BlueCrab said:
Solace,
UKGuy can certainly effectively defend himself and his theories, but I'd like to interject something here because it can affect all of us. We are talking mostly about opinions and theories when we discuss the JonBenet murder. We base these opinions and theories around credible pieces of evidence as we percieve them.
For instance, I myself have at least a half dozen different BDI theories because I don't have all of the facts, so I have to invent them and call them opinions and theories. I purposely didn't enter a theory on the "Theory" thread for this very reason; I didn't want to get locked into one theory.
UKGuy did the same thing when he threw in the possibility of sodomy in response to how the pants got soiled. He shouldn't be locked into that opinion by others; he didn't claim it to be a fact -- just something for others to consider if they want.
Discussing the JonBenet murder, IMO, is akin to brainstorming. Opinions and theories should be encouraged; and then challenged with credible counterpoints when appropriate.
BlueCrab
The keyword in your post is credible. Of course UK can throw something out there, but lets be realistic - the possibility of JonBenet being sodomized and then going off to celebrate Christmas without a trace of blood being found on her two days later is stretching and reaching, for what I don't know. It serves only to sensationalize, nothing more. She is 6 years old. You don't think someone would have noticed something? And saying "I don't feel pretty does not cut it with me". It may with Eagle. But I think we are going to get a little more than that from a six year old who has just been sodomized. Something is going to show.
BlueCrab, I understand your post and I understand that it takes different theories, but I also understand that sensationalizing for the sake of sensationalizing defeats the power of discussion.
We are supposedly dealing with the facts of this case and only the facts not a theory that has no basis at all. But when Ames post something as interesting as "Patsy did not move off the couch when Fleet White yelled "call an ambulance", that is something that is very very interesting. John had stated that they were as low as a human could go without dying. Well if there were a scintilla of a possibility that that pain she felt would be abated when she heard "call an ambulance" which to me would mean, she's alive, I know that a parent would come running. She did not.
To post a theory that there may have been a sex ring, that there is an outside faction involved, that soiled pants may connote sodomy, is sensationalism and without something to back it up that will STAND UP to reasoning is futile.
That is my opinion. That is how I feel. I feel Patsy did this thing; I feel she wrote the note; I feel John aided and abetted in this. I feel it was an attack of blind rage and you know what, that happens all the time and the reason we do not know is because that idiot, Detective Arndt, let John do as he pleased and then she moved the body and on and on.
That is how I feel Blue Crab. And of course you are entitled to your opinion, I just happen to disagree that there is a major conspiracy and that websleuths is in someway involved because you cannot name a name. It is totally illogical to assume that. We know for a fact that the Ramseys sue ad nauseaum. Would you not expect Websleuths to protect themselves?
