Most people are not arguing against the suicide theory, at least most people discussing Maura here currently are very open to the possibility. What at least a few of us are arguing against is your conclusion that the "facts" point to nothing else. You are not budging on your belief but to make your point you: 1. regurgitate the same tired interpretations of her actions as fact and 2. ridicule any other interpretation of the facts. There is a lot of substance to other theories if you take one step further back and start with only the fact, not someone's interpretation of that fact.
For example: the Note left on the boxes. The fact is that there was some form of printed matter left on top of boxes in her dorm room that turned out to be an email from Billy to Maura. That is the only part that is fact.
Your interpretation (based on someone else's interpretation in whole or in part): A very personal note (that would cause embarrassment for her and her boyfriend) to be found by whomever it was that would first encounter her dorm room.
(I know it was alleged to contain some discussion about Billy's infidelity but the public has not seen it, so I wouldn't consider it a known fact)
Alternate interpretation: (I would not consider a printed copy of ANYTHING as "very personal", that's a bit dramatic, but I digress,) She decided to toss Billy aside with the rest of them and hit the road to her new life. It may have contained some personal information but was just a reminder to Billy of his infidelity (I like this part and will use it in my interpretation) and what he just lost. Maura left it there as a final "**** you " to a cheating lying shithead of a boyfriend. Adios amigo!!
Can you see that the same fact can be interpreted in at least 2 different ways? Can you see that taking a different track still fits with the very few facts we know? I am sure an interpretation could be made about this same fact to cover other scenarios. Lop off all the prior interpretations and editorializing of the few known facts and it opens the door to many other theories.
I know you will wait for Fireweed to respond to this before you acknowledge it, (weird), but please do not go all sarcastic and condescending about it. This is a real thing noticed by many. As much as you want to toe the suicide line, other ideas exist and they have merit.
I guess I really (honestly) don't see myself as towing the suicide line (and that is what frustrates me the most and makes me feel like I constantly have to defend and answer for myself).
If I am at all "married" to something concerning this case, it would be my interpretation of the facts/information of the case (which then leads me to the suicide theory).
Maybe that is the same thing.
But I don't see it that way.
I would have no trouble jumping theories, if something new developed or some piece of information came out that clarified an issue.
But I have been firm in my place for many years now, because what I have interpretated has led me down one path and nothing has come along to sway be back another direction.
I honestly believe that is how "real" investigations work too (maybe I'm wrong).
Investigators, I would like to think, don't pick a theory right from jump and then go out and try to solve their case working in the constraints of their theory.
They only start with what evidence they have and they let that evidence grow and lead (in a more natural way) to an actual theory. They don't dictate the theory of what happened, their research and evidence unveils the theory to them.
I seem outspoken against other theories, because they seem to follow that example I just gave.
The approach is, let's come up with a theory right from jump (like Maura ran away to start a new life) and we'll try and twist the information around that is known about the case to fit our theory.
My approach (at least I believe I have done it) was never to work off a theory when doing research.
I scooped up as much information as I could, analyzed interviews of family members in the press, made notes of conflicting information and the origins of that confliciting information, to try and pinpoint down the truth, went back and conducted a pair of interviews myself with people involved in the case, just to try and nail down clarification of factual information etc etc..
None of that stuff was done (by me I swear) with suicide being in the back of my mind as this is what had to have happened to Maura.
Once I processed everything, really tried to understand where everyone was coming from in this case (in other words, not just taken their words as fact), then the suicide theory, I guess you could say, developed.
I originally believed Maura succumbed to the elements.
That was my first instincts after my first attempt at learning about the case.
But what I quickly found out was that there were a lot of conflicting information out there, and what actually pulled me in more (to want to spend time on this case) was not wanting to prove out a theory, but I just wanted to be the person that would go through and straighten out all the details of the case to make it less confusing for everyone else.
And somehow in the end, this is where its at.
The whole rub is that on one hand I do feel confident I have done my due diligence in researching this case, much like someone who is studying for an exam, who put in a lot of time and feels confident that they will not be surprised come test day.
On the other hand, I could have interpretated the "facts" wrong.
But with so many things at least that could possibly point to suicide in this case, (and yes one could argue point for point on each suicidial indicator that I have mentioned) where there is smoke, there is usually fire.
And there are too many things that have to be explained away (IMO) when it comes to the suicide theory.
And I can't see that in any other theory that I have heard about this case.
