Recent content by Ratunta

Yup, but they will RECONSIDER all the rest of evidence which was entered into the first trial also. And this time they will be viewing all that evidence through the prism of knowledge of the colossal <modsnip> that the evidence collection was and they now (hopefully) realise the appalling error...

Life is too short for this, there are Guilters out there with more scruples that I'd much rather engage because at least they don't pull stories of skipping work to pull pranks with strangers out of thin air to sustain their arguments. I'll pop back to say hi at the end of the month though.

Did the words BLOOD and RELIABLE in my post somehow elude your attention?

By cite I mean a link, an ISBN and page number, ya know, something I can look at. Not a vague reference to a man named "Frank". Do you mean Sfarzo? Did it come up in court at all? I would have thought it would have made it into the Massei report as it's as clear evidence as I've heard that...

You have 30 seconds to cite your source for a footprint MATCHING Raff's in the corridor which was made in blood. If the source is reliable, I will never again believe for one second that the pair are innocent.

Delay the discovery of the crime to what end? And how was it to their advantage to leave the blood in the sink?

So Amanda might have decided to skip work, and Raff was going to forego his responsibilities that evening, because earlier in the day they had bumped into Rudy Guede, and Amanda, being translated into Italian by Raff for Rudy's benefit, had explained to him that they intended to play a prank on...

Ohhh, and there was me thinking that a negative test for blood meant it was a negative test for blood. Wow, your reasoning skills are coming along brilliantly Awww, I spoke too soon. Rare in the house or rare in general? If you are saying in the house, you are demonstrably incorrect...

I hit the nail on the head first time, so no need for a second try.

Why would they spread it all over the ceiling? And if they were doing such a thorough job of it, why did they leave blood in the sink? And before you say "they forgot" consider that Raf told the police about the blood when he called them, and Amanda led the Postal Police to it when they arrived...

You don't have to be specific, just choose from one of the following times and tell me which one works with Amanda thinking she is at work and Raf thinking he has an appointment and the times they were reportedly seen. 9pm? 9.30pm? 10pm? 10.30pm? 11pm? 11.30pm? Later? Earlier? And...

So basically what you are saying is, believe in the science up to the point where it supports my bias (i.e. the science confirms the presence of both of their DNA) but then ignore the science as soon as it stops supporting my bias (i.e. that the substance was probably not blood) and then fall...

You can't have been looking very hard. Limiting yourself to two sources of information on the case no doubt, and I bet I know what those sources are...

Oh right, what time do you think they arranged to meet him? Amanda didn't know she was going to be off work earlier in the day, and Raf thought he was running an errand for someone. Can you give me a time that would have been convenient for them all that fits in with the known facts of the case...

Yeah, I saw their erroneous and scientifically disprovable conclusions. I'm glad you take them at face value. If the report told you the world was flat, would you quote that from it too?