I don't think that, nor did I suggest as much. For demonstration purposes I'll say: I feel like people here will either partake in thorough consideration of the body of evidence as a whole, wave their hands at it wildly to defend their positions of faith, or neglect careful consideration to sit on the fence while imagining it to be some sort of high horse. Now I haven't accused you of anything with that statement, but given the fact that you're the only fence sitter who's recently been participating in this thread, my inclusion of that third category is an obvious allusion to you, much like your claim of "one side will forever parrot police documents" was an obvious allusion to me. Granted, I would never suggest you will
forever sit on the fence while imagining it to be some sort of high horse, as I'm in no place to say what your future holds, and hence can't rightly justify that disparaging insinuation.
Your statement made it clear that you were not aware of the police records which were provided as sources (bolding mine):
As I demonstrated in
my responseto your curiosity, WM3 Truth does cite their sources when they initially address the timeline of Misskelley's first confession, with links to official documents at the Callahan archives. Did your academic background not teach you that claims substantiated by sources can be repeated later without repeat citations, and hence one must read an argument from the beginning to end before assuming claims were made without proper citation?
Furthermore, your claim that people who don't believe the aforementioned documents will find a way to refute them assumes that such a means exists, or perhaps can be willed into existence. Did your academic background not enlighten you to the fact that while anything can be disputed with at least faulty arguments if not legitimate ones, some things simply can't be refuted?
I'm nearly certain that I'm far newer to this case than you, but given your arguments I've have serious doubts that you've assessed the evidence to anywhere near the extent which I have. That said, I just put considerable time into addressing your contentions in
this thread, and I hope you might might respect the fact that I'd prefer to see how you respond to that before I take the time to work my way through your arguments here.
Yet rape does not require ejaculation, internal or otherwise, and the rape described by Misskelley suggests only external ejaculation. As for tearing, while that's certainly common in cases of rape, a lack of tearing does not preclude the possibility of rape.
Nor have I suggested any such an argument.
Nor do I have any interest in doing anything of the sort, which is why for example I've acknowledged the fact that there's no conclusive evidence of sodomy in this case, any why I've never claimed any of the boys were raped. That said, what is one to make of your claim that Echols and Baldwin "barely knew" Misskelley, along with your lack of acknowledgment of the evidence to the contrary which I presented to you. Can you explain that as anything other than cherry-picking?