is that in the article someplace? or is that from some other source??? like i said, i read the article twice before posting and don't see what made them liable...
I believe the focus of the argument is that:
(1) The 'staff' told an unidentified/unknown caller that she was there, and what room she was in.
(2) The 'staff' booked him a room right next to hers.
(3) The 'staff' had been modifying the peepholes for their own devious purposes, which is where he learned how to do it.
is that in the article someplace? or is that from some other source??? like i said, i read the article twice before posting and don't see what made them liable...