So, I probably won’t be popular around here. I don’t have any pet theories or pet suspects. I think those have largely been exhausted, and charging up a new mountain every year or two is counterproductive. The tl;dr version is: I’m a naysayer.

Trying to match suspects to the known evidence is pretty risky. Sure, you can’t legally defame the dead but that doesn’t mean they deserve to be dragged through the squallor of being tied to serial murder. So my interest here is seeing where the evidence points rather than any popular name that kind of points back to the evidence when you squint. The letters may be good for some print/DNA evidence and, eventually, for handwriting analysis. I think the ciphers are totally worthless; certainly, they haven’t proven helpful in over 45 years, even the solved ones. I don’t care, at all, about the suspects. To me, it’s all about physical evidence from each confirmed crime scene and where that leads — not who can’t absolutely be excluded from a crime scene and wore a size 10 1/2 shoe. Too much time has passed for that to be effective.

Somehow, someway, I think it all has to move forward from prints and possibly DNA. What that looks like and how long it would take, I have no idea. But you’d need them to conclusively identify the killer anyway, so why not start there and exhaust every possible option? So that’s what I’ll be doing here: Looking at fingerprint talk. Pretty exciting guy.