but twitchell seemed, at least to the out to outside world, unperturbed. instead of falling apart, he simply retreated to his childhood home. moved in with his parents. and so clark paid twitchell s dad and mom a visit. she just struck me as a parent, that her son does nothing wrong. where is the father, wanted to listen to me. he wanted to hear what i had to say. and he listened. but he got overridden. they set up a surveillance team, 24-hour watch to keep an eye on the house, and twitchell. but his behavior was anything but suspicious, he went on about his business took meetings with investors about his day players movie project, even picked up a 35,000 dollar check from a financial backer. the marked which will i was dealing with it was articulate, in control, running his project the way that you would expect any entrepreneur to be running their project. and the detective clark s world of up arrows and down arrows, there was one more huge up arrow in twitchell s favor. motiv
tomorrow s papers. tennis world number one novak djokovic has been back on the tennis court today after a dramatic courtjudgment in australia meant he was free to leave the hotel where he had been detained since last week. he says he still wants to compete at the australian open, despite the political row over whether he should have been allowed into australia. djokovic has confirmed he is unvaccinated against covid but had a medical exemption to enter the country. at seven this morning, a judge in melbourne ruled that djokovic had not been given enough time to respond to the cancellation of his visa and gave border officials 30 minutes to release him. the australian government then had four hours in which it could have overridden that decision and revoked the player s visa again. but it chose not to. is this now the end of the saga? not necessarily. shaimaa khalil reports from melbourne. within hours of today s judgment, novak djokovic posted this picture on twitter,
it may be bad lawyering but they re not going say that. i think the only way the supreme court will take this up, and it s pretty slim, if they took seriously the argument that trump made that the d.c. court rejected. the the current president can say the prior president s claim to executive privilege has opinion was overridden, this future presidents will get into the habit of just releasing the private records of their predecessors if they re a different party in order to embarrass them. that s actually not a crazy thing to say. the d.c. circuit said no, no president is going to do that because it s going to create mute i didn t assured destruction. if i release, then my successor will release my records. that might be right. but you can imagine in our scorched politics, if donald trump becomes president, heaven forbid and there were a republican congress, trump night say good right ahead. if the justices took that concern seriously, then maybe
left to the scientists in the doctor spirit that s what happened here. we bought enough booster shots and states and pharmacies, doctors offices and community health centers have been preparing to get booster shots and arms for a wow. the panel voted 16-to they were overridden. for whatever they wanted. in other words, fauci and pfize are going to get. that extends to pressuring the adults who declined the vaccine for whatever reason. biden thinks he can insult his way to popularity. three quarters of the eligible have gotten at least one shot. about one quarter has not gotte any and they are causing a lot of damage. the vaccinated overcome our hospitals, overrunning intensiv care unit spirit can get your causing damage, and funny, how you re not worried about millions of migrants taking up
of conscience. do i think, by the way, that the speaker should have overridden the other party s selections even if you don t like them? no, i don t. i think that s a really dangerous precedent here. even someone like jim jordan given what he said on fox news yesterday about when he talked to the president, former president, even though he can be a witness? well, any one of those members could be a witness. they were all part of the event. and, again, remember, precedent setting is not if i agree or disagree. it s about does one party get to select everybody that agrees with them on any issue. i worry a little about that. we have two independent enough republicans that they re going to keep the guardrails on. it s a bad precedent and any one of these selections. i don t think that s helpful. why? because i want this to be a fact finding committee. i think it s really important for the country to hear some of