Cont: The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 32

[Bill Williams]

Vixen wrote

Conti & Vecchiotti OTOH refused to perform the analysis of the third sample from the knife, probably because they had already done their own testing and knew it was AK's. They were heavily censured by Chieffi for this.

It's hard to keep up with the volume of misinformation posted here on ISF. Misinformation, posted a full decade after all of this had been settled, in a definitive acquittal. My word, you're not even arguing the calunnia conviction any more!

For the umpteenth time.... "probably because they had already done their own testing"????? 'Probably'? You lead the factoid with an admission that you don't know this, and that there is no proof of this, yet you set it out there as fact?

Chieffi - in 2013, he chided Conti & Vecchiotti not one whit. He chided Hellmann, as was his only remit. Chide or side with a judge, not the expert. Chieffi, he'd chided Judge Hellmann, for farming out the judge's legal responsibility to task the experts with something, not to cave in to experts who said something else. (However, why one would chide a Judge for listening to experts.... that, right there, is the source of the Marasca-Bruno report, the part where in increasingly technical considerations, Marasca-Bruno said it was impossible for modern judges to be the 'expert of the experts' on every technical consideration. But why am I say that to you, that was pointed out to you TEN YEARS AGO!!!

And the factoid bilge is STILL being slow-flooded into this thread. Still. As if repetition itself is proof.

 

[TruthCalls]

Because I am assuming that if the diagram of the room was drawn up by the prosecutors of say, Kohberger, you would take it for granted they would fulfill their duty of care, and probably years of post-grad training, to draw it accurately. So why would you doubt the Perugia forensic police are able to depict the crime scene accurately and are somehow cheating? According to the stated theory, it's all to please the omnipotent Mignini, the puppet master behind the false charges and convictions. For this theory to work you'd have to accept that Perugia police are somehow a third-world republic where things are sorted by corruption and bribery.

I never said they're cheating - that's you making things up. The cartoon was done by a 3rd party, not the police. If the distance between the wardrobe and desk is 4.2' then the cartoon is not showing that area in proper proportion. I mean, this isn't rocket science. It's a 5.2' x 4.2' "Useful Area". How about you get three of your friends and the four of you get into a 4x5 box and then tell me you had plenty of space to carry out the assault and still manage to avoid all the blood.

The Perugia police as well as the Scientific Police were horrible in how they handled the crime scene. In that regard, it wasn't far off from it being a third-world republic, but that has nothing to do with how small that bedroom was and that two of the four people you claim were there managed to leave nary a trace.

 

[TruthCalls]

But it was fulfilling the standards of CPP Art 360 iirc, which states that where there is a small amount of DNA material, it must be witnessed by all parties, who are invited to send expert witness along to observe the potential one-off incident. And this is what happened. AK failing to send an expert witness as was obligatory by law, doesn't mean they can later claim an error on the part of the analyst who performed the one -off test. But Prof Torre was there for RS, and he did not raise any objections whatsoever to the testing and he was one of Italy's leading DNA experts.

Conti & Vecchiotti OTOH refused to perform the analysis of the third sample from the knife, probably because they had already done their own testing and knew it was AK's. They were heavily censured by Chieffi for this. Nencini ensured the Rome Central testing centre performed this task, and it was found to be AK's. Or are you claiming, this too, is not permissible, even though the criminal law courts of Perugia and Florence accepted the testings were of legal standards?

BTW the Kercher DNA tested negative for blood because it was probably a sample of her skin or sinews that was embedded in the knife blade scratch, the wet blood having been rinsed off under the tap, and likely scrubbed with bleach by RS in their great washing up operation.

As for the handling of the knife, it was placed in a brand new calendar cardboard packaging. There is no way MK's DNA could have sneaked into it.

In any case, all of this was argued in court at the time, as per correct protocol, and Nencini upheld the Guilty verdicts. Florence being the highest court of the region.

First paragraph doesn't address a single item on my list, all of which put the knife seriously into question.

Why would C&V be concerned about a DNA sample, taken from the handle of a knife that already tested positive for Amanda's DNA, a knife that Amanda readily admits she used for cooking, testing positive for Amanda's? I have no problem the sample was tested using the latest technology they had at the time and found Amanda's DNA. Nothing surprising there.

"...that was embedded in the knife blade scratch.." Seriously, that's your claim? You do realize that no one could even find a scratch, though using a microscope it is possible to find some very fine scratches that might be .001 of a micron in depth and with smooth sides. Exactly where was something supposed to get "embedded". You've made some silly comments over the years, this being right up there with the best of them!

And BTW, in order to remove ALL of the blood, the knife HAD to have been submerged in bleach, in which case it would be IMPOSSIBLE for any DNA to survive, given it's instantly destroyed by the bleach.

Yes, but sadly for you, Nencini was thrown out. Besides, there's nothing Nencini could write that changes 5.2 x 4.2' "Useful Area"

 

[Planigale]

But it was fulfilling the standards of CPP Art 360 iirc, which states that where there is a small amount of DNA material, it must be witnessed by all parties, who are invited to send expert witness along to observe the potential one-off incident. And this is what happened. AK failing to send an expert witness as was obligatory by law, doesn't mean they can later claim an error on the part of the analyst who performed the one -off test. But Prof Torre was there for RS, and he did not raise any objections whatsoever to the testing and he was one of Italy's leading DNA experts.

Conti & Vecchiotti OTOH refused to perform the analysis of the third sample from the knife, probably because they had already done their own testing and knew it was AK's. They were heavily censured by Chieffi for this. Nencini ensured the Rome Central testing centre performed this task, and it was found to be AK's. Or are you claiming, this too, is not permissible, even though the criminal law courts of Perugia and Florence accepted the testings were of legal standards?

BTW the Kercher DNA tested negative for blood because it was probably a sample of her skin or sinews that was embedded in the knife blade scratch, the wet blood having been rinsed off under the tap, and likely scrubbed with bleach by RS in their great washing up operation.

As for the handling of the knife, it was placed in a brand new calendar cardboard packaging. There is no way MK's DNA could have sneaked into it.

In any case, all of this was argued in court at the time, as per correct protocol, and Nencini upheld the Guilty verdicts. Florence being the highest court of the region.

You misunderstand Italian law. Observers are there to observe. They cannot raise objections. The presence of an observer does not mean that the defence cannot point out errors made. The observer reports back to the defence lawyer. They are not there to assist the police, nor to prevent them making errors.

No one denies Knox's DNA was on the handle of the knife, but it has no probative value as it was in a cutlery draw where she could have used it or touched it. What is certain is if the knife (accepting for the sake of argument it was the murder weapon) was so thoroughly cleaned that no trace of blood was left, the DNA of the wielder would have been removed. It is Kercher's DNA that is dubious and likely the result of cross contamination because the correct precautions for carrying out LCN testing were not taken. The appropriate controls were not run, and most importantly because the quantitative test for DNA showed no DNA was present.

ETA Gill was not paid by the defence. He was concerned that the technique he invented was being abused.

 

[Vixen]

I never said they're cheating - that's you making things up. The cartoon was done by a 3rd party, not the police. If the distance between the wardrobe and desk is 4.2' then the cartoon is not showing that area in proper proportion. I mean, this isn't rocket science. It's a 5.2' x 4.2' "Useful Area". How about you get three of your friends and the four of you get into a 4x5 box and then tell me you had plenty of space to carry out the assault and still manage to avoid all the blood.

The Perugia police as well as the Scientific Police were horrible in how they handled the crime scene. In that regard, it wasn't far off from it being a third-world republic, but that has nothing to do with how small that bedroom was and that two of the four people you claim were there managed to leave nary a trace.

They can't have 'avoided all the blood'. There would have been a massive spurt of blood, according to blood splatter experts, so it would have been all over their clothes. RG said his trousers were covered in blood.



.

 

[Vixen]

First paragraph doesn't address a single item on my list, all of which put the knife seriously into question.

Why would C&V be concerned about a DNA sample, taken from the handle of a knife that already tested positive for Amanda's DNA, a knife that Amanda readily admits she used for cooking, testing positive for Amanda's? I have no problem the sample was tested using the latest technology they had at the time and found Amanda's DNA. Nothing surprising there.

"...that was embedded in the knife blade scratch.." Seriously, that's your claim? You do realize that no one could even find a scratch, though using a microscope it is possible to find some very fine scratches that might be .001 of a micron in depth and with smooth sides. Exactly where was something supposed to get "embedded". You've made some silly comments over the years, this being right up there with the best of them!

And BTW, in order to remove ALL of the blood, the knife HAD to have been submerged in bleach, in which case it would be IMPOSSIBLE for any DNA to survive, given it's instantly destroyed by the bleach.

Yes, but sadly for you, Nencini was thrown out. Besides, there's nothing Nencini could write that changes 5.2 x 4.2' "Useful Area"

That is not true. Stefanoni illuminated the knife blade to a high level.




The firends of AK who made the Netflix film dishonestly doctored the slide of the knife and tried to falsely make out the finding was 'inconclusive'.



Here is Dr Patrizia Stafanoni's testimony under oath during the trial:




So, it was definitively identified as Mez' DNA.



.

 

[Vixen]

You misunderstand Italian law. Observers are there to observe. They cannot raise objections. The presence of an observer does not mean that the defence cannot point out errors made. The observer reports back to the defence lawyer. They are not there to assist the police, nor to prevent them making errors.

No one denies Knox's DNA was on the handle of the knife, but it has no probative value as it was in a cutlery draw where she could have used it or touched it. What is certain is if the knife (accepting for the sake of argument it was the murder weapon) was so thoroughly cleaned that no trace of blood was left, the DNA of the wielder would have been removed. It is Kercher's DNA that is dubious and likely the result of cross contamination because the correct precautions for carrying out LCN testing were not taken. The appropriate controls were not run, and most importantly because the quantitative test for DNA showed no DNA was present.

ETA Gill was not paid by the defence. He was concerned that the technique he invented was being abused.

The expert witness observers are there as indicated in their designation: witnesses. If incorrect scientific protocol is not followed then of course it is their job to raise an immediate objection via the lawyers that hired them. That is the whole point of the experts being present, so that they can't claim the evidence was in any way tampered with or falsified at a later date. The evidence was of legal standard.


.

 

[Vixen]

SpitfireIX asked about Vanessa Sollecito being sacked and another poster, perhaps Numbers, asked about Sollecito's aunt being slapped with a Calunnia charge. Here's some info about that.

 

[junkshop]

SpitfireIX asked about Vanessa Sollecito being sacked and another poster, perhaps Numbers, asked about Sollecito's aunt being slapped with a Calunnia charge. Here's some info about that.


View attachment 61143

Source please, for this blurry image.
I note that the Kington quote is dated 2008, while the first sentence talks about "way back in 2012".

What is this? Who wrote it? Why should anyone pay attention to it? WHY CAN'T YOU LINK TO OR QUOTE IT DIRECTLY?

 

[Vixen]

Source please, for this blurry image.
I note that the Kington quote is dated 2008, while the first sentence talks about "way back in 2012".

What is this? Who wrote it? Why should anyone pay attention to it? WHY CAN'T YOU LINK TO OR QUOTE IT DIRECTLY?

I wrote it. It was from my own research.



.

 

[junkshop]

I wrote it. It was from my own research.

Great, then you should be able to answer a question that I haven't been able to: What is the source of the Tom Kington quote? because every search engine I've tried just points back at TJMK, and only TJMK.

 

[Vixen]

Great, then you should be able to answer a question that I haven't been able to: What is the source of the Tom Kington quote? because every search engine I've tried just points back at TJMK, and only TJMK.

Here you go. My quotes are always properly sourced.

FROM TOM KINGTON, GUARDIAN 22 June 2008, as stated and as credited

Police tapping the phones of the father of Italian student Raffaele Sollecito overheard discussions that appeared to suggest plans being made to get senior politicians to use their influence and get detectives whom the Sollecitos considered hostile taken off the case. The phone tap information is in files handed over to lawyers as magistrate Giuliano Mignini officially completed the investigation into the strangling and stabbing of Kercher, from Surrey, who was found on 2 November semi-naked in a pool of blood in her bedroom in Perugia.

'We've got to flay the Perugia flying squad,' a family member was overheard saying, according to the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera. 'If we can get rid of the head of homicide and that other one, we'll be OK.'

Relatives of Sollecito, including his sister, a policewoman, were also overheard discussing politicians who could help their case. Giulia Buongiorno, a lawyer and MP in Silvio Berlusconi's ruling coalition, has now been retained to represent Sollecito. 'She can help out on this case at a political level,' Sollecito's father was overheard saying.

Sollecito's father, Franco, a well-to-do doctor from Bari in southern Italy, has campaigned to prove his son's innocence, even to the point of allegedly leaking to a TV station a video obtained from the crime scene showing Kercher's corpse, as well as highlighting perceived errors by the investigators, including the delayed recovery of parts of Kercher's bra strap which were found to carry Sollecito's DNA. Police are holding in custody Sollecito, 24; his former girlfriend and Kercher's flatmate, American student Amanda Knox, 20; and a third suspect, Rudy Guede, 21. All three deny involvement in the vicious killing.

Phone-tap drama in Meredith murder

Family of suspect in Meredith Kercher's murder investigation accused of attempting to interfere with inquiry

www.theguardian.com

 

[Vixen]

Here too is an article explaining why Vanessa Sollecito comes under suspicion 28 June 2008

The role of Carabinieri lieutenant Vanessa Sollecito seems to emerge forcefully from the latest wiretaps published by the daily newspaper LIBERO…


PHONE CALLS FROM SOLLECITO TO POLITICIANS FOR RAF – Relatives accused of manipulating the investigation. Lieutenant sister: “I’ll break a finger and go to civilian so I can get him out”



The Perugia crime. There is the sister of Raffaele Sollecito, the student from Giovinazzo accused of killing the English girl Meredith Kercher, who phones Pope Francis and announces that she is ready to break a finger in order to "transition to the civilian roles of the Carabinieri" and thus be able to carry out the "illegal" plan to get her little brother out of prison and help him "get away from this ◊◊◊◊◊◊ country".

Vanessa Sollecito is 31 years old and is a lieutenant in the Carabinieri force in the Lazio Region. She too, like her father and the rest of her relatives (uncles, brother-in-law, cousins, dad's second wife), is seeking the support of "excellent" people to exonerate Raffy and have the "real culprits" transferred. These would be the policemen who accused him and the magistrates who don't want to hear about freeing him.

The Sollecito “clan” (this is how those investigating the murder on Via Della Pergola define Raffaele’s family members) are registered as part of a second strand of the investigation into the crime of November 2. The alleged crimes are: defamation, violation of privacy, arbitrary publication of documents from a criminal proceeding. It is 6:20 PM on March 3 when Vanessa phones her father (a well-known cardiologist in Puglia) and announces: “I met a guy from the prison police who works at the Ministry of Justice. He says that a union representative explained to him that there is a way to move into the civilian roles of the Carabinieri, even if it is not very legal. It is that I break a finger, if things go badly for Raffy, to lose my eligibility and move from authority into the civilian roles.” Francesco Sollecito is very angry. Not because of his daughter's broken finger but because he knows he is being tapped: "You must not speak on this phone, it is tapped," he shouts. And Vanessa: "Yours will be tapped, but not mine!"
Two weeks later, it is the morning of March 17 - 10:59 a.m., Vanessa tries to phone the senator of the IdV Domenico Formisano to meet him. And she tells her father: He is a friend of ours. He asked me a favor for a boy who has to stay in Rome. He will go to his office on Wednesday at 12:30, I hope to please him and then use it and help Raffaele. He is Di Pietro's number two."

On May 1, at 10:23, Aunt Sara Achille (wife of Francesco Sollecito's brother, Giuseppe) said: "Listen Franco, Senator Domenico Nania told me to call him for a meeting in Rome. You know, it's always better to have a nice..." And Sara would like to interest "even the Honorable Renato Schifani" in the story.

Three days earlier, at four in the afternoon, Vanessa again speaks in a "sarcastic" tone to her father: "Those people still go to take footprints... Colonel De Fulvio, who is the one from the RIS, says that if they are still at this point... And he offered to meet with the lawyer Bongiorno as a friendship, to see the scientific material...". Sollecito interrupts her: "You must not talk about these things on this phone, THIS IS UNDER CONTROL! Call me later." Uncle Giuseppe Sollecito, on July 30, makes offensive remarks towards the magistrates of Perugia because "they did not investigate the investigative lead of the drug addict found covered in blood near the victim's house on the day of the crime... and this only for the purpose of keeping Raffaele in prison." His brother Francesco responds: "I'll skin those guys alive... and let them hear me."

Mara Papagni, Raffaele's stepmother, entrusts herself completely to the lawyer Giulia Bongiorno: «That one, Mrs. Trentapalle, will sort everyone out... She knows how to behave in certain situations».

The strategy of Sollecito's family is clear in other wiretaps: they want to put pressure on the judges of the Court of Cassation to accept the appeal presented by the boy's lawyers, they want the investigation to be taken away from some investigators deemed inconvenient. In their sights are especially Commissioner Monica Napoleoni, head of the Homicide Section, and Giacinto Profazio, head of the Flying Squad. In the phone calls, the Sollecitos call them "bastards, pigs, sons of bitches". And they agree: "We have to find someone who can intervene in any way". We read in the drafts: "We must prevent the police from committing other atrocities".

The "clan" accuses him of having falsified the evidence to frame Raffy. And for this reason they contact journalists and television stations to provide documents and images to distribute (like those that portray the mangled body of poor Mez after the crime and broadcast by a local TV station in Puglia). They wanted to "prove that the scientists worked dirty to frame Raffaele."

Now the Sollecitos and their wives are under investigation.
( Article by Cristiana Lodi, published by LIBERO on 28 June 2008 )

This is an auto-google translate. You can read the original Italian article here:

Squadra Mobile di Perugia, pubblicate altre intercettazioni - Sap Sindacato Autonomo Polizia

Il ruolo della tenente dei Carabinieri, Vanessa Sollecito, pare emergere con forza dalle ultime intercettazioni pubblicate dal quotidiano LIBERO… LE TELEFONATE DEI SOLLECITO AI POLITICI PER RAF – I parenti accusati di manipolare l&#39inchiesta. La sorella tenente: “Mi rompo un dito e passo al...

www.sap-nazionale.org

 

[junkshop]

Ta.

ETA: That was for the source, not the other, unsolicited (by me, at least) thing. I've not read that yet.

ETA2: I'm curious, why did you post a barely legible and uncited image of your writing, rather than link to or credit the website?

 

[Numbers]

SpitfireIX asked about Vanessa Sollecito being sacked and another poster, perhaps Numbers, asked about Sollecito's aunt being slapped with a Calunnia charge. Here's some info about that.


View attachment 61143

Vixen, why would you mention my name, even after a "perhaps" as having "asked" about "Sollecito's aunt being slapped with a Calunnia charge".

You and any reader may be reassured that I never, ever posted any question about "Sollecito's aunt" in any way, shape, or form. In fact, I have no knowledge of whether or not Sollecito has an aunt.

Secondly, I join junkshop in questioning why the yellow-background alleged Guardian article by Tom Kington is dated 21 June 2008 on the bottom line while the top line refers to an event "Way back in 2012". Why are there two different sized fonts in the alleged article, and why is there a period after the 4th letter of the word "Sollecito's" so that it appears as "Soll.cito's"? And why, in your post #4190, do you claim to have written it, while making it appear to be some cut and paste of newspaper articles? And then in your post #4192, you provide a citation and quotes from a different article dated 22 June 2008 attributed to Kington, but with information not matching your previous post #4190? Is this a rather crude hoax or an example of disorganized thinking and researching?

 

[junkshop]

...Guardian article by Tom Kington is dated 21 June 2008...And then in your post #4192, you provide a citation and quotes from a[n] article dated 22 June 2008 attributed to Kington...

Good catch, I missed that.

Also, the quoted Kington article was from The Observer, not The Guardian.

 

[Numbers]

No, the DNA evidence was hardly "perfectly solid". What we know about the knife is....

• Improper chain of custody. Opening the sealed envelope in the police station was a complete fail.
• Sample 36B was identical to 36C, yet Stefanoni listed 36B positive and 36C as negative, with no explanation for doing so.
• Sample 36B tested negative for blood, for human species and for DNA
• The sample was over-amplified, violating protocols.
• The sample was tested only once, which means the results can not be considered reliable.
• The knife was completely devoid of blood. It's not possible to remove all the blood and still leave DNA.
• The wound was not a good forensic fit for the knife, as stated numerous times.

You're in denial if you choose to ignore all these facts and still think the results are solid. And no, I did not say Stefanoni tried to frame them. What I am saying is Mignini needed a way to link Amanda to the crime, and so I believe Stefanoni's goal was to find that link no matter what. The lab results she got on 36B was all she needed to know nothing was there, yet there she was, stubbornly over-amplifying the sample, desperate to find something.

Stefanoni's goal, not as uncommon among police forensic technicians as one would hope, to find the link no matter what is pretty hard to distinguish from "framing".

Also, Stefanoni refused to turn over records of all the DNA controls - negative and positive - although 3 controls (1 negative, 2 positive) whose results she provided showed signs of contamination (the negative control had DNA in it, but should have none; the positive controls had more DNA in them than their nominal preset amounts). Furthermore, Stefanoni refused to turn over true copies of her DNA digital testing records to the defense or the court-appointed DNA experts (C&V) - a refusal that is on the same level of arousing suspicion of hiding misconduct as the failure of the police to document the interrogation of 5 - 6 November 2007.

IIRC, the knife was DNA tested by Stefanoni before Knox and Sollecito had lawyers, so no defense observers were present during that testing. That is, CPP Article 360 could not be fulfilled during that DNA testing.

 

[Stacyhs]

Do you not understand how a criminal trial works?

What a load of rubbish. It's yet another example of your habitual accusations that you cannot support with any evidence including the accusation that Gill was 'bent'. It's another example of the years-long attempt to discredit any expert whose professional opinion does not support the guilt narrative. That includes Peter Gill, one of the most respected geneticists in the world.

Peter Gill was paid by the defence to write all of that. Gill's claims were never part of the trial. He was never cross-examined and his claims were never tested. Most importantly, Gill never had access to primary material that made up the evidence files. He got his information secondhand from Conti & Vecchiotti

You have never presented evidence that British expert Gill was paid anything by the defense. Another unsupported by evidence claim by you.

However, do you not understand that expert witnesses do not work for free? The prosecution has the advantage of the state paying for their expert witnesses while the defense has to pay for their experts themselves. Boemia and Rinaldi were paid by the state (which you previously denied but I cited the hiring notice...which you never acknowledged).
Gill had access to Stefanoni's analysis as well as C&V's analysis.

Professor Peter Gill, a lecturer of Forensic Genetics at Oslo University, Norway, looked in-depth at the DNA results from the crime scene using the originally (sic) analysis by the Italian Police Scientific Department and also a second independent analysis ordered by the judge in the first appeal.

Conti & Vecchiotti who were excoriated by the Italian Supreme Court (Chieffi) as improper and impermissible.

Chieffi did no such thing. He stated that Vecchiotti should have tested one sample on the knife that she believed too small to use. Their work was not found to be improper or impermissible.

Prof Torre is far more eminent and respected than a tinpot FOAK scientist misguidedly championing for the release of an 'innocent' and misusing his credentials to to try to bring this about.

Only YOU would call Peter Gill, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Forensic Genetics, Forensic Genetics Research Group, Oslo University Hospital, Norway a "tinpot FOAK scientist"! Even a UK tabloid describes Gill as "One of the world’s leading DNA experts."

All of the experts who gave testimony in court for the prosecution, Torrecellli, Novelli, Stefanoni (whom Chieffi said was perfectly good) concurred the DNA evidence on the knife was sound. Under article 360 IIRC Stefanoni was statutorily obliged to perform one test - in front of expert Torre for RS (AK didn't bother to send an expert defence witness) a PCR - of which the results are ALL done by computer so simply not possible to 'fiddle' them.

Explain why there was no blood on the knife. How did it get so clean that not a trace of blood was left?

As for the false claim of 'too low' that again is a meaningless notation an uneducated ignorant person spotted in some notes and decided to try to put it forward as proof the test was null and void. In addition, the claim the defence never received the raw data is also a lie, as the courts confirmed Stafanoni DID lodge all the papers with the court, which is the correct process.

From Follain:

[Stefanoni] had failed to document her work properly, he said, and had written ‘too low’ four times alongside an entry for the samples taken from the kitchen knife.........“Too low” means it shouldn’t have been used for analysis,’ Tagliabracci said."

You wrote: As for the false claim of 'too low' that again is a meaningless notation an uneducated ignorant person spotted in some notes and decided to try to put it forward as proof the test was null and void."

Tagliabracci is NOT an "uneducated ignorant person." He's a professor of forensic medicine. Let me guess: he's also
'bent'.

 

[Numbers]

IIUC "Too L

What a load of rubbish. It's yet another example of your habitual accusations that you cannot support with any evidence including the accusation that Gill was 'bent'. It's another example of the years-long attempt to discredit any expert whose professional opinion does not support the guilt narrative. That includes Peter Gill, one of the most respected geneticists in the world.


You have never presented evidence that British expert Gill was paid anything by the defense. Another unsupported by evidence claim by you.

However, do you not understand that expert witnesses do not work for free? The prosecution has the advantage of the state paying for their expert witnesses while the defense has to pay for their experts themselves. Boemia and Rinaldi were paid by the state (which you previously denied but I cited the hiring notice...which you never acknowledged).
Gill had access to Stefanoni's analysis as well as C&V's analysis.


Chieffi did no such thing. He stated that Vecchiotti should have tested one sample on the knife that she believed too small to use. Their work was not found to be improper or impermissible.



Only YOU would call Peter Gill, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Forensic Genetics, Forensic Genetics Research Group, Oslo University Hospital, Norway a "tinpot FOAK scientist"! Even a UK tabloid describes Gill as "One of the world’s leading DNA experts."

Explain why there was no blood on the knife. How did it get so clean that not a trace of blood was left?


From Follain:

You wrote: As for the false claim of 'too low' that again is a meaningless notation an uneducated ignorant person spotted in some notes and decided to try to put it forward as proof the test was null and void."

Tagliabracci is NOT an "uneducated ignorant person." He's a professor of forensic medicine. Let me guess: he's also
'bent'.

IIUC, "Too Low" is the reading of the fluorometer itself. It is incapable of measuring small or indetectable (to its level of sensitivity) amounts of DNA.

 

[TruthCalls]

They can't have 'avoided all the blood'. There would have been a massive spurt of blood, according to blood splatter experts, so it would have been all over their clothes. RG said his trousers were covered in blood.

Exactly, and yet with all that blood spraying everywhere, and where Guede couldn't help but get soaked in blood, leave a bloody palm print, bloody shoe prints and plenty of DNA in many places, no trace of Amanda or Raffaele could be found, nor was there anything found on any of their clothes. Go figure.

I'm glad you finally realized this. Perhaps you're finally on your way to understanding the case.