In debates a straw man is used in this way, that's correct. I think it's based on the same idea - a fictional character. A straw man is just something that represents an idea or archetype but not a real human being. I think that sums up your personal hypothesis with this intruder. Since this term could be construed as confusing, though, I'll say fictional character.
Basically, the way I see it, your intruder is perfectly suited to everything for this crime because you are using 20-20 hindsight when creating him. Why is there so much confusion? Your char wanted there to be confusion. Problem solved. Why is there cover-up staging if an intruder did it? Your intruder was just this type of guy. The kind of guy who enjoys toying with the police. Why isn't his DNA in CODIS already considering he enjoys messing with the police AND the FBI? This guy only did it once, I guess you're trying to say, and pulled it off perfectly. Or he is flat out amazing and does this a lot and never gets caught. Doesn't matter. Fictional intruder can be whatever suits IDI.
You even claimed he had OCD which is why he put the pen and pad back. If you based this on an actual person (an as of yet unidentified serial killer, or a person familiar to Ramsey's and therefore 'web sleuths' like us) then we could all talk about whether or not this person fits. But it doesn't matter. Fictional char fits whatever you need him to fit. If he needs OCD or needs to be a neat freak, okay sure! Why not? If it were a real person we could at least analyze and say, hmmm Mr. XYZ doesn't seem to be a neat freak but maybe he is someone who has shown unhealthy obsessions with children/killing/whatever. Then everyone would have something to work with and we'd all be able to discuss this suspect.
And you know, if there were messes all over the house, too, you'd have some explanation for that. He's fictional, so I can even do it. I'd say, fictional intruder had a split personality. Messy sometimes, neat other times. It's easy. I can make up fake stories all day long. But it doesn't help solve this case, and it doesn't help bring justice to JBR. It only serves to help get the Ramsey's off the hook.
The way you connect the dots reminds me of tin foil hat conspiracy theorists. I am not saying this is what you are at all. You don't seem to go off on tangents about the government or anything. But one of the big problems I see with your case theory is that it holds about as much water as the people who say the moon landing is fake. They explain away every single thing presented to them and connect the dots in such a bizarre way that you just have to shake your head in disbelief, you know? I mean for the pineapple digestion you have said that JBR caught a stomach bug that, miraculously, was just barely starting right when it needed to start, but showed no other symptoms whatsoever except for slowed digestion. That's just one example of how far one has to go to connect the dots in the same way that you are connecting them.
Anyway, this is not meant to be an attack on you personally. This is, however, meant to debate your theory and the entire thought-process behind the theory.
A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument which was not advanced by that opponent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
For example, Andreww, you wrote that I even claimed he had OCD which is why he put the pen and pad back.
Wrong. I wrote
BBM, Some have suggested that the killer may have had some sort of OCD and so he put things away just because he had to. Thats a pretty simple explanation, too. This could work for me,
but if we use my theory of intent as a key, the notepad and the pen (and the so-called practice note, the brush end of the paintbrush in the tote, and the handle on the garrote); even the body hidden in the wc)
were all used and put where they were found for the same reason: for investigators to find.
See, no ocd for my guy, You saying that my guy had ocd is a misrepresentation of what I actually said, YOU just created a Straw Man, by refuting an argument that I never made.
Ill repeat:
but if we use my theory of intent as a key, the notepad and the pen (and the so-called practice note, the brush end of the paintbrush in the tote, and the handle on the garrote); even the body hidden in the wc)
were all used and put where they were found for the same reason: for investigators to find.
You wrote, why is there so much confusion? And, then you say that I created a character who wanted there to be confusion.
Bzzzt. Wrong, Straw Man. I never said these things, either. In fact, I dont think things are confusing at all. And, I never said that my character wanted there to be confusion. What I am proposing REMOVES the confusion and proposes a single intent behind virtually every act committed. If there is confusion, then IMO it results from thinking RDI.
One last Straw Man: you wrote that I said that JBR caught a stomach bug that, miraculously, was just barely starting right when it needed to start, but showed no other symptoms whatsoever except for slowed digestion. In fact, I offered 5 or 6 pineapple scenarios of which this is only one; and, I have often said that my preferred scenario has jbr eating the pineapple about 30 minutes before she was attacked. I often argue that this (the pineapple) is an area of great uncertainty.
Criticism is welcome and when properly applied beneficial; but, you guys need to start criticizing what Im actually saying. If you dont understand what Im saying, ask for clarification.
AK
