Why do you think anyone on this site hasn't looked at all possibities? Most of us have read more than one book on the case and read much of the available statements, interviews, etc.
I see posters constantly saying they used to think one way then the evidence in the case changed their mind. But even if that weren't true, there's no reason to think anyone came to an opinion without serious thought.
bbm
What evidence are you talking about?
Really? I guess we're reading different threads then because I see people repeating the same argument over and over again. And I see a lot of IMO illogical reasoning based on bias against Patsy Ramsey. If you are basing a conclusion on gossip about how Patsy acted at one event and then pretending this indicates anything more than how Patsy acted at one event, it's biased.
When people use logical fallacies like "I don't believe it" or "When I was a kid I never did that" or "My kids don't do that" or "I don't like how she acted as a Pageant Mom" as a lens through which to evaluate evidence, then it's biased.
And since people have pointed this out over and over again and people refuse to try to look at it a different way, then it doesn't seem like people want to consider different ways of examining information.
Also if most of the information you've come by is through gossip rags, like the National Enquirer, (which I've seen referenced several times) then it doesn't seem like people want to actually examine the puzzle in a different way.
I haven't seen anything new or fresh. I've seen the same arguments over and over again.
I used to use this anecdote to explain what I mean by "looking at it a different way"
Many years ago I worked in a restaurant that served Tiramisu as a desert. It came in these huge trays that you had to tap down and then peel the top off of. One of the waitresses I worked with forgot to tap it down and when she peeled off the top she peeled off the top layer of coating. She then grabbed raw espresso and sprinkled it over the top. I came in to see her doing this and told her she was wrong. It wasn't espresso it was supposed to be cinnamon. She insisted it wasn't cinnamon it was espresso. We both went round and round in the debate until the owner walked in. He told us we were BOTH wrong, it was cocoa. But the entire time we'd just both assumed our answer was correct. And we were both wrong.
I see many people trying to look at the evidence from a different perspective. I don't know what happened. I've asked people to line up the evidence in a way that makes the theories being discussed easy to analyze. Instead we get jumping back to the biases. Like I said before, I posted a theory that maybe Patsy did it. I don't think she's necessarily innocent. But I do know that it's probably a totally different scenario than has been discussed because the case still remains UNSOLVED. So IMO the key is to shuffle the puzzle pieces around and look at it from a different perspective.
Key in doing that IMO is only looking at the evidence. A small example is the fingerprints on the bowl. If the fingerprints on the bowl show Patsy's hand was holding the bowl, then it's clear she is the one who put the bowl on the table. I do think however, that three fingerprints is not enough fingerprints to clearly indicate that she picked it up, moved it to a counter, filled it with both pineapple and milk, and then picked it up again. IMO there would be more fingerprints. So I'm cautious and wonder if they could have gotten on the bowl simply from putting it from the dishwasher into the cabinet.
To me it not's not a contest to win the debate, it's about figuring out the truth. I'm willing to be wrong and to see it a different way. Actually there's nothing about me being "wrong" per se because I have no set theory on what happened. The truth is we still haven't figured it out.
I'm answering because you asked. But I'm not going to reply again to this line of questioning. But I do appreciate you asking.
