"In your example the target is clearly uninterested and wouldn't keep this shit going with 400 texts/day for...2 years?"
Strangely, I've seen it happen a lot (with texting and IMs anyway).
"Those 2 grew up together, didn't you read that."
I did, but that doesn't really tell us anything about their relationship, we only know how he sees it. We already know he invented part of who she was, what's to say the 400+ texts bit isn't a case of rewriting how he remembers things, if not attaching meaning where there isn't any? What he saw as in depth and personal could be the sort of stuff she tells anyone.
I've grown up alongside people too, had in depth conversations late at night and everything, but as much as we've talked a lot, they don't really "know" me, and in some fashions I likely don't fully know them either. Duration doesn't really denote a connection, and he's already admitted to portions of her as he once knew her being the byproduct of fabrication. "Inside and Out" I'm skeptical to believe.
"The rest of systematic's description of his relationship with the girl doesn't fit with your chat sample either."
I'll bold the part that says I doubt that chat was his case, this is the second time this has been mistaken as a direct example instead of an example of how 400+ daily texts can contain either nothing or only one side.
"There's no way he doesn't know her inside out."
We only know his side. Meeting her could show us an entirely different picture than his portrayal. Come on, this is the perspective of a stalker, and while I can't say whether he is delusional or not, I've known quite a few, and their views typically did not match up with real life.