[cyncooper]

Logically, if he hadn't told them anything about a dry cleaners - how would they have known that he'd gone to one?

Right on the Redden interview tape he tells about trip #2 (the black clothes trip). The article does not say Westerfield told them *on* 2/4 about *both* trips. It says he told them about the trip made on 2/4---see the difference? It appears they had to search for which drycleaners and one detective thought it *might* be Twin Peaks because he is a customer there. Westerfield may have acknowledged after all of the items were found that those were his items. I would like to see the affidavit.

[JudyB1938]

Thanks for taking time out of your busy schedule to lend another Voice of Reason here. They are needed on both sides of this issue. That's the only way the truth can come out.

[small_l_libertarian]

The Redden tape has been redacted and edited. Do we know WHEN it was redacted and edited? This is going to sound all tinfoil hat, but if the police/prosecutor knew that they had "stretched the truth" about what DW actually said, and that Mudd had covered their butts by sealing the affidavit, they would want to make sure that the interview tape matched their story, not DW's. But now the affidavits are unsealed (I want to see them, too) - so maybe he did tell Redden, and we just don't know it (yet).

[NatureGirl]

Yes. I'd like to read the affidavit as well. It seems as if you're saying that what Torgersen said in the affidavit is just "confirmation" of what Det. Ott had already figured out from the receipt, ie, "Is Twin Peaks the dry cleaners you used?" DW - "Yes."

So, based on that, Torgersen can now state "DW told us he dropped things off at Twin Peaks dry cleaners on 2/4". Of course, that's pretty innocuous - and makes me wonder why the affidavit had to be sealed.