Continuation Part 22: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Stacyhs]

"I knew Knox was guilty ever since seeing her in the "All you need is love" t-shirt. That's the level which large portions of people assess this - and they should never be allowed near a jury pool. "

This is the same mentality of those who could "see guilt in her eyes". Perhaps a trial should consist of just walking the defendant past the jury who can take a good, long look into his eyes and base their verdict on what they see.
Other evidence for those of this mentality is that they can see guilt in her "body language".

 

[Mike1711]

"I knew Knox was guilty ever since seeing her in the "All you need is love" t-shirt. That's the level which large portions of people assess this - and they should never be allowed near a jury pool. "

This is the same mentality of those who could "see guilt in her eyes". Perhaps a trial should consist of just walking the defendant past the jury who can take a good, long look into his eyes and base their verdict on what they see.
Other evidence for those of this mentality is that they can see guilt in her "body language".

Were it that guilt could be seen in body language RS and AK wouldn't have been charged.

I've always found it strange that guilters find something sinister in the photographs of the two innocent parties' body language (in the days following the murder) in what I would consider reflects a normal post traumatic stress response.

There is a particularly poignant video of RS with AK, including a normal and comforting/caring kiss. How anybody normal cannot see the sadness and hurt in these two people is difficult to comprehend.

Perhaps the sinister side lies within those guilters who cannot separate their dark side from reality.

 

[Stacyhs]

Were it that guilt could be seen in body language RS and AK wouldn't have been charged.

I've always found it strange that guilters find something sinister in the photographs of the two innocent parties' body language (in the days following the murder) in what I would consider reflects a normal post traumatic stress response.

There is a particularly poignant video of RS with AK, including a normal and comforting/caring kiss. How anybody normal cannot see the sadness and hurt in these two people is difficult to comprehend.

Perhaps the siniste

r side lies within those guilters who cannot separate their dark side from reality.

This is a classic example. The media tended to show only the kisses and not the look on their faces immediately afterwards. This was clearly not "canoodling" as the British press referred to it but chaste comfort.

 

[NotEvenWrong]

The Salem witch trials are a totally false analogy to modern day Italy. For a start, they do not have the death penalty.

Please quit with the Salem witch trials.

Let's play a game. "17th Century Salem or Modern Day Italy?"

Let's start with the category "Crazy guilter stuff" for 100 points Alex.

Alex: Alright everyone... first question. Where were the following phrases uttered?:

“It should be emphasized that, in any case, for those pathologically addicted to the commission of sex and violence, it is not far-fetched to connect the project to the tradition of Halloween, because if it is true that the night between October 31 and November 1 was passed (and [redacted] had spent with her friends and fellows), it is equally true that, at 9 pm circa of the first of November and for the next three hours, it was still the day of All Saints’ Day and what you do not was able to achieve on the eve night of Holiday of the Saints, could be realized in the night to pass from the last one to the “Holiday of the deads”.

"“Moreover, the three, and especially [redacted], were all addicted to the suggestions of erotic – mudering “culture”, which has previosly been discussed and that night it was still the day of the Holiday of Saints, “inheritor” of the Catholic Samhain Celtic New Year, with all the implications that have their central point in the Holiday eve, that is the night between October 31 and November 1."

For 100 points: were the above statements uttered at the Salem witch trials in the 17th century or at the trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito?

 

[Bill Williams]

“It should be emphasized that, in any case, for those pathologically addicted to the commission of sex and violence, it is not far-fetched to connect the project to the tradition of Halloween, because if it is true that the night between October 31 and November 1 was passed (and [redacted] had spent with her friends and fellows), it is equally true that, at 9 pm circa of the first of November and for the next three hours, it was still the day of All Saints’ Day and what you do not was able to achieve on the eve night of Holiday of the Saints, could be realized in the night to pass from the last one to the “Holiday of the deads”.

"“Moreover, the three, and especially [redacted], were all addicted to the suggestions of erotic – mudering “culture”, which has previosly been discussed and that night it was still the day of the Holiday of Saints, “inheritor” of the Catholic Samhain Celtic New Year, with all the implications that have their central point in the Holiday eve, that is the night between October 31 and November 1."

For 100 points: were the above statements uttered at the Salem witch trials in the 17th century or at the trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito?

Which brings us back full circle.

This all started when Vixen made claims about some things being "judicially true", meaning that Vixen was free to claim that those items were both true and unassailably true.

Someone else said, "if that is true, then the people killed at the Salem Witch trials must have been witches because the findings of the Salem court was judicially true."

Vixen tried to change the subject to avoid dealing with this. One way was to say that was then, this is now.

NotEvenWrong has adequately demonstrated the huge irony of Vixen's claims.

If this was two or three years ago on this thread, former poster Machiavelli would have rushed in saying, "Mignini never said this was a Satanic rite!" You see, these issues come around on this merry-go-round one every six months or so - claimed via evidenceless assertion by Vixen or some other PGP, then shot down in flames by someone like N.E.W.

What di Machiavelli do to maintain this Tennessee two-step? He posted the closing words (in English translation) of Mignini himself doing the two-step, because at closing in 2009 Mignini abandoned the religious overtones for psychological ones.

Mignini shifted gears (probably on the demand of co-prosecutor Comodi) and made the crime one of psychopathology of Amanda Knox, jealous of Meredith. (Note: no mention of rent money, or pooh in toilets, which would be the story told at the Nencini trial 4 years later.)

No matter, N.E.W. All of this will need repeating three years from now when Vixen forgets that she's made a few own goals in 2016. She'll simply forge ahead.

 

[Vixen]

"I knew Knox was guilty ever since seeing her in the "All you need is love" t-shirt. That's the level which large portions of people assess this - and they should never be allowed near a jury pool. "

This is the same mentality of those who could "see guilt in her eyes". Perhaps a trial should consist of just walking the defendant past the jury who can take a good, long look into his eyes and base their verdict on what they see.
Other evidence for those of this mentality is that they can see guilt in her "body language".

Pervy criminals often have a well-known and well-recognised sleazy look to their eyes.

 

[Vixen]

I think I may have found a problem with your logic Vixen.

There is a case in New York where Adrian P. Thomas (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian_P._Thomas) was convicted of killing his four month old son.

The case was tried in 2009. There was no death penalty in New York in 2009.

This trial happened after the Knox+Sollecito trial. It was more recent. More modern.

Adrian P. Thomas was later legally exonerated. The court ruled that his confession was coerced. (Sound familiar?)

So it looks like we have another example of a modern case in a modern courtroom in a situation where the death penalty was not allowed, and the court came to the wrong conclusion in the initial trial.

Looks like your theory that modern trials that do not include the death penalty are infallible is indeed completely wrong, because here we have an obvious contradiction to your theory. Have you ever gone to school Vixen? Studied logic in any way? Ever used actual rigorous logic? Have you ever written anything correct in this entire thread? I hope you aren't as crazy as you appear. Did you ever find a single professional scientist on planet Earth who agrees with your views on the DNA evidence? Remember, just one. We are waiting.

It's your logic that's skew whiff. So A (Adrian P Thomas) = B (wrongfully convicted).

It honestly doesn't follow .'. C (Amanda and Raff) = B.

Don't forget to polish 'em.

 

[NotEvenWrong]

It's your logic that's skew whiff. So A (Adrian P Thomas) = B (wrongfully convicted).

It honestly doesn't follow .'. C (Amanda and Raff) = B.

Don't forget to polish 'em.

Hi Vixen,
It seems like you have trouble following a given train of though, and when shown to be completely 100% wrong you distort the argument into something else. This is known in the logical fallacy world as a "straw man".

You see, the actual line of argument went:

Vixen: It is impossible for lower merits court to ever be wrong, so all judicial truths are unimpeachable.

Me: Well Vixen, here is this clear example from a modern day court where the judicial truth was wrong. (100% refuting your claim that it is impossible for "found facts" to be wrong.)

Vixen: WELL HRRMMM BRAIN OVERLOAD COGNITIVE DISSONANCE CANNOT HANDLE DANGER DANGER.

Vixen: Well here is this completely unrelated argument that I have distorted around because I can't admit when I said something ridiculous and nonsensical.


Hope you have some high quality polish for those brass knobs you keep talking about.

 

[Vixen]

Which brings us back full circle.

This all started when Vixen made claims about some things being "judicially true", meaning that Vixen was free to claim that those items were both true and unassailably true.

Someone else said, "if that is true, then the people killed at the Salem Witch trials must have been witches because the findings of the Salem court was judicially true."

Vixen tried to change the subject to avoid dealing with this. One way was to say that was then, this is now.

NotEvenWrong has adequately demonstrated the huge irony of Vixen's claims.

If this was two or three years ago on this thread, former poster Machiavelli would have rushed in saying, "Mignini never said this was a Satanic rite!" You see, these issues come around on this merry-go-round one every six months or so - claimed via evidenceless assertion by Vixen or some other PGP, then shot down in flames by someone like N.E.W.

What di Machiavelli do to maintain this Tennessee two-step? He posted the closing words (in English translation) of Mignini himself doing the two-step, because at closing in 2009 Mignini abandoned the religious overtones for psychological ones.

Mignini shifted gears (probably on the demand of co-prosecutor Comodi) and made the crime one of psychopathology of Amanda Knox, jealous of Meredith. (Note: no mention of rent money, or pooh in toilets, which would be the story told at the Nencini trial 4 years later.)

No matter, N.E.W. All of this will need repeating three years from now when Vixen forgets that she's made a few own goals in 2016. She'll simply forge ahead.

From shuffle-hop-step, Bill Williams has blossomed into a full-blown River Dance wanna be, as he flings himself across centre stage like a latter day Fred Astaire. Personally, I think the police and Massei's first hunches were correct; Amanda was insanely jealous of Mez and was determined to teach her a lesson.

The trial has nothing to do with Salem witch trials. It is an irrefutable fact that Raff's DNA was on Mez' bra clasp, and Mez DNA wa on his knife blade, with Amanda's on the hilt.

In a tv series about Albany jail, it followed this guy held for suspected second-degree homicide (the victim shot first). He swore blind he was innocent, and a screw quipped he'd never met a guilty remand prisoner yet.

Together with eye-witness accounts of the perp being very tall (like the defendant) and gunpowder residue on his sweatshirt - seen on the suspect in cctv footage at a store earlier - a police clip of the guy's interrogation nailed him. In this clip, the perp mutters, 'bang, bang, I run'. The police interpreted this as the perp 'reliving the incident'. He was found guilty.

We see the same reliving by Amanda, as she burbles on about meeting 'Patrick' (=Rudy) at the basketball court and took him back to the cottage for sex with Mez. She recounts Mez' piercing scream ( a scream corroborated by two other independent witnesses) and of seeing blood on Raff's hands. We hear lots about gallons of water in Raff's sink and in the shower that night. We hear about how at the questura Amanda yelled, 'of course she suffered, she had her <expletive deleted> throat cut.'

Try and shuffle your way out of that, Bill.

 

[Vixen]

Hi Vixen,
It seems like you have trouble following a given train of though, and when shown to be completely 100% wrong you distort the argument into something else. This is known in the logical fallacy world as a "straw man".

You see, the actual line of argument went:

Vixen: It is impossible for lower merits court to ever be wrong, so all judicial truths are unimpeachable.

Me: Well Vixen, here is this clear example from a modern day court where the judicial truth was wrong. (100% refuting your claim that it is impossible for "found facts" to be wrong.)

Vixen: WELL HRRMMM BRAIN OVERLOAD COGNITIVE DISSONANCE CANNOT HANDLE DANGER DANGER.

Vixen: Well here is this completely unrelated argument that I have distorted around because I can't admit when I said something ridiculous and nonsensical.


Hope you have some high quality polish for those brass knobs you keep talking about.

I said nothing of the kind.

It happens to be a legal fact that you can only appeal a verdict on points of law (and vanishingly rarely on 'perversity [the judge fell asleep], 'new evidence'[which has to show in addition, a 'reasonable prospect of success' in changing the verdict] or 'the all-embracing 'in the public interest' - all with minute levels of success). You cannot appeal against a 'fact found'.

Understand, now?

It is a fact found Amanda was at the murder scene, washed off Mez' life blood and covered up for fellow perp Rudy.

 

[Bill Williams]

From shuffle-hop-step, Bill Williams has blossomed into a full-blown River Dance wanna be, as he flings himself across centre stage like a latter day Fred Astaire. Personally, I think the police and Massei's first hunches were correct; Amanda was insanely jealous of Mez and was determined to teach her a lesson.

You are allowed to think anything you want. Except you need to supply the proof that Judge Massei even had this as a "hunch". You never supply proof, so I am not going to hold my breath - you just keep spilling out these thoughts of your as if they have anything to do with the considerable public record.

The trial has nothing to do with Salem witch trials. It is an irrefutable fact that Raff's DNA was on Mez' bra clasp, and Mez DNA wa on his knife blade, with Amanda's on the hilt.

Yet again you fail to understand the nature of NotEvenWrong's counter example to your claim that judicial truth's are infallible. Then again, it is also an irrefutable fact that three other male-DNA-profiles were on the bra-clasp, which speaks to contamination more than anything else. At best Mez's non-blood DNA was on the blade in a non-existent striation, a striation only Stefanoni ever saw and is, apparently, not on the knife now. This is before considering that non-blood material of Mez's also speaks to lab contamination rather than murder. Amanda's DNA on the hilt is forensically meaningless.

In a tv series about Albany jail, it followed this guy held for suspected second-degree homicide (the victim shot first). He swore blind he was innocent, and a screw quipped he'd never met a guilty remand prisoner yet.

Together with eye-witness accounts of the perp being very tall (like the defendant) and gunpowder residue on his sweatshirt - seen on the suspect in cctv footage at a store earlier - a police clip of the guy's interrogation nailed him. In this clip, the perp mutters, 'bang, bang, I run'. The police interpreted this as the perp 'reliving the incident'. He was found guilty.

Ah, er, ok. I believe you.

We see the same reliving by Amanda, as she burbles on about meeting 'Patrick' (=Rudy) at the basketball court and took him back to the cottage for sex with Mez. She recounts Mez' piercing scream ( a scream corroborated by two other independent witnesses) and of seeing blood on Raff's hands. We hear lots about gallons of water in Raff's sink and in the shower that night. We hear about how at the questura Amanda yelled, 'of course she suffered, she had her <expletive deleted> throat cut.'

Try and shuffle your way out of that, Bill.

No shuffle is necessary. The final court to deal with this found all that you say meaningless and irrelevant to the claimed timeline of the murder, a timeline filled with contradictions and investigative ineptitude. Add in judicial myopia.

Which is why the Marasca/Bruno court exonerated the pair. It is a judicial fact that they were exonerated, since that is the way Judge Boninsegna refers to the action in his own subsequent motivations report concerning Knox's acquittal on the calunnia against police.

No shuffle needed. Just a presentation of facts, rather than an endless series of evidenceless assertions.

 

[Vixen]

You are allowed to think anything you want. Except you need to supply the proof that Judge Massei even had this as a "hunch". You never supply proof, so I am not going to hold my breath - you just keep spilling out these thoughts of your as if they have anything to do with the considerable public record.


Yet again you fail to understand the nature of NotEvenWrong's counter example to your claim that judicial truth's are infallible. Then again, it is also an irrefutable fact that three other male-DNA-profiles were on the bra-clasp, which speaks to contamination more than anything else. At best Mez's non-blood DNA was on the blade in a non-existent striation, a striation only Stefanoni ever saw and is, apparently, not on the knife now. This is before considering that non-blood material of Mez's also speaks to lab contamination rather than murder. Amanda's DNA on the hilt is forensically meaningless.


Ah, er, ok. I believe you.


No shuffle is necessary. The final court to deal with this found all that you say meaningless and irrelevant to the claimed timeline of the murder, a timeline filled with contradictions and investigative ineptitude. Add in judicial myopia.

Which is why the Marasca/Bruno court exonerated the pair. It is a judicial fact that they were exonerated, since that is the way Judge Boninsegna refers to the action in his own subsequent motivations report concerning Knox's acquittal on the calunnia against police.

No shuffle needed. Just a presentation of facts, rather than an endless series of evidenceless assertions.

You have been told that the other fragments of DNA on the clasp, were exactly that: broken bits of fragments that make up house dust. Raff's OTOH was a remarkbaly near full Raff DNA profile (17 alleles; in the UK, only 10 needed to establish ID legally). Why do you keep trying to spin it? It indicates you know perfectly well the kids are guilty as charged.

Just as Rudy had anti-social behaviour disorder, and as highlighted by his disgusting refusal to flush the loo, we see Amanda has a similar anti-social trait of passively aggressively leaving her faeces for her long-suffering housemates to clean up. We can see how Rudy and Amanda found kindred spirits in each other with weird nerd Raff getting to live out his knives fantasy with two other losers.

 

[Bill Williams]

You have been told that the other fragments of DNA on the clasp, were exactly that: broken bits of fragments that make up house dust. Raff's OTOH was a remarkbaly near full Raff DNA profile (17 alleles; in the UK, only 10 needed to establish ID legally). Why do you keep trying to spin it? It indicates you know perfectly well the kids are guilty as charged.

I agree, I have been told this. Mainly by you. You have provided NO supporting documentation to support your view. On the other hand, the 2011 Conti-Vecchiotti report commissioned by the Italian court says something quite different, as you well know. Every DNA-expert outside of the Stefanoni lab has refuted Stefanoni's foresic analysis, and has said that her work is meaningless, particularly since she never did release the EDF's which purportedly showed how she arrived at her conclusions.

I have been told, I agree, but no one has been shown why your view should be the one. Now's the time. You tell it, you do not demonstrate it.

Just for your review, here's what the Marasca-Bruno report said about the bra-clasp evidence:

no trace of Sollecito was discovered in the room of the homicide. The only indicative element against him was represented by a trace of DNA discovered on the clasp of the victim's bra, the trace whose identification with this defendant was, however, excluded by the Vecchiotti-Conti report, which on this point, incorporated observations by the party's consultant, Professor Tagliabracci, a world-famous geneticist.​

With regard to the probability of contamination of that clasp, Marasca-Bruno wrote this:

Regarding the possible contamination of the sample, the appellate judges ignored the photographic materials included in the court records, which clearly demonstrated the possible contamination, in the way in which the clasp was treated, being passed from hand to hand by persons wearing dirty latex gloves.

Moreover, no second amplification was performed on the clasp despite there being a usable portion of the extract, which nonetheless remains actually unused.

Moreover, the clasp, although noted during the first site inspection by the scientific police, was left on the floor and remained there for quite some time. It is not true, moreover, that between the initial access and that during which the clasp was, at last, acquired, there were only two site searches by the investigators, which searches were more numerous in reality and on those occasions everything was turned upside-down.​

I can see why you do not want to tell the whole story about that clasp.

Just as Rudy had anti-social behaviour disorder, and as highlighted by his disgusting refusal to flush the loo, we see Amanda has a similar anti-social trait of passively aggressively leaving her faeces for her long-suffering housemates to clean up. We can see how Rudy and Amanda found kindred spirits in each other with weird nerd Raff getting to live out his knives fantasy with two other losers.

Regardless of this stupid, pop-psychologizing on your part, there is absolutely no record that Rudy and Amanda, much less Raffaele, ever together-conspired to do this.

 

[Vixen]

I agree, I have been told this. Mainly by you. You have provided NO supporting documentation to support your view. On the other hand, the 2011 Conti-Vecchiotti report commissioned by the Italian court says something quite different, as you well know. Every DNA-expert outside of the Stefanoni lab has refuted Stefanoni's foresic analysis, and has said that her work is meaningless, particularly since she never did release the EDF's which purportedly showed how she arrived at her conclusions.

I have been told, I agree, but no one has been shown why your view should be the one. Now's the time. You tell it, you do not demonstrate it.

Just for your review, here's what the Marasca-Bruno report said about the bra-clasp evidence:

​

With regard to the probability of contamination of that clasp, Marasca-Bruno wrote this:

​

I can see why you do not want to tell the whole story about that clasp.


Regardless of this stupid, pop-psychologizing on your part, there is absolutely no record that Rudy and Amanda, much less Raffaele, ever together-conspired to do this.

Not quite accurate: we have the testimony of Kokomani who came all the way back from Albania to give his statement to the police. This was IIRC within some three weeks of the murder. He knew salient details only someone present at the cottage would have known; his observation of a dark car in the cottage drive was corroborated by a car mechanic, Giancarlo Lombardo (_sp?) and police had scientific verification from his phone pings, which revealed he was in the old town that afternoon, as well as by the cottage that evening.

 

[Bill Williams]

Not quite accurate: we have the testimony of Kokomani who came all the way back from Albania to give his statement to the police. This was IIRC within some three weeks of the murder. He knew salient details only someone present at the cottage would have known; his observation of a dark car in the cottage drive was corroborated by a car mechanic, Giancarlo Lombardo (_sp?) and police had scientific verification from his phone pings, which revealed he was in the old town that afternoon, as well as by the cottage that evening.

Kokomani though he saw Knox months before she arrived in Italy!!!!!

But it is noted that you now ignore the bra clasp. I can understand why.

 

[Vixen]

Kokomani though he saw Knox months before she arrived in Italy!!!!!

But it is noted that you now ignore the bra clasp. I can understand why.

The bra clasp is solid scientific evidence against Raff, in exactly the same way the scientific evidence against Rudy is sound. Mez' jumper was collected at the same time as the clasp and Rudy's DNA found on its cuffs, leading Massei to surmise it was Rudy who held Mez' arms back in the most brutal manner fathomable. I can't see you loudly protesting that this must be 'definitely contaminated' in the same way you bray the bra-clasp must be.

It's just clutching at straws. Rome police have better things to do with their time.

 

[Bill Williams]

This highlights perfectly how at sea the Bruno-Marasca court were, as any fule 'no that Nencini's report had a typo (it's surprisingly common in legal documents to attribute a wrong name) wherein it said 'Raff's DNA' when OBVIOUSLY it should have read Amanda's.

In addition, the rubbish witnesses wheeled in - Alessi and Aviello - were brought in by BONGIORNO and the defence, so again, remiss to knock Nencini for it.

For this court to take Nencini to task over such trivia and/or the fault of the defence, shows how despicably dishonest and corrupt they are.

Vixen - now that you are back and in a mood to tell us things, as per, "You have already been told....."

Upthread you told us that when Nencini told us in his motivations report that Raffaele's DNA had been found on the knife, that this was merely a typo. Really? A merits court, one that establishes judicial facts does typos? Are you sure then that when Nencini convicted the pair, that that wasn't a typo too, and that he'd really meant to acquit them?

Also, you wrongly and falsely blame Bongiorno for "wheeling in" Aviello into the Nencini trial. That's what you told us, anyway.

Do you now acknowledge your mistake? The mistake being that with regard to the Avielo issue, this was one of the reasons why the Chieffi ISC panel in 2013 annulled the Hellmann acquittals - because according to Chieffi Hellmann had not allowed Aviello to be wheeled into the courtroom?

Like the way you handled the Salem witch trials, my bet is that you're going to complain that no one is really "wheeled in" unless they're in a wheelchair.

 

[Bill Williams]

The bra clasp is solid scientific evidence against Raff, in exactly the same way the scientific evidence against Rudy is sound. Mez' jumper was collected at the same time as the clasp and Rudy's DNA found on its cuffs, leading Massei to surmise it was Rudy who held Mez' arms back in the most brutal manner fathomable. I can't see you loudly protesting that this must be 'definitely contaminated' in the same way you bray the bra-clasp must be.

It's just clutching at straws. Rome police have better things to do with their time.

You would do well to read the C-V report, as well as every other forensic expert who has commented on this.

For one thing, I never said the bra-clasp was definitely contaminated. The evidence shows that contamination cannot be ruled out.

​

BTW - pictured is what Marasca-Bruno were referring to, and no such evidence of contamination of the Rudy-evidence can be found - but my word, Rudy's DNA was found inside the victim!

 

[NotEvenWrong]

I said nothing of the kind.

Strange, some cartoon character said this in a previous post:

You do not understand how law works. It's not like ice-skating, where a series of judges hold up their marks.

A fact found, is a fact settled. It doesn't become open to debate to all-comers. It's like Mike's imaginary referee. If he ajudges a goal, penalty or foul, then the 'fact' remains, no matter how controversial.

Now, was the point of this post (I will assume you are the same Vixen) to tell everyone that when a judge finds a fact then a judge finds a fact? i.e. it was a completely redundant and tautological point?

So when you meant "it is settled" you didn't actually mean it is "true", you just meant that the judge said something?

Because if that was your point literally no one cares. As we have pointed out to you multiple times all of the science shows that Amanda and Raffaele could not have been there when Meredith was murdered. This has been confirmed over and over and over again by some of the top forensic scientists around, in books and papers. Papers published in the very top forensic science journal in the world. Therefore even though Massei and/or Nencini said some stuff, does not mean it was right. We all agree they said some stuff. And science proves it was wrong.

Understand now?

 

[Stacyhs]

Pervy criminals often have a well-known and well-recognised sleazy look to their eyes.

So does just about every teenage boy given the right situation.