Who killed Meredith Kercher? part 23

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vixen said:
Giddy-up. Pay attention: Novelli, Torrecelli, Balding, the courts.
Click to expand...

It's no wonder you do not provide cites. It is in citing what Novelli said that we find out that even he said that Stefanoni did not follow international protocols.

We also found out that the negative controls were not provided to the court. You had to ask Stefanoni for them!

Care to provide cites for the others? Probably not.
 
Last edited:
Bill Williams said:
Proof that Vixen makes up stuff as she goes?

First she said it was the 2013 Italian Supreme Court which said Vecchiotti was "intellectually dishonest".

Then she defaults to "it is widely held that Vecchiotti is intellectually dishonest".

The Vixen cites Vecchiotti's appeal to other experts to show the conversation among peers, as if quoting peers is the sign of an international conspiracy!

Can't make up this kind of stuff.
Click to expand...

US experts, actively campaigning on Amanda's behalf.

Vecchiotti, an Italian, keeps quoting American, Budowle. Why? Why is she quoting rabid defense-at-any-price fanatics?

Budowle was requested by the defense to write a ‘hardhitting’ paper for them.

Budowle was a senior scientist at the FBI’s laboratory division, where he worked from 1983-2009. He now works at the University of North Texas. In 2010, he wrote this letter of professional opinion raising legitimate questions about the significance of the DNA findings on the murder weapon (a kitchen knife where Knox and Kercher’s DNA was found) during Knox’s first appeal at the request of Knox’s U.S. and Italian lawyers. Budowle’s research is among the sources cited in the independent expert report which led to Knox’s acquittal. But while his letterwas referenced in court by Knox’s Rome lawyer Carlo Dalla Vedova, the judge did not allow it to be deposited into the official court file.
Click to expand...
source -www.thefreelancedesk.com - Andrea Vogt



Boise State University biology professor Greg Hampikian went on the public speaking circuit saying he knew what happened, touting his role in “freeing” her.
http://thefreelancedesk.com/the-secret-u-s-forensic-defense-of-amanda-knox/

In a key part of his testimony as a defence scientist in another case, Greg Hampikian tellingly reveals the following: that where there is contamination, then other items in the area should show the same contamination. However, the bra-clasp was the only ‘contaminated’ item according to Vecchiotti.

He claims at one trial to ‘have worked on the Amanda Knox DNA contamination case’

In another, he reveals: Q. Okay. And in fact one of the case in the news right now is the Amanda Knox case. Did you work on that case?
A. Yes, I still am, yup.
Q. You’re still working on it?
A. Uh-hum.
(Hearing Nov. 8, 2013 before the Honorable Judge Carl O. Bradford, Justice of the Superior Court, PORTLAND MAINE)
Click to expand...
- Andrea Vogt

Note the date. Chieffi had effectively trashed Hellmann and his ‘experts, V&C. Nencini’s Appeal Hearing commenced 30.9.2013., thus two months into the hearing Hampikian was bragging of being involved in the Amanda Knox case. The truth is, he sent his learned papers to the defences, the story goes, which they rejected.

So, whilst Hampikian's 'hard-hitting' deposition was refused by the Italian Courts, he simply encroached his views onto open vessel Vecchiotti instead.


We know Vecchiotti is dodgy. She was made to pay €150K damages after being found guilty of gross negligence in the Ogliata case, 2015, failing to analyse the DNA of the murderer for nineteen years.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
US experts, actively campaigning on Amanda's behalf.

Vecchiotti, an Italian, keeps quoting American, Budowle. Why? Why is she quoting rabid defense-at-any-price fanatics?

source -www.thefreelancedesk.com - Andrea Vogt



Boise State University biology professor Greg Hampikian went on the public speaking circuit saying he knew what happened, touting his role in “freeing” her.
http://thefreelancedesk.com/the-secret-u-s-forensic-defense-of-amanda-knox/

- Andrea Vogt

Note the date. Chieffi had effectively trashed Hellmann and his ‘experts, V&C. Nencini’s Appeal Hearing commenced 30.9.2013., thus two months into the hearing Hampikian was bragging of being involved in the Amanda Knox case. The truth is, he sent his learned papers to the defences, the story goes, which they rejected.

So, whilst Hampikian's 'hard-hitting' deposition was refused by the Italian Courts, he simply encroached his views onto open vessel Vecchiotti instead.


We know Vecchiotti is dodgy. She was made to pay €150K damages after being found guilty of gross negligence in the Ogliata case, 2015, failing to analyse the DNA of the murderer for nineteen years.
Click to expand...
No we don't know that "Vecchiotti is dodgy". There was a time when Andrea Vogt was simply protecting her pro-guilt journalism.

She then switched. You should ask her now! Since the March 2015 exonerations she's criticized people who continue to argue the case for guilt, even outing armchair guilt detectives who continue this after it was closed. She wrote that the real loser of this armchair guilt detective stuff is the Kerchers.

I thought you were actually going to provide a cite. It's bizarre that all you have is Andrea Vogt!
 
Vixen said:
All very flowery and fanciful but any fule kno' that lab technicians and forensic police routinely test their own DNA so that they can be alerted if it were to turn up. As an example, the pathologist, Lalli and his assistants, provided their DNA to the forensic police so they could be aware of what new DNA may have been introduced to the crime scene.
So once again we see an intellectually dishonest claim that Stefanoni was unaware of self-contamination.
Click to expand...


Why have you invented a straw man?

Read my post again, and have another go. Nice (though laughably inappropriate) mirroring of the term "intellectually dishonest" though. Neenahneenah! :D
 
Bill Williams said:
No we don't know that "Vecchiotti is dodgy". There was a time when Andrea Vogt was simply protecting her pro-guilt journalism.

She then switched. You should ask her now! Since the March 2015 exonerations she's criticized people who continue to argue the case for guilt, even outing armchair guilt detectives who continue this after it was closed. She wrote that the real loser of this armchair guilt detective stuff is the Kerchers.

I thought you were actually going to provide a cite. It's bizarre that all you have is Andrea Vogt!
Click to expand...

It's bizarre Amanda and Raff only have baby-kidnapper and murderer Alessi and compulsive liar and crook Aviello as their star witnesses, together with the thoroughly discredited Vecchiotti & Conti, who pop up contradicting what they said on oath in court to support Amanda in her fake 'innocence' campaign Netflix commercial. One wonders how much crossed their palms.
 
Vixen said:
It's bizarre Amanda and Raff only have baby-kidnapper and murderer Alessi and compulsive liar and crook Aviello as their star witnesses, together with the thoroughly discredited Vecchiotti & Conti, who pop up contradicting what they said on oath in court to support Amanda in her fake 'innocence' campaign Netflix commercial. One wonders how much crossed their palms.
Click to expand...


I thought you were actually going to provide a cite. And all you can do is make up more stuff?
 
LondonJohn said:
Why have you invented a straw man?

Read my post again, and have another go. Nice (though laughably inappropriate) mirroring of the term "intellectually dishonest" though. Neenahneenah! :D
Click to expand...

It's rubbish the knife could have been contaminated. Gill gets his 'shoe box' thesis from Vecchiotti and the Friends of Amanda lawyers, desperate to try any old 'glove-doesn't-fit' defence tactic.

The real story of the collection and handling of the knife is here:

From Massei (Wiki, English translation, page 106): Testimony of Armando Finzi, chief inspector of the Flying Squad of Perugia, confirmed by Stefano Gubbiotti and assistant Zugarini Lorena at the hearing of February 28, 2009.

“As soon as the knife was picked up he (Finzi) put it in a new paper bag that he had with him and then in a folder.

The sealed bag with the 31 centimetre knife inside was handed over to superintendent Gubbiotti. The bag the knife was put in was new and had never been previously used; in the same [bag] there was never any other item.”

“He (Stefano Gubbiotti) said that upon returning to the police station, inspector Finzi handed him the material seized in the home of Sollecito Raffaele. The first thing he handed over was the knife which was inside a new bag that was well wrapped and submitted closed and thus had no contact with the exterior. He specified that when handing over such knife he had new gloves on, which he had not used on other occasions and which he took from the office.

Therefore, with those gloves, he removed the knife from the bag and put it inside a box that he sealed with scotch-tape. He specified that such box previously contained a desk diary and no other items apart from “the new desk diary offered” by a bank. This box was then sent, along with other findings, to the Scientific Police in Rome.”

Needless to say no shoe box addressed to Meredith was involved.
 
I love the fact that when world-renowned DNA experts who learn the full facts of the DNA work done by not-a-real-doctor Stefanoni on this case go public with their extremely deep and serious concerns (because they could clearly see that the work was absolutely riddled with severe incompetence and mendacity, and that the convicting courts had abjectly failed to understand the issues properly), these experts then magically get transformed by most pro-guilt commentators into "defence shills", who (presumably, in the eyes of the idiots) are electing to place their international credibility and reputations at stake for the sake of......what? Money? "Fame"?

The truth, as so often, is very different - and it's childishly simple to understand. World experts saw an abomination of a DNA analysis, and a tragic failure by incompetent courts to recognise the abomination, and also saw the effect that this had had on the outcome of a murder trial, and they felt a moral and professional obligation to speak out vociferously against such a gross dereliction and misuse of their area of science.
 
Vixen said:
Speaking of intellectual dishonesty, that was not the reason given by Vecchiotti for refusing to test the exhibit.
Click to expand...


Another straw man. I never said that was "the reason given by Vecchiotti for refusing to test the exhibit". Vecchiotti decided it would not be of scientific evidential value for her to test the exhibit in her labs (note: not "refusing" to test it), since at those extremely low-template levels (and given the prior shoddy pro-contamination work carried out by not-a-real-doctor Stefanoni and her colleagues) the results would not carry any reasonable levels of reliability or credibility. Get it now?
 
LondonJohn said:
I love the fact that when world-renowned DNA experts who learn the full facts of the DNA work done by not-a-real-doctor Stefanoni on this case go public with their extremely deep and serious concerns (because they could clearly see that the work was absolutely riddled with severe incompetence and mendacity, and that the convicting courts had abjectly failed to understand the issues properly), these experts then magically get transformed by most pro-guilt commentators into "defence shills", who (presumably, in the eyes of the idiots) are electing to place their international credibility and reputations at stake for the sake of......what? Money? "Fame"?

The truth, as so often, is very different - and it's childishly simple to understand. World experts saw an abomination of a DNA analysis, and a tragic failure by incompetent courts to recognise the abomination, and also saw the effect that this had had on the outcome of a murder trial, and they felt a moral and professional obligation to speak out vociferously against such a gross dereliction and misuse of their area of science.
Click to expand...


Vecchiotti is not a DNA expert either, she's just a journeyman coroner.

The idea that Gill's shoe box theory is 'deep and serious' is extremely amusing.
 
Vixen said:
It's bizarre Amanda and Raff only have baby-kidnapper and murderer Alessi and compulsive liar and crook Aviello as their star witnesses, together with the thoroughly discredited Vecchiotti & Conti, who pop up contradicting what they said on oath in court to support Amanda in her fake 'innocence' campaign Netflix commercial. One wonders how much crossed their palms.
Click to expand...


Yes, money was flying around left-right-and-centre from the bottomless coffers of the famous Gogerty Marriott Knox PR Juggernaut.

MezzicleWezzicle would have been so proud of this nonsense.........
 
Vixen said:
Vecchiotti is not a DNA expert either, she's just a journeyman coroner.
Click to expand...


"Just a journeyman coroner" eh?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Do I need to provide you with her CV and list of academic publications?



The idea that Gill's shoe box theory is 'deep and serious' is extremely amusing.
Click to expand...


I wrote that they had deep and serious concerns. I'm going to ask you, once again, to quit inventing distorted straw men to misrepresent what I wrote. OK?
 
LondonJohn said:
Another straw man. I never said that was "the reason given by Vecchiotti for refusing to test the exhibit". Vecchiotti decided it would not be of scientific evidential value for her to test the exhibit in her labs (note: not "refusing" to test it), since at those extremely low-template levels (and given the prior shoddy pro-contamination work carried out by not-a-real-doctor Stefanoni and her colleagues) the results would not carry any reasonable levels of reliability or credibility. Get it now?
Click to expand...

No she did not argue that. She argued (a) it was below 200 picograms, adnt therefore suddenly below the 'international maximum limit, (b) it should only be used for missing persons and (c) it could not be amplified.

As Torrecelli points out in her testimony, Vecchiotti was told by her that 120 picogram was perfectly adequate for two lots of amplification.

In other words, bent and crooked, except the Supreme Court are too polite to use those terms and use a restrained, 'intellectually dishonest' (=read, 'bleedin' liar!')


Clear now?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom