:36:00
Indeed. Who is he?
:36:02
Here, sir, is where progress
was definitely made.
:36:06
As my boy left, he glanced at the
appointment book in the front hallway.
:36:09
The party in question had a dental
appointmentat3::30 the following day.
:36:13
In fact, she visitedat3::30...
:36:16
a premises on 65 Cedar Road
where no dentist sign was in evidence.
:36:40
A Mr. Smythe owns the premises, sir.
:36:42
Smythe, with a "Y" ?
:36:45
Yes, sir. S-M-Y-T-H-E.
:36:49
And...
:36:52
no--
:36:55
Though we have no evidence
of intimacy...
:36:59
the implication is clearly there.
:37:01
How is it there?
:37:03
Why the fictitious
dental appointment, sir?
:37:08
Exhibit " B."
:37:10
My boy took that.
:37:14
The party in question emerged
two hours later.
:37:17
Passage of time being
amply sufficient for...
:37:20
intimacy to have taken place.
:37:23
The courts generally demand
at least an hour, sir.
:37:26
Now, my boy would have provided us
with photos of her reemergence...
:37:30
but for the unfortunate
occurrence of him...
:37:33
falling asleep.
:37:40
Luckily, sir,
the party in question...
:37:42
mistook him
for an abandoned urchin...
:37:45
woke him up and led him
to the nearest tube station...
:37:47
so that the time of reemergence
is definitely established...
:37:50
as was an acquaintance which may have
its uses in the future, for all we know.
:37:55
So should I walk in and confront him
like an injured husband?
:37:58
I'm against it, sir.
It complicates things in the courts.