Evening all

Although the site would suggest I've been here all day, I have actually been busy. But the computer just stays logged in.
I've just got home, and what do I find? That Makara - bless her little cotton socks - has created a great new avatar for me. Now the image she has of me as a Jude Law character may not quite fit the reality, but her effort is really appreciated.
So I'm posting this to test out that the new avatar appears OK, and I will wear it with pride - thank you Makara
Now - just to stay on topic (and we gotta keep Kimster happy

) - I am still puzzled by the apparent hole in the logic.
On the one hand, we have the police saying (in the charge, if I remember correctly) that Allison was murdered at their home in Brookfield. They also say that blood found in the back of ABC's car was Allison's.
So - and here's where the logical hole is - where was the blood in the house? Did they find any? Why haven't they mentioned that? Because if the blood in the car was indeed Allison's blood - eg from a nose bleed (no injuries according to the defence) then if it was bleeding out there in the car, we should expect there to be more of the same inside the house at the site of the murder (whatever the method was).
Blood in car should = blood in house (or other murder site).
So why haven't the prosecution mentioned that, but they HAVE mentioned the blood in the car?
There seems to be a gaping hole in the logic here somewhere, and the defence are going to make a meal of it, I suspect...
Thanks again Makara