Continuation Part Six: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[Bill Williams]

What is amazing is that when on a full bore defence of the defenceless indefensible ... like Machiavelli does when he/she defends Stefanoni.... that he/she often resorts to simply making things up with regard to credentials; all the while similarly making things up about the so-called "non-credentials" of someone like Vecchiotti.

At the end of the day we learn little about either Stefanoni or Vecchiotti, but learn a lot about Machiavelli.

FTFI. Amanda was defenceless during her illegal all-night interrogation.

I stand corrected.

 

[Skind]

The statement that Stefanoni is not a biologist but just a lab technician is false. Full stop.

Then you need to stop supporting it.

You have asserted, or at least implied, that Vecchiotti is not a biologist because she is a pathologist.

This is despite the extensive requirements to have studied biology in order to have obtained the qualification she has.

You are therefore dismissing education as a means to assert that someone can be considered a biologist.

I am merely pointing out that when you apply YOUR criteria to Stefanoni, YOU - not me or anyone else - have provided the criteria by which we can dismiss Stefanoni as a biologist.

I honestly think you are incapable of seeing your mistake.

The assertion that Vecchiotti has more qualified credentials on DNA forensics than Stefanoni, also is a false statement.

Good job I didn't make that statement then.

I was responding to the claim - that you have failed to stick to btw - that Vecchiotti has no forensic training. I pointed out that this was factually wrong.

She has several relevant qualifications.

 

[Machiavelli]

Maybe you'd like to explain why you defend Stefanoni for very clear direct personal errors in proceedure and conduct, but are more than happy to slag Vecchiotti for rumours and perceived errors by associates?

Do you honestly not see the hypocrisy and contradiction in your logical and moral posistion? Are you an associate of Stefanoni by any chance? There's no way you can justify your defence of Stefanoni whilst actively partaking in the libel and slander of significantly superior experts.

You are making stuff up without reference, or are latching onto rumours and half-truths, yet you demand explicit direct precise official evidence before you'll admit anything about Stefanoni, even the stuff that was caguht on tape.

Learn to behave.

I defend the truth, not Stefanoni.
Superior experts?
Look, I actually made pretty precise references. If you want a phone number to contact Giuseppe Marazzita I can work on that.
You may also bew interested in knowing how trusted and credible Vecchiotti is, due for example to her dealing with the case of Andrea Ghira. You may discover that some journalists (for example journalist Federica Sciarelli) wrote that the DNA test on the alleged Ghira's remains was done by a "non-impartial" expert; Carla Vecchiotti, at the time when she was a fellow scholar, her leading professor was Ghira's aunt (then Vecchiotti advanced in her careed despite she only had at total of only 6 international publications still in 2011). The remains of a man buried in 1988 were attribute to Ghira, albeit Ghira was believed to be alive and photographed by the Carabinieri in 1995.
I know these are details, 'rumors' surrounding people.
However her friend Pascali was actually caught and now is currently indicted (this is not a half truth).
The Vecchiotti-Albarello "wrong vertebra" show in Bologna was also a memorable little piece.

 

[Skind]

It's a pity that the party involved, represented by attorney Giuseppe Marazzita, instead made exactly the opposite claim.

Yes, it;s a pity that an accusation isn't proof. If you think it is, then you must accept that the criticisms of Stefanoni laid out in this thread must have some validity.

If you don't think they have validity and must be proven, then you must dismiss the claims of Giuseppe Marazzita. You therefore have no cause to hold Vecchiottis conduct in that case against her.

You can't have it both ways.

Again, do you really believe Marazzita gave Vecchiotti a rolex watch so she could just keep it?

Again, where was this proven to have occured?

Not rumoured, not claimed, not alledged.

Proven.

 

[Bill Williams]

I defend the truth, not Stefanoni.
Superior experts?
Look, I actually made pretty precise references. If you want a phone number to contact Giuseppe Marazzita I can work on that.
You may also bew interested in knowing how trusted and credible Vecchiotti is, due for example to her dealing with the case of Andrea Ghira. You may discover that some journalists (for example journalist Federica Sciarelli) wrote that the DNA test on the alleged Ghira's remains was done by a "non-impartial" expert; Carla Vecchiotti, at the time when she was a fellow scholar, her leading professor was Ghira's aunt (then Vecchiotti advanced in her careed despite she only had at total of only 6 international publications still in 2011). The remains of a man buried in 1988 were attribute to Ghira, albeit Ghira was believed to be alive and photographed by the Carabinieri in 1995.
I know these are details, 'rumors' surrounding people.
However her friend Pascali was actually caught and now is currently indicted (this is not a half truth).
The Vecchiotti-Albarello "wrong vertebra" show in Bologna was also a memorable little piece.

Wow. Right in the same posting.

"I defend the truth". But you also rumour monger.

Nice work if you can get it.

 

[Skind]

Look, I actually made pretty precise references.

You best repeat them then, so that all the people here can see exactly where you've been getting your ideas from.

Vague allusions to allegations are NOT 'precise' references.

A precise reference would include enough for anyone to look up the documentation themselves.

You've provided NOTHING, yet you demand EVERYTHING.

 

[Bill Williams]

You best repeat them then, so that all the people here can see exactly where you've been getting your ideas from.

Vague allusions to allegations are NOT 'precise' references.

A precise reference would include enough for anyone to look up the documentation themselves.

You've provided NOTHING, yet you demand EVERYTHING.

And what this spells is................... Machiavelli!

 

[Machiavelli]

You have asserted, or at least implied, that Vecchiotti is not a biologist because she is a pathologist.

This is despite the extensive requirements to have studied biology in order to have obtained the qualification she has.

You are therefore dismissing education as a means to assert that someone can be considered a biologist.

I am merely pointing out that when you apply YOUR criteria to Stefanoni, YOU - not me or anyone else - have provided the criteria by which we can dismiss Stefanoni as a biologist.

There is nothing like "my criteria". Stefanoni is a biologist because this is the title written on her degree and this is her qualification in the European Union.
There is no "my criteria" and there is no "to be considered"; Stefanoni is a biologist. She is that officially.
All your discussion about "criteria" and "considering" appear foolosh to me.

Vecchiotti is not a biologist, because this is hot her title. She is not a biologist (specialty categories under code L-13) while she is a medical doctor (categorise under code LM-41).

How you "consider" them is irrelevant to me. I am talking about what you can say which can be objectively true or fasle about what they are. Whoever says Stefanoni is not a biologist is lying and this is the point, not else.

I was responding to the claim - that you have failed to stick to btw - that Vecchiotti has no forensic training. I pointed out that this was factually wrong.

It is absolutely true. By saying that I mean that Vecchiotti never entered a scene of crime and never collected evidence on a case. This is the meaning I was using by "forensic training". She had no experience in this.

 

[Diocletus]

There is nothing like "my criteria". Stefanoni is a biologist because this is the title written on her degree and this is her qualification in the European Union.
There is no "my criteria" and there is no "to be considered"; Stefanoni is a biologist. She is that officially.
All your discussion about "criteria" and "considering" appear foolosh to me.

Vecchiotti is not a biologist, because this is hot her title. She is not a biologist (specialty categories under code L-13) while she is a medical doctor (categorise under code LM-41).

How you "consider" them is irrelevant to me. I am talking about what you can say which can be objectively true or fasle about what they are. Whoever says Stefanoni is not a biologist is lying and this is the point, not else.



It is absolutely true. By saying that I mean that Vecchiotti never entered a scene of crime and never collected evidence on a case. This is the meaning I was using by "forensic training". She had no experience in this.

Biologist? I think she's a more like a Lie-ologist.

 

[Bill Williams]

It is absolutely true. By saying that I mean that Vecchiotti never entered a scene of crime and never collected evidence on a case. This is the meaning I was using by "forensic training". She had no experience in this.

Then this means you have absolutely nothing to contribute, then. Vecchiotti was evaluating the results of someone else's work. It's called "peer review". And Vecchiotti found Stefanoni's work to be worthless.

Caso Chiuso. You are making a non-point here.

 

[LondonJohn]

It is absolutely true. By saying that I mean that Vecchiotti never entered a scene of crime and never collected evidence on a case. This is the meaning I was using by "forensic training". She had no experience in this.

Perhaps Machiavelli is ignorant of the fact that it's highly unusual (and potentially improper) for laboratory forensic scientists to work on crime scene investigation. That's in the normal world, of course - not in Mignini's Perugia, where he apparently has the power to call in his "favourite" (I wonder why...?) lab technician to actually lead the crime scene investigation effort, and then to "analyse" the "evidence" she "found".

Here's a short example showing how things should be done. The crime scene investigation team is a specialised unit that deals only in the work done at the crime scene (evidence identification/documentation/collection, security of the crime scene, etc). The actual evidence is then passed securely on to specialised laboratory forensic scientists, who do the testing and interpretation.

http://explorehealthcareers.org/en/Career/124/Crime_Scene_Investigator_CSI

The evidence collected by the CSI is then transferred to a lab, in strict accordance with chain-of-evidence procedures. In the lab, technicians, including forensic chemists, forensic biologists and forensic toxicologists, analyze the samples. CSIs rarely process evidence, unless they have special training in fingerprint processing or blood spatter analysis, for example.

This career profile was reviewed and approved by Max Houck, M.A., Director, Forensic Science Initiative, West Virginia University.

 

[Diocletus]

I defend the truth, not Stefanoni.
Superior experts?
Look, I actually made pretty precise references. If you want a phone number to contact Giuseppe Marazzita I can work on that.
You may also bew interested in knowing how trusted and credible Vecchiotti is, due for example to her dealing with the case of Andrea Ghira. You may discover that some journalists (for example journalist Federica Sciarelli) wrote that the DNA test on the alleged Ghira's remains was done by a "non-impartial" expert; Carla Vecchiotti, at the time when she was a fellow scholar, her leading professor was Ghira's aunt (then Vecchiotti advanced in her careed despite she only had at total of only 6 international publications still in 2011). The remains of a man buried in 1988 were attribute to Ghira, albeit Ghira was believed to be alive and photographed by the Carabinieri in 1995.
I know these are details, 'rumors' surrounding people.
However her friend Pascali was actually caught and now is currently indicted (this is not a half truth).
The Vecchiotti-Albarello "wrong vertebra" show in Bologna was also a memorable little piece.

Whatever. Who can keep track of all if these lunatics and their screw ups. It seems like every single case in Italy in which forensics or any type of expert is involved is massively screwed up.

Fortunately, anyone can see that C&V's report is accurate and that Stefanoni's work is crap. It's obvious. That's why you are fixated on her pathology experience: because there is no substantive ground to directly attack the report.

 

[Machiavelli]

Yes, it;s a pity that an accusation isn't proof. If you think it is, then you must accept that the criticisms of Stefanoni laid out in this thread must have some validity.

If you don't think they have validity and must be proven, then you must dismiss the claims of Giuseppe Marazzita. You therefore have no cause to hold Vecchiottis conduct in that case against her.

You can't have it both ways.

A foolish reasoning. Of course I can, because statements and sources are not equal: Giuseppe Marazzita is a party involved in the Olgiata case, a direct source, and even if his accusation itself isn't a proof of the specific event, nonetheless it is a direct denial of your (and allegedly Vecchiotti's) claim: it implies the claim that Marazzita agreed with Vecchiotti is baseless.
Marazzita's word are documented, official and publicly reported.
If your partner denies, you can't claim that you are in agreement with your partner. And even if we don't know for certain that Marazzita's claim is correct, nonetheless we know that the claim exists and it is official from a party involved, which obviously puts a question mark on Vecchiotti's credibility (unless you decide you are already sure that marazita as the victim's lawyer was lying - hardly a reasonable scenario).
You know, the assertion that "the parties agreed to evidence limitations", which you attribute to Vecchiotti, is an assertion, as said; and who makes assertions has the burden to prove them, not the other way around. The fact that Vecchiotti dd not test the items she was given is a fact; the claimed that this was agreed with the parties is a claim, and it's denied by the parties.
If the partner denies the agreement, such denial by a direct source is a fact. It's not a matter of validity of Marazzita's claim, the point is that it is a fact tha Vecchiotti's (or yours) claim about evidence limitations is unfounded and denied by the direct sources.
But apparently you are currently relying on such claim.

Assertions about Stefanoni from posters instead may well be based on nothing. There isn't a denial from a direct source. There is no document reporting an alleged false statement by Stefanoni, there is no official source about any alleged Stefanoni's lie or improper conduct. There is no document about any defence request, which would be the equivalent of an official denial.
What expressed about Stefanoni in this thread is not criticism.
Criticism is an opinion expressed upon facts.
These are false allegations. They are unfounded and obviously false statements, which just allege events and facts that did not take place.
If you mean to say that all this is 'legitimate' only because it is not proven that Vecchiotti is corrupt, I say no: saying false things, is still just saying false things.
If you say you don't believe Stefanoni, this could be argued along with the existing 'rumors' (actually information) about Vecchiotti. But if you state that Stefanoni is not a biologist and that she "did not disclose data" or that she was proven to violate laws or to "lie" in testimony, these are just false statements. They have nothing to do with criticisms nor with personal trust. They are just factually false statements.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

If C&V were incompetent morons who were totally unqualified to pass judgement on the DNA results on the knife and the bra clasp and had made major errors during previous investigations, why did the prosecution not make an issue of this during the second trial?

Exactly. The report is there for all to see. If it is flawed, someone with the proper scientific training can go through it in detail, document the errors, and explain why the findings are unfounded.

Attacking the authors is a poor substitute.

 

[Machiavelli]

(...)
Fortunately, anyone can see that C&V's report is accurate and that Stefanoni's work is crap. It's obvious. That's why you are fixated on her pathology experience: because there is no substantive ground to directly attack the report.

The report is complete trash.
It makes up the non-existence of negative controls.
It bases its contamination claim on the idea that everything is possible.
It does not answer a main judge's quesition (see if a contamination scenario is plausible). It does not fulfill the main judge's request (test the DNA that you can find on the knife).
It does not investigate possibility of laboratory contamination but assumes it, without checking the records (105 tests were performed by the machine over the 6 days, in which no contamination showed up).
Vecchiottie lies in court about the quantification (findes 120 picograms of DNA but asserts she found only 5 in court).
Discusses attribution of bra clasp X-haplotype without taking into consideration the Y-haplotype profile for the interpretation.
Invokes interpretation guidelines which violate the procedure code.

It's only a few details.
The report indeed speaks by itself.

 

[Bill Williams]

What is refreshing, Machiavelli, is that you concede that Vecchiotti's work is still in play. That's about the only thing you've got right, and is the only thing of real import.

 

[Machiavelli]

Perhaps Machiavelli is ignorant of the fact that it's highly unusual (and potentially improper) for laboratory forensic scientists to work on crime scene investigation. That's in the normal world, of course - not in Mignini's Perugia, where he apparently has the power to call in his "favourite" (I wonder why...?) lab technician to actually lead the crime scene investigation effort, and then to "analyse" the "evidence" she "found". (..)

I am aware that the theory exists, but Italy chose a system that works another way, and it is based on bringing scientists on the place.
Vecchiotti (and in some degree a few University departments) criticize this system. But most are favourable to the current paradigm and are against the one in which analysts are academics unrelated to the investigation.
I happen to believe rather to the Italian approach, I see reasons for that; I tend to think scientists should be investigators on the place, but I may change my opinion if I see other compelling reasons.

 

[Skind]

There is nothing like "my criteria". Stefanoni is a biologist because this is the title written on her degree and this is her qualification in the European Union.
There is no "my criteria" and there is no "to be considered"; Stefanoni is a biologist. She is that officially.
All your discussion about "criteria" and "considering" appear foolosh to me.

Vecchiotti is not a biologist, because this is not her title. She is not a biologist (specialty categories under code L-13) while she is a medical doctor (categorise under code LM-41).

How you "consider" them is irrelevant to me. I am talking about what you can say which can be objectively true or fasle about what they are. Whoever says Stefanoni is not a biologist is lying and this is the point, not else.

You really don't get it.

We are talking about training and whether Vecchiotti has done training in biology before.

I make no arguement about whether Stefanoni is or is not a biologist. I point out that it is foolish to consider Vecchiotti to have no biology training because she is not officially a biologist.

The title written on your degree does not confer professional status, that can only be done by entering a profession.

It is absolutely true. By saying that I mean that Vecchiotti never entered a scene of crime and never collected evidence on a case. This is the meaning I was using by "forensic training". She had no experience in this.

Then you are using a bizarre definition of 'forensic training' and one that is clearly not accepted by the multiple institutions that Vecchiotti received her forensic training from.

Forensic is in the official titles of her forensic qualification. You are thuss using 'forensic training' in a capacity that has no official basis.

Odd that you pick and choose when to use the 'official' title as and when it benefits you to do so.

 

[RandyN]

I did contribute but not to the final edit (I'm not sure that this is court translation, though). 1. But we've put a disclaimer on the document, saying the Italian text is what matters, talking referring to a translation is pointless.


And it's here that you reveal your dishonesty.
First, you perfectly know you are not quoting Massei's findings, but instead you are quoting Massei's reporting about a defence argument. Because you don't have anything else, you decide to emply the "Bill Wiliams" logical method, which consists in deducing the existence of something from a non-existence. Because there isn't a Massei's rebuttal, 2. you deduce there must be a statement by Stefanoni.


Yes, exactly, in real-time camera connection and - pay attention - audio connection. 3. Yes, prof. Potenza would have known perfectly if there was a test being performed. It's obvious. No reasonable person could assume that experts observing and interacting with the forensics were unaware about what they were doing. You can't wince your mind in attempting to believe such a twisted scenario, and be considered rational.



You are making a claim. Can you back it? You say there is a law providing that these document should have been ‘offered’(?) to the defence from the outset of the trial. What law/jurisprudence is that? Are you sure it exists?
I tell you something: there is nothing that Stefanoni or the prosecution “should have done”. It is true instead, that the defence could have done a lot of things 4. They could have attended the tests, objected to the tests, submitted requests and access the laboratories during the 8-month investigation, submitted requests during the preliminary hearing and after. They could have done many things which they did not do. I do not want to investigate the possible reason why they chose to not do so. I can tell you that no prosecution office in Italy – ever, at least in 2007 – would deposits the SALs at the clerk’s office. Nor the raw data files nor other laboratory data.

5. (Ironically, in the case in which Vecchiotti became “famous” as a consultant in the early nineties (the Peruzzi case), Vecchiotti released only limited documentation to the other party’s consultant. This limitation was her main tool by which she lead the other consultant into a DNA interpretation error. But these are old stories.)




6. You should care about what someone did and if he/she did it, if you assert that he/she did something. Stefanoni was the witness from the forensic team who performed the tests, she is the only one who could have said things about the topic, and she is the only testimony the defence arguments refer to (a the one that they wanted to be disallowed).
Now as you are unable to back your assertion, your claim apparently changes and Stefanoni is no longer guilty of lying by asserting anything, but of just “not offering that information” while she was claiming to the court those footprints “were blood”. Now, you may well dislike the “not offering” of information (or better, the not offering of that information “spontaneously and unrequested”, since she offered it when requested); you are however progressively drifting away from the law towards your personal ‘moral’ expectations, and you are also freely ‘adding’ your personal ‘suspicious’ interpretation to things. This won’t make your personal interpretation - unattached to the law - become the “truth”: the assertion that someone is lying or cheating is simply not backed by anything substantial, except this personal interpretation of yours (which imho is largely based on your personal logical deduction about what a “presumed” test should imply – and such deduction is wrong). Anyway, your statement still is factually incorrect: Stefanoni did not claim that the footprints were blood; 7. she said they were presumed blood. It seems you lost the word ‘presume’ along the way.
This word is a key point, and it is elicited through questions. The defence could have asked which presumption tests they had dome, for example. Stefanoni also took part to a confrontation where she faced questions directly from the defence experts, without going through defence lawyers.
Though, after all this, you still wish to claim that she “lied” or that she “did not disclose” something. In this process, you do not even consider the obvious contradiction in your argument caused by the fact that it was Stefanoni herself who deposited the SAL carrying that information that the defence did not previously ask. Still, you decide to consider this a lying, a cheating. She presumes blood, and your argument against her rests entirely on your personal belief that a negative TMB test should not allow her to presume blood. The whole core of your argument is your belief (erroneous) about significance of a TMB test. In your opinion, if there is a negative TMB test, this should be necessarily held as an information of relevant importance in the argument and should necessarily lead to not presume that something is blood. Of course, this is your opinion.

Yes, I linked them, and they say exactly what I say. TMB itself – used ‘directly’ – is at least 10 times less sensitive than luminol; but TMB is not used directly, it is not used on the latent stain but on a sample taken from a moist swab and then further diluted. Moreover, a previous test with luminol itself causes a dilution which does influence the subsequent tests.

But TMB is actually positive mostly to the same kinds of substances to which luminol reacts. In fact it works the same way.
But moreover, there is no known substance that is known of having the property of being positive to luminol while not positive to TMB, at the same concentration (at least no common substance). Now, the presumtpion that a trace is blood is not just the application of a generic scientific rule, buti t is the consequence of inferences from the specific context (as Stefanoni and other experts explained). In other words it’s the cnsequence of alternatives. There is no reasonable alternative explanation but that the ‘not positive’ result to TMB is the consequence of dilution, because no reasonable alternative substance exists.

It changes a lot instead, because you have a luminol reaction. And such luminol reaction carries a lot of information (like the shape and size of the stains, their peculiar distribution). So you do have a reaction. This means you do have some substance. And if you have a substance, you must make a hypothesys about what substance that is. If you find a reasonable substance (you may detect it somewhere else in the house) and such reasonable substance has the property of being negative to TMB, then – and only in that event – you would have a valid, reasonable candidate for an alternative substance (yet, you should still explain the shape and distribution and the event which produced the stains). Buti f you don’t have this alternative substance, plausible, positive to luminol and negative to TMB, you don’t have an argument. You only have presumed blood.

8. The fact that something id ‘damning’ is your opinion. The allegation that someone lied, or produced false results, such is a factual assertion which you can’t back in any way and it is obviously false.




No, my argument is pertinent, because your claim is supposed to be consistent. Your saying “the prosecution contended those luminol hits were blood without disclosing they'd tested negative” is rhetoric spin and false; truth is:
1. they (Stefanoni) never stated they had never performed them (you proved yourself unable to back this claim; you merely cling to a quote of Massei reporting a defence argument), in other words you just repeat a false assertion;
2. they (Stefanoni) contended they were presumed blood (you omit “presumed” and you omit the actual reasons to presume it blood);
3. they (Stefanoni) did not fail to disclose the information as you say, instead, they (Stefanoni) simply did not disclose the information at “the beginning”, that is on the preliminary hearing, and by offering it “unrequested and spontaneously”, despite the defence didn’t question her on the point; but it was Stefanoni who released the information to the defence; when you say “did not disclose” you make a false statement, since at best you should say “they disclosed it late” (but they did disclose it, they obviously did so voluntarily because they could have forged the SAL if they wanted to actually hid it) (additional point: you apparently also fail to consider that the preliminary hearing is an argument for probable case, with even time limitations, and just a limited portion of the evidence is disclosed there);
4. they (Stefanoni) were never ‘caught lying’, because they disclosed the SAL themselves, and it was only afterwards, thanks to such kind disclosure, that the defence could make an argument about learning information late (but actually, the defence could have put questions before, and they didn’t).

So: "the prosecution contended those luminol hits were blood without disclosing they'd tested negative" and "they were caught lying" is false. 9. It's spin, it's just some false rhetoric slogans. Obviously also that "the 'hypothesis' that the hits might have been diluted between the thresholds of TMB" does not need any timing to be believable, given that there is no reasonable alternative; while you decision to whom you believe or not is your buisness, but it's based upon your unreasonable expectations, which are just detatched from the real events in the trial.

Highlight 1. How do you feel about a translation of English as original but then translated into Italian? Relevant? Pointless? Reliable?

2. No statement maybe but enough lies in court and deceptive withholding of data to suggest something very rotten at the core of her opinions.

3. I don't understand this distraction. Who cares if "experts" sat out in a van? They are as meaningless as an expert watching a machine run a DNA sample. Rather what is important is the presenting of all data for examination by others so that they can freely review the scientific conclusion to understand if it is a repeatable and a valid result. This is the most basic rule of science and everyone except you and Stefanoni and Italians who wish to deceive in this case do not seem to understand at all.

4. Please explain once more how defense could have attended the testing on 6 and 7 Nov 2007 ? Explain or stop using this shallow excuse.

5. Interesting use of the idea of irony.

6. Yes exactly...and why is it that while the prosecution is stating "bloody footprints" that the officer in charge... Stefanoni fails to update the prosecution on its gross error? Why did it take Sara Gino questions to reveal this TMB oversight by Stefanoni? Did Stefanoni forget her notes once again? This after all was the excuse given for her lie about the quantification of sample 36B in the first hearing. Do you think it is important to be honest about these things in court? After all we later learn by studying the data originally withheld that the Qubit Fluorometer may have been unnecessary since the other machine was clearly working and available to test other ahhh less important samples.

7. Adding presumed does not clear her from being a liar. She did the TMB test. If she had any questions in her mind after that then the proper thing is to do other confirmatory tests for blood. Luminol often shows false positive for blood and so a TMB test is almost universally applied and when that result is negative for blood then it is most often assumed to be a false positive and it is not from blood, but if doubt remains the investigator (especially a well trained genius biologist) has lots of other tests that can definitively sort the matter out. Stefanoni took a different path and stoped testing. The only conclusion that can be made then is that she felt it was not blood...and yet she lies and says still "it may be blood". (the meaning of the word presumed) This makes her a worse than regular liar...she is presenting false impressions rather than a sound scientific conclusion. This is the problem with all data from Stefanoni. If she refuses to show her "work sheets" then her "math problem" was perhaps only copied from her neighbor...which I expect is allowed or even encouraged in Italian schools. Please stop trying to baffle the uninitiated with your TMB BS.

8. No actually the science of this is well understood and if you wish to argue that these luminol prints are from diluted blood then you need to prove that by showing the additional tests clearly defined by the documents and accepted by the professional scientists who developed the tests and which has been reviewed by the scientific community. If your gal had an idea this could still be blood then she failed her duty and her science by not doing the proper further testing to confirm her suspicion. And now hiding her work sheets presents us with a circumstantial evidence of why she continues to go on this way. After a while ones sins start finding you out. That is the clear case here.

9. It is you who tries to present the spin...it is you who engages in the casino.

ETA... loved Migninis vain efforts to control the press once more by writing to a paper to deny the obvious while casting dispersions on a number of other people ...like Spezzi and those who think Mignini should stand by his words and ideas. Did Mignini rise and order charges for Pacelli when he called Knox the devil and a witch all without proof of its truth btw...? No he did not? Why charge Knox for false claims but not others who also make them? This appears to be illegal discrimination. Dont you agree.

 

[Skind]

Marazzita's word are documented, official and publicly reported.

Then you'll have no trouble stating exactly where and how people can get hold of these statements for themselves or see where they were tested for truth.

The only test for truth that they have undergone that you have made us aware of was in the Kercher case, and - as I pointed out - that was the entire opposite of what you claim.

If you cannot substantiate your allegations with proper references, it would be a waste of time you continuing to make them.

So far we only have your say-so that any of what you say even exists, much less is true - and your say so isn't worth spit around these parts.

So, if you wish to make your claim then you best substantiate them, otherwise you validate all the speculation you detest about Stefanoni.

You must be able to see were your logical error lies. You demand hard sources for anything that you disagree with, yet expect people to accept serious claims (most of which have nothing to do with the case and are the equivilant of spam) on the basis of nothing more than your claims that someone has claimed something that may or may not be true.

Time for you to pony up.