From: "Gary Britt" 

They were able to tell some were not returned Don.  That was part of the
story.  He took documents after the first time and after he was given
notice that they knew he took documents the first time.  He still came back
in and took documents on a second occasion.  On that occasions the archive
people had secretly marked the docs and were able to tell with even more
definity that he stuffed his pants/socks again with documents.

Gary

"Don Hills"  wrote in message
news:pGe/AtgaXORW092yn{at}attglobal.net...
> In article ,
> "Gary Britt"  wrote:
> >Since he says he lost/threw away some documents without those documents
to
> >inspect we don't know if they were exact copies of something else or not.
> >Yes "they" the democrap supporters are claiming they are
copies so no big
> >deal, but that makes no sense at all given the facts alleged.
>
> Back up a bit...
> OK, he took some documents, some of which may have been original / only
> copies. And he later returned some documents. For all they knew, he could
> have returned all the documents he took. Why would he say he'd destroyed
> some of them rather than just let them assume that he'd returned all of
> them? The only reason he'd say he'd destroyed some is if he suspected that
> someone would be able to tell if the documents had not been returned.
>
> --
> Don Hills    (dmhills at attglobaldotnet)     Wellington, New Zealand
> It's ironic that people who are too smart to engage in politics
> are governed by people who are not as smart.

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5