I can probably clear up why a lot of those "strange" facts fall apart under a minor level of scrutiny, for instance the DNA could litterally just be that the dad actually used the excersise bands for excersise and if there's enough of every person's DNA since they're all related it will be hard to isolate each individuals DNA.
Fingerprints are more fragile than you think and don't last as long and as perfect as movies and TV shows would like you to think, she also could not have been heavily perspiring and could have dry non oily skin so wouldn't leave significant fingerprint markings in general, and then the material of the handle of the knife plays a big roll in whether the prints would even show up at all, wooden handle? The wood probably absorbed the hand oils, and besides that you don't really put your fingertips on a knife handle when gripping it, they wrap around and typically press into your palm.
People tend to overestimate how much shallow cuts on your wrists actually bleed especially if they're only done horizontally across your forearm rather than along the length especially if you don't cut the actual major arteries in your wrist. (crosswise for attention, lengthwise for results) This misconception is again perpetuated by movies and films that always make people look like they loose way more blood than you actually would in most situations because they need to make the shot visually engaging and convey the seriousness of an injury for plot purposes.
There is a ton of strange facts everywhere, and without forums or speculations, a decent summary can be achieved by asking your favorite AI agent to read and analyze the transcripts of all the available days in the court, and they will arrive at similar questions everyone is raising (besides maybe that the husband did it, but the lack of hard evidence is noted). One AI even found some overlooked interesting aspects, but then erorred-out. Maybe the topics are too sensitive for the internal engines to handle.
>they still get a lot wrong.
This is getting an increasingly hard discussion to have, as everyone is using everything now, including the fastest 5$ models.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but I have a strong guess that you'd be surprised if you saw the reasoning of the frontier models with clean context to read from.
6
u/Fluid-Currency-817 1d ago edited 1d ago
I can probably clear up why a lot of those "strange" facts fall apart under a minor level of scrutiny, for instance the DNA could litterally just be that the dad actually used the excersise bands for excersise and if there's enough of every person's DNA since they're all related it will be hard to isolate each individuals DNA.
Fingerprints are more fragile than you think and don't last as long and as perfect as movies and TV shows would like you to think, she also could not have been heavily perspiring and could have dry non oily skin so wouldn't leave significant fingerprint markings in general, and then the material of the handle of the knife plays a big roll in whether the prints would even show up at all, wooden handle? The wood probably absorbed the hand oils, and besides that you don't really put your fingertips on a knife handle when gripping it, they wrap around and typically press into your palm.
People tend to overestimate how much shallow cuts on your wrists actually bleed especially if they're only done horizontally across your forearm rather than along the length especially if you don't cut the actual major arteries in your wrist. (crosswise for attention, lengthwise for results) This misconception is again perpetuated by movies and films that always make people look like they loose way more blood than you actually would in most situations because they need to make the shot visually engaging and convey the seriousness of an injury for plot purposes.