I'm with you Vixen. It is definitely way more likely that the court records showing the defense experts and the independent court experts asked for the controls multiple times, and did not receive them, were forged; world renowned forensic scientists Peter Gill (who invented the technique used to analyze the knife blade), Bruce Budowle, Greg Hampikian, Conti, Vecchiotti, and others were paid off; the Italian Supreme Court was corrupted and bribed; the American media all paid off by "Friends of Amanda"; and Forensic Science International (and now, Nature, as Bill points out) were all paid off by Raffaele's lawyers......
rather than Stefanoni the prosecution's lab tech wasn't very good at her job and withheld the controls to cover her ass.
You're right Vixen, stating Stefanoni did not provide negative controls is a paranoid conspiracy theory of the highest magnitude!!! Where do all these crazy people come from?
Before I subscribe to the view 'the PGP all have to lie to cover up for Stefanoni', Welshman rather begs the question: is there any hap'orth of evidence she is (a) corrupt (b) incompetent, or (c) unqualified?
Unlike the prosecution or the defence, forensic scientists will see themselves as 100% neutral, objective and scientific, they will be aware of ethical threats and how to guard against them.
Your scurrillous claims against a decent professional are insulting, sexist and disgusting.
Vixen, before you try to lie and misdirect the line of questioning again, please answer the following (we will get to Stefanoni next):
Do you believe that
1) The court records, which show the defense and independent DNA experts asked for the controls on the DNA testing multiple times, yet did not receive them, are forged?
2) The world renowned, independent (they were not working for the prosecution nor the defense), forensic scientists Peter Gill (who is the man that invented LCN analysis -- the technique used on the knife blade), Bruce Budowle, Greg Hampikian, Stefano Conti, Carla Vecchiotti, etc. were paid off by someone to give false testimony and/or give false analyses?
3) The Italian Supreme Court, who acquitted Amanda and Raffaele after noting the flawed investigation and legal idiocy in the lower Massei and Nencini courts, were corrupted, bribed, paid off, by someone to get them off?
4) The media was corrupted and bribed by someone to mislead the American public?
5) Forensic Science International was paid off by... someone... again? To allow the publication of the peer reviewed work by Peter Gill explaining clearly, precisely, and scientifically why the evidence against Amanda and Raffaele was flawed? The most prestigious forensic genetics journal in existence?
6) As an addition to 5), that Nature was paid off as well, since as Bill points out, they have recently published a paper explaining how LCN analysis is prone to contamination (directly supporting the conclusions by Gill and the other scientists in #2 above, and supporting what the pro-innocence side has been saying for 8 years now)?
Vixen, you believe the above 6 things,
and you think the statement that Stefanoni did not provide controls, was biased towards the prosecution (whom she worked for), and did not follow proper protocol as outlined by Conti, Vecchiotti, Gill, etc is the "most paranoid conspiracy theories we have heard to date"? (your words)
Like I said, we will get to the claims regarding Stefanoni in a minute, but please clarify the above first before lying, twisting, distorting, and trying to manipulate the line of discussion. Thanks Vixen.
), it's "ha'p'orth", not "hap'orth" - it's a contraction of "halfpennyworth", and (just as with every use of the apostrophe in English), apostrophes signify missing letters. So ha