Continuation Part 22: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Numbers]

I wonder if Rudy's appeal could blow up in his face. Does anyone know if on appeal Rudy may get time added? It's certainly possible in many countries.

If so, he's playing with fire.

Regarding your question: According to Italian procedural law, any person finally convicted or acquitted may not be tried again for the same crime, or have his sentence (if convicted) increased.

However, a convicted person or the General Public Prosecutor or both may request a revision trial under certain defined circumstances, where the convicted person has some argument that he should have been dismissed (for example, acquitted) rather than convicted. The revision trial, if held, cannot impose a more serious (longer) sentence than the original final conviction, but may impose a lesser sentence or dismiss the charges entirely.

The verdict of a revision trial may be appealed to the CSC.

 

[Numbers]

Regarding posts by the PGP:

Caveat lector

 

[LondonJohn]

Regarding posts by the PGP:

Caveat lector

 

[Planigale]

Stefanoni as an extremely experienced DNA tester (having volunteered to help identify the tsunami victims in 2004) would have known it was a tiny sample. She identified at most five cells.

Police are highly trained to be observant. Met police employ some specialists with a 1/100 of the population ability of having seen a face once, never forget it. The police team who went to Raff's flat knew it was a large knife wound so it's not so surprising their eyes were drawn to the big shiny one on top, freshly scrubbed. And, hey, they were right.

I previously provided the quote from the court testimony from the detective who collected the knife saying he had not been briefed on the size of knife to look for. So this is NOT true. The detective testified this was NOT true. You display an amazing ability to ignore facts that conflict with your preconceptions.

Steffanoni identified no cells this is a fantasy. There is no way Steffanoni can look at a swab and judge the quantity of DNA present. This is just fantasy.

 

[LondonJohn]

I previously provided the quote from the court testimony from the detective who collected the knife saying he had not been briefed on the size of knife to look for. So this is NOT true. The detective testified this was NOT true. You display an amazing ability to ignore facts that conflict with your preconceptions.

Steffanoni identified no cells this is a fantasy. There is no way Steffanoni can look at a swab and judge the quantity of DNA present. This is just fantasy.

That's one of the most extraordinary aspects of Stefanoni's contribution to this whole farce: the way in which she glibly riffed in court about things that patently had no scientific validity. They include (but are not limited to) the amplification protocol (or not-protocol) she used, the utterly bogus way in which she claims to have seen these mythical cells on the blade of Sollecito's kitchen knife, and of course the obfuscation and lies in respect of the source electronic data from the DNA amplifications and tests.

When you add into this the astonishing disregard for even the most basic protocols that she was proven on camera to have committed at the crime scene (and she was SUPERVISING the CSI team!!), one really has to conclude that Stefanoni was way, way out of her depth in terms of 21st Century crime scene forensic analysis and laboratory analysis. That she didn't have the honesty or professional courtesy to admit to her failings and shortcomings - and that the likes of Mignini and Comodi mounted arrogant and aggressive defences of her competency and probity - is IMO perhaps an even bigger professional and personal failing than the fact that she made so many errors and misrepresentations in the first place.

 

[LondonJohn]

(And then of course on this thread one has to deal with the additional PITA of certain pro-guilt commentators grossly misrepresenting - wilfully or otherwise - the actions of the likes of Stefanoni and the police........)

 

[Bill Williams]

(And then of course on this thread one has to deal with the additional PITA of certain pro-guilt commentators grossly misrepresenting - wilfully or otherwise - the actions of the likes of Stefanoni and the police........)

But understand not you. On trial was Stefanoni not.

 

[LondonJohn]

I previously provided the quote from the court testimony from the detective who collected the knife saying he had not been briefed on the size of knife to look for. So this is NOT true. The detective testified this was NOT true. You display an amazing ability to ignore facts that conflict with your preconceptions.

On this particular point, yes: the police officer who collected the kitchen knife from Sollecito's apartment was not told to look for a knife with those sorts of dimensions. Indeed, by that point the police and PM already knew that the imprint of a far smaller knife had been found on Kercher's bed sheet, and that the autopsy showed clearly that a small knife - of the approximate dimensions of the knife which made the imprint on the bed sheet - was responsible for Kercher's neck wounds.

I actually suspect that the police officer did nothing more than look into Sollecito's kitchen draw, saw the large kitchen knife with its classic "scary big knife" look, and decided that it looked and felt like a "suitable" murder weapon for a killer to brandish about. And there were no other knives in that drawer that went anywhere near fitting that bill. I strongly suspect that the police officer *revised history* when he subsequently claimed that this knife in particular smelt strongly of bleach. Indeed, the subsequent analyses of the knife showed clearly (on account of Knox's DNA on the handle and the starch on the hilt end of the blade) that it cannot have been bleached in the recent past. I think the officer wanted to bolster his rationale for selecting that one knife beyond the "it looked like a big scary knife" reason, and he remembered that there was a very mild smell of Lysoform in Sollecito's apartment from its recent cleaning.

And then, when either Stefanoni's shocking work in the lab (IMO causing trace DNA of Kercher either within the machines or elsewhere in the lab to transfer to the knife) or the slapdash and wholly improper way the knife was "taken out for inspection" in the police station before transport to the lab (causing contamination) created the bogus and invalid "result" of Kercher's DNA being present on the knife at the moment of its collection in Sollecito's apartment, the police and PM suddenly had something of a problem. And thus was born the illogical fantasy of multiple knives at Kercher's throat - all in order to shoehorn in the Sollecito kitchen knife into the police/PM fairy tale.

 

[LondonJohn]

But understand not you. On trial was Stefanoni not.

Course of! The of police the Stefanoni and officers was other word to Gospel taken be as! Would lie why they?! Be way they would in incompetent why any?!!

 

[Welshman]

I previously provided the quote from the court testimony from the detective who collected the knife saying he had not been briefed on the size of knife to look for. So this is NOT true. The detective testified this was NOT true. You display an amazing ability to ignore facts that conflict with your preconceptions.

Steffanoni identified no cells this is a fantasy. There is no way Steffanoni can look at a swab and judge the quantity of DNA present. This is just fantasy.

Vixen's lie about the police officer knowing the size of the wound is one of many lies Vixen has said about the evidence. If the evidence presented by the prosecution was so solid as Vixen constantly claims, why does Vixen have to constantly lie in her posts? If the prosecution have solid evidence, you don’t need to lie to argue your case. I will use the evidence against Guede to illustrate my point. Below is the evidence against Guede.

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/rudy-guede/

As there is such a mountain of solid evidence against Guede, you would not need to lie about non existent evidence and make up things up to argue the case for Guede’s guilt. Lets say a poster on this forum was arguing the case for Guede’s guilt and made facts up eg Guede used Meredith’s cards at a cash point, people would find it odd that the poster feels it necessary to lie about non existent evidence when the poster has plenty of genuine solid evidence to argue their case. Vixen habitually makes things up in her posts. For example, this is from a post dated 24.05.2016 – “ a long convoluted story surrounding a mop found propped up by the front door of the cottage when postal police arrived was concocted by the pair, which any marine would be proud of in the scheme of tallest of tall stories about burst pipes and leaks as of the time of the murder”. In reality there is no record of the postal police asking about the mop and there is no record of any conversation regarding the mop between Amanda, Raffaele and the postal police. I can provide other examples where Vixen invents things in her posts. If the prosecution had such solid evidence and Vixen has so much faith in this evidence, why does Vixen almost a decade after Meredith’s murder have to constantly resort to making up things up in her posts? The fact that Vixen makes up things indicates the prosecution’s evidence has no credibility.

If the prosecution have solid evidence, you don’t need to lie about the details of the evidence against a defendant to argue your case. Again I will use the evidence against Guede to illustrate my point. Among the evidence against Guede was his bloody palm print found on a pillow case. This is such a solid piece of evidence you would not to lie about the details of the evidence. If a poster lied about the number of bloody palm prints left by Guede, people would find it strange because the single palm print is such a solid piece of credible evidence, you would not need to lie about the details of this evidence. Vixen constantly lies about the details of the evidence. For instance, this is a lie from Vixen’s post dated 22.03.2016 “Stefanoni found 12 bits of tissue on the blade”. In reality the prosecution never claimed any human biological material was found on the blade. The knife was negative for the human species when C&V tested it. Vixen told the following lie in a post dated 11.05.2016 “The defence on all sides have agreed without challenge that the DNA on the knife did indeed yield a near perfect profile of Mez”. In reality the defence have never accepted there was a full profile on the knife. There was no perfect profile of Meredith on the knife. This is proved by Stefanoni’s testimony below where she has difficulty telling how much DNA was on the knife :-

DEFENSE – Attorney Ghirga
QUESTION – One last question precisely in relation to how much emerged, the DNA extraction on the knife, you I believe, had said that you don’t remember how much DNA you extracted from the blade, from the scratches.
ANSWER – No.
QUESTION – Is it possible to check the extraction log?
ANSWER – Yes, one can check.
QUESTION – Is it a number that can be acquired?
ANSWER – Yes.
QUESTION – One can obtain the extraction in the extraction log as you say.
ANSWER – Yes.
QUESTION – But you do not remember, correct, how much DNA you extracted…
ANSWER – One can obtain the true extraction amount from that S.A.L., that one yes.
QUESTION – But you do not remember now?
ANSWER – No, here, no..
QUESTION – Can one acquire this data?
ANSWER – Yes, the data of the extraction, yes.
QUESTION – While you confirm then how much was… how much was the elution and the collection of DNA to do…
ANSWER – Yes, it was concentrated in the first sweep, then it was quantified, and then after that it was re-concentrated to 10 microlitres.
QUESTION – Now, being interested in the exact quantity of DNA extracted from the scratches we can obtain it, let’s say in the court files, is that so?
ANSWER – Yes.
DEFENSE – Attorney Ghirga – Thank you

If there was a full profile of Meredith on the knife the prosecution would not have had to engage in the massive suppression of evidence, lying and falsifying documents as detailed below :-

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/meredith-kercher-perjury-corruption/
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/lab-data-suppression/
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/meredith-kercher-perjury-corruption/
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/raffaeles-kitchen-knife/

If the evidence against Amanda and Raffaele was so strong, why does Vixen have to lie about the details of the evidence? Why did Vixen have to lie that the defence teams of Amanda and Raffaele accepted there was a perfect profile of Meredith on the knife? The fact that Vixen has to lie about the details of the evidence used against Amanda and Raffaele indicates this evidence has no credibility is full of holes and lying is necessary to make the evidence appear credible and cover up problems with the prosecution’s evidence. The fact there was no human biological material on the knife is major problem with the knife and Vixen lied there was human tissue on the knife to cover up this flaw. Vixen lied about the defence teams of Amanda and Raffaele accepting there a full profile of Meredith on the knife to make the knife/DNA evidence appear credible. The prosecution could not tell how much DNA was on the knife and this is a big problem with the knife/DNA evidence and Vixen had to lie there was a full DNA profile of Meredith on the knife to hide this fact. If the evidence against Amanda and Raffaele was so rock solid why is that it is only through lying that Vixen can make the evidence appear valid?

 

[Bill Williams]

Course of! The of police the Stefanoni and officers was other word to Gospel taken be as! Would lie why they?! Be way they would in incompetent why any?!!

Exactly.

I think.

 

[Matthew Best]

Nothing surprises you, does it, Mr. Best?

On the contrary. Many things surprise me. It's just that discovering that someone who thinks Knox and Sollecito are guilty is also mentally deficient (i.e. believes in astrology) and also can't write proper English is sadly no surprise at all at this stage of proceedings.

 

[Bill Williams]

I previously provided the quote from the court testimony from the detective who collected the knife saying he had not been briefed on the size of knife to look for. So this is NOT true. The detective testified this was NOT true. (Vixen) display(s) an amazing ability to ignore facts that conflict with (her) preconceptions.

Steffanoni identified no cells this is a fantasy. There is no way Steffanoni can look at a swab and judge the quantity of DNA present. This is just fantasy.

Vixen's lie about the police officer knowing the size of the wound is one of many lies Vixen has said about the evidence. If the evidence presented by the prosecution was so solid as Vixen constantly claims, why does Vixen have to constantly lie in her posts? If the prosecution have solid evidence, you don’t need to lie to argue your case. I will use the evidence against Guede to illustrate my point. Below is the evidence against Guede.

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/rudy-guede/

As there is such a mountain of solid evidence against Guede, you would not need to lie about non existent evidence and make up things up to argue the case for Guede’s guilt. Lets say a poster on this forum was arguing the case for Guede’s guilt and made facts up eg Guede used Meredith’s cards at a cash point, people would find it odd that the poster feels it necessary to lie about non existent evidence when the poster has plenty of genuine solid evidence to argue their case. Vixen habitually makes things up in her posts. For example, this is from a post dated 24.05.2016 – “ a long convoluted story surrounding a mop found propped up by the front door of the cottage when postal police arrived was concocted by the pair, which any marine would be proud of in the scheme of tallest of tall stories about burst pipes and leaks as of the time of the murder”. In reality there is no record of the postal police asking about the mop and there is no record of any conversation regarding the mop between Amanda, Raffaele and the postal police. I can provide other examples where Vixen invents things in her posts. If the prosecution had such solid evidence and Vixen has so much faith in this evidence, why does Vixen almost a decade after Meredith’s murder have to constantly resort to making up things up in her posts? The fact that Vixen makes up things indicates the prosecution’s evidence has no credibility.

If the prosecution have solid evidence, you don’t need to lie about the details of the evidence against a defendant to argue your case. Again I will use the evidence against Guede to illustrate my point. Among the evidence against Guede was his bloody palm print found on a pillow case. This is such a solid piece of evidence you would not (need) to lie about the details of the evidence. If a poster lied about the number of bloody palm prints left by Guede, people would find it strange because the single palm print is such a solid piece of credible evidence, you would not need to lie about the details of this evidence. Vixen constantly lies about the details of the evidence. For instance, this is a lie from Vixen’s post dated 22.03.2016 “Stefanoni found 12 bits of tissue on the blade”. In reality the prosecution never claimed any human biological material was found on the blade. The knife was negative for the human species when C&V tested it. Vixen told the following lie in a post dated 11.05.2016 “The defence on all sides have agreed without challenge that the DNA on the knife did indeed yield a near perfect profile of Mez”. In reality the defence have never accepted there was a full profile on the knife. There was no perfect profile of Meredith on the knife. This is proved by Stefanoni’s testimony below where she has difficulty telling how much DNA was on the knife :-

DEFENSE – Attorney Ghirga
QUESTION – One last question precisely in relation to how much emerged, the DNA extraction on the knife, you I believe, had said that you don’t remember how much DNA you extracted from the blade, from the scratches.
ANSWER – No.
QUESTION – Is it possible to check the extraction log?
ANSWER – Yes, one can check.
QUESTION – Is it a number that can be acquired?
ANSWER – Yes.
QUESTION – One can obtain the extraction in the extraction log as you say.
ANSWER – Yes.
QUESTION – But you do not remember, correct, how much DNA you extracted…
ANSWER – One can obtain the true extraction amount from that S.A.L., that one yes.
QUESTION – But you do not remember now?
ANSWER – No, here, no..
QUESTION – Can one acquire this data?
ANSWER – Yes, the data of the extraction, yes.
QUESTION – While you confirm then how much was… how much was the elution and the collection of DNA to do…
ANSWER – Yes, it was concentrated in the first sweep, then it was quantified, and then after that it was re-concentrated to 10 microlitres.
QUESTION – Now, being interested in the exact quantity of DNA extracted from the scratches we can obtain it, let’s say in the court files, is that so?
ANSWER – Yes.
DEFENSE – Attorney Ghirga – Thank you

If there was a full profile of Meredith on the knife the prosecution would not have had to engage in the massive suppression of evidence, lying and falsifying documents as detailed below :-

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/meredith-kercher-perjury-corruption/
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/lab-data-suppression/
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/meredith-kercher-perjury-corruption/
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/raffaeles-kitchen-knife/

If the evidence against Amanda and Raffaele was so strong, why does Vixen have to lie about the details of the evidence? Why did Vixen have to lie that the defence teams of Amanda and Raffaele accepted there was a perfect profile of Meredith on the knife? The fact that Vixen has to lie about the details of the evidence used against Amanda and Raffaele indicates this evidence has no credibility is full of holes and lying is necessary to make the evidence appear credible and cover up problems with the prosecution’s evidence. The fact there was no human biological material on the knife is major problem with the knife and Vixen lied there was human tissue on the knife to cover up this flaw. Vixen lied about the defence teams of Amanda and Raffaele accepting there a full profile of Meredith on the knife to make the knife/DNA evidence appear credible. The prosecution could not tell how much DNA was on the knife and this is a big problem with the knife/DNA evidence and Vixen had to lie there was a full DNA profile of Meredith on the knife to hide this fact. If the evidence against Amanda and Raffaele was so rock solid why is that it is only through lying that Vixen can make the evidence appear valid?

The worst part would be if Vixen did this with malice aforethought. It would be just weird if not. Maybe it is to sell books - and cover up the proofreading error that put the murder on June 1st. Maybe it's an astrology thing which Vixen says works, although she knows not how.

 

[Vixen]

No. That's not what you wrote, is it? Shall I remind you what you wrote? Yes, I shall

You wrote:

"I myself once studied astrology to a high level [...] I don't know why or how, but it seems to work."

So "I once studied astrology to a high level" magically becomes "I had a passing interest in it once". Which is it. Vixen? It cannot be both. One of those is a lie, isn't it?

And "I was merely pointing out...." is another revision of history, isn't it? Because in your original post you were doing much more than "merely pointing out" as if you were some sort of objective bystander. No, you explicitly told us in your earlier post that you maintain a belief in it: "I don't know how or why, but it seems to work". So again, which is the true description and which is a lie?





You seem unable to comprehend that questioning someone's judgement and critical thinking faculties - on the basis that they hold a steadfast belief in the veracity and accuracy of a long-totally-discredited medieval piece of nonsense - is in no way the same as "mocking" someone. If Houle is asking to be taken seriously as an objective journalist, then it's entirely appropriate to question her credentials and her capacity for rational thought in the context of her adherence to astrology.

On top of that of course, and entirely regardless of Houle's misguided beliefs, she is a "journalist" of virtually zero credibility and quality. That's why she writes - for clicks at best, and probably for almost no remuneration - for a user-generated online aggregator where there is practically no quality control or editorial hurdle/oversight. And her "book" about Knox is self-evidently a nasty, vindictive effort which is littered with the types of personal prejudices and irrational biases that have characterised her scribblings for the website, and that are anathema for anyone purporting to be a serious, credible, honest investigative journalist. She's a waste of space so far as commentary on this case is concerned. A bitter little irrelevance.

I give up. Yes, I was an atheist for many years and I did enjoy astrology after becoming friends with a work colleague whose mother was a well-renowned British astrologer. (In the UK astrology is popular with upper-class dowager types [eg., Fergie and even Lady Di was at it]).

When my father died three years ago, I was so impressed by the pastor's sermon at the funeral, very high comedy about the Prodigal Son combined with brimstone and fire, I decided to go back to the religion of my childhood (plus my mother had been 'mentioning' it for years) because do you know what? I was that 'prodigal son', as it were. So I am now back to being the Christian I was baptised as.

This faith goes back way before medieval times - at least 2,000 years, or even seven thousand years, if you count in Moses wandering around the desert, a stranger in a strange land. In fact, astrology is even older. It was practised in some form by the ancient Egyptians, dog-star worshippers and the God of Moses hated sorcerers and astrologers with a passion, seeing it as a rival and its followers, idolators.

So, before you mock other people's beliefs, perhaps you should learn to respect other people, or you just come across as a bigot. Astrology doesn't show fuzzy thinking, it is geometry mostly, involving calculating angles, trines, squares and sextiles, etc., etc., If you even know what your birthsign is, then that makes you a hypocrite.

When I did psychology the tutors were very hard nosed-scientists and looked upon psychotherapy with scorn (Freud and Jung). That didn't stop me from studying both, as unscientific as they were.

Who do you think you are, telling us what we can believe and what not? So you're a proud atheist. And you probably have no idea why you stumble.

Fact is, Liz Houle writes because she passionately believes in her subject matter. An open enthusiastic attitude to life is far better IMV than looking at the world with the jaundiced eye of a tired cynic.

I remember when I was twelve; I was a bit like you. I sat in front of the television shouting, 'Rubbish!' at all the acts on TOTP. Whilst most of it was, there were golden moments, such as Jimi Hendrix following Lulu.

Always keep an open mind and respect others, and you might find the gold amongst the ****.

Here endeth the lesson for today.

 

[Bill Williams]

I give up. Yes, I was an atheist for many years and I did enjoy astrology after becoming friends with a work colleague whose mother was a well-renowned British astrologer. (In the UK astrology is popular with upper-class dowager types [eg., Fergie and even Lady Di was at it]).

When my father died three years ago, I was so impressed by the pastor's sermon at the funeral, very high comedy about the Prodigal Son combined with brimstone and fire, I decided to go back to the religion of my childhood (plus my mother had been 'mentioning' it for years) because do you know what? I was that 'prodigal son', as it were. So I am now back to being the Christian I was baptised as.

This faith goes back way before medieval times - at least 2,000 years, or even seven thousand years, if you count in Moses wandering around the desert, a stranger in a strange land. In fact, astrology is even older. It was practised in some form by the ancient Egyptians, dog-star worshippers and the God of Moses hated sorcerers and astrologers with a passion, seeing it as a rival and its followers, idolators.

So, before you mock other people's beliefs, perhaps you should learn to respect other people, or you just come across as a bigot. Astrology doesn't show fuzzy thinking, it is geometry mostly, involving calculating angles, trines, squares and sextiles, etc., etc., If you even know what your birthsign is, then that makes you a hypocrite.

When I did psychology the tutors were very hard nosed-scientists and looked upon psychotherapy with scorn (Freud and Jung). That didn't stop me from studying both, as unscientific as they were.

Who do you think you are, telling us what we can believe and what not? So you're a proud atheist. And you probably have no idea why you stumble.

Fact is, Liz Houle writes because she passionately believes in her subject matter. An open enthusiastic attitude to life is far better IMV than looking at the world with the jaundiced eye of a tired cynic.

I remember when I was twelve; I was a bit like you. I sat in front of the television shouting, 'Rubbish!' at all the acts on TOTP. Whilst most of it was, there were golden moments, such as Jimi Hendrix following Lulu.

Always keep an open mind and respect others, and you might find the gold amongst the ****.

Here endeth the lesson for today.

Why, then, do you need to advance known untruths to make your case about this case?

Why do you need o say, "The had sex next to the corpse", why do you have to publish photos of windows which show bars over the panes, and then claim there are no bars over the panes? Why can you not name one peer-reviewed forensic-DNA expert who agrees with Stefanoni?

None of that is about your beliefs. All of it is about the way you (mis)represent evidence. See Welshman's post. He calls all those things you advance, "lies". Are they? Or are you just misguidedly mistaken?

I have the feeling you'll address none of this, but think of uttering yet another ad homenim.

 

[Vixen]

(By way of comparison, do you remember any online articles or books written by Russell Grant, Jonathan Cainer or Mystic Meg* about well-known criminal cases? None immediately spring to mind. I wonder why that might be........ )

* To US (and all non-UK, for that matter) readers, those three people have been among the most prominent media astrologers (sic) in the UK over the past few decades. All three are/were preposterous characters. But all three make/made large sums of money operating premium-rate telephone lines where the credulous and gullible could spend lots of their money calling to get astrological (sic) predictions. QED........

It shows astrology works, as Jonathan Cainer was on £50K per week. He even predicted his own early death recently, in his horoscope for the day. IIRC his younger brother has taken over. Mystic Meg earned a fortune as the charlatan that she is. In her Rupert Murdoch tabloids she encourages readers to phone in for a detailed forecast and is a multimillionaire, last time I heard.

Newspaper astrology is no more the real thing than a fortune teller at a fair, emptor caveat.

I never read my horoscope or 'personality profile' as common sense should tell you it's bunk.

It's really no different from all the 'pop' psychology books on the market (for example Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus, Games People Play, How to Win Friends and Influence People: all of these books are immensely popular bestsellers. As HK Mencken said, never underestimate popular taste.

That doesn't mean all psychologists are rubbish and that all astrologers are out to rip you off.

Liz Houle earns a living as an astrologer, a serious one AFAIAA, and she happened to write articles on the Kercher case. Ron Hendry is some kind of engineer yet he also wrote about the case. I am told Bruce Fischer is a furrier, and yet he wrote a book, too.

Or does your criticism only apply to people whose views disagree with yours?

 

[Vixen]

I am calm. Your rhetoric is not. You maintain a very sluttified view of this case, as well as those who argue (quite successfully) for innocence for Raffaele and Amanda. This includes the Italian Supreme Court, whom you now hurl all sorts of other "tongue in check's" designed to vilify them, with no evidence offered at all.

You'd do much better here if you answered questions put to you. One lingering one is to provide one - one! - peer-reviewed forensic-DNA expert who supports Stefanoni's work from 2007-2008.

You have not done that. You've merely surfed atop slutty remarks which you try to justify as being merely vacuous. You believe that two people had sex next to a dead person. You say that with no evidence, justification - I suppose that was "tongue in cheek" too!

No, do not quote me out of context. Welshman complained bitterly that the PGP said Amanda had herpes, when there was no evidence. That was what I was responding to.

 

[Vixen]

And then did not identify Stefanoni as being one of those.

Can you identify one - one! - peer-reviewed forensic-DNA expert who agrees with Novelli on that point.

No? I thought not. However, every forensic DNA-expert agrees - multiple amplifications are required to satisfy protocol.

But why use protocol when you know beforehand the person is guilty!

Please pay attention, Bill, for the umpty-ninth time: Stefanoni DID amplify the DNA.

 

[Vixen]

But understand not you. On trial was Stefanoni not.

I see neither you nor LondonJohn are familiar with Latin yet your pal feels qualified to correct other people's.

 

[Bill Williams]

Please pay attention, Bill, for the umpty-ninth time: Stefanoni DID amplify the DNA.

This is what Welshman is talking about.

Stefanoni did not make multiple amplifications once she got a result. Her previous runs produced "no result".

So if you want to press this, that's what she should have reported to the court - no result.

It was a successful run she did not do multiple amplifications on.

This is why your posts are seen as "flawed" to say the least.