Continuation Part 20: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Vixen]

Hard to accept that the top forensic science journal on the planet publishes such drivel. I mean, it appears this Peter Gill guy is confirming everything the pro-innocence posters have been saying for the past 8 years. This PR campaign runs deeper than we thought. No way the guilters are simply just wrong about everything. We must double down on our campaign of lies and misinformation... [Vixen dawns her superhero costume] To the PMF-mobile!

"Top scientific people" do write drivel, I'm afraid. Here in England, a "top scientific person" has been found guilty by a medical panel of wilfully misleading an Old Bailey court with her "expert testimony", wherein she disputed that brain damage syndrome seen in babies, which includes three key symptoms, such as bleeding behind the retina, or signs of the brain coming away from the skull, was necessarily due to shaking abuse.

They ruled she abused her position to help the defence.

We have seen several such cases in the Kercher case, Conti & Vecchiotti, Vinci and the photoshopped images, the pathologist who claimed Mez must have thrown herself with exact precision onto a sliver of glass to have sustained the hand flick wounds, et al.

The "top scientific person" in shaken baby syndrome now faces being struck off.

quote: She is considered one of the UK’s foremost experts in infant brain pathology and 15 years ago she began studying the scientific underpinnings of shaken baby syndrome and started to develop doubts, her supporters said in a statement. http://www.theguardian.com/law/2016...ken-baby-syndrome-mislead-courts-waney-squier

 

[Bill Williams]

Whoever wrote it is a liar.

So there we have it. Vixen believes a peer reviewed article in a leading DNA journal is filled with lies.

Lessee.... who should be believe?

 

[Bill Williams]

(b) all four courts - Micheli, Massei and Mignini, and even Marasca - ruled Rudy had been invited in by Amanda.

All four courts?

This is like saying that in a 10 game series, my team won all four of the games played! This is Mensa-logic in the extreme.

Most telling is that to convict, the Nencini court had to assume that Rudy and Meredith had a date, and that Meredith let him in. Acc. to the story which Rudy told, Meredith let him in and Amanda rang the doorbell later.

Rang the doorbell? A keyholder rings the doorbell? Ok no judge actually questioned that, but that was Rudy's story.

It's also interesting that Vixen counts Mignini as one of "all four courts." That is taking prosecutorial judicial truth to another level! Also, Marasca ruled on no facts of the case, as he was a Cassazione judge... ruling on the facts was not what those judges do.

 

[Vixen]

So there we have it. Vixen believes a peer reviewed article in a leading DNA journal is filled with lies.

Lessee.... who should be believe?

As Gill's whole thesis is built on false premises, then of course his methodology, results and conclusion are also false. IT guys call it RIRO. His peers are merely looking at his conclusions based on his stated assumptions, one of which is, "there were multiple samples of Rudy's DNA at the scene" (false) and that "Rudy had no business to be there" (also false, as four courts upheld he was invited in, whether by Amanda or whoever).

There it sits.

 

[Welshman]

Gill's list is complete rubbish. The forensics team made no such assumptions. They are not idiots! He is a disgusting liar when he claims Rudy's DNA was all over the room, when (a) it was not, and that Rudy had no business to be there when (b) all four courts - Micheli, Massei and Mignini, and even Marasca - ruled Rudy had been invited in by Amanda.

Acbytesla expressed the opinion that one of the judges in the Chieffi court was senile as he was about 75. Perhaps Gill is in a similar category, on this criterion. A last ditch attempt to shore up a healthy pension fund.

It is hypocritical for vixen who habitually lies in her posts to call someone a disgusting liar.

 

[Vixen]

All four courts?

This is like saying that in a 10 game series, my team won all four of the games played! This is Mensa-logic in the extreme.

Most telling is that to convict, the Nencini court had to assume that Rudy and Meredith had a date, and that Meredith let him in. Acc. to the story which Rudy told, Meredith let him in and Amanda rang the doorbell later.

Rang the doorbell? A keyholder rings the doorbell? Ok no judge actually questioned that, but that was Rudy's story.

It's also interesting that Vixen counts Mignini as one of "all four courts." That is taking prosecutorial judicial truth to another level! Also, Marasca ruled on no facts of the case, as he was a Cassazione judge... ruling on the facts was not what those judges do.

No, Bill, Hellmann is not included in the game series. Hellman was rendered null and void.

As the door lock was faulty, housemates had to lock it from the inside. Mez' may have inadvertently left her key in when Amanda turned up. However, as both Rudy and Amanda are consummate liars, it's more likely Kokomani was telling the truth when he said he witnessed Amanda, Rudy and Raff lying in wait for her outside the cottage, their mobiles switched off for the night, ready to party with Mez the spoils.

OK let's use the word "upheld" instead of "ruled".

Clearer now?

 

[Bill Williams]

No, Bill, Hellmann is not included in the game series. Hellman was rendered null and void.

As the door lock was faulty, housemates had to lock it from the inside. Mez' may have inadvertently left her key in when Amanda turned up. However, as both Rudy and Amanda are consumate liars, it's more likely Kokomani was telling the truth when he said he witnessed Amanda, Rudy and Raff lying in wait for her outside the cottage, their mobiles switched off for the night, ready to party with Mez the spoils.

OK let's use the word "upheld" instead of "ruled".

Clearer now?

Nope. You still count Mignini as a "court".

On the other matter, can you cite one peer reviewed paper which agrees with Stefanoni?

 

[Bill Williams]

As Gill's whole thesis is built on false premises, then of course his methodology, results and conclusion are also false. IT guys call it RIRO. His peers are merely looking at his conclusions based on his stated assumptions, one of which is, "there were multiple samples of Rudy's DNA at the scene" (false) and that "Rudy had no business to be there" (also false, as four courts upheld he was invited in, whether by Amanda or whoever).

There it sits.

Your thesis is built on assuming that peer reviewers are limited in what they review. Utter nonsense. You are either ignorant of the peer review process or...... are once again simply making it up.

A while ago you said the Maraca-Bruno report never says the pair were acquitted. Then when Section 10 was posted here twice saying they were acquitted you did not acknowledge that. You are either ignorant of what they wrote..... or are once again simply making it up.

 

[Antony]

The "top scientific person" in shaken baby syndrome now faces being struck off.

quote: She is considered one of the UK’s foremost experts in infant brain pathology and 15 years ago she began studying the scientific underpinnings of shaken baby syndrome and started to develop doubts, her supporters said in a statement. http://www.theguardian.com/law/2016...ken-baby-syndrome-mislead-courts-waney-squier

Profoundly disturbing news. So now even in the UK, when prosecutors have their pet medical theories discredited in court, they can raise concerns and take professional revenge against defence witnesses. And this is so that they can undermine the presumption of innocence over disputed medical symptoms.

The GMC ruling doesn't have any credibility IMO from the account linked. An RAF officer, policeman and a community psychiatrist ruling on brain pathology?

PS - this, from 5 years ago: http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9389000/9389553.stm

I am aware this is veering off-topic, but it is central to the question of Presumption of Innocence, the negation of which was a crucial feature of the Kercher-Knox-Sollecito case.

 

[Vixen]

Nope. You still count Mignini as a "court".

On the other matter, can you cite one peer reviewed paper which agrees with Stefanoni?

LOL s/read "Nencini" (Freudian slip )

Unlike the Old Fraud, Stefanoni actually collected, analysed and reviewed the DNA evidence. As she is salaried by the police and not by an academic institution, of course she hasn't written a paper in the topic at hand. But then you knew that.

 

[Vixen]

Your thesis is built on assuming that peer reviewers are limited in what they review. Utter nonsense. You are either ignorant of the peer review process or...... are once again simply making it up.

A while ago you said the Maraca-Bruno report never says the pair were acquitted. Then when Section 10 was posted here twice saying they were acquitted you did not acknowledge that. You are either ignorant of what they wrote..... or are once again simply making it up.

I did not say they were not acquitted. You must stop misquoting.

In his assumptions, Gill states the forensic team treated luminol as confirmatory which is arrant rubbish.

His peers would have confined themselves to the scope of his stated aim. I doubt any of them were aware he was openly lying in his assumptions.

 

[Vixen]

Profoundly disturbing news. So now even in the UK, when prosecutors have their pet medical theories discredited in court, they can raise concerns and take professional revenge against defence witnesses. And this is so that they can undermine the presumption of innocence over disputed medical symptoms.

The GMC ruling doesn't have any credibility IMO from the account linked. An RAF officer, policeman and a community psychiatrist ruling on brain pathology?

The article points out that plenty of expert witnesses were heard.

It works both ways, for example, the "expert" who claimed it was a statistical certainty that two of a woman's babies could not both have died of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) thus condemning her to jail and a pardon years later and leading to suicide by alcoholism.

The scientific experts should stick to the facts and not pretend that just because they are top of their field they can make things up to sway the court, just because of personal sympathy to either victim or defendant. It's the ethical issue of integrity.

 

[Grinder]

As Gill's whole thesis is built on false premises, then of course his methodology, results and conclusion are also false. IT guys call it RIRO. His peers are merely looking at his conclusions based on his stated assumptions, one of which is, "there were multiple samples of Rudy's DNA at the scene" (false) and that "Rudy had no business to be there" (also false, as four courts upheld he was invited in, whether by Amanda or whoever).

There it sits.

Okay if he was let in by either it was on the murder night and the DNA found proved he was there that night which is what was at issue. The DNA had no business being there in that he had never claimed to being there before. There were multiple spots where Rudi's DNA were found.

 

[Grinder]

No, Bill, Hellmann is not included in the game series. Hellman was rendered null and void.

As the door lock was faulty, housemates had to lock it from the inside. Mez' may have inadvertently left her key in when Amanda turned up. However, as both Rudy and Amanda are consumate liars, it's more likely Kokomani was telling the truth when he said he witnessed Amanda, Rudy and Raff lying in wait for her outside the cottage, their mobiles switched off for the night, ready to party with Mez the spoils.

OK let's use the word "upheld" instead of "ruled".

Clearer now?

But they were in the plaza, remember?

 

[Bill Williams]

LOL s/read "Nencini" (Freudian slip )

Unlike the Old Fraud, Stefanoni actually collected, analysed and reviewed the DNA evidence. As she is salaried by the police and not by an academic institution, of course she hasn't written a paper in the topic at hand. But then you knew that.

Thank you for the admissions. Nencini has been nullified. Even so, your original contention was that "Mignini" (Nencini), "all four courts - Micheli, Massei and Mignini, and even Marasca - ruled Rudy had been invited in by Amanda."

Yet Rudy's story (on which Nencini's theory/impugned motive of/for the crime was solely based) was that Amanda rang the doorbell. Anyway, we've gone over this 100 times. Still, the Nencini verdict is annulled.

You may wish to read Section 10 of the Marasca/Bruno report again to get their take on why there was no point in remand, the investigation was a mess and the various courts were amnesiac.

 

[Grinder]

Your thesis is built on assuming that peer reviewers are limited in what they review. Utter nonsense. You are either ignorant of the peer review process or...... are once again simply making it up.

A while ago you said the Maraca-Bruno report never says the pair were acquitted. Then when Section 10 was posted here twice saying they were acquitted you did not acknowledge that. You are either ignorant of what they wrote..... or are once again simply making it up.

What you meant to say is that M&B ANNULLED Nencini and Massei.

Could you answer whether or not O.J. was exonerated when found not guilty?

 

[Grinder]

LOL s/read "Nencini" (Freudian slip )

Unlike the Old Fraud, Stefanoni actually collected, analysed and reviewed the DNA evidence. As she is salaried by the police and not by an academic institution, of course she hasn't written a paper in the topic at hand. But then you knew that.

Are you saying that real doctors working for LE never write academic papers or only that police low level technicians don't?

 

[Bill Williams]

As Gill's whole thesis is built on false premises, then of course his methodology, results and conclusion are also false. IT guys call it RIRO. His peers are merely looking at his conclusions based on his stated assumptions, one of which is, "there were multiple samples of Rudy's DNA at the scene" (false) and that "Rudy had no business to be there" (also false, as four courts upheld he was invited in, whether by Amanda or whoever).

There it sits.

Okay if he was let in by either it was on the murder night and the DNA found proved he was there that night which is what was at issue. The DNA had no business being there in that he had never claimed to being there before. There were multiple spots where Rudi's DNA were found.

Thank you. Returning to the point of why Gill said what he said is perhaps something Vixen wants to avoid.

What, then, are the "false premises" that Vixen is referring to? That Rudy's DNA was NOT found at the scene? What difference would that make, even if true - Rudy admits to being there.

Rudy patently did have no business being there. Esp. with the "Amanda let him in" theory, which still makes it from Meredith's point of view that Rudy had no business being there.

Unless Vixen is arguing that Meredith and Rudy actually did have a prearranged date - which is the only reason Rudy would have had reason to be there, such reason ending up with his DNA inside the victim! What "business" did he have there that ended up with his DNA inside the victim?

Vixen's criticism of Gill on those two points is bizarre. Then again, Vixen doesn't know what goes into a peer review, and Vixen is no peer of Gill's.

 

[Bill Williams]

What you meant to say is that M&B ANNULLED Nencini and Massei.

Could you answer whether or not O.J. was exonerated when found not guilty?

The only question, really, is M/B in relation to the Hellmann verdict/report. At issue is whether or not Conti-Vecchiotti's report disappeared with the annulment of Hellmann. I have heard it argued that what is annulled is the verdict, and all those items specifically mentioned in an ISC motivations report.

What that means for C/V is that it is still in play. What Chieffi's court annulled was Hellmann's reasoning for letting C/V make a de facto decision about whether or not 36I should be tested, and Hellmann erred in not making it a specifically court-decision.

It's hard to know what is still in play judicially with this case.

 

[Vixen]

Okay if he was let in by either it was on the murder night and the DNA found proved he was there that night which is what was at issue. The DNA had no business being there in that he had never claimed to being there before. There were multiple spots where Rudi's DNA were found.

No. If Raff's DNA came from the door handle, then it follows, so might have Rudy's. We know Rudy was there. However, he claims his presence was innocent. You can't just say, we know Rudy was there and we don't believe he had a date, therefore it doesn't matter if his DNA is robust or not, because as scientists, we are objectively assessing what the DNA evidence is, regardless of any other evidence, or whether Rudy was there on a date, or there to burgle (Americans: there is no such word as "burglarize"; ugh!).

There is no sign of Rudy's DNA in the "burgled"room, nor the bathroom. There was one on the bag, one on Mez' body, one on the bra and one on the sweater. That is hardly "multiple" when we have at least FIVE DNA samples of Amanda mixed with Mez, when they bled at the same time, including a trail of Mez' blood leading into the burgled room, mixed with Amanda's DNA.

If the collection and analysis of the kids DNA is contaminated, then objectively and ethically, we have to say the same for Rudy's.

DNA science shouldn't be about opinion, depending on how much you like the persons involved or your belief in whether they should or should not be present.

Gill's big downfall is his lack of objectivity and open advocacy for the kids - both breaches of professional ethics - presumably based on his preconceptions about "Rudy the migrant drifter burglar".