Weak evidence does not indicate a high probability of non-involvement. That would be the definition of exculpatory evidence.

Weak evidence indicates involvement but not very strongly.

At this point I don't really care if you are just engaging in this ******ed argument just to cover up that you don't understand math or if you truly and mistakenly believed that weak evidence can include 95% comparability with non-involvement. I obviously think it is the former but whatever.

I'm not the one desperately trying to justify a position that no one else holds by mental gymnastics that are not even close to convincing.

Again you reveal your ignorance of the facts. In detail what was the legal issue the prosecutor faced? How was it resolved? How common are these issues?

I don't think you should continue to try to discuss probability. You seem confused by the idea that having new information can change probability calculations.

Unlike yourself I did not lie about being a geneticists so my employment if of no relevance since with the exception of law none of my education is relevant here.

Since you keep insisting and since it is no secret I do nothing. I was fortunate enough to make enough money that I live a really good life without having to work. Yeah I can see how that would be really embarrassing. I'm going to hop in my Porsche and cry about it.

As for my credentials I have a science background but undergrads are meaningless so I don't actually use my own experience to attack the credentials of scientists. Rather I find examples of them lying and then impeach their credibility. That doesn't actually require any expertise or science background.

I do and that isn't a review of the literature. I'm curious do you not know what a review is or are you hoping that if you just say it was one people will believe your lie?

I mean we have the link and it is easy to look at.

I already demonstrated that the first three sources had nothing to do with the thesis of the paper.

No. You linked to a paper on a corporate website. It is not a review of the literature. It is not even a study in a peer-reviewed journal.

No. It means I recognized that the article is not in a journal and that the bibliography of a paper is not necessarily a support of the thesis of a paper. This is something anyone with any university education could figure out just as fast. That you continue to desperately cling to this argument is rather pathetic. What you should be doing is finding a review of the literature in a respected journal that proves me wrong. Instead you keep trying to insist that a turd is a diamond and no one including yourself actually believes that.

No I did not read them. They are a bibliography they are not the endorsement of the thesis of the paper. Let me explain how sourcing works. When you make a statement for something that is not obvious you source it. The source is used only to support that individual claim. It is not used to support the thesis of the paper as a whole. You seem to believe that if I find a paper that says X and that paper has a hundred sources in the bibliography that all hundred sources also say X which is comically wrong.


Except it isn't a review paper / meta-study.

I agree, that's why you have no credibility.


You seem to be totally confused. The print your talking about was a partial print on the edge of the pillow case. Let's test your objectivity. Would you agree that the photo I posted is indicative of match of the tread in the picture to the print on the pillow?

You may want to start with the photograph that proves that print is Rudy's tread. That might save you some time. And don't sell yourself short, you're a tremendous hack.

I guess it's easier to say this than admit you're lying.

There were defensive wounds where her hand came into contact with the knife. You said there was a complete lack. You lied. And she was killed fast that much is clear.

Eh wtf are you talking about, that's the same thing I quoted. You've gone mad. You said there was a complete lack of defensive wounds. You lied.

Again, you have no reasonable narrative of the attack you simply have talking points designed to confuse the issue. The slices on the right side are consistent with him holding the knife to her throat. Your contention is that she was being restrained and tortured in sadistic manner yet in the same breath you want to claim this was just an argument over money that escalated, yada yada yada, they all killed her.

Also, all of this talk of restraining was disputed at the trial by the different experts and you can read all about it in the Massei report. Her head was and face were clearly ripped back and the mortal wound was likely inflicted once Guede wrestled her to the ground and was behind and above her.

Again, none of the experts could rule out Guede did it alone. That does mean something. I think it's pretty clear that for at least part Meredith didn't fight back, most likely as she rightly feared for her life. Once Guede inflicts the wounds on the right side of her neck her natural reaction would be to bring her hands up which is consistent with her hand coming into contact with the knife. After that the evidence suggests it was a short time until the mortal wound was inflicted. The trauma was severe but you're overstating the amount of wounds in an attempt to strengthen the idea that Guede couldn't have done it alone.

There was a fight and a struggle, but once the knifing started in earnest it was fast.


You're simply wrong which is why none of the experts could rule out him doing it alone. The wounds and bruises all happened over the course of the fight. There is no reason to believe it had to have happened all at once. Further the defense experts explained why the injuries to her left elbow weren't the same as the ones to her right. We can go through the report if you'd like to.
If not you can explain exactly how, why and where Amanda and Raf were during this struggle and why the evidence doesn't reveal it. I'm especially interested in hearing the motive of why they are now apparently sadistically torturing her.

Do you know what color it was and if it had a hood?

I was really looking forward a bastard option on this one

This is the same issue you are having with the role-playing terrorist. New information can change things.

No. This isn't two ledgers getting points. Your post doesn't even make sense when you consider we're discussing a binary event.

How the hell are you people still arguing this?

My opinion on the matter is irrelevant. Further, if I was to give an opinion I would need to read the all three expert opinions -- I have their reports but have not bothered to read them. I might do that in the next few days since I actually want to go back to the bathmat footprint.


A lack of defensive wounds does not mean zero defensive wounds. If you expect a certain range but have considerable less than that range then you have a lack of something.

She wasn't killed fast.


So he cut her and she just stood there? For those cuts to be parallel like that her head had to be immobilized but there is no way to immobilize a head, restrain two arms, and hold a knife.

Disputed does not mean anything. All evidence that implies guilt is disputed. So find the quote and we can then evaluate how much sense an argument that she stood there and allowed herself to be cut makes.


Not being able to rule something out just means you can't say it is impossible. That doesn't change the fact that they said it is extremely. unlikely that one person would be able to do this


No I'm not. It was somewhere between mid-50s and mid-60s. This is covered in detail in at least four court documents so if I'm exaggerating then go look it up and quote a number.

No. She had a serious cut on the right side of her neck as weel as the series of parallel cuts, some additional small cuts and then the big fatal wound. There is a low double digit number of cuts. That isn't quick especially since the two biggest wounds are to opposite sides of the neck.

Ok. Post the report and your interpretation of what it says -- in your own words.

It was light blue but parts of it were dark blue. No idea if it had a hood. Don't see how any of this is relevant.

You called it a hoodie and it's clearly an Addidas track jacket that had blood all over it and Guede's DNA. You got the "woolen thing" from Guede's Skype call and I think it's pretty obvious given your failure to accurately describe it in the past that you've never seen the crime scene photos showing it.

So your head is buried in the sand. This is a shocking development.

Let's be clear you said there was a complete lack, not just a lack.

The definition of lack is: Deficiency or absence:

What would a complete deficiency or complete absence indicate to you?

The attack clearly did not last long nor was it prolonged. That's what the evidence shows.

No, you've decided that has to be and are forming an argument based on the conclusion you decided has to be true. I think it's clear he had the knife to her throat at that point.


Again, you ardently state a talking point as fact. I will do a summary of that section when I have time.

And the appeal judge found otherwise based on all of the testimony at the first trial. What did you expect the people Mignini put on the stand to say?


You're treating each and every spot as an individual item that couldn't have been connected to a single act. If you grab someone by the face and hair and rip them across the room and attack them, that is going to cause a lot of trauma. You're trying to say there were so many wounds it must have lasted a long time and been done by multiple people but the amount of trauma doesn't prove that.

This all happened in the same general area of the room as evidenced by the blood on the floor. If you are so sure of the length and movement then just lay out what happened and where everyone was. This should be simple with your advanced knowledge of the wound patterns. Also is your argument that you couldn't cut someone in an escalated attack knifing less than times in a manner that would be deemed quick? What are you even talking about at this point.


I've already posted my basic understanding of what happened in the room. When I get a chance I'll review the relevant documents and bring something forward. Considering you purport to have this advanced knowledge of what happened in there feel free in the meantime to lay out where Guede, Amanda, and Raf where and how the evidence reveals to us what happened.

I know you won't, because you didn't in your mega-mess, but maybe you'll give it a go.

Why are you still reading it?

239: you never answered this:

<br />
<br />
Why would it matter what they were doing? Under your scenario it was a one person job. Are you suggesting the evidence is open to interpretation leading to a conclusion that more than one person was involved?

Oct 2011:

239, honest question: You must remember that all your arguments have failed. So why don't you develop new arguments (or stop arguing) instead of using the exact same lines which prompt the exact same responses, which leads to the exact same dead end for you?

I mean, you tried it with rep 199 last year and this year as well, got caught both times, and I suppose in March you'll do it again. You know we know all the flaws in your arguments, but you don't change or evolve at all: After all this time, you are still on break-in authentic, false positive Luminol, etc., but because you don't develop arguments beyond just insistence, I don't think anyone (including you) is any clearer on why you believe this.

It matters because they were charged with murder? The evidence in the murder room suggests Guede did it alone, yes. You're free to interpret the evidence anyway you'd like to.

ORLY, all of my arguments have failed while your Money stolen, yada, yada, murder, lies, guilty! is winning the day, eh? You must be joking, right? The best argument you've brought to the table is posting the Kastle-Meyer picture and saying nothing pretending it means something. I think it's clear that Henry doesn't know what he's talking about because he called that Addidas track jacket a woolen hoody. It's also amusing that you posted the pictures of where it was found 46 days later which boggles the mind as to why it wasn't collected the day the body was discovered by the LOLforensic police.

Yes I'm still on the truth, the same truth that ultimately was confirmed in their acquittals. Rep 198 and Rep 199 are very curious even still as it isn't clear why more attention wasn't paid to them.

Please go back to posting misleading pictures as that is your best chance of making a substantive point in this discussion!

You do repeat the same failed arguments over and over again. You know they are not valid arguments. You know what is wrong with them. You know that we know what is wrong with them. This topic is like Groundhog Day because of you.

Project much? Just because I know you're going to continue putting forth the same BS talking point meme spew that is typical of the guilt horde doesn't mean I should stop pointing out that which is obvious and true.

Your theory of the case, is your theory. If you want to hold out your theory as the prevailing one here, you should be open to answering questions about it. Indeed, now that you've finally provided your theory, here is your chance to dispose of the smoke and mirrors and dive into it - this is your chance to prove your case to all the doubters.


So, I merely pointed out that it seems like under your theory, AK and RS don't need an alibi.

However, you disagreed. So, since you disagreed, it seems you are interpreting the evidence in a way which leaves open the possibility of more than one participant.

So, under your theory, do AK and RS need an alibi?

I honestly don't understand your question. You need an alibi if we choose to suspect you of the crime as does anyone. My position is that the evidence indicates Guede was the only person in the murder room and I've clearly laid out why. It's clear he was involved in a bloody mess in there including near the area where the knife was laid down. I've never said it was impossible that there could have been other actors, but the evidence doesn't indicate there was.

I merely mentioned that due to the timing, if we accept the last time they are seen in person as the end of their alibi, they theoretically could have gotten to the cottage before Meredith got home.

That's fine. So, under your theory, AK and RS need alibis on order to rule them out (if others participated).

Since, you state that under your theory that it is not impossible (based on the evidence) that more than one person was involved, what evidence leads you to conclude this?

How does Rudy know Meredith keeps her money in a "specific drawer?"

All of the available evidence leads us to believe that it's not impossible.

I'd say he either forced her to tell him or he found it. We only know that he made a point to make it part of his story. We don't actually know if money was there and it was stolen or not, but it seems likely it was given the story.

He's ****ing magic.