The abuse accusations sound eerily similar to those alleged in the McMartin child abuse case in California some 20 years ago.
They were outrageous, on their face, yet people rushed to believe the children ("five year old girls were vaginally penetrated with butcher knives").
Of course, every single accusation was false, and the children admitted they lied to please the social workers, but these people were ruined in the frenzy.
I don't believe the abuse accusations, and this priest likely had nothing to do with the murder.
It's a rush-to-judgment.
You know, none of what's been reported about it makes much sense to me. Including the "blood transfer patterns" part. How would this be clearer today than at the time of the crime 24 years ago?
And without any motive? Why would a priest commit a murder on an old nun with a letter opener, then put the "weapon" in his desk and live in the town for the next 24 years knowing he's remained the only murder suspect?