Back in August (!), in one of your "weighty thoughts" posts, you concluded that this all meant there is one person they should talk with, and one place they should look.
Who? And where? The question was asked immediately.
Since then, you've done a lengthy dance to avoid the simple answer (if you have one, that is, which I am beginning to wonder). The simple truth is this: Nothing that could possibly happen in the case would keep you from clarifying who and where you were thinking of in August, when you made this declaration to us. It's a simple question, a simple answer, and excuses.
The idea that we should wait until all the planets align before you reply to something you made a big deal out of? It's humorous.
My opinions only, no facts here:
First, everything I previously said about the process of Discovery is VERY important to me, concerning my final interpretations of the Holly Bobo case. It is not a ruse or a delaying tactic. But that is neither here nor there, and I have explained this in more than one previous post.
You know, I have had at least a few "weighty thoughts" in my lifetime (your term about me) with my 30 peer-reviewed scientific publications (many worldwide) over three decades (with one national writing award) and around a thousand private technical papers and reports ("It's humorous" as you say)......But in a way, your hunches about me are still right, my career was built on developing interpretations/theories/hypotheses from a foundation of unassailable facts. In the Holly Bobo case, we may lack ANY unassailable facts because we are trapped between the ambiguities of the authorities and the rumors and myths of the internet. This is akin to the Rubaiyat, where Omar stands between the "desert" and the "sown". I published a piece of poetry once, but for the life of me, I cannot remember where. I only WISH I had written the Rubaiyat (if you are interested in the Rubaiyat, just read the 5th edition of the translation). But if you think for even a moment that actually publishing a single scientific paper is easy-peasy, just wait until you face the two or three reviewers (think about starving great white sharks) and the editor (think about god). Just saying. This also explains why I take no offense from your criticisms; I have heard greater criticism from reviewers who ACCEPTED my scientific paper for publication!!? The publishing world is most certainly a testing ground for resolve. But I align myself more closely with Mr. Spock: "you proceed from the wrong assumption; I have no ego to bruise".
You are understandably cynical and skeptical here, if not a tad acerbic (LOL-NOT: Laugh Out Loud, No Offense Taken) in your post to me, because you are frustrated like all of us here about the whole state of affairs. The authorities have barely given us crumbs about what they know. There are a zillion charged suspects (with more to come) and the criminal trials are way out there in the future somewhere, if ever. Further compounding the difficulties, this thread encompasses both factual posters who report news events and the like, AND theorists like me who deal in opinions. It is difficult to encompass both philosophical camps of thought on the same thread. There will naturally be some skirmishes. You are more interested in the substantial facts of the case and I am a theorist who immediately uses or abuses these facts to generate hypotheses. If there were a separate Holly Bobo site for theoretical investigations, I doubt that you would even be aware of me (except maybe for my timeline).
It is not just very touchy and delicate to directly bring up the name of a person as a hypothetical suspect who is not yet officially identified as a suspect, it is explicitly FORBIDDEN by Websleuths! Read their terms!! I assumed that all readers of this thread would immediately understand (from my 'one-place, one-person' statement) that while I cannot directly name a new "suspect" on Websleuths, I would explain my interpretations of the case well-enough that they could figure it out to their own level of satisfaction. So, I am telling my story, one part at a time (PART III yet to come), so the sleuthers here can try to identify a kidnapper that they are satisfied with. I have used this strategy on the Maura Murray case and the Jamison Family case for years (with a few complaints from fellow posters), but I prefer to believe that a few posters on those threads also now have a better view of who the actual perpetrator is in those two respective cases. I wrote the timeline for the McStay Family case, but have never been able to narrow that case down a specific perpetrator (this is possibly more complicated than the Holly Bobo case!). The Michelle Parker case is different. I wrote the timeline for that case too. Posters there were generally "hip" about the possible perpetrators from the beginning. So, there was nothing for me to relay to them in that regard. But about the location of the remains in that case.....that is another story that I may revisit soon, elsewhere.
OK, I have said all of this, and I hope that you now understand that I do not wish to be kicked off Websleuths for violating their policies. Here is what I can tell you now that is compliant with Websleuths' policies: there are two men of interest to me who ARE NOT named by officials as suspects or POI's and who likely fit Holly's brother's description of the kidnapper (about 5'10" and 200 pounds) and who could realistically possess sensible motives (and I favor one of them over the other). Some here may have heard of one of these men, and the other man may be unknown to most of you. I have the exact height and weight of one of them, but only an estimate of the second man's height and weight. I have researched both men; one has no? criminal record but an explosive personality and the other has a relevant criminal record and no personality. I tend to favor the man with the relevant criminal record. OK, now, about the "place". I explained this in an above post, but will expand on that here. I have posts going way-back on Websleuths about the burial site. I was torn between two locations north of Holly Bobo's home. At the time I made my (now infamous?! 'one-place, one-person' statement'), I favored a location near-to the settlement of Bible Hill. We now know that Holly's remains were ultimately discovered further north than this (but could have been moved, I suppose). My PART III post (The Gooch Road evidence) should help clarify some aspects that I have discussed here. The draft for that post is completed, but I am still editing it for clarity and reviewing the attachment. Old publishing habits die hard, and I admit to spending as much time on a Websleuths' post as if it had to meet publications requirements! (Think about circling and starving great white sharks with God standing in the background with a pronounced frown. That is the scientific publishing world. Try it out sometime, but only if you lack an ego, like Mr. Spock).
Sleuth On!
