I suppose what Nathan had to say was “Time for a new page.” =P (See my comment at the bottom of the last page for context)
Monet, you say?
Were the cuffs on the big cheese removed? I think it would be a bit difficult for a man of his stature to get from hands cuffed behind back to hands in front of him…
You know, I just noticed that not a single one of these “police officers” from the start of this story to now, excepting the jail guard who said “Someone to see you Doctor,” has at all displayed any manner of identification of themselves as who they say they are (the guard had a badge on). The detectives are wearing plain clothes without any official designations, the assumed Police Force are all wearing plain blue shirts without distinctive markings, and they didn’t show Mr. Tziz their Judicially Signed and authorized Search Warrant after they Broke in and Entered his office either. Shouldn’t that be a prerequisite (at least the wearing of such ID)? How are we supposed to know these are authentic Peace Officers with official jurisdiction in this area? For all we know, they could be a very cleverly disguised Rival Criminal Gang working in collusion with the jail guard for some unknown malicious purpose?
Will we get into this later?
Don’t you think Rival Criminal Gang would be smart enough to get fake IDs if they were going to pull this?
Anyways, I doubt it will be relevant. I just figure they did it off panel.
If criminals were smart, why would they be criminals in the first place?
Maybe it is not relevant to the story, but I’d think it would be relevant in the actuality.
Sure they would, they would just be politicians instead of petty criminals.
“If criminals were smart, why would they be criminals in the first place?”
What a stupid question. We’re talking about career criminals here, not petty criminals. They have much the same reasons as anyone has for their career: it’s something they’re good at that makes them money.
Hey, how’d he know the stolen painting was a Monet?
Yep, big mistake here, that WILL be used against him.
He read the newspaper, of course. How many big art heists do you think there were last year?
I’d say that’s still not enough.
His phrasing was awful in that case. He didn’t say “I don’t know anything about the missing Monet”, he said “I don’t know about any missing Monet”. Denying you’d even heard of the theft isn’t a good idea if you let slip you know what was stolen.
He could say that “missing Monet” was just for alliteration.
Special Agent Booker?
Hold on, he continued to question the judge after he refused and asked for a lawyer.
But still, nothing he’s said will mitigate felony murder. Whether they knew or not makes no difference. Just throw out what he said and proceed with the conviction.
The guy being questioned is not Judge Bahr. He is Mr. Tziz.
The top two panels are the judge.