[T'wit]

>> Michael can't object to a little bit of investigation,

Nor would I, but this isn't investigation. It's making up stories without an ounce of evidence. This one -- the old "mystery intruder" story that we've all heard a dozen times from the likes of O.J. Simpson -- is painfully lame.

It's also preposterous on the face of it. We are to believe the Mystery Intruder took a healthy young woman out of bed without waking her husband, killed her silently out in the hall, and vanished before her husband -- awakened by the very sound of her fall -- rushed to her side?

Right. Try that one in court and hear the laughter.

You start your story from things Michael has said, but he's the suspect. He's not to be believed. He changed his account every time he testified about it. That is a liar at work.

[syriacus]

That is a liar at work.

I realize Michael is a liar.

Where's the harm in asking him questions from a new point of view and watching for his response?

He'll be making public appearances and reporters' questioning the"grieving" husband about his guilt will be considered tacky.

I admit that it would take a brave reporter to ask a "lame" question about the possibility of an intruder.

But, you'll have to admit, it sure is an "attention-getting" question.

Even if it gets mocked, the question gets noticed.

[syriacus]

killed her silently out in the hall, and vanished before her husband -- awakened by the very sound of her fall -

Do you believe Terri's fall woke Michael?

[syriacus]

without waking her husband, killed her silently out in the hall,

But, Terri wasn't killed, by stabbing, by gunshot or by strangulation. She lived. Perhaps no one intended to kill her, but only intended to keep her quiet.

Perhaps that person "accidentally" suffocated her, but she recovered. Neighbors didn't report Terri shouting for help. Were there any reports of a disturbance that night?

It would seem that one can chose between

1. the story that Terri collapsed or
2. the story that Terri was quietly injured by someone.

Which of these options do you chose to believe? Maybe I am missing a third option? I'm open to your input.

There are ways to suffocate/silence people that leave little evidence

Burking originally referred to killing by closing the nose with two fingers or inserting fingers in the nostrils and then clamping the mouth shut with thumb or elbow, suffocating the victim.

People can be suffocated if they are held in a manner that prevents chest expansion, too.