Hi everyone, new poster here.
I just wanted to say, in regards to sketch 1 vs sketch 2 and whether or not either looks like the man in the video -
I think that, although the video will probably end up being a net benefit to the investigation in the long term, in the short term I believe it led many people astray, and continues to.
The video is of such poor quality that it's like a rorschach test: everyone sees something slightly different; opinions get passed on and influence the eyes of others, etc.
I believe at first glance it looks like a middle aged man with a moustache, because the baggy multiple layers of clothing make him appear portly, and the shape underneath the nose appears so dark that you can't see a mouth until you zoom in close and play the video slowly over and over again. There might still be a moustache there, but it could just as easily be a clean shaven mouth with so much shadow and pixellation that it doesn't resemble one, at least in a still frame.
I wonder whether the common first impression of a middle aged, moustached man informs the way we hear the audio of his voice too, and it's subsequently difficult to shake that first impression.
I think it's important to note (and correct me if I'm wrong) that sketch #1 was a composite of various witness descriptions; sketch #2 is a sketch from a single particular person.
I feel that many people looked at that initial phone picture and started calling in to say they'd seen a portly bearded man here, an overweight man with a moustache in a hunting cap there, etc. I think that these sorts of descriptions were probably prioritised because they seem to match what you see in the phone picture before studying it (particularly two years before having the video to study), and so many tips with a similar description came in.
I feel that the second sketch probably got overlooked because it doesn't seem to resemble the phone picture and video. But under all those layers, with that amount of pixellation, it's impossible to say that it does or doesn't resemble the person.
<modsnip - not an approved source>
For what it's worth, too, I believe the age description of "18 - 40, but may look younger than his age" suggests that LE believe they're looking for someone in the younger side of that age range. Up to 40 years old is in there to not rule out anyone who happens to look young, but witnesses saw someone who looked young, and LE have reason to believe it.
My gut feeling is that they spent two years looking for a middle aged portly phantom because that was the first impression from the video; early this year they had an "ah-hah" moment and realised that someone was considered but dismissed early on, potentially with a motive (however warped and psychotic that might be), and it had been staring them in the face all along. Maybe if they'd been quicker to suspect the person in sketch 2, they could have pressured their friends and family, and the killer would have been easier to break in the interview room. Now it's over 2 years on and the killer will assume the police have a scant amount of evidence, so witnesses coming forward before the arrest is much more important than it would have been back then.
As I said, just my opinion.
Sorry for the long post!
