The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 31

[Stacyhs]

Now I agree 100% with your statement.

I also point out the amazingly large number of "incompetent" errors by the police and prosecution in the case.

Could some or all of the "incompetent" errors be intentional acts done for some unethical and dishonest purpose, such as, for example, creating false appearances of culpable evidence against innocent but convenient suspects?

It's not an easy question to answer IMO.

IIRC, I once read that an appeals court in the US had stated that a string of seeming incompetent actions by police in a case was no different in effect on the defendant than police misconduct, but I've been unable to find a source.

I don't believe the police KNEW RS an AK were innocent at the beginning and set them up. HOWEVER, I do think they tried to cover their asses when things began to fall apart rather than admit they had screwed the pooch. That is not unusual: people who simply cannot admit they are wrong despite the evidence. Their fragile egos just cannot handle being wrong and choose being wrong over admitting being wrong. One thing I do think was a deliberate cover up was the negative TMB tests. No honest and ethical scientist would "forget" such crucial information and continue to mispresent it like Stefanoni did. And I do have to wonder if the prosecution knew about those test, too.

 

[Numbers]

I don't believe the police KNEW RS an AK were innocent at the beginning and set them up. HOWEVER, I do think they tried to cover their asses when things began to fall apart rather than admit they had screwed the pooch. That is not unusual: people who simply cannot admit they are wrong despite the evidence. Their fragile egos just cannot handle being wrong and choose being wrong over admitting being wrong. One thing I do think was a deliberate cover up was the negative TMB tests. No honest and ethical scientist would "forget" such crucial information and continue to mispresent it like Stefanoni did. And I do have to wonder if the prosecution knew about those test, too.

Well, in a criminal investigation, the Public Prosecutor is the supervisor of the police in their investigation.* So it's highly likely that prosecutor Mignini would have been informed of all test results.

*See: CPP Articles 55, 58, 59, 348 (paragraphs 3 and 4), and 370.

https://canestrinilex.com/assets/Up...-Code-of-Criminal-Procedure-canestriniLex.pdf
(CPP in English online)

https://www.brocardi.it/codice-di-procedura-penale/
(CPP with explanations, in Italian)

 

[TomG]

AFAIAA the only DNA of Guede's found was of the epithelial type, not bodily fluid type.

That's interesting. Can you source this?

It does seem strange not to test an item found under the body. The court's finding was that Knox and Sollecito returned after the murder and Guede had fled to rearrange the body to make it look like a rape motive and then faked a burglary.

Where does M/B say that?

Hoots

 

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
AFAIAA the only DNA of Guede's found was of the epithelial type, not bodily fluid type.

That's interesting. Can you source this?

There were only two samples of his DNA found in the bedroom:
The purse and jacket cuff which both had a mixture of MK's blood and RG's "biological substance". It cannot be determined what the source of RG's DNA is. (RTGIF)

Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
It does seem strange not to test an item found under the body. The court's finding was that Knox and Sollecito returned after the murder and Guede had fled to rearrange the body to make it look like a rape motive and then faked a burglary.

Where does M/B say that?

Hoots[/QUOTE]

The only court that Vixen considers valid: Massei. Never mind that M-B acquitted them of staging the body and of staging a burglary. Both of which are now judicial facts. But those only matter when they support a guilt bias.

One does have to wonder how RS and AK managed to move and stage MK's body without stepping in any of that blood that covered the floor or leaving any DNA on the pillow, the quilt or MK's body or clothing with all that physical exertion of the staging.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

In the context of Knox, Guede and Sollecito, which this thread is about, AFAIAA no EU country has racism enshrined in its constitution and laws, nor slavery for prisoners, unlike the U.S.A.

Please point to any modern US law or statute, or any part of the modern US constitution that is explicitly or implicitly racist. I'll wait.

That is not to say Italy has a clean conscience. However, being only established in 1882, it hasn't colonised as extensively as the UK, France, Spain and Portugal. It committed atrocities in Eritrea, Ethiopia, Somalia and Libya before and during its Mussolini era and it has a new far right government in power.

That is meaningless gibberish. Your attempt to link colonisation to systemic racism directly clashes with your attempt to claim that the US has a bigger issue than the EU with systemic racism. The USA never had any colonies at all.

What about the Netherlands? That had colonies absolutely everywhere at one point but it's probably one of the most open and welcoming places in the world.

What about South Africa? That never colonised anywhere and yet it had a literal apartheid government.

Of course systemic racism is embedded in the UK, having been a major coloniser of one third of the world, with the ruling classes having acquired their wealth in generations past from the plunder of vast resourses - gold, ivory, tea, sugar, human labour, tea, coffee, jewels, etc, from India, the Americas and Africa. The class system is rigid, with little social mobility. In that respect it is systemic in the UK.

That isn't the only reason it's systemic in the UK, but yes that does help.

My answer could not have been plainer and starker.

That's what we call "a lie". Your answer was indeed somewhat plain, but you have been known to distance yourself from your apparently plain and stark claims in the past on multiple occasions. You've directly rejected having said things that other posters have quoted you saying before. That's why I made the comment about jelly.

'All lives matter', right?

Oh look, another thinly veiled accusation of racism against another poster. That makes 3 that I've seen from you. That really is a favourite of yours isn't it?

 

[Numbers]

AFAIAA the only DNA of Guede's found was of the epithelial type, not bodily fluid type.

....

That's interesting. Can you source this?



...
Hoots

One issue with the above statement:

Forensic DNA profiling - the STR method used by Stefanoni (and generally in forensic testing) cannot distinguish one cell type from another.

The cell type may sometimes be identified from the microscopic examination of the specimen (a part thereof) prior to the DNA profiling. Sometimes the cell type is assumed from the apparent type of source.

Did Stefanoni perform and record any microscopic examination of the specimens?

 

[Vixen]

There is one certainty in life and that is Vixen will repeatedly attack Amanda and Raffaele for telling numerous lies. If Amanda and Raffaele are such prolific liars, why are there so many holes in this claim :-

1)Vixen lies on an industrial scale in her posts which indicates the facts don't support the case for guilt which means PGP such as Vixen have to resort to lying. PGP having to resort to lying because the facts don't support the case for guilt and Amanda and Raffaele having to resort to lying because the facts don't support the case for innocence can't both be true.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=11938562#post11938562

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11942852#post11942852

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11598412#post11598412

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11427461#post11427461

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11951893#post11951893

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11982023#post11982023

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12107306#post12107306

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12200863#post12200863

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12297573#post12297573

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12297575#post12297575

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=13170726#post13170726

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=13920821#post13920821

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=13941551#post13941551

2)If the prosecution had such a solid case against Amanda and Raffaele that Amanda and Raffaele would have to resort to lying, why would the prosecution need to resort to the tactics such as suppressing evidence, destroying evidence etc of which I have given a small example below. The prosecution told numerous lies where they spread false information to the media about bleach receipts, the washing machine running, Amanda showering in a bloody bathroom and a missing Harry Potter book. Prosecutor Comodi lied to the Amanda in court she called her mother at 12.00 pm when records show she called her mother at 12.00 pm. Amanda was lied to she had HIV. The fact the prosecution had to resort to lying indicates the prosecution had a lack of evidence and facts didn't support their case. How do you reconcile this with Amanda and Raffaele having to resort to lying to cover up evidence and the facts not supporting the case for innocence. Both can't be true.

The prosecution hid the results of early and decisive DNA tests excluding Raffaele Sollecito as the sexual assailant, securing on improper grounds the pre-trial incarceration of Sollecito and Knox (and Lumumba) to the severe prejudice of the defense;
The prosecution concealed the initial results for tests performed on the two key items of evidence, i.e., the kitchen knife (Rep. 36b) and the bra clasp (Rep. 165b), and instead, produced only the results of suspicious “do over” tests (re-runs), without disclosing the data from the initial tests or even the fact that the subsequent tests were “do overs”;
The prosecution concealed that the kitchen knife profile was generated within a set of tests for which 90% of the results have been suppressed, strongly suggesting the occurrence of a severe contamination event that the prosecution continues to hide;
The prosecution claimed that contamination of the bra clasp was impossible, even though the bra clasp profile was produced during a set of tests for which there is documented proof of contamination;
The prosecution falsely portrayed the DNA laboratory as pristine and perfectly maintained, even though the lab’s own documents demonstrate that it was plagued with repeated contamination events and machine malfunctions that were known to the lab;
The prosecution has withheld the results from a massive number of DNA tests (well over 100), including probably exculpatory profiles relating to the sexual assault and a secondary crime scene downstairs;
The prosecution has hidden all of the records of the DNA amplification process—the most likely place for laboratory contamination to have occurred—including all of the contamination-control tests for this process.

Lies told by the prosecution

https://knoxsollecito.wordpress.com...old-about-amanda-knox-and-raffaele-sollecito/

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/myths.html

3)If the facts supported the prosecution's case and went against the defence case and the defence case could only be argued by resorting to lying, how does Vixen explain people were able to make effective arguments against the prosecution's case without resorting to lying? An example is the appeal document written by the defence for the Hellman trial below

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/Appeal.html

4) I recall Vixen demanding that Amanda take a lie detector test. If Amanda was such a prolific liar and there are numerous documented instances of Amanda lying, why would it be necessary to do this? There are so many posts from Vixen with lies, it would not be necessary to ask Vixen to take a lie detector test.

5)If Amanda was such prolific liar, why does Vixen have to resort to lying to support this claim as per the posts below? With Vixen I wouldn't need to resort to lying to show Vixen has lied because I have plenty of genuine instances of lying to use.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11849235#post11849235

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11952561#post11952561

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12389273#post12389273

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12390810#post12390810

6)If Amanda is such a prolific liar, why do PGP have to resort to using body language to support this claim when this should not be necessary if Vixen and other PGP have a mountain of documented instances of lying to draw on? I would not need body language to show Vixen has lied because she has written numerous posts with lies.

I haven't demanded 'Amanda' takes a lie detector test. I agree with the Italians, criminals are gonna lie. A defendant is entitled to not incriminate themselves, therefore they can say whatever it takes to get themselves off the hook.

BTW I am not under arrest so it matters diddly squat whether I lie or not.

 

[Vixen]

A post full of malarkey. Malarkey means foolish nonsense. There's a list of useful synonyms at: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/malarkey

BTW, "definitive" in the legal sense of a judgment or settlement means "conclusive, ending all controversy and discussion in a lawsuit" or legal case. "A definitive judgment is final and not provisional"; thus, when someone (me, for example) states that the Marasca CSC panel judgment was "definitive and final" one is (I am) being somewhat redundant.

See: https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/definitive

In Italy, final acquittals are truly final (CPP Articles 648 and 649), but final convictions may be subject to revision, if the reasons for revision are based upon the requirements of CPP Article 630 or Italian Constitutional Court judgment number 112 of 2011 (which provides that revision may be requested based upon a final judgment of the ECHR).

ECHR judgments become "final" (that is, 3 months after publication for a Chamber judgment, immediately after a Grand Chamber judgment) and are marked "FINAL" on the first page in an English document, but "DEFINITIF" in a French document. The 3-month wait for a Chamber judgment to become final allows for an applicant or respondent state to seek referral of the case to the Grand Chamber (granted only in exceptional cases). Italy sought and was denied referral to the Grand Chamber of the Chamber judgment in the ECHR case Knox v. Italy.

See: https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf
Articles 43 and 44

That used to be the case. However, in EU countries the concept that you cannot be tried again once acquitted no longer applies.

Some guy in the UK who was tried and acquitted for the murder of two little girls dubbed 'Babes in the Wood' was recently re-tried after many years because new DNA evidence showed that his DNA was on their jumpers.

 

[Vixen]

Let's not guess or imagine; let's just use logic and common sense. If Sollecito knew it was his, there is no way he would have wanted it tested. The defense requested it be tested during the first appeal trial, but again, for some odd reason, it was denied. It was the defense who did not want it tested during any trial, not the defense.



Another example of the illogic of the Massei's reasoning. Guede had never been in the upstairs apartment. If it turned out to be his, it had to be deposited at the time of the murder. If it turned out to be Sollecito's, that would have been damning evidence of his presence in the room the night of the murder. If it turned out to be Silenzi's, it would have been irrelevant.

No way around it: there was NO logical reason for the prosecution not to want it tested.




Legally it will make no difference. I also think it should be tested now, but if RS requests it, he will have to pay for it.
Of course, with their record, the police will have let it rot, otherwise be made worthless for testing, or lost it.

In a fair trial you can request whatever material you like be made evidence. There was absolutely nothing stopping Sollecito's lawyers from demanding the pillow be one of the issues.

One of the points of law on which you can bring an appeal is under the rubric of 'New Evidence'. However, for it to be classed as 'new evidence' it has to be evidence that was not known of as of the time of the trial. That is why, when Sollecito's team made an application to have it tested AFTER the trial and he had been found guilty and sentence, the judge threw it out because it was not 'new evidence' as he had the opportunity to have all of that examined and cross-examined at the trial.

 

[Vixen]

Were those victims' DNA LCN or not? Did she have actual bodies/ body parts, to get the samples from? Drowning victims are usually intact. That would lead us to a logical answer of "No, not LCN"

She was brought bodies/body parts. Contamination was highly unlikely as tests could be repeated.

If she is so professional, why did she "forget" about multiple significant pieces of evidence that she tested for blood with TMB? Why did she continually refer to them as "luminol revealed" which she had to have known implied blood was found when she knew damn well it wasn't?

It's plausible that Stefanoni had little to no training in LCN DNA analysis. If she had, the prosecution would have made sure to highlight that to raise her credibility. They did not. Hell, she couldn't even find her own 'striation' in the knife she claimed the DNA came from. Nor could anyone else.

The defence's expert forensic witness was there, some quite renowned fellow, whose name escapes me, but he witnessed Stefanoni's treatment of the DNA sample and he did not complain of any irregularities.

As for the striation on the knife, if you read Nencini, the defence concurred that there WAS a scratch on the knife. Settled.

 

[Vixen]

Oh boy, you still have no idea whatsoever.

And as an aide memoire: a person can only be definitively proven to be factually innocent if that person can provide cast-iron unimpeachable proof that he/she did not commit the crime (usually in the form of a cast-iron alibi that is definitively verifiable through either electronic or through (reliable, disinterested) witness evidence).

And as has been explained to you many, many times now, not only is a defendant not required to provide evidence of innocence (rather, it's entirely the state's case to demonstrate proof BARD of guilt, for rather obvious jurisprudence and ethics reasons...), but also there will always be plenty of people who factually did not commit the crime who cannot prove they did not commit the crime.

For example, I've pointed out several times now that there was a street-location stabbing murder that took place at around 3:30am several years ago now, around 1/2 mile away from my (then) apartment in London. I was factually asleep alone* at the time, and therefore was not providing any provable interaction with electronic devices/networks. There also was not CCTV in or around the front door of my apartment, and I'd be extremely confident that there was not CCTV in any of the small residential streets between my apartment and the murder scene. It was therefore clearly theoretically possible that I had left my apartment at, say, 3:15am, walked through the back streets, committed the murder, returned to my apartment, cleaned myself extremely thoroughly, and disposed of the knife somewhere very distant the following day. In other words, I could not prove I had not committed the murder.

Now, I realise that under your warped and incorrect view of criminal justice, ethics and morality, my inability to provide a cast-iron alibi would/should somehow count against me. And similarly, if I were to be acquitted in court under the Italian system, you'd incorrectly think that an "insufficient evidence" acquittal would somehow leave a cloud of suspicion/guilt hanging over my head - even though it would be utterly impossible for an Italian court to acquit me in any other manner.

That is not how detectives investigate crime. Broadly speaking, it is not possible to prove a negative. If the cops had taken a statement from that you had been asleep in your bed the whole time the incident took place, why would you ever be a suspect? A person only becomes suspected if there is 'probable cause' or a reason to have a suspicion. For example, cops interview very many people when there is a random murder and the culprit unknown. The only way they can pinpoint suspects is to check out the statements taken as they go from door to door. So, if you, like Sollecito, were to claim you were on you computer all evening and that your parent called you at their usual time of 11:30 pm, plus you had switched off your phone prior to the time of the incident and had a massive flooding incident in your apartment that entailed a LOT of mopping up, unscrewing the U-bend, lots of buckets, A! bleach, latex gloves and you were transporting a mop between the murder scene and your abode, then I am afraid the cops will most likely ask you to come along to the police station to straighten out your original account.

That's how detective work: they check what people tell them and become suspicious if it turns out they were lying. That is not to say that proves anything but let me offer you some advice: if you don't want cops to become suspicious of you, try not to lie and keep changing your story.

 

[Vixen]

It's already been patiently explained to you, several times, that the collection/analysis/matching of relatively large masses of DNA evidence is entirely different - and hugely more simple, straightforward and reliable - from the collection/analysis/matching of tiny amounts of trace DNA.

In the matter of identifying tsunami victims, there was a rather large amount of DNA evidence available to be collected/analysed/matched. In fact, "a rather large amount" in that instance took the form of.... the entire body of the victim.

The collection and analysis of DNA from a donor body would be very, very simple, straightforward and reliable - even in a lab which was slapdash and had very few advanced anti-contamination measures. And matching that DNA would also in most cases have been very simple, either via a surviving blood relative or the provision of hair etc.

By contrast, it's exponentially more difficult to collect/analyse/match minuscule low-template levels of DNA. Not only is there the huge possibility of contamination at every step in the process, but also it's way more difficult to match reliably because of all the inevitable noise present on the analysed sample.

Stefanoni was sufficiently competent to do the former type of DNA work, and her lab was sufficiently suitable to allow for reliable results.

Stefanoni was utterly incompetent to do the latter type of DNA work, and her lab was hopelessly unsuitable for the generation of reliable results (you've been told many times what the mandatory procedural & equipment/lab space conditions are for reliable low-template DNA work.... and that Stefanoni and her lab met approximately none of them.)

Hope that helps explain things with sufficient clarity.

The eminent forensics expert for the defence who compulsorily attended Stefanoni's testing of the sample was entirely happy with it and did not demur at any point.

As you ought to know, evidence is not looked at piecemeal. One piece of evidence on its own contributory to the case. What a court does is look at all of the evidence as a whole - some it will accept some it will reject - before it comes to a verdict.

 

[Vixen]

I disagree with this statement.

I believe that the prosecution would not want it tested because they knew, or felt confident, that it would not show Sollecito's DNA profile. And, if in fact they had tested the seeming semen stain of the pillow, the prosecution was suppressing the result.

If it showed Kercher's boyfriend's DNA profile, it would not be relevant.

If it showed Guede's DNA profile, it would severely damage the prosecution case against Knox and Sollecito. In part, that is because it would contradict Guede's statements describing his sexual contact with Kercher during the relevant time as only digital. That contradiction would potentially demolish the prosecution's effort to use the record of Guede's conviction and his uncross-examined statements against Knox and Sollecito.

That is nonsense. The prosecution would not have the power to block evidence that the defence wants to bring. The principles of Brady vs Maryland are also in play in European Courts: a prosecutor cannot stop a defendant from defending themself. It is not a prosecutor's place to bar anything from the trial. That decision is for the court. All decisions by a court can be appealed.

Sollecito's counsel did not at any time during the trial apply to have that item tested. It was only after the trial was over it cynically tried to do so knowing full well that protocol would require a judge to dismiss the application (and anyway, they can still appeal the decision to dismiss the application).

The idea that the prosecution prevented exculpatory evidence from being presented is YOUR malarky. Nowhere in any of the defence appeals was the issue of the pillow ever brought up as a point of appeal.

 

[Vixen]

I'll stop being 'familiar' when you stop being familiar with someone you had zero interaction with by calling her "Mez". How long have we been exchanging posts? Years. Besides, this is just an attempt to distract from the fact that you still refuse to...can't...answer "what was the motivation for Guede to claim “black man found, here’s the guilty party” other than to set up a scenario where he'll be blamed because he's black?

Nor have you answered this: Are you saying that the professional opinion of the Chief Inspector of the division that handles IT, Technology, Logistics and Communications of the State Police is not credible?\



Nice try. You claimed "It was self-professed Knox advocate, Nina Burleigh, who brought the slur into common usage for Guede, with the press pack simply copying whatever went before."

I proved Comodi used it in 2008, well before Burleigh.

Barbie Nadeau described him as a 'drifter' in her book BEFORE Burleigh.

And BEFORE Nadeau was Brit journalist Richard Owens.

All of which you failed to acknowledge.

Please provide the Richard Owen citation. He was an early reporter in the case and not a tabloid hack who would use corny memes. If he used the term 'drifter' it would have been within the context of his article and not as a ridiculous tabloid nickname or handy label. As I recall, Guede was on the run in Germany and was apprehended in Dortmund where he had been sleeping rough along the canal so that was probably the context, and not just a lazy racist trope.

 

[Vixen]

This was never proved. The incompetent police fried his computer. Oh, wait...according to you, he destroyed the three computers himself! LOL!



This does not prove he wasn't home.



Suspect X is familiar with Italian door locks. Suspect X's DNA is found in victim's blood on victim's purse. .



The defendant has lived there for several weeks. Defendant has not acquired ability to levitate. The defendant's footprints all test negative for blood with blood sensitive substance that chemically reacts to it.



Defendant X's DNA, not blood, is mixed with victim's blood in bathroom they shared.



A single knife is taken at random from cutlery drawer filled with knives and the victim's DNA is not found on the blade. Defendant's DNA found on handle. Defendant cooked with knife.

[

Victim's underwear collected many weeks later and videotaped being collected across room, in pile of of debris, and touched with visibly and admittedly unchanged gloves. No other evidence of defendant found in room.



Defendant X is coerced into signing a statement prepared by police in unrecorded interrogation where Defendant X is denied right to have lawyer present.


Defendant X is seen sitting on fence waiting for police to arrive.




Defendant X, as per phone logs, video, and witness statements calls police before they arrive.
[/LIST][/INDENT]


[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/716696372ecd4197bf.jpg[/qimg]




Defendant X appeals. The appeal is accepted and the "Guilty" verdict is overturned.



It goes to the Supreme Court who annuls the verdict and rules definitively 'Not Guilty due to insufficient evidence and the pro-forma standard sentence legal structure as on all such verdicts, 'for not having committed the crime'.



As the Supreme Court does not have the jurisdiction to fact-find and in the case of Defendant X, it has egregiously and unusually dismissed the case without sending it back to the court it claims ruled erred.



So do you now see your problem? Defendant X has a "not guilty" verdict because your list is a product of your imagination.

Proverbs 22:1 – “A good name is to be chosen rather than great riches, loving favor rather than silver and gold.”

"Who steals my purse steals trash; 'tis something, nothing; 'Twas mine, 'tis his, and has been slave to thousands; But he that filches from me my good name But he that filches from me my good name. Robs me of that which not enriches him, And makes me poor indeed.” ― William Shakespeare, Othello


Irrelevant.



What is better? Being definitively acquitted with no prison sentence, a list of prosecution claims (and yours) being disproved for the junk they were.





Lordy, it's like shooting fish in a barrel.

Oh dear. Defendant X was an example to illustrate the point are was making. It was purely academic, as I made clear.

 

[Vixen]

Please point to any modern US law or statute, or any part of the modern US constitution that is explicitly or implicitly racist. I'll wait.



That is meaningless gibberish. Your attempt to link colonisation to systemic racism directly clashes with your attempt to claim that the US has a bigger issue than the EU with systemic racism. The USA never had any colonies at all.

What about the Netherlands? That had colonies absolutely everywhere at one point but it's probably one of the most open and welcoming places in the world.

What about South Africa? That never colonised anywhere and yet it had a literal apartheid government.


That isn't the only reason it's systemic in the UK, but yes that does help.


That's what we call "a lie". Your answer was indeed somewhat plain, but you have been known to distance yourself from your apparently plain and stark claims in the past on multiple occasions. You've directly rejected having said things that other posters have quoted you saying before. That's why I made the comment about jelly.



Oh look, another thinly veiled accusation of racism against another poster. That makes 3 that I've seen from you. That really is a favourite of yours isn't it?

Louisiana, for a start. I believe it is one of a small handful or remaining states that hasn't repealed Amendment 13 and prisoners are deemed slaves.

If you want to discussion colonialism and its effects, I would suggest starting a new thread.

Answer me this, if three people are in a room and the DNA collected, Is it probable that the DNA of two of them has been collected corruptly and incompetently and completely contaminated, whilst at the same time the DNA of the third person is all perfectly done and accurate ceteris paribus?


Yet there are people who are absolutely certain this is the case even though a fair and lengthy merits court found otherwise.

 

[Vixen]

One issue with the above statement:

Forensic DNA profiling - the STR method used by Stefanoni (and generally in forensic testing) cannot distinguish one cell type from another.

The cell type may sometimes be identified from the microscopic examination of the specimen (a part thereof) prior to the DNA profiling. Sometimes the cell type is assumed from the apparent type of source.

Did Stefanoni perform and record any microscopic examination of the specimens?

They can be remarkably accurately assessed. High RFU's are consistent with blood, for example.

 

[TomG]

They can be remarkably accurately assessed. High RFU's are consistent with blood, for example.

That baloney originates from Garofano in "darkness descending"

“However, here is the electropherogram and you can see that the RFU value is very high, so the sample is undoubtedly blood, which is the body fluid that provides the greatest amount of DNA. In some cases you see higher peaks of Amanda's DNA than Meredith's. Amanda has been bleeding. Nor is it old blood, as the defence might say, because blood decays fast. We have the same result on the cotton-bud box. The light switch was over-scrubbed, but from the film the way the cotton-bud was good enough. There too we have mixed blood. So that's pretty significant for Amanda, Unfortunately for her, she bled at the same time Meredith was bleeding. That's a lot to explain." (Darkness Descending, page 371).

Emphatically rubbished by Professor Dan Krane in Chris Halides' blog.

"There are several reasons why Garofano’s interpretations are wrong. In response to a question of mine, Professor Dan Krane wrote, “Inferring tissue source from peak heights is just plain silly -- to the point of being absolutely outrageous. It hardly bears more comment than that, but if high peaks mean blood then what would you expect from semen which has a ten to one hundred fold higher concentration of DNA?” Professor Greg Hampikian concurred with the view that peak heights were not an indication of whether or not blood was the source of DNA. The peak heights for Raffaele’s profile on the cigarette butt were reported to me as being about the same height as those on the cotton box, and the former are presumably from saliva."

I'd be interested to know if you've got any other sources that back up Garofano's claims. What about professor Harry Rag for instance?

Hoots

 

[Stacyhs]

I haven't demanded 'Amanda' takes a lie detector test. I agree with the Italians, criminals are gonna lie. A defendant is entitled to not incriminate themselves, therefore they can say whatever it takes to get themselves off the hook.

BTW I am not under arrest so it matters diddly squat whether I lie or not.

That's one way to look at it, I guess. Another way would be to realize lying severely undermines or destroys one's credibility. Plus, it raises the question as to why someone would need to lie.

 

[Vixen]

That's one way to look at it, I guess. Another way would be to realize lying severely undermines or destroys one's credibility. Plus, it raises the question as to why someone would need to lie.

Exactly the point I was making about Knox' and Sollecito's numerous lies to the police. Sollecito never did retract his statement that Knox went out alone, not returning until one and that she had asked him to lie for her, hence why he told police a crock.