1. No I'm not holding CR to a higher standard. All I really want to hear is how the boys were subdued. Without some clear, plausible answer for how they were subdued, why should anyone even entertain the theory as possible?
If it is true that the alleged torture wounds to their skins were actually animal predation, then subduing the children may have not been that difficult, not if they were confronted by a parental figure.
You see, where this manhole theory fails is it requires that the killer has gone searching for the boys having taken a gun to what would for the step-parent amount to fetching a child needing a spanking.
Sometimes a theory hurts itself by being too detailed. A gun might have been used, but I don't think the theory depends on it.
How do we get from a parent intent upon disciplining a child to a parent toting a gun to do so? It also would change the offense to one of premeditated murder if that were the case. In addition, supporters tend to think the step-parent just went overboard, and accidentally killed his step-son, then had to kill the other 2. Thus the theory, as it stands, is unworkable, IMO. The reasoning or reasonableness of the actions has to be there in order for a theory to be plausible. If A, then B, and so on. If not, throw out the theory, find another, and develop it.
I know how logic works, but here you neglect to say WHY you find the out-of-control stepparent implausible. Such crimes by parents are thousands of times more common than Satanic killings.
Since you mention it, yes, it is possible that TH got so pissed he premeditated murdering his stepchild. (He certainly thought it was something the child's mother should "just get over", so no big deal.) But I think people are reluctant to include the notion in a theory because there is no way to prove it.
What Ziggy brought up, the boys being subdued inside the home is by far, the more plausible of the two. Again, I'd like to know how one man is able to control the other two while he's busy with the first.
If the boys are stunned quickly enough (by being struck), they might be subdued before they recovered. Or maybe TH scared them enough that they cooperated until they were subdued and could no longer resist. It's certainly more likely they cooperated with an authority figure they knew than with strangers.
2. I've given my theory before. I was simply restating how the boys may have been subdued. Did not Misskelley say, Damien grabbed one, Jason grabbed one, and he grabbed one, but his got away so he had to run him down? I guess I don't see the conflict, sticking with the act of subduing, alone.
I believe you are right that JM's "confession" puts each child with one of the teens, at least at times.
We can address the alibis that don't hold water on another thread.
Fair enough. To my memory, there are slight inconsistencies, but basically they were ignored because it was assumed that relatives were biassed in favor of the defendants.
3. I'm using torture in the context of wounds inflicted by an outside, living source, human or animal. A fall wouldn't constitute torture in that sense. We are discussing repetitive shallow wounds to the bodies of 3 eight year olds, not an instance or two of a couple of stray marks, so please stick with the victims.
Actually, if you look back at your post, the way you put it was that as long as the victim was living, all wounds were "torture." (Which is why I gave the contrary example of a fall.) But perhaps I read your remarks out of context.
Some, including some experts, believe what you are calling "repetitive injuries" are in fact "road rash" and the result of being dragged, pushed or pulled over pavement.
But if indeed there was torture (i.e., injuries inflicted over time just for the purpose of causing pain), then I wonder why nobody heard the boys screaming. For screaming they would have been, unless they were unconscious. And what self-respecting sadist tortures an unconscious victim? Rather defeats the purpose, don't you think?