I don't understand what it is you think people should do on a discussion forum dealing with true crime.
Are you saying that people shouldn't draw conclusions of one kind or another?
That they shouldn't make inferences about this or that or shouldn't propose theories regarding what might have occurred? Are you saying they shouldn't conclude that so-and-so is the perp or that so-and-so is not the perp? Why? One, what is the point of discussing true crime aside from doing these things? What else is there to talk about? Two, who does this harm?
Provided no one is misrepresenting the facts of the case --- something that is not allowed here --- and provided no one is simply saying horrible things about someone involved in the case --- something that is also not allowed here --- no one is harmed by my saying, "I think BM is responsible for SM's disappearance," nor is anyone harmed by Poster818987 saying, "I don't think BM is responsible," nor is anyone harmed from your saying, "I don't think we have enough facts in the case to say one way or another."
Many people here have concluded, for a variety of reasons, that BM is responsible for SM's disappearance. This seems to bother you, but I don't really understand why. No one is saying they know he is responsible, because no one can reasonably say that. No one is saying there's no chance they've misinterpreted this or that aspect of this case, because of course it's possible that people have misinterpreted this or that aspect of this case.
However, many here are of the opinion that BM is responsible for SM's disappearance, and again, many people here have come to this conclusion for a variety of reasons. No one is saying this simply because they don't "like the look of his eyes" and no one is ghoulishly wishing harm upon him or showering him with invective. People have simply assessed the facts of the case and determined that a variety of things point to BM. Why does this bother you so?
bbm
Excellent comment.
There are probably other sites in which the basic facts of a crime can be discussed but nothing offensive is mentioned for those who are more sensitive.
A true crime forum is going to delve into some unpleasantness .
When Leticia Stauch mentioned that Gannon's blood would be found on the woodworking tools since he'd cut his foot I speculated that the step mother had possibly done something far worse to this young boy.
It turned out to be true as sadly part of his remains were found in CO and others (the bulk of his body iirc) were discovered by a highway employee in FL.
Some members were strangely upset that anyone would even theorize that severe harm had come to this child.
But I'd suggest to them that there are many other forums to discuss true crime that only have media timelines and articles and do not allow for any speculation.
WS is not that type of forum.
We can hope that Suzanne is alive and well, but I fear the opposite as I don't believe she'd walk away from her girls.
It's unrealistic, imo, that any spouse would act as BM has behaved since May 10th.
And it's far more strange than just a head-scratching, "Well, that's odd."
There's been no urgency to find this lady outside of LE.
In one of Anne Rule's books ("Kiss me, kill me") she included the case of Julie Weflen whose husband searched and spent everything he had to find her.
For years.
Anne said it was one of the more difficult interviews she'd had, as she could sense his enormous grief and desolation. (paraphrased)
Not sensing a desperate need to find Suzanne outside of LE and complete strangers, and that's so tragic.
