Continuation Part 22: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[NotEvenWrong]

One more time around the merry-go-round. Every factoid you present has been debunked multiple times; yet you reboot and present them anyway.

It's the problem with regarding Darkness Descending as a source, all the while when even you admit it is "tabloidese".

It's a shame the Italian Supreme Court, Hellman, and all of the independent forensic scientists didn't have Vixen as a consultant or witness. Just think, with all of these made up facts and non-existent sources (that Vixen can't reveal. Though they are surely primary sources since that is all she uses.) Amanda and Raffaele would have definitely been convicted.

In fact, with this method of gathering information, we can convict any innocent person we want! Just make up facts, say they are from primary sources you can't reveal, and assert that all of the forensic scientists were paid off. We wouldn't actually need any of this science witchcraft to convict anyone. It would be like 17th century Salem all over again!

I wonder why this research methodology hasn't caught on at the Italian Supreme Court level. There is always the ECHR I guess. I wonder if Vixen and the other guilter crack shot astrologers have made their concerns known?

 

[Bill Williams]

It's a shame the Italian Supreme Court, Hellman, and all of the independent forensic scientists didn't have Vixen as a consultant or witness. Just think, with all of these made up facts and non-existent sources (that Vixen can't reveal. Though they are surely primary sources since that is all she uses.) Amanda and Raffaele would have definitely been convicted.

In fact, with this method of gathering information, we can convict any innocent person we want! Just make up facts, say they are from primary sources you can't reveal, and assert that all of the forensic scientists were paid off. We wouldn't actually need any of this science witchcraft to convict anyone. It would be like 17th century Salem all over again!

I wonder why this research methodology hasn't caught on at the Italian Supreme Court level. There is always the ECHR I guess. I wonder if Vixen and the other guilter crack shot astrologers have made their concerns known?

Why even have a trial when you "know" that they are guilty just by looking at them?

Just lace your comments with endearing terms like "Mez" to make it seem like you're championing someone you've never met, and silence your opponents with accusations that killers are "your heroes".

Who cares that Vixen cannot name one expert who sides with Stefanoni. That would only be of interest if you were wanting to solve the case.

Vixen cares so much. She really does. She cares so much that when she proofread NvdL's book, she missed the reference to the murder being in June.

Why do facts matter, when all you really want to do is show strangers on an obscure website like this one that you care so much? So much so that you steal the term of endearment most properly reserved for family and close friends.

How nutty is that?

 

[Stacyhs]

Mez' DNA came from fresh blood, so for Amanda's DNA mixed in in even higher quantity of DNA implies she too was bleeding at the same time, and indeed, we have her blood on the faucet, which she admitted was fresh.

No, it implies no such thing. Once again, you are getting your info from Darkness Descending or TMOMK which quotes Garofano.
This same conversation was held back in early May where your claim was thoroughly debunked so there's no need for it to be done so again.
I'd ask you to provide another DNA expert who supports Garofano's claim, but we all know that would be fruitless.

As well as the bra-clasp, there was incriminating DNA on the knife. There was the ladies size 37 shoeprint in blood, with narrow ladies heel, three long fair hairs (definitely not Rudy's) , one gripped in Mez' hand, one 'downstairs', as it were, and one long strand across the top of Mez' bag, from whence probably the credit cards and second phone were removed. Only one of the three perps knew Mez had two phones to steal.

Wow. Back to the disproved "ladies heel" nonsense?
But I'm glad you brought up the hairs. Amanda dyed her hair blonde. Dyed hair is very easy to identify under a microscope. Were any of these hairs identified as dyed? No. If they had been, it would have been presented as evidence in the trials. It wasn't.

As for the phones, Guede didn't need to know beforehand there were two phones. He wasn't blind. One phone was likely in her purse, which he went through (leaving his DNA on it) and the other was close by as she had just used it to call her mother, probably lying in plain sight.

There is also the issue of bits of paper scattered over the duvet, in accordance with the bits scattered in Filomena's room, some of which had Amanda's footprints on. The paper was found on top of the duvet, so we can infer the 'burglary' happened after the murder, for sure.

Cite source of these "bits of paper scattered over the duvet" and ones that "had Amanda's footprints on" them, please.

A shard of glass from Filomena's room was found nearby the body, so as we know the burglary happened after the murder, and that Rudy, from his shoeprints left immediately towards the front door, then the person who left the shard was the person in Filomena's room performing the burglary.

You've got it backwards. The shard of glass was brought into Meredith's room after the break in on the bottom of a shoe or on clothing and then she was killed.

Surprise surprise, one of the mixed DNA blood spots in Filomena's room (Mez' blood) was Amanda's. Mez' blood was trailed into the room, police believe, by Amanda, because of the mixed DNA.

Surprise, surprise, there was no blood in Filomena's room. TMB negative. Or hadn't you heard? Police believe something that science disproved.

Your claim that no DNA found of Amanda in Mez' room (even though she lived there and must have frequented it on occasion) proves she is innocent, must prove Rudy is innocent of the burglary as none of his DNA was found in Filomena's room.

No, I do not say that. As I said before, and has been pointed out to you multiple times, it's not just the lack of her DNA in the murder room, but the lack of ANYTHING that places her there at the time of the murder. Unlike Guede's fingerprints, shoeprints, and palm print besides his DNA in multiple places.
Guede did not commit a violent murder in Filomena's room. Breaking a window with a rock and climbing through does not have to leave DNA, especially if he were wearing gloves. Oh, shock...a burglar wearing gloves on a cold November night is just unthinkable., isn't it? And you also conveniently ignore that only FIVE samples were taken in Filomena's room. Neither Amanda's nor Raff's DNA was found on the rock, either.


You note the disparity in your logic, don't you? All DNA pointing to your heroes is 'contaminated' or 'planted by Stefanoni', yet that of Rudy is an absolute proof he is the sole perp.

There is no disparity. And please, stop with the exaggeration. Only one case of contamination is claimed, not "all". That is Raff's DNA on the bra hook...along with other male's DNA. How did those get there? According to you, it can't be contamination so you must believe these unidentified men also touched that bra hook.

I have never claimed Stefanoni "planted" anything. I do claim that she made incredible mistakes in the way she handled and analyzed the evidence. And I'm not the only one. Would you like the names of experts who also say this even though you've been presented with them before? And no, his DNA there is not "absolute proof" he is the sole perp. It's his shoeprints in blood, his palm print in blood, his DNA on her purse, his fleeing the country, his telling his friend that Amanda was not there, never mentioning Raff being there, his history of petty crime including a similar break-in, his stealing the knife from the school, his not having a job, etc.

Do at least try to aim for internal consistency in your theories.

 

[Vixen]

Two major flaws in your claims:

1. If Rudy was wearing gloves, he's hardly going to remove them to attack Mez. In fact, if he was overcome by lust as you claim, how come he never actually raped her. How considerate of him to worry about a lack of condoms in his uncontrollable state of primitive lust. Forearmed with a couple of knives, but not a lightweight glass-breaking hammer and a couple of condoms in case he chanced upon an innocent female occupant.

2. His DNA and Mez' blood was on the outside of the bag, none was found on the inside. One of the phones was definitely on the floor, as per an outline in blood, so we can assume the other was removed by the same person who left the long hair there across the top of the bag.

 

[Vixen]

Why even have a trial when you "know" that they are guilty just by looking at them?

Just lace your comments with endearing terms like "Mez" to make it seem like you're championing someone you've never met, and silence your opponents with accusations that killers are "your heroes".

Who cares that Vixen cannot name one expert who sides with Stefanoni. That would only be of interest if you were wanting to solve the case.

Vixen cares so much. She really does. She cares so much that when she proofread NvdL's book, she missed the reference to the murder being in June.

Why do facts matter, when all you really want to do is show strangers on an obscure website like this one that you care so much? So much so that you steal the term of endearment most properly reserved for family and close friends.

How nutty is that?

I simply filched the terminology of the people here. People who hate the idea of any justice for Mez, yet they sarcastically call her by what you call 'a term of endearment'.

As for the editing, I did do the corrections, but as Nick was keen to bring out the book ASAP some didn't get included.

Prof Novelli is one of Italy's leading geneticists and he backs Stefanoni.

However, you appear to be blind and deaf to this endorsement, whether via Nencini, or not.

 

[Methos]

Two major flaws in your claims:

More than Two major flaws in your claims:

1. If Rudy was wearing gloves, he's hardly going to remove them to attack Mez. In fact, if he was overcome by lust as you claim, how come he never actually raped her. How considerate of him to worry about a lack of condoms in his uncontrollable state of primitive lust. Forearmed with a couple of knives, but not a lightweight glass-breaking hammer and a couple of condoms in case he chanced upon an innocent female occupant.

On the gloves thing: have you ever tried to wipe your a... wearing gloves (It's save to say that that action took place before Guede attacked and killed Meredith Kercher).

If you want to play a word game here, I think that leaving one's DNA inside another one's genitals without their consent could be called "rape", even if the legal terms and definitions are different.

Let's assume just for a minute that Guede was really concerned about protection on his imagined date (a story you seem to believe given your comments), Meredith Kercher's "friends" reported that she was quite upset about the contents of a transparent bag her roommate had in the shared bathroom... That alone should have sunk Guede's "date" story...

Again, no "couple of knives", just one, discarded and never searched for...

You might want to explain, why the not involvement of a "lightweight glass-breaking hammer" is important?

2. His DNA and Mez' blood was on the outside of the bag, none was found on the inside. One of the phones was definitely on the floor, as per an outline in blood, so we can assume the other was removed by the same person who left the long hair there across the top of the bag.

If you'd taken a closer look at the court records you'd know the reason for the highlighted part: The inside of the bag was never tested for DNA...

Is the source for the "outline in blood" of "One of the phones" also the one for the "the body was staged to resemble the picture in the manga" theory?

 

[Bill Williams]

I simply filched the terminology of the people here. People who hate the idea of any justice for Mez, yet they sarcastically call her by what you call 'a term of endearment'.

As for the editing, I did do the corrections, but as Nick was keen to bring out the book ASAP some didn't get included.

Prof Novelli is one of Italy's leading geneticists and he backs Stefanoni.

However, you appear to be blind and deaf to this endorsement, whether via Nencini, or not.

My view is that it is beneath contempt the way you use the term.

Also, for the umpty-ninth time, Novelli confirmed that multiple amplifications is protocol. Novelli confirmed that Stefanoni did not follow protocol. What has Novelli said since?

Crickets.

Which still leaves the question asked of you unanswered. Name one peer-reviewed forensic-DNA expert who supports Stefanoni.

 

[Methos]

I simply filched the terminology of the people here. People who hate the idea of any justice for Mez, yet they sarcastically call her by what you call 'a term of endearment'.

The sad thing is that the people who are claiming to campaign for "justice for Mez" are the ones who are actually supporting and encouraging her real killer, while those you say "hate the idea of any justice for Mez" are the ones who try to find out what really happened to Meredith Kercher...

As for the editing, I did do the corrections, but as Nick was keen to bring out the book ASAP some didn't get included.

Now, isn't that a lame excuse? Mr van der Leek's reasons to "bring out the book ASAP" aside, the mistakes not corrected make the books look senseless, stupid and like an attempt to just cash in on a notorious case.

Prof Novelli is one of Italy's leading geneticists and he backs Stefanoni.
[...]

Prof Novelli might be one of Italy's leading geneticists, but if we apply your reasoning about the defense's experts, the same has to go for the experts for the prosecution: they were "paid shills".

But you might want to re-read what Prof. Novelli actually said:

The first statement was that you'll have to trust in the skills of the operator (Stefanoni). I'd subscribe to that if there wasn't evidence, that Dottoressa Stefanoni has lied to the court about the amount of DNA found in trace 36b and that documents for the court gave the wrong machine used for quantifying that sample (incompetence or deliberate falsifying are the options here)...

Prof Novelli's second statement was that "every DNA result taken since 1986" would have been in question if Dottoressa Stefanoni's results wouldn't have been accepted.
Pure nonsense, if you ask me, I guess there are forensic scientists in Italy who don't lie and who don't falsify documents for the court. ...

 

[NotEvenWrong]

As for the editing, I did do the corrections, but as Nick was keen to bring out the book ASAP some didn't get included.

Why was speed more important than accuracy for your buddy nick? ($$$$$ All for Mez!!)

Prof Novelli is one of Italy's leading geneticists and he backs Stefanoni.

However, you appear to be blind and deaf to this endorsement, whether via Nencini, or not.

Vixen,
OK, you have chosen Professor Novelli as your guilter champion. On our side, we have Peter Gill (founding father of forensic genetics and inventor of LCN analysis), Bruce Budowle (Executive Director of Institute of Applied Genetics, former senior scientist of the laboratory division of the FBI), Greg Hampikian (Professor of Biological Sciences at Boise State, joint appointment in the Department of Criminal Justice, founder and director of the Idaho Innocence Project, one of the foremost experts on forensic genetics in the U.S.), Stefano Conti and Carla Vecchiotti (specialists in Forensic Medicine employed in the Forensic Medicine Section of the Department of Anatomical, Histological, Forensic, and Locomotive Sciences of the Univeristy of Rome; court appointed independent DNA experts), etc.

Hmm... seems a little lopsided at the start. OK then, anyway, no matter. If Novelli is correct then he is correct. Let's see what scientific reasoning he uses to back his statement. What statement is that you ask? Well, let's find out since he is the guilter champion:

Vixen,
1) Did Novelli state, after examining the way the evidence was collected, analyzed, and interpreted by the Perugian Law Enforcement and Stefanoni, that the evidence was "collected, analyzed, and interpreted correctly, and this is clear and convincing evidence that points to the guilt of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito."? Remember, this is what we are asking for. Not someone who vaguely stated Stefanoni is a good technician and Mignini's super best pal.

If yes, please provide the direct quote and citation. (Of course he doesn't have to use those exact words, but you know what we are looking for (er, I hope).

2) Has Novelli directly refuted Gill, Budowle, Hampikian, Conti, Vecchiotti, etc.? Either in testimony, presentation, or (best of all) a peer-reviewed published paper. Here would be the best piece of work for Novelli to refute, as it proves Amanda and Raffaele are innocent:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26971315

This is a published paper by Peter Gill in Forensic Science International: Genetics. Peter Gill is considered the founding father of modern forensic DNA science. He is the inventor of LCN analysis. That is the method used to analyze the chef's knife in this case (the one you believe was used in the pagan sex death orgy that Amanda carried in her purse in a moment of un-premeditated demon murder passion, for protection, you see). i.e. the inventor of the technology used to analyze the knife said the technology wasn't used correctly, so the pagan sex orgy chef's knife isn't actual evidence. Shocking, I say.

Has Novelli refuted this paper? Can you provide the citation so we can read it? Note: an astrology website doesn't count as a refutation. Thanks sweetie.

 

[Stacyhs]

Two major flaws in your claims:

1. If Rudy was wearing gloves, he's hardly going to remove them to attack Mez. In fact, if he was overcome by lust as you claim, how come he never actually raped her. How considerate of him to worry about a lack of condoms in his uncontrollable state of primitive lust. Forearmed with a couple of knives, but not a lightweight glass-breaking hammer and a couple of condoms in case he chanced upon an innocent female occupant.

2. His DNA and Mez' blood was on the outside of the bag, none was found on the inside. One of the phones was definitely on the floor, as per an outline in blood, so we can assume the other was removed by the same person who left the long hair there across the top of the bag.

1. Methos explained the obvious answer to you; wiping your a.. is rather difficult while wearing gloves. His being in the toilet when Meredith came home logically explains why he didn't flush the toilet; it would have alerted her that someone was in the apartment.
I've never said he was "overcome with lust"; that's where your mind went. As to why he only digitally penetrated her, you'd have to ask him. But I'm not sure that's all he did seeing how there was a stain indicative of semen on the pillow underneath her. You know, the one with his bloody palm print on it. I'm sure your mind can come up with some titillating scenario to explain that.
He didn't need two knives. The one he brought was capable of making all the wounds on Meredith, as they did. You still can't explain why the kitchen knife tested negative for blood without it having been soaked in bleach which would have destroyed the alleged DNA of Meredith that Stefanoni "found"...but no one else could.

2. Methos explained why no DNA was found inside the bag; it wasn't tested. Another gross mistake by the technical police.
This claim of the phone outline on the floor in blood is the first I've seen in the almost 9 years since the murder. Hmmmm..... Citation, please. Or is this your secret source that you cannot/shall not reveal?

Once again, Amanda dyed her hair. Dyed hair is easily identified under a microscope. The hair was not identified as being dyed. Could that possibly be because it wasn't dyed and, therefore, not Amanda's? Or was Stefanoni simply incompetent and missed such an incriminating piece of evidence? You can assume all you want about the phone being taken by the person who left the long hair. But you know what they say about assuming.

 

[Stacyhs]

I simply filched the terminology of the people here. People who hate the idea of any justice for Mez, yet they sarcastically call her by what you call 'a term of endearment'.

As for the editing, I did do the corrections, but as Nick was keen to bring out the book ASAP some didn't get included.

Prof Novelli is one of Italy's leading geneticists and he backs Stefanoni.

However, you appear to be blind and deaf to this endorsement, whether via Nencini, or not.

Odd. I've never seen anyone here, at least as long as I've been here, ever called Meredith anything but Meredith. You are the only one who calls her Mez. She wasn't your family member, friend, or even acquaintance.

As for Novelli, let's say he does back Stefanoni (which is very debatable). If Stefanoni's work was according to protocol and accepted practice, then there should be other experts speaking out in her defense. Would you care to name one more?

 

[Stacyhs]

Why was speed more important than accuracy for your buddy nick? ($$$$$ All for Mez!!)



Vixen,
OK, you have chosen Professor Novelli as your guilter champion. On our side, we have Peter Gill (founding father of forensic genetics and inventor of LCN analysis), Bruce Budowle (Executive Director of Institute of Applied Genetics, former senior scientist of the laboratory division of the FBI), Greg Hampikian (Professor of Biological Sciences at Boise State, joint appointment in the Department of Criminal Justice, founder and director of the Idaho Innocence Project, one of the foremost experts on forensic genetics in the U.S.), Stefano Conti and Carla Vecchiotti (specialists in Forensic Medicine employed in the Forensic Medicine Section of the Department of Anatomical, Histological, Forensic, and Locomotive Sciences of the Univeristy of Rome; court appointed independent DNA experts), etc.

Hmm... seems a little lopsided at the start. OK then, anyway, no matter. If Novelli is correct then he is correct. Let's see what scientific reasoning he uses to back his statement. What statement is that you ask? Well, let's find out since he is the guilter champion:

Vixen,
1) Did Novelli state, after examining the way the evidence was collected, analyzed, and interpreted by the Perugian Law Enforcement and Stefanoni, that the evidence was "collected, analyzed, and interpreted correctly, and this is clear and convincing evidence that points to the guilt of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito."? Remember, this is what we are asking for. Not someone who vaguely stated Stefanoni is a good technician and Mignini's super best pal.

If yes, please provide the direct quote and citation. (Of course he doesn't have to use those exact words, but you know what we are looking for (er, I hope).

2) Has Novelli directly refuted Gill, Budowle, Hampikian, Conti, Vecchiotti, etc.? Either in testimony, presentation, or (best of all) a peer-reviewed published paper. Here would be the best piece of work for Novelli to refute, as it proves Amanda and Raffaele are innocent:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26971315

This is a published paper by Peter Gill in Forensic Science International: Genetics. Peter Gill is considered the founding father of modern forensic DNA science. He is the inventor of LCN analysis. That is the method used to analyze the chef's knife in this case (the one you believe was used in the pagan sex death orgy that Amanda carried in her purse in a moment of un-premeditated demon murder passion, for protection, you see). i.e. the inventor of the technology used to analyze the knife said the technology wasn't used correctly, so the pagan sex orgy chef's knife isn't actual evidence. Shocking, I say.

Has Novelli refuted this paper? Can you provide the citation so we can read it? Note: an astrology website doesn't count as a refutation. Thanks sweetie.

Don't forget Dr. Elizabeth A. Johnson, forensic biology expert specializing in forensic DNA issues.

 

[Numbers]

Why was speed more important than accuracy for your buddy nick? ($$$$$ All for Mez!!)



Vixen,
OK, you have chosen Professor Novelli as your guilter champion. On our side, we have Peter Gill (founding father of forensic genetics and inventor of LCN analysis), Bruce Budowle (Executive Director of Institute of Applied Genetics, former senior scientist of the laboratory division of the FBI), Greg Hampikian (Professor of Biological Sciences at Boise State, joint appointment in the Department of Criminal Justice, founder and director of the Idaho Innocence Project, one of the foremost experts on forensic genetics in the U.S.), Stefano Conti and Carla Vecchiotti (specialists in Forensic Medicine employed in the Forensic Medicine Section of the Department of Anatomical, Histological, Forensic, and Locomotive Sciences of the Univeristy of Rome; court appointed independent DNA experts), etc.

Hmm... seems a little lopsided at the start. OK then, anyway, no matter. If Novelli is correct then he is correct. Let's see what scientific reasoning he uses to back his statement. What statement is that you ask? Well, let's find out since he is the guilter champion:

Vixen,
1) Did Novelli state, after examining the way the evidence was collected, analyzed, and interpreted by the Perugian Law Enforcement and Stefanoni, that the evidence was "collected, analyzed, and interpreted correctly, and this is clear and convincing evidence that points to the guilt of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito."? Remember, this is what we are asking for. Not someone who vaguely stated Stefanoni is a good technician and Mignini's super best pal.

If yes, please provide the direct quote and citation. (Of course he doesn't have to use those exact words, but you know what we are looking for (er, I hope).

2) Has Novelli directly refuted Gill, Budowle, Hampikian, Conti, Vecchiotti, etc.? Either in testimony, presentation, or (best of all) a peer-reviewed published paper. Here would be the best piece of work for Novelli to refute, as it proves Amanda and Raffaele are innocent:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26971315

This is a published paper by Peter Gill in Forensic Science International: Genetics. Peter Gill is considered the founding father of modern forensic DNA science. He is the inventor of LCN analysis. That is the method used to analyze the chef's knife in this case (the one you believe was used in the pagan sex death orgy that Amanda carried in her purse in a moment of un-premeditated demon murder passion, for protection, you see). i.e. the inventor of the technology used to analyze the knife said the technology wasn't used correctly, so the pagan sex orgy chef's knife isn't actual evidence. Shocking, I say.

Has Novelli refuted this paper? Can you provide the citation so we can read it? Note: an astrology website doesn't count as a refutation. Thanks sweetie.

The full text of Professor Gill's article is available at:

http://www.fsigenetics.com/article/S1872-4973(16)30033-3/fulltext

Here is an excerpt, relating to the DNA profile allegedly obtained from the knife blade:

...the DNA profile contained no inherent information about whether the DNA was associated with Kercher’s blood or how or when the DNA fragments were transferred. This weak DNA profile was the type of profile that would be expected if the DNA fragments had originated from a contamination event. In addition, the knife tested negative for blood. The expectation is that any cleaning action powerful enough to remove the blood proteins would also have removed the DNA, leading to the logical conclusion that the DNA (if it belonged to Kercher) was more likely deposited as the result of a contamination event. However this is another example of cognitive bias—working backwards from the assumption of guilt and literally pulling together an account of events that was based upon pure speculation that was completely devoid of scientific evidence.

 

[Numbers]

The full text of Professor Gill's article is available at:

http://www.fsigenetics.com/article/S1872-4973(16)30033-3/fulltext

....

Here is an excerpt from Gill's article refuting the allegation that selective cleaning of Kercher's room, clothes or body could have removed inculpatory DNA evidence of Knox and Sollecito but left that of Guede:

Numerous DNA samples were drawn from Kercher’s room and her clothes, and Knox’s DNA was not found on any of them. It was suggested that this absence may be explained by the fact that Knox selectively cleaned Kercher’s room to remove her DNA while leaving behind the DNA of convicted-assailant Guede. Once again, this is evidence that the prosecutors ‘fitted’ an explanation to an inconvenient result.

There was no scientific justification for this selective-cleaning theory. DNA is invisible to the naked eye, and DNA can be transferred to an object or surface simply by a brief touch. Once DNA is transferred to an object, it may transfer to other locations on that object or to an entirely different object. The only way to ensure that one has not left DNA behind in a room is to clean it with sterile implements while wearing protective gear. It is not possible to clean a room to selectively remove all traces of one individual’s DNA whilst leaving behind another individual’s DNA. Moreover, in a murder in which three people allegedly participated in killing a victim who was fighting back, each of the perpetrators’ DNA could be anywhere in the room. Saliva, which is rich in DNA, for example, could be sprayed on different surfaces. It would not be possible for one of the perpetrators to even know where his DNA as opposed to the DNA of others was deposited. The perpetrators’ DNA could also be mixed together and it would not be possible to somehow separate the DNA using household cleaning supplies.

The Marasca-Bruno motivation recognized the flawed argument:

“The hypothesis of an alleged selective cleaning of the crime scene by the defendant was completely illogical, with it being basically impossible to remove some genetic traces while leaving others untouched.”

 

[Vixen]

My view is that it is beneath contempt the way you use the term.

Also, for the umpty-ninth time, Novelli confirmed that multiple amplifications is protocol. Novelli confirmed that Stefanoni did not follow protocol. What has Novelli said since?

Crickets.

Which still leaves the question asked of you unanswered. Name one peer-reviewed forensic-DNA expert who supports Stefanoni.

It has been amusing having certain posters frothing at the mouth, when they use the same terms themselves.

As Jesus said, if you want to be a fisher of men, you have to speak the same language as them.

 

[Vixen]

The sad thing is that the people who are claiming to campaign for "justice for Mez" are the ones who are actually supporting and encouraging her real killer, while those you say "hate the idea of any justice for Mez" are the ones who try to find out what really happened to Meredith Kercher...


Now, isn't that a lame excuse? Mr van der Leek's reasons to "bring out the book ASAP" aside, the mistakes not corrected make the books look senseless, stupid and like an attempt to just cash in on a notorious case.


Prof Novelli might be one of Italy's leading geneticists, but if we apply your reasoning about the defense's experts, the same has to go for the experts for the prosecution: they were "paid shills".

But you might want to re-read what Prof. Novelli actually said:

The first statement was that you'll have to trust in the skills of the operator (Stefanoni). I'd subscribe to that if there wasn't evidence, that Dottoressa Stefanoni has lied to the court about the amount of DNA found in trace 36b and that documents for the court gave the wrong machine used for quantifying that sample (incompetence or deliberate falsifying are the options here)...

Prof Novelli's second statement was that "every DNA result taken since 1986" would have been in question if Dottoressa Stefanoni's results wouldn't have been accepted.
Pure nonsense, if you ask me, I guess there are forensic scientists in Italy who don't lie and who don't falsify documents for the court. ...

It could be you downloaded an early version of the book. Problem with Kindle is that once you have one edition you can't buy it again. I suggest you simply delete the one you have and ask amazon to send you the up to date version.

What Prof Novelli says is true.

 

[Vixen]

Odd. I've never seen anyone here, at least as long as I've been here, ever called Meredith anything but Meredith. You are the only one who calls her Mez. She wasn't your family member, friend, or even acquaintance.

As for Novelli, let's say he does back Stefanoni (which is very debatable). If Stefanoni's work was according to protocol and accepted practice, then there should be other experts speaking out in her defense. Would you care to name one more?

Please don't correct my subjective views and tell me what I think.

No amount of name citing will cancel the fact that the crime was committed and all the evidence points to just three people, rightly convicted, even if we ignore the DNA.

If we ignore the DNA we have to ignore it for Rudy, which means he gets off scot free, too.

 

[Vixen]

The full text of Professor Gill's article is available at:

http://www.fsigenetics.com/article/S1872-4973(16)30033-3/fulltext

Here is an excerpt, relating to the DNA profile allegedly obtained from the knife blade:

It's a shame Dr Gill didn't turn up at the trial to be cross-examined.

 

[Planigale]

Two major flaws in your claims:

1. If Rudy was wearing gloves, he's hardly going to remove them to attack Mez. In fact, if he was overcome by lust as you claim, how come he never actually raped her. How considerate of him to worry about a lack of condoms in his uncontrollable state of primitive lust. Forearmed with a couple of knives, but not a lightweight glass-breaking hammer and a couple of condoms in case he chanced upon an innocent female occupant.

2. His DNA and Mez' blood was on the outside of the bag, none was found on the inside. One of the phones was definitely on the floor, as per an outline in blood, so we can assume the other was removed by the same person who left the long hair there across the top of the bag.

Rape is always a difficult thing to prove. It is a case of consent. There are no definite features to define rape on a post mortem. In the UK Guede would have almost certainly found guilty of rape - defined as forced vaginal penetration. This would have been based on the presence of his DNA in the victim's vagina. It is worth remembering that the 'epithelial' DNA found might equally be from the skin of a penis, a tongue, or a finger. I am not sure on what factual basis you say that the victim was not raped? A suspect semen stain was found on the cloth lying under her pelvis. It is worth recalling that it was the defence expert who found this stain, it having been missed by the prosecution 'experts'. The prosecution then objected to further testing.

It may well be that Italy requires evidence of penile penetration to prove rape, difficult if there is no witness and a condom is used.

 

[bagels]

It's a shame Dr Gill didn't turn up at the trial to be cross-examined.

There was no need. The second tier court appointed their own independent DNA experts who found the DNA results were flawed. The court then acquitted the students and released them from prison, and they've been free ever since. This happened 5 years ago, if you were wondering.