2) while I do believe that by Occam's razor principle, a skateboard grip tape merely implies that the killer was into skateboarding, your theory about tennis racket, while veering off, is interesting, so let me get off the tangent even further:
On the grip tape in the bag. Every time it's mentioned, I will repeat this:
we do not know it was in there, it is NOT established. That goes for the grip tape, or another other element of the case that is not established. There are lots of problems with the wikipedia article in English, let alone the Japanese one which is rife with assertions without source or link. Or, more accurately, they say where they are quoting from without giving a link to the article for it to be verified. Or put another way, we're trusting the say-so of the wikipedia author. I'm going to take the time to rip this article apart:.
1) Quote:
The sand believed to be from California was also found to be near Edwards Air Force Base in the southwestern Mojave Desert , which covers an area of approximately 35,000 km2 . The sand from the eastern part of the base is distinctive and closely resembles the sand in the bag ( Tokyo Shimbun, December 14, 2009 ). Sand from the Miura Peninsula found in the jacket pocket was also found in the bag.California is the birthplace of skateboarding, and Umikaze Park on the Miura Peninsula is a place where skateboarders gather and where competitions are frequently held. This makes it clear that the sand in both places is closely related to skateboarding ( Yukan Fuji, same article ).
No, it does not. I could easily make the same argument that the perpetrator loved building sand castles so this makes it clear that the sand is related to playgrounds. Or golf bunkers. Or construction work etc. This neither gives us the link to the article, nor the name of the journalist who wrote it.
2)
Signs the perpetrator may have been browsing the internet. No, this is also unestablished. All that is confirmed is that he logged on and created a new folder. That's it.
3) The 60,000 yen. It says he left the money on the bookshelf untouched. It was actually the money by the computer which was right in front of him.
4) It mentions the fluorescent dye in the garage as if it's significant to the investigation. It is not. They are merely household items and the killer never entered that space.
5) It talks about Mikio being covered with a draw or Yasuko being covered with a pile of clothing. This is BS. They were not. It's possible Mikio had a draw partially on him or near him as the killer was rifling through the cabinet above his dead body.
6) It says Rei's head was covered with a futon. This, again, is BS. It then suggests that a victim's face will be covered when the killer is known to the victim, suggesting a connection. This is based on nothing.
7) "the mother's older sister wrote that the scene was not a "sea of blood." First of all, we don't know if this is An or Haruko's older sister it's referring to. But as I've said, it's just garbage. As the Chief said, the scene was horrific. He had attended murders many times and never seen something like that. How could it not be a sea of blood if Yasuko was left without a face and her brain was coming out of her head. Niina's teeth were beaten out of her mouth. Mikio's fingers severed, a knife broken off in his head. It's just frankly plain stupid. But the stupidity doesn't stop there. When you click on the source, it says:
Article title unknown, Law Seminar, No. 10, 2002. So completely unverifiable. Who gave said seminar? What did they say? How do we know this?
8)
The Special Investigation Task Force's investigation revealed that a young person could have easily broken into the house through the second-floor bathroom. As we've discussed many times, while possible he entered through that window, it obviously is NOT easy. Moreover, the task force have no idea how he entered the house whereas this would suggest that they do. Again, more garbage.
9) Quote:
The front door was locked when the body was discovered,
[10] and no traces of the perpetrator, such as fingerprints or bloodstains, were found on
the doorknob or anywhere else. So, firstly, the front door was not locked when the bodies (not body) were discovered. It's true no blood was found on the door but it's obviously patently untrue that blood was not found anywhere else. I suspect this is just plain mistranslation which, again, only highlights the pitfalls of this page. And now to its source:
Article title unknown, Mainichi Shimbun, January 29, 2001. No link. Good luck finding this article.
10)
Furthermore, because the bloody footprints left in the victim's house were only in one direction, going up the stairs, a senior police official suggested that "the perpetrator took off his shoes at the front door to enter the house and commit the crime, and then put them back on halfway up the stairs as the floor became covered in blood." [ 12] This is plain wrong. The killer's footprints are throughout the house. Moreover, this would require him to have entered through the front door which, we don't know if he did, but it's certainly the most unlikely entry point. And of course, a non-existent link for that 12 there.
I'm not even a quarter of the way through the article and there are 10 problems already. All of this largely without links, and the ones that do, are non-existent when you click on them.
