With negative toxicology results on the father who killed his son, now we learn a "brief psychotic disorder" proposed as a likely cause ("Dad who killed toddler wasn't on drugs," Page A-1, July 4). How is it that the most logical explanation for this horrendous act hasn't been considered by experts? In fact, the most obvious explanation can be directly inferred from the significant fact mentioned in all of the coverage of this case -- that the father "was recently separated from his wife." Rage against abandonment by a spouse could have led this father to kill, as it has led others to kill.
While this crime is horrific, it is not unprecedented in our country, nor even in our community, occurring as recently as the murders of the children in Merced by their stepfather and the children in Gustine by their father. While further investigation may provide a different explanation, how can the most simple explanation not have been considered?
LINDA von MERVELDT