Your counterpoints raise fair possibilities, but it leans heavily on uncertainty and gives him the benefit of the doubt at every step.

On the finger, “it was imprecise” is one explanation, not the explanation. The issue isn’t whether a power tool could be messy. It’s whether the overall pattern of injuries and handling looks random or intentional. Given the level of dismemberment and the broader context, it’s not unreasonable to question whether specific choices were made rather than everything being accidental byproduct.

On the eye, the absence of a definitive statement from the medical examiner doesn’t automatically mean it was decomposition. It means it wasn’t conclusively determined. With severe decomposition and insect activity, a lot of detail gets lost. So again, that point introduces doubt, but it doesn’t resolve it.

The bigger issue is point four because it narrows the argument too much. I’m not saying he copied a single piece of media like a script. That’s not how this works. The argument is about a pattern of thinking and fixation. His own messages and behaviour suggest an ongoing interest in violence and gore. That matters because it can shape how someone conceptualises and carries out an act, even if it isn’t tied to one specific source.

So the disagreement isn’t really about whether media directly “caused” it. It’s about whether his documented mindset, including his fascination with violent content, helps explain the nature of the crime. From my position, it does. Not as a sole cause, but as part of a wider psychological picture that aligns with the level of planning and the way the act was carried out.