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

[Vixen]

1. You did NOT answer my question: "Will that sample contain both his DNA/blood and my non-blood DNA?"
2. I did NOT say that it wasn't "mixed Knox/Kercher DNA". It was. Now answer the question.

Now that you've declared you "trust" Stefanoni, do you still want to argue that a negative TMB test means no blood is present? You'd be contradicting her as "a trained police forensic officer":

(Hellmann MR.)

You 'trust' Stefanoni (who held a mere BS), but you accuse several other more qualified forensic experts (Ph.D's) of being incompetent or 'bent': Conti, Vecchiotti, Hampikian, Gill.

An academic is not the same as a specialist technician. A friend of mine had a first class honours degree in Chemistry. It got her entry into the police forensic division. But her qualifications were zippo until she trained and qualified as a forensic scientist. It's all very well Dr Peter Gill sitting in his ivory tower pontificating on the theoretical possibilities of contamination (as if forensic scientists aren't trained in this!) which has a place in exchanging ideas with fellow academics. In the meantime TRAINED forensic scientists (who were academical at entry level) are highly qualified and highly selected for a highly sought after position. Your claim that academics sitting in universities are better at forensics than trained forensic police technicians who have on-the-job experience is an incredibly immature perspective. And an ignorant one too, so please stop with your personal rankings, which are not like-for-like and false equivalents.

 

[Vixen]

No. I'm saying that the mixed DNA in the bathroom (in fact, anywhere) does not have to be from the same source (blood, saliva, buccal, epithelial, etc) or deposited at the same time. So the mixed DNA is not evidence of anything except they both lived in the same house and shared the same bathroom.

I keep forgetting. You know more about forensic DNA sitting behind your keyboard than someone with forensic training with the Rome Scientific Police. Better let them know that fellow housemates are exempt from forensic suspicion because erm, er, it just is.

 

[Vixen]

Hahahahahaha! And there you go again, right on cue! Accusing a judge and lawyer of being corrupt and mafia connected and accusing Prof. Gill of being corrupt.

One of most prominent and respected forensic experts in the world agreed with C & V so that must make him "bent" in your reality. So, what motive have you conjured up for Gill to present a "phony report"?

I didn't say Gill was corrupt. I said he got his information from Conti and Vecchiotti (who were corrupt, and excoriated and eviscerated by Chieffi Supreme Court as intellectually dishonest). Gill's report was never entered into evidence. He did not take the stand as an expert witness. He was not cross-examined. His do-gooding report was never tested. Yet Bongiorno - who IS mafia-friendly in that she represents politicians charged with Mafia connections; for example, Andreotti and Berlusconi, who got away with their shenanigans via the same Art 239, 'insufficient evidence' - browbeat the Marasca-Bruno fifth chambers final Supreme Court with Gill's report over two and a half days when all the other parties' counsel were only allowed a skeleton submission (= this is usually stipulated as to be no longer than one side of a double spaced A4 page, or two pages at most, because judges simply don't want to plough through reams and reams) and to sum up verbally within a twenty-minute time limit. If you are unable to see anything irregular about this, then clearly I am wasting my breath. Maybe people are so used to this type of thing in the USA they can no longer recognise it.

 

[Vixen]

That's an interesting story. Previously, Vixen falsely claimed that RS's family is closely related to the Canadian Sollecito crime family. Why? Because they come from the same area and have the same surname. She claimed that Raffaele's father attended mobster Rocco Sollecito's funeral. As proof of this, she presented a photo claiming it was Dr. S coming out of the church where the memorial was held.

View attachment 62047
That turned out to be false. The mobster Rocco S was killed May 27, 2016.
The photo Vixen presented as evidence was published in Nov. 2010. It's Dr. Sollecito coming out of the courthouse with defense lawyer Delfo Berretti.

NO evidence that Raffaele's family is closely related to Rocco's branch has ever been presented by anyone, much less Vixen.

That information came from a local Italian newspaper, which I reproduced as my source.

 

[Vixen]

There are two possibilities - perhaps not mutually exclusive - for the unlawful and/or illegal actions and inactions during the interrogation:

1. The police and prosecutor suspected Knox and Sollecito according to an initial theory of the crime and proceeded to take coercive actions to force Knox and Sollecito to make statements supporting that theory - that is, to frame them - in order to solve the crime.

2. The police and prosecutor recognized the vulnerability of Knox and Sollecito to be made into suspects and proceeded to take coercive actions to force Knox and Sollecito to make statements providing alleged evidence establishing that they were legitimate suspects and solving the crime - that is, to frame them. The police and prosecutor evolved a theory of the crime before or soon after the interrogation to justify the alleged evidence obtained during the interrogation.

Giobbi, in his testimony during the Massei court trial, stated that he had considered Knox and Sollecito suspicious because of their (noncriminal) behavior. For example, he had found Sollecito's behavior suspicious because Sollecito was eager to meet with Knox when she had been interviewed as a witness prior to the 5-6 November interrogation. Giobbi claimed that because of his suspicions he had arranged for them to be called in for a "special" interrogation on 5 November.

That the police and prosecutor did not undertake to document the interrogation events - the questions and answers or even the personnel present - suggests that they intended to act contrary to procedural and/or criminal law, as they deemed necessary, during the interrogation. The documentation in the record, at least for Knox, IIRC, is a list of names of males acquainted with Kercher supplied early in the interrogation by Knox and the statement in Italian prepared by the police and signed by Knox that implicated Lumumba.

The police: such suspicious bastards, eh?! Anyone would think they were trained to be observant and suspicious. You keep forgetting that it wasn't just AK and RS who were being keenly observed, Filomena also had a hard time. Mez' friend, Sophie Purton, was told she could not go back to England with her parents, who came to collect her - and she was wired tapped - because of her connection to 'Shaky' (who, as you may remember, Knox loudly tried to direct police attention on to him whilst in the police waiting room). Did Filomena, Shaky or Sophie ever complain about being victimised by the police? No. They understood the reasons for the suspicions. Napoleoni, Ficarra, Giobbi and Donnino yes, they were all utter bastards, but that is what makes a good cop. Someone who can think the same way as a crook. Think two steps ahead. Unlike soft-hearted do-gooders a good cop has no delusions about how lovely human nature is. They deal with the scum of the earth almost every working day. Why be surprised, in a particularly gruesome and brutal murder? What were you expecting, tea in dainty porcelain, with pointy little fingers and little cakes, chatting about the weather?

 

[Vixen]

As I have discussed, and you have, as usual, ignored, there is no credible evidence that Bongiorno was ever involved in any Mafia corruption. But, of course, that doesn't stop you from conspiracy-mongering.


Which was done for perfectly understandable reasons, your insinuations of nefarious motives notwithstanding. That aside, this had exactly zero effect on the outcome of the trials or the appeals.

Of course there is evidence. Bongiorno is from Sicily were politicians were traditionally elected to represent the well-established mafia families there. She was brought up in the mafia culture and proud of it. They say you can determine who you worship by whatever is at the forefront of your mind. Bongiorno is a self-professed Andreotti fan. She acquired his office and sits at his desk. She doesn't hide it!

 

[Vixen]

What is your evidence that Raffaele and his family were or are connected with the Mafia?

Rocky Sollecito of the Canadian Mafia was from the Sollecito family of Bari.

 

[Vixen]

That's one way to avoid answering questions or addressing facts you don't like!


It has to do with his character. It reveals what he is capable of and has done. As the sayings go:
"A leopard doesn't change its spots."
"The best indicator of future behavior is past behavior."

Not when it comes to young adults, whose brains may not be fully developed until their twenties. Conflicts with parents, laziness, lying in bed, dropping out of school or job hopping are all perfectly normal for an adolescent. Claiming that it is obvious Guede is a murderer/ rapist because he fell out with his adopted family is asinine.

 

[Stacyhs]

You asserted that it was corroborated that Guede burgled Taramantano. Your partner backing you up is not material substantiation.

She was a WITNESS as she was there. Her relationship to Tramontano is irrelevant. Once again, you're implying that his girlfriend would lie for him for some reason just like you claim Altieri and Popovic were lying.

Then according to your logic, Filomena's boyfriend cannot substantiate her alibi that she with him the night of the murder.

If Guede was never charged or bailed over the Taramantano incident then it has never been substantiated.

Then according to your logic, if Guede was never charged or bailed over the Del Prato incident, then it has never been substantiated.

Likewise the watch you claim he stole from an old lady and set fire to her residence. There was no charge.

a) I never claimed he stole the watch or set her house of fire. But I highly suspect he did.
b) I never mentioned the watch or fire in the comment you said was full of "fibs".

So when you claimed it was an established fact Guede burgled Taramantano

I never said any such thing. I said his partner, who witnessed it, confirmed his account.

and also, the elderly lady, together with arson, you were lying and you knew it.

I never said he burgled her house or set it on fire. Do I think he did? Probably. After all, he lived next door, she had a woman's gold watch stolen, he was caught with a woman's gold watch when he had no means of buying one, and he is a proven thief.

Alternatively, you lack the ability to establish facts. If so, it is little wonder you are easily taken in by PR and hoaxes.

Heh heh heh... You lack the ability to admit you're ever wrong even when proved otherwise with evidence. You lack the ability to accept anything that doesn't support your narrative. It's little wonder you are so easily taken in by TJMK and morons like Quennell.

 

[Numbers]

No. I'm saying that the mixed DNA in the bathroom (in fact, anywhere) does not have to be from the same source (blood, saliva, buccal, epithelial, etc) or deposited at the same time. So the mixed DNA is not evidence of anything except they both lived in the same house and shared the same bathroom.

I agree with your statement above. What confused me was the how the hint appeared to incorrectly align with the questions (I've added numbers to your two questions and respective hint answers):

...if I brush my teeth before going to bed and leave my saliva or buccal cells in the sink then my husband cuts himself shaving the next morning and his blood falls on top that saliva or buccal cells, (1) can the swab that collects that sample differentiate between his blood/DNA and those cells with my DNA? (2) Will that sample contain both his DNA/blood and my non-blood DNA?

HINT: (1)Yes and (2)No, respectively.

The word "respectively" in this context should mean each item in a series taken in the order designated or mentioned. Assuming the usual current methods of DNA profiling, including the methods used by Stefanoni in 2007, the following holds true. The hint answer (1) is not correct, because the swab (collecting both samples, where one overlays the other) and thus the DNA profiling won't be able to tell the difference between the buccal cells from one person and the white blood cells from the other. The cells on the swab get washed off into a liquid solution from the swab and the cells are broken up (lysed) in that liquid to obtain the DNA. Thus, hint answer (2) is not correct, because the DNA from both cell types, each from a different person, will be mixed since the two cell types are in the same liquid sample when they undergo lysis. The correct answers are thus (1) No and (2) Yes.

As a bonus confusion, the DNA profile mixture obtained will be somewhat ambiguous. The fact that the DNA is a mixture of DNAs from a male and a female could be detected readily from sex-specific loci. The presence of extra alleles at some loci will also indicate a mixture. However, it would be an uncertain process to try to decipher who had contributed to the mixture because mixtures are not generally unique. The fact that the reference DNA profiles of the two individuals occupying the house and using that sink would be seen to provide a match to the mixture would therefore be important in the analysis.

 

[Stacyhs]

An academic is not the same as a specialist technician.

This rates in the top 10 of a very long list of your desperate excuses. Conti, Vecchiotti, Gill and Hampikian are NOT just academicians. They do actual forensic analyses.

A friend of mine had a first class honours degree in Chemistry. It got her entry into the police forensic division. But her qualifications were zippo until she trained and qualified as a forensic scientist.

And this has exactly what to do with C&V, Gill, and Hampikian? Or are you now going to claim they have never "trained and qualified as a forensic scientist"?

It's all very well Dr Peter Gill sitting in his ivory tower pontificating on the theoretical possibilities of contamination (as if forensic scientists aren't trained in this!) which has a place in exchanging ideas with fellow academics. In the meantime TRAINED forensic scientists (who were academical at entry level) are highly qualified and highly selected for a highly sought after position. Your claim that academics sitting in universities are better at forensics than trained forensic police technicians who have on-the-job experience is an incredibly immature perspective. And an ignorant one too, so please stop with your personal rankings, which are not like-for-like and false equivalents.

Ah...should have known you'd resort to exactly that!
Now you're claiming that they're not only bent/incompetent but that they aren't "trained" in forensic science thus are real "forensic scientists"!
Just how do you think they got to be in the positions they're in, Vixen, if they aren't "trained forensic scientists"? So Hellmann just assigned two "untrained, non-forensic scientists" to review the DNA work in the biggest murder case in Italy at the time according to you. And Gill and Hampikian, two of the most prominent DNA experts in the world, also aren't "trained forensic experts"!k

Your comments are getting more and more off the wall.


And you never answered my question: Will a swab pick up any DNA regardless of its source or when it was deposited resulting in a mixed sample? I've made that as easy as possible for you. It's a simple YES or NO.

 

[Stacyhs]

I didn't say Gill was corrupt.

You have in the past. In this very thread you called his report "phony".

I said he got his information from Conti and Vecchiotti (who were corrupt, and excoriated and eviscerated by Chieffi Supreme Court as intellectually dishonest).

And there it is! He looked at the same information C&V did...provided by Stefanoni... and analyzed it himself. That he agrees with C&V is what rattles you. If he'd agreed with Stefanoni, you'd be lauding him with your trademark hyperbole.

Gill's report was never entered into evidence. He did not take the stand as an expert witness. He was not cross-examined. His do-gooding report was never tested.

It didn't have to be. They had C & V to testify and by cross-examined. But Gill is referenced 4 times in Hellmann's MR. I guess no one informed him that C & V weren't 'trained forensic scientists'.

How can a report be "tested"?

Yet Bongiorno - who IS mafia-friendly in that she represents politicians charged with Mafia connections; for example, Andreotti and Berlusconi, who got away with their shenanigans via the same Art 239, 'insufficient evidence'

So a lawyer defending two top Italian politicians has to be "mafia-friendly" in order to do so. In that case, I guess any lawyer defending a murderer is "murder friendly" and a lawyer defending a rapist is "rape friendly".

I guess that makes Maresca "murder and sexual assault friendly", too.

Oh, yes...that old "insufficient evidence loophole" you and other PGP are always on about. So, you think people should be convicted of serious crimes when the evidence does not prove guilt BARD?

- browbeat the Marasca-Bruno fifth chambers final Supreme Court with Gill's report over two and a half days

I thought you said it was never entered into evidence. "Browbeat" as if Supreme Court judges would allow a lawer to "browbeat" them. You really can't help yourself. Do you think your hyperbole makes your statements more credible? They don't.

when all the other parties' counsel were only allowed a skeleton submission (= this is usually stipulated as to be no longer than one side of a double spaced A4 page, or two pages at most, because judges simply don't want to plough through reams and reams) and to sum up verbally within a twenty-minute time limit.

Because 5 Supreme Court judges can't control their courtroom, right?

If you are unable to see anything irregular about this, then clearly I am wasting my breath.

You ARE wasting your breath because I've heard it all before and your claims are mostly misinformation or exaggerated nonsense.

Maybe people are so used to this type of thing in the USA they can no longer recognise it.

When you have to resort to comments like that, then you might as well just wave a white flag because you've lost all credibility. Not that you had any before.

 

[Stacyhs]

Stacyhs said:
No. I'm saying that the mixed DNA in the bathroom (in fact, anywhere) does not have to be from the same source (blood, saliva, buccal, epithelial, etc) or deposited at the same time. So the mixed DNA is not evidence of anything except they both lived in the same house and shared the same bathroom.

I keep forgetting. You know more about forensic DNA sitting behind your keyboard than someone with forensic training with the Rome Scientific Police. Better let them know that fellow housemates are exempt from forensic suspicion because erm, er, it just is.

You're not forgetting; you're in denial.

A DNA mixture can occur when biological material from more than one individual is deposited on the same surface.

DNA mixtures may be detected in many property crimes where items in a house or a vehicle are handled by a burglar but also touched previously by the owner(s) or other people not associated with the crime in question.

Mixed DNA is commonly observed and is not equivalent to mixed blood. In general DNA samples cannot be dated, and any two profiles within a sample may have been deposited at different times. The mixed DNA in the bathroom may have been created by Meredith's blood falling on Amanda's biological matter that was already there. The chances of this happening might have been lessened if the forensic police had taken a smaller trace with respect to the washbasin, for example. (Hampikian)

Why don't you present evidence that mixed samples cannot be deposited at different times?

 

[Numbers]

I agree with your statement above. What confused me was the how the hint appeared to incorrectly align with the questions (I've added numbers to your two questions and respective hint answers):



The word "respectively" in this context should mean each item in a series taken in the order designated or mentioned. Assuming the usual current methods of DNA profiling, including the methods used by Stefanoni in 2007, the following holds true. The hint answer (1) is not correct, because the swab (collecting both samples, where one overlays the other) and thus the DNA profiling won't be able to tell the difference between the buccal cells from one person and the white blood cells from the other. The cells on the swab get washed off into a liquid solution from the swab and the cells are broken up (lysed) in that liquid to obtain the DNA. Thus, hint answer (2) is not correct, because the DNA from both cell types, each from a different person, will be mixed since the two cell types are in the same liquid sample when they undergo lysis. The correct answers are thus (1) No and (2) Yes.

As a bonus confusion, the DNA profile mixture obtained will be somewhat ambiguous. The fact that the DNA is a mixture of DNAs from a male and a female could be detected readily from sex-specific loci. The presence of extra alleles at some loci will also indicate a mixture. However, it would be an uncertain process to try to decipher who had contributed to the mixture because mixtures are not generally unique. The fact that the reference DNA profiles of the two individuals occupying the house and using that sink would be seen to provide a match to the mixture would therefore be important in the analysis.

Looking at the above discussion, the question a reader may have is, how then do specialists in forensic DNA profiling separate the sperm cell DNA from the female epithelial cell DNA in a rape kit? Several biochemical techniques can be employed, relying on the biochemical differences between sperm cells and epithelial cells. Here's an abstract that discusses the older method and proposes a possibly improved method:

Profiling sperm DNA present on vaginal swabs taken from rape victims often contributes to identifying and incarcerating rapists. Large amounts of the victim’s epithelial cells contaminate the sperm present on swabs, however, and complicate this process. The standard method for obtaining relatively pure sperm DNA from a vaginal swab is to digest the epithelial cells with Proteinase K in order to solubilize the victim’s DNA, and to then physically separate the soluble DNA from the intact sperm by pelleting the sperm, removing the victim’s fraction, and repeatedly washing the sperm pellet. An alternative approach that does not require washing steps is to digest with Proteinase K, pellet the sperm, remove the victim’s fraction, and then digest the residual victim’s DNA with a nuclease.

Source: https://investigativegenetics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/2041-2223-3-25

Here's another article abstract suggesting a new and possibly improved method:

This report first describes a two-step organic differential extraction as one of the most popular methods for separating different sources of DNA encountered in a rape kit, concluding that this method is time-consuming, technique-dependent, and difficult to automate. It can also result in relatively inefficient separations of female DNA from the male sample components. In addition to the application of pressure cycling technology in the selective digestion of sperm cells from evidence mixtures, the current study also improved sample recovery from cotton swabs, which are often used to collect evidence at a crime scene; however, the inefficient sample recovery from this substrate has been examined in numerous studies. In order to improve DNA recovery and hence improve downstream genetic analysis, the effect of alkaline lyses on sample recovery from cotton swabs was studied. The alkaline lysis and PCT method described in this report uses inexpensive buffers, has a very short extraction time; and most importantly, can recover most of the DNA from the matrix. This is a significant improvement on existing methods. ....

Source: https://nij.ojp.gov/library/publica...ale-dna-rape-kits-and-other-forensic-evidence

 

[Vixen]

She was a WITNESS as she was there. Her relationship to Tramontano is irrelevant. Once again, you're implying that his girlfriend would lie for him for some reason just like you claim Altieri and Popovic were lying.

Then according to your logic, Filomena's boyfriend cannot substantiate her alibi that she with him the night of the murder.


Then according to your logic, if Guede was never charged or bailed over the Del Prato incident, then it has never been substantiated.


a) I never claimed he stole the watch or set her house of fire. But I highly suspect he did.
b) I never mentioned the watch or fire in the comment you said was full of "fibs".


I never said any such thing. I said his partner, who witnessed it, confirmed his account.


I never said he burgled her house or set it on fire. Do I think he did? Probably. After all, he lived next door, she had a woman's gold watch stolen, he was caught with a woman's gold watch when he had no means of buying one, and he is a proven thief.



Heh heh heh... You lack the ability to admit you're ever wrong even when proved otherwise with evidence. You lack the ability to accept anything that doesn't support your narrative. It's little wonder you are so easily taken in by TJMK and morons like Quennell.

Guede was never charged with Taramantano's claimed burglary so it remains your personal conjecture. Likewise, common sense should tell you that if Guede was in possession of this lady's gold watch then it was easy enough for the police to ask her to confirm it as being hers. The fact is, he was never charged with her claimed theft and arson. There are thieves everywhere. There is also popular insurance fraud. Your 'strong suspicion' it was Guede because he lived nearby is irrational because Sollecito also lived nearby.

 

[Vixen]

This rates in the top 10 of a very long list of your desperate excuses. Conti, Vecchiotti, Gill and Hampikian are NOT just academicians. They do actual forensic analyses.

And this has exactly what to do with C&V, Gill, and Hampikian? Or are you now going to claim they have never "trained and qualified as a forensic scientist"?


Ah...should have known you'd resort to exactly that!
Now you're claiming that they're not only bent/incompetent but that they aren't "trained" in forensic science thus are real "forensic scientists"!
Just how do you think they got to be in the positions they're in, Vixen, if they aren't "trained forensic scientists"? So Hellmann just assigned two "untrained, non-forensic scientists" to review the DNA work in the biggest murder case in Italy at the time according to you. And Gill and Hampikian, two of the most prominent DNA experts in the world, also aren't "trained forensic experts"!k

Your comments are getting more and more off the wall.


And you never answered my question: Will a swab pick up any DNA regardless of its source or when it was deposited resulting in a mixed sample? I've made that as easy as possible for you. It's a simple YES or NO.

For goodness sake, an academic is not an equivalent of a professional. For example, someone who teaches anatomy at a school, with masters and PhD's and what have you, is totally in a different category than a trained surgeon who performs surgery as his or her profession. To claim the former is superior or inferior to the other is an example of the logical fallacy of the false equivalence, based on your snobbery that an academic sitting on their arse all day is superior to someone who 'does' the actual work. As for the mixed DNA found in Filomena's room, it is Mez' spilt blood mixed with AK's DNA and would only have mixed whilst the bodily fluids were still moist. Laura Mezzotti pointed out a large angry gash on Knox' neck shortly after the murder. Knox claimed it was a love bite from wimpy incel Sollecito. So Knox and Mez were bleeding the same time so yes, I would say that is alllowable evidence for the court. And well done, Stefanoni!

 

[Vixen]

You're not forgetting; you're in denial.





Why don't you present evidence that mixed samples cannot be deposited at different times?

Hampikian in his office in the USA, a Friend of Amanda Knox, donning his shining armour, his burning sword and jumping onto his stead and racing to the rescue of the damsel in distress. So many misguided do-gooders interfering in the process of justice because they believe the PR hard luck story.

 

[Vixen]

You have in the past. In this very thread you called his report "phony".


And there it is! He looked at the same information C&V did...provided by Stefanoni... and analyzed it himself. That he agrees with C&V is what rattles you. If he'd agreed with Stefanoni, you'd be lauding him with your trademark hyperbole.


It didn't have to be. They had C & V to testify and by cross-examined. But Gill is referenced 4 times in Hellmann's MR. I guess no one informed him that C & V weren't 'trained forensic scientists'.

How can a report be "tested"?


So a lawyer defending two top Italian politicians has to be "mafia-friendly" in order to do so. In that case, I guess any lawyer defending a murderer is "murder friendly" and a lawyer defending a rapist is "rape friendly".

I guess that makes Maresca "murder and sexual assault friendly", too.

Oh, yes...that old "insufficient evidence loophole" you and other PGP are always on about. So, you think people should be convicted of serious crimes when the evidence does not prove guilt BARD?


I thought you said it was never entered into evidence. "Browbeat" as if Supreme Court judges would allow a lawer to "browbeat" them. You really can't help yourself. Do you think your hyperbole makes your statements more credible? They don't.


Because 5 Supreme Court judges can't control their courtroom, right?


You ARE wasting your breath because I've heard it all before and your claims are mostly misinformation or exaggerated nonsense.

When you have to resort to comments like that, then you might as well just wave a white flag because you've lost all credibility. Not that you had any before.

When an expert witness is appointed by a court they are supposed to be objective and neutral, neither advocating for one party or the other. And yes, expert witness testimony is testable in court. The expert witnesses are subject to cross examination just as much as any other witness. The judge and jury can take or leave their testimony as they see fit. Gill''s report was never entered into the evidence. Gill was never cross examined as a witness, expert or otherwise. Hence, his multi-page report that Bongiono bashed the Fifth Chambers over the head with at the final Supreme Court hearing should never have been allowed as 'evidence' as it had never been weighed up at any trial or appeal. Do you get it now? Conti & Vecchiotti on whose report Gill based his, were not objective and neutral. They were advocating for the defence - Vecchiotti in the past having been caught failing to carry out her proper duties, presumably misguided by a bleeding 'do-gooding' heart more in sympathy with the defendant than their victim or possibly, with some kind of grudge against 'the establishment' - were caught red-handed by the Carabinieri, Italy's military police, of secretly working for the defence. They were caught red-handed providing defence DVD's for the defence. The corrupt Hellmann who appointed them to presumably do just that had no choice but to haul C&V before him to explain themselves. All evidence in a live trial must be shared by all parties. Any extraneous activities must be approved beforehand by the court. C&V failed to make an application to the court to (a) make up this DVD and (b) provide it solely to the defence, without the knowledge of the prosecution and civil parties. That is how C&V were objectively corrupt. That is why Chieffi gave them and Hellmann a thorough dressing down and sent the issue to a completely new court, this time in Florence, to that of Nencini's. Hellmann stepped down shortly after in disgrace. This is all factual. Not conjecture of the type you fondly cling onto.

 

[AmyStrange]

I always find it hilarious when someone who's pretending to be objective proves that they're not by the negative adjectives, adverbs, and verbs they use.

For example, "bashed the fifth chamber over the head," and, "a thorough dressing down," and, "haul C&V before him," and so much more, like the liberal use of the word, "corrupt," with no evidence to prove any of it.

That's not being factual or objective at all.

In the real world, it's called lying.


-

 

[LondonJohn]

Why the heck is anyone still indulging this ignorance, scientific illiteracy and nonsense??