Madeleine74
Knower of Things
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2011
- Messages
- 11,556
- Reaction score
- 20,081
Logical answer? That sentence ^ makes no sense to me. It's just another detour down the cul-de-sac of, "He's guilty because I say so". meh.
Just another opportunity to say, He did it, I'm right. Uhhggg.
Let's say Avery had a cut on his shoulder or forearm. Well obviously no one would expect there to be blood on the ignition of the car. But there was blood there and Avery just so happened to have a cut on the 3rd finger of his right hand. Who could have known that? I allege no one could have known it unless they were with Avery when the cut occurred or they saw the cut first-hand, or he told them he cut his finger. But for some reason the very idea that he does have a cut AND blood is at the ignition of TH's car is not believeable or persuasive. Nope, the blood had to be planted because... well because it had to.
If one has convinced themselves that Avery absolutely cannot be guilty, then there is no evidence, aside from his confession or a video of the crime, that will likely be enough to provide proof. Everything else will just be "circumstantial" and will be explained away as everyone out to get Avery, everyone in on framing him.