Were you in the vent above him watching the whole time? Maybe he writes fictional pieces and then quietly flushes them down the toilet. Maybe there's a whole stack of fictional stories sitting on his desk waiting to be printed based on the popularity of this story.

If I took one thing from this article, it's that you never know what other people do or don't do. It's the thing you know, but it's jarring when you are reminded of it.

In the article, it mentions the sale of the hotel was recorded in '69, while the journal starts in '66.

Meanwhile, the local police have no record of the murder, unsolved or otherwise.

It's possible those discrepancies could be explained, but the author left them in there to likely indicate he believes the voyeur's account is a mix of fantasy and reality. Which gives it dubious value as a research document, ignoring the ethics of how it was collected. Which in turn makes it difficult to rationalize the way in which the data was collected, if the data is of no value.