I was thinking about this topic more generally a while ago. There are of course different types of people on websleuths and one major distinction, I think, are between what I might call the creatives and the analyzers. The creatives, it seems to me, like to use their imaginations to generate scenarios, and they often favour whatever scenario would lead to optimistic outcomes (although there's a subset who prefer the more negative options of conspiracy, etc). They then see how the scenario fits the case, and maybe go looking for evidence to bolster it.
The analyzers don't generate scenarios so much as look closely at whatever evidence is available, and try to draw conclusions from it that create more or less reliable scenarios.
So for myself as an analyzer, examining the evidence is what I do. If there's no evidence available (because of course LE don't share it), then I don't post.
The fact that a bunch of public domain evidence became available written by the ex-spouse is probably why a whole lot of people began posting about her. Most of it was around what her statements actually meant, since they were very indirect. To me, none of it provides reliable evidence about anything to do with the murder.
