MYBELLE, I thought about it..."why wouldn't Nina admit she went to the house if she really went to the house?" and of course, it could have been an "innocent jaunt, late at night" OR, "she said it in order to cover up for her sister." Nina never says that the bicycle rider DIDN'T SEE A WOMAN PACING IN FRONT OF THE MANSION, instead she only states that the bicycler confused her for her twin. If that is the case, then Nina is not correct about the time she walked to the mansion (or she made two trips and neglected to relay that info?) because her timeline and that of the bicycle rider do not match. (off by 40 minutes) The sighting "of the woman in a white and black striped top" do not match the outfit Nina said she was wearing, nor does a large black purse look like a pink Coach w-r-i-s-t-l-e-t and a woman with long black hair does not look like a woman with shoulder length blonde hair. Nor do I believe a person "so intent on asking questions and disturbed by her nephew's condition"....would just walk "right back home and go to bed." It just seems that so much effort was put into getting to the mansion, and then (paraphrasing by me) "Oh well, I think I'll just go back home and go to bed." It sounds like a major "disconnect" or "distancing" of the events. Who says, I looked through the gate, "but didn't touch it?" Doesn't that seem like an odd statement for her to make? It is actually an odd statement for anyone to make...kind of like, I rang the doorbell, but I didn't touch the door....irrelevant additions to
unverifiable events. Irrelevant admissions always sounds like someone wanting to distract the listener away from the facts. Anyway, thank you for your insight, good night, kiddo. IQuestion a lot!