But the thing is that I am not unfamiliar with it. I see it all and still see an intruder. I think some of the evidence is definitely up to interpretation.
It is your opinion, that there is no intruder, It is my my opinion that it was an intruder. I believe that completely. Not just with blind faith or trust in a report, But reading the facts and interpretations of facts or evidence it still sits with me that there was someone other than the family that committed this crime.
I've looked at the other side and it just does not sit well with my soul.
Pirplegrl, thank you. You are living, breathing, posting proof that one can hold an opinion that is in the minority and not be hostile or defensive. You are polite, ask good questions and you made a particular statement that really grabs my heart: "I think some of the evidence is definitely up to interpretation."
I totally get this point of view. When I look back at things that I study in history, I have to look at the available evidence. I am looking at the same other evidence that other historians are using, and sometimes we simply do not agree. Oh, I'm not talking about people like Irving or Atweil or other self-styled historians who look at evidence and deliberately skew thier interpretation of evidence to fit their particular agenda, but I mean other scholars who may have a premise in mind, but who work within the evidence to go where that takes them, even if it means that the premise they originally had in mind isn't supported. I wrote a paper a few years back for one of my classes about Caligula and his alleged insanity. I looked at the same sources other historians use, and came to a slightly different conclusion (i.e. that Caligula was "crazy like a fox" and showed forethought of malice rather than just ordinary crackers due to the fever he suffered early in his reign.) I also consulted a physician who was interested in the subject and he led me to looking at the widespread prevalance in the use of lead in Roman waterworks and the affect that this could have on the brain, an area a few other historians have covered as well. So compared to many of my classmates, I had a different opinion. Historians also have to judge the reliability of source material itself. We have to look at factors like timing, agenda, background, etc. of the author. A good example is with someone like Suetonius. He was the "Kitty Kelly" of his day-- always good for a salacious story or wild tale. Yet we still have to use him for a source at times. When applicable, I would take the writing of other contemporaries of Suetonius with a bit more weight usually, unlesss for some reason I judge their postion or bias as perhaps not the most reliable for the aspect in question. Sources need to be looked at in context, and evidence as well. Currently I am toying with the idea of taking on the fires of Rome in 69CE as a future topic of research. I have a theory that is quite controversial-- only one or two other historians share my opinion, or aspects of that opinion. I expect to be told I am wrong, frequently and vociferously. But I am willing to give the exploration of my theory a go, and if the further evidence leads me away from what I currentlysuspect, so be it. But maybe it won't-- and like you, my minority view might be the right one.
That said, I appreciate that you put your ideas out there. I get that if something doesn't sit right in your gut, it is worth looking at. I'm not trying to change your mind or anything, I am just pleased that you expressed yourself so well. As I've said elsewhere and others have said-- we don't all have to agree. If done with the grace you have shown, re-examining all theories can add new info, take all of us in directions we may not have considered, or solidify aspects of our theories. Sure I am in the RDI camp, but my take on what happened to JBR is a bit different than what others think. But I still appreciate reading any & all theories to re-examine what I know, and what I think I know. I know I could be wrong, and my theories over the years about JBR have changed. Justice for JBR is my main goal, but I like the side lessons I get in this community: appreciating diversity of opinion, seeing the unflagging efforts of so many and getting inspiration from the tenacity of fine people in the name of justice, seeing that even though there can be disagreement, most people here value what I do: truth & justice.
So thank you again.
