The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 29

[Vixen]

Vixen may have admitted she was wrong about Gill's age*, but she has yet to admit that her claim that I "completely revised what the merits court found as a fact regarding the blood in the bathroom" was entirely false.

Vixen has yet to disprove, with evidence, one thing that NotEvenWrong said. Not only has she failed to disprove it, she has not even attempted to do so.

*a minor admission regarding Gill's age which is relevant to exactly nothing in the case, but a rare event, nonetheless.

Don't need to. Any fule 'no DNA does NOT crawl under a door and onto the murder victim's underwear.

As one of the judges put it, 'there is more chance of a meteorite striking this court'.

 

[Vixen]

Vixen, nor any of the guilter-nutters have addressed ANY of the issues Peter Gill raised in his peer reviewed article, an article which completely trashes the prosecution's original DNA "expert".

See: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2016.02.015

Don't need to, as Gill was never a witness at the trial. Not at the trial? Your testimony doesn't count.

 

[TruthCalls]

Don't need to. Any fule 'no DNA does NOT crawl under a door and onto the murder victim's underwear.

As one of the judges put it, 'there is more chance of a meteorite striking this court'.

Yeah, and you know how those judges are routinely involved with research into DNA transfer. I can't imagine anyone with more credentials to know such things than a judge. Clearly they'd know more about DNA transfer potential than some country bumpkins like Peter Gil or Greg Hampikian!

 

[TruthCalls]

Don't need to, as Gill was never a witness at the trial. Not at the trial? Your testimony doesn't count.

That's interesting that you say that, considering you're constantly telling us what Luciano Garofano thought of things and, unless I'm mistaken, I don't believe he testified in court either.

 

[Bill Williams]

Don't need to, as Gill was never a witness at the trial. Not at the trial? Your testimony doesn't count.

............................................. and:

The result of the Italian trial process was that they were exonerated! They actually didn't need Peter Gill at the trial, Conti/Vecchiotti (also peer reviewed scientists) also trashed Stefanoni's work - under oath.

What is your next inane comment going to be?

 

[Bill Williams]

Yeah, and you know how those judges are routinely involved with research into DNA transfer. I can't imagine anyone with more credentials to know such things than a judge. Clearly they'd know more about DNA transfer potential than some country bumpkins like Peter Gil or Greg Hampikian!

The following is the Marasca-Bruno discussion on the role of a judge in Italy with regard to expert opinion.

This question, specific as it is, forms part of the lively theoretical debate on the relationship between scientific evidence and criminal trials, in search of a
problematic balance between a theory – not insensitive to certain suggestions of
interpretive stances from beyond our borders – that tends to put an increasing
amount of weight on the contributions of science, even if not validated by the
scientific community; and a theory that insists on the primacy of law and postulates
that, in deference to the rules of criminal procedure itself, only those scientific
experiments validated according to commonly accepted methodological canons may
be allowed to enter.

This cultural debate, while respecting the principle of freely-held opinion of the
judge, also proposes to critically reexamine the now-obsolete and dubiously credible notion of the judge as “peritus peritorum” [expert of experts]. Indeed, this old
maxim expresses a cultural model that is no longer current, and is in fact decidedly
anachronistic, at least to the extent that it expects to assign to the judge a real
ability to master the flow of scientific knowledge that the parties pour into the
proceeding; a more realistic formulation, by contrast, sees the judge as wholly
oblivious to those contributions, which are the fruit of a scientific training that he or
she does not, need not, and cannot possess. This is all the more true with regard to
genetic science, whose complex methods require a specific training in forensic
genetics, chemistry, and molecular biology, drawing upon a knowledge base that is
light-years away from the purely humanistic and juridical education of a magistrate.

The consequence of acknowledging, as is inevitable, this state of legitimate
ignorance on the part of the judge, and therefore their inability to “autonomously”
master scientific evidence, cannot, however, be an uncritical placing of trust, which
would be tantamount – perhaps on account of a misunderstood notion of freely-held
opinion and of an equally misunderstood concept of “expert of experts” – to the
substantial abdication of their own role by means of a fideistic acceptance of
contributions by experts to whom the resolution of the case – and thus the
responsibility of deciding it – would be delegated.​

 

[Stacyhs]

Don't need to. Any fule 'no DNA does NOT crawl under a door and onto the murder victim's underwear.

As one of the judges put it, 'there is more chance of a meteorite striking this court'.

Any fule 'no that no one here or elsewhere has claimed that DNA DOES "crawl under a door and onto the murder victim's underwear". Stop with the false claims. They do not help your argument.

What anyone who knows anything at all about DNA DOES know is that DNA can be transferred by nitrile/latex gloves which is why protocol calls for them to be changed between the handling of each evidence sample. Well, except for Stefanoni who said that they only need to be changed if the sample is 'wet'. Odd how international protocols don't agree with her.

The nitrile-gloves used by investigators during exhibit examination can act as a vector for DNA transfer from one item to another.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...nt_DNA_transfer_during_criminal_investigation

And you still haven't admitted that I did NOT 'revise' what the merit court found regarding the DNA/blood mixture. But, that's not surprising.

 

[Stacyhs]

Vixen, nor any of the guilter-nutters have addressed ANY of the issues Peter Gill raised in his peer reviewed article, an article which completely trashes the prosecution's original DNA "expert".

See: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2016.02.015

Don't need to, as Gill was never a witness at the trial. Not at the trial? Your testimony doesn't count.

What a silly excuse for not addressing the issues raised by Gill. As already stated, if that is your justification, then stop quoting Garofano in support of your "Knox was bleeding profusely" claim.

 

[Bill Williams]

What a silly excuse for not addressing the issues raised by Gill. As already stated, if that is your justification, then stop quoting Garofano in support of your "Knox was bleeding profusely" claim.

....... and Vixen can stop quoting Peter Quennell or Harry Rag. Or any of those pseudonymous guilter-nutters who tried to read body-language!

 

[Stacyhs]

Don't need to. Any fule 'no DNA does NOT crawl under a door and onto the murder victim's underwear.

As one of the judges put it, 'there is more chance of a meteorite striking this court'.

No judge said that. It was a quote from Prof. Novelli regarding dust and contamination.

The hook contaminated by dust? It’s more likely for a meteorite to fall and bring this court down to the ground.

Of course, contamination via other means, such as dirty gloves, is quite possible as demonstrated by studies. You know, like the dirty ones Stefanoni is shown wearing in the police video of the bra clasp collection.

 

[Stacyhs]

....... and Vixen can stop quoting Peter Quennell or Harry Rag. Or any of those pseudonymous guilter-nutters who tried to read body-language!

Or anyone who did not testify in court! Apparently, only testifying in court gives someone expertise on a subject.

 

[Methos]

Don't need to. Any fule 'no DNA does NOT crawl under a door and onto the murder victim's underwear.

As one of the judges put it, 'there is more chance of a meteorite striking this court'.

Do you have a quote from the transcripts for that? Last time I looked, that "meteorite" quote was attributed to Hellmann appeal persecution expert Prof. Novelli... (not a judge)

 

[AnimalFriendly]

That's interesting that you say that, considering you're constantly telling us what Luciano Garofano thought of things and, unless I'm mistaken, I don't believe he testified in court either.

Nor did David Balding? Another guilter hero.

 

[AnimalFriendly]

....... and Vixen can stop quoting Peter Quennell or Harry Rag. Or any of those pseudonymous guilter-nutters who tried to read body-language!

Speaking of, er, "Harry", aka, The Machine, he just had a hilarious whine over at TJMK re: the March 2015 decision and how it should be "appealed"....no worries, Quennell gently told him how that just ain't happening.

 

[Stacyhs]

Speaking of, er, "Harry", aka, The Machine, he just had a hilarious whine over at TJMK re: the March 2015 decision and how it should be "appealed"....no worries, Quennell gently told him how that just ain't happening.

The gang over on TJMK never ceases to make me laugh. Their continuing posting of 'articles' proving AK's and RS's guilt is hilarious but, at the same time, rather sad. I've never seen a bunch of people so intent on reinforcing their beliefs in an echo chamber. Don't they realize nobody reads those things anymore and that they are completely irrelevant? Apparently not. What a pathetic bunch they are.

 

[Stacyhs]

Do you have a quote from the transcripts for that? Last time I looked, that "meteorite" quote was attributed to Hellmann appeal persecution expert Prof. Novelli... (not a judge)

From what I've found it was from an interview in Il Messagero but the link to it is broken.

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011
Postby charlie_wilkes » Sat Jul 30, 2011 9:47 pm

"The hook contaminated by dust? More likely a meteorite fall, and tear down this court." - Dr. Giuseppe Novelli, consultant for the Prosecution

http://www.ilmessaggero.it/articolo.php ... RONACANERA

 

[NotEvenWrong]

Don't need to, as Gill was never a witness at the trial. Not at the trial? Your testimony doesn't count.

Dear Vixen,
The courts found them innocent.

Regards,
NotEvenWrong

PS -- WTF

 

[Methos]

Don't need to. Any fule 'no DNA does NOT crawl under a door and onto the murder victim's underwear.

As one of the judges put it, 'there is more chance of a meteorite striking this court'.

Do you have a quote from the transcripts for that? Last time I looked, that "meteorite" quote was attributed to Hellmann appeal persecution expert Prof. Novelli... (not a judge)

From what I've found it was from an interview in Il Messagero but the link to it is broken.

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011
Postby charlie_wilkes » Sat Jul 30, 2011 9:47 pm

"The hook contaminated by dust? More likely a meteorite fall, and tear down this court." - Dr. Giuseppe Novelli, consultant for the Prosecution

http://www.ilmessaggero.it/articolo.php ... RONACANERA

Seems to be this article about the hearing on July 30th, 2011.

«Il contaminante va dimostrato, dove nasce e dove è. Il gancetto contaminato dalla polvere? Più probabile che cada un meteorite e butti giù questo tribunale» ha sostenuto Giuseppe Novelli, ordinario di genetica umana e consulente dei pm.

google:

«The contaminant must be demonstrated, where it is born and where it is. The hook contaminated with dust? More likely to fall a meteorite and throw this court down, "said Giuseppe Novelli, professor of human genetics and consultant to the prosecutors.

Prof Novelli didn't testify that day...

 

[TruthCalls]

Speaking of, er, "Harry", aka, The Machine, he just had a hilarious whine over at TJMK re: the March 2015 decision and how it should be "appealed"....no worries, Quennell gently told him how that just ain't happening.

I'm starting to feel like Charlie Brown, trying to kick the football and always falling for Lucy's 'pulling the ball away' trick. I never learn.

Like looking at a bad wreck, someone mentions TJMK and I can't resist visting the cesspool AGAIN... and what's the first thing I see? - a picture of Mignini and Stefanoni talking, with the caption of "Dr Stefanoni with Dr Mignini, two world-class professionals".

I know better than to go there, but I can't resist these tales of lunacy... I feel like I need to see them myself, and I always wind up feeling dirty and filled with regret.

 

[Stacyhs]

Seems to be this article about the hearing on July 30th, 2011.

google:

Prof Novelli didn't testify that day...

The contaminant must be demonstrated, where it is born and where it is.

What a ridiculous statement. The source of contamination cannot always be discovered but that does not mean contamination did not occur. In the Sollecito clasp incident, it's rather obvious to anyone with more than half a brain that the clasp, found 6 weeks after the murder across the room from its original location and among other objects is not going to be in the same forensic state as it was immediately after the murder. It is visibly dirtier and 'rattier' when collected than it was when first found.


Then there is the video of the collection showing it being held with dirty, unchanged gloves. What else did that glove touch? The door handle that we know Sollecito touched...but was not tested by the crack scientific police?

There is also the unidentified DNA of several others on the same tiny clasp. How did those get there? Do we know 'where it was born' or the means of how that DNA got there? No. Yet there it is.