We see some great comments and are grateful for the many contributions. There’s a little bit of everything: sound analysis, strong opinions, sharp teeth, sass and the occasional limerick. But every now and again a comment just jumps off the screen and Bea had one earlier this week.
I went back to the affidavit and realized certain language is ambiguous and that I may have read it incorrectly.
In “Victor’s Statement” it says, “[A]ccording to Zaborsky, he had come home early from a business trip and learned that Wone would be spending the night at their home. He indicated that he did not see Mr. Wone when he arrived as he was already in bed.”
I THOUGHT THIS MEANT VICTOR WAS ALREADY IN BED WHEN ROBERT ARRIVED.
Full caps is always allowed when divining a fresh interpretation of a section that we’ve all read dozens of times. Gaming this scenario alters many of the assumptions we have on how the evening progressed.
Ahead: We’re trying to determine what’s to come at this Friday’s status conference, whether it’s an open session or private in the judge’s chambers. We’ll find out. Until then don’t just read the affidavit, be(a) the affidavit.