Are you saying there is evidence for it or are you saying that if you cherry pick you can create a maybe mystery. Clearly, it is the latter.
The eyewitness as you call him is one of several eyewitnesses. Carrol stated that the clothes were severely burned. But Carrol also stated that the clothes were not burned. The police were also eyewitnesses. They report burned clothes. The hospital reports burned clothes.
The hospital says no burns in the mouth. Carrol who has flip flopped on the burned clothes has claimed burns in the mouth.
I say its not a mystery. It is a legitimate part of SHC lore though. It has become a part of an idea that has been shown to be wrong.
Edited by stereologist, 22 January 2014 - 05:05 AM.