Post by Drifter on Apr 27, 2017 0:19:14 GMT
Either today or sometime in the next couple of days some of you are going to be reading about comments made by Paul Holes. His comments are basically theories and opinions about the EAR.
I have already read his comments, and I can tell you that with one exception, none of his opinions/theories help much in the identification of the EAR.
Basically, Holes has looked at the map diagram retrieved from the Danville site, talked with architects and home builders, and concluded that the author of the map worked in the new home construction business.
Holes then goes on to extrapolate that information to the EAR and concludes the EAR was working in that industry during the Sac EAR crimes. That may be correct.
Or it may not be correct.
There are two problems with his theory. First, Holes has not connected the author of the map to the East Area Rapist. It's just Holes' theory that the map author is the EAR.
Second, in focusing on just one industry, and one piece of evidence, Holes has neglected to analyze other evidence that supports alternate theories that the EAR was in some other industry or occupation. For example, his theory would rule out the medical profession. In other words, Holes exhibits classic tunnel vision.
I write this blurb as a heads-up to posters here, because people generally are almost always gullible to the ideas and theories of EAR case celebrities, and Holes is most assuredly a case celebrity. People invariably say ... "well, so-n-so [celebrity] said said such-n-such", so it must be true and factual.
But given the new info Holes has relayed, I can tell you that he is making a leap in logic >>> just because the author of the map diagram may have been in the building industry does not mean the author is the East Area Rapist. Local LE had access to this map for years and years, and never concluded that it belonged to the EAR. So either Holes is wrong in his assumption about the map, or LE was negligent in sitting on this evidence and not pursuing it ... one or the other.
The exception, noted above, is a comment Holes makes about the EAR's age. Without going into detail, he infers that the EAR was older than most people assume.
All of the information provided by Holes, including his age theory, appears to be circumstantial, and his theories are no more credible than other theories I have seen. But since he is a case celebrity, people are going to give extra weight to his new comments.
And I will be deliberately hard on posters here who take his opinions and theories at face value and assume they equate to fact. They do not.
Drifter
I have already read his comments, and I can tell you that with one exception, none of his opinions/theories help much in the identification of the EAR.
Basically, Holes has looked at the map diagram retrieved from the Danville site, talked with architects and home builders, and concluded that the author of the map worked in the new home construction business.
Holes then goes on to extrapolate that information to the EAR and concludes the EAR was working in that industry during the Sac EAR crimes. That may be correct.
Or it may not be correct.
There are two problems with his theory. First, Holes has not connected the author of the map to the East Area Rapist. It's just Holes' theory that the map author is the EAR.
Second, in focusing on just one industry, and one piece of evidence, Holes has neglected to analyze other evidence that supports alternate theories that the EAR was in some other industry or occupation. For example, his theory would rule out the medical profession. In other words, Holes exhibits classic tunnel vision.
I write this blurb as a heads-up to posters here, because people generally are almost always gullible to the ideas and theories of EAR case celebrities, and Holes is most assuredly a case celebrity. People invariably say ... "well, so-n-so [celebrity] said said such-n-such", so it must be true and factual.
But given the new info Holes has relayed, I can tell you that he is making a leap in logic >>> just because the author of the map diagram may have been in the building industry does not mean the author is the East Area Rapist. Local LE had access to this map for years and years, and never concluded that it belonged to the EAR. So either Holes is wrong in his assumption about the map, or LE was negligent in sitting on this evidence and not pursuing it ... one or the other.
The exception, noted above, is a comment Holes makes about the EAR's age. Without going into detail, he infers that the EAR was older than most people assume.
All of the information provided by Holes, including his age theory, appears to be circumstantial, and his theories are no more credible than other theories I have seen. But since he is a case celebrity, people are going to give extra weight to his new comments.
And I will be deliberately hard on posters here who take his opinions and theories at face value and assume they equate to fact. They do not.
Drifter
