1
The Myth and Legends of Survivors / Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
« on: April 09, 2005, 08:03:23 PM »Quote
Sokolova,
*They may have tried to "stroke" the evidence, but that doesn't mean that they weren't correct about her identity. It's sort of like what the police do with thteir suspects: they know someone is guilty, they just make it look like they are if it doesn't already![]()
Hi Helen.
I don't really agree that it's okay for the police (or anyone) to plant evidence to secure convictions providing they 'know' the person is guilty. I think that's how innocent people can end up in jail. Intuition isn't a valid substitute for evidence!

And then of course to say 'oh well they probably knew it was her and that was why they invented the evidence' kind of begs the obvious question - if they didn't have any evidence how did they know it was her?
The way I see it there is a big anomaly here. If AA really was FS then why did the people identifying her need to fabricate the evidence? Why not just find her family and let them id her? End of story.
But if it wasn't her, then what about the DNA?
Quote
**I must point out here that AA's mtDNA did not just "resemble" FS's relative, it was identical to his.
Yes I know, that's exactly my point. The chance of it being a coincidence are so small. But this doesn't fit with the earlier evidence of a fit-up. On the one hand the obviously planted early evidence for AA being FS, and on the other the much later DNA evidence that shows she really was her.
Quote
Yes, these two choices is what we are left with. But this is why, despite all the alleged evidence against the fact that AA was FS, in light of these two points, it is difficult to accept the fact that she was not.
Yes it's difficult to accept she wasn't FS, but equally difficult - given the evidence - to accept she was! That's the puzzle! :-/
Sokolova