One thing I thought was interesting looking back was that Gatto 'broke the news' about the 'mystery man' on the same day that LE released a timeline of the night. This is kind of significant since this story had a huge effect on challenging the timeline and took the focus off the POI and on to a 'mysterious stranger'. Somehow, he managed to find and interview a key witness in this case, and broke the story when LE was hardly releasing any information at all.
The witness account appears again in the accounts from the PIs in the Lohud video, but it's confirmed that the man is Corey. So there are two details that stand out in Gatto's account, and that he deliberately emphasized, which are different: the description of the man as 'dark skinned' and the 3:38 time. Obviously it's possible the witness just got these things wrong -- witnesses are often bad at describing people, it was late at night, etc. But then, I wonder: Why did Gatto keep insisting on these details and how sure the witness was? Was the witness herself really certain? Did he think LE got it wrong?...
When we asked what she meant by the description of 'dark skinned', Gatto had no idea if she even meant tanned or black. He wasn't sure about the round-pointy sideburns. But, he emphasized that the person was not any of the POI and definitely not Corey Rossman. He says the witness said this, on the basis of looking at photos -- As Jupiter mentioned above, I'd be curious to know who showed her the pictures, and when, considering she was also working with an LE sketch artist. If the mystery man wasn't a POI, I wonder why he didn't try to get a more detailed physical description -- wouldn't this be the important part?
Unfortunately, Gatto couldn't answer questions like whether 'dark skinned' referred to skin tone or race, or why she was certain of the exact time, because he said the witness wouldn't speak to him again (Someone had gotten to her -- he doesn't explain this). That also means he couldn't show her pictures of anyone else to see if it might fit her description. But if you re-read the posts here, you can see the theory of the 'mystery man' evolve. First the guy who found the keys was considered as a potential candidate, but then someone suggested ZO's roommate, which fit in nicely with the internet campaign that was focusing on ZO at PT. This person didn't match the height or weight description, but was 'dark skinned' and had sideburns. He then posted pictures and tweets of this person and their friends, none of whom were POI, not so subtly allowing people to 'connect the dots'. He did not, however, manage to confirm the rumors about ZO, or whether the potential 'mystery man' was in Bloomington, let alone out that night. He also didn't make any direct allegations, but there's no question that his blog was considered a source of information, and these guys names still pop up in theories here, and are mentioned as 'POI', even though there doesn't appear to be a shred of evidence pointing to them having anything to do with Lauren's disappearance.
So, I know, I've pointed this out before, but every time I go back to a Gatto post, I find it curious how every single piece of 'breaking news' that Gatto uncovered himself was about Corey not being involved:
- Lauren was at the bar by herself, and not with Corey Rossman
- The 'mystery man' was definitely not Corey Rossman
- Corey ran out of Smallwood by himself, and Lauren followed him later
- He also described Corey as being the most 'forthcoming' of the POI, which is a little odd considering the whole amnesia thing...
And they were all wrong, but no corrections or updates were made to his blog, as far as I know. I know I sound critical, but Tony himself responded to people's questions about his blog by drawing attention to himself not as a 'blogger' but as an award-winning journalist, so that invites the same kinds of questions you would ask of any investigative reporting. He was contacting people closely involved with the case, people on PT and here, offering anonymity in exchange for information, so it really makes me wonder who may have influenced his theories about this case. I'd also like to know how he found the bar manager witness, whether his info came entirely from his meeting with her, and whether he verified the sources he was getting information from somehow, since he said he only spoke to one source in person. (I wish I could read his notes!)
)
