[small_l_libertarian]

I don't buy it. But it could happen. I just went back and looked at it again. It has the cleaner's name, address, phone number, date, time, customer name, description of items, pick up day (TUE), the number at the top that the drycleaning clerks said didn't mean anything, prices, and a total. But Torgerson testified that the receipt he (Torgersen) had to work with didn't have any identifiers on it at all and ... BINGO!!!!

Oh, my goodness, you guys just witnessed an epiphany (see definition earlier).

HIS RECEIPT DIDN'T HAVE ANY IDENTIFYING INFO ON IT, BUT OTT TOLD HIM WHERE TO GO!!!!!!!!!! OTT, OTT, OTT!!!!

[sawsalimb]

Is Ott one of the detectives that was mentioned earlier as being implicated in falsifying evidence in other cases?

[Krodg]

I'm still trying to think of the right words for this. Shocking is a start but doesn't really cover everything.

[NatureGirl]

Ott, the guy who's already been in trouble with his department? What a coincidence!