In the article, it mentions the sale of the hotel was recorded in '69, while the journal starts in '66. Meanwhile, the local police have no record of the murde

In the article, it mentions the sale of the hotel was recorded in '69, while the journal starts in '66. Meanwhile, the local police have no record of the murder, unsolved or otherwise. It's possible those discrepancies could be explained, but the author left them in there to likely indicate he believes the voyeur's account is a mix of fantasy and reality. Which gives it dubious value as a research document, ignoring the ethics of how it was collected. Which in turn makes it difficult to rationalize the way in which the data was collected, if the data is of no value.