Interesting progression here. Vibio states categorically that in the majority of murder cases the murderer leaves no biological trace. Vibio does not claim this to be true in the majority of disorganized, bloody throat-slashing murder cases, and provides no source for the claim.
Then Chris H points out that it's very odd that only one member of a supposed 3-person murdering team left multiple DNA/fingerprint samples while the other 2 left none at all. Very odd indeed.
Then I say that okay, we have one example of a bloody murder done with a knife in which the perpetrator's DNA wasn't found . . . so it is possible. But that perpetrator was convicted on the strength of very convincing OTHER evidence. There is no such OTHER evidence in this case. It's all wobbly conjecture and character assassination.
Finally hotnostril responds to that post by saying (I think) that the bloody footprint on the bathmat is definitely evidence of a cleanup.
The argument went from
most murderers don't leave DNA
to
somebody must have done a cleanup
with lots of whinging about mean people and frustration over specious arguments in between.
Here's the thing. The presumption of innocence requires that there be reliable evidence showing that the most probable explanation is that the suspects are guilty. In this case the evidence points almost exclusively to one person's guilt. He's currently in prison.
To continue arguing over the remaining questionable bits because they might somehow or other be fitted together to show that it's plausible for A & R to have been part of that murder scene is -- pardon the expression -- ridiculous. And nobody would care, except that they're in danger of being unjustly jailed again.
