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

[Stacyhs]

So Peter Gill is wrong, and the American Academy of Forensic Sciences is wrong, but you're right? Further, it was a demonstration at a seminar, and not a laboratory experiment.

Nobody knows DNA forensics better than Vixen. People don't know that. She explains it like the world has never seen before! Men, big strong men, come up to her and say, with a tear in their eye, "Thank you for explaining all about DNA forensics!"


Don't forget: Gill is bent. I wonder what motive a world-renowned and respected British DNA expert would have to lie about this case? I've yet to see any other DNA expert criticize his report. Well, except for Dr. Vixen.

 

[Stacyhs]

We should start a list of all the questions posed to Vixen that she refuses answer. But, on second thought, we'd need to hire assistants due to the enormous workload.

 

[GlennB]

Vixen's sole interest here is getting attention, and she's succeeding mightily

 

[SpitfireIX]

Naseer Ahmad was extremely well versed in this case.

So well versed that, as I noted, he confused former Italian PM Giulio Andreotti with retired Italian-American racecar driver Mario Andretti.

He came from the same part of Lahore as Mez' mother, Arlene, and as a consequence of his interest, he spent a lot of time in Perugia and attended some of the trial and followed it closely. He was also extremely intelligent and therefore I respect what he has to say.

You "respect" what he has to say because he says what you want to hear, which is that Amanda and Raffaele were let off due to Mafia influence on corrupt Italian judges, despite the lack of any real evidence.

It does not follow that one has to agree with everything he says. You have to be aware when reading anyone's opinion that it is their view.

Again, you posted his comments as "insight," with no disclaimer whatsoever. Now you're attempting to weasel out, as usual, by claiming that you didn't necessarily agree with them.

You will agree that the view of a MAGA-voting moron has less caché than someone educated in Economics. For example, PM Carney of Canada (re tariffs).

Trump has a degree in economics. Fail.

Likewise, I will take the view of Naseer more seriously than someone simply repeating soundbites about 'haters' like a nine-year-old simply because - I dunno - perhaps it makes them feel part of a granfalloon, with dopamine hits from being with fellow MAGA Reform types who feel the same happy buzz in spouting off ill-considered nonsense as each other.

Again, you take Naseer's views seriously because they're what you want to hear, despite the evidence that his acquaintance with reality is passing at best. This is exactly the same way you take Anders Björkman's views about the sinking of the Estonia seriously, despite the incontrovertible evidence that he's a lunatic conspiracy theorist who doesn't understand physics.

 

[Vixen]

Once again, you need to resort to misrepresenting what I actually said which was "I do recall that he claimed to be able to cure children of autism. As the mother of an adult child on the spectrum, that kind of **** really pisses me off." Ahmad can treat his autistic son any damn way he pleases but to tell other parents he can "cure" their child DOES piss me off because, as of now, it CANNOT BE CURED.


And this is just typical of your lying about what I said. I said NOTHING about his parenting. Why you insist on lying about what I said when we can all read what I really said is mindboggling. You've been called out on that before and not just by me.



Jesus Christ! I said NONE of the above. But it's just another great example of you twisting people's words so you can act offended and get all self-righteous.

THIS is what I said:

"I do recall that he claimed to be able to cure children of autism. As the mother of an adult child on the spectrum, that kind of **** really pisses me off."

What part of that is saying or even implying that I'm an 'expert on autism"?
What part of that is slinging mud at Ahmad as a parent?
What part of that assumes 'they are all the same'?
YOU brought up Ahmad, not me.



I'm not arguing that at all. But it would be interesting to discuss how anyone could honestly infer any of the above from what I said.

Thank you for confirming what I said, which was a person's personal beliefs [re autism] has zero relevance to this topic.

 

[Vixen]

So.....you CAN'T answer the question which is why you resort to an ad hominem.

You can't deny that two, unidentified men's DNA was on the hook. So how did it get there?

a) The two men touched it directly (and 'firmly' according to you), or
b) It was unexplained contamination/transfer

It's a simple enough choice, so make it.

Look up my previous response a day or so ago. If you are not satisfied with that, do look up 'background noise' re DNA fragments found in dust. After all these years you have no idea what DNA fragments are.

 

[Vixen]

So Peter Gill is wrong, and the American Academy of Forensic Sciences is wrong, but you're right? Further, it was a demonstration at a seminar, and not a laboratory experiment.

For heavens sake a criminal trial is not a seminar.

 

[Vixen]

So well versed that, as I noted, he confused former Italian PM Giulio Andreotti with retired Italian-American racecar driver Mario Andretti.


You "respect" what he has to say because he says what you want to hear, which is that Amanda and Raffaele were let off due to Mafia influence on corrupt Italian judges, despite the lack of any real evidence.


Again, you posted his comments as "insight," with no disclaimer whatsoever. Now you're attempting to weasel out, as usual, by claiming that you didn't necessarily agree with them.


Trump has a degree in economics. Fail.


Again, you take Naseer's views seriously because they're what you want to hear, despite the evidence that his acquaintance with reality is passing at best. This is exactly the same way you take Anders Björkman's views about the sinking of the Estonia seriously, despite the incontrovertible evidence that he's a lunatic conspiracy theorist who doesn't understand physics.

Trump went to Wharton because of rich dad and his tutor said Trump was the worst student he ever had. The guy's a moron yet this is what people vote for. It is the quality of critical thought that counts. See Trump versus Carney. Bjorkman might have some eccentric views but he knew more about ship architecture than some random on the internet.


So do you go along with the crowd with their MAGA level of reasoning or do you have enough intellectual curiosity to understand the truth of the Kercher murder? Most people here don't care, they just see themselves as being in a Knox fan club; they couldn't care less about the victim.

 

[Vixen]

Vixen's sole interest here is getting attention, and she's succeeding mightily

Explain yourself.

 

[Stacyhs]

Thank you for confirming what I said, which was a person's personal beliefs [re autism] has zero relevance to this topic.

I never disagreed with that. But I'll remind you that we can all read what was actually said so your spin, as usual, falls flat on its face. But that never stops you.

You also said a lot more about my alleged criticism of Ahmad's 'parenting'...all of which was just a blatant lie because I never mentioned his parenting at all.

 

[Vixen]

I never disagreed with that. But I'll remind you that we can all read what was actually said so your spin, as usual, falls flat on its face. But that never stops you.

You also said a lot more about my alleged criticism of Ahmad's 'parenting'...all of which was just a blatant lie because I never mentioned his parenting at all.

Stop fibbing. You said:

False. Our personal beliefs influence everything we do.

 

[SpitfireIX]

Understand how a criminal court works. Part one: finding of facts. Facts cannot be appealed. Part 2: the appeal. An appeal can be on legal points (point of law) or procedural points (such as a mistrial, a jury member was amiss, the judge was drunk or fell asleep). You cannot appeal against established facts.

The hilited is definitely not true in the United States and the UK, and I strongly suspect that it's not true in Italy, either. Again, no one accepts you as an authority on the Italian legal system.

Part 3: the Supreme Court (if you are given permission) which deals with whether (a) the case was carried out within the confines of the constitution, (b) is a grey area of law that would help in being clarified for future cases, or, (c) 'In the public interest', or what is known colloquially as 'a miscarriage of justice'. The Supreme Court of Marasca-Bruno decided that there was not enough evidence to bring the case to trial. This edict is normally reserved for the arraignment stage. The fact Bongiorno convinced them that Sollecito's DNA on the bra clasp was unsafe doesn't actually erase the facts found at the merits and appeal stages. In fact, this finding is so unusual it was only ever recently applied in the cases of politicians Andreotti and Berlusconi and we all know how thoroughly corrupt they were.

Again, you keep saying this, and it keeps not being true.

 

[Vixen]

The hilited is definitely not true in the United States and the UK, and I strongly suspect that it's not true in Italy, either. Again, no one accepts you as an authority on the Italian legal system.


Again, you keep saying this, and it keeps not being true.

AI Overview

Generally, in most legal systems, it's difficult to appeal a finding of fact made by a lower court. Appellate courts typically give deference to the trial court's factual findings, especially when those findings are based on witness testimony and evidence presented at trial. Appeals are usually focused on errors of law, not disagreements about the facts.

 

[Stacyhs]

Look up my previous response a day or so ago. If you are not satisfied with that, do look up 'background noise' re DNA fragments found in dust. After all these years you have no idea what DNA fragments are.

I did:

The bra that was torn from Mez' body was found some distance from the corpse, at her feet. Therefore the fact of fragments of DNA from 'unknown males' can be safely disregarded as background noise.

How do you know that male DNA was background noise or resulting from dust? You don't. The above is just another assfact.

After all these years, I should know not to expect a straight answer from you

 

[Stacyhs]

For heavens sake a criminal trial is not a seminar.

Does science change from a seminar to a criminal trial?

 

[SpitfireIX]

For heavens sake a criminal trial is not a seminar.

It was a demonstration for crime scene techs of how tertiary transfer can happen when gloves are not changed in between handling items. Which none of the Perugia crime scene techs did. But you're obviously desperate to pretend that that's irrelevant.

 

[Stacyhs]

Trump went to Wharton because of rich dad and his tutor said Trump was the worst student he ever had. The guy's a moron yet this is what people vote for. It is the quality of critical thought that counts. See Trump versus Carney. Bjorkman might have some eccentric views but he knew more about ship architecture than some random on the internet.
View attachment 62155

So do you go along with the crowd with their MAGA level of reasoning or do you have enough intellectual curiosity to understand the truth of the Kercher murder? Most people here don't care, they just see themselves as being in a Knox fan club; they couldn't care less about the victim.

At least I agree with George Carlin on that.

The rest of your comment isn't even worth responding to.

 

[Stacyhs]

Explain yourself.

There's no need. Most of us understand it with no problem.

 

[Stacyhs]

Stacyhs said:
I do recall that he claimed to be able to cure children of autism. As the mother of an adult child on the spectrum, that kind of **** really pisses me off.

Your answer to me:

What someone believes in their personal life has no bearing on this case.

You were responding to ME being pissed off about the Ahmad's LIE that he could cure autism. It had nothing to do with this case.

You then changed that to this:

Stop fibbing. You said:

 

[Vixen]

I did:



How do you know that male DNA was background noise or resulting from dust? You don't. The above is just another assfact.

After all these years, I should know not to expect a straight answer from you

Criminal law standard: only DNA with eleven or more alleles is recognised. Do keep up.