Quote:
Originally Posted by scoops
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jane Birch
Firecat seems to try to be confirming that it's actually not fact? if I'm reading that right.
|
And if I'm reading it right, Firecat is on one hand confirming that it's actually not fact, but on the other hand is confirming that the investigator agrees/ qualifies with the person that said the blood was found to be menstraul.
It can't be both ways.
If the carpet samples have NEVER been tested, then the investigator would've said that the first person (shack) is flat wrong. They could in no way make a claim about the blood being menstraul, because there were no testing done. But instead the investigator goes on to qualify shacks comments and even brings up the example of the clothes hamper. |
Ok, then you and I are having a complete and total disagreement (which is fine, obvs!) because my read on it is, if the stuff hasn't been tested, how can the investigator say that someone is flat wrong? S/he doesn't know this other person is flat wrong, because.....it hasn't been conclusively prooved one way or the other.
If, on the other hand, nothing's been tested, then.....by all means, speculate away. You, me, the investigator, your uncle tony, whoever. Such as "yeah we got blood samples, but they may not mean anything. They may not be Maura. They could be somebody's old menstrual blood from the cloths hamper for all we know."
Wow. Sorry, my tpiyng apparently sucks today!
ETA: I can't get the quotes to come up as quotes, so the part I've quoted I edtied to put in italics. Hope that makes it clear, since for whatever reason the nesting quote function isn't working.
Threaded Mode
