git bundle create RawParser.bundle --allThe generated RawParser.bundle file is in binary format. If someone want to have a look at it, they can download the bundle file and simple use a clone command like:
git clone RawParser.bundleIf they have make some improvements in say three commits (preferable in a separate branch) and want to share those with me, they could use the following format-patch command to produce three patch file:
git format-patch -3 HEADIf they email those patch file, which are just plane text files, I can use apply command like the following to add them to my local repository:
git apply some.patch.fileI guess these should result in exactly the same commits to be reproduced in my local repository. If I had made some own modification in the mean time, I could create a branch from the commit mentioned on the first line of the patch file and next merge these with my current state of the repository. When I think they are okay, I could use the bundle command to create a new bundle file. They could download this file and use a fetch command to update their local repository to include my changes.
In the Deventer murder case, the detective suffered from tunnel vision. An exculpatory document has been withheld, official reports have been manipulated, necessary criminal investigations have not been carried out and crucial DNA evidence is actually useless because it has been handled in an unacceptable manner on several occasions.
This article mentioned something about the mobile phone of Ernest Louwes connecting with a base station near Deventer. Translated with Google Earth it says:
In 2004, the court considered this to be 'not plausible', because Louwes' mobile phone beamed at a mast in Deventer - about 25 to 30 kilometers outside the route that Louwes claimed to have taken. According to the court, that distance was too great to be able to beam on a mast. The conclusion was that Louwes was lying and must have been in Deventer.
It now appears that the mobile phones of the detectives who followed the route beamed on masts that were much further than the one in Deventer, at distances of 108 and 61 kilometers respectively. But the original list on which the irradiated masts are located has been kept outside the case file. The masts located further away, which would relieve Louwes, have been omitted from the official reports about those routes followed.
In the press statement, as a motivation to not reopen the case, it states:
TNO and TU Delft have jointly researched this. In 2019, they concluded that due to the weather conditions in the evening of September 23, 1999, the chance of a telephone conversation via the transmission tower in Deventer is no greater than 5% if L. drove on the A28 near Nunspeet (as he himself had stated). However, the chance of a telephone conversation via the transmission tower in Deventer is greater than 90% if L. was in the area for which the transmission tower in Deventer was intended. According to AG Aben, this conclusion of TNO and TU Delft provides sufficient support for the opinion of the Court of Appeal that it is not plausible that L. was on the A28 on 23 September 1999 at 8.36 pm. The report therefore does not give rise to serious doubts about the correctness of the conviction.
When I read this on Tuesday, I got some feeling that there is something wrong with the reasoning of chances, maybe even similar to the one that played an important role in another Dutch case, that about Lucia de Berk, a nurse that was convicted of having murdered several children, just based on the fact that she happened to be on service when they died. The chance that a base station contacts with a certain mobile phone is not the same as the chance that a mobile phone contacts a certain base station from a certain location. If the weather forcast says it will be raining 90% of the day and you go outside during the day and have some proof that you did not get wet it is strange to state that because the forcast said that it rained 90% of the day, you must have gone out when it rained and that it is possible that everytime when it rained you happened to walk under a tree that kept you from getting wet. This is a bit like the reasoning that the solicitor general is using.
Yesterday evening, I read through the relevant parts in the verdict. It gives a lot of details. It does repeat details from the research report. The report does mention that base station 14501 was on a high mast and one of three covering the area around Deventer and that this base station points in the direction of where Louwes claimed to have been while making the phone call. It also mentions (without percentages) that while in Deventer other base stations on the mast could be contacted. The report does not mention that if Louwes would have traveled to Deventer taking the shortest route using highway A1 and from there traveled to the house of the victim, that only during the very last part of his trip, he would have been in the area of the base station. Louwes witnessed about some fact that proved that he drove on highway A28 and in point 125 of the verdict the solicitor general writes that these (translated with Google Translate): 'constitutes an objective indication that the applicant himself stood in that traffic jam on the A28.' But than the solicitor general goes on to reason that it is possible, that although Louwes did not drive in the direction of Deventer, but in the direction of his home on the A28, decided to take a detour using a country roads to Deventer (including a traffic detour). It is true, that if he would have taken this route, he would have been in the area covered by the base station. Personally, I find it a bit far fetched that, presuming that he was the killer, took the gamble that the traffic circumstances (including a traffic jam that caused a substantial delay) on the A28 would give him a good alibi.