>>delbar+(OP)
I don't see any _new information_ here, it's all stuff we've known for months. To me, this is just a conspiracy theory wrapped up with 'probability charts'.
Unless I'm missing something, is there any non-circumstantial evidence that this is true? All I've seen for the past year(!) is "it's not a coincidence that these two things happened in the same place" - which isn't science.
>>yabone+x4
Its pretty irritating to me that any theory of conspiracy must outright be rejected in the english language because "Conspiracy Theory" has somehow come to mean undoubtedly wrong. And the same thing with "Circumstantial Evidence", somehow in common english language has come to mean not very good evidence. Guess what, eye witness accounts of the accused murderer at the scene is circumstantial evidence, but damn if its not pretty devastating evidence coupled with the bloody clothes!