Well, yes. That's why I wrote, Let's say he is guilty as the first sentence.

It's true that he would have to do everything he's doing if he was innocent, but I would have expected a different reaction from him, especially in the first days. Let's just say he was acting way too resigned to probably losing way too early.

So. Let's say he is innocent. That would mean he would have NO IDEA why the A sample came up positive. Now, why would he then say (as he and his team did in the first few days) that he fully expected the B sample to come up positive too? Why would he say that? If he were innocent, why would he expect that? If he were innocent, wouldn't an error in the lab testing the A sample - which in all probability would not be repeated for the B sample - be just as likely an explanation for why the A sample came up positive as anything else?

Now. Let's say he's guilty. And the A sample showed it (which it did). Now does it make sense why he would expect and say that he expected for the B sample to show positive as well? The only reason for him to expect that the B sample would be positive, is because he knew why the A sample came up positive. And the only way he could know why the A sample came up positive is because he knew he was guilty.

His behavior and statements in the first few days were much more consistent with being guilty than being innocent.

Hey, it's killing me too. And I'm still holding out hope that he's actually innocent, but I realize that hope is completely irrational.