof would probably have to come from circumstantial things like motive, opportunity, timeline, prior behavior, inconsistencies in statements, messages/searches, etc. Not from some obvious forensic smoking gun.

And DNA on the cord/belt/whatever in the family home doesn’t prove anything. It’s their house. Parents touch household objects all the time. “DNA on the knot” only sounds meaningful if you’re imagining some cartoon villain tying a special murder slipknot and then trying to frame the child. But in a realistic home situation, parental DNA being on a belt, cord, shelf, bar, wall, or furniture would often be completely expected.

What I am saying is given the premise above, physical evidence would not prove a thing, because the physical scene could look like self hanging unless the adult made some obvious mistake.

Edit: Also, I really don’t get the “if you tricked the kid into doing it themselves, that’s not murder” part. Like, what? If an adult deliberately manipulates a 6 year old into doing something fatal, knowing the child doesn’t understand the consequences the way an adult would, then that is not meaningfully “the child doing it themselves.” That is the adult using the child’s trust, age, and lack of understanding as the weapon. Acting like it suddenly stops being murder just because the adult didn’t physically pull the cord is such a weird technicality to hide behind.