Putting aside the very first paragraph ("What they meant is wrong"), this post makes some sound points.
It is also the case that the alleged new evidence for Poste being the killer is, in fact, circumstantial with respect to the issue of who committed the murders in question.
So, returning to that first paragraph, to establish whether what mauze meant is wrong, we must establish both that mauze meant something other than what was written, and that the intended meaning was wrong.
I do not see any conclusive evidence as to what mause meant. Furthermore, bena's reply to mause suggests that the intended meaning was 'weak'. That strikes me as plausible, but as far as I can tell, it would not be an obviously wrong characterization of the new evidence.
It is also the case that the alleged new evidence for Poste being the killer is, in fact, circumstantial with respect to the issue of who committed the murders in question.
So, returning to that first paragraph, to establish whether what mauze meant is wrong, we must establish both that mauze meant something other than what was written, and that the intended meaning was wrong.
I do not see any conclusive evidence as to what mause meant. Furthermore, bena's reply to mause suggests that the intended meaning was 'weak'. That strikes me as plausible, but as far as I can tell, it would not be an obviously wrong characterization of the new evidence.