You did exactly the thing I asked you to NOT do. You hammer at the weakest evidence like a defense lawyer, instead of looking at the strongest evidence as someo

You did exactly the thing I asked you to NOT do. You hammer at the weakest evidence like a defense lawyer, instead of looking at the strongest evidence as someone looking for the truth should do. The author making the case is not on trial here. The goal is to look PAST how he "makes himself look" and consider the actual interesting things. The interesting things are, to repeat: * The guy appears to have indirectly admitted to murdering more than one person, in connection to events "vaguely similar" to the drugging of a child (his own words). * The circumstances he describes during that admission match up with a domestic violence incident described by his daughter, on the day the first killing happened. * The guy, unlike all the other proposed candidates, has not been ruled out as a fingerprint match. You understand how this is more important, right? Your - or the author's - eyeballing of sketches and symbols could easily be wrong, it's low quality evidence either way. Being present in range of the crime scene, at the time of the crime, with killing more than one person and a likely motive admitted to in writing is NOT low quality evidence. That's "oh dear, this needs to be looked into" evidence.