Acting hostile to anyone who questions the WM3's innocence does not equal the WM3 being completely off limits, which is the opinion you projected onto supporters. I can't speak for supporters you have encountered on other forums, but its never been the case here that the WM3 are off limits, indeed most threads in this sub forum are discussing the WM3.
Again, Cher did not dismiss RC's statement. She made the assertion that just because RC debunked part of JCB's story doesn't mean his statement debunks the Ballard sighting. I don't agree with her as it happens, IMO RC's statement casts as much doubt on the Ballard sighting as is necessary to discount it. However, even though I don't agree with her, its not fair to accuse her of trying to sweep it under the rug - she did no such thing, she simply doesn't draw the same conclusions from RC's statement as I do.
People are allowed to have different opinions without being accused of hypocrisy, witch hunting, sweeping things under the rug or placing the WM3 completely off limits. And that includes people who think TH is guilty, a group of which I'm not one.
After reading this discussion, I've tried to pick out the shortest part that reflects my post. Thanks Cappuccino for your clear intellect. I am very sorry that Userid and I have a complete different way of thinking. This has become obvious after 4 years on this board, and the same amount of time on another board. Some rivers are just too wide to build a bridge across.
Just to clarify the matter, RC denies the interactions with JB, meaning the walk from school and the meeting in school the day after, that is his recollection of things. OK he says it didn't happen, JB says it did happen, that's his word against hers. Who has more credibility ? Decide yourself.
On this part of JB's statement, Ryan can deny, debunk, call JB a liar if he wants, because he was a part of the interaction that took place. He or Bob Ruff can't declare that the sighting by JB and her relatives later in the evening is not true, because they were not present at time and place.
To say that this part of the statement is not true because the other part is not true, well that sounds to me like someone's trying to "sweep JB and her relatives sighting under the rug"
Of course JB's statement can be inaccurate in parts or even as a whole, there is no denying that.
I believe that JB's sighting took place, I have my reasons, I've relayed them more than often. If something comes up which proves that it is not reasonable to believe the JB statement, I will be the last to let go. I don't see any reason yet.
A few other points, I'm not on a witch hunt, I don't hate TH, and as Cappuccino said it's not gonna be nice if he's innocent, although he has mostly himself to blame just as JMB's woes were mainly self-inflicted. I've studied this case for four years now, and with my knowledge and a lot of analysis and recherché I've formed "my" opinion, which doesn't mean I don't respect anyone elses opinion.
Oh and finally, though my name doesn't suggest it, I am a "fellah". It doesn't cause me any discomfort to be called "her" though, just for the record.