I'll give you that...at least in the beginning of a case.
As I said before, I have seen it where many posters immediately suspect parents, etc, due to past cases, but that does not usually last when facts trickle out. And, at this stage of the game with a crime like this I have never seen the majority of seasoned posters be wrong.
Yes, some posters jump to conclusions based on faulty assumptions, or, as you have seemed to infer in other posts, based on emotion, a sense of wanting to be part of a group, or from a place of anger or suspicion, rather than logic.
Yet, they are not the majority at websleuths. Most of the posters here are seasoned true crime researchers or amatuer sleuths or people with some connection to crime, such as those with law enforcement connections, search and rescue connections, missing persons or missing children's group memberships, crime victims, victim advocates, lawyers, paralegals, bounty hunters, etc. People on here do ALOT of work researching, investigating and actually solving real crimes, not just sitting at a computer and bantering with anonymous others.
Webslueths has a great reputation. LE have been on this site, participating, so have people like Mark Klaas, true crime writers, etc. Most of us approach these cases with logic, knowledge and experience. Thus, it begins to be wearing when a person joins the site, tells all that we are operating with illogic and that our conclusions are founded in faulty assumptions or on nothing more than suspicion, emotion and sinister mind sets and yet brings nothing much to the table him or herself that shows us our logic is completely faulty.
Look, there is often debate on websleuths. It makes it fun and it can help solve cases. Further, there is always the chance that the majority is wrong about the major issues as to guilt or innocence. Not much of a chance IMO in this case, especially when certain seasoned sleuthers have examined it and have essentially come to the same conclusions as the majority, but I respect that the majority could be proven wrong.
Nevertheless, based on the vast experience and intelligence at WS it can feel insulting when it is inferred that we are not canny enough to think independently from our own biases or when our collective experience is dismissed.
Plainly, experience -knowledge about human behavior, criminal behavioral patterns,crime scenes, crimes and good ol' gut instinct - is a huge, huge part of what great investigators use to solve cases. IMO, this is a pretty special website with some pretty incredible people working very hard to reduce crime and put the bad guys away.
So, I myself tend to truly respect the insights and experience of its members or at least consider that there is some basis in logic to what people are concluding, rather than thinking that people are too clouded with assumptions and biases to see the truth.
My two cents.