Friday, June 11, 2021

Who Killed Lynette White in 1973? By Ursula Franco


Who killed Lynette White in 1973? Analysis of an interview released by her husband Paul White in 2017


A young Sydney mother Lynette White, a dancer and hairdresser who owned a salon at Vaucluse, was killed at her Coogee unit on June 8, 1973.

She was stabbed 11 times in the chest region and her throat slashed. She was found partially undressed and there were no signs of forced entry at the unit.

Lynette’s husband Paul, who was 26 years old at the time of the murder, told investigators that he had discovered Lynette’s body when he returned home from work.

The couple’s 11-month-old son was still in his cot. 

Lynette’s murder is still unsolved.

In 2017, Lynette’s husband Paul White released an interview aired in the documentary The Lynette White Story.

In Statement Analysis we assume that the speaker is “de facto innocent” and that he speaks to be understood. Therefore, from a “de facto innocent” we don’t expect to find in his language characteristic indicators of the statements of those who do not speak the truth. We begin every analysis expecting truth, and it is the unexpected that confronts us with possibly deception. The context is the key to understand if behind one or more sensitivity indicators there is guilty knowledge. Basically we analyze the words that we don’t expect to hear or read (The Expected Versus The Unexpected).

Paul White: It’s very hard to … to shut this out of your mind. I feel a bit jealous of families that, their murder has been resolved, that they know who the murder is.

By beginning without the pronoun “I”, White shows no commitment to his words. 

Note the pause to think about what to say.

Please note that, instead of saying “to shut this out of my mind”, he substitutes “my” with “your” counting on the interviewer to conclude that he is speaking for himself when he is not. 

Note also that he speaks of the murder as “this” not as “Lynette’s murder” or “my wife murder” showing distance from his wife and closeness to the murder. Why does he has a need to psychologically distancing himself from his murdered wife?

Please note also the word “jealous”. Is he jealous of those who are not under scrutiny? 

Note “their murder”. Why does he says “their murder” instead of “the murder of a family member”? Does he consider Lynette’s murder “his murder”? Is he taking ownership of Lynette’s murder? 

Paul White about some phone calls Lynette received at home: Apparently, she didn’t want to … uhhh … upset me or she thought she might upset me … uhm … so she told her girlfriends more about it than she told me. She confided in Maisie about this and Maisie said: “Look, Lyn, this is what happens in show business, we get a lot of these phone calls”. I was very always stressed upon Lyn never to open a door to anybody unless she knew them, which to my mind she wouldn’t.

“Apparently” reduces commitment to the assertion that follows. 

Note the pauses to think. These pauses are noted as sensitive. 

Note that he repeats twice “upset me”. Repetition indicates sensitivity. Was Paul so jealous of Lynette that she didn’t tell him of those "phone calls" not to enrage him? Was Lynette a victim of domestic abuse? 

Paul White: With Lyn having a pretty traumatic pregnancy to have a healthy baby was number one, yeah, it was indescribable.

Did Paul feel he was not anymore the “number one” in Lynette’s life? One should wonder if it is related to the motive of Lynette’s murder.

Paul WhiteMaybe I didn’t listen enough, I … I don’t know. It’s just unfortunate that … uh … we didn’t talk about these things back then … uhm  like we do today. I wish we did.

Please note “I … I”. Paul should be highly efficient at using the personal pronoun “I” since he is not a stutterer. In Statement Analysis, this is called the “stuttering I of anxiety” and tells us that the question that produce this stuttering “I” is sensitive to the speaker.

Note also Paul’s need to pause to think.

PaulI says “Its just unfortunate that … uh … we didn’t talk about these things back then”, why? Did Paul understand after her murder that Lynette was suffering from post partum depression? Could the murder be prevented by the talking or by the knowledge?

Paul White: This day, Friday, was a normal dayShe was up, dressed. I gave her a kiss goodbye. I was a bit worried about her since the birth of Shane, not realizing that she might have been suffering a little bit of depression, I found out later. Normallythrough the day she’d take Shane for a walk, she’d do the washing, ironing, whatever. People come around to buy Swipe or some of our team might phone or turn up.
I arrived home around the 7.30 mark. Got to our landing and I noticed that our door was slightly ajar and it was dark and I thought that was odd. And I see … uh … legsprotruding out from our second bedroom where Shane sleepsI remember … racing in … uhm … turning a light on and … uhm … sorry. There was blood everywhere. And… uhm … she was half naked and her throat was slashed. And I was just hoping for a pulse. I couldn’t get her back, she was so cold and … uh … clammy. Shane was in the cot, he was only a metre away. I raced and picked him up … uh … and I think he was crying. He was ok.

Please note that recalling the events of the day of Lynette’s murder Paul White never said “Lynette” or “my wife” or “my wife Lynette”, he only referred to her as “she” and “her”. This is distancing language. 

Note also that he said three times the name of his son, “Shane”, but never said “my son Shane” or “my son”. This is also distancing language. Why does he has a need to psychologically distancing himself from his son Shane?

“This day, Friday, was a normal day” sounds as story telling. In Statement Analysis we focus on the word “normal” because is often found in deceptive statements indicating the contrary.

Please note “She was up, dressed”. 

Note “She was up”, a body posture inclusion is an indication of increased tension. 

Why does Paul feel the need to add “dressed”? We know that Lynette was found half naked. Does he say “dressed” to pre empt the question “Was she dressed?” or to slightly blaming the victim? Does he desire to make the interviewer believe that she could have had a lover to move the focus from himself and also to justify the absence of signs of forced entry at the unit where Lynette was killed? Did Paul believe that Lynette had a lover due to the fact that she sexually refused him due to her post partum depression and to his heavily drinking?    

Note “I gave her a kiss goodbye”. Within a statement of a familiar homicide, “The Kiss Goodbye” is often a linguistic signal that points to the time of death or near the time of death.

Humans often speak in an economy of words. Note how Paul slows down the pace adding: “I was a bit worried about her since the birth of Shane, not realizing that she might have been suffering a little bit of depression, I found out later. Normally through the day she’d take Shane for a walk, she’d do the washing, ironing, whatever. People come around to buy Swipe or some of our team might phone or turn up”.

Murderers slow down the pace when they recount the moment they found the body of the victim not to deal with the stress of the murder they had committed. 

Does is say “not realizing that she might have been suffering a little bit of depression, I found out later” to try to justify his behaviour?

Please note that in the sentence “Got to our landing”, the personal pronoun “I” is missing. Paul White doesn’t show commitment to his words.

Please note “I noticed that our door was slightly ajar”. In Statement Analysis we focus on the use of the word “noticed” because we often find it in deceptive statements. The use of “noticed” unveils an expectation not a surprise. In other words, Paul White was expecting to find the “door slightly ajar”, why? Did he stage the crime scene?

Note “And I see … uh … legs protruding out from our second bedroom where Shane sleeps”. “And” is a passing over of time, a temporal lacunae that does not, by itself, indicate deception but it means that information has been left.

White is psychologically in the statement with “I” but he uses the verbs “see” at the present tense which weakens his commitment. We know that White knows how to use the past tense, that’s why the fact that he is speaking at the present tense while reliving the discovery of the dead body of his wife is a concernHe also says “sleeps” instead of “slept” when speaking about his son. When someone is not committing or even fabricating, they usually switch into present tense language. We do not conclude such by itself but we flag it as not reliable. 

Please also note that, after a pause, he says “legs protruding out from our second bedroom” not “Lynette’s legs” or “her legs” but simply “legs”. This is distancing language. Why does he has a need to psychologically distancing himself from the dead body of his wife? This is unexpected and a concern. 

Please also note “I remember … racing in … uhm … turning a light on and … uhm … sorry.” As we can only report what we “remember” in truthful accounts, in an open statement like this, “I remember” are not only unnecessary words but also an indication that he may have told us previously what was not from his experiential memory.

The word “racing” speaks of a delay as he shows a need to convince that he acted fast in discovering Lynette’s body.

Please note “turning a light on”. This is also concerning because is a sentence often associated with a sexual motive for a crime.

Please note the location of “sorry”. Does he has something to be sorry? This is an indicator of a form of regret that usually enters the language of the guilty and it could be considered “Leakage”. 

Note the word “And” in these two sentences: “And … uhm … she was half naked and her throat was slashed”, “And I was just hoping for a pulse”“And” is a passing over of time, a temporal lacunae. White is withholding information, again.

Note “And I was just hoping for a pulse”. The word “just” is a dependent word used in comparison. Its communication is found in dependence upon another thought, which one?

Note “she was so cold”. Is this “Leakage”? Was she also sexually “cold” in the days prior her murder?

In another interview, released to “The Sydney Morning Herald”, Paul White said: “I just went straight into the bedroom, turned the light on and there was Lyn just lying there.”

Note that he uses the word “just” twice. He is comparing.

Note the word “straight” that open to the possibility of a delay, again. 

Note also “turned the light on”, words that are often associated with a sexual motive for a crime. Words that remind us John Ramsey’s words regarding the discovery of his daughter JonBenet’s body: “I opened the door, turned on the light, and there she was.”

Paul White: Beryl became his mother for the first three years of his life basically. Shane sort of took the place of Lyn in Beryl’s eyes. I’d have him for the weekend and I’d take him back Sundays. It was pretty tough because I was drinking pretty heavy back then through the week. I was very lucky, I had good, close family, close friends who helped me. I took him when he was about three, you couldn’t have a stronger … uh … relationship with … with anybody. My mate Shane, he, a reflection of his, his mother in a … a lot of ways. I think he looked after me more than I looked after him.

Note “I was drinking pretty heavy back then through the week”. Was he drunk the morning of the murder? Was Lynette a victim of domestic abuse due to her husband’s alcohol addiction?

When he says “I was very lucky” I agree with him. He got away with murder.

Paul White: Wendy’s my great mate. We’ve been together now nine years. She’s very understanding.

Note “She’s very understanding”. The word “very” tells us that “understanding” is sensitive to White. Was he not expecting a woman to be “understanding”? Was Lynette not “understanding”? One should wonder if it is related to the motive of Lynette’s murder.

ANALYSIS CONCLUSION

Deception Indicated. 

We allowed Paul White’s words to guide us. He has guilty knowledge of what happened to his wife Lynette. He is the one who stabbed her to death 47 years ago.

A speculation about the motive: At the time of the murder, Lynette sexually refused Paul because her post partum depression and his heavily drinking. This made Paul White into believing she had a lover. The morning of the murder, to her refusal to have sex, he reacted with rage raping and killing her. 

Why did Paul White release this interview? Because he must hold the part and because, after 44 years, he felt safe. A misstep!

17 comments:

M said...

So good to see Pater back!

Hopefully, now Lynette will have justice after all these years.

frommindtomatter said...

Great analysis Ursula, thanks for posting it.

Adrian.

courtandspark said...

Hello! Have you seen this new article about reactions and guilt? https://www.inc.com/minda-zetlin/falsely-accused-looking-guilty-anger-damns-innocent-harvard-study.html?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=news_tab&utm_content=algorithm

ursula franco said...

Thank you Adrian!

Asena said...

Thank you for your analysis! :)

Aydin

John Mc Gowan said...

Please note that, instead of saying “to shut this out of my mind”, he substitutes “my” with “your” counting on the interviewer to conclude that he is speaking for himself when he is not.

Wouldn't the the passing of time effect the pronoun usage. Replacing "your" with "My"

frommindtomatter said...

“I arrived home around the 7.30 mark. Got to our landing and I noticed that our door was slightly ajar and it was dark and I thought that was odd. And I see … uh … legs protruding out from our second bedroom”

It’s interesting he uses “arrived” when speaking of getting home. The word arrived is used to describe the completion/ end of a journey. By him using “arrived home” as opposed to “got home” it shows he is thinking about the journey he took to get there. This journey must be important to him as he includes it in his statement.

The timing is also important to him as he chooses to include it – “around the 7.30 mark”. The word “around” shows uncertainty to the exact time, yet he adds “the 7:30 mark” which seeks to be specific. He is thinking of a specific time (7:30), and literally marks it by using the word “mark” to identify it. Why does he put so much effort into doing so, he shows weakness with the word “around” then conflicts that with trying to be specific?

“I arrived home around [the] 7.30 [mark]”

The extra words are “the” and “mark”. The article “the” is used to describe something known and the word “mark” is an indicator. If he didn’t know the time the simplest sentence would have been –

“I arrived home around 7.30.”

That would be appropriately weak. Paul White has conflicting thoughts in his mind. He wants to be vague yet specific at the same time. Combine that with his use of “arrived” which showed his thoughts were on his journey home. As Ursula showed in her analysis his next sentence begins without pronoun signalling a lack of commitment to his words.

“Got to [our] landing and I [noticed] that [our] door was [slightly] ajar”

This following what I just mentioned regarding his arrival and timing raises the question of whether he did really “arrive”, or was perhaps already there at this point in his statement. Also as Ursula pointed out in her analysis he uses the word “noticed” when describing the door being ajar. He is not telling us what he found, but what he “noticed”. To notice something takes time, it is a process of becoming aware of changes. A husband commenting on his wife’s new haircut may be met with the reply “I wonder how long it would take you to notice” thus signifying elapsed time (enough said). Compare the two sentences –

“When I got home the door was ajar”

When I got home I [noticed] the door was ajar”

To notice something takes time as the noticing happens when you realise something has changed. Change takes time. I agree with Ursula that this has been staged by Paul White. He also qualifies the door being ajar with the word “slightly” which again is an extra word which is important to him. It reminds me of some of Kate McCann’s statements regarding discovering Madeleine missing.

Adrian.

Autumn said...

Thank you for this very interesting analysis Ursula.

You write that one should wonder if Paul felt he was no longer “number one” in Lynette’s life and if it is related to the motive of her murder. In that context, I noticed that as soon as in his first sentence (if indeed that was the start of the interview) Paul introduces the concept of “shut out”: It’s very hard to shut this out out of your mind.” Did he feel Lynette shut him out ? If so, the next sentence may give a further explanation: “I feel a bit jealous of families”. As in: I felt a bit jealous of my son? And/or jealous of the mother-son bond? At the time of the murder the baby was only 11 weeks old. Was it “very hard” for him that her focus was now primarily on the baby? The plural “families” possibly alludes to earlier (family-related) feelings of jealousy which may have been triggered by this new situation.

The anonymous phone calls are also interesting in this respect. According to Paul’s friend Bob Wurth (the journalist) they became “more and more depraved”. The caller said things to Lynette like “I’m coming to get you” and “I know where you live” but also: “I’ve got a white coffin for the baby” (see the documentary at 5:40). So the calls took place when the baby was already born and the caller was not only focused on Lynette but also on the baby. A very negative focus: the caller wanted the baby out of the way, or at least that’s what he implied.

According to the analysis, the phone calls and the fact that Lynette didn’t talk to Paul much about them, seem sensitive to Paul given the pauses and the repetition of “upset me”. I.m.o. his body language at this particular stage of the interview also shows great sensitivity. At first he keeps his eyes closed (to hide his feelings?) and once he opens them a whole range of emotions appear on his face, like regret, fear, duping delight or maybe seeking sympathy (see the documentary at 6:27).

I wonder if Paul was the anonymous caller. It would be interesting to know when these calls started: before, during or after the pregnancy. At least we know the phone calls always happened when Paul was away. If Paul indeed felt jealous of his son and/or shut out by his wife, he may have been surprised by (the depth of) those feelings and unable to talk to Lynette about it. Maybe that’s what he really means when he says “we didn’t talk about these things back then”. These feelings may have become so overwhelming that they had to find a way out and anonymous threats were the only way Paul knew how to express himself. Or perhaps he hoped that the calls would cause Lynette to seek support and consolation from him and, thus, to shift her attention back to him?

As mentioned in the analysis Paul not only shows sensitivity but also reduced commitment when saying that Lynette told her girlfriends more about the phone calls than him because she didn’t want to upset him. Maybe Paul knows there was a different reason for Lynette not talking to him about the calls. Did she suspect that her husband was the anonymous caller? Did she recognize his voice? Or maybe she actually did talk to him about the phone calls and Paul trying to create the opposite impression (and thus distancing himself from the phone calls) causes the sensitivity/reduced commitment. Maybe Lynette confronted Paul about it on the day of the murder. If so, this may have resulted in a big argument. Paul’s first sentence (see above) may contain traces of such an argument. Did she say to him: You’re “out of your mind”? And/or vice versa? Did he try to talk this idea “out of her mind”? Was it “very hard” to “shut out” her accusations? Is this was made him “upset” and “very […] stressed”?

Autumn said...

I know my above comment contains quite a lot of questions and speculations but this is what came to my mind when looking into this case. Should Paul read this and should he be innocent, I sincerely apologize for my speculations. If he’s guilty, I can’t imagine what it must be like to keep it a secret for his son, Lynette’s parents and his friends all that time. It must be very hard to live with. That may be an additional reason for him seeking publicity a few years ago.

MLB said...

Thank you for this analysis.
The comments are also interesting and informative.

Some observations and questions along the lines of Paul's disposition toward Shane-


"And I see … uh … legsprotruding out from our second bedroom where Shane sleeps."


-unity with his wife in the context of ownership of their physical property (our second bedroom)


-but not unity with her body. Whose legs are protruding?
Just... some legs that happened to be there? Did he not feel like her body was 'theirs' too?


-Is Shane a guest sleeping in Paul and Lynette's second bedroom? Is this not Shane's bedroom? This is a LOT of words to avoid saying 'Shane's room.'
(especially considering couples often spend a good deal of time preparing a baby's room for their arrival. Paul had nearly a year to adjust to the idea of a baby having space in 'our second bedroom' but has not)

-Curious here whether Paul's idea of their home was threatened in some way by Shane. Did he perceive Lynette as leaving him for Shane? Between the pregnancy and alcohol, were finances tight?

-Because he went out of his way to say 'bedroom' rather than 'room' I wonder, perhaps unnecessarily, if is it also to emphasize its purpose? Regardless, he iterates the purpose in the next breath- 'where Shane sleeps.' Does he need us to understand the bedrooms were used for sleeping?
-Was Shane awake during the murder?


Lynette just so happens to be killed, brutally, in the bedroom of and in front of their son, a person Paul likely feels jealous of and threatened by.

frommindtomatter said...

I think Paul was very possessive of Lyn.

“[We] stressed upon Lyn never to open the door to [anybody] [unless] she knew them, [which to my mind she wouldn’t.”]

The word “unless” sets a condition on opening the door to anybody. The condition is “unless she [knew] them”. Paul goes on the reveal that in his mind “she wouldn’t”. He doesn’t believe that she would know anybody, which means in his mind she would never be able to open the door to other people. This shows Paul had controlling nature in regards to Lyn and who she interacted with.

“I was a bit worried about her since the birth of Shane, not realizing that she might have been suffering a little bit of depression, I found out later.”

I believe him when he says he was a bit worried about Lyn. This worry was not from her suffering depression since Shane’s birth, as he states “I found out later” in regards to that. This shows he was worrying about something else in connection to Lyn. Paul is a possessive husband worrying about a change in his wife’s behaviour, and if he only found out about the depression later we must question what thoughts were running through his mind at that time. He believes she shouldn’t open the door to anyone because she wouldn’t know them (anybody).

Adrian.

LuciaD said...

Well written, Ursula. His statement that his young son took better care of him than he did of his son speaks to child neglect. And that would be consistent with his admission of heavy substance use. How sad for the son.

Autumn said...

Below are some snippets of the police interview with Paul White on the day of the murder (8th of June 1973) as briefly shown in the documentary (at around 11.04). I’m not sure about the words in brackets. Especially the first snippet is interesting as it is Paul’s first substantive statement (during the interview) on the day of the murder.

Q. 3: I would like you to relate to me the last time you saw your wife alive today?

A: This morning about 8am she was on the bed nursing the baby. I kissed her goodby (sic) and I kissed young Shane goodby and I said to her “I will ring you this afternoon” and she said “Fine” [I then?] walked to the door and let myself out and naturally [closing?] the door I always press the button and lock the deadlock.


And

I stayed at the office until [midday] when [I had my] lunch, and finished lunch about 1pm. I think I stayed at the office and did some layouts with Karl Anderson and Susan the girl in the office until about 3.30pm. Then I went out down to Riverwood to Southern bulk Distributors 233 Belmore Road, Riverwood and after that I went to the Casaropa Boutique and I spoke to a girl I know as Monica who is the manageress there.

Autumn said...

Comments regarding first quote:
- Paul states she was on the bed nursing the baby that morning about 8am. He implies that that was the last time he saw Lynette but he doesn´t explicitly so.
- “kissed goodbye”(2x): according to the analysis “The Kiss Goodbye” within a statement of a familiar homicide is often a linguistic signal that points to the time of death or near the time of death. Paul mentions the kisses separately. Why? He could have just said: I kissed them goodbye. That would have been the shortest. Maybe he just tried to make his account as detailed/accurate as possible?
- “I will ring you this afternoon”. According to the documentary Paul tried to call Lynette repeatedly that afternoon but she didn´t answer.
- “walked to the door and let myself out” is unnecessary information relating to body posture/movement which is generally an indication of tension. This means something else may have happened before he left that morning. As mentioned in my first comment above, the anonymous phone calls seem to be sensitive to Paul and I speculated that they may have had an argument about that. It may mean nothing, but I find it interesting in this context that Paul indicates his very last contact with Lynette was about him ringing her.
- Unnecessary reference to the opening of a door is often associated with sexual activity. I don´t know if this applies in this case given that the emphasis here is more on the locking of a door (see next hyphen). I wonder why he specifically said he let himself out. He could have just said “I went out/to work”. But again, maybe he was just trying to be as detailed as possible.
- “and naturally [closing?] the door I always press the button and lock the deadlock“ . This is
In present tense so he doesn´t seem to be speaking from memory here (with regard to that particular morning).
- Half of this statement/answer is about Paul walking to the door, letting himself out and locking the deadlock. So in his mind that must be very important in the context of him last seeing his wife. Was he trying to convince the police that he was a good husband by locking the door and thus making sure she was safe inside the house?
- Could “lock the deadlock” be leakage? Was their relationship in a deadlock? A dead end? Death? Did he feel locked out?

Second quote:
- “stayed at the office” is mentioned twice. That shows some sensitivity. The second time he says “I think I stayed at the office” which casts some doubt.

frommindtomatter said...

@ Autumn

Thanks for posting the quotes. You make some good points in your analysis. I have done some analysis on the first quote which support your comments and adds to them.

[I then] [walked] to the door and [let myself] out and [naturally] [closing] the door I [always] press the button and lock the deadlock.

“I then” – The word “then” acts as text bridge and signifies missing information. If someone says “I watched TV [then] I had a shower” we know that they spent some time watching TV before they had their shower. This has caused them to insert the text bridge “then” into their statement which allows them to connect the two things together. Normally a person will add things together with the word “and” if their actions come one after the other. – Paul white does it in when he says –

I kissed [her] goodby (sic) [and] I kissed young Shane goodby [and] I said to her “I will ring you this afternoon” [and] she said “Fine”

He puts those things together with the word “and” which suggests they happened one after another. When he talks of leaving he says “I [then] walked to the door”. The word then signals time has elapsed between him walking to the door and the thing he mentioned prior to it. If he had walked to the door straight away he would have simply said “I walked to the door” which follows on from his last action.

It’s worth noting that when he gives the kisses which as you pointed out have significance in SA and can also be inserted to suggest that a relationship is a loving one when in fact it is the contrary. He uses “young Shane” to describe kissing Shane, which credits him with his name, whereas he fails to call Lynette by her name instead using “her” to describe her, which he does many times in his statement.

“and [let myself] out and [naturally] [closing] the door I [always] press the button and lock the deadlock.”

Does he normally let himself out, if he does then why mention it? Its possible Lynette lets him out usually and that has caused him to think about letting himself out on that morning. He adds the word “naturally” in regards to closing the door to emphasise that doing so is what he usually does. That goes beyond simply saying “I closed the door” and shows sensitivity due to his need to explain the obvious. As you mentioned he puts these actions in present tense making them unreliable.

Also he tells us what he “always” does. A classic example of this is a motorist changing lanes without looking and causing an accident. –

Police Officer: What happened?

Driver: I was driving along and needed to get into the other lane. I [always] check my mirror before turning. I turned and the other car hit me.

The driver never said they checked their mirror before turning, only that they always check their mirror. They said it to suggest they had done something which they had not. Question – Did Paul white close and lock the door like he “always” does? All this extra sensitive information in his statement when a simple “I went to work” would have been fine.

Adrian.

Autumn said...

Thanks Adrian. Those are good points. I too wondered whether Lynette usually let Paul out/accompanied him to the door. I can´t see why that would be important though. As to the `naturally ´-part I wondered: did he lock the door from the inside? This might explain why he emphasizes locking the door but at the same time doesn´t speak from memory when talking about locking it from the outside.

I wish we had the entire police interview. I would like to know how late the nappy lady knocked at the door. The documentary mentions she heard a noise, like someone crashing into a railing. They assume Lynette was fighting off the attacker at that time. According to the documentary Paul arrived home ´several hours´ after the murder (7:30pm), so I guess the nappy lady was at the door somewhere in the afternoon(?). At least she didn´t come by around 8am or else Paul would have been a clear suspect.

If Paul – as suggested in the analysis – is guilty and murdered Lynette in the morning, then who was in the house when the nappy lady came by later that day? Did Paul come back (e.g. during lunch break?) and stage the crime scene, perhaps deliberately making noise? That would have been very risky. And it was verified that he was where he said he was that day. But perhaps that is not so meaningful given that the case seems to be handled in an incompetent manner initially. If Paul staged the crime scene, why did he leave the knife in her body? That would have also been risky. After all he may have left fingerprints (which he could have wiped off of course but still). Did the knife belong to the house? If not that would mean the killer was someone else or Paul bought the knife especially for the murder. The latter would indicate premeditation though and the fact that it was a frenzy attack speaks against that. It seems like a real crime of passion. On the other hand: the anonymous caller announced that he was coming to get Lynette and spoke of a coffin. So if he murdered her, it may have been premeditated.

Autumn said...

Also interesting: police have a suspect: a young man with red hair/beard and skinny legs was seen leaving the apartment building that day. But there was at least one other person seen in the area (see 22:40 documentary): police received one anonymous phone call and one anonymous letter regarding a person coming from the unit driveway holding a towel of some kind to his head. That makes me wonder: were there any towels/nappies missing from the house? According to detective Kelly `they´ (meaning the anonymous caller/writer) have actually witnessed some very important details including `the registration of the vehicle`. What vehicle does he mean? Was this ultimately a dead end given that no one´s been arrested yet?

I assume the anonymous caller and writer (to the police) were one and the same person: two separate persons anonymously informing the police of the same story would seem too much of a coincidence(?) In that case: why wasn´t it enough for the anonymous person to either call or write the police? On the one hand he clearly didn´t want to get involved but on the other hand he took considerable effort to inform the police of his observations. I assume the anonymous caller/writer is a man because Kelly says it may be the same person as the anonymous caller (the ´young fellow´ who called Lynette repeatedly) or the flasher.

If the anonymous caller/writer (to the police) is the perpetrator, the information he provided to the police may be a diversion and thus incorrect. What would that mean: did the perpetrator not leave the house? Or at least not via the drive way (but for instance via a fire escape)? Was the vehicle registration deliberately incorrect?

So many questions. It's a real mystery. I searched online to see whether Bob Wurth (journalist and friend of Paul) has already finished the book he wanted to write about the case but unfortunately I found nothing.