"I'm a little confused. Are you seriously of the belief that CPH didn't write those letters to 48 Hours admitting that he made two phone calls?"
I have presented my theory as one of among many Possibilities to be considered. I don't perceive my theories to be any more or less valid than any of the other ideas offered here at Websleuths.
Did CPH deny writing those letters?
I don't know that he has confirmed or denied writing the letters in media. If you have some documentation that supports any confirmation or denial by the doctor, please post the link(s).
Obviously, if they received two letters from him, talked about this on the program and still have copies of the letters available for perusal online, and CPH did not come forward and deny that he wrote them, then it is safe to say he wrote them.
Why should I, or anyone else for that matter, assume that 48 Hours properly vetted the authenticity of the letters. 48 Hours never produced information on either program as to how they authenticated the letters or that they Did authenticate the letters. IMHO, that's sloppy and deceptive journalism.
To come up with all these other possibilities as to how someone could make those phone calls posing as him might be an interesting exercise but is otherwise stretching plausibility big-time, IMO.
You are entitled to your opinion. If anything I did show how it Might be possible, IMHO.
My point is that, to my knowledge - and I, like everyone else on here, have been following this case closely - CPH did not deny writing the letters. The blatant absence of any denial whatsoever, IMO, says that he wrote them. I can't imagine that he or anyone in such a situation would ignore such an outright mistruth if he did not in fact write them. To my mind, if he's not disputing them, why would the rest of us?
I do, however understand (I think) the essence of what you are saying. To be suspected and in fact even accused of something one did not do, to be the subject of endless speculation if one was in fact innocent - that would be terrible. We are all innocent until proven guilty, of course. However, unfortunately that's the nature of this sort of forum. For better or for worse, he is a part of this case, and he's going to be analyzed and discussed. I do feel we should be careful not to libel him or anyone else, but otherwise I don't see anything wrong with discussing his involvement. I don't know what happened that night. While I do personally lean towards certain theories, my mind is still open to all possibilities. And one of those is that he might indeed have some more sinister involvement, so I'm still interested in discussing that possibility.
I also see your point about how endless discussion of what happened in Oak Beach could be taking away from more valuable sleuthing about the other victims. But really, that's only if there is in fact no connection. The thing is - nothing has yet been resolved. It just hasn't. The premature pronouncements from Dormer and the subsequent silence do not amount to anything, let's be honest. So until we know something about how Shannan died for sure that would lead us away from Oak Beach in the quest for the serial killer, the most logical place to start is still there, IMO. It's still the best "clue" or break we have been given. I'm new to all this sleuthing, but it does seem to me there's a logical process of elimination to follow in dealing with potential suspects in any case, and until Oak Beach can be eliminated completely as a potential tie to the serial killings, it's not only still completely valid to discuss it, but it's necessary. It might in fact be more of a time waster to move on from it before it's been definitively eliminated - if there's any possibility there could be a connection, to move on prematurely would be sidetracking the investigation.
We may just have to agree to disagree on all this!