“The nozzle from a petrol can, heavy-duty black gloves, and a roll of black plastic sheeting” were found in the house.
– Excerpts from the Daily Mail et al
What sensible household doesn’t have assorted sundries like these? Of course, we are supposed to insinuate some sinister purpose behind this arbitrary list of everyday items, but it is a redundant ploy. You can pick any three items you like: let’s say a rolling pin, a cookie cutter, and a basting tray were found in the kitchen. If they have no connection to what happened then you’re simply misleading your readers into thinking that they are relevant, while leaving them to imagine all the possible ways one might misuse a cookie cutter. Let’s be clear:
“There is no scientific evidence linking any of the exhibits found in the house or garage to the deceased or defendant” – CPS Admissions at trial
“All exhibits were negative for apparent blood” – Police Support Scenes of Crime Officer
“The car was examined and searched. Nothing of relevance was found” – CPS Admissions at trial
This pseudo-evidence is unhelpful because it brings us no closer to finding out what actually happened, or who was actually responsible.
Back to: 10 things the Daily Mail got wrong about the trial of Mark Alexander or move on to: Mistake #6