by aleanor » Sat Oct 22, 2005 4:44 pm
Ah, follow-up. Good. Thanks Pam. I'd read the article early Paris time and did not return to look for an update.<br><br>The case brings up nothing but questions. <br><br>I'd add to Madsen's queries, why does the police report mention 'two small pools of blood' and 'shattered glass'?<br><br>A low-speed impact of the sort would not have produced broken glass and, contrary to what one might think, bodies that are run over or otherwise "compressed" by motor vehicles [tanks, cars, etc] do not necessarily produce blood. Bleeding often remains internal.<br><br>Evidence indicates that there must have been a struggle. Broken car windows, producing glass. Sharp object or other producing blood.<br><br>In any case, surely, also, the woman would have cried in distress, making her plight known to the neighborhood, unless, of course she'd been rendered incapable of doing so. <br><br><br>Meanwhile, why would M Bush have mentioned a potentially incriminating video to the investigator. He had no apparent reason to do so. The death could easily have been passed off as an unfortunate accident. <br><br>Odd. <p></p><i></i>