[small_l_libertarian]

I know what Torgersen testified, but seriously ... how much sense does it make for a business (any business) to issue a receipt to their customer that has no identification on it whatsoever, yet their in-store copy is covered with their name, the items, prices, etc.

That just doesn't make any sense. Besides, Torgersen said on cross that he had "some information that Twin Peaks might be the place."

[sawsalimb]

I know what Torgersen testified, but seriously ... how much sense does it make for a business (any business) to issue a receipt to their customer that has no identification on it whatsoever, yet their in-store copy is covered with their name, the items, prices, etc.

Regarding the part about no name on the receipt-if it's a Mom&Pop type business that's been there for a long time.and with an established clientele,I could see where that might happen. Especially if the receipts are computer generated,and the owners are like me and spend more time swearing at the computer than doing things with it,lol. If a glitch developed where the customer's copy didn't have the store name on it,but the control number was there,and the items could be found,Mom or Pop might have just said,"To hell with it,it can stay like that as long as we can figure out what the customers dropped off."

[Krodg]

how much sense does it make for a business (any business) to issue a receipt to their customer that has no identification on it whatsoever, yet their in-store copy is covered with their name, the items, prices, etc.

That's what I've been thinking about all day. The drycleaners only needed a tag to match the item, the customer needed the receipt with the store info for indentification.

This also hits hard on the testimony of the clerk who had worked there for 12 yrs and didn't know the address. If it was store policy to have their name on all internal items, she would have seen that address too many times to calculate (well, maybe minion can).

[Jaded]

You mean like a statement from the defendant?