JP
That is a possible interpretation of events, but it is just that - an interpretation, which may be fallible. Be wary of using the "it fits the facts" approach to determining guilt. Facts are not necessarily as factual as they may seem.
Think back to 1974, and the Birmingham pub bombings. The "Birmingham Six" were convicted largely on the basis of what was considered at the time to be incontrovertible forensic evidence; a positive chemical test for the presence of nitroglycerine which was held to be proof that they had handled explosives.
Unfortunately, and rather a number of years later, it was shown that the test could be fooled by the presence of nitrocellulose,a harmless substance present, amongst other uses, in the glossy coating used on playing cards.
The defendants had always stated that they had been playing cards shortly before their arrest.
The case against them collapsed, but only after they had served several years in jail (and one had died there).
It is, of course, just possible that they were guilty anyway. But they would never have been convicted if the real weakness of the evidence against them had been appreciated at the time.
Regards
Ginseng