Quote:
Originally Posted by corpus vile
Why? Why should they?
Because logic.
"In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence."
And? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. So I don't regard your objection as valid, sorry.
Yeah, there's no objection you view as valid. They are all lies. But...you know, logic.
"In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence."
Quote:
So? Seems odd to you that they did ergo this nullifies the evidence which convicted? Cuz the bleach should have cleaned everything? I mean it's obvious right? So throw everything out? Is that what you're saying?
And if that's not what you're saying then sorry, but I'm not getting your point here.
To compound the proof of the murder's non-occurrence, the "qualified" investigators DID find DNA and blood. So the cleaning performed after a woman was raped, stabbed, had her throat cut then shot between 2 and 11 times, only removed HER dna and blood.
Seems a bit illogical, doesn't it?
Take a look at this quote from the book entitled "Introduction to Logic".
"In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence."
Quote:
Luminol reacted at a location where one of the convicted killers claimed the murder occurred.
I take it the defence raised the issue re the oxygen based bleach in the courts? I'd need to revisit the transcripts is all but will take your word for it if they didn't. So did they?
Don't know, do your own research. And remember:
"In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence."
Quote:
You have yet to validly highlight one single lie I've told and you're being dishonest by falsely accusing me of lying, which is another reason I've been very very specific re posters I consider dishonest.
Don't care.