[ Home | Contents | Search | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: [email protected]
Date: 5/29/01
Time: 11:56:30 PM
Charlie,
I showed that Kestler comment about them "searching for evidence that they didn't want to make in the beginning," and no one missed the significance of the remark. Deliberately not looking for evidence in the beginning. That's ludicrous.
And now we know exactly what Kestler meant by the remark written on their analysis about looking for blood on the socks but finding none obvious.
I posted somment on this on the Simpson ng. It was wording deliberately couched neither to deny nor affirm the presence of blood while making it possible to plant really incriminating blood later by not having committed themselves to a definite position about the condition of the socks earlier.
When investigators make such overly cute and clever remarks about their findings which are deliberately couched to make it possible to subsequently interpret the remarks as either confirming or denying the presence of blood depending on what they subsequently determine is the safe course of action, that is absolutely certain proof of deception being practiced big time. No evidence produced by such investigators can possibly be trustworthy.
Prien