I've seen you "vent" about this subject on multiple occasions now. Is it just because people are suspecting a person (JMB) that you already believe innocent, or are you just vehemently against any person being raised as a suspect, in general, at all?
I don't know what you're expecting. You're on a WM3 discussion board. From the looks of it, this isn't the only board you've belonged to -- and you've been around for a long time. You've discussed many facets of this case yourself, freely, without being chastised -- as you have now resorted to doing to others.
It seems to me you have no problem proclaiming certain "insinuations" about TWH, and freely bringing up his checkered past (as you do in that thread), but you have a problem here with people bringing up JMB's checkered past....
All due respect, the chastising just seems somewhat hypocritical and, quite frankly, unnecessary. If you disagree that JMB should be considered a suspect, fine -- but don't try to scold others for what everyone is and has been hypothesizing in this case, simply because you disagree.
Userid, I have no idea who you are, how long you have been interested in this case nor which other communities you have interacted on For all I know we may well have 'met' before.
You would appear to have followed quite a few of my posts - and even read them. I have never ever gone so far as to say that TWH is the murderer. It is not only a defamatory statement to make (unless I could and would prove it in a court of law) but, even worse, is that it reduces the chances of a fair trial. Not to mention that were the case still 'open' comments like that can carry contempt of court actions.
Whilst we value free speech here in the UK, it does not trump the presumption of innocence nor jeopardize the potential of a fair trial. Under English Common Law, after a crime has gone down and before anyone is charged or 'helping police with their enquiries', then curiosity and speculation can run riot. HOWEVER at the point when a potential trial might well be looming, all speculation in the public domain ceases, under threat of being held in contempt of court under the laws of sub judice. Nothing is then published until the trial starts and up-dates of what emerged in court are reported at the end of each session. This, effectively, reduces the likelihood of juror contamination and increases the chances of a fair trial. At no point does the horror of 'trial by media' have any status what so ever. Obviously broadsheets will have articles on points of law whilst tabloids will cover the more sensationalist aspects of a case.
I am pretty sure that Australia, too, has laws of sub judice on their statute books. America does not. The 'Freedom of speech' Amendment seems to trump all. I have even met some Americans on these boards who seem to think that we do not have freedom of speech over here just because it is not in the constitution - which we do not have in the way they do. Worth remembering that our laws evolved according to need over many, many years. Inspiration for the US Constitution was taken from our Magna Carta of the 13th Century.
Yes I will readily admit that, for me, TWH is so high on my list of suspects that I would, given the choice, thoroughly investigate him and exclude him before going on to re-investigate the whole case. BUT that is not saying that I am accusing him. Merely that, in my view, the probability that he is the killer is up in the 90's.
Thus, in my view, any other possible perp that is not involved with TWH, is only likely to be about 10% probability of being the killer.. talking in very broad terms here.
I have never 'proclaimed' the guilt of Hobbs, it is something I would be incapable of doing. I have expressed the opinion that parts of the manhole theory sound distinctly possible to me and that the bite mark work / theory is very compelling indeed as far as I am concerned.
Despite all I have learnt over the years, and even more so since 2007, I would love TWH to be positively excluded, as the idea of a parent being involved is so very abhorrent. It would be far more comfortable for many were a total stranger to have been the perp, just as it would be much 'nicer' were there no reports of possible child abuse and spousal abuse. As an alien I was brought up by the cinema screen to believe in the American Dream. Nice detached houses with white picket fences, white collar jobs and incomes in a nice clean and friendly community etcetera.. but life does not work like that. For any of us.
I also have no problems with those who may still consider JMB a likely suspect. However I would far prefer them to use logic to make their case rather than strong and emotionally laden language to present, in this instance, JMB. Just because they dislike the character as presented on film and in the media, the exposure of anger which, I guess, to them, might or might not be raw grief.
Furthermore if a person's character is forever to be judged on previous acts, usually bad, then any form of religion with redemption goes right out the window. In which case bring back vigilante justice and the concept of trying a kid as an adult must be OK. It clears Governor Perry of Texas for not wanting to exonerate that arsonist who allegedly caused a fire to kill his wife and kids and was executed for it; after all what is the point if the guy has already been executed? Sometimes it is extremely valid to bring up prior violations in a case when it comes to MO, that does not mean it should always be done. It is a similar argument to that old one about smoke one joint as a teen and you are bound to end up a heroin addict. That would be an argument for life sentences for a couple of joints - but then long sentences for drug offences are very likely in the US. But then many Departments of Correction seem to be run as corporate business and the bottom line out ranks humanity for some people and rehabilitation seems to be a dirty word.
I am sleep deprived due to the very extreme weather over her - so I know I am rambling a bit. I am sure, like Ausgirl, many do not see the 'hatred' that comes across in some of the posts. Hardly surprising as there is so much about nowadays and we are all looking at this case from differing perspectives.
Ausgirl you had, and have, every right to present each potential suspect, in your view, in isolation, if that is the way you would approach a case such as this. That is where we def differ. I would far rather whittle down any list by ranking, and then comparing, likelihoods along the way and gradually just be left with only a few potential perps. If I have not answered yur concerns adequately, then I will, in time, do a cut and paste of part of some of the posts which seem, to me, to be approaching 'hate speech'. Let me know. Did you get my pm?
Someone lauded a board that made a case for JMB, TWH and 'bojangles man' to have done it along with two others. Odd as, considering I thought they were a non board, it must leave one member of the wmfree, out of the mix.
Many things bug me, but not enough to post in a debate arguing a point that someone is a viable suspect.