Continuation Part 20: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[NotEvenWrong]

Why simply hope? Take action. Let us know what happens.

My bet is that you end up including FSI:G in the conspiracy. You first task is to stop guessing as to the identities of the peer reviewers. Insist that FSI:G release their names. Don't take "no" for an answer.

If it wasn't so sad it would be hilarious. We are actually watching Vixen attempt to rationalize and discredit Forensic Science International before our very eyes. Because she cannot begin to grasp the fact she has been wrong about everything since God knows when. We are watching a reality distortion field (Vixen's brain, in this case) come up with its magical fairy tail delusions in real time. It is honestly incredibly interesting to watch.

I wonder if we will ever see peer reviewed scientific studies in a sociology or psychology journal about the behavior at TJMK or PMF? That would honestly be fascinating.

 

[Vixen]

Anyway, even if we had the explicit list of forensic scientists who reviewed Gill's paper for publication in the top forensic science journal on Earth, and that list of scientists ended up being the top 5-10 most well respected peerless forensic genetic experts in existence, we know that they would then become targets for the guilter nuthouse and you would begin trying to come up with rationalizations on how all their labs were shut down unceremoniously and Amanda's PR campaign sure must have gotten to them with a big payday!!!

We know you would do this because YOU ACTUALLY DO THIS WITH EVERY TOP EXPERT WHO COMES OUT IN SUPPORT OF OBVIOUSLY INNOCENT PEOPLE. But that lab tech for the prosecution. Oh man her work was impeccable. After all Perugian law enforcement never makes mistakes so all the other experts on the planet must be wrong by definition.

LOL The editorial board consists of .... er.... Vince Pascali....um....didn't he walk off the case once he saw the evidence?....and .... Peter Gill...for it is he.

Maybe "top scientific persons" don't have the same ethical standards as us bean counters. We'd be disciplined if caught breaching objectivity by self-review.

These guys are all trying to get jobs as paid defence expert witnesses, right? That's where the filthy lucre is.

 

[Bill Williams]

Anyway, even if we had the explicit list of forensic scientists who reviewed Gill's paper for publication in the top forensic science journal on Earth, and that list of scientists ended up being the top 5-10 most well respected peerless forensic genetic experts in existence, we know that they would then become targets for the guilter nuthouse and you would begin trying to come up with rationalizations on how all their labs were shut down unceremoniously and Amanda's PR campaign sure must have gotten to them with a big payday!!!

We know you would do this because YOU ACTUALLY DO THIS WITH EVERY TOP EXPERT WHO COMES OUT IN SUPPORT OF OBVIOUSLY INNOCENT PEOPLE. But that lab tech for the prosecution. Oh man her work was impeccable. After all Perugian law enforcement never makes mistakes so all the other experts on the planet must be wrong by definition.

They went after Saul Kassin and John Douglas. Kassin said that the Nov 5/6 2007 interrogations had all the hallmarks of what he's been fighting against all his life. False confessions are one of his specialties:

A staunch critic of the Reid technique of interrogation, and a vocal advocate for the requirement that all interrogations be videotaped, Kassin is best known for starting the scientific study of false confessions. In 1985, he and Lawrence Wrightsman wrote that there are three types of false confessions (voluntary, coerced-compliant, coerced-internalized). These classifications are used all over the world. He also created the first laboratory research methods (the most notable being the computer crash experiment, used in forensic psychology to study the problems with certain types of police interrogation techniques and why innocent people confess.​

The day of the acquittals in 2015, "Forensic Magazine" featured Kassin on the Sollecito/Knox case:

http://www.forensicmag.com/articles/2015/03/forging-forensic-science-dr-saul-kassin-amanda-knox-and-truth-behind-false-confessions

Of course Forensic Magazine is not peer reviewed, so I'm sure they were going out on a limb writing about Kassin's views on this case. Of course, though, both Forensic Magazine and Kassin are on the take and Vixen needs to add them to her list of people and organizations which have been bought off by the Masons.

According to Kassin, false confessions have little to do with the individual suspects or motivations, but instead are a natural product of an archaic interrogation protocol that can be intimidating and often flawed, and certainly in need of modification. “It’s very sad,” he said about the Knox case. “It seems like so many of these cases are all alike.”

All it took was a confession for Amanda, he said, and everything was set on its own course. Even the evidence that surfaced two weeks later that implicated a single person had committed the murder – not Amanda, and her then boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito – couldn’t change the storyline. “Once the confession was in place,” he said, “nothing else mattered.”

 

[Vixen]

If it wasn't so sad it would be hilarious. We are actually watching Vixen attempt to rationalize and discredit Forensic Science International before our very eyes. Because she cannot begin to grasp the fact she has been wrong about everything since God knows when. We are watching a reality distortion field (Vixen's brain, in this case) come up with its magical fairy tail delusions in real time. It is honestly incredibly interesting to watch.

I wonder if we will ever see peer reviewed scientific studies in a sociology or psychology journal about the behavior at TJMK or PMF? That would honestly be fascinating.

We will certainly see criminal texts about the corruption involved in this case in years to come.

So Gill has been farmed out to Norway where crime hardly ever happens.

 

[Bill Williams]

LOL The editorial board consists of .... er.... Vince Pascali....um....didn't he walk off the case once he saw the evidence?....and .... Peter Gill...for it is he.

Maybe "top scientific persons" don't have the same ethical standards as us bean counters. We'd be disciplined if caught breaching objectivity by self-review.

These guys are all trying to get jobs as paid defence expert witnesses, right? That's where the filthy lucre is.

Pascali did not "walk off the case. After the Hellmann acquittal, Gill (in his ppeer-reviewed article) began with:

The controversial case of ‘Death of Meredith Kercher’ was discussed in Rome on April 27th–28th, 2012, at an international conference organized by Vince Pascali. The meeting was entitled ‘The hidden side of DNA profiles’. At the time of the meeting, Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito had already been convicted at trial, and subsequently exonerated at appeal. It had appeared to the group assembled in Rome that a miscarriage of justice had already occurred and it was discussed as such. Surprisingly, the judgment was set aside a year later by the ‘Supreme Court of Cassation’ and a retrial was ordered. Knox and Sollecito were convicted again at another hearing presided over by Judge Nencini. It wasn’t until the final appeal (the Marasca-Bruno motivation) was heard in 2015, that the pair were exonerated and a miscarriage of justice (with certainty of binding finality) was officially confirmed.​

But of course your conclusion is that Knox and Sollecito are guilty. So to reach that conclusion when arguing, one must find all sorts of fault with the top experts in their field. A sure sign of conspiracy is that a top expert, Vincent Pascali, organizes a conference of other top experts during the post-Hellmann period when they needed to answer the question, "Why did the DNA investigation go wrong?"

Chieffi and Nencini would have done well to attend that conference.

 

[Vixen]

For the sake of those who may not be familiar with Peter Gill, Ph.D., here is some information:

1. Peter Gill is currently at the Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Division of Forensic Medicine and Drug Abuse Research

2. Peter Gill is author/co-author of 214 publications including many related to genetics and especially forensic genetics

3. Peter Gill, Alec Jeffreys, and David Werret were the authors of:
Forensic application of DNA ‘fingerprints’.
Nature 318(6046):577-9 · November 1985

(Jeffreys originated DNA STR profiling)

At the time of the 1985 publication, Gill was at the Central Research Establishment, Home Office Forensic Science Service, of the UK.

For those who may not be familiar with Forensic Science International: Genetics, where Peter Gill's recent article on the DNA aspects of this case were published, it describes itself as:

"Official journal of the International Society for Forensic Genetics (ISFG).

Forensic Science International: Genetics is specifically devoted to Forensic Genetics. This branch of Forensic Science can be defined as the application of genetics to human and non-human material (in the sense of a science with the purpose of studying inherited characteristics for the analysis of inter- and intra-specific variations in populations) for the resolution of legal conflicts."

Articles in Forensic Science International: Genetics are peer-reviewed. This journal is published by Elsevier, a well-known publisher of many quality science journals.

Sources:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Peter_Gill4/publications
http://www.journals.elsevier.com/forensic-science-international-genetics/

That makes it worse, not better.

 

[Grinder]

LOL The editorial board consists of .... er.... Vince Pascali....um....didn't he walk off the case once he saw the evidence?....and .... Peter Gill...for it is he.

So guy that "walked off the case" now zips his lips when Gill lies through his teeth?

Maybe "top scientific persons" don't have the same ethical standards as us bean counters. We'd be disciplined if caught breaching objectivity by self-review.

These guys are all trying to get jobs as paid defence expert witnesses, right? That's where the filthy lucre is.

Is this at the heart of the PG mind? Anyone that defends a person is only in it for the money. Is that why anyone posting pro kids comments must be paid?

I guess for you, once charged: Guilty.

 

[Vixen]

They went after Saul Kassin and John Douglas. Kassin said that the Nov 5/6 2007 interrogations had all the hallmarks of what he's been fighting against all his life. False confessions are one of his specialties:

​

The day of the acquittals in 2015, "Forensic Magazine" featured Kassin on the Sollecito/Knox case:

http://www.forensicmag.com/articles/2015/03/forging-forensic-science-dr-saul-kassin-amanda-knox-and-truth-behind-false-confessions


Of course Forensic Magazine is not peer reviewed, so I'm sure they were going out on a limb writing about Kassin's views on this case. Of course, though, both Forensic Magazine and Kassin are on the take and Vixen needs to add them to her list of people and organizations which have been bought off by the Masons.

​

​

Kassin vanished for quite a while when he realised the FOA soundbite "Amanda was interrogated 54 days, without food or water, by tag teams of twelve changing every hour" was a pile of *********.

Bruno-Marasca certainly did not uphold it was a false confession.

When perps commit a serious crime, they often have an urge to confess. This is what lay behind Amanda's confession. She thought the police were bound to have the same racist views as the guys back home and served them up a Congolese "raggazzo", thinking that would get them off her back.

I was watching Life and Death Row about the Justin Back, 18, case in Waynesville, Ohio. It showed footage of his killers - two teenage boys aged 19 - at the police station, each in separate holdings, but could hear what the other said.

Austin Myers (sentenced to death) volunteered he knew where the body was and this led the other guy, Timothy Mosley, who overheard, to confess his part, claiming Myers to be the mastermind. There were striking similarities with the Kercher case. Myers was supposed to be a friend of the victim. The pair planned the murder together in advance. Police could see where Back had been killed because of the luminol highlighted in Back's family kitchen.

Myers was described as an unemotional psychopath showing no remorse. Compare and contrast that with Mignini describing Raff as "icy cold". Amanda confessed because Raff confessed she had asked him to lie for her and he had no idea where she was between 20:45 and 01:00, and Amanda knew he had thrown her under the bus, which prompted her bright idea of deflecting blame onto Patrick, and then another brilliant plan of claiming it was due to police torture that made her do it. <fx Brummie accent, "Yes, mate!">

False confession? I don't think so. US magazines have really gone downhill if they think a police interview in a sleepy town in Italy equates to waterboarding in Guantanomo Bay.

 

[Vixen]

Pascali did not "walk off the case. After the Hellmann acquittal, Gill (in his ppeer-reviewed article) began with:

Originally Posted by Gill
The controversial case of ‘Death of Meredith Kercher’ was discussed in Rome on April 27th–28th, 2012, at an international conference organized by Vince Pascali. The meeting was entitled ‘The hidden side of DNA profiles’. At the time of the meeting, Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito had already been convicted at trial, and subsequently exonerated at appeal. It had appeared to the group assembled in Rome that a miscarriage of justice had already occurred and it was discussed as such. Surprisingly, the judgment was set aside a year later by the ‘Supreme Court of Cassation’ and a retrial was ordered. Knox and Sollecito were convicted again at another hearing presided over by Judge Nencini. It wasn’t until the final appeal (the Marasca-Bruno motivation) was heard in 2015, that the pair were exonerated and a miscarriage of justice (with certainty of binding finality) was officially confirmed.

But of course your conclusion is that Knox and Sollecito are guilty. So to reach that conclusion when arguing, one must find all sorts of fault with the top experts in their field. A sure sign of conspiracy is that a top expert, Vincent Pascali, organizes a conference of other top experts during the post-Hellmann period when they needed to answer the question, "Why did the DNA investigation go wrong?"

Chieffi and Nencini would have done well to attend that conference.

Spot the two massive lies in Gill's opening statement alone. That sets us up for even more. The pair were NOT exonerated and a "miscarriage of justice" was NOT the grounds for acquittal.

Add all of that to Gill relying heavily on the discredited Conti-Vecchiotti report and we have the equivalent of a fart in a lift. (=elevator)

 

[Bill Williams]

Kassin vanished for quite a while when he realised the FOA soundbite "Amanda was interrogated 54 days, without food or water, by tag teams of twelve changing every hour" was a pile of *********.

There you go again. "Vanished"!? Really!?

When perps commit a serious crime, they often have an urge to confess. This is what lay behind Amanda's confession.

And your credentials compared to Saul Kassin's are........ !?

False confession? I don't think so. US magazines have really gone downhill if they think a police interview in a sleepy town in Italy equates to waterboarding in Guantanomo Bay.

It is fortunate that no magazine in the US ever put it this way. However, your use of strawman-hyperbole shows the value of your initial argument.

 

[NotEvenWrong]

LOL The editorial board consists of .... er.... Vince Pascali....um....didn't he walk off the case once he saw the evidence?....and .... Peter Gill...for it is he.

Yeah, imagine that Vixen. One the top forensic genetics experts on the planet is one of many on the editorial board of the top forensic genetics journal on the planet. How surprising. How many PMF/TJMK posters or Perugian law enforcement personnel are editors of top forensic journals? HMM I WONDER WHICH SIDE IS RIGHT ON THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE.

You are going to have to be much more specific regarding your accusations towards Vince Pascali. Remember, this is a skeptics board, so include evidence with a citation/link. I would guess you are insinuating that the PR campaign for Foxy Knoxy reaches deeper than we could possibly imagine (as I predicted you would do earlier) and is influencing the foundations of forensic science!!omg!

 

[Grinder]

Kassin vanished for quite a while when he realised the FOA soundbite "Amanda was interrogated 54 days, without food or water, by tag teams of twelve changing every hour" was a pile of *********.

Actually it was 54 years.

Bruno-Marasca certainly did not uphold it was a false confession.

Judges don't get everything right, you know like Massei changing Curatolo's testimony based on erroneous disco bus info.

When perps commit a serious crime, they often have an urge to confess. This is what lay behind Amanda's confession. She thought the police were bound to have the same racist views as the guys back home and served them up a Congolese "raggazzo", thinking that would get them off her back.

She's from Seattle not Selma. Anyway she had 54 days hours to confess, why did it take so long?

Glad to see your crime tourism continues. Why do you think the police said they questioned her until she buckled and told them what they knew to be correct? How could they have known Patrick had killed Meredith?

 

[Bill Williams]

...... the pair were exonerated and a miscarriage of justice (with certainty of binding finality) was officially confirmed.

Spot the two massive lies in Gill's opening statement alone. That sets us up for even more. The pair were NOT exonerated and a "miscarriage of justice" was NOT the grounds for acquittal.

Add all of that to Gill relying heavily on the discredited Conti-Vecchiotti report and we have the equivalent of a fart in a lift. (=elevator)

What is an acquittal if not an exoneration?

10. The intrinsic contradictory nature of the evidence, emerging from the text of the appealed verdict, in essence undermines the connective tissue of the same, leading to its annulment.​

Is the annulment of a conviction an acquittal or an exoneration or both?

As for the "miscarriage of justice" you have misunderstood Gill. He's expressing an opinion of what the exoneration means - he never says it was one of the reasons for appeal or a ground for the acquittal....

.... but it was nice for you to concede it was an acquittal....

 

[bagels]

False confession? I don't think so. US magazines have really gone downhill if they think a police interview in a sleepy town in Italy equates to waterboarding in Guantanomo Bay.

The issue with the confession is:

-The police didn't record a single moment of it
-Amanda didn't have any inside information (she didn't even mention the break-in)
-The police say what she told them is what they already knew to be correct
-Amanda wrote to the police pleading with them to not hit her and yell at her when she "answered wrongly"
-Amanda was not the only witness they coerced. They got another guy to say Patrick wasn't in his bar serving customers, even though he was. This is overlooked by practically everybody but is a huge piece of information.

 

[Numbers]

That makes it worse, not better.

From Gill's recent paper on the miscarriages of justice in this case, primarily dealing with the DNA work:

"Here [in the Marasca CSC panel motivation report] there is a plea for scientists to strictly follow the ‘scientific method’ that began with Galileo Galilei and formalised by Sir Isaac Newton. The standards of proof required in forensic science should be no different from any other science and practitioners must adhere to recognised scientific principles of objectivity where decisions are based upon a ‘collection of empirical data agreeable with the hypothesis to be validated’; ‘sensible experiences’ implies that an element of subjective opinion is acceptable to formulate plausible propositions, but must be tested by ‘necessary demonstrations’.

For a given set of data and case circumstances, the same conclusions are arrived at independently by different scientists using ‘objective inference’. Subjectivists emphasise ‘personal belief’ based on a knowledge base that may include vague notions such as ‘personal experience’. Whereas objectivism strives towards a commonality of approach so that different scientists reach broadly the same conclusions (a consensus).

There is little doubt that courts require an objective analysis and the role of the expert is therefore to reflect the consensus view of scientists, rather than to provide a purely personal viewpoint which is subjective so that a consensus viewpoint may be difficult to demonstrate."

What we see in posts from "guilters" is likewise merely subjective arguments.

 

[Grinder]

Yeah, imagine that Vixen. One the top forensic genetics experts on the planet is one of many on the editorial board of the top forensic genetics journal on the planet. How surprising. How many PMF/TJMK posters or Perugian law enforcement personnel are editors of top forensic journals? HMM I WONDER WHICH SIDE IS RIGHT ON THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE.

Are any of the PG "experts" on the board. Is Steffi? Is Novelli?

Now Antti Sajantila, MD, Professor of genetic forensic medicine is.

Bruce Budowle, Ph.D.
Professor, Executive Director of Institute of Applied Genetics is.

Dr. Rolf Fimmers, Institut für Medizinische Biometrie, Informatik und Epidemiologie is.

Andreas Tillmar. Department of Forensic Genetics. National Board of Forensic Medicine. Artillerigatan 12. 587 58 Linköping. SWEDEN is.

ETA - Damn, Nikki the PMF DNA expert is on the board, not.

 

[Vixen]

Yeah, imagine that Vixen. One the top forensic genetics experts on the planet is one of many on the editorial board of the top forensic genetics journal on the planet. How surprising. How many PMF/TJMK posters or Perugian law enforcement personnel are editors of top forensic journals? HMM I WONDER WHICH SIDE IS RIGHT ON THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE.

You are going to have to be much more specific regarding your accusations towards Vince Pascali. Remember, this is a skeptics board, so include evidence with a citation/link. I would guess you are insinuating that the PR campaign for Foxy Knoxy reaches deeper than we could possibly imagine (as I predicted you would do earlier) and is influencing the foundations of forensic science!!omg!

It is a fact Pascali dumped Amanda when he reviewed the evidence:

Vincenzo Pascali, the chief forensic consultant who was set to give expert testimony about the possible contamination of the bra clasp, walked off the case last month, reportedly leaving a €50,000 bill. Back in September, Pascali, who declined to comment for this story, hinted that the clasp also contained Knox’s DNA.

- Barbie Nadeau

 

[Grinder]

What is an acquittal if not an exoneration?

​

Is the annulment of a conviction an acquittal or an exoneration or both?

As for the "miscarriage of justice" you have misunderstood Gill. He's expressing an opinion of what the exoneration means - he never says it was one of the reasons for appeal or a ground for the acquittal....

.... but it was nice for you to concede it was an acquittal....

Bill please say that O.J.'s not guilty = acquittal was an exoneration. A not guilty verdict and in Italy a para 2 is not an exoneration. Why do deny the reality by trying to play word games and referring "I've been told" sources.

You should just be disappointed they didn't give a full exoneration by using para 1, given your vested POV.

 

[Grinder]

It is a fact Pascali dumped Amanda when he reviewed the evidence:

- Barbie Nadeau

Quote:
Vincenzo Pascali, the chief forensic consultant who was set to give expert testimony about the possible contamination of the bra clasp, walked off the case last month, reportedly leaving a €50,000 bill. Back in September, Pascali, who declined to comment for this story, hinted that the clasp also contained Knox’s DNA.

Doesn't bother you that not even Steffi or Novelli claimed Amanda's DNA was on the clasp - Barbie is Barbie.

 

[Vixen]

What is an acquittal if not an exoneration?

​

Is the annulment of a conviction an acquittal or an exoneration or both?

As for the "miscarriage of justice" you have misunderstood Gill. He's expressing an opinion of what the exoneration means - he never says it was one of the reasons for appeal or a ground for the acquittal....

.... but it was nice for you to concede it was an acquittal....

I have never said it was not an acquittal. Stop misquoting me. The kids were not found innocent, nor exonerated. The charges were dropped under Section 530 para 2, due to insufficient evidence. That puts them back in the position they were before the trial. They are subject to being charged again for the same crime, as 530 para 2 is a lower court jurisdiction, which does not include the restriction of double jeopardy as an exoneration would.