Who killed Meredith Kercher? part 23

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vixen said:
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?
Click to expand...


No. You're distorting and misrepresenting once again. Vecchiotti was saying that her own equipment was not capable of outputting useful results at those low-template levels. Torrecelli was stating that it was now technically possible to carry out the required two amplifications at those levels. That doesn't for one moment change the fact that Vecchiotti herself was unable to do so given the equipment she had. Clear now?

And "bent and crooked" eh?! Do you think Vecchiotti and Conti were paid lots of money by the Gogerty Marriott Knox PR Juggernaut to produce the results they produced? Do you think Hellmann was paid lots of money by the Gogerty Marriott Knox PR Juggernaut to appoint C&V in the first place?

You do also realise that the conclusions of C&V were used, affirmatively, by the Marasca court in its (entirely correct) throwing out of the DNA evidence and severe criticisms of both Stefanoni and the courts which accepted the DNA work as credible and reliable? Oh yeah, I forgot, the Marasca Supreme Court panel was also paid lots of money by the Gogerty Marriott Knox PR Juggernaut..... :D:D:D:D:D

All for MezzaShezzaBezza.
 
abaddon said:
Not an answer. Which is it? Are you a brit as claimed or a Finn as claimed? Can't be both.
Click to expand...

It is a fact - unlike your ASS U mption - that (a) I do know what a biometric passport is (b) I do have one and (c) you can be a national of any country yet live elsewhere and (d) the website I provided is bonafide.

Penny dropped?
 
Vixen said:
You are so blinkered you wouldn't accept a cite even if it were Moses coming down the mountain with a slab of rock.
Click to expand...

.... which is what you have not done.

You've chucked names into posts. The one cite you made related to Prof Novelli. That one included Novelli saying Stefanoni did not follow international protocols. It also included Novelli verifying that Stefanoni had not deposited the negative controls with the courts.

You've been silent about the others. No wonder. So far all you've done is kicked own-goals.
 
Last edited:
Vixen, how are you coming along backing up your assertion that Popovic stated that Sollecito "seemed to be off his head" on the evening of the murder? Or have you conceded that you were wrong (and partisan-wrong) on that matter too? Thanks in advance!
 
Vixen said:
It is a fact - unlike your ASS U mption - that (a) I do know what a biometric passport is (b) I do have one and (c) you can be a national of any country yet live elsewhere and (d) the website I provided is bonafide.

Penny dropped?
Click to expand...
Sure it is, if you are a Finn. Are you now claiming to be a Finn?
 
LondonJohn said:
No. You're distorting and misrepresenting once again. Vecchiotti was saying that her own equipment was not capable of outputting useful results at those low-template levels. Torrecelli was stating that it was now technically possible to carry out the required two amplifications at those levels. That doesn't for one moment change the fact that Vecchiotti herself was unable to do so given the equipment she had. Clear now?

And "bent and crooked" eh?! Do you think Vecchiotti and Conti were paid lots of money by the Gogerty Marriott Knox PR Juggernaut to produce the results they produced? Do you think Hellmann was paid lots of money by the Gogerty Marriott Knox PR Juggernaut to appoint C&V in the first place?

You do also realise that the conclusions of C&V were used, affirmatively, by the Marasca court in its (entirely correct) throwing out of the DNA evidence and severe criticisms of both Stefanoni and the courts which accepted the DNA work as credible and reliable? Oh yeah, I forgot, the Marasca Supreme Court panel was also paid lots of money by the Gogerty Marriott Knox PR Juggernaut..... :D:D:D:D:D

All for MezzaShezzaBezza.
Click to expand...


Look, I understand you are <SNIP>, but do you see now why Marasca is thoroughly corrupt, reinstating crooks who had been ruthlessly eviscerated, by their fellow supreme court - in fact, superiors, being Chambers #1 who had murder case experience, unlike Marasca's p!sspoor Fifth Chambers. Marasca does not have the authority to outrank the Chieffi Court. It was illegal to acquit a guilty verdict on evidence without referring it back in a serious crime case under the Italian Penal Code and its reasoning is contradictory and specious, arguing a verdict that had never been pleaded by any of the parties (i.e., in the alternative, the defendants were present at the murder scene, but did not participate, M'Lud)
SNIPed, breach of rule 0, rule 12.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Locknar
 
Last edited by a moderator:
LondonJohn said:
Vixen, how are you coming along backing up your assertion that Popovic stated that Sollecito "seemed to be off his head" on the evening of the murder? Or have you conceded that you were wrong (and partisan-wrong) on that matter too? Thanks in advance!
Click to expand...

Many posters here will know that Popovic did state Raff gave her a cold look.


Just because you are ignorant, doesn't render it not so.
 
Bill Williams said:
.... which is what you have not done.

You've chucked names into posts. The one cite you made related to Prof Novelli. That one included Novelli saying Stefanoni did not follow international protocols. It also included Novelli verifying that Stefanoni had not deposited the negative controls with the courts.

You've been silent about the others. No wonder. So far all you've done is kicked own-goals.
Click to expand...

Citation please, of Novelli claiming Stefanoni did not follow international protocols.
 
Vixen said:
Many posters here will know that Popovic did state Raff gave her a cold look.


Just because you are ignorant, doesn't render it not so.
Click to expand...


Oh dear. Firstly, Popovic stated nothing more than that Sollecito seemed to be shy and somewhat "stiff", and not his usual smiley self - and she explicitly stated that she didn't find Sollecito's behaviour to be strange. I've already provided you with the transcripts for your education.

Secondly, Popovic only saw or spoke with Sollecito on her first visit to his apartment, at around 5.50pm. She neither saw nor spoke with him on her second visit, at around 8.40pm - a time which is obviously far more relevant in the context of the murder.

And thirdly, even if Popovic stated that Sollecito "gave her a cold look" (which she didn't - see above), this is a world away from Popovic stating that Sollecito "seemed off his head".

So I will ask you once again: are you going to support your claim that Popovic stated that Sollecito "seemed off his head"? Or are you going to withdraw it? Pretty simple question, I think.
 
Vixen said:
That's for you to ask and for me to tell;)


ASS U me does you no good at all.
Click to expand...

It's right there in your profile. If you make the claim you wear the blame.

As a UKian, your fingerprints are not on your passport, as a Finn they would be.

You have claimed both a UK passport and a Finnish passport.

You have claimed a biometric passport. Well duh. So have I. Doesn't have my fingerprints on it bar general handling.

What shall we make of this?
 
LondonJohn said:
Oh dear. Firstly, Popovic stated nothing more than that Sollecito seemed to be shy and somewhat "stiff", and not his usual smiley self - and she explicitly stated that she didn't find Sollecito's behaviour to be strange. I've already provided you with the transcripts for your education.

Secondly, Popovic only saw or spoke with Sollecito on her first visit to his apartment, at around 5.50pm. She neither saw nor spoke with him on her second visit, at around 8.40pm - a time which is obviously far more relevant in the context of the murder.

And thirdly, even if Popovic stated that Sollecito "gave her a cold look" (which she didn't - see above), this is a world away from Popovic stating that Sollecito "seemed off his head".

So I will ask you once again: are you going to support your claim that Popovic stated that Sollecito "seemed off his head"? Or are you going to withdraw it? Pretty simple question, I think.
Click to expand...


There is no logical reason Raff could not have been off his head at 5:50. They do not say so, but it is fairly obvious they went into the Old Town to score drugs, and were very evasive about it after the murder (and both vowed in writing never to take drugs again), as they bought no groceries and it appears Amanda stayed out, whilst Raff claims he went home alone.

As much of what you claim is so left field and way out of the box, I cannot take anything you say seriously, so I shan't be accepting your version of events.
 
abaddon said:
It's right there in your profile. If you make the claim you wear the blame.

As a UKian, your fingerprints are not on your passport, as a Finn they would be.

You have claimed both a UK passport and a Finnish passport.

You have claimed a biometric passport. Well duh. So have I. Doesn't have my fingerprints on it bar general handling.

What shall we make of this?
Click to expand...

Oh, for the umpteenth time - my fingerprint is on my biometric chip in my passport, a higher level one than a usual passport chip, which only has face recognition and less vigorous photographic requirements.
 
Vixen said:
Oh, for the umpteenth time - my fingerprint is on my biometric chip in my passport, a higher level one than a usual passport chip, which only has face recognition and less vigorous photographic requirements.
Click to expand...
Not in the UK it isn't. Yet you claim to be in the UK.
 
Vixen said:
There is no logical reason Raff could not have been off his head at 5:50. They do not say so, but it is fairly obvious they went into the Old Town to score drugs, and were very evasive about it after the murder (and both vowed in writing never to take drugs again), as they bought no groceries and it appears Amanda stayed out, whilst Raff claims he went home alone.

As much of what you claim is so left field and way out of the box, I cannot take anything you say seriously, so I shan't be accepting your version of events.
Click to expand...


Oh my word. One gigantic goal post shift.

Shall I put it to you again:

YOU stated that Popovic testified that Sollecito "seemed off his head".

I am asking you to provide evidence to support that assertion.

YOU appear unable to do so.

It is YOUR claim. If YOU cannot support it, then YOU ought to withdraw it.

Note that your claim has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not Sollecito might have been high on drugs that night, nor has it anything to do with any other evidence about whether or not Sollecito might have been high on drugs that night. It's entirely to do with what Popovic did or did not say about her assessment of Sollecito's state of mind that evening.

So I'll repeat once again, for utmost clarity:

Are you going to support your claim that Popovic stated that Sollecito "seemed off his head", or are you going to withdraw it?


(And again, for clarity, the question is NOT: are you going to support your claim that Sollecito might have been high on drugs that evening/night?)
 
Vixen said:
If you are born in a stable, does it make you a horse?
Click to expand...

Non sequitur and non answer. I hold a passport. It is a biometric passport. It does not have my fingerprints on it. Nor does it need or require that. The only way yours would require prints would be if you had a criminal record.
 
Vixen said:
Citation please, of Novelli claiming Stefanoni did not follow international protocols.
Click to expand...

In summarizing both Prof Novelli's 6 September 2011 testimony to the Hellmann court, as well as Prof Torricelli's testimony that same day, Judge Nencini in 2014 concludes with this:

Nencini page 215 said:
There remains the fact that only a single amplification was made, and that as correctly objected by the defense of the accused, in order to have a reliable attribution, international protocols call for at least one repetition of the amplification, which was not possible in the present case due to the small quantity in the sample.
Click to expand...
The problem with Nencini is he then substitutes himself as an expert of the expert, and can override this deficiency on other things about "operator experience" that Novelli testified to.

This business of a judge in Italy becoming "an expert of the experts" is one of the reasons the Italian Supreme Court in 2015 annulled the convictions and exonerated the accused. The remedy, acc. to the ISC motivations report in 2015, is to appoint further independent experts - otherwise the judge is reversing things (in this case the need to follow international protocols with regard to at least one repetition of the amplification) on his own hunch, and not the science.

Can you provide a citation saying that anyone supported Stefanoni's work.... the whole independent, expert-world supports Conti & Vecchiotti.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom