• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Continuation Part 22: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bill Williams said:
I was confused and mixed up all right. I'd not run across the Rolling Stone version of this until a lot later......

So here's your "own goal" Vixen. Once again, a Vixen own-goal. I was confused and mixed up because I spent the first while almost solely dependent on TJMK and the PMF's!!! I did not know the IIP website existed, and did not know that at that time the Wiki page was going through a major transition ordered by Jimbo Wales himself - to free it from the Non-neutral point of view of the rabid guilters.

On TJMK I followed specifically Kermits powerpoints, one about the "impossibility of Rudy breaking in", as well as, "The 150 questions Amanda Knox won't answer."

Do you wish to know how you've booted the ball into your own net with stupid remarks about my own beginnings here?

Kermit's "impossibility of the break-in through Filomena's window" was passed to a friend who worked as a tech in police forensics. He laughed at the analysis.

"The 150 questions Amanda Knox won't answer," contained one question which was, "Why won't Knox tell us the phase of the moon from Nov 1?" Her silence on that issue for Kermit was a key to unlocking the case's secrets.

Once again you do not do your homework. You make "probably" statements without knowing a scintilla of what you're talking about.
Click to expand...


I'd be interested to know, what made you join the Friends of Amanda Knox?
 
Vixen said:
You didn't read my pointing out that a judge has the power to dismiss an application for disclosure.

The defence applied. The judge realising this was just a time-wasting ploy by the defence - which judges see all the time: unreasonable attempts to stall proceedings by demanding ever more bits of information - no doubt said, 'Enough, already.'


Remember: it is the defendants on trial, not the police.
Click to expand...

LOL! This post takes the cake for ignorance.

You obviously have never heard of cross-examination. (The way the RIS Carabinieri at the Nencini trial avoided themselves being 'put on trial' was that they made full disclosure. On the other hand, Stefanoni will always be on trial - and hence doubted by every forensic-DNA expert in the world - because she didn't.)

Once again, for the gazillionth time - name one forensic-DNA expert who sides with Stefanoni. You never do that.

It's because **you** refuse to put her on trial.
 
Vixen said:
Oh, and this bit. This is a particularly ignorant observation by the Marasca court. This is because all forensic science is based on 'compatible with', whether it be fingerprints, footprints, DNA, blood group, haplotype, etc. For example, in fingerprint analysis, typically, in England & Wales, only eighteen points of 'compatibility with' are need for it to be a legal identification.

Some woman recently challenged a finding that showed fingerprints 'compatible with' hers. She disputed that some of the points used to match, where incorrect.

What I do not get is how seemingly intelligent and trained judges can accept fingerprint compatibilty but seem to believe DNA compatibility is done differently.

Even if compatibility is three billion to one against - as in the case of Raff's DNA on the bra clasp - it will be presented in the report as exactly that: 'compatible with'.


So, Marasca Court is just third grade rubbish.
Click to expand...

If you do not know the legal issues surrounding compatibility versus identity, then it becomes clear why you're confused. You should immerse yourself in those issues before embarrassing yourself.
 
Bill Williams said:
Again, with due respect, you're missing a lot here.

First and foremost, the compelling issue about ECHR and issues of equality of arms and full disclosure at all stages of the process, etc., ignores that the ECHR deals with complaint driven processes.

Meaning that the ECHR has no internal investigative force which on its own investigates these things.

That fact alone puts people whose rights have been trampled on at a disadvantage. Esp. in Italy, where one can be tied up in court for up to a decade paying for competent defence - and often being billed for the prosecution's analysis of some factoid.

One can quickly run out of money - so I would argue that these ECHR rights fast become meaningless if unavailable at a practical level. Most certainly Italy would not be in a hurry to conform to ECHR standards if people like Mignini knew their abuses would often never see the light of day.

Marasca-Bruno have a long discussion in their Sept 2015 report about one item of appeal from (I think it was Sollecito) where the length of the trial-process from charge to ISC-final disposition was itself flagged. (In Canada here, it is the Askov ruling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Askov , in the ECHR it is Article 6). I would suggest that that is an even bigger human rights concern than full disclosure, but even B/M makes an impassioned defence of why the unwieldy Italian process does not violate it.

Still - with it being a complaint driven process, totally dependent on remaining resources of a complainant, it is not as simply as your post implies.
Click to expand...

Your post makes some good points, but it does not convey the full picture with regard to how a CoE State enforces all fails to enforce its laws whether they derive from ECHR case-law or its own Constitution and procedural law.

Some States consistently violate their own laws and ECHR case-law. Others attempt to follow such laws strictly. Some may fall between these two extremes. ECHR has no enforcement powers by itself; the Committee of Ministers of the CoE has a "supervisory" role in seeing to the execution of ECHR judgments.

The question is where Italy chooses to place itself in the spectrum of a State obeying its own laws including its Constitution, the Convention and ECHR. In the Knox-Sollecito case, despite the more lawful rulings of the Marasca CSC panel and Boninsigna court, the unlawful arrests and unfair provisional convictions leaves the impression that Italy tends not to obey it own laws, Constitution, the Convention, and ECHR.
 
Last edited:
Numbers said:
The question is where Italy chooses to place itself in the spectrum of a State obeying its own laws including its Constitution, the Convention and ECHR. In the Knox-Sollecito case, despite the more lawful rulings of the Marasca CSC panel and Boninsigna court, the unlawful arrests and unfair provisional convictions leaves the impression that Italy tends not to obey it own laws, Constitution, the Convention, and ECHR.
Click to expand...
But again, with full respect, this does not address the issue as posed - to engage the agency which will enforce these rights; one has to complain.

It is a complaint-driven process. In Italy, this means spending even more money over and above defending oneself against what amounts to trumped up charges - such criminal process often lasting the better part of a decade and involving up to 5 different tribunals.

The reason why Italy (for one) can get away with things like Mignini started is that the defendants would much rather cut a deal at the beginning - or if they see it out they are financially (and perhaps emotionally) exhausted.

I believe it is THAT part of the Bruno-Marasca report which defends the Italian system. Even M-B have to give an impassioned defence of the length of the Italian process, is not (in their opinion) violating the right to a speedy trial. On that point B-M are home-boys, not wanting to appear too off the charts.

It's bad enough for the party of the PMs that B-M exonerated the pair.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Oh, and this bit. This is a particularly ignorant observation by the Marasca court. This is because all forensic science is based on 'compatible with', whether it be fingerprints, footprints, DNA, blood group, haplotype, etc. For example, in fingerprint analysis, typically, in England & Wales, only eighteen points of 'compatibility with' are need for it to be a legal identification.
Click to expand...

Yes, all forensic science is based upon "compatible with". However, you should actually READ the B/M on this point because it is not as simple as that.

It must be more than "compatible with", the process must move compatibility towards increasingly statistically significant identity.

The way to move compatibility towards identity is repeatability. This is crucial for forensic DNA matching.

When Stefanoni first tested things, she got no result. What's "no result" compatible with? She did this multiple times. What "identity" does "no result" point to when that's what the repeatability shows?

Then............ she got what she claimed was a match. So after multiple "no results" she got a match. Once.

Did she repeat that? No. Did she find that multiple compatibilities existed? No. She destroyed the bra-clasp through improper storage. Every forensic-expert says there needs to be at least one more repeat, and many opt for two more repeats. (You cannot name ONE expert who supports Stefanoni's methodology or reporting - you've been asked this a gazillion times, with no reply.)

Look at it this way. The claim is that a six-sided die is unfair, and loaded to favour one of the six numbers. This is the way compatibility, repeatability, and identity work (if you bothered to read the B/M report).

- the first twenty rolls of the die produce no result.
- the 21st roll of the die produces a six
- Stefanoni then declares that the die is "loaded" to favour a six. After only one roll that produced a result. She does not repeat this.
- instead of letting you roll the die for yourself, she merely types up a report, ignoring the first 20 rolls, that simply says, "This die favours a six."
- you ask to see the die
- she fights you tooth and nail, complaining to the court that you are accusing her of being dishonest.
- she then informs the court that the die has been destroyed through improper storage.
- you then discover that what Stefanoni did not tell you, was about the first 20 rolls which produced no result​
The question is: would you send someone to prison for 25 years as a result of this process?

Identity comes from repeating what is claimed as the compatibility. If the die had survived Stefanoni's stupidity, you could then roll it yourself. If it came up "6" on 18 of the next 20 rolls, one might then make a comment on identity. Or as forensic-experts say - it needs to be repeated at least one more time, two more times to be sure because so much is on the line.

It's all there in the Bruno-Marasca report. (Minus the die-analogy.) You should read it sometime.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Do you honestly think someone like Nencini - with years behind him as a successful barrister - doesn't understand the rules of evidence? One minute he's criticised as being defective in the scientific method, next he excoriated for substituting himself as the expert, which is unfair, as he never did anything of the sort.


As to 'rush to judgment'; there was none. The kids were arrested 5 Nov 2007, the trial wasn't until 2009. It is not at all unusual for police to pick up the suspects fast. In the recent Olsson case - the American found murdered in Italy - the police apprehended a guy within days, after capturing his image on cctv and matching it to person attending the same nightclub as Ms Olsson.

In fact, if anything, the longer a case remains unsolved, the lesser the likelihood of it ever being solved. However there was a recent case in England about a girl murdered in 1982, Yiannoulla Yianni, whose killer, James Warnock, was only very recently caught and jailed for life, when by chance, police matched his DNA. Do you really think the police should be expected to replicate the DNA test, when all that is left is the PCR reading of the DNA. The chances of the sequence of loci being the same by sheer random accident is about three billion to one against. The perp, being sly, tried to make out she was in an affair with him, behind her strict Greek Cypriot parents' back to explain the DNA he left behind.

You then quickstep into 'international protocols'. Marasca court lies when it claims these were not followed, proving they simply cut and pasted from Bongiorno's opportunistic ravings.


You claim forensic police should not be allowed to test LCN. Do be sure to tell murderers and rapists it's OK to leave behind LCN as they will be immune from prosecution.

Stefanoni is to be applauded she captured the LCN, yes, but near full profile of Mez DNA from tissue left in the knife striation, despite intense scrubbing of it. This wasn't the only evidence against the pair, but part of the whole gestalt. Once again, the machine doesn't lie. The odds of getting a sequence of fifteen alleles that match any individual in the correct order is literally billions to one against.

The defense forensic witness was there to observe it.

One has to admire your persistence, Bill.

Nothing could make that ram scram, he kept butting that dam.

https://youtu.be/S94Bh3Qez9o


Oops, there goes another rubber tree plant!
Click to expand...

Vixen's post has given an example of Vixen's hypocrisy. Vixen has constantly accused C&V, Hellman and B&M of being corrupt whilst defending the corrupt Stefanoni who engaged in the massive suppression of evidence, falsified documents and lied as detailed in the links below. Vixen accuses Amanda and Raffaele of lying but admires Stefanoni who committed perjury. PGP attack people for doing something but defend other people who do the same thing.

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/lab-data-suppression/

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/contamination-labwork-coverup/

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/bra-clasp-contamination/

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/meredith-kercher-perjury-corruption/

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/blood-evidence-downstairs-apartment/

Vixen continues her habit of lying in her post. She says a full DNA profile came from tissue left on the knife. The prosecution have never said there was tissue on the knife or any human biological material. When C&V tested the knife it was negative for the human species which meant there was no human biological material on the knife. If there was a full DNA profile on the knife, the prosecution would not have had to resort to the methods described in my links. In addition, if there was a full DNA profile on the knife, Stefanoni would not have been evasive in court and be unable to tell how much DNA was on the knife.

If as Vixen claims the knife/DNA and other evidence was so solid, why does Vixen has to resort to lying to argue her case almost a decade after Meredith's murder?
 
Vixen said:
Do you honestly think someone like Nencini - with years behind him as a successful barrister - doesn't understand the rules of evidence? One minute he's criticised as being defective in the scientific method, next he excoriated for substituting himself as the expert, which is unfair, as he never did anything of the sort.
Click to expand...
Acc. to the Marasca-Bruno report, Nencini DID impose himself as the expert. In his motivations report Nencini compares and contrasts what Stefanoni said to how the Conti-Vecchiotti completely trashed the Scientific Police's findings. Maraseca/Bruno said that it is an anachronistic hold-over within Italian legal practise to view the judge as a supra-expert, who can sort out dueling experts; without making reference to a third-party expert.

The point being that Conti-Vecchiotti WERE the court appointed, neutral experts. Therefore Nencini's verdict was annulled, in part because he misapplied how judges should come to decisions based on expert testimony.

Vixen said:
As to 'rush to judgment'; there was none. The kids were arrested 5 Nov 2007, the trial wasn't until 2009. It is not at all unusual for police to pick up the suspects fast.
Click to expand...
That has nothing to do with anything. Indeed, they picked up Knox, Sollecito and Lumumba so fast, that they declared "case closed" by Nov 6, 2007. Then the cops watched in horror as their closed case fell apart - beginning with Lumumba who had to be released and Rudy had to be arrested because Rudy was the only one with an obvious forensic presence at the scene.

The evidence against Raffaele fell apart - but it took the police months to let his Nike's go; even after it was obvious those Nikes had nothing to do with the crime.

Vixen said:
You then quickstep into 'international protocols'. Marasca court lies when it claims these were not followed, proving they simply cut and pasted from Bongiorno's opportunistic ravings.
Click to expand...
Once again, I ask you for the gazillionth time to name one - NAME ONE - international expert who agrees with you. The fact that you continually ignore the question as asked puts the lie to your claim that Bongiorno was raving, or that Marasca was mistaken.

Vixen said:
You claim forensic police should not be allowed to test LCN. Do be sure to tell murderers and rapists it's OK to leave behind LCN as they will be immune from prosecution.
Click to expand...
No, the claim is that they should test LCN on machines that support LCN.

Vixen said:
Stefanoni is to be applauded she captured the LCN, yes, but near full profile of Mez DNA from tissue left in the knife striation, despite intense scrubbing of it.
Click to expand...
Once again, name ONE expert who would support non-blood anything found on a knife as being indicative of anything other than contamination. Name one. You can't which is why you ignore the question.

Also, point to the striation on the knife. You can't. Why? Because the only person who claims to have even seen that striation was Stefanoni - who supplied the reason why she could not photograph it!!!!

Vixen said:
This wasn't the only evidence against the pair, but part of the whole gestalt. Once again, the machine doesn't lie. The odds of getting a sequence of fifteen alleles that match any individual in the correct order is literally billions to one against.
Click to expand...
Please read the M/B discussion on the way Nencini confused compatibility with identity. Given that Nencini confused the two concepts, and ignored repeatability means that Nencini's vedict needed annulling.

But the ad hominem you ended with was cute.
 
Last edited:
Bill Williams said:
But again, with full respect, this does not address the issue as posed - to engage the agency which will enforce these rights; one has to complain.

It is a complaint-driven process. In Italy, this means spending even more money over and above defending oneself against what amounts to trumped up charges - such criminal process often lasting the better part of a decade and involving up to 5 different tribunals.

The reason why Italy (for one) can get away with things like Mignini started is that the defendants would much rather cut a deal at the beginning - or if they see it out they are financially (and perhaps emotionally) exhausted.

I believe it is THAT part of the Bruno-Marasca report which defends the Italian system. Even M-B have to give an impassioned defence of the length of the Italian process, is not (in their opinion) violating the right to a speedy trial. On that point B-M are home-boys, not wanting to appear too off the charts.

It's bad enough for the party of the PMs that B-M exonerated the pair.
Click to expand...

Bill, I thought it was clear that I was (mostly) agreeing with you.

The ECHR is a court and thus, at least as in the common-law systems (such as the US and England/Wales) only responds with rulings for cases brought before it. It does not have a police force or any kind of enforcement arm, and does not have any direct ability to change verdicts of domestic (national) courts or the actions of national governments of the States that have solemnly pledged, by treaty, to obey the European Convention on Human Rights and the final case-law judgments of the ECHR. Those States are organized as a confederation, the Council of Europe (CoE), whose sole aim is to promote and defend human rights, including but not limited to democratic government rights (free speech and fair elections), property rights, family and personality rights, and the rights to fair trials in civil and criminal cases. There is a "supervising" organ of the CoE, the Committee of Ministers, which exercises diplomatic pressure to seek compliance with ECHR judgments on any State which does not by itself comply, but this mechanism is inherently weaker for enforcement than one in a federation where the rulings of the highest federation court are enforceable, ultimately by actions of the federal executive. For example, US State judicial and executive branches must obey by law the rulings of the US Supreme Court in any case relating to US Federal law or Constitution.
 
Last edited:
Numbers said:
Bill, I thought it was clear that I was (mostly) agreeing with you.

The ECHR is a court and thus, at least as in the common-law systems (such as the US and England/Wales) only responds with rulings for cases brought before it. It does not have a police force or any kind of enforcement arm, and does not have any direct ability to change verdicts of domestic (national) courts or the actions of national governments of the States that have solemnly pledged, by treaty, to obey the European Convention on Human Rights and the final case-law judgments of the ECHR. Those States are organized as a confederation, the Council of Europe (CoE), whose sole aim is to promote and defend human rights, including but not limited to democratic government rights (free speech and fair elections), property rights, family and personality rights, and the rights to fair trials in civil and criminal cases. There is a "supervising" organ of the CoE, the Committee of Ministers, which exercises diplomatic pressure to seek compliance with ECHR judgments on any State which does not by itself comply, but this mechanism is inherently weaker for enforcement than one in a federation where the rulings of the highest federation court are enforceable, ultimately by actions of the federal executive. For example, US State judicial and executive branches must obey by law the rulings of the US Supreme Court in any case relating to US Federal law or Constitution.
Click to expand...

Our first fight.

I find little to disagree with - esp. as posted. It's just that without coercive authority over its member states, the member states can get away with a lot and do what they did in this case - trample over peoples' rights with little reason to believe they'll ever have to answer for it.
 
Bill Williams said:
Our first fight.

I find little to disagree with - esp. as posted. It's just that without coercive authority over its member states, the member states can get away with a lot and do what they did in this case - trample over peoples' rights with little reason to believe they'll ever have to answer for it.
Click to expand...

Yes, that all true. And it's a reason why one needs to be cautious about rights especially in Italy and some other European states. Here's some statistics:

Total number of pending applications to the ECHR as of 30 June 2016 from all 47 member States:

71,050

Total number from the top ten States (in largest number of applications, in order from the highest: Ukraine, Russia, Turkey, Hungary, Italy, Romania...):

60,350

Number from Italy (#5 from the top):

6850

Total number from the other 37 States:

10,700

Italy has "improved" its ranking, partly because of the large number of cases from the Ukraine (which is having a "limited" civil war) and an increased number of cases from Hungary (possibly the result of a relatively authoritarian government approach to rights).

The top 10 States are all former Communist bloc states, with the exception of Turkey and Italy (which was a Fascist state prior to 1943).

Source: http://echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=reports&c=

See the link to the PDF for pending cases
 
Last edited:
Bill Williams said:
Acc. to the Marasca-Bruno report, Nencini DID impose himself as the expert. In his motivations report Nencini compares and contrasts what Stefanoni said to how the Conti-Vecchiotti completely trashed the Scientific Police's findings. Maraseca/Bruno said that it is an anachronistic hold-over within Italian legal practise to view the judge as a supra-expert, who can sort out dueling experts; without making reference to a third-party expert.

The point being that Conti-Vecchiotti WERE the court appointed, neutral experts. Therefore Nencini's verdict was annulled, in part because he misapplied how judges should come to decisions based on expert testimony.


That has nothing to do with anything. Indeed, they picked up Knox, Sollecito and Lumumba so fast, that they declared "case closed" by Nov 6, 2007. Then the cops watched in horror as their closed case fell apart - beginning with Lumumba who had to be released and Rudy had to be arrested because Rudy was the only one with an obvious forensic presence at the scene.

The evidence against Raffaele fell apart - but it took the police months to let his Nike's go; even after it was obvious those Nikes had nothing to do with the crime.


Once again, I ask you for the gazillionth time to name one - NAME ONE - international expert who agrees with you. The fact that you continually ignore the question as asked puts the lie to your claim that Bongiorno was raving, or that Marasca was mistaken.


No, the claim is that they should test LCN on machines that support LCN.


Once again, name ONE expert who would support non-blood anything found on a knife as being indicative of anything other than contamination. Name one. You can't which is why you ignore the question.

Also, point to the striation on the knife. You can't. Why? Because the only person who claims to have even seen that striation was Stefanoni - who supplied the reason why she could not photograph it!!!!


Please read the M/B discussion on the way Nencini confused compatibility with identity. Given that Nencini confused the two concepts, and ignored repeatability means that Nencini's vedict needed annulling.

But the ad hominem you ended with was cute.
Click to expand...

Bruno-Marasca is misconceived. It is entirely within a judge's jursidiction to dismiss an expert witness' testimony, in favour of the other party's. In this case, the prosecution expert. Nencini preferred the latter and that is his determination.

The only grounds for appeal would be that its decision was perverse, i.e., beyond the range of a reasonable decision, even if another court might have decided differently. Bruno-Marasca erred in saying the Nencini court was compelled to accept Conti-Vecchiotti.

Conti & Vecchiotti showed themselves to be unreliable witnesses in that they took it upon themselves to decline to test one of the samples, as they were directed to, failed to notify the court and showed contempt of it, and claimed it was 'rye starch' (when Rome Forensics took the responsibility away from the recalcitrant pair and tested it, it turned out to be DNA of Amanda Knox). The so-called 'experts' were found to be less than frank, with Chiefi labelling them 'intellectually dishonest'.

The prosecution later filed a complaint that Conti & Vecchiotti had been seen enjoying improper familiarity (an ethical threat) with the Maori defence. Their labs were, in addition, closed down due to chaos, poor standards and filth. This does not inspire confidence in their competence or reliability as 'experts'.

As Nencini's finding was to reject Conti-Vecchiotti's specious claim the DNA was contaminated, as there was nothing to substantiate it, Marasca erred in overturning this decision and substituting its own, which is not within its remit. This is because the decision to dismiss the defense appeal on the grounds 'the DNA was contaminated' was within the range of a reasonable decision. You cannot appeal simply because you do not like it.

It is a misconception the claim 'Nencini was obliged to accept the defense 'neutral' experts' submission'.
 
Last edited:
Due to the conjecture over the prosecution’s scientific results, I strongly suspect that the U.S. would not have extradited AK unless Italy had produced the EDFs for examination. We all know and acknowledge that that was never going to happen . . .
 
Vixen said:
Size 49? Heck, you could be a policeman :D. A size 14 will get you in the Met where you have to be super tall.

Seriously, though haven't you just disproved your own point? With Raff's footprint being size 42 and 100mm broad, and yours size 49 and also 100mm broad it proves decisively that each of us has a unique footprint (as we do a fingerprint). The footprint on the bathmat would match almost nobody, but its owner, and quelle surprise it is established the footprint is 'highly compatible' with Raff.

And not at all 'compatible' with Amanda or Rudy.

Q.E.D.::
Click to expand...
Is 1.93m enough? (Just in case I get the idea of a career change into my head ;) )

I don't think I've disproved my point, at least not in the way you say. Footprints are unique, but we are talking about shoeprints here.

I'll have to take a closer look at what Ippolito and Manieri had been given to work with, but to me it looks like they were just asked to match the print to the shoe and that is what they did, only looking for the things that make it a match and ignoring the things that aren't.

The problem with the footprints in this case is that they all were labeled "not usable to make a positive identification but useful to make a negative identification" or "not usable" even by Rinaldi and Bohemia, so their analysis of the footprints is again based on inferior material, i.e. another GIGO created point of evidence in this case... :(
 
Ahh another dump of disingenuous nonsense, low-grade ignorance and partisan claptrap from everyone's favourite source of pro-guilt "argument" :D

I particularly like the hilarious logic fail between:

a) "Do you honestly think someone like Nencini - with years behind him as a successful barrister - doesn't understand the rules of evidence?"

and

b) Incessant accusations against SUPREME COURT JUDGES of not understanding the remit or limitations of the Supreme Court.


The bigger irony, of course, is that she probably can't even see the contradiction.....

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA :D :D
 
Vixen said:
For someone who claims she slept 11 hours she looks pretty wrecked.
Click to expand...
Source for the 11 hours, please...
Vixen said:
Is that how she sneaked out the key to Mez' room? She had the chance to take with her all her bits and pieces when she collected her fleece top, which looks nothing like a coat which would protect one from a chilly November morning in Italy.
Click to expand...
What are you trying to say here (especially the higlighted part) ???
 
Methos said:
Is 1.93m enough? (Just in case I get the idea of a career change into my head ;) )

I don't think I've disproved my point, at least not in the way you say. Footprints are unique, but we are talking about shoeprints here.

I'll have to take a closer look at what Ippolito and Manieri had been given to work with, but to me it looks like they were just asked to match the print to the shoe and that is what they did, only looking for the things that make it a match and ignoring the things that aren't.

The problem with the footprints in this case is that they all were labeled "not usable to make a positive identification but useful to make a negative identification" or "not usable" even by Rinaldi and Bohemia, so their analysis of the footprints is again based on inferior material, i.e. another GIGO created point of evidence in this case... :(
Click to expand...


Once again, Vixen is talking - to use her vernacular - utter bollocks, in respect of UK police height requirements.

Up to the mid-1990s, the Met (Metropolitan Police - the London police force) had a minimum height requirement, but it was nowhere near as tall as Vixen purported: it was actually 5ft10 (178cm), in common with several other UK police forces. However, since the mid-1990s the minimum height requirement has been totally scrapped. Another pile of old crap from the "research genius" mind of Vixen :D

And another laughably inept aspect of the police "experts'" work on the shoe prints were that virtually all of the prints were incorrectly photographed in a way that distorted dimensions owing to perspective matters. The initial police measurements were simply taken with a ruler against the photo, and were thus in places significantly inaccurate. And even though the bath mat was in the police's possession, Rinaldi and Boemia did all their "expert" work based purely on (bad) photographs. They never even got to see with their eyes the pile and ridged pattern of the bath mat, both of which would have had a huge effect on the observable print, and both of which would have significantly distorted the observed print from the foot that made the print.

Bunch of total clowns.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom