Ed says
“I’d say it’s between 90 and 95 percent certainty that a child wrote the letters.
“and he says the evidence is that the writer learned how to write “R” sometime between writing the first letter and addressing the envelopes.”
Let me posit a different theory. In his February 2002 “profile” that the one accomplice was a drunk because he read a botched Brian Ross news account suggesting that the FBI suspected someone fellow who was mowing his lawn on 9/18 and got in an argument with his neighbor after drinking. See his profile using google archives (he changed it when I told him it was outrageous to fit his “profile” around the person he suspected).
He separately learned of a scientist in the field who went to the same university (but actually doesn’t know the mower). Ed saw a google item showing a listing for the PTA. (He first thought the scientist lived in NJ and then realized he was in NYC). So Ed developed his First Grader theory and became wedded to it. He passes it off as having been discerned from the “FACTS” when it is no more fact-based than his suggestion of the drinking.
I recently canvassed 30 First Graders at a birthday party. I put up Ed’s theory and supporting evidence on a powerpoint presentation. They are all pretty sure Ed did it. Ed, in contrast, has never even addressed Ken Dillon’s Jdey Theory.
You realize, I assume, that you are proving once again that you cannot discuss FACTS. If the FACTS disagree with what you believe, you just ridicule them and joke and pretend they mean nothing.
You also realize, I assume, that by turning the discussion into an ad hominem attack on me, that you are proving in another way that you cannot discuss FACTS.
Meanwhile, the FACTS remain FACTS. And they continue to say what they say.