Quite. If, say, one is selecting 3 cells out of a total of 10 to do a blood test on, and there are an equal number of flesh and red blood cells in the sample picked with equal probability, then the odds of chosing all flesh cells for your blood test are, I think, a little under 10%.
No, but they are hardly going to go around saying to people "Please believe us that Amanda is innocent, but we should point out that we always worried that she'd get involved in something like this, such a reckless, selfish creature!", now are they?
No.Besides, we already know it was a false 'confession.' Doesn't that kinda corroborate their statement to a certain extent?
Come now! Again, everybody elses imaginations seem to suddenly fail them. Swap a sample here, open an evidence bag there.... how hard would it have been? In any case, they knew Rudy was a local with a history of burglary. Perhaps they just figured they'd frame him and get him out of their hair as well. Amanda blaming Patrick wasn't part of the plan.
She could have made a false confession/accusation for all sorts of reasons. She could be the sort of person who lies to try to get themselves out trouble, for example. Her family are hardly going to be telling people about that, are they? "Oh, Amanda! The stories we could tell about all the lies she's told to try and avoid getting the blame for things. Why, one time she took my purse and blamed it on our neighbours son. I was on the point of going next door to complain when I thought to check her room. Now where was I..... oh yes, how the police forced a false confession out of a poor honours student."
___________________________
It's a pity for her that she didn't. There might afterall have been some hope that the other housemates would confirm that the knife had come from the appartment where the murder took place.
I can't see a scenario where there is Meredith's DNA on the teaspoons and so on on the drawer. We keep talking about this, and I'm not sure that anyone has ever shown that it is standard procedure to take random objects along with whatever item of interest is taken into custody.
No, the knife is not necessary for them to be guilty. This is also not a question of the scientific community concluding things. Science generally occurres in controlled environments, or experiments are repeated in order to control for the varguaries of environment. One does not necessarily have that luxory in real world situations.
I would suggest that that was not her intention. Lies that get you off the hook with your mother, or with your teacher may not work so good with the police.
So, Guede is no more intrinsically given to rape/murder than anyone else, based on his history? I had thought I was countering the claim that Amanda and Raffaele were intrinsically not given to murder because they were "honours students".
But, if Amanda and Raffaele had been in an escalating situation? Might they not have done things that were new to them also?
People seem quite happy to believe in conspiracies involving the police, the prosecutor and the lab against Amanda and Raffaele. The police supposedly collected the bra clasp and the knife because they needed the evidence and knowing what would be on it afterall.
But again, if the police had always intended to frame Guede... perhaps that was there plan, but Mignini wanted to frame Amanda and hence where we now find ourselves.
Could be. I don't know. She could be an innocent nut as well. I'm sure there are other possibilities.
That may very well be what they are called, but are they collected as a matter of routine? If the police pick up a knife from under a park bench, say... do they pick up some random beer cans, or any other litter they can find to act as a control?
But it isn't really gathering control samples if you only take things that you expect to find something on, is it? If you want to use control samples to rule out contamination you would take things that you don't expect to find anything on, and in the event that you find something you can conclude contamination of some sort.
I comment on what interests me, and what strikes me as most wrong interests me most, on the whole. I think your posts, particularly where they are purely factual, are amongst the best on the forum, hence I don't comment often. Probably for that reason I haven't built up enough knowledge on this stuff to give you a run for your money.
