Originally posted by R. J. Palmer
View Post
Statistically, more people are killed by aquaintances or family members than by wandering strangers.
Kelly was killed in her home and had a recently so ex-boyfriend, who until shortly before had shared her domicile, who was giving her money and who was not too enamoured about her previous lifestyle to which she appeared to be returning and had been around her place quite close to the murder time.
Statistically...thats enough to make him a valid suspect even without having to engage in profiling nonsense like "obliteration of the face is only done by someone close" and all those McGUffins.
So equating eyeing Barnett for the crime to looking for your keys under a lamp because its conventient seems to be a bit of stretch,
A correct analogy would be that looking at Barnett as a valid candidiate is akin to a bloke who, having lost his keys in a dark car park, searches the place he last remembered pulling something else out of his pocket. Because statistically, one most often loses ones keys when pulling something out of the place you kept them.
That would be more correct.
P
Comment