4 ms·
The idea is that continuing to make purchases adds plausibility to the framing. You appear as if you are cooperating fully, and innocent (because a guilty pers
by sophacles 4y ago
The idea is that continuing to make purchases adds plausibility to the framing.
You appear as if you are cooperating fully, and innocent (because a guilty person who knows they are being investigated stops doing the illegal thing).
If it was the housekeeper doing the crime, they wouldn't know bout the investigation so they would keep criming.
Since you don't know how long you've been monitored prior to learning of the investigation you don't want to suddenly change the routine either... Same reasoning as the first point.
The only real move you have is to hope hope the evidence points at the housekeeper and the frame-up tricks the investigators.
Im not saying i agree with any of the above, but it's the type of reasoning behind the actions.
- function_seven 4y agoI can't believe I didn't think it through like this. I reverse my judgement here. There are two ways this can play out for the accused: (1) The misdirection works and she's off scot-free, or (2) it fails, and she's in roughly the same amount of trouble as she would have been had she not continued making the purchases. Thanks.
- behringer 4y agoRoughly yes, but man do I hope that's an extra charge or two.
- roundandround 4y agoI don't know if that's it. The old joke was if you get caught its time to expand your business since it will need to support a legal team for decades.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- notSupplied 4y agoHonestly not a bad pilot episode right there.
- seanmcdirmid 4y agoIt could always have been the housekeeper, it’s important to collect enough evidence to get beyond the reasonable doubt threshold.