Is the "Suburban" Vandal the King of his Castle?"
In G-P analysis there is always the inherent criticism that much of the reasoning behind G-P is still very subjective. Of course, but that’s what separates us from PCs, right? So with that proviso, here goes:
There are several curious aspects of the “Suburban” terrorist’s pattern of attacks which could be either a subconscious or conscious “tell” of his motive, location and identity.
Assume there is method to his madness: the “Thin Man” has it in for the Lancaster police and local government in general. Why?
Perhaps he had a run-in with the police in 2005. Perhaps he got a ticket for violating a “law”
that he does not respect. Perhaps the
violation somehow involved a car, not one that he was driving. So the “Thin Man” goes off on a “V”, defying
the police to stop his “acid” trip.
As mentioned previously, there are several clues that
suggest he is a skater. Perhaps that
violation involved skating on streets or public property. Perhaps he was hit by a motorist while
skating and the police did not cite the driver.
Besides the two focal points - the west end of Elm Avenue and the intersection of King and Manor Streets – there is another interesting connection of the vandal’s attacks
– Hamilton Park and Hamilton School, both hangouts for skaters.
So who did it? Combining all these curious aspects, the profile of the “Suburban”
vandal could be:
A skater (or skateboarder), white male, age 30-40, who lives
in the area near the intersection of King and Manor Streets, who may have been
involved in an incident involving Lancaster police in 2005, possibly for
skating on city streets or city property. Probably appeared before a Justice of
the Peace and was not satisfied with the outcome.
And what’s that connection with the west end of Elm Avenue?