tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30971820.post8175070154634510962..comments2011-10-30T10:32:09.524+08:00Lim Leng Hionghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05426898630563791849noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30971820.post-28160786507960683102008-04-25T13:56:00.000+08:002008-04-25T13:56:00.000+08:00<B>still odd that a visitor would bring a nearly full pack of toilet paper into the facility,..</B><BR/><BR/>Good point. <BR/><BR/>It's highly plausible that there are unopened packets of toilet rolls in that toilet for standby use by visitors.<BR/><BR/>Apply Occam's razor. Which is more plausible? Mas did it unnoticed by the guards. Or an unsupervised accomplice did it.<BR/><BR/>Oh wait, we are told that the COI has established that there were no accomplices. Mas must have done it ala David Blaine illusion. :-)<BR/><BR/>Shy SherlockAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30971820.post-46158386547820142452008-04-25T13:01:00.000+08:002008-04-25T13:01:00.000+08:00To Shy Sherlock:<BR/><BR/>Sounds plausible, but still odd that a visitor would bring a nearly full pack of toilet paper into the facility, assuming that detainees would be issued with standard toiletries...Lim Leng Hionghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05426898630563791849noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30971820.post-74778630209003762142008-04-25T12:37:00.000+08:002008-04-25T12:37:00.000+08:00"<B>Rather odd for a blindfolded person to hang on to a large pack of toilet paper, and then carry it into a urinal cubicle while being completely unnoticed by the guards?</B><BR/><BR/>Exactly! <BR/><BR/>So Mas could not have done it <I>at any time</I>. A more probable scenario is that there was an accomplice - a visitor to WRDC. After all any visitor using that "visitors' toilet" could have easily been responsible for that roll of toilet paper being there. <BR/><BR/>Shy SherlockAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30971820.post-20687731016891357502008-04-24T12:02:00.000+08:002008-04-24T12:02:00.000+08:00Thanks Blogter, this hypothesis would explain how he discovered that there is no active surveillance outside the toilet even though he has no knowledge about the security cameras, guards or dogs in that region of the facility.<BR/><BR/>Of course if the toilet paper pack was only issued on the day, that would refute my idea.Lim Leng Hionghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05426898630563791849noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30971820.post-71350062566389055512008-04-23T19:21:00.000+08:002008-04-23T19:21:00.000+08:00I like your theory about why he threw out the toilet paper. I think it's the most likely one that I've heard so far.Blogterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06932331049555993729noreply@blogger.com