|Part 23 was getting long and slow to respond, so I have split the thread to this new part 24. As usual the split point was arbitrary, and posters are free to copy and paste from previous iterations of the thread.|
Originally Posted by Ergon (Post 11689796)
Try to stay on topic, which is the Meredith Kercher case. You responded to my communique from the Court Press Office that the case hadn't been ruled admissible with a claim it 'wasn't accurate'. Would you care to substantiate that, or do you want to open a new thread where you can make all the ad hominems you wish?
via International Skeptics Forum http://ift.tt/2kF0qKK