• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Continuation Part 10: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

Status
Not open for further replies.
I read and commented on this paper some time ago. What this paper does is to (yet again) document that the use of a second presumptive test is commonplace: "It has also been customary to undertake a second confirmation test when using luminol." This paper also demonstrates that lemon juice will interfere with a TMB test. However, Comodi tells us that we can rule out fruit juice by common sense. It does not at all address two very serious problems in the present case, namely lack of Meredith's DNA and the lack of a true confirmatory test, one that is based on antibodies that recognize some unique component of blood. Nencini's conclusion is just as stupid as it ever was, and it cannot be rescued by means of citing a reference but not considering what the paper is actually saying.

I took a look at the full paper too. What needs to be emphasised is that the paper in question's findings speak only to cases where a bloodstain is contaminated with lemon juice. Under those conditions luminol outperforms other tests which do not work well in an acidic environment.

Unless lemons were somehow involved in the Kercher murder, which I do not believe there is any evidence to support, this finding is of questionable relevance to the matter at hand. How this finding supports hiding negative test results from the court is simply not clear, nor is how any paper could do so.
 
But in practical experiments, TMB proved to have a sensitivity 10 times lower under the best condition, limited to around 500 erytrocites/microliter. That is a blood dilution of 1:104. Some experiments managed to obtain higher sensitivity, but even those in the best conditions found a sensitivity that was about 10 lower than luminol. This however, is the best result and the best figure obtained refers to the actual final dilution of the already collected sample. Which is, unfortunately, much more diluted than the actual stain. If a stain had originally a concentration of 500 erytrocites per microliter, the collected sample, being a diultion in aswab solution, may well have only 50 erytrocites per microliter. TMB is an indirect test, is done on the swab not on the stain. Therefore in practice its sensitivity (already of a magnitude lower compared to luminol) drops dramatically compared to a direct test like luminol.

Reply these are practical experiments I have cited. Done by forensic scientists in the manner they would at a crime scene with simulated blood stains. The second ref found similar sensitivities for TMB and Luminol. This was done by the centre for Forensic Science at Strathclyde University which runs highly rated training courses (MSc and PhD) and does much research in Forensic science. The first was done by the Metropolitan police using the tests they actually do and comparing with a new commercial kit that is human blood specific (a confirmatory not presumptive test) to see if they should use it. I gave the refs so you could confirm the veracity. I think that the values you give are under ideal and not field conditions. If you could reference your statements then I could be educated. Luminal in particular can be highly variable in sensitivities depending on whether used in a liquid or on a solid substrate, the background lighting conditions, and the light detector used. You can increase sensitivity if you use a photodetector rather than the eye. So any discussion on Luminol sensitivity must specify the conditions, and these need to be similar to those used in this case. Certainly the references I gave are to the use of Luminol on a solid substrate on a simulated blood stain, in a simulated crime scene environment.
 
How much more or less sensitive are confirmatory tests than luminol? Are there any confirmatory tests that are more sensitive than luminol?

the first ref i gave Journal of Forensic Sciences Volume 53, Issue 3, pages 687–689, May 2008, was the Met looking at a new field test that is specific for primate blood (Elisa based), the sensitivity they got was 1:1000 dilution under standard use, they pushed it up to 1:10,000 by reducing buffer volume. TMB was 1 : 5X10,000. They did not directly compare with Luminol as the Met do not use it (for heath and safety reasons), another paper with comparable methodology reported similar sensitivities for Luminol and TMB at 1:100,000, neither detecting at 1:1,000,000. J. For Sci 2007; 52 (1):102–109.

There may be more sensitive specific tests that could be carried out in the laboratory on a swab of a blood stain.
 
-


-

I did and linked to a picture of it in my original post, but I'll link to it again HERE. Sorry, I don't have the best camera in the world.

Anyway, I couldn't find the darn ketchup, so I used hot sauce instead. I laid two set of tracks with my fingers, and then a fourth set over a third set. Which one is the set of finger tracks and which ones were the shoe (which is shown in the picture along with the glove) prints and which is the glove prints and which was laid first, second, third, and last?

Hmm, you maybe right about the smearing, but it could certainly help obliterate the first set, leaving it's own smear.

I'm originally from New England, and I do know you can't eliminate snowprints, but you can obliterate them when multiple people walk over the same area so it's hard to tell one track from the other, with the exception of the final set of tracks. The same thing is true of mud, which (in my opinion) is a lot closer to blood than snow is,

d

-
P.S. Yeah, I know what you mean, but I consider it a debate more than an arguement...

-

Great effort AmyS! Good to see the inquisitive spirit inaction. I think the question of viscosity, or stickiness, comes to mind.

A more liquidy substance could reform itself more easily. But a stickier substance, like chewing gum or dog poop, tends to hold its shape better.

Blood is pretty sticky stuff.

I can't say I think its possible that anyone wiped away footprints (Rudy admits they're his footprints), in blood in Meredith's room, only to leave more foot prints in blood which Rudy admits are his footprints.

There is a whole universe of information in that room, that cottage, that city, etc. Physical laws at play, and evidence of events.

Speculating on one possibility, without accounting for all the other physical evidence, is literally writing fiction. It's what the convicting judges and the prosecutors and slandering journalists have done in this case. We needn't add to that embarrassing pile, imo.
 
Last edited:
Speculating on one possibility, without accounting for all the other physical evidence, is literally writing fiction. It's what the convicting judges and the prosecutors and slandering journalists have done in this case. We needn't add to that embarrassing pile, imo.

This sums up the crazy motivations by Massei and Nencini...not to mention Machiavelli. They focus only on the aspect that might lead to guilt and ignore and dismiss the countless aspects that might point in the opposite direction. It's like coming to the conclusion that (4+4)-(7+2)=8 simply because you decide that because the -(7+2) part of the equation doesn't help you reach that #8 conclusion it can be ignored.

It truly is starting with the result first and dismissing anything and everything that doesn't help you obtain that result.
 
Hi Desert Fox,
If those are indeed blonde hairs, 1 in Meredith's grasp, and 1 found upon examination of her vagina, it might be that the presumed semen stain is not Rudy Guede's. And that there was another attacker in Meredith's bedroom.

That hair strand still bothers me.
I've not cut my hair since January, it's the longest it's been since 1999,
and when I see some of the beach blonde wavy hair strands that fall out, I wonder about that pic of what looks like a blonde hair to me, that ain't no fiber from a duvet or a hair from "Poor Rudy". It does not look like black or dark brown hair to me. Too bad that the cops lost them both, it appears...

By the way,
keep those hairs in mind if you do think of the downstairs,
for right near the kitchen door, is that a shower curtain laying there,
as CodyJuneau mentioned he 1st thought it was? What do you folks think?

I think that it is, it seems much too large for a small kitchen window curtain.
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=480&pictureid=9206[/qimg]
If that is a shower curtain, and it was there when the cops broke into the downstairs, and the boys downstairs did not remove it right before they went on holiday, well it makes a person wonder, what was Rudy gonna do with it?
Wrap up Meredith in plastic and carry her thru town?
Wrap her and carry her body down the ravine and bury her?
Wrap her to hide as he put her body in the trunk of car to dispose of it elsewhere?

He didn't have a car.
If he had use of a car,
it's possible someone else knows some things + is keeping quiet.


Do you folks ever wonder how the heck PM Mignini and PM Comodi interviewed Hekuran Kokomani
and found any part of his ridiculous story to be true?
And then he was brought to Court to testify?

I mean, come on, he told PM Mignini that he threw some olives at Amanda when she brandished a knife as he sat in his car in the middle of the street when he almost ran her over?? And PM Mignini believed him? Hahaha.

I think that Koko's story was brought into Court to discredit him,
and so no one would dig deeper and see nor find any Rudy Guede connection.

Weird how Barbie Nadeu writes a coupla times in Angele Face that Kokomani was an informant. Koko's a part of the missing RG story, in my opinion. Frank Sfarzo wrote before that Koko knew RG from working together in a restaurant. Koko was about 10 years older than RG, more experienced in life and what else I wonder? Disconnecting burglar alarms systems, even 1's that were not on? I wonder if he was ever in the military, because LMT's old blog seemed to suggest that the murderer was left handed, and a former serviceman.

I too am wondering if the initial assault happened downstairs.
RG is upstairs, he broke the window, climbed up+in. MK came home. She grabbed the keys and went downstairs to check on the cat before studying. Koko mighta been outside, a look out. Followed her, attacked her, brought her back upstairs, then it went outta control soon afterwards. Explains the knowledge of the boys keys from downstairs.

Where were Meredith blood drops found at downstairs?
Are they watered down or deep red drops?

Afterwards,
it's trying to figure out what to do,
frame someone who lives there, or remove the body.
By ones self or with use of a car.

Man,
if those plastic bags on the kitchen stove were left there by an assailant,
it's lucky the place did not catch fire, for no one would have ever figured out the details of this horrible case we discuss. Oh wait, it's 7 years later now, and we still don't know what really happened.

Gosh,
a long post again, just more random thoughts...
RW

. . . . .Kind of wish you did write smaller posts :p

There are always going to be coincidences with any event. There are millions of events going on in one's life. Usually we pay little attention to many of them. As such, it is hard to know if the shower curtain and the items you bring up are coincidences.

I don't see any advantage of disposing of her body even if multiple people are involved and being that Guede went off to party later on, and not long after the murder, I don't see much time was spent on the idea. You would have also needed to spend significant time cleaning up blood stains / smearing.

Do not forget that Guede claims to have been with her when she died. If even that is to be believed, which seems to come from his earliest stories, he is involved in some manner.

Of note, I grabbed my head and pulled a few hairs. I have brown hair maybe slightly lighter than Meredeth has in some pictures of her. Those strands looked about as blond as those that you have posted. Tend to consider it most likely that it is her own hairs.

With the amount of evidence that Guede left at the actual murder scene, I would expect anybody else involved to leave significantly more than a few hairs. Of course the police are pretty incompetent in this case.
 
Reposting a previous post I wrote, since the question of suppression regarding the downstairs crime scene has come up again, and seems to me as possibly related to any prior police/Mignini relationship with Rudy Guede.

Found here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10136434&postcount=4490"

Move Over Joseph Smith! Guede, Mignini, and the ISC.

Originally Posted by Strozzi
What is it about the pattern of facts regarding the prosecutor and police and Guede prior to the Kercher murder that supports your suspicion that the authorities were protecting Guede in the initial investigatory stages of the murder? Please show me what you are looking at. (snippy-snip-snip)

CJ72 (me) -

Moore's chapter in the book; "The Forgotten Killer...", points to Guede's arrest in Milan for a burglary in a nursery, where he had taken a knife from the kitchen. Guede was found with the items stolen from the Perugian law office 2 weeks earlier, with an identical break-in MO to the cottage, a rock through the window, with a metal grating assisted climb up.

Guede was released from Milan, after a call from Perugia to the mIlan police, Guede was on the next train to Perugia, and according to Moore's account, with his backpack and knife.

Moore had worked in Italy for school security, and had contacts in Italy. His investigations caused him to conclude Rudy was likely a police informant.

Bob Graham did an article on Guede about 4 months after the first level conviction, that also suggested that Guede was working for the police and given a pass on numerous robberies in Perugia because of that. This is probably the source of stories, including about the next door neighbor's apartment burning down and her missing gold watch (Guede also had a lady's gold watch when caught in Milan, but that watch disappeared after GUede's release). In Graham's article, Mignini concedes Guede may have been an informant.

Moore, Nencini (in his opinion), and Napoleone in testimony, all claim the police were familiar with Guede before the kercher killing, with Moore and Nencini going so far as to claim the police were familiar with Guede's style of B&E - a rock through the window, followed by a metal grating assisted climb up to a second floor.

At the Kercher crime scene, the police claim to have concluded the break-in was staged almost immediately. All the reasons they gave, suggested to me, they were trying to draw attention away from Guede.

Covering the corpse with a duvet is a female gesture.
Poor choice of window (but guede always used windows that had metal grating underneath to assist with the climb).
glass on top of tossed about clothes (was false, but Guede made a mess in his other burglaries).
(I've forgotten some other points, maybe they'll come back to me. But there are other similarities to Guede's previous burglaries - piles of glass, makes himself at home, carries a knife he brandishes when threatened - all facts the police would have known if they were familiar with and protecting Guede prior to the kercher killing).

The prosecution's refusal to test the broken to dispute the theory the break-in was staged (prosecution had claimed the glass was broken from inside the room, a test on the glass would have settled the question).

Refusing to test (or suppressing) the presumable sperm stain between Meredith's legs. The suppression of human DNA profiles from downstairs, including two samples from a light switch, (almost certainly Guede) falsely claiming they are all cat's blood. (mmk.com)

All the efforts to implicate Knox and Sollecito, including destroying exculpatory evidence, and to make it a group crime, and lessen Guede's involvement - first attempting to draft Lumumba, then substituting Guede when forensics came back and he could no longer be kept out of it. (my conjecture).

But the biggest issue for me is understanding why the Police and MIgnini would want to protect Guede. It's not because Guede is important, or he's doing any important or sensitive work. It's because they screwed up in allowing Guede to remain free to kill Meredith. Without a group crime, Guede alone is responsible. If Guede alone is responsible, then the responsibility for Kercher's death rests wholly with the Italians. The Police, Mignini, the judges, all of them.

In the judicial opinions look at the irrational positions that were taken by different players. Mignini wanted there to be a satanic sex orgy. The judge Micheli wouldn't have it. But he did go with the idea that the break-in was staged, it was a group crime, AK's statement was calumnia and hers - not the police's - fault, and that AK/RS should be held over for trial.

Micheli was also the judge in Mignini's case against 20 people in florence that Michelli would dismiss before trial in 2010. Micheli rejected Mignini's satanic sex claims in Florence, and also in the pre-trial Kercher case. Michelli and Massei didn't support Mignini's satanic sex calims, but they all supported: the staged break-in, the crime committed with others, and the calumnia charge (the police did nothing wrong).

Micheli was Mignini's judicial handler, in so far as his satanic sex cult claims in the Narducci/MOF and Kercher cases. Micheli was the single Italian judge to steer those claims through the courts, and harmonize the results. Mignini was publicly critical in rejecting Micheli's dismissal of his Florence case, he was either interviewed or wrote an editorial to that effect.

For Mignini and the Italian judiciary, Protecting Guede, is protecting themselves. This theory is consistent with the police behavior prior to and on-site at the kercher crime scene, with Mignini's behavior prior to and during the criminal investigation and trial, and the judge's supportive rulings defending people from Mignini's more offensive allegations, to the extent possible.

Micheli delayed writing his motivation for the 2010 florence case for 1 year, it was not released until I believe March 2012 (?), 3 months after the oct, 2011 Hellman acquittal. Michelli's motivation refuting Mignini's claims was over 900 pages. Motivations must normally be written within 90 days.

In March 2013, ISC overturned the Hellman acquittal. But I believe this is also the month they overturned Michelli's ruling dismissing Mignini's florence case against 20 people, Mario Spezi among them. The Florence case was sent back for retrial against Spezi and 5 others, the balance having been dismissed for statute of limitations.

When Spezi had been earlier released from jail, the releasing judge did not in releasing Spezi, deny Mignini's theory of Narducci/MOF and satanic sex cults. The judicial rulings have consistently been careful to not reject Mignini's theories, while at the same time protecting as far as possible, the many people he has been crazy enough to accuse with his crazy theories.

In the last week or two, the remnants of the Florence case were dismissed on the first day of court, all at the request of the prosecutor. Absent an appeal, Mignini's Narducci branch of the MOF investigation is closed. (Guitarri, who was charged with Mignini for abuse of office, has returned to the police force, and was a civil party in the case against Spezi which was dismissed).

Mignini's promotion means he will no longer lead investigations or try cases. He can only sit on appeal cases. Mignini can't appeal the Narducci case, so who else would? Mignini can't start any more witch hunts. The charges for abuse of office against him have been shelved, so the ISC no longer needs to protect Mignini from charges.

Mignini has his promotion, Guitarri is a policeman, the victims of Mignini's Narducci investigation have been saved from prosecution. The Kercher killing suspects (or judicial victims) Knox and Sollecito are literally the last loose ends of the MOF case.
The judges were never serious in the kercher convictions I believe. They were never that dumb, imo. They had an agenda. That agenda has been satisfied. There's no reason to hold onto the unjust convictions any longer, Amanda and Raf have served their purpose. In fact, its riskier and more damaging to them to hold them in the case any longer. It's a world-wide embarrassment, and there's nothing more to be gained be prolonging it. The way I read the tea leaves, Amanda and Raff are headed for exoneration at the earliest opportunity.
 
Last edited:
yeah interesting article of the Rudy filth and police backing of the scum in Perugia, and all the ill systems helping and coercing outcomes.

Rudy knows he could end up like Toto and no one would care, thats how they work it seems in Perugia.
 
Hi Desert Fox,
By the way,
keep those hairs in mind if you do think of the downstairs,
for right near the kitchen door, is that a shower curtain laying there,
as CodyJuneau mentioned he 1st thought it was? What do you folks think?

I think that it is, it seems much too large for a small kitchen window curtain.
picture.php





RW

RW,

In Europe, and in particular in Italy, the showers are not like they are in the US. They are tiny squares with doors. I've never seen a shower stall in Italy with a shower curtain.

I really doubt it is a shower curtain just based on the types of showers they have.
 
a potential source of confusion

I think a "reducing agent" would just lower the power of the luminol reaction, since would share the catalyst to react with hydrogen peroxide in its place (it depend what would mean by reducing agent, reducing what; water can even be a reducing agent).
Machiavelli and Griffinmill,

At pH 7, the standard reduction potential for oxygen to become water is E°' = +0.82 volts. Water is therefore a very poor reducing agent (plants get around this problem by using light energy to take electrons from water). Detergents are ordinarily not reducing or oxidizing agents; they are surfactants.

Castello and colleagues wrote in 2002, "A concentrated solution of ascorbic acid of 166.7 mg/mL (1 M) was prepared to increase the contaminant effect." The standard reduction potential of ascorbic acid at pH 7 is E°' = +0.06 volts. Thus ascorbic acid is a stronger reductant than water is.
 
Some thoughts on the chemistry of cleansers

"Dichloroisocyanuric acid, also known as dichlor or dichloro-s-triazinetrione and is marketed under many names (e.g. troclosene), is a chemical compound with the formula (C(O)NCl)2(C(O)NH). This colourless solid is the active ingredient in many commercial bacteriocides, algicides, and cleaning agents. It is an oxidizer that reacts with water to form hypochlorous acid, the sodium salt of which is the active ingredient in bleach." wikipedia entry. This compound is the active agent of Comet cleanser.

This patent application is consistent with the description of the chemistry above: "This invention relates to improvements in the manufacture of dichloroisocyanuric acid (sometimes termed dichlorocyanuric acid or dichloroiminocyanuric acid)...Recently there has been increased emphasis upon the development of solid bleach formulations containing higher concentrations of available chlorine than can be obtained in liquid concentrates. Most of these formulations are based upon an organic compound containing positive or available chlorine atoms, that is a compound having one or more chlorine atoms which have replaced one or more acidic hydrogen atoms with the result that the compound will hydrolyze in aqueous solution to yield hypochlorite ion." link

See also this link to a WHO document. "NaDCC is the sodium salt of a chlorinated hydroxytriazine and is used as a source of free available chlorine (FAC), in the form of hypochlorous acid (HOCl), for the disinfection of water. " NaDCC is the abbreviation for sodium dichloroisocyanurate the conjugate base of troclosene. Although aqueous solutions of bleach (sodium hypochlorite) degrade quickly, dry substances that produce bleach may be more stable.
 
Machiavelli and Griffinmill,

At pH 7, the standard reduction potential for oxygen to become water is E°' = +0.82 volts. Water is therefore a very poor reducing agent (plants get around this problem by using light energy to take electrons from water). Detergents are ordinarily not reducing or oxidizing agents; they are surfactants.

Castello and colleagues wrote in 2002, "A concentrated solution of ascorbic acid of 166.7 mg/mL (1 M) was prepared to increase the contaminant effect." The standard reduction potential of ascorbic acid at pH 7 is E°' = +0.06 volts. Thus ascorbic acid is a stronger reductant than water is.

But most detergents are also acid. Body detergents are salts but also tipically have a Ph around five, hair detergents towards 4. In a water solution some might be reductants. Moreover the skin is a typically reductant environment, I mean the hydrolipidic film, sweat, depending on body conditions.
Dish detergents often contain citric acid, albeit that is not probably a likely substance in this case.
I point out however that the presence of reducing substances is completely secondary. TMB is less sensitive and less specific independently, moreover it is an indirect test.
 
Last edited:
But most detergents are also acid. Body detergents are salts but also tipically have a Ph around five, hair detergents towards 4. In a water solution some might be reductants. Moreover the skin is a typically reductant environment, I mean the hydrolipidic film, sweat, depending on body conditions.
Dish detergents often contain citric acid, albeit that is not probably a likely substance in this case.
I point out however that the presence of reducing substances is completely secondary. TMB is less sensitive and less specific independently, moreover it is an indirect test.

Then why did they bother to do such a useless test? Your arguments are moronic.
 
But most detergents are also acid. Body detergents are salts but also tipically have a Ph around five, hair detergents towards 4. In a water solution some might be reductants. Moreover the skin is a typically reductant environment, I mean the hydrolipidic film, sweat, depending on body conditions.
Dish detergents often contain citric acid, albeit that is not probably a likely substance in this case.
I point out however that the presence of reducing substances is completely secondary. TMB is less sensitive and less specific independently, moreover it is an indirect test.


What is your spin on the results of a direct application of Luminol verses an indirect TMB test on a substrate like a floor tile with an old stain that left iron ions bound to the tile?
 
But most detergents are also acid. Body detergents are salts but also tipically have a Ph around five, hair detergents towards 4. In a water solution some might be reductants. Moreover the skin is a typically reductant environment, I mean the hydrolipidic film, sweat, depending on body conditions.
Dish detergents often contain citric acid, albeit that is not probably a likely substance in this case.
I point out however that the presence of reducing substances is completely secondary. TMB is less sensitive and less specific independently, moreover it is an indirect test.

What were the results of the actual confirmatory test? What were the results of the DNA test?
 
From Rafaelle Sollecito's book, Honor Bound, p.176-177;

"I firmly believe that our trial was, among other things, a grand diversion intended to keep media attention away from Mignini's legal battle in Florence and provide him with the high-profile court victory he desperately needed to restore his reputation".

Already in the pre-trial hearing, Mignini had shown signs of hypersensitivity about his critics, in particular a handful of English-speaking investigators and reporters who had questioned his case against us early on.

He issued an explicit warning that anyone hoping he would back off the Meredith Kercher case or resign should think again. "Nobody has left their post, and nobody will", he said. "Let that be clear, in Perugia and beyond".

Just as he had in the Monster of Flroence case, Mignini used every tool at his disposal against his critics and adversaries. He spied on my family and tapped their phones. He went after Amanda not just for murder, but also for defaming Patrick Lumumba - whom she had implicated under duress and at the police's suggestion. He opened or threatened about a dozen other legal cases against his critics in Italy and beyond. He charged Amanda's parents with criminal defamation for repeating the accusation that she had been hit in the head while in custody. And he sued or threatened to sue an assortment of reporters, writers, and newspapers, either because they said negative things about him or the police directly or because they quoted others saying such things.

Mignini's volley of lawsuits had an unmistakeable chilling effect, especially on the Italian press, and played a clear role in tipping public opinion against us. We weren't the only ones mounting the fight of our lives in court, and it was difficult not to interpret this legal onslaught as part of Mignini's campaign to beat back the abuse of office charges. His approach seemed singularly vindictive. Not only did we have to sit in prison while the murder trial dragged on; it seemed he wanted to throw our friends and supporters - anyone who voiced a sympathetic opinion in public - into prison right alongside us."
 
Last edited:
What were the results of the actual confirmatory test? What were the results of the DNA test?

I like that train of thought...what were the results of the thousands of phone taps, what were the results of the computer data ?

answer : nothing = innocence...

what were the results of a coercive, lying pack of Perugia screaming cops, performing a suspicious late night framing/interrogation tea party?
Answer: ?
 
I like that train of thought...what were the results of the thousands of phone taps, what were the results of the computer data ?

answer : nothing = innocence...

what were the results of a coercive, lying pack of Perugia screaming cops, performing a suspicious late night framing/interrogation tea party?
Answer: ?

What were the results of opening up the handle of Raf's knife?
What were the results of the semen test?
Oh, that's right! The Italian Judiciary isn't interested in the truth!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom