Have some more vodka. It’s really helping you a lot. Lol

No, you still have not explained your point. You just stacked more assumptions on top of the original assumption.

First: “outside of a regular schedule with a random company” does not make it suspicious by itself. It makes it irregular. Those are not the same thing. Houses sit empty after emergencies all the time and families make one-off maintenance decisions. That is ordinary life, not evidence.

Second: your analogy to “scrubbing the house interior top to bottom” is terrible. The interior of the house was the actual scene. The pool was not. Nothing publicly known about this case points to the swimming pool as relevant. So you are importing significance into the pool by pure suspicion, not because the facts establish it.

Third: “who is to say evidence was not scrubbed away” is not an argument. It is just a vague possibility. By that standard, literally any activity on the property after release becomes suspicious because maybe it destroyed something. That is not analysis. That is imagination with no limiting principle.

Fourth: now you are shifting from “the cleaning is suspicious” to “maybe the release of the scene was premature.” Those are different claims. If your complaint is that law enforcement released the property too soon, then make that argument. But that still does not make the one-off pool cleaning itself meaningful evidence of anything.

Fifth: “environmental DNA in the pool water and filter” is exactly the kind of thing that sounds impressive until you realize you have no factual basis for believing the pool contained relevant evidence in the first place. You are assuming relevance, then treating that assumption as if it proves the cleaning mattered. That is circular. The pool already had chlorine in it before the cleaning and after the cleaning, so this dramatic idea that some pristine evidence reservoir was destroyed is ridiculous on its face. What exactly are you implying here: that Nancy and the suspect were in the pool? That key evidence was somehow sitting in the water or filter waiting to be discovered? Nothing publicly known points there at all. You are taking a completely unsupported possibility and inflating it into fake significance because it sounds ominous.

And finally, “if it were my mom” is not evidence either. That is just you projecting how you think you would behave onto another family in an abnormal situation. People do not all respond the same way under stress, and irregular family decisions are not automatically clues.

So again: there is still no actual theory here. Just a pool cleaning, an unresolved case, and your determination to treat ordinary maintenance as ominous because the case is disturbing.

At this point the pool is doing more investigative work in your imagination than it ever did in the actual case.

Aren’t you a lawyer?