Reasonable implication, find someone with many prior convictions, accuse them of any crime, present past convictions, and then they are guilty? This seems to defy the very concept of innocent until proven guilty.
I don't think it follows. If someone is convicted of 15 counts of felony tax evasion, that doesn't mean they're guilty of any other crime they're accused of (including a 16th count of tax evasion—but set that aside). Especially not murder. You need more information other than their rap sheet to conclude someone is guilty.
This is an abuse of statistics, because you're not considering the likelyhood that a random 15-time felon killed someone, but the likelyhood that a specific 15-time felon that was accused of killing a specific person actually did it.
If you were trying to pick a realistic scapegoat he would have been a great candidate.
>If you were trying to pick a realistic scapegoat he would have been a great candidate.
It also helps if the scapegoat had the victims property in his car.
I have not reviewed the details of the case and have no opinion on actual guilt, I was commenting on a specific line of reasoning.