I agree, that kind of reporting, that appears to present opinion as fact, erodes my trust in the source. MOO. I'm very interested in the facts that can be established in this horrible case.It definitely seems reasonable, but I don't like reporter speculation without it being identified as such. If they felt they had to include that, they should have included a qualifier like "he COULD HAVE checked on Goncalves room at this time". But being stated like a fact in a purported timeline of facts rubs me the wrong way, and makes me less likely to trust the rest of the article. The only reason I picked up on that is because I read the PCA. If I didn't know as much about the case, I would assume that was a known fact.