[maryz]

Sorry -- I recalled the phrase wrong. It's "blood transfer patterns.

I googled it and found here an explanation: "Bloodstain pattern interpretation is a discipline, which utilizes the sciences of biology, physics and mathematics. . . . The study of bloodstain patterns and the consideration of the physical processes in the distribution of these patterns to reconstruct details of activities at scenes of violence have recently emerged as a recognized forensic skill. . . ."

"Low velocity impact [bloodstains include] blood transfer patterns caused by hair, swipes, hand, foot or bloody object impressions."

The document at the link is in pdf format, so I was switching back and forth typing a few words at a time and I restricted myself to the gist of it. (My eyes are crossing now!)

[maryz]

I don't see what this means, and why it suddenly, after 24 years, became "evidence."

I see you were busy while I was googling. See my post above -- it only recenly emerged as a "recognized forensic skill." It does seem almost as much art as science, but there are apparently recognized scientific checks on unrestrained imagination.

[heyheyhey]

Thank you very much.

I have the feeling that thank to some bishops' flirt with clerical homosexuality now it became so easy to accuse a Catholic priest of anything, even feeding little girls with human eyeballs - welcome to the new world of "zero tolerance policy."

Personally, I don't think this particular priest was involved in any satanic rituals, with or without the killings - if it were so, he would not be able to stay in the Priesthood. He was one of the suspects 24 years ago simply because he was working at the same hospital and the nun was killed in the chapel. Everyone who watches TV knows that Catholic priests kill in chapels. ;-)

The sad part is that even if he is acquitted (and most likely it will happen) he has no chance to prove to everybody the lack of his involvement in the murder.