To take this to fair trial, it is Your responsibility to prove that he is guilty not mine to prove he's innocent.
With that in mind, I ask again, How would it fit into the Mallers' plan? He has an European passport, wounds which passed him to unrecognizable, and there's no evidence nor are there visual cues that lead me to believe that Pippin is a mole.
You make note of Scratch's mention of Pippin, just because she dropped him off and sought to make mention of her action of 'dropping Pippin off,' means that she's rather have a quick, true, reason to validate her leaving of the Mall/Caravan. It is highly likely that, as you mentioned, he was used to ease the weight of the caravans' movements. Scratch and co. have no solid ideas about the smells but they obviously know that an easy target is a lot more enticing than trying to attack a rather large group of well armed, slightly trained and dangerous enemies, which lead them to speculate that the Zeds have common sense enough to know this as well (as shown by their previous experiences).
Within the construct of the cross-interrogation, which was conducted by Victor and Michael with Kelly as an observer, there were no visible cues which lead a trained Lawyer, a trained Soldier, and a well tuned civilian to solidly believe that the subject of the interrogation was not truthful. Victor, as I speculate now, sounds to have some training within the realm of interrogation (i.e. He sounds a lot like a trained, albeit rookie Detective). Maybe he's just really good at questioning, but this small piece of evidence shows, although limited to speculation, that no one in that room would have missed anything that could have exposed him if he were anything but truthful. Your move.
Bookmarks