K777angel
Member
Those of us who are not fence-sitters and have a #1 theory of who we think killed JonBenet Ramsey and/or covered it up, for the most part have not come to this opinion lightly and without much thought. For myself, I have truly tried to be objective in evaluating all known facts and evidence in order to come to the opinion that I hold. It has changed over the years - but not in a very long time.
What I'd like to know is, even if you feel quite certain about your theory - what facts or circumstances, if any, in the case might you put in the "but on the other hand" column? I think if you are truly objective, you will be able to be honest that there are things in the case that you can cite that might counter your theory. Even if there is but one.
Keep in mind, in EVERY murder case there are circumstances and 'evidence' that might "appear" to be exculpatory - but in fact really have nothing to do with the crime at all. (And in some cases the perp just got very, very lucky that this was the case when they were in fact guilty as **** and ended up getting off (Like OJ Simpson). So listing any doubts or potential exculpatory circumstances does NOT mean your theory is invaldidated. Any true detective will be able to be very objective about a case realizing this.
Could you list your theory and then, in a spirit of objectivity list any reasons/facts that you admit could take away from that theory - or any theory for that matter.
Thanks! I'll post mine later.
~Angel~
What I'd like to know is, even if you feel quite certain about your theory - what facts or circumstances, if any, in the case might you put in the "but on the other hand" column? I think if you are truly objective, you will be able to be honest that there are things in the case that you can cite that might counter your theory. Even if there is but one.
Keep in mind, in EVERY murder case there are circumstances and 'evidence' that might "appear" to be exculpatory - but in fact really have nothing to do with the crime at all. (And in some cases the perp just got very, very lucky that this was the case when they were in fact guilty as **** and ended up getting off (Like OJ Simpson). So listing any doubts or potential exculpatory circumstances does NOT mean your theory is invaldidated. Any true detective will be able to be very objective about a case realizing this.
Could you list your theory and then, in a spirit of objectivity list any reasons/facts that you admit could take away from that theory - or any theory for that matter.
Thanks! I'll post mine later.
~Angel~