But seriously, the shadow of Salem falls all heavily over this case - and I pray to God that if I'm ever picked up for anything serious about 80% of the contributors to this thread, and the rest of the internet, are not on my jury - because, if they are, I'm absolutely fucked.
And, here's the rub, so are they - a society can be judged on how readily it finds sin in others, and whether is does so with facts or 'facts'.
I feel I must address this, as one of those who has quite a strong opinion on this case! You might not believe me, but I hate 'unsubstantiated rubbish' as much as you do... and a lot of the garbage in this case has been in the tabloid press, which unfortunately a lot of people read, and they get their 'facts' from there. And it frustrates me because people will so readily believe whatever they are told.
Look, I never take anything at face value with things like this. I read what I can about something (if it interests me enough to do so, that is) and I formulate my own opinions based on the information available. And what a lot of people perhaps don't realise in this case, is that as well as the tabloid/gutter press nonsense and wild internet speculation, there is a lot of research that has been done by certain people on certain forums and websites.
And yes... perhaps they're wrong. Who knows? Only a handful of people (maximum) really know what happened in this case. But the sort of information I'm talking about is not knee-jerk opinions, it is well thought out research that I have spent many, (many!) hours reading and more importantly, those people have spent a great deal of time compiling said research.
For what it's worth, out of the various opinions and theories I've read about, I have discounted many of them, (because as I said, I don't just believe everything I read); but there are a few that are at least plausible and worth further consideration/investigation. And what frustrates me is that the vast majority of the 'viewing public' have no idea that these inconsistencies in the case, and subsequent theories, even exist at all.
Okay, so the people doing this research are not the police and authorities, they're just... people with an interest in a case. Like there are countless sites and blogs dedicated to looking into lots of crimes, this isn't any different.
And I think it is perhaps unfair to insinuate that because some of us have looked into this research and have thought about it in depth and decided that some of the theories are at least
plausible, that we are somehow not fit to serve on a jury or what-have-you.
In fact, personally speaking, I would rather have someone on a jury who was able to weigh up and consider many different options and theories, and not just believe everything at face value.
Please do not lump us in with 'reactionaries' who fling insults and opinions about without substance.
That sounded very much like a rant and I didn't really want it to. We will agree to disagree on this, and no hard feelings, etc. I just wanted to get my point across.