Originally posted by John G
View Post
A logical fallacy, I see time and again on these boards are when people expect a certain outcome, such as damaged cloths, spilled caschous, body in a certain position,blood not on the front of the clothes etc., and when they don't see what they think should happen come to a rock hard conclusion that something must happened or not happened. That's incorrect.
For example. No blood was found on strides front of clothes. So people draw the hard and steadfast conclusion that she must have had her throat cut while lying immobilized on her back. Actually, the only hard and steadfast conclusion you can come to is that people reported that there was no blood on her front. That's it.
Now, you can say they liklihood of finding blood on her front would be greater if she was killed standing up, and forensics experts would probably say the same.
But, there could be any number of reasons why it was reported there was no blood found on her front, other than she lying on her back when cut. For example, she may have leaning forward when her throat was cut and the spray didn't get on her cloths, she may have been standing upright but the tightened scarf acted like a tourniquet, or there was some blood on her front but not a lot and it was reported that there was none.
Just because something does or does not happen as you expect does not mean you can just throw out all the other possibilities. Especially making such a huge leap (2 leaps actually)by ruling out bs man as strides killer because she was holding caschous when found. She could have taken them out after the first assault, he could have placed then their himself after she was killed, or she held onto them through the attack. Any number of scenarios.
The only rock hard conclusion you can come to in this case is that she was found holding caschous when she was found. Everything else is just speculation. Period.
Comment