If you look deep enough into anything you will find strange correlations. However, as a major of economics i am very good at statistical analysis, specifically that employed by a program called stata. While correlation may be present, they are not nessecarily significant. This logic can be applied to anything. For example, the number on the house being 505 may seem to correlate to Sam. However, it could have been any assortment of variation that could have connected to him. The number was not relevant in any other way and should not be considered significant (statistically speaking). If every one of his friends had the tatoo of that numbers, then we would have a case. Secondly, Sams affiliation with longwood was only through the mother of his girlfriend, who was not a currently active professor. The assumtion that he would in any way even have knowledge of CHI is far fetched.
The arguements presented here are all interesting, there is no doubt about that. However, viewed form a logical persepective, none of this holds any viable significance in WHY he committed these murders. I cannot stress the importance of the meaning of the word assumption enough here. It is unsound to make such accusations based off of far fetch assumptions, which in turn were based off of the research of bloggers that arent even completely accurate.
Good thing I've got thick skin. Having lived in the neighboring county for 21 of my 35 years, I would probably be grouped into anything that is said about people from this area. Not sure I agree with it, but to each his own.
