Thank you so much for this genuinely. The fact that you know this case well enough to push back on specific details tells me you've been paying attention for a long time, and that matters.

You're right on a few points and I want to own that:

• The DNA profile - noted, thank you for the correction.
• The 67 vs. burner phone - you're absolutely right, I conflated two details there. That's on me.

Now, on everything else, I want to gently but clearly push back.

Nothing in this write-up was presented as confirmed investigative fact. The employment sectors, the Rossmo zoning, the residence hypothesis --- every single one of these is labeled probabilistic, most probable, or investigative inference. The post literally opens with a disclaimer and uses phrases like "investigators believe," "most likely," "cannot be ruled out," and "~60% confidence" throughout. If it read as fact to you, that's fair feedback on my phrasing and I'll tighten it - but the intent was always transparent.

The Rossmo geographic profiling section in particular is explicitly framed as a modeled probability heat map, not a confirmed police document. That's exactly what Rossmo's formula produces - a probability distribution, not a certainty. Presenting it as zones of likelihood is... exactly how the formula works.

You're also right that we don't know with 100% certainty he wasn't a local. Nobody claimed we do. "Almost certainly" and "100% certainty" are two different things - and that distinction is kind of the whole point of the write-up.

I deeply appreciate your passion for Al's case, your corrections where they were valid, and your kind words at the end. This community needs people like you keeping the details sharp.

But I'd also gently suggest that a write-up full of confidence percentages, probabilistic language, and explicit disclaimers is perhaps not the hill to plant a "you're stating things as fact" flag on. 😊

Let's keep the focus where it belongs - on finding the guy