http://www.postindependent.com/article/20120901/VALLEYNEWS/120839978
This, to me, is both concerning and telling, and makes my mind wander down a different path...
I think that Mom's theory of murder is entirely based in her conviction that Morgan would not commit suicide. If suicide is not considered a possibility, and M. did not die of natural causes, obviously the only possibility left is 'murder'. That seems like it was the only basis of her 'knowing' M. was murdered the first time she saw her.
But how to prove murder, when there is no evidence of a murder?
You have to work around that lack of evidence. (Or as someone earlier said, make the pieces fit the puzzle)
Hence, post after post design an elaborate theory of how and why someone could murder someone without leaving any clues. The lack of evidence itself becomes evidence of a super stealthy and diabolical stalker.
The weakest parts of the theory are when we get down to the obvious questions, like who would stalk Morgan? (there are accusations, but hardly any evidence that this person had any kind of relationship with her, let alone that he stalked her) Why would he kill her? (no motive) Why would he kill her at home with her family in the house, using her own medication? How could he do this and get away with it?
And the explanation for all of these questions too, becomes that he is a stalker. A super-stalker. So we come full circle in that no evidence is the evidence of this crime.
There are lots of references to actual 'evidence' of stalking and murder - but we haven't actually seen it (police and autopsy reports, stolen jewelry, videos). But what exactly are these evidence of? The people who have seen and produced them don't seem to consider any of this evidence of stalking or murder. But it is explained that they are either inept, corrupt, or both.
So far, the most convincing evidence are words that are repeated like "date rape drugs" and "felony stalking case" which assure us that there has got to be evidence of... something. But these latest posts are just more of the same - explaining what isn't there.
I don't think the Ingrams are being dishonest. I think they truly believe everything they are writing. I'm just seriously beginning to wonder if the blog could actually be telling a very different story, of a young woman's struggle with depression and possibly mental illness and a caring, loving family who believe, like most people, that just about all problems can be identified and fixed.
What if there was no stalker. (I'm not saying there wasn't, but just hypothetically)-- The story would be the same. Parents struggling to protect their daughter against something real and scary and dark that they knew was there, but could never actually see or name, and that they couldn't protect her from, no matter how hard they tried.
At least if there is a stalker, the terrifying experience can be named. A person can held responsible and punished. If that's the case, I hope we find more evidence and they are.
Just some thoughts on this really sad and confusing story.