I must go have a listen. It disappoints me that an interesting theory has so much baggage now, 'cos of Mr Horan's general approach (and TWO "hoaxers" [more?] now involved), but it's changed the landscape a bit, one way or another, ain't it.
glurk wrote:morf-
Smithy is a follower/reader of Horan's, and I am sure that he would have much better ideas than myself, but the car door at Lake Berryessa is probably the biggest issue, IMO.
-glurk
Follower? Yep. Like you and Tom Voigt!
Many apologies! If I'd read this thread and the request for a question or two in time I think I might have wanted the answers to the following questions. Lots of them. I'm sure you didn't need them, Mike, and let's face it, they are of no general interest!
1) Does Mr Horan think the letters reflect knowledge of handwriting disguise techniques known and discussed in handbooks of the time? And very obvious use of those techniques?
2) Given that he thinks the hoax was perpetrated by Hal Snook in the first instance, using materials routed through his department from both the LHR and BRS attacks:
a) Are there any other examples of Mr Snook's handwriting in the public domain (since the one example we have - the report - is by no means conclusive, either in respect of its contents or in proof of origin), and
b) Does Mr Horan believe that the attack at Lake Berryessa was completely coincidental? Perpetrated by a "copycat" right in Hal Snook's back yard, allowing him to be a very early responder by mere happenstance, but NOT involved in any way - not even with the writing on the door?
3) Does he believe Riverside has nothing to do with later matters? Did Hal Snook have anything to do with Riverside? Could anyone else in his scenario of events have had anything to do with it? Does he believe it's a completely isolated occurence of someone in the area writing to a newspaper and to law enforcement trying to claim responsibility for a crime, using details gleaned only from the press?
4) Is he sure that there's information enough in the early letters to prove the involvement of a law enforcement officer at all? Contradicting the approach at Riverside somewhat? Contrary to the later very obvious use of information from the press, the Chronicle specifically, in respect to the "attack" on Kathleen Johns? (The July 24th 1970 letter). Was this (it looks like a return to the "Riverside" MO) just coincidental - or did it come about because Hal Snook was NOT involved at this juncture? There was NO useful "inside information" available?
5) What was the motive behind the hoax in respect to LHR, BRS and the earlier "try out" (?) at Riverside, anyway? Entertainment? An attempt to influence the police investigations? To expose incompetence / apathy / collusion / involvement in wrong-doing on the part of LE?
6) Is it the change in approach and in the tone of the letters after Berryessa which forces him [Mr Horan] to abandon the idea of Hal Snook's involvement "alone"? To try and re-cast the motive for the hoax? To find another "suspect" for the letters with very very similar handwriting? Does he believe the original hoaxer (Snook?) completely abandoned his involvement at "the handover" point, whenever that was? Is it reasonable to presume that someone "taking over" the hoax, would start with a letter as long and involved as "the little list"? Did Hal Snook return to the hoax to generate the '71 letter to the LA Times? The '74 Exorcist letter to the Chronicle?
.....There are lots more of course.
Just FYI, I've lost touch with Mr Horan's theory a little since it sprouted Mr Power and yes, I still think - as I always have - that it's terribly undermined by the confusion encompassing what happened at Lake Berryessa and the complete negation of Riverside. (To name but two issues.)
Mr Horan doesn't often deign to reply to posts these days; I think perhaps he's already clearly decided "what actually happened", however fundamentally tortuous and meandering those happenings sometimes have to be... I might be wrong. I should listen to the debate, huh?
Posted: Mon Sep 08, 2014 12:51 pm
