Patrick S: We agree. You concede that there is no evidence.
No, Patrick, we do not agree at all. My stance is that there is RECORDED blood evidence.
You seem to think that when Neil and Mizen spoke of the blood at the inquest, they presented inadmissible evidence? Since the blood was washed away? That is totally wrong. It would equal disallowing Llewellyn to say that the blood was collected in the loose tissues since he had no photo of it and no blood to show for it.
We have a written account of the 'evidence' being washed away. The evidence was not perserved photographically. Thus, it either exists or it does not. One cannot expect a good result if one says to a judge at a murder trial, "We lost the evidence. There no photographs or video. But, we recorded it!"
I think this is getting slightly silly now, to be frank, Patrick. It is not a line that can be pursued.
So, you say this Scobie said there is a prima faciae case impliying that he was the killer before the 'blood evidence' was presented. Based on what?
Based on the circumstantial evidence.
The fact that he found the body? Someone had to.
While the blood was still flowing and five or six minutes before it was in a somewhat congealed state? Nobody "has to", all alone, find a body in that state. And if they do, they are on the suspect list until they can be cleared. Simple as.
Stand to reason it would be someone out and about, at that time of day, likely on their way to work. Would the evidence point the person that found body, regardless of who it was?
No, it would not. The physical status of the finder would have an influence. Otherwise, if the person was physically capable of murder, then the police would need to clear the finder, or have the luck of finding the real killer - if that killer was somebody else.
Of course, most people would be reluctant to accuse an eighty year old lady, but as long as she was physically capable and as long as no other killer was found, even such a person would need to be cleared.
No, Patrick, we do not agree at all. My stance is that there is RECORDED blood evidence.
You seem to think that when Neil and Mizen spoke of the blood at the inquest, they presented inadmissible evidence? Since the blood was washed away? That is totally wrong. It would equal disallowing Llewellyn to say that the blood was collected in the loose tissues since he had no photo of it and no blood to show for it.
We have a written account of the 'evidence' being washed away. The evidence was not perserved photographically. Thus, it either exists or it does not. One cannot expect a good result if one says to a judge at a murder trial, "We lost the evidence. There no photographs or video. But, we recorded it!"
I think this is getting slightly silly now, to be frank, Patrick. It is not a line that can be pursued.
So, you say this Scobie said there is a prima faciae case impliying that he was the killer before the 'blood evidence' was presented. Based on what?
Based on the circumstantial evidence.
The fact that he found the body? Someone had to.
While the blood was still flowing and five or six minutes before it was in a somewhat congealed state? Nobody "has to", all alone, find a body in that state. And if they do, they are on the suspect list until they can be cleared. Simple as.
Stand to reason it would be someone out and about, at that time of day, likely on their way to work. Would the evidence point the person that found body, regardless of who it was?
No, it would not. The physical status of the finder would have an influence. Otherwise, if the person was physically capable of murder, then the police would need to clear the finder, or have the luck of finding the real killer - if that killer was somebody else.
Of course, most people would be reluctant to accuse an eighty year old lady, but as long as she was physically capable and as long as no other killer was found, even such a person would need to be cleared.
Comment