Are you guys quoting griffinmill correctly? Did he really just list a set of pro guilt talking points and then refuse to discuss them with the claim that he was aware of the FOA talking points that refuted his points?
This is the problem with the pro guilt community. All they have is a set of weak talking points that they repeatedly spam after they have been soundly refuted. They won't address the refutations but run and hide under their talking points blanket.
But you do not understand, Dan O. They may not have evidence, they may be refuted - but they still manage to assert their assertions heroically!
Let's review those talking points that he is repeating this time:
The bath mat print - a partial print that could belong to to just about anyone with that foot size. The print may not be definite enough to exclude either Raffaele or Rudy. But for Rudy alone we have a comprehensive theory that explains the creation of this particular print.
Can I be a compleat pain here? It is technically not a print, it is a track. A foottrack. Forensicly they(apparently) are two different animals.
And further, the medium of this foottrack is the pliant material of the bathmat. People who assert that the foottrack points to any one person in particular imply that it is a
print, like a fingerprint captured on proper paper, as if done by an experienced police-technician down at the police station.
I'm not saying you are saying this Dan O., but it is as you say - it might be used to exclude someone maybe not, but there's no way in Wednesday that it can I.D. someone. (So far with 165B, there goes the whole case against Raffaele.)
Amanda's blood in the bathroom - Amanda herself discloses this one spot. She tried scraping it and found it was already dry. If it were not dry, she could have washed it away. Why touch it and leave it? Amanda's own testimony declaring that the bathroom was previously clean is used as proof that this single drop of Amanda's blood was from the night of the murder. I pointed out how the colors reflecting off that tap hide the existence of the blood on the tap. Is griffinmill aware of this refutation to his talking point?
Welcome to the concept of "all the other evidence". The first time I ran into this concept was in the late summer of 2011, when the DNA evidence was falling apart. Peter Quennel promised us "all the other evidence". Thnigs like the aforementioned bath mat
track..... things like sex on a train.... things like "mixed-blood".... things like Amanda's blood in her own friggin' bathroom!, a lone drop on a faucet.... so much blood in fact, that when the postal police surveyed the bathroom, they thought everyone was overreacting over Meredith's locked door.
The mixed DNA in the bathroom can clearly be identified as background DNA deposited over time by the residents that regularly used that bathroom. Just look at the substrate control samples taken in the bathroom. You do know what substrate controls are and why they are used? At least you would if you have been following this thread. If you ever run into that pseudo doctor Stefanoni, please explain it to her, she must have missed that day in school.
Also griffinmill should watch the collection videos, taken by the Scientific Police themselves. With large swipes of collecting gauze, they found..... are you ready for it.... Meredith's and Amanda's DNA in the very bathroom they'd been sharing for weeks.
It leads me to believe that the next guilter talking point will be the clean-up - but this time a forensic-sterile clean in the late afternoon of Nov 1, to make the cottage ready to receive the forensics from the murder in the sterile environment....
..... so that we can be sure that what is found there is a result of the murder. Oh, all except the presumed semen stain on the pillow found underneath the victim's hips. That must have been from before, because as Massei says in his 2010 motivations report, "DNA does not have a timestamp..."
...... well, all except Amanda's DNA which had to have been deposited the night of the murder. Yes, that's it.
