Response to Pam's final week reportage, Final Week

Pam,
First of all, the language here is really wonderful. The ways in which you frame the "stalker" as "investigating" and "profiling" are really interesting and lend a more legitimized voice to the stalker. Instead of some creepy stalker, this stalker is more like a PI, more stalking for a legal reason, more valid in their views. Then, the way you turn that legitimacy on its head and invert the credibility, turn it into vulnerability, and give the stalkee the power works even better after you have built up the opposite with such language.
Also, this piece goes a little bit beyond mere reportage to me. I see you beginning to reflect on the implications of first impressions, of our own judgments, of the power structure of any given situation and how easily that structure can crumble or invert. These are the elements which I think could be built upon in later drafts should you choose to take this post in that direction. If not, these same observations could prove very interesting in relation to a number of situations about which you could write. This type of self-critique, I think, is exactly what Dr. Davidson has been looking for from us. The sense that the speaker is far from infallible and that he/she is aware of their own fault, to a certain extent, makes them a more credible narrator, and credibility, although subjective, seems to be a rather pivotal part of creative non-fiction to me.