Replies

Maybe not better, but a nice addition, don't you think? If he lied about what she was wearing, and if he gave a blow by blow discription of his "fishing trip" and did not mention tieing off, and he may not have, for fear that someone may have spotted him.Maybe he did not have an answer ready for that instance. In the beginning he seemed to be making it up as he went along. He did his homework on some things, but others he was just plain dumb. Like telling the Detective that the power was out at his storage facility...did'nt it now dawn on him that they could verify that claim??
I'm still wondering about Cindy's riddle. I think when it comes up in the pre-lim, we will all go (at the same time), THAT'S WHAT SHE WAS TALKING ABOUT!!!!

Maybe not better, but a nice addition, don't you think?

Well, sure, but I would think an expert textile chemist who could/would testify about the type of garment/original color, etc., that was found with her body would be a lot more convincing than a smudge of paint found on his boat. They've had plenty of time to do a thorough analysis on whatever garments that were found with/on the partial body. Re the paint smudge, the defense could always say, "the water was rough, he was in a small boat, and he was trying to catch a sturgeon , without bait.

Gonna go watch Greta. BBL