I can speak regarding my thoughts. I knew that Jen would never leave willingly, GR knew that she would have never abandoned the children willingly.
Yet, there everyone was. Jen was missing. I was trying to imagine what could have happened. If Jen had left willingly she was out there and alive. If she hadn't left willingly, I don't think I need to expand on that. Yes, I wanted to believe that she left, not because I thought it was because she was a horrible person, but because it gave me hope she would return.
However, I would thinking about other scenarios. How would a woman driving to Syracuse vanish. It seemed unlikely that she stopped at a stop light and was car jacked. Please remember this was only thoughts in my mind, I'm not suggesting this is what happened. Also, I've admitted, the thought that GR was involved did not show up on my radar at all. So my I started imaging other scenarios. What would have made her stop somewhere else or meet someone else. If I assumed (thoughts in my head, not saying this was Jen's mental position) some scenarios based on things I did know. Example, I knew she was spending a lot of time on games. If she had been unhappy with the marriage, if even while trying to save the marriage was thinking about the possibility it wasn't going to be saved, if she was finding comfort talking to someone she met online. Then that gave me something that would explain what happened. If she was meeting someone and that person was not who he was claiming to be. That gave me a scenario.
There wasn't intent to say that is what happened, it simply gave me a plausible scenario that my mind could understand.
It wasn't planted or suggested by anyone, it was a purely conjecture.
I completely understand what you're saying here. This is, after all, pretty much what everyone does here, just that they do it about strangers. And you see it in the beginning of every single thread, the same questions:
'What was their home life like?'
'What's their online footprint?'
'Do they have a record?'
etc etc etc, and from there, people start having theories about what might be possible, what might fit.
I think it's perfectly understandable that you'd feel a little troubles, that what was, for you, a theory, (and I also understand that as a friend of Jen's husband you'd be far more reluctant to suspect him than, say, we woud be - I'd be the same with any of my friends, much as I'd like to believe I wouldn't be) just a basic idea, was being seen as proof of some kind of grand plan to discredit Jen from the early stages of her being missing.
Also, in the early stages of this case - I believe even at the time the article you were quoted in came out, people here were an awful lot less set in their theories than we are now.
However, I do think that everyone here has now spent several months (for some of us) hearing the same stories that paint Jen as someone who 'changed', was in some way a problem for her family, was overly invested in a gaming (which, as you say yourself, might be more the case of someone feeling she was, because they themselves were not, rather than anything that was actually a problem), would likely be found alive, etc etc etc. We heard very little else, for quite some time, and that didn't sit well with people here, who read a lot of cases.
And then we found out about the affair. Whether or not we 'needed' to know that doesn't really seem worth fighting over, to me, because we know, and lord knows we've enough drama on this board already. However....
IMO it's a horrible thing to do to someone. I realise it happens and we all make mistakes but I think if you're doing that with your wife's best friend, and it becomes public knowledge, you don't have much right to complain and act hard done by. Particularly when your wife is found dead. This is whether or not you had anything to do with her death.
Anyway, I guess I just wanted to say that while I do see where you're coming from, I think the out of context quotes in that article are really a very tiny part of why people here have the theories they do, and I'm not entirely sure why you're so keen to have us see what you really meant, as I highly doubt it's going to change anyone's opinion, at this point. Obviously, we're all ears when it comes to information about the case, but, sad as it may be, my ears have heard an awful lot of BS over this case, and as a result, have become quite wary of opening to the possiblity of more.
I hope you understand, as I don't mean this snarkily, just trying to explain how I feel.
