Why are we so attached to the idea that Joseph was disabled in this thread?
Is it because of Martha's story, which Colleen Fitzpatrick herself has said is not linked to Joseph?
Can someone show me somewhere where historic or current LE or others linked to the actual investigation assert this is likely, or even possible?
Because I can't find it. And I fear we're attached to something because of Martha's story that we now know isn't Joseph's story.
And, as far as I can tell, all the pathologist/LE descriptions describe Joseph as beaten, emaciated, and with minor surgical scarring, possibly from infancy, but otherwise, normal.
I know not all disabilities show on the skin or the face. I'm multiply neurodivergent myself. But I do wonder if we're stuck on him being a hidden disabled child because we're looking for some kind of reason or justification, when the reality is, there's no justification for this, and there's every chance Joseph was a neurotypical, nondisabled child that was murdered for no reason at all, like so many of the precious children who have their own threads here on Websleuths.
EDIT: This is in no way cranky or trying to tell others what to post, I am just trying to understand why the 'he was disabled' idea keeps coming back around, when, as far as I can find, there's no evidence to suggest he was.