Continuation Part 22: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Planigale]

Is this a new Article by Peter Gill?

Analysis and implications of the miscarriages of justice of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1872497316300333

Highlights
The miscarriages of justice of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are described.
A knife recovered from a cutlery drawer was purported to be the murder weapon.
A bra-clasp found in the murder room was alleged to have DNA from a defendant.
Transfer of DNA found on the evidential material was either contamination or ‘innocent’.
The final judgement exonerated the defendants and the reasons are explored.

Maybe this has been discussed before, but it is from the July 2016 issue of
Forensic Science International: Genetics , and the pages are referenced.

It will be interesting to read the correspondence ensuing. He does not even list all the problems with the forensic science.

 

[NotEvenWrong]

Wasn't the bra clasp a mixture of Meredith's and Raffaele's DNA? That was the reason for the Y-haplotype test? However I realize the validity of those results are under dispute.

Yes, the bra clasp had Meredith's DNA, Rudy's DNA, and two other unknown person's DNA.

I understand what you are saying, but here's the thing. The prosecution claiming "this is evidence against the accused" does not make it true evidence. For it to be "true evidence" it has to have two properties: 1) The probability of finding that piece of evidence *if* the accused is guilty has to be high and 2) the probability of finding the evidence *if* the accused is not guilty has to be low. The bra clasp does not meet criteria (2). It is a type I error.

If the Perugian Law Enforcement showed up at your door back in November 2007 and started rummaging through your things, grabbed a few articles of clothing, took them back to the cottage, threw them on the floor, kicked them around for 46 days, collected the remnants with dirty gloves, and found your DNA mixed with Meredith's DNA on a piece of fabric, this does NOT make it evidence you murdered Meredith Kercher. This is because it is a type I error. A false positive. You would have seen your DNA mixed with Meredith's even *if* you were innocent and had nothing to do with the murder. This is because proper forensic protocol wasn't followed. All of this bad protocol *caused* your DNA to be found with Meredith's on that piece of fabric.

Similarly, Raffaele had been to that cottage multiple times. He was there when the police found the body. He attempted to break down the door of the murder room when no one knew for sure what was going on and there became concerns for Meredith's safety. His DNA was in the cottage. They didn't find his DNA on anything on the first pass of evidence collection. They *had to come back 46 days later* because they "needed" to find something to implicate Amanda and Raffaele. They plucked this bra clap off the floor at the crime scene that we have video proof was moved around from the initial collection. It was under a pile of clothes; not at all where it was located 46 days prior. It was kicked around, moved, and collected with dirty gloves. All after hanging around at the crime scene (in a cottage that Raffaele had visited on multiple occasions previously) for 46 days. This *causes contamination*. This is why we have 4 contributors on the clasp -- two of them unknown to this day. This caused a type I error. A false positive.

There is a reason that Vixen keeps avoiding the question "show me one single DNA expert anywhere that has stated the evidence was collected, analyzed, and interpreted properly and shows Amanda and/or Raffaele was involved in the murder". The reason she is avoiding the question is because NO ONE who has any experience or knowledge of molecular biology and genetics has said this. And no one will say this. Because it was so clearly and obviously contaminated to anyone that knows anything about molecular work that it is complete nonsense to even suggest otherwise.

Thus, you are correct that Raffaele's DNA was found with Meredith's DNA on the bra clasp. But that does not make it true evidence. Because it was collected in the exact way that causes contamination. Much like had the police come to your home and collected your things and kicked them around the murder room for 46 days -- your DNA mixed with Meredith's on a piece of fabric would not be evidence you committed the murder either.

 

[Vixen]

It helps one's prolific output when they cut and paste from other sources. You yourself in May 2015 said that the case had not even been on his radar earlier in the month. Then he has his e-book out, then he gets into such copyright trouble his account is suspended.

Ya right, a regular Jack Kerouac.

Crime writing is a competitive field. It is journalistic, thus can be written up quite quickly. My non-fiction writing takes far less time than my fictional and has a far higher word number.

To be a successful crime writer it is essential you are ready to publish as soon as the verdict comes out. There were dozens of writers rushing to bring out Oscar Pistorius, for example, as soon as it was over. I was able to buy mass produced paperbacks of the Fred & Rose West and Soham murders books within days of the trial being over. sure, it comes across as tabloid and tacky (Nick and Lisa, however, are not so, they are thoughtful, original and creative, bringing in aspects of their own personal experiences), but that's what sells the books. People want to understand how anyone can commit such heinous crimes.

I note the common factoid on google is that Keroauc wrote On the Road in three weeks, but not so long ago, the myth was he wrote it on one long roll of telex-type paper whilst 'speeding' out of his mind on methedrine.

Kerouac was an extremely talented writer and was accepted by Columbia Uni after being kicked out of the army as being 'schizoid' (- very introverted).

 

[Vixen]

Jack Kerouac wrote On the Road in five and a half hours.
Another Vixen factoid easily proved false.

"Legend has it that Kerouac wrote On the Road in three weeks, typing it almost nonstop on a 120-foot roll of paper. The truth is that the book actually had a much longer, bumpier journey from inspiration to publication, complete with multiple rewrites, repeated rejections and a dog who — well, On the Road wasn't homework, but we all know what dogs do."

"But Kerouac's brother-in-law and executor, John Sampas, says the three-week story is a kind of self-created myth. "Three weeks" is what Kerouac answered when talk-show host Steve Allen asked how long it took to write On the Road.

And so this gave the impression that Jack just spontaneously wrote this book in three weeks," Sampas says. "I think what Jack should've said was, 'I typed it up in three weeks.'"

Kerouac scholar Paul Marion agrees.

"In truth, Marion says, Kerouac heavily reworked On the Road — first in his head, then in his journals between 1947 and 1949, and then again on his typewriter.

Between 1951 and 1957, Kerouac tinkered with as many as six drafts in a desperate attempt to get editors to accept his work, according to Sampas. A letter from Kerouac to fellow beat writer Neal Cassady, dated June 1951, complains about a rejection from one publisher and mentions that Kerouac is shopping for an agent. "
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11709924

Some people are just prolific.[/QUOTE]

And some people just make stuff up as they go along thinking no one will notice.

Some authors do write stuff in their head before committing to paper. Others write draft after draft after draft and it takes them weeks/months to write one chapter. My writing colleagues were amazed I always wrote up my stuff in the morning, just a couple of hours before the writers group met, and in just one draft. I just have a chess player mind and it's all there ready before I write.

 

[Vixen]

Also why weren't Amanda and Raffaele's DNA mixed with Meredith and/or Rudy's in the murder room? Did they collect the blood, extract the DNA, separate all the different DNA with Amanda's magic wand, put Meredith's DNA back together with Rudy's DNA, and then put it back in the room?

Or are you just crazy and Rudy did it by himself and no witchcraft nor magic wands were involved?

There was far less DNA of Rudy collected. IIRC, just four samples. Compare and contrast with FIVE mixed Amanda/Mez DNA samples collected.

The fact his epithial (_sp?) DNA cells were found in an intimate place does not prove he was the sole killer.

Raff seemed to believe if the stained pillow was tested it would come up with his DNA.

Three strands of long fair-coloured hair WERE found at the scene, one across Mez' rifled bag (Rudy's bloody fingerprints were on the OUTSIDE of the bag - but there were no blood stains or Rudy DNA INSIDE the bag). This strand of hair MUST have been left AFTER the bag was rummaged as it was across the top of he bag, and which had been carefully posed on the bed (so police believe) and could be seen through the keyhole. There was a similar strand of hair in Mez' rigor-mortised hand, so must have been grasped before death, and another in Mez' vagina.

There was a ladies-sized blood stained footstep (size 37) with a narrow ladies-heel UNDER the body.

Raff's DNA was found on the bra clasp which was UNDER a sheet UNDER the body UNDER a duvet UNDER bits of scattered paper, also scattered in Filomena's room.

DNA might be invisible to the naked eye, but forensic police will take their samples from what looks to them organic matter, such as greasy sweat, bodily fluids and decaying tissue.

 

[LondonJohn]

Crime writing is a competitive field. It is journalistic, thus can be written up quite quickly. My non-fiction writing takes far less time than my fictional and has a far higher word number.

To be a successful crime writer it is essential you are ready to publish as soon as the verdict comes out. There were dozens of writers rushing to bring out Oscar Pistorius, for example, as soon as it was over. I was able to buy mass produced paperbacks of the Fred & Rose West and Soham murders books within days of the trial being over. sure, it comes across as tabloid and tacky (Nick and Lisa, however, are not so, they are thoughtful, original and creative, bringing in aspects of their own personal experiences), but that's what sells the books. People want to understand how anyone can commit such heinous crimes.

I note the common factoid on google is that Keroauc wrote On the Road in three weeks, but not so long ago, the myth was he wrote it on one long roll of telex-type paper whilst 'speeding' out of his mind on methedrine.

Kerouac was an extremely talented writer and was accepted by Columbia Uni after being kicked out of the army as being schizophrenic.

All nonsense.

For a start, Kerouac's "On the Road" was a steam-of-consciousness word-dump, so its very nature defined the fact that it was conceptualised and drafted very quickly - but even then it went through a long rewriting and editing process.

Second, while it's correct to assert that the most lucrative window for those writing books based on criminal cases is the period as soon as possible after the case has been on the front pages, serious authors will have effectively devoted themselves to researching and writing for months beforehand, allowing them to only need to write the final chapters relatively quickly. But in fact most good, well-written and well-researched true crime books have in fact been published long after the case has fallen out of the news. For example Jeffrey Toobin's book on the OJ Simpson Trial, or Gordon Burn's book about the Yorkshire Ripper, or Bugliosi's book about the Manson case. Actually, it's strongly arguable that almost all good true crime books have been written and published some time after the case was in the limelight, since this allows for proper research, reflection, writing and editing to take place.

Third, if "by a man's work shall ye know him", then can der Leek categorically, unequivocally is NOT "thoughtful, original and creative". His writing is tacky, amateurish, sloppy, pejorative and simply very very bad. I sincerely hope he hasn't ever received any formal education in writing or journalism, because if he has, then those establishments that "trained" him ought to be deeply embarrassed and ashamed at their alumnus. And for you to write that commendation is incredibly telling in itself, once again.

Right, I must fly in order to find a French Tricolore flag to superimpose over my (non-existent) avatar, in order to create a shouty conspicuous "look how compassionate and caring I am everyone!" faux-grief display over the nasty events in Nice last night. Actually, the more I think about it, I suspect there's a very strong correlation between the nutters who feel compelled to make strident, constant displays of wallowing grief about Meredith Kercher (despite never having known her, her family or any of her friends) and those who leap on the grief-display bandwagon when newsworthy tragic events happen around the world. A psychiatrist would find it all very interesting - of that I have no doubt.

 

[Vixen]

What an excellent opportunity for transfer of Sollecito's DNA to the bra hook. Knox comes along with Sollecito's DNA on her hands, shuffles her flat mates stuff along on the drying rack to make room for hers / takes off stuff that is dry (which is what happens in a shared flat). There is transfer of a trace count of DNA to the bra hook. I am not saying this is definitely the way that DNA transferred, I actually think the likeliest is Sollecito's DNA was on Kercher's hand and then she transferred it to her bra. What is very unlikely is that Sollecito was involved in a bloody fight ripping off a bra, and the only trace of his DNA was on the 'concealed' fastener that he could not have directly touched, and that no DNA or blood was transferred to him and he managed not to stand in any of the blood. So holistically the isolated transfer in the midst of the posited struggle seems unlikely so another source of transfer becomes likely.

If anyone believes anything Amanda said at her trial in 2009 nearly 18 months AFTER the crime was true, non-scripted and spontaneous and non-legally advised is naive at best. Amanda's testimony was highly revisionist, trying to put a good spin on her previously highly incriminating statements to the police.

 

[LondonJohn]

There was far less DNA of Rudy collected. IIRC, just four samples. Compare and contrast with FIVE mixed Amanda/Mez DNA samples collected.

The fact his epithial (_sp?) DNA cells were found in an intimate place does not prove he was the sole killer.

Raff seemed to believe if the stained pillow was tested it would come up with his DNA.

Three strands of long fair-coloured hair WERE found at the scene, one across Mez' rifled bag (Rudy's bloody fingerprints were on the OUTSIDE of the bag - but there were no blood stains or Rudy DNA INSIDE the bag). This strand of hair MUST have been left AFTER the bag was rummaged as it was across the top of he bag, and which had been carefully posed on the bed (so police believe) and could be seen through the keyhole. There was a similar strand of hair in Mez' rigor-mortised hand, so must have been grasped before death, and another in Mez' vagina.

There was a ladies-sized blood stained footstep (size 37) with a narrow ladies-heel UNDER the body.

Raff's DNA was found on the bra clasp which was UNDER a sheet UNDER the body UNDER a duvet UNDER bits of scattered paper, also scattered in Filomena's room.

DNA might be invisible to the naked eye, but forensic police will take their samples from what looks to them organic matter, such as greasy sweat, bodily fluids and decaying tissue.

For heaven's sake. Have the basic courtesy to look up big words you don't understand, rather than the weasel "_sp?" construct. It's E P I T H E L I A L.

Or is even that basic level of research not possible.....?

 

[Vixen]

All nonsense.

For a start, Kerouac's "On the Road" was a steam-of-consciousness word-dump, so its very nature defined the fact that it was conceptualised and drafted very quickly - but even then it went through a long rewriting and editing process.

Second, while it's correct to assert that the most lucrative window for those writing books based on criminal cases is the period as soon as possible after the case has been on the front pages, serious authors will have effectively devoted themselves to researching and writing for months beforehand, allowing them to only need to write the final chapters relatively quickly. But in fact most good, well-written and well-researched true crime books have in fact been published long after the case has fallen out of the news. For example Jeffrey Toobin's book on the OJ Simpson Trial, or Gordon Burn's book about the Yorkshire Ripper, or Bugliosi's book about the Manson case. Actually, it's strongly arguable that almost all good true crime books have been written and published some time after the case was in the limelight, since this allows for proper research, reflection, writing and editing to take place.

Third, if "by a man's work shall ye know him", then can der Leek categorically, unequivocally is NOT "thoughtful, original and creative". His writing is tacky, amateurish, sloppy, pejorative and simply very very bad. I sincerely hope he hasn't ever received any formal education in writing or journalism, because if he has, then those establishments that "trained" him ought to be deeply embarrassed and ashamed at their alumnus. And for you to write that commendation is incredibly telling in itself, once again.

Right, I must fly in order to find a French Tricolore flag to superimpose over my (non-existent) avatar, in order to create a shouty conspicuous "look how compassionate and caring I am everyone!" faux-grief display over the nasty events in Nice last night. Actually, the more I think about it, I suspect there's a very strong correlation between the nutters who feel compelled to make strident, constant displays of wallowing grief about Meredith Kercher (despite never having known her, her family or any of her friends) and those who leap on the grief-display bandwagon when newsworthy tragic events happen around the world. A psychiatrist would find it all very interesting - of that I have no doubt.

Thank you for sharing your bitter, cynical thoughts with us all.

 

[LondonJohn]

Some authors do write stuff in their head before committing to paper. Others write draft after draft after draft and it takes them weeks/months to write one chapter. My writing colleagues were amazed I always wrote up my stuff in the morning, just a couple of hours before the writers group met, and in just one draft. I just have a chess player mind and it's all there ready before I write.

This is such great stuff! Brightens up a boring Friday afternoon for sure! And all highly relevant to the Kercher case and/or the Knox/Sollecito trials of course....

 

[LondonJohn]

Thank you for sharing your bitter, cynical thoughts with us all.

You mean "normal and well-balanced", no?

 

[Vixen]

Yes, the bra clasp had Meredith's DNA, Rudy's DNA, and two other unknown person's DNA.

I understand what you are saying, but here's the thing. The prosecution claiming "this is evidence against the accused" does not make it true evidence. For it to be "true evidence" it has to have two properties: 1) The probability of finding that piece of evidence *if* the accused is guilty has to be high and 2) the probability of finding the evidence *if* the accused is not guilty has to be low. The bra clasp does not meet criteria (2). It is a type I error.

If the Perugian Law Enforcement showed up at your door back in November 2007 and started rummaging through your things, grabbed a few articles of clothing, took them back to the cottage, threw them on the floor, kicked them around for 46 days, collected the remnants with dirty gloves, and found your DNA mixed with Meredith's DNA on a piece of fabric, this does NOT make it evidence you murdered Meredith Kercher. This is because it is a type I error. A false positive. You would have seen your DNA mixed with Meredith's even *if* you were innocent and had nothing to do with the murder. This is because proper forensic protocol wasn't followed. All of this bad protocol *caused* your DNA to be found with Meredith's on that piece of fabric.

Similarly, Raffaele had been to that cottage multiple times. He was there when the police found the body. He attempted to break down the door of the murder room when no one knew for sure what was going on and there became concerns for Meredith's safety. His DNA was in the cottage. They didn't find his DNA on anything on the first pass of evidence collection. They *had to come back 46 days later* because they "needed" to find something to implicate Amanda and Raffaele. They plucked this bra clap off the floor at the crime scene that we have video proof was moved around from the initial collection. It was under a pile of clothes; not at all where it was located 46 days prior. It was kicked around, moved, and collected with dirty gloves. All after hanging around at the crime scene (in a cottage that Raffaele had visited on multiple occasions previously) for 46 days. This *causes contamination*. This is why we have 4 contributors on the clasp -- two of them unknown to this day. This caused a type I error. A false positive.

There is a reason that Vixen keeps avoiding the question "show me one single DNA expert anywhere that has stated the evidence was collected, analyzed, and interpreted properly and shows Amanda and/or Raffaele was involved in the murder". The reason she is avoiding the question is because NO ONE who has any experience or knowledge of molecular biology and genetics has said this. And no one will say this. Because it was so clearly and obviously contaminated to anyone that knows anything about molecular work that it is complete nonsense to even suggest otherwise.

Thus, you are correct that Raffaele's DNA was found with Meredith's DNA on the bra clasp. But that does not make it true evidence. Because it was collected in the exact way that causes contamination. Much like had the police come to your home and collected your things and kicked them around the murder room for 46 days -- your DNA mixed with Meredith's on a piece of fabric would not be evidence you committed the murder either.

No crime scene is sterile. By the time Mez' body was found, there were probably already a few blow flies and house flies, ready to hone in. As you know flies spread diseases very readily. Thus by your 'reasoning' DNA collection at crime scenes should be barred all together as a crime scene is not a hospital standard sterile environment.

This is clearly piffle.

 

[Vixen]

You mean "normal and well-balanced", no?

Jack Keroauc's writing is absolutely brilliant. Powerful, poetic and beautiful. Anyone who thinks it's rubbish is a knuckle-dragging barbarian who should stick to the Beano.

 

[LondonJohn]

No crime scene is sterile. By the time Mez' body was found, there were probably already a few blow flies and house flies, ready to hone in. As you know flies spread diseases very readily. Thus by your 'reasoning' DNA collection at crime scenes should be barred all together as a crime scene is not a hospital standard sterile environment.

This is clearly piffle.

you are ignorant and ill-informed about crime scene evidence collection, the scientific principles underpinning forensic DNA and blood analysis/typing, and the necessary protocols and procedures that are required in order to ensure that such evidence is of probative value. Fortunately there is plenty of good academic literature you can read about all this, if you care to educate yourself. It would certainly improve the level of debate.

 

[LondonJohn]

Jack Keroauc's writing is absolutely brilliant. Powerful, poetic and beautiful. Anyone who thinks it's rubbish is a knuckle-dragging barbarian who should stick to the Beano.

Once again, you've used some sort of strange process to wholly invent and ascribe to me something I never said or implied! Fascinating!

(Hint: read that post of mine again, and come back and tell me where I ever stated or implied in any way whatsoever, however mildly or stridently, that Kerouac's writing was not good. I'll be waiting!)

 

[Vixen]

you are ignorant and ill-informed about crime scene evidence collection, the scientific principles underpinning forensic DNA and blood analysis/typing, and the necessary protocols and procedures that are required in order to ensure that such evidence is of probative value. Fortunately there is plenty of good academic literature you can read about all this, if you care to educate yourself. It would certainly improve the level of debate.

"Physician heal thyself." - Jesus

 

[LondonJohn]

"Physician heal thyself." - Jesus

Not applicable. I know enough about those things to know that I am empirically correct and you are empirically wrong. And there are plenty of people on this thread who are far more specifically expert and experienced than me in these matters, and they all stand on my side of the debate. As does EVERY SINGLE forensic scientist and DNA expert in the ENTIRE WORLD, excepting the tiny number who had a direct vested interest in the Knox/Sollecito prosecution.

Funny that. You'd think a critical thinker would be able to draw some reliable conclusions from such a data set. I know I can.

 

[NotEvenWrong]

There was far less DNA of Rudy collected. IIRC, just four samples. Compare and contrast with FIVE mixed Amanda/Mez DNA samples collected.

Rudy did not live in the cottage. Thus finding his DNA there implicates him.

Amanda and Meredith (why the hell do you call her Mez?) both lived in the cottage. Their DNA was there because they lived there. Finding their DNA and assuming it implicates Amanda is a type I error. Please see my previous post. Your DNA is in your home. It doesn't mean you killed anyone.

Furthermore none of Amanda's DNA was found in the murder room. It was found in random areas around the house where her DNA would be because she lived there.

The fact his epithial (_sp?) DNA cells were found in an intimate place does not prove he was the sole killer.

Correct. As I have said though, the lack of Amanda's DNA in the murder room, the lack of evidence of Raffaele in the murder room (aside from a bra clasp proven contaminated as it had 4 contributors, 2 unknown to this day), and the electronic time stamp on Raf's computer during the time when the murder occured DOES prove that Amanda and Raffaele were not in the cottage when Rudy killed Meredith

Raff seemed to believe if the stained pillow was tested it would come up with his DNA.

And Vixen seems to believe if she makes up enough lies and factoids someone will believe her. Why do you hate the truth so much?

Three strands of long fair-coloured hair WERE found at the scene, one across Mez' rifled bag (Rudy's bloody fingerprints were on the OUTSIDE of the bag - but there were no blood stains or Rudy DNA INSIDE the bag).

A bunch of young women lived in the cottage. Yes there may have been long fair-colored hairs there. Who cares? Can you think logically for once and not regurgitate something you read in a book written in 2 days by someone trying to make money off Meredith's murder?

This strand of hair MUST have been left AFTER the bag was rummaged as it was across the top of he bag, and which had been carefully posed on the bed (so police believe) and could be seen through the keyhole. There was a similar strand of hair in Mez' rigor-mortised hand, so must have been grasped before death, and another in Mez' vagina.

Why was this never discussed at the trial? Is it because you made it up? Is it because your source made it up? Are you still using a source that is trying to make a quick buck off poor Meredith's murder? Is that why you project and accuse all of the rational people who are protecting the innocent of being "shills"? Is it because it is you who are in fact the one shilling?

There was a ladies-sized blood stained footstep (size 37) with a narrow ladies-heel UNDER the body.

Well, this is definitely wrong. Because this is a guilter factoid that I have seen before, and it has no basis in reality. It has been fabricated out of thin air every time it has been uttered on the internet. And it is still a bald faced lie. Why are you trying to protect your buddy who rapid-fire publishes books to make quick money off of famous murder stories?

Raff's DNA was found on the bra clasp which was UNDER a sheet UNDER the body UNDER a duvet UNDER bits of scattered paper, also scattered in Filomena's room.

Oh, are you saying the bra clasp was kicked around and buried under garbage and that is why it is contaminated with 4 contributors? I mean, you are actually right on this Vixen. Congratulations.

DNA might be invisible to the naked eye, but forensic police will take their samples from what looks to them organic matter, such as greasy sweat, bodily fluids and decaying tissue.

So you're saying the forensic police actively looked out for the areas Amanda and Raffaele WOULD HAVE left their DNA if they contributed to the murder? Yet they ONLY found evidence of Rudy? Fascinating. And you're still confused why we know Rudy did it by himself?

 

[NotEvenWrong]

No crime scene is sterile. By the time Mez' body was found, there were probably already a few blow flies and house flies, ready to hone in. As you know flies spread diseases very readily. Thus by your 'reasoning' DNA collection at crime scenes should be barred all together as a crime scene is not a hospital standard sterile environment.

This is clearly piffle.

Vixen, are saying that "spreading disease" is the same as "spreading DNA"? Where did you say you went to school again? Does the fact that no DNA expert in the world agrees with you give you pause? What is your background in molecular and forensic genetics?

And yes, you are right. No crime scene is sterile. Which is precisely why you can't kick evidence around a room for 46 days after the murder, bury it under laundry and garbage, collect it with dirty gloves, and expect it to be reliable. There is a reason why your opinion on the DNA evidence conflicts with every intelligent, rational person and there is a reason it conflicts with everyone who has knowledge and expertise in DNA technology. Think about it.

 

[Bill Williams]

"Physician heal thyself." - Jesus

A complete misuse of this quote. This was never hurled at others as a barb, but was rather the person in question summarizing the barb which had been leveled at him!

Once again. Fail. It makes it all the more funny that you once chided someone for having to look up the facts behind their posts here on Google. You should have Google on speed dial, rather than just either making things up or misquoting originals.

Hooots!