There is so little information on this case. I think that Samuel was treated as a runaway, by his parents the first day and then by the police. I wonder what kind of boy Samuel was, why his parents didn't call the police the first night, after all he was considered a minor. I know if it was my son I would have called when it became apparent at bedtime that he wasn't home still.
I think that the "dropped off" letter means just that it was dropped off at the church, we have to remember the church was an old building, so it would have had a mail slot, was probably done when it was dark out so no one would notice. The letter that went to his parents I'm assuming was mailed.
I watch a lot of cold case shows, with the new forensics I have to wonder if the investigators have never tried to have any new techniques tried to get finger prints off of the letter or envelope, if envelope was sealed could there be any chance of DNA from where the glue strip was licked. I think that Samuel's disappearance wasn't investigated in the proper way from the beginning.
I think that the murderer of Samuel is someone he knew, someone that knew he went to that church. It's someone that cared enough that they wanted him found, cause if they only wanted notoriety for the murder they would have continued with the letters until they were caught.
First I should say welcome to WS fellow newbie! And thanks for your input into Samuels case, it's been really awesome to see others take an interest. Makes the whole thing seem less hopeless/pointless considering there is so little info I question whether it's worth digging into.
I agree with what you're saying. I don't have children but can't imagine why Samuels parents didn't push LE harder. Esp if he was their only son & they had a small family. The only thing I can attribute that to is either grief, guilt, fear or something cultural.
Re- the "dropped off" letter, I was just nitpicking the terminology. Sent to, dropped off, found/left, they all basically mean the same thing. I wonder who found the first letter though?
Re- the envelope & letters/stationary, I too watch a lot of forensics & cold case shows (prob too many) & agree there must be newer methods of testing since they probably last looked into Samuels case. If the killer licked the envelope or stamp on letter #2 out of force of habit then there must be trace DNA. Even the photo of Samuel from his wallet could contain a print. Photo paper picks up prints very easily. They must be able to at least identify the stationary or ink? I wonder if LE searched the Lottery home & took handwriting samples from Samuels' parents?
What really gets me is the delay in searching the river for Sam. If both letters indicated to search the Thames, why did it take 1 year +2 months?? Samuels body was in that river for 4 seasons. If only they had looked sooner, the body might have been in different condition & contained more clues.
You make an excellent point about notoriety. I've been questioning whether those letters indicate guilt/remorse or psychopathy. If it were psychopathy & need for attention there would likely have been more letters. Esp since LE didn't recover all of Samuels remains right away. I imagine that would aggravate a psychopath & they would keep writing or leaving hints. Plus, if for attention then why not mail the letters or contact LE directly?
The only other things that had me questioning psychopathy v.s remorse is 1- if psychopathy, why not kill again 2- if remorse, why does it appear that Samuel was discarded? I would think that if the killer was close & felt remorse or emotional connection, they would treat the body with more "care" (for lack of a better word)? I'd imagine some type of concealment or wrapping or attempt at a grave? Maybe that is incorrect to assume? (input welcome on that point)
