by Titwillo » Sun Mar 06, 2016 9:57 pm
I feel as though I don't know where to stand regarding this.
On one hand, Occam's Razor would tell us that assuming that Z is any of the POI's this community has put forward would entail making too many assumptions as it is. Morf does make an interesting point regarding the implications of Ross not being Z. It would make those with even more tenuous connections seem much less likely. I did always have a problem with various POI's (I won't name any in particular as that isn't particularly relevant) requiring too many assumptions in order to make a good case for their involvement. It never felt right to try to make a suspect fit into the paradigm of Z knowledge.
This leads me to the other hand. Out of the POI's that I've seen mentioned (that had a relatively significant amount of research done in regards to their background), Ross Sullivan seems so be the one that continually tickles that part of your brain that thinks it may know something before you yourself may know. The line from the Z movie, "Just because you can't prove it doesn't mean it's not true" is what comes to mind. It reminds me of how I feel when I see a highly publicized trial and have a gut feeling about their guilt but a Not Guilty verdict is handed down. People often say that the prosecution couldn't prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. I'm not sure a prosecutor could prove Ross Sullivan guilty beyond a reasonable doubt today. I feel it's a dangerous thing to try to assume as truth something I can't indeed prove. It's why I'm an eternal fence-sitter for certain topics. However, I do feel that Ross does indeed have interesting connections to the case: the dead-on facial appearance, the mental illness, the (albeit somewhat controversial) Riverside connection, the handwriting essay. But, if we remember, Arthur Leigh Allen had a staggering number of interesting connections even though the handwriting and/or fingerprints ruled him out. I just still don't feel safe in assuming Ross was Z unless we can in fact disprove it. I suppose my position is similar to when someone has a hypothesis. The point is to disprove the hypothesis, not prove it, and if it ends up not being unproven, then maybe there's something there. Maybe my working hypothesis is, "Ross isn't Z," and I'm just waiting for someone to prove myself or anyone else wrong.
Secretly, though, a part of me wants to be proven right. I'll never forget the "What the actual hell?"-esque reaction I had upon reading about this guy.
"You can't always write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say, so sometimes you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whipped cream." - Frank Zappa